Elect Hillary or OBL Will Devour Your Children

Some Obama elements are trying to whip me into a fit of outrageous over Hillary Clinton deciding that she wants to cross the Rudy Line and enlist Osama bin Laden in her latest campaign ad:

I'm not all that outraged, really, but I think the problem with this whole line of attack -- 3AM ads, etc. -- is such a limited posture to take up. At the end of the day, if this is an election about how in uncertain times we need to flee into the arms of a strong, comforting, figure of experience and authority then that figure is John McCain. The alternative story is that in uncertain times we need to turn the pages on disastrous policies that have gotten us into our current mess. But Clinton often, from her vote to authorize the war through to a lot of her primary season gambits, seems too invested in the politics of "toughness" to really chart a better course.

Comments

Isn't it just expected in a scorpion/frog kind of way?

Posted by Jay | April 21, 2008 12:22 PM

And don't forget that Hillary is most "invested" in the politcs of unscrupulousness.

Posted by Miande | April 21, 2008 12:23 PM

If I were Obama, I'd respond with this Bill Clinton video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZW0m2nWB_M

Just put the "I'm Barack Obama, and I approved this message" tag on the end, and you've got your ad. Cheap and effective . . .

Posted by southpaw | April 21, 2008 12:25 PM

I just want to remind everyone that I had predicted three weeks ago that Hillary will take PA by a 20 point margin.

She's gonna win big, and Obama's gonna loooooose!!!

Posted by Ringo Meza | April 21, 2008 12:28 PM

I'm not outraged at the Osama mention, though I am amused that TNR has had an Osama/Obama accident in their blog on the subject. But you're right--it's been an ongoing mystery to me why "older, familiar, military experience, foreign policy cred" is supposed to conjure up Clinton over McCain. Or as someone else puts it, McCain beats Clinton on everything she counts as a strength.

Posted by Deborah | April 21, 2008 12:31 PM

Southpaw, do you mean to say that Hillary moves her message, strategy, and actions around at the drop of hat for political advantage? Shocking!

Posted by LFC | April 21, 2008 12:33 PM

I've come to accept that, in the general public, Hillary is still viewed as a legitimate contender, and as long as that's the case, then it is true; she does have a chance. So I don't really have a problem with her continuing to campaign, as the support for her is actually there.

However, her manner of campaigning is what the problem is. It is true that the GOP will attack Obama in the same manner that she is. However, it isn't viewed as legitimate when some Limbaugh or Hannity or Santorum says these things, but it certainly is when someone with the "crazy liberal" label that Hillary has says it. Every time she does something like this, it legitimizes it; it makes those future attacks by the GOP that much more potent. It's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Could you imagine John McCain, in 2000, running around in April and May screaming "Halliburton! War for oil!" Surely he could have gotten away with it, as there was a huge conflict of interest with Cheney, and there was reason to believe that Bush was interested in a pre-emptive war with Iraq. It would have made all the whispers on the left about Bush legitimate; as it was, no one took them seriously.

I think she really does think she has a chance at winning the nomination, and that she really does think it's in the long-term best interest of the Democratic party if she's the nominee (and ultimately president), but surely she has to realize that there's a point at which she's dead weight for the causes she professes to believe in. She's probably crossed that point already.

Posted by socctty | April 21, 2008 12:34 PM

It's a completely fair argument to make. This is a very serious job. The next president WILL have to order military action that WILL kill lead to deaths. It's not a job for a wimp. Not for someone who would sit down with Ahmadinejad.

Posted by Tim K | April 21, 2008 12:34 PM

A fit of outrageous?

Posted by El Cid | April 21, 2008 12:36 PM

This is a very serious job. The next president WILL have to order military action that WILL kill lead to deaths.

This is a Very Serious argument.

Posted by southpaw | April 21, 2008 12:37 PM

Two things are obvious about the Hillary campaign.

1. The campaign has been unable to think more than one step ahead ever since the "Crush Obama on Super Tuesday" strategy didn't work.

2. If they could beat Obama, the entire campaign would have to completely change its message on a dime. Everything about being "Ready on Day One" and all the Commander-in-Chief BS would have to be thrown overboard and Hillary would suddenly have to become Obama 2.0.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | April 21, 2008 12:40 PM

Obviously, only wimps would meet face-to-face with our enemies, and a courageous leader would only meet face-to-face with our allies.

Posted by DTM | April 21, 2008 12:42 PM

Via TPM, it looks like the Obama campaign is already bringing up the Bill Clinton video. So, bully for them.

Posted by southpaw | April 21, 2008 12:48 PM

Hey, what about Clinton going around PA and blasting Obama for saying that even McCain would be better than Bush.

It takes some chutzpah to blast Obama for that when not THREE weeks ago Clinton was saying how McCain and she were both qualified to be commander-in-chief, and implying Obama wasn't.

Posted by Joe Strummer | April 21, 2008 12:49 PM

What does the Bill video say? Firewall blocks it.

Posted by socctty | April 21, 2008 12:51 PM

The Itchy and Scratchy Show ...

Posted by charlotte | April 21, 2008 12:52 PM

It's not a job for a wimp. Not for someone who would sit down with Ahmadinejad.

You tell 'em, Tim K. I mean, what would have happened if we had depended upon sanctions, political pressure, and discussion to deal with Libya, rather than a full-scale invasion?!!!

Oh wait. Never mind.

