Thread: Mrs. Blood for Oil

BY JAMES TARANTO
Monday, October 15, 2007 3:44 p.m. EDT


Mrs. Blood for Oil
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.

"I will make it very clear to the Iranians that there are very serious consequences attached to their actions," Clinton said. . . .

The New York senator, responding to a question, said blocking oil shipments "would be devastating to the world economy."

If the U.S. took military action as a result, she said, "I would hope that the world would see that was an action of last resort, not first resort. Because we need the world to agree with us about the threat that Iran poses to everyone."

Clinton said that is why, as president, she "would immediately open a diplomatic negotiation with Iran over all issues that we disagree with them on."

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."

OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today

Con:

Could it be that Hillary is in favor of Blood for oil when she is President? But not when Bush is? Very consistant...

Hell con, she has be pushing Bush to attack for a while now. Of course the Dem's will say that fine because it's Hitlery, give me a break.

She is smart. She will appoint smart people. She will be a million times better than Bush who isn't so smart and appointed incompetent cronies.

Originally Posted by ViolaLeee

She is smart. She will appoint smart people. She will be a million times better than Bush who isn't so smart and appointed incompetent cronies.

Well I hope that you like war, and having AIPAC digging in to the soul of America!

Originally Posted by ViolaLeee

She is smart. She will appoint smart people. She will be a million times better than Bush who isn't so smart and appointed incompetent cronies.

Thats right, or the ones who were smart, like Colin Powell and he didn't listen to them. Then there were the smart ones like Condoleeza Rice who sold her soul and lied for Bush on command. Bush makes up for his inadequacy by being stubborn, bad qualities for a leader.

fuckin bitches

Originally Posted by ViolaLee

She is smart. She will appoint smart people. She will be a million times better than Bush who isn't so smart and appointed incompetent cronies.

What a laugh. She will appoint smart people. Is she for "blood for oil" or isn't she? Will the anti-war left pull the lever for a woman who said she will attack Iran if oil is not free-flowing?

Do those on the left have their principles? Or like the Republicans...you will be asked to settle for something less than you believe in?

The question is...come november next year...how many anti-war liberals will vote for a woman who will attack Iran for oil and not pull troops by 2013, and how many socially conservative Republicans will pull the lever for a pro-abortion, gun control, gay marriage President?

Originally Posted by michaelr

Hell con, she has be pushing Bush to attack for a while now. Of course the Dem's will say that fine because it's Hitlery, give me a break.

HilBillary pushing Bush to attack Iran? That's news to me.

Originally Posted by Coolio43

HilBillary pushing Bush to attack Iran? That's news to me.

Doesn't suprise me that anything is new to you.

Originally Posted by Inkslinger

Doesn't suprise me that anything is new to you.

Why are you soo obsessed wit' me? Wherever I go you follow...:hissy: