Hillary just said even if nuclear agreement she will immediately build a coalition against Iran

[leveymg]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by azurnoir (a host of the General Discussion forum).

http://www.politico.com/multimedia/video/2015/07/hillary-clintons-full-remarks-on-iran-deal.html?ml=tl_8_b

In her address, linked above, she stated she's immediately going to form a coalition to sanction "bad" Iran for being a regional rival that Israel and the Sunni states don't like. In her speech, she said "bad Iran" six times.

In other words, she now says disarming Iran's nuclear program is just step one in Hillary's plan to eliminate Iran as a regional power - "the world's greatest terrorist threat, an existential threat to Israel, does bad things within Sunni Arabia, blah, blah" Bottom line, HRC adds further confirmation she'll push like hell to be at war with Iran within a year of her Inauguration.

Listen to what she's saying. She isn't playing 8-D chess. She's a committed neocon who wants further conflict with Iran regardless of the outcome of nuclear talks.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. Neolib/Neocon. Two sides of the same coin.

[HFRN]

2. she's going to build a coalition? what office, exactly does she hold now?

'President future-elect?'

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

35. Sorry Hillary, warmongers need not apply. You'll NEVER be President.

[PoliticAverse]

3. Will it include Poland? n/t

[madokie]

4. Just between you and me

I don't think she's got a jim inhofe's snowballs chance in hell of getting elected. Money isn't every thing like her supporters like to think. Hell according to many of them lets just let her have the reigns of power now, fuck waiting for an election. She's going to win anyway. LOL. Like hell she will is all I can say to them.

8 years ago I was reading the same shit as I'm reading today concerning her inevitable ascension to the presidency. It didn't happen then and it ain't going to happen this time.
Hillary Clinton is not one of us, simple as that. Her loyalties are not with us the 99 percentile

[MissDeeds]

56. I agree, it's doubtful she could get elected

Republicans will turn out in droves to defeat her. More importantly, she has alienated many Democrats who consider her a corporatist and a war hawk and just don't trust her. I don't know what makes her 'the inevitable one'.

[Ichingcarpenter]

5. President Carter on Sec. Kerry and Sec. Clinton

What’s your take on Secretary Kerry’s efforts so far in the Middle East?

I think they are notable, and I have a great admiration for him. I stay in touch with him fairly often by email. I send him messages and tell him what my thoughts might be, and he has responded very graciously. He has had a very difficult time operating pretty much on his own. I know from experience that the best way to have the United States be a mediator is for the President himself to be deeply involved. In this occasion, when Secretary Clinton was Secretary of State, she took very little action to bring about peace. It was only John Kerry’s coming into office that reinitiated all these very important and crucial issues.

Time Magazine
NEWSMAKER INTERVIEW
Jimmy Carter 2014

http://time.com/56770/jimmy-carter-jesus-christ-iran-putin-clinton-kerry/

[HFRN]

6. Iran deal is Kerry's doing, no coincidence that it didnt happen

with the previous SOS

[MADem]

9. That is not true. Clinton was the one that did much of the heavy lifting to put the framework

in place--that is why the media RAN to her to get her take on the issue.

She talks about the negotiations in her book. Everyone knows this.

Now you do, too.

[karynnj]

26. She left office in early 2013 -- and was ill at the end of that time

She was hesitant to agree with the interim deal that was reached in late 2013 and did not go out of her way to support the framework that came out this spring. (It is very true that she did a lot of the work on putting sanctions in and.)

What is true is that she was Secretary of State when the secret meetings in Oman started in July 2012 involving Jake Sullivan and William Burns. (I would bet that HRC didn't mention that the possibility of Oman doing this was first investigated by Kerry at Obama's request.) The framework for the deal or even the process for getting one was not defined by January 2013!

Secretary Kerry had FAR MORE to do with the negotiations - and he did most of the heavy heavy lifting and deserves credit for that.


This is ridiculous, it is mostly Obama's accomplishment - and Kerry's . She spent most of the last two years distancing herself.