Posted by LFC | April 21, 2008 12:52 PM

Obviously, only wimps would meet face-to-face with our enemies, and a courageous leader would only meet face-to-face with our allies.

I wish dems would frame this issue like that more often. "He/She doesn't even have the courage to talk to the guy". "They're scared to be in the same room as the guy, but they're going to protect us from him?"

At least Ahmadinejad doesn't make Obama quake in his boots.

Posted by Ben | April 21, 2008 12:56 PM

Finally some sanity from MY. Good.

She'll use OBL clips against McCain too. And I pray BHO would do the same if he gets the nod. In this case, it's a toughness argument, not fear-mongering: she recognizes that OBL is a problem (not as big a problem as W. made him out to be, but not as insignificant as many of you "smart" liberals make him out to be either), and she's tough enough to deal with the problem.

I'm a staunch democrat with "creative class" credentials, but I support HRC. I have to say that now I see what many conservatives meant all thses years when they attacked us as wild-eyed, crazy liberals: many of you fit the bill.

Posted by Israel | April 21, 2008 12:59 PM

Shorter Matthew: I'm not outraged, despite the fact that Hillary's approach seems designed to get a McCain elected.

Not oneof your better posts Matthew.

Posted by LarryM | April 21, 2008 1:00 PM

The Bill video:

"Now one of Clinton's Laws of Politics is this: If one candidate's trying to scare you and the other one's trying to get you to think; if one candidate's appealing to your fears and the other one's appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope. That's the best."

It's at a big Kerry/Edwards rally in 2004, with lots of gratuitous shots of Ed Rendell's bald spot.

Posted by southpaw | April 21, 2008 1:02 PM

The next president WILL have to order military action that WILL kill lead to deaths. It's not a job for a wimp.

And it's definitely not a job for a man who can't keep Sunni insurgents, Shiite insurgents, and Al-Qaeda straight. Or who doesn't understand that Gen. Petraeus isn't the guy in charge of making the call on moving troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. Or who was wrong about how things would play out when going into Iraq in the first place. Or who says a Baghdad market is "safe" because he walked through it with 100 heavily armed troops and 5 helicopters for air cover.

It's not a job for somebody who is firmly entrenched in La-La-Land.

Posted by LFC | April 21, 2008 1:02 PM

And I'm increasingly convinced that our nation's only hope would be for that horrible Monster to have a massive and immediately fatal stroke, the sooner the better. I pray nightly for this to come to pass.

The fact that such an eventuallity would also speed her soul on its path to an eternity of suffering in the tormments of hell is, of course,an added bonus.

Posted by LarryM | April 21, 2008 1:04 PM

Outraged. No.

Disappointed. Gravely.

It is sad to see that she will do anything to try to win. Anything. Even legitimize every Karl Rove demeaning caricature of her fellow Democrats.

Thanks, Hil.

Posted by sy | April 21, 2008 1:08 PM

If you can't use a knife without cutting off half your fingers, get out of the kitchen.

Posted by apm | April 21, 2008 1:09 PM

"It's a completely fair argument to make. This is a very serious job. The next president WILL have to order military action that WILL kill lead to deaths. It's not a job for a wimp. Not for someone who would sit down with Ahmadinejad.

Posted by Tim K | April 21, 2008 12:34 PM"

FDR: Appeaser who met with Stalin. Unfit to be president. I bet you think Kissinger and Nixon were wimps for sitting down with Mao, who makes A-jad look sane by comparison. Was Reagan a wimp for meeting with Gorbachev? Is Christopher Hill a wimp for meeting with Kim? Clinton is a wimp for voting for the war just to look tough. When you keep on acting macho to pretend to be something you're not, you just look weak. I don't think of strength when I think of Clinton, but fear. Your point would hold water if Obama was against the war in Afghanistan, but he's not, so you're masturbating again. You like to think of yourself as serious when you don't actually think seriously about these issues. You simply take a framing device that covers up your own insecurity about your masculinity and replace it for thought. Also, how would this argument work against McCain?

Posted by Reality Man | April 21, 2008 1:09 PM

Wow, LarryM. Chill a bit. I'm pretty disgusted with Hillary too, but that comment is waaaaaayyyy too far towards the Limbaugh / O'Reilly / Coulter end of the world.

Just be satisfied with calling her a fundamentally dishonest, opportunistic, political chameleon who can't be trusted to do anything but fight and will say or do anything to become President.

Posted by LFC | April 21, 2008 1:12 PM

Deep thought:

In Hillary Clinton's imagination, the White House is always bathed in darkness, and the President is always about to have somebody whacked.

Posted by southpaw | April 21, 2008 1:14 PM

LFC,

You think that's bad? I'm restraining myself. A LOT. And my only doubt isn't whether that level of anger is appropriate - it certainly is, to anyone with even a shred of a concience - but whether focusing on Hillary alone, as opposed to (almost) the entire political class, is appropriate.

Posted by LarryM | April 21, 2008 1:17 PM

Hillary, in the last debate, showed herself to be more of a warmonger than McCain. She wants to expand the security umbrella so that the US will get involved in even MORE Mid East conflicts. General Wesley Clark was shocked that she said this. So no, this doesn't surprise me, because this is how she'd going to run against McCain as well: I'm even tougher and more trigger-happy.

Posted by 55 | April 21, 2008 1:20 PM

"Deep thought:

In Hillary Clinton's imagination, the White House is always bathed in darkness, and the President is always about to have somebody whacked.

