In a speech at the Wilson Center, Hillary Clinton condemned the Administration's policy on Iran. She warned of the dire threat of Iranian nuclear proliferation and said that the Administration was wrong in pursuing multilateral negotiations through our European allies England, France and Germany. She demanded immediate UN sanctions.

While Mrs. Clinton is correct about the toothlessness of our so-called allies across the pond, doesn't this go against the Demcrat's position that the US should not go it alone in ventures like Iraq? Iraq and Iran stand as polar opposites: in Iraq, the US led the effort and ignored the world criticism. Iraq is now counting the votes of its first parlimentary government. In Iran, the US followed all the policies urged upon them by the left: multilateralism that worked closely with our traditional European allies and only used force with UN approval. The result: Iran is on the verge of developing a working nuke. This result will happen sooner or later in spite of optimistic "estimates" that Iran is still several years away. Will it take a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv to force the UN and EU to act?

In any event, it is curious that Mrs. Clinton has pitched her national defense tent to the hawkish right of the President on Iran. Does shw rightfully consider pandering to the anti-war left as a waste of time if you want to get elected President?

- posted by Base10 @ 3:04 PM