[MADem]

33. You're seriously trying to distance her from this? Why do you think Obama

called her the second the agreement was reached? What do you think she was doing on the Hill today? Mixing drinks? She was whipping legislators to keep them in line so that the deal goes through.

Good grief!

This is OBAMA's accomplishment, because he is the Captain of the ship and all success and failure is laid at his feet.

No one is suggesting Kerry didn't play a role as well, so take that strawman and just ... tuck it away.

But to try to pretend that Clinton did not play a vital role in making this happen with all the work she did on this matter from the moment she took charge at State is pure churlishness.

SMH! This takes the cake!

[karynnj]

36. I was not distancing her - just stating that many

Words you used are overkill. You speak of her doing much of the heavy lifting and in another post most of the negotiating.

The way you write it, she did far more than Kerry which ignores the entire last two years. It also ignores that she was not all that positive on the interim agreement or even the framework.

As to Obama calling her, a better reason especially as she was already scheduled to meet with the Congressional Dems was to get her help in selling it.

[MADem]

43. Your mistake is that you actually think this thing started in 2012.

You have a huge gap in your knowledge. It's pretty dire, and worthy of embarrassment.

The arc of this deal started during the Bush years. It only got any real impetus when Obama took office and (cough) named himself a SECSTATE. Now who would that beeee......? Anyone?

But hey--keep on insisting, if you must. No one in government agrees with you. Not a soul.

[snagglepuss]

31. If that is so why is she pissing on the parade now?

[MADem]

34. Unnnh....she's not "pissing on the parade." You obviously don't have a clue what she was doing on

the Hill, and you're proudly lettting us all know that you don't know, too!!

You're not deleting that, either:

snagglepuss
31. If that is so why is she pissing on the parade now?

[snagglepuss]

52. What are you smoking? Why should I want to delete that question?

Of course she is pissing on the parade by not simply praising the achievement but adding hawkish remarks that have nothing to do with the matter at hand.

[MADem]

59. Because, if you had a full grasp of the issue, you'd realize that your 'question'

proves decisively that you have massive gaps in your understanding of the history of our nuclear conversations with Iran down the years.

To put it politely.

I'm not smoking anything--but what a curious question. You might direct that beaut at yourself!

Keep doubling down with these remarks if you'd like--or go away and use your google for a bit and develop an understanding of the history of this issue. Pro Tip--the latter is a better choice!

snagglepuss
52. What are you smoking? Why should I want to delete that question?
View profile
Of course she is pissing on the parade by not simply praising the achievement but adding hawkish remarks that have nothing to do with the matter at hand.

[Wellstone ruled]

17. In other words Hillary,you sat on your hands not to piss off AIPAC.

This is going to hurt someones Political endeavors. How is that Syria thingee working out. Not.

[Le Taz Hot]

19. Not according to her supporters.

She made the Iran deal all by herself.

[Wellstone ruled]

40. Black is White,up is down.

Is it me,or am I not reading something different? Like you say,her supporters are patting her on the back. This AIPAC crowd is in for a real awakening when Iran's order desk says buy American Parts and Services and yes we are going to do Joint Ventures. People have to look around a bit,there are millions of Iranians owning or operating business's all over this country. And you just know they are anxious to do deals back on their home turf. Most importantly,Iran is Persian and they tend to be more tolerant than other Tribes in the Mid East.

[MADem]

46. Are you kidding? What an absurd, fact-free comment!

[Doctor_J]

50. under the bus with president Carter!

[MADem]

7. I think people do need to watch the video. And they'll know you're not being transparent.

The reason this deal happened is BECAUSE OF Hillary Clinton. She did the bulk of the negotiation work while she was SECSTATE. Incredible that you didn't know that.....

She takes issue with state sponsorship of terrorism, which is a 'bad behavior' doncha know, and imprisoning US citizens (how dare she get upset about that... ). That's, in essence, what she is griping about.