Posted by southpaw | April 21, 2008 1:14 PM"

Bush called Gonzalez "Fredo." Fredo got whacked. Gonzalez had to resign. Coincidence? I think not.

Does this make Clinton Diane Keaton?

Her next ad should be about who has the stones to stand up to Lincoln's ghost when he starts throwing theater playbills around the White House at night. "Hillary Clinton has 35 years of ex-president ghostbusting. Obama has never even seen a ghost. Clinton: She ain't afraid of no ghost."

Posted by Reality Man | April 21, 2008 1:26 PM

At the end of the day, if this is an election about how in uncertain times we need to flee into the arms of a strong, comforting, figure of experience and authority then that figure is John McCain.

And maybe that's exactly the point?

Posted by NS | April 21, 2008 2:06 PM

How does the bumper sticker go?

"If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention!"

Posted by Beth | April 21, 2008 2:15 PM

At least Ahmadinejad doesn't make Obama quake in his boots.

Posted by Ben | April 21, 2008 12:56 PM

Why should he Ben when Obama's own "spiritual mentor" Rev. Wright would most likely agree with Ahmadinejad that America is the "Great Satin" that is the cause of all the unrest in the world. Especially in the Third World what with creating AIDS and crack cocaine for the destruction of the blacks both here and worldwide. lol

Posted by Chicounsel | April 21, 2008 2:16 PM

Rev. Wright would most likely agree with Ahmadinejad that America is the "Great Satin" that is the cause of all the unrest in the world. Especially in the Third World what with creating AIDS and crack cocaine for the destruction of the blacks both here and worldwide. lol

Aside from all the crazy, this is perhaps the least convincing lol I have ever seen. And that's sayin something.

Posted by southpaw | April 21, 2008 2:24 PM

Chicounsel: How dare you suggest that America is not the "Great Satin"? Are you saying we are more comparable to Silk? Or, god, Rayon? Traitor.

Posted by El Cid | April 21, 2008 2:25 PM

Does Hillary have what it takes? Well I know I’ve got what it takes; and I know Bill & Hillary don’t. The Clinton’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther, and goes much deeper than anyone realizes. Particularly telling, is the fact that Leon Panetta was present during Hillary's “write them off: screw them” remark. Both Clintons treat all working class Americans as a species apart, and screw them they did: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | April 21, 2008 2:35 PM

If you're not laughing your ass off already, imagine yourself eight years ago seeing this ad on tv.

What a world!

Posted by Chris | April 21, 2008 2:41 PM

Wasn't Hillary the one who criticized Obama when he said he wanted to attack al Qaeda in Pakistan?

Now she is all about getting bin Laden? Bah.

BTW MY, she don't care about what message this sends for the fall, it is all about Say Anything, Do Anything. She is probably just counting on voters and the media having short enough memories that they will forget about this and she can just tar McCain on the economy. Or even counting on enough voters to believe that she, as the safe mom-like woman, can be a protector too. Or something. It is too bad that she loses plausibility on that front as she behaves like a battleaxe.

Posted by Bubba | April 21, 2008 2:44 PM

Reality Man:

Of one thing we can be certain: Barack Obama is no Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Being tough doesn't imply always using force as a first resort, but being prepared to use force when necessary. Being prepared to be president doesn't imply that you never negotiate, but it is knowing that negotiation (like use of force) is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

A president may need to order a civilian airliner shot down without hesitation nor equivocation, if a 9/11-style hijacking were repeated.

A president may even need to order air strikes in Iran, or escalate conflict in Afghanistan, even despite the protests of MoveOn.org and Daily Kos.

Is Barack Obama up to the job? I'm not sure.

Posted by Tim K | April 21, 2008 5:39 PM

bin Laden isn't even relevant - he's just one guy running a movement which would carry on five minutes after he's dead (assuming he isn't already dead - Benazir Bhutto believed Mullah Omar killed him back in 2003 - which makes Hillary a bit out of date.)

Meanwhile, who cares what Hillary thinks? Unless Obama gets hit by a truck driven by one of Bill's assassin assets, she can't get the nomination. She's behind in pledged delegates and the popular vote, she can't make that up with PA, and Gore and Carter are going to endorse Obama and demand she drop out.

Clinton is toast.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 21, 2008 5:40 PM

Heck, a President might even have to be prepared to take action against high-value Al Qaeda targets located in Pakistan if the government of Pakistan was unwilling or unable to act.

And in all these scenarios, we would want the President to think first and foremost about what was in the best interests of the country, and not about what would be in his or her best interests as a politician.

Posted by DTM | April 21, 2008 6:01 PM

DTM:

An attribute to ascribe to Obama based on faith alone.

Posted by Tim K | April 21, 2008 7:04 PM

"Being tough doesn't imply always using force as a first resort, but being prepared to use force when necessary. Being prepared to be president doesn't imply that you never negotiate, but it is knowing that negotiation (like use of force) is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

A president may need to order a civilian airliner shot down without hesitation nor equivocation, if a 9/11-style hijacking were repeated.

A president may even need to order air strikes in Iran, or escalate conflict in Afghanistan, even despite the protests of MoveOn.org and Daily Kos.

Is Barack Obama up to the job? I'm not sure.

