Did Hillary flip-flop on negotiating with Iran?
posted at 11:39 am on October 12, 2007 by Allahpundit
Sort of. There were two parts to this question when it came up at the YouTube debate: (1) would you, as president, negotiate with Iran personally and (2) would you do so without preconditions? The Messiah, being a light unto all nations, said yes to both. The Glacier, being the weaselly pragmatist Krauthammer pegged her as this morning, said “not in my first year” to the first question and addressed the second by saying she’d use “high-level presidential envoys” to test the waters first. Does that mean preconditions? Hard to say — which is the whole point. Vagueness is your friend when you don’t want to be pinned down too tightly to any position. And lucky thing, because wouldn’t you know it, now she’s decided she wouldn’t demand any preconditions either:
[A]sked about it Thursday by a voter, the New York senator said twice that she, too, would negotiate with Iran “with no conditions.”
“I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions, because we don’t really understand how Iran works. We think we do, from the outside, but I think that is misleading,” she said at an apple orchard.
Why this sudden lurch to the left on Iran? Read this post and you’ll see. She’s just making a little amends here to the paranoid pains in the ass of the liberal base.
I leave you with two worthwhile odds and ends. First, go compare the two versions of the AP story that Ben Smith found and see how quickly they clean up those ledes when Hillary’s people get them on the line. Then read Dan Riehl, who catches the Clinton camp doing something all too appropriate on this day of the Goracle’s coronation: namely, recycling.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
J M Hanes, Explain how these high negatives will get Hillary elected.
Mcguyver on October 12, 2007 at 11:50 AM
Hillary, Obama, Edwards …
It doesn’t matter which Dhimmcrat wins, ALL of them are the Party of Neville Chamberlain and all of them will try to negotiate with the unnegotiable. Hillary even says it herself “…we don’t really understand how Iran works.” Well Einstein, some people DO understand how Iran works and YOU should LISTEN to them! Go on your little ‘listening tour’ and *listen* to Ayaan Hirsi Ali: “Negotiating with Iran is a waste of time”. Are you listening to THAT?
The longer you negotiate, the weaker you look in the eyes of the islamic enemy and the more dangerous they become.
Now listen to Winston Churchill – “Appeasement only makes the aggressor more aggressive.”
Tony737 on October 12, 2007 at 12:25 PM
It’s only a flip flop if you don’t understand that everything that comes out of her mouth is a lie made up on the spot to win another vote. Different lie tomorrow for a different vote.
Buzzy on October 12, 2007 at 12:40 PM
Oh man are they going to be a liability come the general election. It’s going to be tough pleasing the base as you pitch to those swing voters. It’ll be fun to watch her turn herself into a pretzel.
smellthecoffee on October 12, 2007 at 12:50 PM
not really, to hillary the base doesn’t matter after the primaries, who are they going to vote for, the republican candidate?
Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on October 12, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Can we stop with the silly Neville Chamberlain references already? Iran doesn’t have a tenth the military might or the will of Nazi Germany. It’s not the same. The only country they really pose a threat to is Israel, which has 300-500 nukes. They can take care of themselves, trust me. Iran is open to negotiation. Iran does not support al Qaeda. Have we already forgotten that Iranian soldiers fought in Afghanistan in 2001 and helped use overthrow the Taliban? They’re not unreasonable. Their president is unreasonable and bloodthirsty, but he has no real power, so it is just empty rhetoric.
Mark Jaquith on October 12, 2007 at 2:24 PM
J M Hanes,
Rush Limbaugh on his radio show just emphasized this very issue, that, the Democrats are very concerned Hillary cannot win, hence the massive grassroots support for Al Gore to run.
Mcguyver on October 12, 2007 at 2:27 PM
There’s nothing silly about it, the comparison is not about their military capabilities but their willingness to use what they have after saying they won’t. Trying to talk ‘em out of it is useless when they believe allah has commanded them to take over the world for islam. Just as useless as it was for Theo Van Gogh to say “Can’t we talk about this?” right before he was brutally murdered. There is no negotiation when you’re basically just talkin’ to yourself. When Iran gets a nuke, we won’t be able to negotiate our way out of them using it, they don’t care about M.A.D. because they believe that in the end, islam wins, just like Hitler believed that in the end, NaZiism would win. The comparison stands.
Tony737 on October 12, 2007 at 2:46 PM
But didn’t she say that by agreeing to meet with Iran without pre-conditions that Obama was naive and showing his inexperience?
ctmom on October 12, 2007 at 3:23 PM
Gotta respectfully disagree with you there, Mark. The EU3 tried negotiating for 3+ years and all iran did was get that much further with their nuclear program.
Negotiation with iran simply won’t work.
And yes, ahmamadjihadi is crazy, but so are the mullahs who are the real power. Iran will have to be dealt with, at some point. It’s inevitable. Lucky for us, all we have to do to cripple them is take out their one gas refinery.
techno_barbarian on October 12, 2007 at 4:28 PM
Yes she did. And she was correct when she said that. But she’s a clintoon and now she’s simply triangulating. She’ll hold all positions before it’s over. Just watch and see.
techno_barbarian on October 12, 2007 at 4:30 PM
Has Hillary created a monster with MoveOn.org? Now they’re attacking John Dingell and Barney Frank? Too funny.
Hillary attacks Obama with snooze-inducing talking points for “giving up on the politics of hope? Yep, she’s hoping no one rattles any of the skeletons in her closet. Besides, she has a better plan! Politics for dopes.
Did anyone hear Rush’s latest hillary parody yesterday? It was hillarious.
Buy Danish on October 13, 2007 at 9:45 AM