On Feb. 2nd we commented on a ‘Comment is Free’ essay by frequent Israel-lobby critic Stephen Kinzer which criticized Hilary Clinton’s alleged failure to take a position on a bill which would increase sanctions against Iran if negotiations with the six world powers failed.
Guardian, Jan. 29 (Stephen Kinzer)
Kinzer wrote the following:
Here lies the dilemma. A strong statement by Clinton [against sanctions] would be a game-changer in Washington. She would be giving a centrist, establishment endorsement of her former boss’s most important foreign policy initiative. That would provide political cover for moderate Democrats terrified of antagonizing the Netanyahu government and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which is leading the anti-reconciliation campaign in Washington.
Such a statement, however, would risk outraging pro-Netanyahu groups and individuals who have been among Clinton’s key supporters since her days as a Senator from New York. Having spent years painstakingly laying the ground for a presidential campaign, she does not want to risk a misstep that would alienate major campaign contributors.
However, the entire assumption of Kinzer’s thesis was proven wrong, per a Guardian report by their national security editor Spencer Ackerman - a relatively moderate and sober voice by Guardian standards – on Feb. 2nd which included the following title:
Guardian, Feb. 2. (Spencer Ackerman)
Ackerman noted that Clinton sent a letter to the Senate on Jan. 26 – three days prior to Kinzer’s op-ed complaining of her alleged “silence” on the issue - urging her former Senate colleagues NOT to pass the new ‘Iran Sanctions’ bill.
Clinton’s Jan. 26 letter included the following:
“[Sanctions] could rob us of the international high ground we worked so hard to reach, break the united international front we constructed, and in the long run, weaken the pressure on Iran by opening the door for other countries to chart a different course,”
…I have no doubt that this is the time to give our diplomacy the space to work…
Kinzer got it wrong.
Ackerman’s report clearly indicates, contrary to Kinzer’s claim, that Clinton evidently was NOT afraid to “risk outraging pro-Netanyahu groups and individuals who have been among Clinton’s key supporters since her days as a Senator from New York”.
Of course, such evidence – undermining the ‘Israel-lobby root cause theory’ constantly promoted by Kinzer and his Guardian Left colleagues – will not make a dent in such ideologically inspired articles of faith.
Kinzer is a Guardian/’Comment is Free’ contributor after all, and so we can be assured that not the slightest cognitive dissonance will be felt. No lessons will be learned.
http://cifwatch.com
No comments:
Post a Comment