Hillary Clinton, War Goddess

[Flabbergasted]

She wants permanent bases in Iraq – and threatens war with Iran
by Justin Raimondo


As the war in Iraq metastasizes into what General William E. Odom calls "the greatest strategic disaster in United States history," and the cost in lives and treasure continues to escalate, we are already being set up for Act II of the neocons' Middle East war scenario – with the Democrats taking up where the Republicans left off.

The Bush administration, for all its bellicose rhetoric, has shown little stomach for directly confronting Tehran, and this has prompted Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton to take on the Bushies for supposedly ignoring the alleged threat from Iran. Speaking at Princeton University on the occasion of the Wilson School's 75th anniversary celebration, Clinton aligned herself with such Republican hawks as Sen. John McCain and the editorial board of the Weekly Standard, calling for sanctions and implicitly threatening war:

"I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations. I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines. But let's be clear about the threat we face now: A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime's pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not – must not – permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. In order to prevent that from occurring, we must have more support vigorously and publicly expressed by China and Russia, and we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United Nations. And we cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran – that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons."

Never mind that Iran is 10 years away from actually producing a usable nuclear weapon, according to the latest National Intelligence Estimate:

"Until recently, Iran was judged, according to February testimony by Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, to be within five years of the capability to make a nuclear weapon. Since 1995, U.S. officials have continually estimated Iran to be 'within five years' from reaching that same capability. So far, it has not.

more....

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8428

[Hardrada]

1. This is why we don't want her

and other AIPAC-sponsored people.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

4. try telling that to one of her fans on board here, and you get attacked

for supporting the GOP or hating your own.

Well, Hillary is NOT one of our own. She chose to hire the advisors, who selected the focus groups, who picked the polls, which told her advisors how to frame her issues, and how to avoid all tough decisions, and now she has to live with her own mess.

[MGKrebs]

30. You are mixing up your criticisms here. This thread is about her making wrong decisions.

The thread about her not being able to make a decision is elsewhere.

[Tom Joad]

2. Clinton: U.S. troops needed in Iraq beyond 2009

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/15/clinton.troops/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- If elected president, Sen. Hillary Clinton said, she would likely keep some U.S. forces in Iraq in a supporting role after 2009 because America has "a remaining military as well as a political mission" that requires a presence there.

[patrice]

6. John Kerry was paving the way for her on this.

Last week on MSNBC, I think.

[ElizabethDC]

7. A number of Democrats have said that there would be some kind of continuous presence . . .

Hillary (obviously), John Kerry, and Obama. None of them are for continuing the war, but all acknowledge that we would have some kind of residual presence.

[Tom Joad]

9. Of course... they want the support of those who want war and imperial domination in the

Middle East.

[patrice]

13. Thank you for that information.

Now, the questions are how much and for how long, and what happens if the situation is "escalated" somehow while they're there.

If not an actual deadline for full withdrawal, we need to hear what the hypothetical possibles are, potential ranges of dates corelated to different sets of possible events.

People are realistic enough to know something might be necessary, they're just worried about all of the crap that can happen as a result it, especially given the kinds of facts revealed by Sy Hersh in "The Redirection" (and that's just the stuff we know!).

[bvar22]

32. Gee, sounds alot like the Crusader Castles of the Middle Ages!

Strongholds from which White Christians could keep killing Brown People inside Muslim nations.

YES! I can support that......NOT! :thumbsdown:

[mtnsnake]

3. Too bad it's not accurate. I doubt you or the author can back up your statements

...especially the one where "she threatens war with Iran".

Next time you post some blogger's opinion, maybe you should check out the site a little bit and see where they're coming from. Looks to me like anyone who speaks out on behalf of Israel is automatically called a war monger by them.

Anyway, show me the direct quote that Hillary made that proves your statement that she threatened war with Iran. thanks.

[Tellurian]

5. Left Wing/Right Wing

Anyone know the difference?

Thanks, mr. snake, you beat me to it!

[fooj]

8. Enough already.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/02/america/NA-GEN-US-Clinton-Iran.php

Hillary Clinton calls Iran a threat to U.S., Israel
NEW YORK: Calling Iran a danger to the U.S. and one of Israel's greatest threats, U.S. senator and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said "no option can be taken off the table" when dealing with that nation.

