Did Clinton say the US went to war for Israel?
"That was an astonishing hint that we went to war for Israel," writes James Bennett, the new editor of the Atlantic, in his blog post on Bill Clinton's talk at the Aspen Ideas Festival. Bennett tells us that when his colleague James Fallows asked Clinton about how Democrats should deal with Iraq, Clinton responded by ...
"That was an astonishing hint that we went to war for Israel," writes James Bennett, the new editor of the Atlantic, in his blog post on Bill Clinton's talk at the Aspen Ideas Festival. Bennett tells us that when his colleague James Fallows asked Clinton about how Democrats should deal with Iraq, Clinton responded by talking about how Democrats should not let Republicans divide them on the issue. He then moved on to Joe Lieberman, who is facing a tough primary challenge because of his support for the war, observing that Lieberman's position on the war "squared with the view of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and others that Saddam Hussein was such a menace he should be removed regardless of whether he had WMD."
"That was an astonishing hint that we went to war for Israel," writes James Bennett, the new editor of the Atlantic, in his blog post on Bill Clinton's talk at the Aspen Ideas Festival. Bennett tells us that when his colleague James Fallows asked Clinton about how Democrats should deal with Iraq, Clinton responded by talking about how Democrats should not let Republicans divide them on the issue. He then moved on to Joe Lieberman, who is facing a tough primary challenge because of his support for the war, observing that Lieberman's position on the war "squared with the view of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and others that Saddam Hussein was such a menace he should be removed regardless of whether he had WMD."
Here's what happened next, as Bennett describes it: "Then, out of the blue, came this: 'That was also the position of every Israeli politician I knew, by the way.'"
Bennett's post goes on to ask: "Was it an accusation of dual loyalty?" He also reports how "one longtime and acute observer of Clinton" suggested to him that "as is his tendency, Clinton was looking to please people he spotted in the crowd before him – in this case, seated in the front rows, several representatives of Arab nations, including Queen Noor of Jordan."
Bennett is obviously at an advantage to your correspondent in interpreting Clinton's words. He was in the room and he's been a White House and Jerusalem correspondent for the New York Times. But it seems to me there's another—far more innocent explanation—for what Clinton meant. One of the things one notices about DC is how often people use "the Israelis" as shorthand for "people with some of the best military and strategic intelligence around – and most accurate handle on what is going on in the Middle East." It is more like Clinton meant "experts think" than any accusation of dual loyalty.
I'd really recommend checking out the whole of the Atlantic's blogging from Aspen – there is lots of great stuff there. If you want to read more on the whole question of the Israeli-U.S. relationship, the current issue of FP has a roundtable debating the Walt and Mearsheimer thesis that the Israel lobby has too much power over U.S. foreign policy.
More from Foreign Policy

Can Russia Get Used to Being China’s Little Brother?
The power dynamic between Beijing and Moscow has switched dramatically.

Xi and Putin Have the Most Consequential Undeclared Alliance in the World
It’s become more important than Washington’s official alliances today.

It’s a New Great Game. Again.
Across Central Asia, Russia’s brand is tainted by Ukraine, China’s got challenges, and Washington senses another opening.

Iraqi Kurdistan’s House of Cards Is Collapsing
The region once seemed a bright spot in the disorder unleashed by U.S. regime change. Today, things look bleak.