'Hillary Clinton accused the Bush administration of playing down the threat of a nuclear Iran '

[leftchick]

talk about your words coming back to haunt you.....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/19/AR2006011903220.html


Sen. Clinton Urges U.N. Sanctions Against Iran

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 20, 2006; Page A06

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) accused the Bush administration of playing down the threat of a nuclear Iran and called for swift action at the United Nations to impose sanctions on the Iranian government.

The senator's statements, in which she said the administration should make it clear that all options remain on the table for dealing with the Iranians, came during a speech about the Middle East on Wednesday night at Princeton University. She criticized the White House for turning the problem over to European nations and said Iran must never be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons.

"I believe we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations," Clinton said. "I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines."


And this gem.....


Hillary Clinton calls Iran a threat to U.S., Israel


Published: February 1, 2007


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."

Clinton spoke at a Manhattan dinner held by the largest pro-Israel lobbying group in the U.S., the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Some 1,700 supporters applauded as she cited her efforts on behalf of the Jewish state and spoke scathingly of Iran's decision to hold a conference last month that questioned whether the Holocaust took place.

"To deny the Holocaust places Iran's leadership in company with the most despicable bigots and historical revisionists," Clinton said, criticizing what she called the Iranian administration's "pro-terrorist, anti-American, anti-Israeli rhetoric."


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

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. Wow, even more hawkish that the Junta. n/t

[rodeodance]

3. what is wrong saying the US does not want IraN to have Nuke???

[tekisui]

6. Most informed people, her included, knew it wasn't a true threat.

They all knew that, even if Iran was pursuing it, they would be 8-10 years away.

edit typo.

[dave420]

13. Because it's hypocritical.

Iran has a right to nuclear power at least. Our ownership of nukes is encouraging other nations to get them (as nukes only work when everyone has them - otherwise they actually get used, which is terrible for everyone involved).

[disndat]

17. IMHO

That is another way of saying, permanent presence of U.S. in the mideast, Logically, a national draft, or "national service," as H.C. euphemistically termed it. She left no doubt that she is an advocate for the interests of AIPAC. To me that stand is the opposite of security of the Israeli people, but big bucks for the MIC. As some insightful DUer said, Bill will soon be sitting on the board of The Carlyle Group, next to Tony Blair.

[eridani]

49. Not a good idea, but not a major disaster either

--considering that Iran is surrounded by the nuclear powers of Israel, Russia, China, India and Pakistan. Given that the Bushies have been egging on the arms race between the latter two, handwringing about Iran and proliferation is just bullshit.

[mdmc]

2. HRC will out neo-con the neo-cons! AU H2O

:kick:

[tekisui]

4. "If I had known then what I know now....."

[Evergreen Emerald]

5. Why only Clinton's words? Edwards and Obama's words:

Sen. Obama Shifts on Using American Forces in Iraq to Blunt Iranian Threat
In today’s NPR debate, Sen. Obama criticized re-structuring our forces in Iraq to blunt Iran’s influence on the war:

There was another problem with it, the resolution that was we haven’t spoken about and that was that it suggested that we should structure in some way our forces in Iraq with the goal of blunting Iranian influence in Iraq- now this is a problem on a whole bunch of fronts but number one- the reason that Iran has been strengthened was because of this misguided war in Iraq. We installed- helped to elect- a government in Iraq that we knew had connections with Iran- and so the notion somehow that they’re not going to have influence and we may be using yet another justification for a continuing mission in Iraq- I think is an extreme problem and one of the reasons why this was a bad idea.
A year ago, Sen. Obama said we should keep forces in Iraq to 'send a clear message' to Iran:

A reduced but active presence will also send a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in this region…Make no mistake, if the Iranians and Syrians think they can use Iraq as another Afghanistan or a staging area from which to attack Israel or other countries, they are badly mistaken. It is in our national interest to prevent this from happening.
UPDATE: The Obama campaign links to a transcript from Tim Russert where he says he supported leaving troops in Iraq to blunt the power of Iran as a way to protect Israel. This transcript only further illustrates that he has shifted positions on this issue.

