Hillary Clinton, stop apologizing

This past summer during one of the last episodes of HBO's mega-hit The Sopranos, A.J., the whiny suicidal son of the show's mafia boss anti-hero, was heard to worry about what he saw as the certain bombing of Iran by President Bush.

Though this stray snippet, which was widely noted in reviews of the show, did not offer any clues as to the fate of the fictional leaders of the North Jersey mafia, it may have heralded the beginning of a new twist on what it means to be "anti-war" in 2007 America. The issue that the series' creators snuck into the public square is beginning to look more like one that will loom larger in the months to come.

Few on even the far-Left or far-Right are going to say anything nice about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or his mullah masters, or be many willing to defend the Islamic republic's support for terrorism throughout the Middle East, including their sponsorship of Hizbullah and alliance with Hamas.

And what reasonable person is not scared to death of the idea of Teheran achieving its ambition of acquiring nuclear capability, in addition to the possibility that it would have within its grasp a weapon that would make its oft-stated goal of eradicating Israel a very real possibility?

But that notwithstanding, the administration push to start putting pressure on Iran to back away from its nuclear program is not exactly generating across the board support.

That became apparent this month after President Bush's statement that a nuclear Iran could lead directly to World War III. Further reporting in many newspapers pointed to Vice President Dick Cheney as one of the main advocates in the administration of strong action to stop Teheran.

Yet rather than Bush's ultimatum being regarded as a sensible warning being sent to Ahmadinejad, the reaction from many in the chattering and political classes was close to panic.

In response, The New York Times editorial column spoke as if the nation's leaders needed to be committed to a mental institution, as it prayed for someone in Washington to step forward to stop "the crazies" from going to the brink with Iran.

And on the campaign trail, an unexceptional White House-backed measure to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization became the subject of a highly charged debate between the Democratic candidates for president.

When the Senate voted on the measure, Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton, acting like someone who actually believes that she will become our commander-in-chief, voted yes. But two of her challengers, Sens. Barrack Obama and Joe Biden voted no. Former senator and fellow presidential hopeful John Edwards joined them in chiding Hillary because they consider it a first step toward granting Bush the power to wage war on Iran.

While Clinton stood her ground, she couched the defense of her vote in such a way as to possibly preclude any support for the future use of force against Iran.

That might be put down as just a tempest in a primary teapot, but there is every indication that anger over this vote is something that Clinton's opponents will be seeking to tap into.

All of which means that rather than a point of consensus, the need to stop Iran is likely to become a wedge issue in the Democratic primaries and caucuses, since many of those who will soon vote are actually more afraid of Bush than they are of Iran.

Liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen acknowledged this when he wrote recently to support the designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Noting that Iran is responsible not only for terror in Iraq but for the massacre of scores of Jewish victims in the 1994 bombing of a Jewish Center in Buenos Aires, Cohen sees the growing opposition to a strong stance against Iran as a rerun of the crippling defeatism that sapped the will of Britain and France to resist Hitler in the 1930s. He blames this all on Bush and Cheney, whose pre-war statements on Iraq have engendered cynicism about intelligence matters and Middle East-based threats.

Yet whether or not the administration deserves all of the blame here, what Cohen was acknowledging is that the demon-like status of Bush and Cheney that has become a cornerstone of partisan rhetoric is now the greatest obstacle to mobilizing support for action on Iran.

Like Cohen, you can dump on Bush all you want for the mistakes in Iraq and the stalemate in Afghanistan, while giving them no credit for anything. But for those who understand what a nuclear Iran will mean, accepting this situation is not an option. So long as many on the political left and even some in the center view anything that the administration supports as inherently evil, it's going to mean the campaign to pressure Iran will be a divisive issue that will inevitably fail.

KNOWLEDGEABLE observers see Clinton as being more than willing to support the use of US power against a terrorist state, provided, that is, she's the one ordering the use of force and not Bush. If she wins next November, that will be a reasonable position once she's sworn in as president in January 2009. Yet Clinton will be pressed in the intervening 15 months to distance herself from anything Bush does.

