Dreams Into Lightning

Hillary Clinton and Iran

Hillary Clinton vowed that if she were president and if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, the US could "totally obliterate" Iran.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, facing a crucial primary in Pennsylvania Tuesday, said that if she were in the White House and Tehran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, the United States would be able to 'totally obliterate' Iran.

Interviewed on ABC's Good Morning America program, Clinton was asked what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton replied. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

Now, from a pro-Israel, anti-Iranian-regime standpoint, what's wrong with that statement? Just about everything.

First and most directly to the point, the object is to prevent Israel from being nuked in the first place. The question posed to HRC presupposed the hypothetical case of Israel having been nuked; but Senator Clinton failed to stress that such a scenario, if (G-d forbid) it were to occur, would itself represent an enormous tragedy and a massive failure of diplomacy and strategy. The cavalier "nuke 'em till they glow" attitude would be of scarce comfort to the Israeli victims of such a strike.

But what about deterrence? Cannot Senator Clinton say that by publicly articulating a hard line, she is making it less likely that the attack will occur in the first place? No. Again, by tacitly granting the initial premise - an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel - she makes it clear that she is not serious about preventing such an attack from occurring. And this in turn makes the obscene threat sound like a bluff.

Whether the threat is in earnest or not, it will do little to deter Iran. During the Cold War, deterrence was our only recourse against the Soviet Union, because we did not have the means to prevent the Soviets from acquiring nuclear weapons or building an arsenal; and it was effective because the Soviet dictators, cruel and evil men though they were, were not so suicidally irrational as to actively seek that Mutually Assured Destruction that would have been the result of a nuclear exchange.

None of these things apply to Iran. The mad mullahs in Tehran may very well be willing to sacrifice thousands or even millions of their people if it means furthering their destructive designs against the Jews. But there is no reason for the West to meekly accept those plans, because they can be stopped. The Iranian nuclear program can be stopped and, I believe, the regime in Tehran overthrown without recourse to massive nuclear weapons.

In short: An ounce of prevention is worth a kiloton of cure.

Finally, the most deeply offensive thing about Clinton's remark is its utter disregard for innocent human life, in Iran and elsewhere. What sane person would want to "totally obliterate" an entire nation? Destroy its war machine, if necessary, or topple its dictators - but "totally obliterate" Iran? What kind of madness is that?

It's the madness of someone who is afraid of being seen as weak; who, instead of imagining how she might win a meaningful victory, fantasizes about the scores she will settle when she loses.

McCain Advisers Lobbied for Airbus Contract

Gateway Pundit:

Senator John McCain has some serious explaining to do.

-- Top McCain advisers lobbied for the Airbus tanker contract.
-- Airbus was not even in the running in the beginning.
-- Airbus was thinking of scrapping their bid for the DOD tanker contract because they did not see themselves meeting the capability metrics
-- The original contract was altered last year to favor the larger Airbus tankers over the Boeing planes.
-- The contract was awarded to Airbus over America's Boeing Company ...

The proverbial train wreck in slow motion.

Otherwise known as the 2008 Democratic primary.

This situation has come about because the Democratic party is no longer about principle but personality. Because 21st century liberalism is bereft of real ideas it has become vulnerable to the cult of personality. Ideology has now been demoted to rhetoric or talking points. Who really believes that either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton are determined to preserve the national security of the United States? But anyone can readily see they are devoted to preserving the interests of themselves. That's what counts. And as Morris and Chait will now see, it's all that counts. 'How could she?' Chait wonders. The Clintons always could. It's just that he was the last to know.

Remarks. As a pro-McCain Republican, I obviously see "good news" in anything that helps McCain. But I can't feel good about the nastiness that seems destined to overtake the Democratic side in this election. Of course it's not up to me; but the sad thing is, it's not really up to America's Democrats either; it's up to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the power brokers behind the scenes. That's the real shame, because the millions of good, honest, decent American voters who are also loyal Democrats deserve better.

The only silver lining is that maybe this will result in much-needed electoral reform - for both parties, and for the election process as a whole. It would be nice if "hope" and "change" were more than slogans.

"Just Americans doing our normal thing and trying to figure things out."

Roger Simon talks sense on American politics.

Republicans, Conservatives, and McCain

Via the invaluable Jeremayakovka, here's an excellent piece by John Podhoretz in Commentary:

The truth is that [McCain's] flinty individualism has a profoundly self-destructive aspect to it. He has made his own pathway to the top of his party extremely difficult because he does not wish to play the game the way it needs to be played. He offends people he need not offend, and acts in ways that are considered disrespectful by people who only need him to show them a little kavod. If he becomes the nominee of the GOP, he will be required to mend fences he need not have broken down in the first place.

But his opponents are engaging in a terrible mistake as well. McCain likes to make common cause with politicians across the aisle from him. They can’t stand this. They prefer someone who fights Democrats to someone who makes deals with Democrats. Fair enough. But this is a difference of degree, not of essence. McCain is a deal-maker. Perhaps, having engaged with a real enemy who broke his arms and tortured him and sought to destroy him body and mind and soul, he doesn’t see an enemy when he sees a Democrat but rather just another American whose ideas on many things differ from his but with whom he might share some common ground.