She's always been unhappy with their crappy human rights record, and she is not alone on that score--another bad behavior they engage in is the execution of LGBT people for their orientation, or the execution of rape victims for not being chaste.

Another just in case one wasn't enough. She's pleased with this deal, and she wants to keep working with the community of nations to push them towards better behaviors. There's nothing wrong with that. I don't think anyone thinks some of the antisocial shit they've been doing is "OK."



More coverage on these comments:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/14/politics/hillary-clinton-iran-nuclear-deal/

Washington (CNN)Hillary Clinton hailed the deal that the United States and other world powers struck with Iran on Tuesday as an "important step in putting a lid on Iran's nuclear program."

What's bound to draw attention as the agreement's political ramifications come into focus: Clinton owns a piece of it. She helped the negotiations get started.

The Democratic presidential front-runner said President Barack Obama -- who tapped her as America's top diplomat in his first term in office -- called her late Monday night to tell her that negotiators had struck a deal: Iran will rein in its nuclear program and allow for close monitoring....."We have to treat this as an ongoing enforcement effort, which I certainly strongly support and as President would be absolutely devoted to ensuring that the agreement is followed," Clinton added, leaving shortly thereafter without answering reporter questions.

[sufrommich]

8. "they'll know you're not being transparent"

[MADem]

10. I am amazed that people don't realize how deep in the negotiations she was.

She put that table together. She worked with Oman to 'tunnel through' to get Iran to the table in a serious 'for real' way.

It's a good deal, a crowing achievement of the Obama administration, and she owns a good chunk of it. This is just the opening paragraph in a book about the resumption of relations, though--there are more chapters to write here, and a lot of them have to do with human rights.

But this is a good start!

That pic cracks me up!!

[George II]

42. What shocks me is that a well-respected member of the DEMOCRATIC Party who...

....has served our country for decades can be called a "neocon" with impunity.

Truly sad.

[SidDithers]

14. The right hates Hillary. The fringe left hates Hillary...

and they're both pretty fucking hilarious at times.

Sid

[MADem]

18. This thread is probably a good example of what happens when

someone runs with "expected" or "incomplete" information and they hold strong biases based on a poor understanding of current events and history.

The people who chime in approvingly are suffering the same lack of understanding.

I prefer to think that's the case, rather than anything nefarious, because I am kindly and prefer to think the best of people until they go out of their way to prove me wrong...!!!!

It is kind of funny, though--especially when it's not hard to verify information if one is not sure these days. Much easier now, with a computer, than having to read six or seven major papers and REMEMBER all those details! Life is so much easier nowadays with that Google-thingy!

[calimary]

25. Oh but nobody's interested in this part, MADem.

Sad to say...

But it's true. You don't just birth negotiations like the Kerry efforts as fully formed, fully-grown adults. You have to start with baby steps. Overtures. Early efforts. Preliminary scene-setters, and clearing the field, breaking the ground, furrowing the ground, so that you can then plant seeds. Which THEN will hopefully grow into mature plants.

No tree starts out 10 feet tall and fully leafy. You have to start with itty bitty seeds. Somebody has to plant them. Somebody has to start trying to open things up - so the John Kerrys and the negotiating teams can step in and eventually close the deal.

I'd suspect that if the notion spreads that Hillary's fingerprints were on the beginnings of this, there will be some who then decide the deal's just gotta be horrible.

[MADem]

41. All they have to do is research the topic--it's not rocket science.

Even the BUSH administration was working this issue--in their own foot-dragging, crabby, noxious and faux way. You'd have to be someone who doesn't read a newspaper, ever, or watch the news, to not know this!!

I'm ASTOUNDED that anyone would make the claim that this all came to pass starting in 2012--it's unbelievably naive, to put it kindly.

Anyone who says the deal has just gotta be horrible (and there may be a few who, being obtuse about the history of the issue, will probably say that) is jumping straight into bed with John Boehner! He is crying like a colicky newborn over this deal.

