Ami Eden reports for The Jewish Daily Forward that Mitt Romney issued a statement “blasting Hillary Clinton’s call at a recent AIPAC meeting for engagement with Iran.” From that statement:
“In a speech two days ago in New York City, Senator Hillary Clinton said that she needs to quote ‘understand’ unquote Iran better – and we need to quote ‘engage Iran’ unquote. She argued that our strategy of engagement with the Soviet Union during the Cold War was a model for how we could deal with Iran.
“I believe this strategy to be a mistake, and yesterday, to a group of fellow conservatives, I said as much. Advocating engagement displays a troubling timidity toward a terrible threat. The right strategy is not engagement, but economic and diplomatic isolation.
“Instead of responding to my policy criticisms, Senator Clinton has chosen to attack me personally. Let’s take a step back and consider the broader and more pressing issue at hand – Iran, Syria, Hizbullah, and Hamas and the threat they pose to us, Israel, and the civilized world…
“Against the backdrop of last summer’s war, I was especially stunned to learn that Senator Clinton is now advocating for better ‘understanding’ of Iran, Syria, Hizbullah, and Hamas. Rather than attacking me, why doesn’t she join me in calling for a policy that puts even more pressure – not less – against these adversaries?”
Ami writes at Forward that ‘would be fair to the describe the release as a cheap shot, in so far as it misrepresents Clinton’s argument that engagement would help the United States better understand the regime in Tehran. She was not saying “If we just understand each other better, then we can all just get along.â€?’
What is it that Hillary Clinton, then, said?
“If we are having to pursue potential action against Iran, then I want to know more about the adversary that we face,� Clinton said. � I want to understand better what the leverage we can bring to bear on them will actually produce. I want to get a better sense of what the real power centers and influentials are, and I also want to send a message, if we ever do have to take more drastic actions, to the rest of the world that we exhausted all possibilities.�
Ami’s article at Forward is quite right. I have to say that it is quite sad that two people, who have a fair shot at becoming America’s next president, misrepresent each other’s words like this (in this case the ‘guilty one’ seems to be Romney). Why is it sad? Because they are not truly addressing each other’s views, they are not really addressing the other’s arguments. They (I write ‘they’ because this is not limited to Romney: this happens every day in politics… sadly) distort the opinion of the opponent, they completely invent an opinion, then present their own opinion which is the opposite of the invented opinion and go on to explain why the invented view – which they describe to their opponent – is wrong / not wise.
There is – of course – a difference of opinion between Romney and Clinton. As Ami explains: “He opposes talks with Tehran, she’s in favor of them.”
Does she say that they will get along mighty fine if they talk? No. She referred to “(drastic) action” which, I presume, doesn’t refer to buying Khamenei and Ahmadinejad ice cream.
Does Hillary Clinton have a point? Yes.
Does Romney have a point? Yes.
The problem? What Hillary Clinton said really isn’t that debatable. It’s not a very controversial remark, except for that she doesn’t seem to rule out using force, but that is – of course – not a point on which Romney will differ with her.
So, what does one do if one wants to appeal to the conservative base who hates Hillary Clinton? Distort whatever she says and act tough.
PAST CONTRIBUTOR.