Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Does Hillary's Nuclear Umbrella Idea Mean She's Crazy Or A Closeted NeoCon?

Hillary developing "nuclear umbrella" policy proposal aimed at protecting Israel and apparently other unspecified monarchies and undemocratic Middle Eastern countries if they were attacked by a nuclear weapon possessing Iran raises many questions. But in the midst of the presidential campaign where the main issues seems to be voter bitterness and flag pins the implications of what Clinton is proposing with this policy have apparently lost out to the horse race centered when politicians attack each other narrative given to us unwashed masses by the media establishment folks.

For god's sake what could be more important then the degrees of patriotism of Barack Obama's pastor?

The policy first came up in last Wednesday's debate and was further described by Clinton in her interview with Keith Olbermann on Countdown yesterday. It says that if Israel is attacked by Iran the United States would use nuclear weapons for a " massive retaliation". This is what she said in the debate "Well, in fact, George, I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region." Many observers close to this issue think this is the same old NeoCon dogma that's been floating around for years. Bloggers at Daily Kos and others have raise that question given Clinton's religious leanings and political associations of late.

This new and dramatic policy proposal by a potential US president you'd think would garner an appropriate response of concern from the press and Barack Obama given the implications it would have on future diplomacy with Iran and the whole rest of the damn world. Diplomacy with Iran is something Clinton has been pushing as a campaign talking point in opposition to Bush/Cheney and McCain's current saber rattling approach aimed at Iran.

Isn't this sort of the ultimate form of saber rattling and not likely to make the Iranians that open to being diplomatic with what they may see as dangerous gamesmanship by the infidels and enemies of Islam. Also the question as to exactly what despotic Middle Eastern nations Clinton is meaning to protect with the threat of total nuclear destruction of Persia begs a explanation. What would exactly constitute an "attack on Israel" or one of these unspecified nations that would trigger the nuclear response by the US? Historically speaking Iran has always used surrogates to attack Israel. So if Hezbollah or Hamas, at Iran's bidding, attacks Israel does that mean that the US goes nuclear to, as John McCain likes to say. bomb bomb Iran"

But, then again it's only nuclear war I guess and therefore not as significant as why your not wearing your freaking flag pin so why should anyone make a big deal out of it?

No comments:

Post a Comment