Remarks. There are so many good points made here, I don't know where to begin. But I'll begin at the end, where JPod says: 'But the Republican party is not an ideological movement. It is a political vehicle for the American right-of-center. Those who confuse the Republican party with the conservative movement are indulging in a fantasy — that there is purity in politics and that there is something immoral about ideological impurity.'

Not all conservatives are Republicans, and not all Republicans would meet a strict test of conservatism. (I myself am a Republican but have never mistaken myself for a conservative.) To confuse political affiliation with ideology is to compromise both.

McCain understands that while war may be "the continuation of politics by other means," politics is not itself war. It is the process of maneuvering groups of people - including competing and overlapping interest groups - toward a common goal or set of goals.

C/O/M/R/HDS Free Zone

Posting is going to be light for a few more days, simply because of various goings-on in my personal life (new job, new hours, new digs, etc.). I'm not going to post extensively on the primaries, although I may try to put a few thoughts together in a short post a little later.

What I do want to say, though, is that I'm generally optimistic about the process in general. That is, I think it's working the way it's supposed to. Not that I'm thrilled about the choices on either the Republican or the Democratic side (for the record, I'm a registered Republican, for four years now), but I'm glad the nominations are not a foregone conclusion. The fact that there's an element of suspense looks like a healthy sign to me. Also I think it's healthy that there's a vigorous debate on both sides - even if some people (who shall remain nameless) get a little carried away sometimes. That's part of the deal, too.

The process of choosing an American President is arane, byzantine, and not purely democratic. There is a lot of room for improvement. But it is a form of democracy in action, and I like it.

EDIT: As a footnote to the foregoing rosy thoughts, however, I am compelled to add the following item (via Cinnamon Stillwell):

Massive Republican Voter Suppression in Southern Calilfornia!
News Talk Radio | 02-06-08 | PsyOp

Posted on 02/06/2008 9:01:01 AM PST by PsyOp

Reports are rolling into talk radio stations in San Diego about massive Republican vote suppression.

Thousands of Republican voters in San Diego and as far north as Los Angeles showed up to vote on Tuesday only to be told that they were registered "Non-Partisan". This meant that they could not vote for the Republican Primary candidates.

Non-Partisan (independent) voters in California can vote for Candidates in any other party, including the Democrat party, but are prohibited from voting in the Republican Primary unless they are registered as a Republican.

Rick Roberts [http://www.760kfmb.com] is currently reporting on this and has had hundreds of calls and thousands of e-mails from people who showed up to vote only to be told they were not registered as Republcans. Reports began rolling into the Roger Hedgecock show yesterday.

Several people have called in saying they witnessed this happening at polling place they worked at as volunteers. One gentleman stated that he believed at least 20% of the Republicans that showed up to vote were denied a Republican primary form because the roster showed them as "Non-Partisan".

The Republican Party in California has begun investigating this issue, but the mainstream media continues to report that Californias election "went smoothly".

It seems clear that someone or some group managed to tamper with the voter registration rolls. Either by direct access to the Registrars computer system, or by gaining access to voter information and then sending in registration cards in their name. ...

Read the rest at the link.

McCain on Israel

With a hat tip to the Bald-Headed Geek, here's an article in The Jewish Press which shows John McCain eager to set the record straight:

In statements to The Jewish Press this week, Arizona Senator John McCain reacted sharply to an article earlier this month in the Israeli daily Haaretz that he said left "several serious misimpressions" regarding his views on Israel and the Middle East. ...

A source in McCain’s office characterized the Haaretz interview as a brief, impromptu session and the resulting article as long on the reporter’s suppositions and short on concrete quotes from McCain.

"You’ll note," said the source, "that the article featured perhaps one complete sentence from the senator; otherwise the report is basically the reporter’s narrative interspersed with several fragmentary quotes" from McCain.

The senator himself was clearly miffed at his portrayal in Haaretz, saying that "after reading the Haaretz article and subsequent report in The Jewish Press," he felt the need to "clear up several serious misimpressions."

McCain said that "in contrast to the impression left by the Haaretz article, I’ve never held the position that Israel should return to 1967 lines, and that is not my position today." ...

McCain was unequivocal in his remarks to The Jewish Press.

"I’m proudly pro-Israel, and my positions have been consistent and clear," he said. "Israel, as one of America’s closest allies and the only democracy in a dangerous neighborhood, deserves our support and assistance. That’s why I view with such alarm the victory of Hamas and the Iranian president’s vile comments about wiping Israel off the map."

Go read the whole article at the link.

McCain

Michael Goldfarb at The Standard:

When Napoleon was asked what quality he most wanted in his generals, he replied "just one--that they be lucky." Presidential candidates are no different. But the other thing that got McCain this far was hard work. He was out their pressing the flesh in New Hampshire when Rudy and Fred couldn't be bothered. I traveled around with him in New Hampshire for a day--he knew everybody, and he just never stopped plugging away. Like Gary Player, the harder McCain worked, the luckier he got--and there's no doubt, it's better to be lucky than good.