The only option, other than doing that, is to try to disparage Hillary--never mind that Obama called her first thing the very SECOND the deal was made, and she leapt into action, headed for Congress, and whipped the Democratic caucus into shape! I mean, come on--why did they think she "just happened" to be up on the Hill with Nancy Pelosi? She was just stopping by for coffee? She's a private citizen, a candidate for the Presidency, but someone who--because she did a lot of the hard work--is INVESTED in making this deal happen, and was helping her former boss get it done.

[karynnj]

30. She did the bulk of the negotiations???

From July 2012 - January 2013???? Then Kerry pretended to work for the last several years?? Yeah sure.

[MADem]

38. You do realize that this process started in the BUSH administration?

You do realize that Obama has been President since 2008--not 2012?

You do realize that Hillary Clinton became SECSTATE right after Obama took office?

You do realize that an enormous amount of negotiation preceded any gatherings around a table to discuss specifics?

Yeah, sure--indeed!!!



You need a primer--start here: https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheet/Timeline-of-Nuclear-Diplomacy-With-Iran

April 8, 2009: Following an Iran policy review by the new Obama administration, the United States announces that it would participate fully in the P5+1 talks with Iran, a departure from the previous administration’s policy requiring Iran to meet UN demands first.

Then keep reading until you hit 2015. Then read the paper, today.

karynnj
30. She did the bulk of the negotiations???
View profile
From July 2012 - January 2013???? Then Kerry pretended to work for the last several years?? Yeah sure.

[Historic NY]

48. +1

I heard her loud and clear apparently others here didn't.

[Maedhros]

11. Hillary is a belligerent hawk.

Let's keep her far, far from the White House please.

[peacebird]

12. Working on it....

[Maedhros]

15. Me, too.

[MADem]

13. She is one of the architects of this deal with Iran. And she likely ensured it will prevail.

Don't let those pesky facts interfere with your notions, though.

http://www.newser.com/story/209795/hillary-clinton-may-have-just-saved-the-iran-deal.html

Hillary Clinton met with congressional Democrats on Capitol Hill today and gave what one described as a "full-throated" endorsement of the Iran nuclear deal, reports the Hill. Clinton's public comments were a bit more measured: "This is an important step in putting a lid on Iran's nuclear program," she said, before adding that she still has "concerns" about Iran's behavior. Still, Clinton's support of the deal might well ensure its survival, writes Colin Campbell at Business Insider.

Here's the rationale: Congress has 60 days to review the deal, and while it can't block the agreement, it can try to "undermine" it by refusing to lift sanctions on Iran, reports the AP. President Obama already has promised a veto in such a scenario. To override, Republicans would need to pick up Democratic votes, and while some of the more hawkish Democrats might be willing to buck Obama, they probably won't be willing to go against their party's sitting president and its 2016 frontrunner, writes Campbell. In fact, it's "EXTREMELY unlikely" that would happen, tweets Mark Murray of NBC News.

[George II]

37. She WILL win the nomination and be elected.

[cui bono]

16. Jury results:

I was Juror #2...


AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
On Tue Jul 14, 2015, 01:26 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Hillary just said even if nuclear agreement she will immediately build a coalition against Iran
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026973657

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This post is a fabrication and deliberate distortion of a Democrat's remarks. State sponsored terror was decoupled from nuclear negotiations in order for the agreement to proceed. Clinton talks about enforcing the nuclear agreement and building alliances to move them from state sponsored terror. Watch the video and see.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Jul 14, 2015, 01:40 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I think the OP is analyzing what they saw/heard and if the alerter wishes to debunk their analysis they should feel free reply to the OP.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: While this post has a definite spin away from reality, it does not violate the TOS. Posts are allowed to be ... creative with the interpretation of events as long as they don't verge into conspiracy theories, meta navel-gazing or frank insults of other DUers.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Umm, alerter, juries are for civility... not parsing policy speeches. Make your case in the thread.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If the post is in error, expose the errors. That's better for the discussion than hiding the post.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The alerter should argue their point not use alert to end discussion

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Eleanors38]

29. "What a difference a day makes... Twenty-four little hours."

