Clinton's Foreign Affairs article contains a lot of the boilerplate rhetoric with which just about any mainstream Democrat would agree.

However, one passage is extremely disturbing:

As we redeploy our troops from Iraq, we must not let down our guard against terrorism. I will order specialized units to engage in targeted operations against al Qaeda in Iraq and other terrorist organizations in the region.

Other terrorist organizations in the region?

Who could she mean by that?

Let's ask her.

Senator Clinton, whom do you consider to be terrorist organizations?

Her answers?

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

Earlier today, I voted for a non-binding resolution that designates the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. The Revolutionary Guards are deeply involved in Iran's nuclear program and  have substantial links with Hezbollah.

Hezbollah and Hamas, the elected government of the Palestinians.

But Iran is a threat not only because of the hateful rhetoric spewed by its president, not only because of its nuclear ambitions, but because it uses its influence and its revenues in the region to support terrorist elements that are attacking innocent Israelis; and now we believe attacking American soldiers. Hezbollah's attacks on Israel this summer using Iranian weapons clearly demonstrate Iran's malevolent influence even beyond its borders.

Hezbollah is second only to Al Qaeda to the number of American lives it has claimed. We know too of the deep and dangerous connections these terrorists share with the governments of Syria and Iran; and we are seeing the reprehensible consequences of having these terrorist beachheads along Israel's borders.

But wait, doesn't Senator Clinton favor diplomacy.  She says she favors engagement with 'our enemies.'

Yes, but only as a way to excuse future military action:

And what do I mean by engagement or some kind of a process? Well I'm not sure anything positive would come out of it, I have no expectations whatsoever. But there are a number of factors that I think argue for some attempt to do what I am suggesting: number one I don't think we know enough about how Iranian society and their government really functions. I was struck by the rejection of the President's party in those recent elections. If we are having to pursue potential action against Iran beyond enforcing the toughest sanctions that we can and bringing the world community along as hard as it is, to recognize the danger to them as well as to us and to Israel then I want to know more about the adversary we face. 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 war, drastic action to the rest of the world that we exhausted all possibilities because we need friends and allies to stand with us as we stand with Israel in this long war against terrorism and extremism .

What didn't Clinton say?  That she thinks diplomacy could be useful to peacefully resolve the disputes in the area.

So, here we have Senator Clinton promising to launch strikes at terrorist organizations in the Middle East besides Al-Qaeda in Iraq, she's on the record as labeling Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran as terrorist organizations against whom military action may be needed, and we see her treating diplomacy as a means of facilitating war, rather than preventing it.

If this is an unfair interpretation of Senator Clinton's statements on military action, terrorism, and diplomacy, then she needs to clarify which, at their very best, raise doubts as to her commitment to non-violent resolution to political disputes.

Senator Clinton is not entitled to a presumption of innocence here--she needs to take the right position and repudiate the wrong position in order to get credit for doing so.