Neocon Express:

We are happy to extend our official endorsement to Senator John McCain. I find the Hysterical reaction to McCain by some fellow conservatives distasteful. A true American war hero, pro-life and a real leader, not a slick pretender and fancy talker who has never done anything (like many of his critics). It is the man in the arena who counts, not the yappers in the bleachers. He is imperfect as all of us are, and I don't agree with all of his past activities on immigration, campaign finance or the 'no vote' on the Bush tax cuts. But on balance he is an attractive candidate with an unbeatable resume with a wide appeal, which is exactly what we need right now. Most importantly, he truly gets the threat of radical Islam and has the longest resume on National Security issues, which is this site's top concern. JOHN McCAIN FOR PRESIDENT!

John Hood at NRO:

Rudy’s strategy essentially succeeded — but he didn’t. The scenario still required the moderate protagonist to compete in the early states, even if he didn’t win them, in order to stay in the headlines and not fade into the background. John McCain lacked Giuliani’s fundraising prowess and campaign pros, but he strode valiantly into the fight, anyway. It was a telling decision for a war hero and famously combative senator, and it worked.

Remarks. These passages pretty well capture my thoughts on Giuliani (and by extension, Thompson) and McCain. As you know, Giuliani was my first choice, although I was getting to like Thompson too. But Giuliani lacked either the judgment or the resolve to do what was needed to bring in the votes. As the Neocon says,

My candidate, Giuliani, has not fared as well as many of us would have wished for a variety of reasons; the first of which was his horrible campaign strategy to skip all of the early contests. It is what it is.

So I'm making it official here: I'm following Rudy Giuliani's lead, and transferring my endorsement to John McCain for President, 2008.

Florida primary coverage ...

... at Pajamas Media.

PJM Roundup: With John McCain and Mitt Romney surging and Rudy Giuliani desperate for a win, the stakes could not be higher as the presidential battle moves to Florida today. Stay tuned as PJM brings you all the latest news and commentary from this crucial contest, and be sure to check Bill Bradley’s special coverage too, starting shortly.

The Field: Republican Nail Biter in Florida: Too Close to Call?

WCBS: “A new Quinnipiac University poll has McCain at 32 percent. Mitt Romney is at 31, Giuliani at 14 and Mike Huckabee at 13.”

Miami Herald: Florida primary turnout may set record. “Nearly one million Floridians have already cast early and absentee ballots in the state’s primary, a sign that moving up the date of the presidential primary will likely yield a record turnout on Tuesday.”

Go to Pajamas Media for the latest updates. As you already know, I'm rooting for Rudy. This is probably his last chance to pull it out if he wants to stay in the race.

WTFabee?!?

David Freddoso: 'An overall victory now seems unlikely. But Huckabee probably will not die today in Florida, either. If he does well in the south and shows up in Minnesota this September with enough delegates, the vice presidency could still be a possibility — which is probably what he was counting on showing up at the airport hangar last night.'

TNR Discovers Socially Moderate Republicans

Thomas B. Edsall's article on Rudy Giuliani in The New Republic (registration required) indicates that someone at TNR has figured out what many of us have known for some time: that the Republican Party of today is no longer the domain of unchallenged social conservatism that it was in the 1970s - and that this bodes well for the Giuliani campaign.

What if we are witnessing not Rudy moving toward the rest of the Republican Party, but rather the Republican Party moving toward Rudy? What if the salience of a certain kind of social conservatism is now in decline among GOP voters and a new set of conservative principles are emerging to take its place? What if Giuilianism represents the future of the Republican Party?

I haven't had the chance to read the article carefully yet, but it looks fairly positive and appears to hit some of the main points that the liberal media have generally missed: that social moderates are now a strong force in the GOP; that Republicans see in Rudy Giuliani a much-needed managerial competence; and that Giuliani's no-nonsense manner and his 9/11 "street cred" are strong assets in his favor.

Here's one more snip from the article:

In brief, among Republican voters, the litmus test issues of abortion and gay marriage have been losing traction, subordinated to the Iraq war and terrorism. According to the Pew Research Center, 31 percent of GOP voters name Iraq as their top priority, and 17 percent choose terrorism and security. Just 7 percent name abortion and 1 percent name gay marriage.

The roots of this transformation predate September 11 and are partly the result of demographics. The lions of the Christian right--Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson--no longer dominate Republican politics as they once did. Their grip is slackening as their older followers are slowly replaced by a generation for which the social, cultural, and sexual mores that were overturned by the 1960s are history, not memory. In retrospect, these men reached the height of their power in the late '80s, when, by a 51-to-42 majority, voters agreed that "school boards ought to have the right to fire teachers who are known homosexuals." Now a decisive 66-to-28 majority disagrees, according to Pew. In 1987, the electorate was roughly split on the question of whether "aids might be God's punishment for immoral sexual behavior." Today, 72 percent disagree with that statement, while just 23 percent concur.

Giuliani is on the cutting edge of these trends, seeking to exploit new ideological lines between conservatism and liberalism. ...

Related.
Desperately seeking Archie Bunker.
Mary Cheney's baby.