Posted by Tim K | April 21, 2008 5:39 PM"

And what do you base this on? Nothing but your own biases against people who think about foreign policy instead of using it to overcompensate like you. Voting for the Iraq War showed a lack of toughness and seriousness when we should have been focusing on Afghanistan, Pakistan, al-Qaida (the real one) and the Taliban. Instead, we're focusing on funding this neighborhood group against another neighborhood group while breaking the bank and relying on China continuing to fund our deficit. You're just looking for someone that you can call daddy. Clinton is just weak because she substitutes trying to look strong instead of making smart policy. You're just weak and a fool for not knowing the difference.

Posted by Reality Man | April 21, 2008 9:23 PM

I posted this on the other thread, but it seems relevant here...

This is OT, but I wanted everyone to know that Clinton has sealed up SLC's vote:

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Vote2008/story?id=4698059&page=1

Important bit:

Clinton further displayed tough talk in an interview airing on "Good Morning America" Tuesday. ABC News' Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

Posted by Clinton: More Hawkish than Bush | April 21, 2008 9:35 PM

^Which is EXACTLY the type of public statement that Krauthammer advocated recently.

Posted by Clinton: More Hawkish than Bush | April 21, 2008 9:41 PM

What's criminally stupid about the Clinton tough talk referenced in the above post is that Iran does not and probably never did have a nuclear weapons program - which she is careful not to reveal to the public while trying to portray herself as Rambo.

You put this scum in the White House, she's going to attack Iran on orders from Israel. It's that simple.

Now, Obama will, too. But it might take him another year or two to do it, while he screws around with his "tough diplomacy" and sanctions crap.

McCain, on the other hand, will attack Iran in the first six months of his administration.

In other words, it's theoretically possible that Obama might not attack Iran, if somebody manages to clue him in and he's not TOO beholden to the usual military-industrial complex bribers.

But Clinton is a corrupt, AIPAC-owned politician who will sell out the US for bribes and Israel. We will go to war with Iran if she gets in.

However, she isn't going to get in simply because there's no way she can get the nomination at this point unless Obama drops dead or does something SO stupid that all the superdelegates switch their votes - which is highly unlikely.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 21, 2008 11:09 PM

If I may ask a meta-question: With all the smart Democrats in America -- in Silicon Valley, on Wall Street, etc. -- how are Hillary and Obama your two best candidates to lead this country?

Posted by Fred | April 21, 2008 11:43 PM

I think it's pretty clear that this blog is dominated by anti-Israel, anti-military, foreign policy doves who come dangerously close to being apologists for the Iranian leadership's irresponsible conduct over the past few years. The (very serious) blunders of the Bush administration to not excuse Iran's own unacceptable behavior.

The American people are not going to elect a president who seems like he's going to meet the grave threats that may appear in this dangerous world with "let's give peace a chance."

Posted by Tim K | April 22, 2008 12:01 AM

I think it's pretty clear that Tim K is an idiot, who thinks the only alternative to sucking off Ahmadenijad is a complete realignment of our security policy that basically guarantees a nuclear war, and completely ignores the fact that Iran is not the largest threat to American security.

Seriously dude, you are dumb.

Posted by Clinton: More Hawkish than Bush | April 22, 2008 12:05 AM

Fred: Personally, I think Obama was the smartest Democrat, by far.

Is John McCain really the best the Republicans could come up with? The man admits to not knowing much about the economy and regularly (and in public) confuses Shiites with Sunnis. Not very intelligent, IMO.

Posted by 55 | April 22, 2008 12:08 AM

"Is John McCain really the best the Republicans could come up with?"

No, but he's better than the two Dem alternatives. He laps them both in legislative experience, he's got some executive experience from commanding a squadron in the Navy, and he's been in the shit, so you know he can handle the stresses of the job.

Posted by Fred | April 22, 2008 12:25 AM

"I think it's pretty clear that this blog is dominated by anti-Israel, anti-military, foreign policy doves who come dangerously close to being apologists for the Iranian leadership's irresponsible conduct over the past few years. The (very serious) blunders of the Bush administration to not excuse Iran's own unacceptable behavior.

The American people are not going to elect a president who seems like he's going to meet the grave threats that may appear in this dangerous world with "let's give peace a chance."

Posted by Tim K | April 22, 2008 12:01 AM"

What's it like to base your entire worldview on strawmen? Does it make your head hurt? Do you have to spend a lot of money on Depends?

Just because someone is evil doesn't mean you can wish them away. In foreign policy, you have to act like an adult and deal with the actual world instead of just pontificating from on high. There's a reason realists in foreign policy circles long looked down on neocon-style dreamers as a bunch of naive children: it's true. Iran is backing the same factions in Iraq as we are. They also hate al-Qaida and helped us out via the State Department during the early part of the war in Afghanistan before Cheney found out and shut down that relationship. The job of the US government is to secure the American national interest, not to do so for Israel, which is often at odds with the US's. Israel can secure its own national interest. None of us like Putin or Hu Jintao, but it's not like we can pretend they don't exist and not meet with them and either one of them does a lot more to oppress people than A-jad, who doesn't even have any authority over Iran's military. A-jad's authority is over things like whether or not women can attend soccer games.

Our biggest problems vis-a-vis Islamic militarism are in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Clinton called Obama naive for wanting to send in special forces and unmanned drones to take out AQ targets in western Pakistan if Islamabad is unwilling to do so. So he's a naive, peacenik warmonger? How does that add up? Instead, she wants to pretend to be Mr. Tough Guy by saying we should have gone into a war that is irrelevant to our primary security threats and counterproductive to pursuing our national interests.

Posted by Reality Man | April 22, 2008 12:39 AM

No, but he's better than the two Dem alternatives. He laps them both in legislative experience, he's got some executive experience from commanding a squadron in the Navy.

