Hillary's AIPAC Flub?
According to the Ny Post, Hillary made a bit of a misstep last night at the AIPAC dinner:
Ynet has more on her speech, and the take is more charitable to her than the Post's. (An obnoxious commenter points out that it's AP's take, which I thought was obvious to all by the words "Associated Press" on top of the article.)
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton drew grumbles at a pro-Israel dinner in Times Square last night when she encouraged "engaging" with Iran before taking stronger action to keep it nuke-free.Truth be told, there was nothing particularly egregiously anti-Israel in what she said. However, as far as a politician choosing his/her words carefully based on the crowd goes, Hillary (well, her handlers) seem to have miscalculated slightly in front of this strongly pro-Israel crowd. In any event, this certainly isn't the first time a politician has made an error such as this, and I don't think this episode will go down as anything more than a slight blip on the radar (if even that) for Hillary, who usually proves herself to be quite good at pandering.
Clinton said she wasn't sure "anything positive would come out of it" and she didn't know if it was "the smartest strategy to take," but added, "There are a number of factors that I think argue for some attempt to do what I have suggested."
She called for a better understanding of how Iran "really functions," warning actions beyond sanctions could increase danger in the region.
"I also want to send a message, if we ever do have to take more drastic action, to the rest of the world that we exhausted all possibilities," said Clinton, who earlier rapped President Bush for refusing to engage Tehran.
Clinton's remarks at the Marriott Marquis were met with little applause , and after she left the stage, several people said they were put off by the presidential candidate.
"This is the wrong crowd to do that with," said one person at the dinner, noting the pro-Israel crowd wanted to hear tougher rhetoric.
Ynet has more on her speech, and the take is more charitable to her than the Post's. (An obnoxious commenter points out that it's AP's take, which I thought was obvious to all by the words "Associated Press" on top of the article.)
posted by orthomom at 7:44 AM
17 Comments:
Um, Mom, that article you refer to on Ynet is an Associated Press story. So when you say it's Ynet's "take" on the event, you reveal a startling lack of media savvy. It's simply a web outlet carryong a wire service report. It's not Ynet's "take" on anything. Please stick to rolling some gefilte fish for the baal habayit.
ZOA Calls For Retraction & Apology After Sec'y Rice Calls Hamas "A Resistance Movement"
February 01, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Morton A. Klein, 212-481-1500
New York — The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has asked the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, for a retraction and apology to the victims of Hamas terrorism for describing the Islamist terrorist group, Hamas, as a “resistance movement” when speaking to reporters in Europe (State Department, January 18, 2007). Hamas’ Charter calls for the destruction of Israel (Article 15) and the murder of Jews (Article 7) and quotes the anti-Semitic forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, as justification for its war on Jews (Article 32). It is listed on the State Department list of terrorist organizations. Since the start of the Palestinian Arab terrorist wave in September 2000, Hamas has murdered nearly 500 Israelis and maimed thousands more in scores of suicide bombings and hundreds of other terrorist attacks targeting civilians. Since winning Palestinian legislative elections in January 2006, Hamas has explicitly refused to recognize Israel, accept its legitimacy as a Jewish state, or foreswear and denounce terrorism.
Unfortunately, this sort of inappropriate positive spin on troubling aspects of Palestinian Arab society does not seem to be an aberration, but in fact is pattern for Secretary Rice. In a speech she made last October, Rice drew an analogy of Palestinian actions and dreams to the American struggle for independence, which implied an odious comparison of Yasser Arafat and Hamas leaders to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, thereby legitimizing the Palestinian promotion of Israel’s destruction and their hatred and murder of Jews. She also echoed Palestinian propaganda statements, criticizing Israel for the “daily humiliation of occupation,” thereby ignoring that Judea, Samaria and Gaza are not occupied territory, but disputed territory, and that Israel has given away half of Judea and Samaria and all of Gaza, where 98% of Palestinian Arabs live. She also claimed that “there could be no greater legacy for America than to establish a Palestinian state” (State Department, October 11, 2006).
On previous occasions, Rice has demanded that Israel accept the 2003 Roadmap peace plan with no changes and pressured Israel to give up control of security routes on the Gaza-Egypt border, ease control at checkpoints, transfer weapons to Palestinian security personnel and release terrorist Marwan Barghouti from jail. She also pressured Israel into the disastrous decision to relinquish security control of the Philadelphi Corridor along the Gaza-Egypt border, thus allowing Palestinian Arab terrorists to smuggle into Gaza huge amounts of weaponry.
Is Secretary Rice’s claim that Hamas is a “resistance movement” part of a larger pattern of sanitizing the Palestinian Arabs, their goals and conduct, and thus part of an attempt to force Israel into a path of further, disastrous concessions to the terrorist-supporting Palestinian Authority (PA)? This pressure has been exercised despite the clear PA failure to fulfill its commitments under the signed Oslo agreements and the 2003 Roadmap peace plan to jail arrest and extradite terrorists, confiscate their weaponry and close the bomb factories, as well as to end the incitement to hatred and murder in the PA-controlled media, mosques, schools and youth camps that feed terrorism.
ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, “We respectfully request that Secretary Rice both clarify and apologize to the victims of Hamas terror, which includes 27 Americans killed and 39 wounded and nearly 500 Israelis killed plus the many thousands more maimed in scores of suicide bombings and hundreds of other acts of Hamas terrorism. Hamas is one of the most murderous terrorist groups in the world and can by no stretch of the imagination be described as a ‘resistance organization.’”
* * *
It's so lame that the AIPAC audience member quoted in the article was digruntled because they Hillary didn't pander to at the extent he anticipated.
Why would any sane person demand to be told what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear? Hillary gets points for at least speaking her mind.
Even if we emphatically disagree, and won't vote for her, it's refreshing to hear Hillary state a genuine opinion.
Um, Mom, that article you refer to on Ynet is an Associated Press story. So when you say it's Ynet's "take" on the event, you reveal a startling lack of media savvy. It's simply a web outlet carryong a wire service report. It's not Ynet's "take" on anything.
a "startling lack of media savvy"? How so? This is the article YNet published, and there is a "take" contained within. You have issues, "Heshy".
"Even if we emphatically disagree, and won't vote for her, it's refreshing to hear Hillary state a genuine opinion."
Refreshing from Hilary, you mean. that woman hasnt stated a genuine opinion on Israel since she took her office. its been all pandering all the time.
Ah, there it is, I love it.
Hillay can never be "sincere"
but bushie and co are never pandering.
The Town Crier said...
Ah, there it is, I love it.
Hillay can never be "sincere"
but bushie and co are never pandering.
Why do you say that? I think "bushie and co" are just as willing to pander as Hillary. Come on, these are politicians. Let's call a spade a spade. If you think that Hillary was looking to make waves with her speech last night at AIPAC, you're mistaken. Show me a pol who doesn't pander, and I'll show you an also-ran.
Thats what I mean. Has anyone ever spoke (as did the previous commenter) about Bush or Rice? Or do they enver doubt the sincererity of the their "best friends" they ever had?
Ummm... this story is about Hillary Clinton, not Condi & Bush.
More to the point, it's a good preview of what to expect from a Clinton campaign. She seems to be reading from a combined Bill Clinton/Kerry playbook. We should engage (read: talk endlessly), irrespective of any chances for success. To help obfuscate, label it a really complicated situation calling for nuance and the lack of an identifiable position, since we need a "better understanding of how Iran 'really functions.'"
No clear statements of policy, and no policy other than procrastination through negotiations. Because after 8 years, it'll just be someone else's problem.
Although I dont believe that W is the sharpest tool in the shed, I do believe his intentions are pure. Hillary on the other hand, has had years of personal training from the least honest pol this country has ever known. Everything that comes out of that womans mouth is carfully crafted by her "team". In this situation however (although a little flub like this wont kill her) the "team" screwed up.
ddqwd
Officials: White House Holding Back Report Detailing Iran's Meddling in Iraq
Is it anti-Israel to argue that the U.S. should talk to the Iranian government before starting the bombing? Only if your idea of being pro-Israel is to pander to the most right-wing elements of the American Jewish community, like Mort Klein's ZOA.
First Ms. Hillary kissed Arafat's wife on the upper cheek. Now she wants to kiss the Iranians on the lower cheek.
Ahmanijad is not popular in Iran. Why would anyone be eager to go to war with Iran? There is enough of a mess in Iraq. All the geniuses who thought Bush was helping Israel look fully exposed right now as dummies.
Sensible said...
Ahmanijad is not popular in Iran. Why would anyone be eager to go to war with Iran? There is enough of a mess in Iraq. All the geniuses who thought Bush was helping Israel look fully exposed right now as dummies.
This post isn't about whether Hillary's right. it's about whether she flubbed by discussing these views in front of the crowd she was addressing. Politicians do generally try had to be politic. Especially those who are trying for higher office.
Hillary "I'LL END THE WAR" Great headline but no substance. If she has a plan to end the war-share it with the world. She loves to use soundbites but doesn't offer any solutions or plans to support her statement. Let her back up her statement with her plan. She must have one; she made the statement! Why do we have to wait until she's elected? Doesn't she represent ALL of us now?
its amazing to me how intelligent people can be duped time and time again by either or both of the clintons- there isn't a person i;ve spoken to who said they would vote for her as senator yet there she is in the senate! and now, the thought of her possibly being in the white house again is just plain frightening! she is the quintessential chameleon- she'll tell you whatever you want to hear, and if she's ever caught, she say she misunderstood or blames it on someone else for misleading her- she messed up the whole health care system and then walked away without cleaning it up- to this day everyone is affected by that mess up. she's a liar, palin and simple. and she's dangerous because she doesn't care what happens to anyone or anything as long as she gets what she wants-the white house- and g-d help us to know what she plans on doing there becuase there's no way she'll ever let you knmow for sure before she gets there!
Post a Comment
<< Home