But the problem, as Bush noted last month, is that the stakes involved in Iran being allowed to do what it likes involve the possibility of mass murder.

While all those interested in stopping Teheran, especially Israel, want desperately to avoid the use of force, the likelihood of meaningful UN economic sanctions being enacted are slim to none. With China and especially Russia backing him up, Ahmadinejad can cheerfully thumb his nose at Bush. The only hope that this can be changed is if our European allies - and our Russian and Chinese antagonists - no longer perceive Bush as isolated on this issue.

If Hillary Clinton were to stop apologizing for winding up on the same side as Bush on Iran, and instead begin talking more about the cost that American failure on this issue would entail, it might not only strengthen her future position as president, but could also serve to rally international support for sanctions now while they still have some small chance of working.

Waiting for 2009 to make Iran a consensus issue may appeal to some partisans, but the interests of the nation and international peace require that it be moved up on the agenda, even if it means that she may be spurned by some primary voters. Like it or not, both Clinton and pro-Israel Democrats need this to be one issue on which they are willing to support Bush now.

KNOWLEDGEABLE observers see Clinton as being more than willing to support the use of US power against a terrorist state, provided, that is, she's the one ordering the use of force and not Bush. If she wins next November, that will be a reasonable position once she's sworn in as president in January 2009...If Hillary Clinton were to stop apologizing for winding up on the same side as Bush on Iran, and instead begin talking more about the cost that American failure on this issue would entail, it might not only strengthen her future position as president, but could also serve to rally international support for sanctions now while they still have some small chance of working.

Give up partisan political advantage for the sake of the country. Won't happen.

“Their idea,” huh. You think so?

First, Hillary will not get nominated by the Democrats. The manufactured consensus of her mendicant followers does’t change the picture, which includes Joe Biden and Chris Dodd, who are very experienced, reasonably intelligent politicians, who’ve been around the block perhaps too many times, but wouldn’t be in the race if they believed she would ultimately win. They appeal to their Base with rhetoric but can sit and have a civilized conversation with the President after taking it to the envelope all day long in calling him names.

“Just politics,” the President says. They know he means what he says and says what he means even if they disagree and even if their Base doesn’t believe anything the President says.

They simply believe, as I do, that Hillary can’t run the Marathon, and that the Party Bosses in the states and everywhere will sense the danger of her getting creamed as bad as McGovern, along with what the pollsters say she will do as she clings to the rest of the ticket’s coattails as she slips over the cliff. She’s toast, and will be the last to get the news. This was true before and after the “debate debacle.”

So Joe and Chris see the rest, and wizened Mike Gravel from the 70’s, Dennis the Menace from Burning Man, and Obama.

They hate Edwards, knowing he’s an ambitious lightweight and a little dangerous. Watch for the scramble when Hillary gets shot down in Iowa, NH and South Carolina. She could be beaten by three different candidates in three different states. Perception will dry up, and the Elite Left will abandon her life she was on fire. All she’ll have left is her assortment of poor Social Workers and Guidance Counselors. They’ll gradually turn to Obama, and the Party Bosses will start to scramble. The Party will crack up, or come together when the one who remains who is smart enough goes Right on Immigration. That person will do well on Super Tuesday. If that person doesn’t surface, it might go to the convention.

And Republicans will need to act fast to keep Immigration as their issue, with the same and only consensus Left and Right in this country comes into play. It will unify most of the Republicans - It will divide most of the Democrats.

This could be a very good year for the Democrats, and Hillary is a slippery one. She’s gotten it handed to her since 1993. But the World’s Smartest Woman is showing itself a myth.

Now, on Iran? I’m afraid that will become an issue, perhaps by perception the biggest issue before the President leaves office. The planning for a Blitzkrieg in Iran is well underway. This President might now want Immigration front stage as an issue, and he certainly has made his opinion clear about a Nuclear Iran.

It will be the Cuban Missile Crisis of our time, either on his watch, or the next guy’s.”

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.