(Sept. 18, 2009) "Where is Hillary Clinton in the Great Missile Defence Surrender?" (By Con Coughlin, Telegraph.co.uk)

[LadyLazarus]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/concoughlin/100010436/where-is-hillary-clinton-in-the-great-missile-defence-surrender/

Excuse me, but when Washington announces a revolutionary change in the way it conducts its relations with the outside world it is normal for the American Secretary of State to be involved in some way.

So where’s Hillary Clinton? We’ve heard a lot from President Barack Obama and Robert Gates, the Defence Secretary, about their lamentable decision to abandon the missile defence system in Europe, which has been a key pillar of the transatlantic alliance for a decade or more. But we’ve heard not a squeak from Mrs Clinton.

Could this be that, unlike Mr Obama and Mr Gates, she sees this decision for what it is, an abject surrender of American influence in Europe, and a shocking betrayal of all those former vassal states of the Soviet Union that are desperately seeking the support and protection of the West?

Compared with Mr Obama and Mr Gates, whose first instinct when faced with an international crisis is to make concessions, Mrs Clinton is a more hard-headed and hawkish operator. She might want to “reset” Washington’s relations with Moscow, but not at the expense of capitulating to Iran’s attempts to terrorise the world with its nuclear programme.

She, for one, will not be at all surprised that, within 24 hours of Mr Obama’s decision to abandon the missile defence system, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appears on American television declaring that Tehran will never abandon its nuclear programme.

This is precisely the kind of response you can expect if you try to appease dictators, which is how Tehran will interpret the cancellation of the missile system. But I suspect Mrs Clinton has her own views on how to respond to this increased bellicosity from Iran, and it does not involve rolling over and having her tummy tickled by the mullahs.

Con Coughlin, the Telegraph's executive foreign editor, is a world-renowned expert on the Middle East and Islamic terrorism. He is the author of several critically acclaimed books. His new book, Khomeini's Ghost, is published by Macmillan.

[NativeSun]

She's probably holding her tongue and breathing into a paper bag. Maybe this is her sign that's it's time to go. Either the WH didn't communicate this change to her, or they did and ignored her advice. Either way it's not good.

[Ikasu]

Con Coughlin, the Telegraph's executive foreign editor, is a world-renowned expert on the Middle East and Islamic terrorism. He is the author of several critically acclaimed books. His new book, Khomeini's Ghost, is published by Macmillan.

Coughlin lost his credibility with the Habbush letter.

[foxyladi]

She's probably holding her tongue and breathing into a paper bag. Maybe this is her sign that's it's time to go. Either the WH didn't communicate this change to her, or they did and ignored her advice. Either way it's not good.

hillarystamp!hillarystamp!

[LadyLazarus]

Her silence is curious though, isn't it? :thinking:

[TheTaoOfBill]

Do you guys honestly think Hillary is not in on this? Do you think she's that weak? If Obama did something she disagreed with strongly she's the type of woman who would not be afraid to take a stand. Hillary doesn't allow anyone to walk over her.

[VotingHillary]

Do you guys honestly think Hillary is not in on this? Do you think she's that weak? If Obama did something she disagreed with strongly she's the type of woman who would not be afraid to take a stand. Hillary doesn't allow anyone to walk over her.

She probably did take a hard stand. Hence, why we don't see her. After all, as we are continually reminded, she is not the POTUS.

[LadyLazarus]

Do you guys honestly think Hillary is not in on this? Do you think she's that weak? If Obama did something she disagreed with strongly she's the type of woman who would not be afraid to take a stand. Hillary doesn't allow anyone to walk over her.

Um. . . since we supported her during last year's election, I think we're in a better position than you to assess the strengths of her character, and I wish you would quit with the patronizing lectures about women taking a stand. Your sudden and curious support of Hillary might sound more convincing if you had actually voted for her.

And I'm not sure what gave you the impression that we really didn't think she was "in on this"? Her silence in no way implies she's not in on it.

[jlynne]

It's good to see an article that points out the distinctions between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Too many people still act as if they are interchangeable.

I can't say for sure what Hillary is doing. But I suspect that she is working overtime to limit the fallout from Obama's decision. I am sure she is trying to mitigate the damage its done to our allies (and to our relationship with our allies) as much as possible.

[VotingHillary]

It's good to see an article that points out the distinctions between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Too many people still act as if they are interchangeable.

I can't say for sure what Hillary is doing. But I suspect that she is working overtime to limit the fallout from Obama's decision. I am sure she is trying to mitigate the damage its done to our allies (and to our relationship with our allies) as much as possible.

hillarystamp!

[Laura Cereta]

Her silence is curious though, isn't it? :thinking:

Yes, it's a little odd...

[VotingHillary]

Yes, it's a little odd...



Do you think she is getting ready to "bug out" of this adminstration before it taints her?

[Ikasu]

Um guys, she does support this decision. We are planning to create a defense umbrella for the middle east in case Iran develops any nuclear weapons. That's why we are moving an expensive system that probably doesn't even work out of Eastern Europe. It's part of a larger strategy. Here are her comments on Iran:

"If the U.S. extends a defense umbrella over the region, if we do even more to support the military capacity of those in the Gulf, it's unlikely that Iran will be any stronger or safer because they won't be able to intimidate and dominate as they apparently believe they can once they have a nuclear weapon."

This is what is now being proposed by Obama and Gates. To build a system in the middle east with proven technology to protect oil producing nations and Israel from any threat from Iran. She was part of the decision all along. The SOS does not have to make a statement on every detail concerning the White House and defense department.

She also said, "I am simply pointing out that Iran needs to understand that its pursuit of nuclear weapons will not advance its security. It faces the prospect, if it pursues nuclear weapons, of sparking an arms race in the region."

So the US is not conceding anything to Iran yet. There's still plenty of room in stopping Iran from obtaining these weapons. But what Obama-Gates-Clinton are doing is smart strategic thinking for the future of the region.

Also keep in mind that Hillary discussed the idea of a defense umbrella over the middle east during the primary campaign. Obama may have very well received this idea from Hillary Clinton herself with the technical advice from Robert Gates.

It's a team environment guys. I'm not an insider, but I think Obama, Clinton, and Gates work well together. Let's not assume the worst just because of some past conflicts between the two.

[Ikasu]

It's good to see an article that points out the distinctions between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Too many people still act as if they are interchangeable.


I didn't catch this last night. No, they're not interchangeable, but it's undeniable that they have a similar general outlook on the world or else she would have never taken the job in the first place. I would say Hillary was to the left of Obama on economic issues during the primary although people here don't see it that way.

[TheTaoOfBill]

Um. . . since we supported her during last year's election, I think we're in a better position than you to assess the strengths of her character, and I wish you would quit with the patronizing lectures about women taking a stand. Your sudden and curious support of Hillary might sound more convincing if you had actually voted for her.

And I'm not sure what gave you the impression that we really didn't think she was "in on this"? Her silence in no way implies she's not in on it.

I don't need to support Hillary to know who she is and how she handles herself. The reason she put up such a great fight in the primaries is for the exact reason I gave. And I fail to see what my post had anything to do with women taking a stand. Much less me patronizing the idea of women taking a stand. Quite frankly I'm appalled that you would accuse me of patronizing such a thing.

[TheTaoOfBill]

I didn't catch this last night. No, they're not interchangeable, but it's undeniable that they have a similar general outlook on the world or else she would have never taken the job in the first place. I would say Hillary was to the left of Obama on economic issues during the primary although people here don't see it that way.

She was definitely further to the left on Healthcare.

[CGP]

Con Coughlin, the Telegraph's executive foreign editor, is a world-renowned expert on the Middle East and Islamic terrorism. He is the author of several critically acclaimed books. His new book, Khomeini's Ghost, is published by Macmillan.

Perhaps he didn't wait long enough before writing this article? The UK is 5 hours ahead of east-coast USA - maybe Hillary was still sleeping while Coughlin was preparing this slam?!!

Hillary Clinton has made various public statements about the changes to the missile-defense system plans, as evidenced in other news articles from September 18.

[LadyLazarus]

And I fail to see what my post had anything to do with women taking a stand. Much less me patronizing the idea of women taking a stand. Quite frankly I'm appalled that you would accuse me of patronizing such a thing.

I have to be honest and say that I have no idea what it is you're trying to argue here. And I may need a translator if you don't help to clarify things.

she's the type of woman who would not be afraid to take a stand.

I'm sorry, what was that about your post having nothing to do with women taking a stand???

Do you think she's that weak?

And FYI, this is the language I found particularly patronizing in your post. It's a logical fallacy called "loaded question" in which an interrogee's guilt is assumed by the interrogator. The question is "loaded" with a faulty presupposition. In your case, the faulty presupposition is that we think Hillary is weak.

Why would you assume any Hillary supporter would think Hillary is "that weak" ? We obviously think very highly of her or we wouldn't have supported her in the Primary and beyond. And the fact that we voted for her in the Primary and you didn't obviously shows that we think more highly of her strength than you do, so to be lectured by you on this subject is just an exercise in pure absurdity.

[TheTaoOfBill]

So, your post had nothing to do with women taking a stand???
Where in that quote am I talking about more than one woman? You're making a very serious accusation that I am being patronizing towards women and yet you can't even show that I'm talking about women in general. I'm talking about Hillary Clinton.

If I had said "Obama is the type of man who's not afraid to take a stand" would you take that as me patronizing men?

If you're going to make a serious accusation against me then it better be more than bullshit you read too far into. I don't take to kindly to implications that I am a sexist or that I am patronizing women.


And FYI, this is the language I found particularly patronizing in your post. It's a logical fallacy called "loaded question" in which an interrogee's guilt is assumed by the interrogator. The question is "loaded" with a faulty presupposition. In your case, the faulty presupposition is that we think Hillary is weak.

Why would you assume any Hillary supporter would think Hillary is "that weak" ? We obviously think very highly of her or we wouldn't have supported her in the Primary and beyond. And the fact that we voted for her in the Primary and you didn't obviously shows that we think more highly of her strength than you do, so to be lectured by you on this subject is just an exercise in pure absurdity.
I didn't just bring up this sentiment that Obama is walking all over Hillary. This is something that has been talked about since Hillary took the job. A lot of Hillary supporters think Obama is doing things against her will and the very topic of this thread suggests such.

[LadyLazarus]

If you're going to make a serious accusation against me then it better be more than bullshit you read too far into. I don't take to kindly to implications that I am a sexist or that I am patronizing women.

Seriously, you need to check yourself. Nobody is making a "serious accusation." And nobody called your post sexist. What I did was call attention to the patronizing tone of your post. And you seem waaaay too defensive on this subject, imho.

And what you still haven't been able to figure out is that YOU cannot be the judge of whether or not YOUR words or actions are patronizing or offensive to others. Only OTHERS who are the RECIPIENTS of your words or actions can be the judge of that. Do you get that? I mean, what do people on this board have to do to make you realize this basic concept. People who break rules of decorum or say rude or offensive things do so largely because they are unaware that their actions are rude or offensive. The fact that you still do not get how patronizing your post was is a case in point. You are completely blinded to the way you speak to others.

In toto, racists are usually unaware that they are racists.

And sexists are usually unaware that they are sexists.

(And before you go bouncing off the walls, I'm not calling you either a racist or a sexist; I'm using these two ideas as a frame of reference.)

[Spang]

In toto, racists are usually unaware that they are racists.

And sexists are usually unaware that they are sexists.

I agree.

[Ikasu]

I agree.

I agree too.

[CGP]

In toto, racists are usually unaware that they are racists.

And sexists are usually unaware that they are sexists.

Very true.

Same goes for homophobes and other types of bigots.

Once people finally grasp the seriousness and destructiveness of their bigotry, it's hard to maintain it.