Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been in a tiff these past couple of weeks over Obama's various foreign-policy miscues. There's no doubt that Mrs. Clinton is getting the better of the dispute, if only by default, since Obama is showing himself to be as callow and shallow as Mrs. Clinton had hoped and as anyone who thinks he has a chance of being elected could fear.
But now it turns out that Mrs. Clinton, who criticized Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons, did so herself about a year ago. The Associated Press reports:
[Mrs.] Clinton, who has tried to cast her rival as too inexperienced for the job of commander in chief, said of Obama's stance on Pakistan: "I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons."
But that's exactly what she did in an interview with Bloomberg Television in April 2006. The New York senator, a member of the Armed Services committee, was asked about reports that the Bush administration was considering military intervention--possibly even a nuclear strike--to prevent Iran from escalating its nuclear program.
"I have said publicly no option should be off the table, but I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," Clinton said. "This administration has been very willing to talk about using nuclear weapons in a way we haven't seen since the dawn of a nuclear age. I think that's a terrible mistake."
She's entitled to change her mind, of course, but spokesman Phil Singer's explanation is far from convincing:
"She was asked to respond to specific reports that the Bush-Cheney administration was actively considering nuclear strikes on Iran even as it refused to engage diplomatically," he said. "She wasn't talking about a broad hypothetical nor was she speaking as a presidential candidate. Given the saber-rattling that was coming from the Bush White House at the time, it was totally appropriate and necessary to respond to that report and call it the wrong policy."
That "nor was she speaking as a presidential candidate" is priceless. Nor, for that matter, was the administration--which she was criticizing for taking essentially the position she takes now--speaking as a freshman senator. But this really amounts to an admission that Mrs. Clinton's position, at least on this topic, is driven by politics rather than principle. Is it possible that this is true of other views of hers as well?
opinionjournal.com |
