Quotes below in italicized black are Hillary Clinton and the red font replies are CSE.

"Israel is a beacon of what's right in a neighborhood overshadowed by the wrongs of radicalism, extremism, despotism and terrorism. We need only look to one of Israel's greatest threats: namely, Iran. Make no mistake, Iran poses a threat not only to Israel, but to the entire Middle East and beyond, including the U.S."

Obviously, one speaks to their audience and takes favorable positions to discuss, trying to find commonality and speaking from the collective point of view. BUT, many in the Middle East and even in Europe believe the U.S. and Israel pose great threats in the Middle East and across the globe.

"Such comments [comments from a recent conference in Iran as regards the Holocaust in addition to reiterating comments about "wiping Israel off the map"] add greater urgency to the necessity to doing everything we can to deny nuclear weapons to Iran. The regime's pro-terrorist, anti-American, anti-Israeli rhetoric only underscores the urgency of our response to the threat we face."

The rhetoric is repulsive and should never be spoken by a nation's President. However, many in the Middle East, other than Iran, feel the same. Some who feel the same live in states that are said to be U.S. allies. As far as idiotic statements by government officials go, the U.S. is not immune. Our President runs at the mouth quite often, failing to understand that saying "crusade" to describe any incursion into Islam has far reaching implications his simple style fails to grasp. When President Bush was asked about the hundreds of thousands of people in capitols across the globe that marched in protest of their government and the U.S. invading Iraq, Bush smirked [literally] and said, "they'll come around". He repeated this statement when asked again elsewhere. While he did not say that he wanted to wipe any country, per se, off the map, he was arrogant and dead wrong about the masses who still have not "come around" after the so-called "liberation" of Iraq has killed thousands of Iraqis and Americans and maimed many thousands more. Then, we had a statement by Colorado Congressman Thomas Tancredo about "taking out" Islamic religious sites that didn't go unnoticed in the Muslim world.

"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot, we should not, we must not, permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. And in dealing with this threat as I have said for a very long time, no option can be taken off the table."

This is kind of wily. No option could mean dialogue with Iran or it could mean nuking Iran? Attacking Iran conventionally would be suicide.

"But Iran is a threat not only because of the hateful rhetoric spewed by its president, not only because of its nuclear ambitions, but because it uses its influence and its revenues in the region to support terrorist elements that are attacking innocent Israelis; and now we believe attacking American soldiers. Hezbollah's attacks on Israel this summer using Iranian weapons clearly demonstrate Iran's malevolent influence even beyond its borders."

Get the pie off your face, the United States has supported terrorist elements in Central America and Indonesia and dictators (including Saddam Hussein) across the globe. THEN, there is American Middle Eastern ally support of terrorism as well

"We also know that the dangers posed to Israel have been compounded by the rise to power of Hamas, an avowed terrorist group that has assumed the reigns of the government in the Palestinian Authority and Hezbollah, the terrorist group that is represented in the Lebanese government."

Hamas rise to power was an American supported democratic process called free elections. Hamas and Hezbollah get support from regular people who are tired of suffering oppression, whose grievances are perceived as unimportant for decades by Israel and supported by the United States. Peace initiatives have been rejected by both nations while the remainder of the Middle East, Europe and the west disagree. Hamas and Hezbollah tend to the needs of the oppressed, they give food, blankets and medical care when no one else will. Where would your loyalties lie after DECADES of such support?

"There are no easy answers to the complex situation we face today. I have advocated engagement with our enemies and Israel's enemies because I want to understand better what we can do to defeat those who are aiming their hatred, their extremism, their weapons at us. And I believe we can gain valuable knowledge and leverage from being part of a process again that enables us to get a better idea of how to take on and defeat our adversaries."

More wily goof-speak. Hillary understands the grievances of the Palestinians and the minorities in Lebanon. Hillary understands the friction between Syria and Lebanon and that Hezbollah is basically a proxy militia for Syria. Hillary understands that Iranian weapons are supplied to Syria, as they are allies, and that is how Iranian weapons got into Hezbollah hands. Hillary wants to "understand better what we can do to defeat those..." when she should be willing to better understand the root causes of the hatred and extremism - root causes that have been festering for decades while the U.S. and Israel feign interest. Hillary fails to understand that the enemies she speaks of will not be defeated, they will persist until their lives improve. They will continue being vulnerable to extremist methods until the anger that drives them to their religious fervor as a last resort is assuaged.

"This is a worthy debate to have in our country today. There are many, including our President who rejects any kind of process of any sort of engagement with countries like Syria and Iran. I do believe that that is certainly a good faith position to take, but I am not sure it is the smartest strategy that will take us to the goals that we share."

Can Hillary overcome the prevailing unilateralism that IS American foreign policy? Her rhetoric speaks of understanding better how to defeat, which is surely not consideration couched in harsh terms for just this audience. Is there a difference in the steadfast resolve of Hillary and that of the current President? OK, so she can speak better, but her pandering and her rhetoric is stale, unbecoming and seemingly very shortsighted.

Senator Clinton's Remarks to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) - February 1, 2007.

___________________________________

2.17.2007 [2.18.2007ed]

coldsteeledge.com