Clinton will not rule out Iran strike..........Why would we strike them, what have they REALLY done?

[babsbunny]

At a speech Friday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) said "no option can be taken off the table" when dealing with Iran, RAW STORY has learned.

Clinton tempered her remarks by saying she's advocated engagement with "our enemies and Israeli's enemies," adding, "I believe we can gain valuable knowledge and leverage from being part of a process again that enables us to get a better idea of how to take on and defeat our adversaries." Her quotes were reported by the Associated Press.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Senator_Clinton_wont_run_out_war_0203.html

[Little Wing]

1. dump her

get her the fuck out of the system

[DainBramaged]

7. What kind of a remark is that?

[Texas_Kat]

20. Selling out America for war?

It's all about the money.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/02/enforced-orthodoxies-and-iran.html

Enforced orthodoxies and Iran

.... snip

So, according to The New York Sun (and the sources it cites): (1) financial support from groups like AIPAC is indispensable for presidential candidates; (2) the New York Jewish community of "influential" donors is a key part of the "ATM for American politicians"; (3) the issue which they care about most is Iran; and (4) they want a hawkish, hard-line position taken against Iran. And the presidential candidates -- such as Clinton and Edwards -- are embracing AIPAC's anti-Iran position in order to curry favor with that group.

If any public figure made those same points, they would be excoriated, accused of all sorts of heinous crimes, and forced into repentance rituals (ask Wes Clark). But this is what the New York Sun reported on Thursday.

As expected, Sen. Clinton matched Edwards' hard-line anti-Iran rhetoric by including all sorts of hawkish threats in her AIPAC speech:


snip...

[wyldwolf]

2. good. All options should remain open.

[papau]

12. I agree n/t

n/t

[SOS]

43. Will she also keep the military option open for North Korea?

nt

[TheWatcher]

53. I knew I could count on you.

Pathetic.

[Avalux]

3. She was speaking to her audience; talking tough.

I will vote for Hillary if it comes down to it of course, but I can't get past the feeling she'll say or do anything to get elected. I find her insincere.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

5. Ditto.... and thank you for being honest, they could use more of that

in D.C.

[Sparkly]

4. No one should "take it off the table."

It's easier to walk softly when you're carrying a big stick. The idea, though, is to do everything possible to AVOID USING the stick!!

[Usrename]

26. I guess if your in front of certain audiences,

saber rattling is considered walking softly, it's all relative in that regard.

[Adelante]

41. Agreed, Sparkly

What I want to see them doing, the 2008 candidates in Congress and every Dem in Congress, is disabling the Bush preemptive war doctrine by making it illegal for the future, very much including the near future with Iran.

[annabanana]

6. So she would ignore the NIE too..?

I understand why b*sh is pretending that the latest NIE didn't say that Iran wasn't a significant threat.. Why would SHE ignore it?

[sam sarrha]

8. well i guess defending her again is out of the question.. i had better hopes than this

[paulk]

9. Iran funds Hezbollah (and others), considered by the UN to be a

terrorist organization. The main worry is that Iran, if it develops nuclear weapon capability, would give that technology to Hezbollah, or some other group willing to use it. What is especially troubling is that the President of Iran has called for the destruction of Israel, so it's not hard to reach the conclusion that the threat of Iran doing something along those lines is credible.

[truedelphi]

28. Well, ever since Israel levelled the country of Lebanon

SOme people (including myself) consider that Israel is a terrorist state

[paulk]

46. but, we're talking about Iran here, not Israel...

Would it be ok with you if Hezbollah plants a nuke in Tel Aviv?

Please clarify your position here. What would be acceptable to you if we accept that Israel is a "terrorist state".

[truedelphi]

52. Look, I think that Senator Jim Webb has the most

cogent things to say about this.

He feels the Administration is beating drums for war.**

He points out that when he served in Vietnam, most of the Viet COng's ordinance came from China, a rogue nation at that time.

Did we decide to go and launch an attack against China? Even though they had nukes.

Iran is some six years away from nuclear missiles. I am far more worried about what Haliburton might have sold to North Korea than Iran.

And no, I do not want a missile launched against Tel Aviv or any other
place on earth. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were enough devastation for one planet.

But a pre-emptive strike against another nation? It didn't work out for us in March 0f 2003 and it will not work out for us in Spring or Summer 2007 (Most serious analysts realize the biggest threat facing any city on earth is a suitcase nuke.)

**Why would they be beating drums for war? Because otherwise Cheney is toast, with Bush to follow.

[nebenaube]

32. no he didn't, that mis-translation was debunked.

but I don't have the link so who gives a damn....

