Pandering For Naught To The War For Israel Machine
Reuters photo of Hillary at AIPAC Thursday night
Hillary did her part to pander to AIPAC Thursday night, when she, like John Edwards, issued the tough yet nonsensical talk aimed at Iran. She was perhaps more nuanced in what she said that Edwards, yet still focused on doing whatever is necessary to stop Iran from developing and obtaining nuclear weapons.
"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," Clinton told the audience. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."
Senator, exactly how do you plan to stop Iran from building or acquiring nuclear weapons?
"We need to use every tool at our disposal, including diplomatic and economic in addition to the threat and use of military force," she said.
The only difference between Hillary’s position and Bush’s policy is that she favors the ISG approach of opening and maintaining a dialogue with Iran and Syria. But other than that, Hillary would be willing it seems to start a war with Iran to stop their nuclear program. And yet it still didn't help her with AIPAC and the rest of the "War for Israel" machine, who probably are upset that the administration still can't make its case for justifying a new war in Iran by tying it to their current war in Iraq.
The Atlantic Monthly’s James Fallows makes a suggestion that the blogosphere has been chatting about for months. Why shouldn’t Congress just push to the endgame now and pass a resolution that states its opposition to a war with Iran?
I’ll tell you why Mr. Fallows. Because this congress, Hillary among them, will not support such a resolution.
Glenn Greenwald has a great post up today about how Democratic candidates for president pander to the War for Israel lobby in this country, for campaign cash and to avoid being labeled as an anti-Semite. The Hillary’s and Edwards of this campaign cycle don’t have the guts to tackle this issue dead on. They can't and won't state that our national interest doesn't necessarily mesh with the demands of the “War for Israel” machine, and that a growing number of Jews are against another war as well. They won't challenge the War for Israel ATM, and Bush/Cheney know it, and they dance around the polls that show no support for these policies amongst the American people. There will be no Sister Souljah moment with the War for Israel war machine.
If the candidates won’t do it, the blogosphere needs to have this dialogue openly and with members of the media itself, so that the narrative can be established in earnest and a debate can start. The neocons and the War For Israel machine have programmed the media and the Beltway to think this country supports an American militarization and control of the Middle East, when in fact recent polling shows a total rejection of the Bush/Cheney foreign policy. It is time for us in the blogs to talk about this, and for us to tell well-intentioned and thoughtful guys like Fallows that what he suggests on Iran will never happen and why it will never happen. Rather, it is far better for Congress to rescind and recast the 2001 AUMF and to revisit the 2002 Iraq war resolution, and to finally have the real debate we needed to have back in 2002 about America's national interests.
The War For Israel machine has already pushed us along into one debacle. It's time to throw a flag before it happens again.