Give George Stephanopoulos his due. In his interview with Hillary Clinton yesterday, his questions about her proposal to extend a nuclear umbrella not only to Israel but to Iran's Sunni Arab neighbors exposed the incoherence of the scheme.

Clinton cast the NATO-like alliance as a way to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. When Stephanapoulos pressed her on the logistics and the practicalities of a multi-state alliance, she explained:

Let’s get serious for a moment.  Jeremiah Wright has nothing to do with our future as a nation.  He has nothing to do with the life of my son.

Hillary Clinton’s professed intentions to provide a protective umbrella that will respond to any acts of aggression in the Middle East needs to be addressed instead.  Personally, the potential for my son to be drafted is one of the most important issue of the campaign.  We MUST do something to get the question asked.  

Maybe an email, sent to every media outlet?

Dear __________,

If the United States enters into a military stance of protecting the entire Middle East, where will the soldiers come from?  

Doesn’t it seem that a selective service draft would most likely be necessary?  

Please ask Senator Clinton how she plans to enlist the military personnel that would be needed to provide the protective umbrella.

Thank you.

My top three real issues that the traditional media should be talking about instead of trying to distract us, after the break.

The most astounding and telling statement the other night which, pretty much, disqualifies HRC for the position she is seeking, was this one:

"Some viewers of last night's Democratic debate in Philadelphia were stunned that what sounded like a major new and potentially controversial foreign-policy proposal from Sen. Hillary Clinton slipped by without its being highlighted and expanded on by major news media. Sounds like grist for some followups as the week winds down.

Clinton was responding to a question from former Clinton administration flack George Stephanopolous of whether it should be U.S. policy to treat an Iranian attack on Israel "as if it were an attack on the United States."

""Well, in fact, George, I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region."

Link:

http://weblogs.newsday.com/...

Should that be a "surprise" for anyone? (more on the flip)

The real policy story that comes from this debate will be about the extension of our nuclear umbrella, by Sen. Clinton, and our military protection to Saudi Arabia and the UAE as well as the Kuwaitis. This is a huge deal. It may seem innocuous because we have already committed forces in defense of the Kuwaitis once but it has very big policy implications vis-à-vis our diplomatic position with Iran. It also goes directly to the heart of Sen. Clinton’s style of foreign policy.