Some viewers of last night's Democratic debate in Philadelphia were stunned that what sounded like a major new and potentially controversial foreign-policy proposal from Sen. Hillary Clinton slipped by without its being highlighted and expanded on by major news media. Sounds like grist for some followups as the week winds down.
Clinton was responding to a question from former Clinton administration flack George Stephanopolous of whether it should be U.S. policy to treat an Iranian attack on Israel "as if it were an attack on the United States."
"“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.”
Later in her answer she cited Saudia Arabia and Kuwait (click continued bar below for partial transcript on this question) in particular.
Some of the cyberspace reaction:
The blog of the Foreign Policy Association sees the difference between the candidates as one of more tone than substance., but says: "Phrases like 'trigger massive retaliation' — usually meant to imply the use of nuclear weapons — should probably not be used in campaign debates at all. But to use them at the same time that one is promising — irrespective of military advice — to begin a withdrawal of military forces from Iraq within 60 days of taking office, sends a mixed signal to the region that we would do well to avoid."
A Daily Kos blogger warns that further explanation is needed as to just what her plans are.
The debate host ABC Web site quotes, among others, Doug Bandow, a former special assistant to President Reagan, calling her proposal a dangerous one.
Here is a pro-Hillary, or anti-Obama, piece.
Here is a colorful anti-Hillary (and anti-Bush) rant.
George Stephanopolous asks:
“Should it be U.S. policy now to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the United States?”
Obama, on followup question: “As I've said before, I think it is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we -- one whose security we consider paramount, and that -- that would be an act of aggression that we -- that I would -- that I would consider an attack that is unacceptable, and the United States would take appropriate action.”
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: “Senator Clinton, would you?
SENATOR CLINTON: “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.”
“...We've got to deter other countries from feeling that they have to acquire nuclear weapons. You can't go to the Saudis or the Kuwaitis or UAE and others who have a legitimate concern about Iran and say: Well, don't acquire these weapons to defend yourself unless you're also willing to say we will provide a deterrent backup and we will let the Iranians know that, yes, an attack on Israel would trigger massive retaliation, but so would an attack on those countries that are willing to go under this security umbrella and forswear their own nuclear ambitions.”
Comments (1)
Wow. This is frightening. Why isn't anyone talking about this? She really is more republican than McCain.