12/4/2007 3:19:13 PM #

Fact Check: Sen. Edwards and Sen. Obama on Iran’s Nuclear Threat
In January 2007, Sen. Edwards emphasized the nuclear threat by Iran speaking to a conference in Israel:

Speaking by satellite to a conference in Israel, Edwards said stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons 'is the greatest challenge of our generation.' 'All options are on the table to ensure that Iran will never get a nuclear weapon,' Edwards told the seventh annual Herzliya Conference on Monday, according to The Jerusalem Post.
In September 2004, Sen. Obama suggested to the Chicago Tribune editorial board that he would use surgical missile strikes against Iran:

he United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said. 'The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?" Obama asked. Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said.
12/4/2007 2:54:01 PM #

Sen. Obama Shifts on Iran Negotiations
Today at the NPR debate, Sen. Obama said he would lead high-level Presidential diplomatic efforts with Iran:

should have stopped the saber rattling- should never have started it- and they need now to aggressively move on the diplomatic front- I’ve started that consistently since the beginning of this campaign and that is for the President to lead diplomatic efforts to try to the prospect of joining the World Trade Organization the prospect of overtime in exchange for behavior that is something that has to be perused.
But in an interview with Harretz Daily Newspaper in May 2007, Sen. Obama said he would only pursue ‘low-level talks’ with Iran and said high level talks would be inappropriate:

I asked whether the U.S. should talk with Tehran even as the centrifuges are still spinning and producing more enriched uranium. Obama's answer is both yes and no: "Its important to have low-level talks" with Iran even without them freezing the enrichment, he said. However, high-level talks "will not be appropriate without some sense of progress" on the enrichment issue.
12/4/2007 2:30:22 PM #

[robbedvoter]

9. Thanks! All the hawks are in deep shit now - add another "oops" for Edwards!

As some DU-er said, unless you support DK or Gravel, don't try to compare hawkishness of your candidates!(Psst! I thought once he saw the error of his ways on the Iraq wars, Edwards stopped making mistakes - so we should trust his judgment now - but then Iran came along and ...damn Lucy and that football!)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3795006

[rodeodance]

10. because some like to Diss Hill.

[tekisui]

16. All fools who acted like they got duped, again, by the Criminals in the WH.

[robbedvoter]

20. Charlie Brown, the football, Lucy....never ending...

[Elidor]

44. Thanks

It's important that everyone see all that. I hope no one has any illusions about these three. They will say anything to get elected. Their principles are whichever way the wind blows. None of them is trustworthy.

[Maven]

45. Because obviously she was motivated by sheer evil, and they were just "mistaken."

Thanks for posting this.

[Tom Joad]

48. clowns they are.

[GOTV]

7. Was she aware of the recently publicized NIE?

[tekisui]

18. The IAEA had said the same thing.

[GOTV]

23. Details? Link? I'm not challenging you, I'm just looking for more background.

[tekisui]

25. Here are a couple of quick ones.

Sept. 14, 2006
A recent House of Representatives committee report on Iran's nuclear capability is “outrageous and dishonest” in trying to make a case that Tehran's program is geared toward making weapons, a senior official of the U.N. nuclear watchdog has said.

The letter, obtained by The Associated Press on Thursday outside a 35-nation board meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency, says the report is false in saying Iran is making weapons-grade uranium at an experimental enrichment site, when it has in fact produced material only in small quantities that is far below the level that can be used in nuclear arms.

The letter was first reported on by The Washington Post. It also says the report erroneously says that IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei removed a senior nuclear inspector from the team investigating Iran's nuclear program “for concluding that the purpose of Iran's nuclear program is to construct weapons.”

In fact, the inspector was sidelined on Tehran's request, and the Islamic republic had a right to ask for a replacement under agreements that govern all states relationships with the agency, said the letter, calling the report's version “incorrect and misleading.”

“In addition,” says the letter, “the report contains an outrageous and dishonest suggestion that such removal might have been for 'not having adhered to an unstated IAEA policy barring IAEA officials from telling the whole truth about the Iranian nuclear program.'”

link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/14/world/main2012368.shtml


The International Atomic Energy Agency "has not seen any diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices," Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said in a report to the IAEA's board. But the agency was not "in a position to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran," the report added.

This is from Feb 27, 2007
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/27/AR2006022701326.html

[GOTV]

32. Thanks for the info

[MethuenProgressive]

8. She called for sanctions (not War), and condemned Holocaust deniers? Wow. She's terrible!!

Edit to add quotes from OP:
"called for swift action at the United Nations to impose sanctions on the Iranian government."

"spoke scathingly of Iran's decision to hold a conference last month that questioned whether the Holocaust took place."

