It is now well known that the three transcripts of Hillary Clinton’s speeches at Goldman Sachs have been leaked to the public via the internet. These speeches were held at various locations on June 4, October 24 and October 29, 2013 and comprise about 100 pages. Unlike the leaked e-mails, whose authenticity is disputed in some quarters, the transcripts appear to be hard evidence. Reading through these transcripts, I was impressed with the clear-minded comments of Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman Sachs CEO, and equally unimpressed with Hillary Clinton’s responses to his questions. In contrast to the rehearsed language of Hillary before the camera, her spontaneous answers were often disjointed and ill-formulated.
Numerous topics emerge out of these speeches, all of which warrant analysis and comment: immigration, trade agreements, financial regulations and so forth, but most striking to me was the exchange between Hillary Clinton and Lloyd Blankfein on Iran. Although her comments have already been reported in the media, the context of the exchange has not been explained adequately. Hillary’s comments on bombing Iran were a response to Blankfein’s question about preventing the development of a nuclear weapon in Iran. Blankfein himself does not consider a war with Iran to be feasible. As he says, he has always assumed that war was really out of the question. So he poses this question to Hillary: How do you prevent Iran from doing what they want to do?
Here is the transcript of the exchange on June 4, 2013 (bold type added):
MR. BLANKFEIN: What do you – I’ve always assumed we’re not going to go to war, a real war, for a hypothetical. So I just assumed that we would just back ourselves into some mutually assured destruction kind of – you know, we get used to it. That it’s hard to imagine going to war over that principle when you’re not otherwise being threatened.
So I don’t see the outcome. The rhetoric is there, prevention, but I can’t see us paying that kind of a price, especially what the president has shown. We’re essentially withdrawing from Iraq and withdrawing from Afghanistan. It’s hard to imagine going into something as open ended and uncontainable as the occupation of Iran. How else can you stop them from doing something they (are) committed to doing?
MS. CLINTON: Well, you up the pain that they have to endure by not in any way occupying or invading them but by bombing their facilities. I mean, that is the option. It is not as, we like to say these days, boots on the ground.
MR. BLANKFEIN: Has it ever worked in the history of a war? Did it work in London during the blitz or –
MS. CLINTON: No. It didn’t work to break the spirit of the people of London, but London was a democracy.
Lloyd Blankfein is obviously surprised by Hillary’s answer and responds by asking her if such a strategy has ever worked. Did it, for instance, work during the Second World War when Germany bombed London? No, Hillary says, but then London was a democracy!
I think that I speak for many other Americans when I say that I would like to know what in the world this means! With no assurance of a favorable outcome, with nothing in the history of warfare that would serve as a model, with no real concept of what would follow a bombing of Iran, and with no thought of the consequences for the entire Middle East, Hillary Clinton is prepared to bomb Iran. Frankly, I find such glib talk of war frightening. In order to exonerate Hillary from wrongdoing in the scandal surrounding the private server, the FBI labeled her conduct “careless”, which amounts to poor judgment. Poor judgment in the handling of e-mails may well have comprised national security, but poor judgment in dealing with Iran would be even worse. It could lead to a complete destruction of the Middle East, if not to a nuclear war.
In fairness to Hillary, her comments in the October 24 exchange do seem more rational. Regarding Iran she says:
MS. CLINTON: And, you know, I think it’s very tough to reach a credible deal with Iran, but I think you have to try. And I just don’t think you can walk away from that possibility. And so I hope that something can come of it.
So what does Hillary Clinton really think about the possibility of bombing Iran? Did she change her opinion between the June 4 and the October 24 meeting with Goldman Sachs? Or does she simply not have a consistent position on the matter? These are the types of uncertainties which will plague a Clinton presidency.
Villager Jack Brush is a frequent contributor to Villages-News.com
