Monday, January 12, 2009
Questions for Hillary's confirmation hearing
The "Shadow Government" blog at Foreign Policy's web site has "47 questions" for Hillary Clinton's confirmation hearing. I hope they keep track of the number that are actually asked.
Anyway, of the proposed questions, many are tedious and predictable. But not all. These interest me the most, either for their originality or the possibility that the answer will not be totally predictable (my supplemental questions added in italics for your general amusement):
And a special bonus exclusive TigerHawk question which was -- unaccountably -- not asked by any of the FP "shadow government":
Release the hounds.
3 Comments:
By 
, at
Mon Jan 12, 05:02:00 PM:
Riddle me this, Hillary.
In lieu of Israel bombing Iran, it's being suggested that the US should create a formal "nuclear umbrella" for Israel. On the campaign trail, you yourself said it more forcefully -- that you'd annihilate Iran if it attacked Israel.
Are we for this or against this? Isn't this tantamount to a treaty that would need Congressional approval, like NATO did? Are we OK with even saying that we'd nuke a lot of Iran civilians in retaliation for dumb things their leaders might do? Won't this drive the Iranians to do a similar deal with the Russians? Won't an explicit or implicit US-Israeli alliance make the US more of a terrorist target around the world? After the Cold War, why would we do this to support any nation -- what do we get out of this?
By 
Dawnfire82, at
Mon Jan 12, 05:23:00 PM:
"Isn't this tantamount to a treaty that would need Congressional approval, like NATO did?"
No, it's a declaration of military policy.
"Are we OK with even saying that we'd nuke a lot of Iran civilians in retaliation for dumb things their leaders might do?"
That's how nuclear weapons work. It's also why we don't want Iran to get them.
"Won't this drive the Iranians to do a similar deal with the Russians?"
Hah! The Russians are not prepared for a new Cold War, and sure as hell aren't going to risk getting into a nuclear exchange over a bunch of Islamists and Jews.
"make the US more of a terrorist target around the world"
How do get higher than #1?
"After the Cold War, why would we do this to support any nation -- what do we get out of this? "
Nuclear deterrence. Iran could feasibly disarm Israel's nuclear arsenal with a first strike. There's no way in hell they could prevent a US counterstrike.
But I suspect you weren't actually looking for answers.
By , at
Mon Jan 12, 10:11:00 PM:
No, but I think Anonymous @ 5:02 is looking for the internal logic of the Obama Administration foreign policy position.
It's one thing to assert such a thing in a campaign to get the Jewish vote in New York and Florida, where it would make a difference (in persuading voters), but costs the candidate absolutely....nothing.
But does this policy make sense, even though it might be the correct one, or the "right one", that we all thought was the "right thing to do"? What are the logical consequences of it if we stated, in fact, that this WAS the official policy of the US Government?
The time is rapidly drawing to a close when the Democrats can throw brickbats at the Bush administration for all the things they don't approve of.
Now, all the sooper geniuses of the Democratic party are going to have to reason their way through this thicket.
Hillary is an inexperienced clown, at best. Obama the Wonderful is about to find out just what limited kind of Foreign Policy team he has put together. They will really be up a creek when they replace Gates as SecDef (I think it will be a year at most).
Hillarity, Panetta, Biden. Somebody wake me up.
-David
