Hillary the Hawk and Obama the Wimp?
Hillary Clinton, the front running Dem for Pres 08, supported Israel’s attack on a suspected Syrian Nuke facility:
During a presidential debate on NBC Wednesday night, the Democratic hopeful said: “What we think we know is that with North Korean help, financial and technical and material, the Syrians apparently were putting together, and perhaps over some period of years, a nuclear facility, and the Israelis took it out. I strongly support that.”
Other Dems are mighty upset and think Hillary is hawking it too much even, they say, setting the stage for an attack on Iran. So is Hillary a hawk or a dove? She wants to use violent means to stop evil, but is she willing to put soldiers in harms way? Or is she the kind of hawk that her hubby was – send in the cruise missiles and see what is left afterwards to mop up?
She also voted to call Iran’s Revolutionary guard a terror outfit:
But Clinton argued that the Guard Corps was “promoting terrorism” by aiding insurgents in Iraq and supporting Hezbollah and Hamas, the Jerusalem Post reported.
She said that designating the group as a terrorist organization would “give us the options to be able to impose sanctions on the primary leaders.”
Democratic Senators and presidential candidates Joe Biden and Chris Dodd voted against the resolution, and John Edwards criticized it. Barack Obama abstained from the Senate vote.
What in the world is Obama doing here abstaining? Take a stand Obama!? The Iranian Guard are a bunch of bad dudes doing very bad stuff. By designating them a terror group the US can effectively try to pinch them financially, and restrict their people from making trips to the US etc. Why the abstention? Who is advising you on Int Affairs? What Would Dennis Ross Do?
As I have written before, Obama is vague and simply uninformed on the Middle East and most international issues. I am not endorsing Hilary—she will have to at least promise me an appointment to get that and hire Jewlicious as her official liaison to the Jewish community:-)—but her approach to international events at least invokes the tone of someone who is informed. Even if we may disagree.