Hillary Clinton wins the coveted Charles Krauthammer endorsement over her more liberal rivals for the Democratic nomination. Meanwhile, Clinton is now willing to take the naive and irresponsible step of negotiating with Iran without preconditions.
« Romey Versus the Jihadists | Main | Dreams of Alexander Hamilton »
Now My Mind's Made Up!
12 Oct 2007 10:40 am
Comments (10)
By the way, just in case people don't see the original, here's two precious paragraphs from Kraphammer:
The Post editorial noted "a perverse kind of good news" in Hillary's free-trade revisionism: "There's little chance that her position reflects any deeply held principle." And there lies the beauty not just of Clinton on free trade but of the Clinton candidacy itself: She has no principles. Her liberalism is redeemed by her ambition; her ideology subordinate to her political needs.
I could never vote for her, but I (and others of my ideological ilk) could live with her -- precisely because she is so liberated from principle. Her liberalism, like her husband's -- flexible, disciplined, calculated, triangulated -- always leaves open the possibility that she would do the right thing for the blessedly wrong (i.e., self-interested, ambition-serving, politically expedient) reason.
What heights we aspire to after a mere 220 years of existence as a nation.
I almost hesitate to point out the original kerfuffle was always about personal diplomacy of the President, not engaging in diplomacy altogether. Of course, the Obama campaign tried to obscure that to make it appear it was a dispute over all diplomacy, just as the Clinton campaign tried to absurdly broaden the difinition of "preconditions."
Thanks, Matt for bringing up this much missed and endlessly valuable "debate" again.
What heights we aspire to after a mere 220 years of existence as a nation.
It's not really that much different from the reasons I've heard some liberals give for being able to live with Romney, although I haven't heard that as much of late.
You're right AJ, it was about meeting with leaders of rogue states. HRC says she'll negotiate with Iran without precondition. Who "Iran" is, of course, unclear and allows her to pivot on the issue as needed to deflect attacks on her right or left.
Do we really believe that as President of the United States, HRC would negotiate with anyone BUT the leader of Iran? Of course not. If anyone suggested that, she'd pivot and say that she wouldn't waste her political capital negotiating with someone who doesn't have the ability to make a binding deal. If anyone suggested that she is creating a PR opportunity for a rogue state by negotiating with a petty tyrant, she'd, yep, you guessed it, pivot....
It's wonder she doesn't get dizzy with all her pivoting....
"Her liberalism, like her husband's -- flexible, disciplined, calculated, triangulated -- always leaves open the possibility that she would do the right thing for the blessedly wrong (i.e., self-interested, ambition-serving, politically expedient) reason."
Translation: our lobbyists can buy her off.
Um, Keith, try not to think so hard. She's talking about lower level inter-governmental diplomacy. Between say a Special Envoy or Deputy Sec of State and their Iranian counterpart. Whereas, Obama was proposing starting at the top Presidente a Presidente. The merits or demerits of either proposal seem to be worth far fewer pixels than have already been wasted on them, but here we go again, nonetheless.
AJ:
She's talking about lower level inter-governmental diplomacy. Between say a Special Envoy or Deputy Sec of State and their Iranian counterpart.
My bad, I didn't mean to misinterpret her comment last night. Did I take it out of context? I thought she said "here's what I would do as president. I would negotiate with Iran, with no conditions..." That seems pretty clear to me.
Wait . . . when I squint my eyes and turn my head sideways, it says "I would designate a special envoy to negotiate with his or her Iranian counterpart, with no conditions...."
I just turned my head the wrong way the first time. : )
So Krauthammer endorses HRC as HRC says something Yglesias likes. Does that mean this was the Good Krauthammer?
Yeah, over at HuffPo they made a big deal about how it was NOT a "flip-flop" because she didn't say she PERSONALLY would negotiate with the President of Iran (not that the President of Iran is in any position to decide the nuclear program, anyway, so the original question is simply stupid, but of course facts aren't relevant here. If you want to "negotiate" about Iran's non-existent weapons program, you talk to Khamenei - who will tell you it doesn't exist and he has forbidden one ever existing.)
But the real third-generation stupidity here is that Clinton is even telling the truth when she says she "will negotiate with Iran." She won't any more than Bush will when HE says he "will negotiate with Iran" - when Iran stops enriching.
Clinton says "no preconditions" - yeah, right. There are ALWAYS "preconditions" for these people. That's how they make sure that no negotiation takes place.
And it doesn't even matter because the first thing she will "negotiate" is: are you going to suspend enrichment before we talk about anything else? If you're "negotiating" a "precondition", is that different from "negotiating with no preconditions?"
Has she SAID that Iran should be allowed to continue enrichment? If not, why not? That is, why should Iran NOT be allowed to enrich?
What evidence does SHE have that, as Obama puts it, "Iran is a serious threat" and therefore that the US even NEEDS to "negotiate" over enrichment?
The IAEA is NOT "negotiating" over enrichment. All they want is for Iran to explain what they did years ago, as a means of assessing whether Iran has any nuclear weapons *intentions*. The IAEA already KNOWS Iran doesn't have any nuclear weapons PROGRAM and has repeatedly said so.
Clinton is simply lying by omission. She can claim to "negotiate", but it means nothing.
And Obama is in exactly the same boat. And he wants more sanctions. Does Clinton want more sanctions? Why? What is the justification? To force Iran to "negotiate"?
The whole "negotiation" issue is bullshit from day one.
Comments closed October 26, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Yes, but it was only naive and irresponsible to suggest negotiating with Iran before Hillary decided to suggest this herself, and after taking the interesting step of officially labeling a nation-state's military apparatus as a "terrorist" organization, a label usually reserved for illegal non-state organizations.
Posted by El Cid | October 12, 2007 10:54 AM