Woman, be consistent!

Hillary Clinton is calling for sanctions against Iran (because THAT’S always so effective against madmen) and is lambasting the Bush administration (what’s new?) for – get this – DOWNPLAYING the threat from Iran.

Too funny – my sides are hurting! As if she’d accept or believe anything he could possibly say about Iran, or taxes, or pretty much anything. Had Bush “played up” Iran, she’d be denouncing that, too. Because, you know, Bush is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t…as we see here:

Clinton, D-N.Y., said it was a mistake for the U.S. to have Britain, France and Germany head up nuclear talks with Iran over the past 2 1/2 years. Last week, Iran resumed nuclear research in a move Tehran claims is for energy, not weapons.

“I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and chose to outsource the negotiations,” Clinton said.

This from the same woman who once denounced Bush for “arrogantly proceeding without the international community…” regarding Iraq.

He disregards the “international community” and calls Iran an “axis of evil”, that’s bad. He includes the “international community” in handling Iran, and that’s bad, too.

Europe, by the way, is softening its stance on Iran. Not surprising. Some do think, however, that Bush’s allowing Europe to take on some leadership role regarding Iran has improved our relationship with the EU. Which might be helpful if we need to go in now, and blow things up. In which case, Hillary’s whole premise is…you know…wrong, and merely opportunisitic.

But that’s okay. Hillary is “calling for sanctions!” So, you know…the Iran problem should be solved any time, now. She’d solve the whole damn problem if she could just get off that plantation.

Meanwhile, I suspect my header is a little unfair. After all, Clinton IS consistant in one respect: no matter what Bush says or does, it’s always, always, always the wrong thing. That’s not statesmanlike. It’s not the tactic of a leader. But it’s consistent. And it brings in the money.

Krauthammer has some ideas about the effectiveness of a sanction.

Michelle Malkin has more thoughts on Hillary’s subject-jumping.