Interesting read by Stephen Kinzer despite the confusing headline in which Stephen questions clouding of Hillary Clintons moral, which is very hard as she is amoral. Here are some excerpts from the attached article; Throughout her career, Clinton has stayed well within the Washington paradigm on foreign policy issues. Like many American politicians who came of age during the Cold War, she takes an us-versus-them view of the world. She has never dissented from the Washington chorus that portrays Iran as an irredeemable font of evil. Had she remained on the job as secretary of state rather than resigning and paving the way for Kerry, the United States would certainly not have made an effort to engage Iran. Now that a preliminary agreement has been struck and international inspectors are monitoring Irans retreat from its nuclear program, it is reasonable for Americans to expect their leaders to say whether they favor or oppose this process. That is especially true of Clinton, who until a year ago was the global face of US foreign policy. Yet her silence has been deafening. Clinton has a habit of not taking any position until it is clear which position will be most politically beneficial. No doubt we will find out Hillary Clintons true convictions just as soon as her focus groups report in or her major donors tell her what to think, Stephen Walt wrote in his Foreign Policy blog. Clintons choice is clear. If she opposes détente with Iran, she will look like a warmonger who prefers confrontation to diplomacy. If she supports it, she will alienate a vital part of the base she is relying on to finance her presidential campaign. With this in mind, she has chosen to remain silent on the central foreign policy issue of the age. It is a classic act of political cowardice – the kind that often leads to victory at the polls. Needless to say I feel sick to my stomach thinking about Hillary Clinton as a leader of free world.
Posted on: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 05:40:56 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015