Thursday, January 19, 2006
Well, my first thought on reading that she was criticizing the Bush Administration for not taking seriously enough the threat posed by Iran's nuclear programs was that it was it getting real cold real fast.
Then I read the story... and saw to my great disappointment that the extent of her comments was to fault Bush for letting the Europeans take the lead in the talks with Iran and calling for the UN to impose sanctions against Iran.
While I agree that it was a mistake to let the Europeans take the lead, my bigger criticism is that so much time has been allowed to lapse while the Europeans, with the support of the Bush Administration, have played diplomats with Iran. While I wouldn't have even bothered talking with them, as I had concluded that no amount of talking would dissuade them, it would have been okay, if for no other reason than the symbolism of it, for some talking to have taken place. But it should have been obvious a long time ago to all the players that talking wasn't working, that it was time to go to Plan B.
And Plan B is not having the UN impose sanctions, as Clinton seems to think. Sanctions are a form of discipline, a way of coercing (or encouraging) behavior one wants to see take place. And sanctions should never be applied unless one can honestly state that they see the sanctions obtaining the desired result. And there is no way anyone should think that any sanction would lead to the Mad Mullahs dropping their plans to build nuclear weapons and to use them against their enemies (officially us and Israel, but actually the entire non-Muslim world).
So, once again, Hillary proves she is no different than her husband... lots of talk, no action. A refusal to act unilaterally. A (unjustified) faith in the ability and willingness of the United Nations and the international community to effect change. A refusal to face the facts on the ground.
So I guess it isn't freezing after all...
And add Michelle Malkin to the list of (still) unimpressed...
And while I'm posting on Iran, I want to cite Newsweek's take on the story as evidence of just how screwed up the CW is. Their headline "Deal on Iran?" refers to negotiations with Russia over referring Iran to the UN Security Council. The problem? They're focusing on the process, not the end result. And the end result is not whether or not Iran is taken before the UN, but rather whether Iran agrees to or is forced to abandon its nuclear programs.