Of course. Daniel Inouye. How could we have gone so wrong?

He's been in the shit, so you know he can handle the stresses of the job.

Um, no. Not at all. And I'm glad you brought it up, because that will be THE Democratic talking point come October. Thanks!

[Seriously, legislative experience? Like being stuck in Washington for the better part of three decades is now a plus? Aren't you supposed to be a Republican?]

Posted by scythia | April 22, 2008 12:44 AM

No, please, don't contradict Fred about legislative experience. We want McCain to run on that. Not only does the right hate his legislative experience (increasing the chance they run to Barr), but McCain was widely considered a joke as a legislator for the bulk of his career. Basically he would only show up when he felt like it, propose a bill that had no backing because he didn't bother trying to get people to support it and then call everyone an idiot when it got voted down.

Posted by Reality Man | April 22, 2008 12:54 AM

You mean physically assault them when it got voted down.

Posted by 55 | April 22, 2008 1:02 AM

Reality man: are you 12 years old or something?
FDR met with Stalin? he was our ally against Hitler you idiot. Yes we screwed him 8 ways from sunday but he was our ally against Hitler.
It was before the cold war you idiot, before Hiroshima.
is that really your parrallel?

Posted by Michael C. | April 22, 2008 7:59 AM

"FDR met with Stalin? he was our ally against Hitler you idiot. Yes we screwed him 8 ways from sunday but he was our ally against Hitler.
It was before the cold war you idiot, before Hiroshima.
is that really your parrallel?

Posted by Michael C. | April 22, 2008 7:59 AM"

That was snark. You can see that from how I set it up as a fake campaign slogan. The real parallels I used were the Nixon/Kissinger-Mao and Reagan-Gorbachev meetings.

Also, Iran is basically our de facto ally in Iraq. We're just too stupid to realize it yet. After all, we are backing the same proxies and both have an interest in stability there.

Posted by Reality Man | April 22, 2008 8:22 AM

Tim K,

Right, Obama may only seem like someone who sticks by his policies in the face of political pressure, whereas we already know that Clinton will craft her policies in whatever way seems politically expedient at the time. Hence, obviously Clinton is the better choice, since there is no chance of us being disappointed when it turns out that she has no principles she would be unwilling to sacrifice for the sake of her personal ambitions.

Fred,

Excellent idea: the GOP should make their chief argument against Obama that he isn't smart enough to be President. That will work out great!

Posted by DTM | April 22, 2008 8:34 AM

DTM:

I don't even think he seems that way. Obama is a politician, no discernibly better or worse based on his actions than most other politicians in the US or beyond. The same goes for Hillary Clinton. The difference is I'm under no illusions about Clinton's infallibility (she's far from it), while many supporters of her opponent are still taken in by their Obamessiah in a pretty disturbing way.

Reality Man:

I'm not sure I see the consistency in your views either. You support Obama making threats against Pakistan's territorial sovereignty, but it's unacceptable to make threats against Iran. The difference, of course, is that Pakistan is an ally and Iran in a long-standing adversary. Iran is actively undermining the US policy in Iraq and is a state sponsor of terrorism. Since it's pretty clear you don't care about Israel's security, and do not hope for success in Iraq, so it's not a surprise that Iran's conduct doesn't bother you.

Posted by Tim K | April 22, 2008 8:56 AM

Reality man:
forgive my invective: that was totally low rent of me.

Posted by Michael C. | April 22, 2008 11:53 AM

Michael C., no need to apologize. I should have been clearer.

"You support Obama making threats against Pakistan's territorial sovereignty, but it's unacceptable to make threats against Iran. The difference, of course, is that Pakistan is an ally and Iran in a long-standing adversary. Iran is actively undermining the US policy in Iraq and is a state sponsor of terrorism. Since it's pretty clear you don't care about Israel's security, and do not hope for success in Iraq, so it's not a surprise that Iran's conduct doesn't bother you.

Posted by Tim K | April 22, 2008 8:56 AM"

It's not a question of being acceptable, but of national interests. Pakistan is a sponsor of terrorism in India via the ISI and being an ally of India in the long-term is more important strategically vis-a-vis China and Russia than being an ultra-strong ally of Israel, which brings us no strategic benefit. Pakistan is also where bin Laden and most of AQ's leadership currently is and they're doing squat to root them out. AQ is our national security problem. Hezbollah, Iran's proxy in Lebanon that attacks Israel, hasn't attacked us since the early 1980's. Also, how is Iran undermining our policy in Iraq by being even closer to the proxies we're backing in Iraq? The very parties we now support in Iraq were founded by Iraqi Shi'ite expats in Iran, often having deep connections to Iran's Republican Guard.

