| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Hillary endorses "Blood for Oil"??? |
| 2007-10-15 |
| James Taranto, "Best of the Web" @ Wall Street Journal Consider the following reasons why America might consider military action against Iran: -- To save Israel from nuclear annihilation. -- To prevent a nuclear arms race between Iran and neighboring Arab regimes. -- To keep Iran's mullahs from acquiring a nuclear deterrent, which would give them leverage in Iraq and make it easier for them to wage terror elsewhere with impunity. -- To topple Tehran's repressive, theocratic regime. -- To protect America's oil supplies. What if we told you one of the presidential candidates accepted the last rationale--blood for oil!--but rejected arguments for war based on concerns about human rights or nuclear proliferation? Based on the media stereotypes, you'd probably think Dick Cheney had thrown his hat in. The Associated Press has the real story from Florence, S.C.: Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton advocated talks to settle differences with Iran but said Saturday that Tehran would invite U.S. action if it were to disrupt oil supplies. Mrs. Clinton is in a difficult spot when it comes to Iran. On the one hand, she doesn't want to seem soft in front of the general electorate. On the other hand, she doesn't want to seem firm lest she alienate the Angry Left in her own party. The position she's put forward is clearly a compromise. Yet you'd think from the Angry Left's rhetoric that promising war for oil--the way they disparage every American military action in the Middle East--would be the least likely approach to appease them. Then again, if Mrs. Clinton can hold on to her Angry Left support despite this, she will have proved herself to be a truly deft politician. Maybe this is Mrs. Clinton's "Sister Souljah moment." |
| Posted by:Mike |