Thanks for the post!
:kick:

[Buzz Clik]

11. Holy shit. Co-opting the right's agenda is one thing, embracing it is quite another.

[Evergreen Emerald]

14. read on...

Sen. Obama Shifts on Using American Forces in Iraq to Blunt Iranian Threat
In today’s NPR debate, Sen. Obama criticized re-structuring our forces in Iraq to blunt Iran’s influence on the war:

There was another problem with it, the resolution that was we haven’t spoken about and that was that it suggested that we should structure in some way our forces in Iraq with the goal of blunting Iranian influence in Iraq- now this is a problem on a whole bunch of fronts but number one- the reason that Iran has been strengthened was because of this misguided war in Iraq. We installed- helped to elect- a government in Iraq that we knew had connections with Iran- and so the notion somehow that they’re not going to have influence and we may be using yet another justification for a continuing mission in Iraq- I think is an extreme problem and one of the reasons why this was a bad idea.
A year ago, Sen. Obama said we should keep forces in Iraq to 'send a clear message' to Iran:

A reduced but active presence will also send a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in this region…Make no mistake, if the Iranians and Syrians think they can use Iraq as another Afghanistan or a staging area from which to attack Israel or other countries, they are badly mistaken. It is in our national interest to prevent this from happening.
UPDATE: The Obama campaign links to a transcript from Tim Russert where he says he supported leaving troops in Iraq to blunt the power of Iran as a way to protect Israel. This transcript only further illustrates that he has shifted positions on this issue.

12/4/2007 3:19:13 PM #

Fact Check: Sen. Edwards and Sen. Obama on Iran’s Nuclear Threat
In January 2007, Sen. Edwards emphasized the nuclear threat by Iran speaking to a conference in Israel:

Speaking by satellite to a conference in Israel, Edwards said stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons 'is the greatest challenge of our generation.' 'All options are on the table to ensure that Iran will never get a nuclear weapon,' Edwards told the seventh annual Herzliya Conference on Monday, according to The Jerusalem Post.
In September 2004, Sen. Obama suggested to the Chicago Tribune editorial board that he would use surgical missile strikes against Iran:

he United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said. 'The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?" Obama asked. Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said.
12/4/2007 2:54:01 PM #

Sen. Obama Shifts on Iran Negotiations
Today at the NPR debate, Sen. Obama said he would lead high-level Presidential diplomatic efforts with Iran:

should have stopped the saber rattling- should never have started it- and they need now to aggressively move on the diplomatic front- I’ve started that consistently since the beginning of this campaign and that is for the President to lead diplomatic efforts to try to the prospect of joining the World Trade Organization the prospect of overtime in exchange for behavior that is something that has to be perused.
But in an interview with Harretz Daily Newspaper in May 2007, Sen. Obama said he would only pursue ‘low-level talks’ with Iran and said high level talks would be inappropriate:

I asked whether the U.S. should talk with Tehran even as the centrifuges are still spinning and producing more enriched uranium. Obama's answer is both yes and no: "Its important to have low-level talks" with Iran even without them freezing the enrichment, he said. However, high-level talks "will not be appropriate without some sense of progress" on the enrichment issue.
12/4/2007 2:30:22 PM #

[Buzz Clik]

19. If you are suggesting that I should accept Hillary's stance because of Obama's rhetoric...

... it ain't happening.

Obama, as with Clinton, has taken some very odd and hawkish stands to keep from driving away moderate Republicans. I don't like that at all from either of them.

[robbedvoter]

22. I don't think so - and don't forget Edwards! They all are unacceptable

and prove disturbing lack of judgment - over and over and over!

[Buzz Clik]

27. Agreed. They collectively chose a template of "Bush-lite" and then adopted some variant.

It's all bullshit and, as you say, completely unacceptable.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

12. she called for sanctions which is sometimes the sane thing to do.

she didnt call for war. i think you are trying to find a problem here when there isnt one.

[Buzz Clik]

15. We had sanctions in place before both incursions against Iraq. Sanctions don't prevent wars.

In fact, when the domestic and international communities embrace sanctions, the Bush Boys take that as political capital. They feel empowered to take the next step, and they always take the next step.

Hillary's embracing of sanctions should be stated openly and clearly as an alternative to military actions, and that military actions under the present circumstances should be avoided. But that isn't what she says.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

21. sanctions dont cause war either. i dont think hrc can state that she wont take military action

against iran, does no one remember how kerry was slaughtered for this?