"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," the Democrat told a crowd of Israel supporters. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."

[Tellurian]

10. yeah, 6 weeks ago..is a lifetime..

seems Iran has quieted down quite a bit since then.

Seeing our warships circling their coastline has achieved the desired effect.
All our Congress had to do was shut Bush up...and it worked.

This story is a non-starter... yesterdays news with a happy ending..

[mtnsnake]

11. All politicians sound like that...and no where does she threaten war.

Until she threatens war with Iran, people shouldn't be posting otherwise.

[Tellurian]

12. yeah, they're imitating Bush...spreading Fear..

power tripping on spreading LIES...

makes you wonder?

[fooj]

15. Get over yourselves.

NO OPTION CAN BE TAKEN OFF THE TABLE does not a PEACE GODDESS make.

Look. I don't care WHO you support in this primary. It's your choice as it should be. Do yourselves (and Hillary) a favor. STOP ATTACKING everyone who doesn't have a I HEART HILLARY tattoo on their forearm. For goodness sake.

I am not a LIAR. I found this quote and shared it. It's as simple as that. How dare you accuse me of "power tripping" and "spreading lies" and "imitating Bush"? Projection is a Republican tactic. You might want to keep that in mind the next time you irrationally attack other DUers.

[Tellurian]

18. Grow-UP..

that article is almost three months old- so, last week!

the world is changing under your feet. Try to catch up and stop using excuses to enhance your candidate!

[fooj]

25. It sure f*cking is. Heard about the Brit troops held hostage by Iran?

I'm caught up. And you?

BTW- what candidate are YOU accusing ME of enhancing? I see NOTHING on this thread that states MY preference for a candidate ANYWHERE.

YOU grow up. You still didn't answer my question. Why doesn't THAT surprise me? PROJECTION is a Republican tactic. Keep that in mind the next time you decide to randomly attack others.

Edit: Since when is Feb. 1, 2007 THREE MONTHS AGO"? Interesting math you're using! BWAHAHAHAHA! And YOU accuse ME of "ENHANCING"!!!

[Forkboy]

26. I'm glad you notice the projection factor.

A strong recurring trait.

[truedelphi]

19. She's said many times that NO OPTION CAN BE TAKEN OFF THE TABLE

Don't let the pro-Hill people get you down.In the end, it is not gonna be Hillary.

[Tellurian]

22. yeah, you're anoither case study...egging your underlings on over the cliff..

:spray:

run from the lunacy before it's too late!

[truedelphi]

29. Underlings! What underlings??

I'm a progressive - one of our problems is that we really try to be democratic in all the best senses of the word - most progressives don't believe in hierarchies but as wonderful people, we strive for symbiotic relationships

[Hardrada]

35. Gott sei immer Dank!!

[Flabbergasted]

16. Read her quote up and figure out another interpretation? nt

Here is the same interpretation by Robert Dreyfuss:

Hillary Outflanks W.on Iran--On the Right
So Hillary Clinton, presidential candidate, is trying to outflank W. to the right. In her speech yesterday, Ms. Clinton lambasted the Bush administration – not for its threats against Iran, but for weakness. In particular, she hit the administration for going along with the European-led negotiations over Iran’s nuclear research, accusing Bush of “outsourcing” U.S. Iran policy.

Here’s Hillary on Iran yesterday, speaking at Princeton:

I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations. I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines. But let's be clear about the threat we face now: A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime's pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not — must not — permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. In order to prevent that from occurring, we must have more support vigorously and publicly expressed by China and Russia, and we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United Nations. And we cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran — that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons.
Cynics might say it’s the latest in a long line of Hillaryspeak that positions her for her 2008 bid, protecting her right flank against charges of weakness on national defense. But I don’t think so. I think she really believes this stuff, and that her continual alliance with warmongering Sen. John McCain on issues like this (McCain also called for sanctions yesterday) is a sign that Hillary is indeed a right-leaning true believer.