I care about Israel's security, but saber-rattling will only increase fervent nationalism in Iran to A-jad's benefit. If it benefits the US to pursue detente with Iran even if that isn't in Israel's short-term interest, then Israel has to learn that the US won't fight its battles for it when it's forced to choose between its own interests and Israel's. A-jad needs us to saber-rattle because only by wrapping himself in the flag can he maintain any power. Iran has made peaceful overtures to us to deal with common security threats: al-Qaida (you know, the group that killed 3,000 Americans in a single day) and the Taliban (the group that harbored AQ and was as close to them as teeth to gums). Dealing with unsavory regimes with whom you share common interests is part of being an adult in the foreign policy arena. If you want to see any type of stability in Iraq, Iran is going to have to be the problem since they are the government's closest backer (look at how A-jad can announce his visit in advance and go anywhere he wants while Bush has to fly in practically unannounced in the middle of the night and can barely travel outside the Green Zone) and they are right next door. We aren't going to invade Iran because we don't have the ground troops and a bombing campaign wouldn't accomplish anything besides just giving Iran the opportunity to unleash hell on our troops in Iraq. You don't offer any The fact that you are focusing more on Israeli national security than American national security shows how unserious you are. After all, the LTTE is the terrorist group that uses suicide bombing most often in the world and the Lord's Resistance Army has killed more people than al-Qaida, Hezbollah and Hamas combined all in the name of religious radicalism, yet you don't seem to be too hawkish about going into Sri Lanka and Uganda. Why is Israel so special we should overlook our own national security for the sake of a Likudnik vision of what's good for Israel? You seem to care more about the aesthetics of foreign policy that allow you to say you aren't a hippy more than actual foreign policy details, which seems to be why the depth of your knowledge seems to be so shallow.

Posted by Reality Man | April 22, 2008 12:15 PM

Tim K,

Right, anyone who sees a distinction between Clinton and Obama in Obama's favor must think Obama is the Messiah. With sophisticated arguments like that, she is bound to turn this thing around.

Posted by DTM | April 22, 2008 12:39 PM

It's also worth pointing out that Hillary freaked out after reading a poorly-written Kaplan work (Balkan Ghosts) and became convinced that NATO getting involved in Bosnia would be a second Vietnam. She gave the book to Bill to read and he freaked out to. Not only does Hillary Clinton not seem to know when to use diplomacy instead of force, she doesn't seem to know when to use force either.

Posted by Reality Man | April 22, 2008 1:08 PM

DTM:

There are distinctions between Obama and Clinton in Obama's favor, and there are also distinctions that are positive for Clinton. I just prefer Clinton's positive balance over Obama's.

Reality Man:

Comparing Pakistani sponsored terrorism in India with Iranian sponsored terrorism in the Mideast is apples and oranges. India and Pakistani are both strategic partners with a complex relationship between them that, and both are declared nuclear weapons states. This means, practically speaking, the US is not in a position to be meddling in their affairs to the same extent. Also, which regime is more susceptible to external interference and more vulnerable to collapse, India or Iraq? It's a question that answers itself. The US national interest will not be well served by a Shia fundamentalist government in Iran allied closely with a (fundamentalist) Shia-dominated government in Iraq. And Hezbollah certainly has attacked Israel more recently than 1980... they did it in 2006 for crying out loud, likely with Iranian armaments.

Posted by Tim K | April 22, 2008 2:26 PM

"Comparing Pakistani sponsored terrorism in India with Iranian sponsored terrorism in the Mideast is apples and oranges. India and Pakistani are both strategic partners with a complex relationship between them that, and both are declared nuclear weapons states. This means, practically speaking, the US is not in a position to be meddling in their affairs to the same extent. Also, which regime is more susceptible to external interference and more vulnerable to collapse, India or Iraq? It's a question that answers itself. The US national interest will not be well served by a Shia fundamentalist government in Iran allied closely with a (fundamentalist) Shia-dominated government in Iraq. And Hezbollah certainly has attacked Israel more recently than 1980... they did it in 2006 for crying out loud, likely with Iranian armaments.

Posted by Tim K | April 22, 2008 2:26 PM"

I'm not saying we should re-create the Israel relationship with India. However, you were claiming earlier that what separates Iran from Pakistan is that Iran sponsors terrorism against an ally. Both are sponsors of terrorism. In addition, the Iraqi government is willingly choosing to ally itself with Tehran. That is what the ruling parties in Iraq want. We're temporary benefactors. The Iranians are Shi'ite brothers who took them in when they were in danger of staying in Iraq because of Saddam Hussein's wrath. If you want to upend this relationship, you have to be willing to overthrow the government of Iraq and install an unpopular secular leader. Considering that Chalabi has deep connections with Tehran (and still owns land in that city) and was arrested by the CIA not too long ago on suspicion that he passed classified information off to Iran, it's not clear anyone will actually fit this bill. You seem to think that creating the false persona of toughness can just will what we want into reality via violence. Military violence has to be used realistically towards concrete ends, which you don't seem to realize. Also, last I checked, Israel is not the US. Basing our core foreign policy focuses on a small band of thugs - Hezbollah - that are primarily concerned with what should be only a minor ally who presents us with no strategic benefit (after all, Israel couldn't be part of the UN military effort against Iraq during the first Gulf War) is simply silly. Israel has its own elections to determine who is best equipped to protect Israel. Why should we privilege Israel over every single democracy out there that has a problem with terrorism? Why should anything you say be taken seriously when you can't seem to grasp the reality of the situation?

Posted by Reality Man | April 22, 2008 2:40 PM

Your patronizing attitude aside (you seem to be taking lessons from Obama) you seem to have misunderstood what I was saying. The difference that separates Pakistan and Iran is not that one sponsors terrorism against an ally. The distinctions are that 1)Pakistan is ITSELF an ally (Iran is not), and 2) Iran's interference in Iraq and elsewhere in the Mideast undermine US policy in the region, while the India-Pakistan situation does not serious impact US national interests.

A better analogy would be if Pakistani were sponsoring terrorism in Japan, and actively undermining the government of Hamid Karzai while arming the Taliban. While Pakistan's efforts in Afghanistan have hardly been adequate, that at least are working towards (rather than against in Iran's case) US interests in the region.

I simply do not subscribe to your interpretation of the situation.

Posted by Tim K | April 22, 2008 2:50 PM

"Your patronizing attitude aside (you seem to be taking lessons from Obama) you seem to have misunderstood what I was saying."

I like to do that to you because you're a patronizing douche and I like driving you batty as you twist yourself into knots to prove you're not a hippy. You've brought the patronizing tone on yourself.

"The distinctions are that 1)Pakistan is ITSELF an ally (Iran is not), and 2) Iran's interference in Iraq and elsewhere in the Mideast undermine US policy in the region, while the India-Pakistan situation does not serious impact US national interests."

Pakistan is an ally that doesn't do what we need it to do. The argument doesn't end with saying Pakistan is an ally. If Pakistan was a good ally, they would have gone after our primary non-state enemies by now that are sitting in Pakistan. It also wouldn't have been the biggest proliferator of nuclear weapons technology in history. As such, your argument is tautological and begins and ends with saying Pakistan is an ally without addressing any strategic benefit to the nature of that alliance.

Iran's interference in Iraq basically amounts to backing the same side we back. Whether or not Iran backs a terrorist group that is not a direct threat to us is of little matter within the framework of our broader national interests. Our main terrorist enemy is al-Qaida. Where is al-Qaida's leadership? In Pakistan. You keep on avoiding saying why we must back Israel more than any other democracy with a terrorism problem. If you were consistent, you would be more worried about the likes of the LTTE and the Lord's Resistance Army than Hezbollah, who comparatively are teddy bears (and, unlike the LTTE, aren't advanced enough to have things like a navy with a handful of small submarines). So, once again, why does protecting Israel's security for it matter more than going after al-Qaida or bringing stability to Iraq by working with its neighbor that is the main ally of our allies in Iraq's government? Iran simply has to be part of the solution in Iraq because of its influence over the government and the fact that as a neighbor it's not going to go away and leave Iraq. That's like expecting us not to take an interest in what happens in Mexico.

Your strategic thinking seems to consist mostly of saying things that are so vague as to be meaningless and avoid getting into specifics.

Posted by Reality Man | April 22, 2008 3:04 PM

Reality:

So your argument is to play rough with imperfect allies that are doing some of what we want, while handling actual strategic adversaries that seek to undermine us at every turn (like Iran) with kid gloves? How many allies would the US have if it behaved that way?

Summing up the US position in Iraq as backing Shia against Sunni is simplistic and wrong. The US does not want to see either a fascist state dominated by the Sunni minority (like under Sadam), nor does it want to see an Iranian-style Shia dominated government. Right now America's main enemies in Iraq are Mujahideen-like fundamentalists calling themselves "Al Qaeda in Iraq", and the enemy of our enemy is our friend. Iranian intentions are very different and their end-game is not a democratic regime in Iraq and reconciliation/accommodation between Sunni, Shia and Kurd.

The LTTE? Again, what is America's national interest in intevening in a internal Sri Lankan ethnic conflict? The Middle East is one of the most strategically important regions in the entire world, possibly in the history of the planet. The same cannot be said for Sri Lanka.

Your strategy seems to be with withdraw from Iraq and allow it to effectively fall into Iran's sphere of influence unchallenged, and then throw Israel to the wolves. What next? Overthrow the Saudi Royal family? Your "strategic thinking" is a recipe for instability and possibly much worse.

Posted by Tim K | April 22, 2008 3:31 PM

Reality:

So your argument is to play rough with imperfect allies that are doing some of what we want, while handling actual strategic adversaries that seek to undermine us at every turn (like Iran) with kid gloves? How many allies would the US have if it behaved that way?

Summing up the US position in Iraq as backing Shia against Sunni is simplistic and wrong. The US does not want to see either a fascist state dominated by the Sunni minority (like under Sadam), nor does it want to see an Iranian-style Shia dominated government. Right now America's main enemies in Iraq are Mujahideen-like fundamentalists calling themselves "Al Qaeda in Iraq", and the enemy of our enemy is our friend. Iranian intentions are very different and their end-game is not a democratic regime in Iraq and reconciliation/accommodation between Sunni, Shia and Kurd.

The LTTE? Again, what is America's national interest in intevening in a internal Sri Lankan ethnic conflict? The Middle East is one of the most strategically important regions in the entire world, possibly in the history of the planet. The same cannot be said for Sri Lanka.

Your strategy seems to be with withdraw from Iraq and allow it to effectively fall into Iran's sphere of influence unchallenged, and then throw Israel to the wolves. What next? Overthrow the Saudi Royal family? Your "strategic thinking" is a recipe for instability and possibly much worse.

Posted by Tim K | April 22, 2008 3:34 PM

Reality:

So your argument is to play rough with imperfect allies that are doing some of what we want, while handling actual strategic adversaries that seek to undermine us at every turn (like Iran) with kid gloves? How many allies would the US have if it behaved that way?

Summing up the US position in Iraq as backing Shia against Sunni is simplistic and wrong. The US does not want to see either a fascist state dominated by the Sunni minority (like under Sadam), nor does it want to see an Iranian-style Shia dominated government. Right now America's main enemies in Iraq are Mujahideen-like fundamentalists calling themselves "Al Qaeda in Iraq", and the enemy of our enemy is our friend. Iranian intentions are very different and their end-game is not a democratic regime in Iraq and reconciliation/accommodation between Sunni, Shia and Kurd.