[MADem]

45. I would have been sad if this thing got hidden--it is unintentionally hilarious!

This is a link to point people towards if they want an understanding as to how well some factions understand (or more properly, do not understand) the issues of the day.

The recs tell an unintended story, too!!

[markpkessinger]

47. Thank you, cui bono . . .

. . .and to the other jurors also, for refusing to go along with what amounts to a very clear attempt to abuse the alert system.

[Bluenorthwest]

20. You insult my intelligence with this garbage. I also support the deal, I also have many criticisms

for Iran, which have to do with their treatment of Iranian people. If you don't think some of their choices are in fact bad, I think you are in fact bad. They have extremely oppressive laws against LGBT people, they execute gay men with some regularity. You don't think that should be criticized?

[geek tragedy]

21. a multilateral agreement on nukes doesn't make us friends with Iran.

the two states will still remain hostile to one another for quite some time.

we still have our agenda, they still have theirs.

there will be discrete areas of cooperation (ISIS) and much room for conflict

[cstanleytech]

22. Got the time index for when she said "bad Iran" the first time?

My eyes kinda started glazing over after about a minute and a half into it lol

[uhnope]

24. see my post #23. She never said it. nt

[cstanleytech]

39. Oh? I suspected that might have been the case but just could sit through another 2 - 3 minutes

of her video, ah well.

[Scootaloo]

54. She said "Bad Behavior of Iran" and "Iran's bad behaviors" and "Iran's bad actions"

I think Levymg has a valid starting point here, but he severely over-shot with his post.

[uhnope]

23. BS. You're making up quotes. She didn't say "Bad Iran" even once. She didn't mention Israel once.

She wants a coalition to work against Iran's negative influence. What wrong with that? What wrong with trying to stop the vicious gay-murdering torture government of Iran as a regional power?

I'm no fan of Hillary but this post just seems like agitprop.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/12/iran-s-new-gay-executions.html

The tragic hanging of two “sodomites” in Iran may seem, in theory, like an obvious cause for U.S. concern and U.S. action. (Sign a petition! Demand human rights!) Yet in practice, those most attentive to LGBT concerns may be the least eager to pick this fight.

As Nina Strochlic reported in these pages Sunday, the two men, Abdullah Ghavami Chahzanjiru and Salman Ghanbari Chahzanjiri, were hanged in southern Iran on August 6, possibly for consensual sodomy. Their deaths are part of a wave of executions in Iran, with more than 400 in the first half of 2014 alone, according to the NGO Iran Human Rights.

[Eleanors38]

27. Trying to cover all political bases and the pitcher's mound.

[George II]

28. Neocon??????

[quickesst]

32. Three words....

....always prepare me for the potential of hearing a bunch of 🐂shit. "IN OTHER WORDS".

[99th_Monkey]

44. Thank God/dess for John Kerry. Hillary would NOT have been able

to get a treaty with Iran, not with that attitude.

[MADem]

49. John Kerry wouldn't have been able to get a deal without all the work Secstate

Clinton did from 2009 on....and everyone in government and media acknowledges this.

Don't smack yourself in the head too hard, now.

[sufrommich]

51. Kerry's "attitude" about Iran's human rights abuses is

exactly the same as Hillary Clintons. How hard is it to use the Google?

[mylye2222]

55. You are kidding right????

[sufrommich]

58. Er,no I'm not. nt

[hifiguy]

53. WTF is WRONG with this woman?

Does she ever stop beating the war drums? Even on a day as significant as this in terms of foreign policy??!

[Scootaloo]

57. if your goal was to marginalize your own argument... bravo, I guess.

Look, she does take her "I'mma kick Iran's ass!" stance in the second half of the speech. But not to the degree you say she does, and not with the quotes you attribute to her. There's plenty to criticize there, but you should do it honestly, otherwise the entire point gets washed out.

[azurnoir]

60. sorry locking please post in General Discussion Primaries