The woman shows absolutely NO comprehension of the seriousness of the threat Iran poses to Israel as she, yet again, proves with her assinine comments at a PRO-ISRAEL dinner in regards to "engaging" with Iran.
February 2, 2007 -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton drew grumbles at a pro-Israel dinner in Times Square last night when she encouraged "engaging" with Iran before taking stronger action to keep it nuke-free.
Clinton said she wasn't sure "anything positive would come out of it" and she didn't know if it was "the smartest strategy to take," but added, "There are a number of factors that I think argue for some attempt to do what I have suggested."
She called for a better understanding of how Iran "really functions," warning actions beyond sanctions could increase danger in the region.
"I also want to send a message, if we ever do have to take more drastic action, to the rest of the world that we exhausted all possibilities," said Clinton, who earlier rapped President Bush for refusing to engage Tehran.
Clinton's remarks at the Marriott Marquis were met with little applause , and after she left the stage, several people said they were put off by the presidential candidate.
"This is the wrong crowd to do that with," said one person at the dinner, noting the pro-Israel crowd wanted to hear tougher rhetoric.
Telling Jewish men and women to engage with Iran is tantamount to someone telling them they should have "engaged" with Hitler during the holocaust.
Hillary what the hell were you thinking???? Or were you thinking at all?
No worries Hillary......we wouldn't have voted for you even before this blunder.
Hat Tip to Power Line, where I found a link to Heather Robinson, who reports and comments on Hillary Clinton's speech at an AIPAC dinner last night.
Her piece is titled " Hillary at AIPAC: Ms. Clinton is No Liberal Fool, She Just Thinks WE Are "
After the requisite statements about Israel’s right to security, Hillary started talking about “new tactics” for engaging “our enemies and Israel’s enemies.” Was it an accident that at this point in the speech, she seemed to falter, her words meandering in circles as if she wasn’t quite sure where they were leading her?
Here I quote her verbatim, with ellipses to mark any phrases I missed:
“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 weapons at us…this is a worthy debate…there are many, including our President, who reject any engagement with Iran and Syria. I believe that is a good faith position to take, but I’m not sure it’s the smart strategy that’ll take us to the goal we share.
“What do I mean by engagement or some kind of process? I’m not sure anything positive would come out of it…but there are a number of factors that argue for doing what I’m suggesting.”
And what was it she was suggesting, exactly? Well, she never said. Then she continued, “I don’t think we know enough about how the Iranian government functions…if we are having to pursue potential action against Iran…then I want to know more about the adversary we face. I want to get a better sense of what the real power centers are.”
And um, why would our enemy tell us that? (Isn’t that, like, what spies are for?)
She continued, “I also want to send a message to the rest of the world if [force] becomes necessary that we have exhausted all measures…because we will need friends to stand by us as we stand with Israel as we approach this long war.”
Okay, maybe there’s something to this last part. Then again, look how well the world remembers, respects, and stands by America for our efforts to exhaust all other measures (to the tune of 19 UN resolutions and an embargo for which we were excoriated) to contain Saddam Hussein, prior to the time force became necessary.
One hint of substance came near the end of her speech. She spoke about sending America’s enemies a “message about what could happen if they don’t change, while using leverage to promote change.”
It’s tough to know what Hillary would do were she elected President. On the one hand, some of her rhetoric sounds tough and realistic. But at the same time, there is her fundamental illogic, and that of all foreign policy liberals in the age of global terrorism and terror-sponsoring regimes: if the enemies of the U.S. and Israel were fundamentally reasonable, do they really believe we wouldn’t be talking with them already?
Hillary says she is a staunch supporter of Israel, yet tonight she tried to sell America’s most diehard Israel-supporters on the idea of diplomacy with Iran, a country whose stated objective is Israel’s destruction. The amazing and chilling thing is, many if not most of those in attendance at the dinner tonight seemed to buy it, or at least to be lulled enough by her rhetoric about the need to “stand by Israel” to miss the dangerous illogic here.
[...]
But while Hillary’s rhetoric of “engagement” may sound good, the community of anti-terror activists and Israel-supporters must realize that, at the most basic level, engaging with people who wish your destruction–and are actively working to achieve it–means strengthening a pernicious enemy.
Remember: Hillary’s husband gave us 10 years of Olso; 1000 dead Jews later, liberals woke up to the reality that Israel had no partner for peace. Similarly, Bill Clinton’s “engagement” with North Korea amounted to providing Kim Jong Il goodies in exchange for “agreement” to stop his nuclear program. He took the money, turned around, and poured it into his nuclear program. So in fact, “engagement” can do a great deal of harm, when what that word actually means is appeasing—and thereby strengthening—the world’s worst human rights violators.
The women has a high IQ but as she shows with this latest stunt, she has NO common sense.
I did a piece quite a while ago where I asked "Would YOU negotiate with Hitler"?
I guess Hillary Clinton would.
.