[Buzz Clik]

26. We all understand that sometimes military action is required.

But, until the Bush administration, the United States NEVER had undertaken a pre-emptive military strike against another country. Rather than blindly repeating the Bush rhetoric about how dangerous Iran is, all of the Democratic candidates should be screaming that we get back to our pre-Bush military policies.

I find it shattering that Clinton continues to be the most hawkish of all the Democratic candidates.

[MadHound]

35. No, but sanctions can, and have, caused death and suffering

Witness Iraq during the Clinton years, when they were also sanctioned. Those sanctions, along with the thrice weekly bombings ordered by the Clinton administration,wound up costing Iraq 500,000 civilian deaths, mostly women and children.

[KharmaTrain]

24. She's Triangulated Herself Into A Corner

I don't know if others here remember, but just prior to the Kyl/Lieberman vote boooosh did an interview where he boasted that the next president, including a Democrat, would have to maintain his war for profit. It was as if he was directing this comment at Hillary and her actions cause me some serious concern.

Her vote on the Iraq War resolution was wrong...but taking it back now means nothing..."we are where we are". I've been more concerned about what she'll do about ending this illegal invasion that matters. However, her support of Kyl/Libermann said either she favors a longer military involvement than she lets on or she's being "duped" into going along by false intel or other information. With the revelation of the latest NIE, the later explanation looks worse than the former. She took the bait...got daught up in the phony intel and other misinformation (just like she did with the IWR) and thus went along for the ride.

Hillary needs to clarify her position or face some serious credibility issues...even among Jews. Many of us read the Sy Hersch articles, saw the reports from the region...we weren't shocked by the NIE revelations...and that Senator Clinton seems to have been caught "blindsighted" by this is a serious, legitimate issue.

[robbedvoter]

29. alongside Obama, Edwards - and I'd like to know what other candidates said

on Iran at the time. Anyone?
I know Wes Clark was sounding the alarm on the neocons aiming for another war at the time - but I didn't keep tabs on all present candidates's statements. I'd appreciate learning of it.

[KharmaTrain]

30. The IWR Debates Are Still On C-SPAN

...if you can stomache them. It truly was a sad moment in our representative democracy.

Here's the Roll Call:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

Biden and Dodd also went along for many of the same reasons Hillary and Edwards did. I haven't heard either refute their votes.

[robbedvoter]

36. Thanks. I was however refering to the remarks on Iran - at the time Edwards, Hillary

and Obama made theirs

[killbotfactory]

51. They all said that Iran should not be allowed to acquire nukes, yes

And they all proposed some form of strike against Iran should they get nukes, but did they all say that Bush was playing down the Iran threat?

[Cha]

40. I wasn't shocked

by the results ..just that Michael McConnell would get it out and it wouldn't favor what his appointer wanted.

[madrchsod]

28. it is political suicide in the united state to go against

the american israel public affairs committee. this is why the statements from all the candidates concerning iran stems from the reality of the israeli- american relationship.

[Tom Joad]

47. that's why we the people need to stand up to them and hold our

reps accountable.
www.stopaipac.org

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. "Tough" Hillary will save us from the bogeyman...however minor the "threat".

Erecting bogeymen for the politicians to "save" us from is as old as the cold war.

[leftchick]

33. exactly right

.

[Cha]

41. Too bad they haven't

caught up with the ever growing cynicism of the electoral.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

34. Edited: Didn't notice the age of the article

[Disturbed]

37. I don't want Sen Clinton to be the next War Pres.

She seems to be pushing for that title.

[cali]

38. John Edwards in a speech in Israel

said much the same thing.

[killbotfactory]

50. He said Bush is playing down the Iran threat?

[TwilightGardener]

39. Who in their right minds would say that Bush is "playing down" the

threat of a nuclear Iran? Was it Opposite Day when she said that?

[Cha]

42. I can see it all now..

mark penn told her to get out there and out bushit bushit..that'll show who's the tough guy.

[Swamp Rat]

43. My thought exactly!

[Tom Joad]

46. that's right leftchick. that Rightistchick must stay out of the white house

[Lerkfish]

52. Clinton and Lieberman are the hawkiest pols we got going now

but at least one of her supporters want you to think she's a "goddess of peace".

[Lerkfish]

53. kick.

:kick: