February 26, 2005
THE SHIELD (via Michael Burns):
HILL'S IRAQ SLAP (NILES LATHEM, February 25, 2005, NY Post)
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has touched off a diplomatic flap with Iraq's incoming government by questioning whether the leading candidate to become the next prime minister is too close to Iran's ayatollahs.The likely new prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, shot back at Clinton, who just completed a visit to Iraq, by questioning her credibility as a spokeswoman for U.S. foreign policy.
"Hillary Clinton, as far as I know, does not represent any political decision or the American administration and I don't know why she said this," al-Jaafari told The Times of London.
"She knows nothing about the Iraq situation," he added.
Clinton had infuriated al-Jaafari — selected this week by the dominant Shiite political conglomerate to become prime minister — by saying his past connections to Iran are cause for "concern."
The former first lady, considering running for president in 2008, ignited the diplomatic tempest after she appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday and noted al-Jaafari's leadership of the Dawa Party, a conservative Shiite group with longstanding ties to Iran.
"There are grounds for concern and for vigilance about this," said Clinton, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
It's obviously in our interest--and that of the Iraqis--to have a "bad cop" prodding them when they show signs of getting out of line. That Ms Clinton would take on such a thankless role suggests she's capable of putting public concerns ahead of private interest. Posted by Orrin Judd at February 26, 2005 12:28 PM
Or just demonstrating why Slick Willy put her in charge of the "Health Care Task Force" and didn't make her his cheif foreign policy advisor.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at February 26, 2005 1:56 PMWow, OJ, you are certainly giving her a lot of credit here. This looks like standard issue partisan sniping to me.
Posted by: PapayaSF at February 26, 2005 2:12 PMYeah - The Nation had an article claiming how similar the Shia and Sunni were, and I think this is simply the left's attempt to discredit the elections or any progress in Iraq.
Posted by: mike at February 26, 2005 3:23 PMAnd when this Shia regime turns out to be more or less democratic, what is the Hildebeest going to say then?
That any democratically-elected Iraqi regime would not adopt the Emily's List platform without amendment does not mean that anybody, other than the womyn's rights community, in the US would see them as undemocratic or unfair.
Posted by: Bart at February 26, 2005 5:32 PMThe tack that the nominee took in attacking Shrillary is significant: It essentially is an observation that, possessing little to no power to influence the situation, she can throw about baseless accusations and assertions without having to take any risks. If you have no cash, it is relatively safe to speak out because you CAN'T put money (that you don't have) where your mouth is.
How subtle.
Probably went right over their heads...
Posted by: Ptah at February 26, 2005 6:55 PMThere is another possible explanation which is that she's an idiot. (which is similar to Raoul's suggestion)
Posted by: h-man at February 26, 2005 8:02 PMOr just trying to get to the right of the Republicans on defense issues - she certainly can't do it anyplace else.
It may even be genuine; unlike her husband, Hillary seems not overly fond of negotiations. If you want to see some real unilateralism, give HRC a big stick...
Posted by: Mike Earl at February 26, 2005 9:23 PMNice try OJ. Billary was just repeating the party line from the NYTimes.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at February 26, 2005 10:05 PMAny public good she may promote is strictly coincidental, and in the service of her presidential ambition. In short, she's faking it better than Meg Ryan in "When Harry Met Sally".
Depend upon it, sir.
Posted by: Noel at February 26, 2005 11:41 PM