The LTTE? Again, what is America's national interest in intevening in a internal Sri Lankan ethnic conflict? The Middle East is one of the most strategically important regions in the entire world, possibly in the history of the planet. The same cannot be said for Sri Lanka.

Your strategy seems to be with withdraw from Iraq and allow it to effectively fall into Iran's sphere of influence unchallenged, and then throw Israel to the wolves. What next? Overthrow the Saudi Royal family? Your "strategic thinking" is a recipe for instability and possibly much worse.

Posted by Tim K | April 22, 2008 3:37 PM

"So your argument is to play rough with imperfect allies that are doing some of what we want, while handling actual strategic adversaries that seek to undermine us at every turn (like Iran) with kid gloves? How many allies would the US have if it behaved that way?"

There is a difference between an imperfect ally and an alliance with no real animating purpose behind it, such as how our relationship is currently crafted. What benefit do we get out of Pakistan's inability to go after the people who attacked us on 9/11? There is a big difference between an imperfect ally and the state that helped out the North Korean nuclear program, supported the Taliban in the 1990's and now acts like bin Laden is nowhere to be found. While there is a possible basis for a US-Pakistani alliance, it would not look like how the relationship is currently crafted, in which Pakistan pretends that bin Laden is still in Afghanistan and so forth.

"Summing up the US position in Iraq as backing Shia against Sunni is simplistic and wrong. The US does not want to see either a fascist state dominated by the Sunni minority (like under Sadam), nor does it want to see an Iranian-style Shia dominated government. Right now America's main enemies in Iraq are Mujahideen-like fundamentalists calling themselves "Al Qaeda in Iraq", and the enemy of our enemy is our friend. Iranian intentions are very different and their end-game is not a democratic regime in Iraq and reconciliation/accommodation between Sunni, Shia and Kurd."

Did I say that the US position is backing Shia against Sunni? Nope. Now you're just talking out of your ass. Al-Qaida in Iraq, as many journalists have documented, is a rather small group with relatively little power and no real support among the Sunni population at large. There is a real difference between AQI and the larger Sunni insurgency, which has typically been packed with secular former Ba'athists. You are simply misinformed of the situation. Of course Iranian intentions are bad. Also, you seem to be conflating AQI with Iran, who are natural enemies, just as how Iran and the actual al-Qaida led by bin Laden is an enemy of Iran. However, the first goal must be stability if there is to be democracy at any point in Iraq. Iran, as the government's major patron, must therefore be part of the solution. The type of democracy that we'll get otherwise is more something along the lines of the Weimar Republic or the early days of post-Soviet Serbia. The empirical evidence shows that chaotic democracies in diverse societies with much ethnic violence tend towards genocide or violent expansionism.

"The LTTE? Again, what is America's national interest in intevening in a internal Sri Lankan ethnic conflict? The Middle East is one of the most strategically important regions in the entire world, possibly in the history of the planet. The same cannot be said for Sri Lanka.

Your strategy seems to be with withdraw from Iraq and allow it to effectively fall into Iran's sphere of influence unchallenged, and then throw Israel to the wolves. What next? Overthrow the Saudi Royal family? Your "strategic thinking" is a recipe for instability and possibly much worse.

Posted by Tim K | April 22, 2008 3:31 PM"

I'm not suggesting we dedicate ourselves to defeating the LTTE. However, I ask why it's so important to defeat Hezbollah and not the LTTE if both are terrorist groups going after civilians in democracies. If you were being consistent, you would want to go after the LTTE as well as Hezbollah. Why is Israel special? The Middle East is strategic for its oil, which Israel lacks. The Middle East is not the same thing as Israel. Israel is a small part of the Middle East. Israeli actions, such as building settlements, are also against the explicit wishes of the US government and contrary to our national security by inflaming Muslim sentiment against us as we fund them. Our alliance with Israel does nothing to guarantee that the oil flows, which is guaranteed more by the presence of the US navy in the Gulf. If I have to make a choice between American national interest and Israeli national interest, it's a no-brainer for me. Why isn't it for you? That choice is before us now with how we go forward with our relations with Iran. So once again, I must ask why Israel must be so privileged but not any other democracy. You seem to be unwilling to answer a simple question that seems rather central to your entire strategic worldview.

Also, Iraq is already in Iran's sphere of influence. What do you think the whole point of A-jad's visit was to demonstrate? What tool are we supposed to use to prevent the Shi'ite parties in Iraq from allying with whom they want to ally? If that's what the majority of Iraqis want after we've made such a big deal about bringing democracy to Iraq, we either have to respect that or admit that we never meant a word of it. The whole Iraq War has been the biggest boon for Tehran in terms of expanding its influence since 1979. The main state beneficiary for having our troops in Iraq is Iran because we are doing their work for them. For someone who seems so worried about Iran, you seem to really want to give them a helping hand in a way that ensures they become more powerful in the region vis-a-vis the US. The longer we pursue policies in the Middle East that exists only in the heads of people like you, the longer Iraq will be in flames. Dealing with Iran is also more likely to be good for Israel in the long run as they are able to reach common strategic goals with the US via means other than being belligerent. In addition, if we are smart in crafting that relationship, we can drive a wedge between Iran and Syria. Without a strong ally in Syria, Iran simply cannot logistically get supplies to Hezbollah. Instead, our current policy helps to ensure that relationship survives.

Posted by Reality Man | April 22, 2008 3:58 PM