Her Iraq position is virtually indistinguishable from that of Bush, and yesterday she once again railed against the idea of a Murtha-style withdrawal. “There are no quick, no easy solutions to the situation we find ourselves in today.” she said. “I do not believe that we should allow this to be an open-ended commitment without limits or end, nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately.”

[Tellurian]

20. If you really cared about Kucinich... you would be out in the street

campaigning for him instead of glued to your keyboard pretending you're important to his campaign..
get off your duff and start moving and helping your guy!

Lying about his opponents only makes him look smaller in the eyes of the world. (no pun intended)

[Flabbergasted]

21. Do we have another interpretation?

[Tellurian]

23. How many interpretations do you need for desperation?

Flabby?

:shrug:

[Learn2Swim]

24. Is there any need for this shit?

Honestly

[Flabbergasted]

27. An alternative?

[truedelphi]

17. her manager has been on Chris Matthews and as

Matthews practically pleaded with him to explain why she is so pro-war, her manager (Scott somebody) replied to the effect that it is good that she is a hawk.

My take on Hill is she may get it right and play her hand as a pacifist where it does her good to do that, but in the end when she needs to be courting the More left leaning Republican, she will be back in battle stance.

[Donnachaidh]

14. oh please

:puke:

[Alamom]

28. Russia and China joined other members of the Security Council on Saturday in voting to impose

new sanctions....(just saying..... seems the whole region is a little more apprehensive than before, of course Russia was trying to get paid before they got (more) involved)





http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/03/26/russia.china.ap/index.html

China, Russia urge Iran to play ball
POSTED: 12:35 p.m. DT, March 26, 2007



MOSCOW, Russia (AP) -- The presidents of Russia and China have called on Iran to fulfill the U.N. Security Council's resolutions over its disputed nuclear program.

Vladimir Putin and Hu Jintao also said Monday in a joint statement that their countries -- permanent, veto-wielding Security Council members -- were ready to "search for a comprehensive, long-term and mutually acceptable solution to the Iranian nuclear problem."

"Russia and China are calling on Iran to take the necessary constructive steps to fulfill the U.N. Security Council resolutions and (International Atomic Energy Agency) board decisions and believe that Iran ... has the right to pursue peaceful use of nuclear energy while observing its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty," the statement said.

They emphasized again that the increasingly tense dispute should be resolved "exclusively through peaceful means."

Russia and China joined other members of the Security Council on Saturday in voting to impose new sanctions on Iran. The sanctions included the banning of Iranian arms exports and the freezing of assets of 28 people and organizations involved in Iran's nuclear and missile programs.

[Flabbergasted]

31. You do realize that Russia is building Iran's Nuclear program as well?

[Alamom]

33. Yep, I included "the payment for work done by Russia (already) problem."

..... seems the whole region is a little more apprehensive than before, of course Russia was trying to get paid before they got (more) involved

I can see they (Russia)would want to get paid before committing to...say, proposed sanctions.



I also read the entire article.



My point is: All countries (especially those closest) keeping an eye on the situation and staying on the same page is (hopefully) in our best interest. Also, I don't believe anything this administration says, but when I read other countries are becoming concerned, I'm not alarmed when we have a senator who is also.....concerned.



edgr

[eridani]

37. Are they worried about Iran, or a nuclear war waged on Iran by the US?

They'd be in the way of a lot of fallout, no? The latter makes more sense, IMO.

Sure, just from the standpoint of non-proliferation it would be better that Iran did not go nuclear, but it's hard to see this as a serious threat. Russia has thousands of nukes aimed at us right now, with very badly deteriorating command and control systems. India and Pakistan have come close to duking it out with nukes, and are ratcheting up their own nuclear arms race with the help of Bushco. Now THOSE are what I call threats, not the so far purely imaginary Iranian weapons.

Can anybody give a really good reason why a country surrounded on all sides by nuclear powers (Russia, China, India, Pakistan and Israel) should not have nukes?

[Clarkie1]

34. I won't vote for her in the Primary, but calling her a "War Goddess" is a little over the top. nt

[ShortnFiery]

36. Disgusting ... The Populace is SICK of perpetual war on a freakin' TACTIC.

Enough!!! Take your killing machines and put them where the sun don't shine. :thumbsdown: