Standing Up For Jihadis

President-in-waiting Hillary Rodham Clinton gave a classic illustration of promising the ends while denying the means in part 'cha of her O'Reilly Factor interview Thursday night.  Indeed, it appears to be the essence of her foreign policy vision:

Under aggressive questioning from host Bill O'Reilly, Senator Clinton played down some of the danger Iran poses, unless it becomes a nuclear power.

"I think [Iran] is [dangerous] in combination with the other threats we face," she said. "Clearly if Iran were ever to obtain a nuclear weapon that would be unbelievably bad for us and the world and I'm going to do everything I can to prevent that from ever happening."

Really, Senator?  You're going to to EVERYTHING you can to prevent that from ever happening?  Including mililtary action?  Bombing Iran's nuclear facilities?  An Iraq-style invasion to topple the mullahgarchy once and for all?  Pre-emptive nuclear strikes?  EVERYTHING???

Well, I guess it depends on the definition of the word "EVERYTHING":

Noting that Iran wants the U.S. to pull its troops out of Iraq so Iran can dominate its neighbor, O’Reilly asked his guest how she planned to stop Iran, since she wants to withdraw our forces from Iraq.

Hillary responded with the standard Democratic Party claim that there can be no military victory in Iraq and that the Iraqis must now take charge of their own situation.

O'Reilly shot back that if Iran decides to dominate Iraq, oil and gas prices may double. Hillary simply answered, "We need to end the war in Iraq and win the war in Afghanistan."

So much for denying Iran nuclear weapons.  So much also for winning the war in Afghanistan as well.  Which, of course, is the exact same war as in Iraq.  The Bush Administration may be only fighting half the war, but at least they're trying to win the half they're fighting.  The Empress would overtly quit half of that half, and implicitly jettison the other half of the half once quitting the first half of the half made winning the second half of the half untenable.  Kind of a perverse twist on the old "domino theory."

Speaking post-scripturally of the second half of the half...:

The two then discussed the problems of Pakistan's failure to stop the Taliban attacks launched from Pakistan, with Hillary advocating a diplomatic solution to the problem.

See above.  D'ya s'pose she's triangulating off of Barack Hussein Obama's bright idea from last summer of invading Pakistan if they don't evict the Taliban from Wiziristan?  And with which party does she want to employ "diplomacy"?  We already have diplomatic relations with the Paks.  A 2009 summit meeting with Mullah Omar, perhaps?  I guess it depends on her definition of the word "winning".

Turning to homeland security, Mrs. Clinton pre-emptively ruled out waterboarding....

....despite the fact that (1) it is NOT "torture" and (2) it broke Khalid Sheik Mohammed and yielded intelligence that prevented numerous follow-up attacks after 9/11.  She doesn't even concede the Jack Bauer/24 scenario where there's a nuke planted in an unspecified American city and we've got the guy who planted it.  She'd sacrifice the lives of millions of innocent American civilians just to spare a few, or one, illegal combantant some minor discomfort.

She'd also let Mexico passively overrun the continental United States.  But then all three of the Democrat presidential candidates have all these stances more or less in common.

What strikes me about this Factor interview - other than the spectre of Hillary appearing on Fox - is the old trademark Hillary Clinton smugness.  She practically radiates supreme self-confidence, like the proverbial cat that swallowed the canary.  She didn't look or sound rattled or "embattled," as you might have expected given the crazed pro-Obama tilt of the Enemy Media and all the rumors alleging congressional super-duper delegates surreptitiously stampeding to BO.  She had the air of a candidate who knows that the fix is in and whose dreams of world domination are moving forward right on schedule.

Hillary Clinton is what Barack Obama will be after serving as her vice president for the next decade.  If any Democrats - particularly the superduperdelegates - are thinking on a time frame beyond next Tuesday, they would do well to keep that little piece of foresight in the front of their minds.  It could give their party a lock on power for the next generation.

Or until America collapses under the disasters their rule will precipitate, whichever comes first.