[Hippo_Tron]

48. If Israel deems Iran a threat to their security then let them deal with it

Invading Iran will put the United States into a situation where it will once again have to occupy a country for a long period of time. I absolutely refuse to support such action considering the fact that our military is already over-extended and I can't stand the thought of our troops going form one occupation to another.

If Israel wants to do to Iran what we did to Iraq then they can go ahead and do it. But we should not help them.

[paulk]

54. the big worry is a generalized war in the ME

that would disrupt the flow of oil to the industrialized world. It's not just about Israel, per se.

I haven't advocated here for war with Iran, and neither has HRC in the article mentioned in the OP. Diplomacy is the best short term answer, and lessoning our dependence on oil is the long term answer.

[LoZoccolo]

10. No sane person would ever rule out anything.

You don't tell the other guy what you're not going to do.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LoZoccolo]

14. Now I'm curious what got said before it got deleted lol!

Maybe could you say it politely and not get it wiped out this time lol!

[ruggerson]

15. Let me take a shot at it:

Fucking DLC corporate whore warmonger!!!!!!

Or something to that effect.

[LoZoccolo]

17. Ha ha ha ha!

Now there are like three other people here saying the same thing; why did they pick me?

[LoZoccolo]

18. I also noticed an irony.

When they signed up for this board, and every time the rules have changed, they are reminded that they themselves agreed to rule out breaking the DU rules when posting here. Well look what happened! :rofl:

[Hippo_Tron]

49. Actually those don't get deleted...

I'd venture to say it was something about Jews controlling US foreign policy.

[k_jerome]

35. i'm going with...

drug running dlc corporate whore...suprising thing is that it actually got deleted.

[ruggerson]

13. I don't want a President who would rule out attacking Iran

You never take anything off the table. It's called smart diplomacy.

[mike_c]

24. I do-- I want a president who will rule out attacking ANYONE...

...for geopolitics, including Iran. If Iran attacks America, then we should defend ourselves. Otherwise, we should be forthright in telling the world that we will not be the aggressors.

[JeffR]

16. In other words, what she said is:

"I'm pandering. But not really pandering. I think this. But that's not to say I don't think that. So send me your money, so we can take back this country for... um, something. God Bless America."

I used to be a huge admirer of this woman. If I have to vote for her next year, I will. But I'll spend a week throwing up after I cast my vote.

[Vidar]

19. They've threatened her funding...unforgivable.

[AtomicKitten]

21. Speak softly and carry a big stick.

"No option can be taken off the table" is the big stick.

Hey, she's a girl. She has to talk tough.

[MonkeyFunk]

22. Only an idiot

or perhaps a Kucinich, would pre-emptively take options OFF the table.

This is real geo-politics being played here, not RISK.

[Imagevision]

23. And I imagine Hillary too is for no talks with Iran...like Bush?

[Hippo_Tron]

50. Actually Hillary has stated repeatedly that she is for talks with Iran

But on that note, Saber rattling seems counter productive to me if she's interested in negotiating.

[Poll_Blind]

25. She STILL believes in Bush's pre-emptive war doctrine. Will she ever learn?

How many times do you make the same bad mistake before learning the lesson?

How many have to die?

PB

[truedelphi]

27. I don't sense much disapproval for the notion of attacking

Iran.

Are there any others on this board concerned about the radioactive fallout that will
within forty-eight hours after a nuclear attack on Iran, be evenly dispersed throughout the world and whose particulates will further escalate the cancer rates of all the nations on this planet?

And we have to take options off the table for now - The Iranians are some six years away from having a nuclear weapon - and we simply cannot have any war anywhere as long as the loser-meister
remains in office. You wanna talk war against Iran - well, we need to have someone who knows how to conduct a war before we attempt to do one on this scale.

Various positions that the USA has taken during the last few years have done the unthinkable - they have united China with Russia on many issues.

And don't forget - to fight a war - you need materials... You need money. China is now the manufacturing power in the world -are we gonna go to them and ask them pretty please for the nuclear triggers for a war they don't approve of?

As for money, Haliburton, KBR took much of our nation's surplus. Our grandchildren will be paying for Iraq - do we really think it fair to saddle our great-great grandchildren with the bill for
Iran?

[Nutmegger]

29. I except nothing less

from pro-war Dems.

What have they learned?

[madfloridian]

30. Here's where they are getting their talking points....

And it angers me that we have to keep giving Bush cover for his preventive, pre-emptive wars. We don't need to do that. Some of our Democrats, many in fact, are sounding just like Republicans about Iran.

If Bush strikes Iran while our military are in Iraq, they are in effect helpless and hostage to the forces that outnumber them and hate them with a passion.

It's a pdf file
http://www.third-way.com/data/product/file/43/Tough_and_Smart_on_Iran.pdf

I am very angry at our hawkish Democrats.

[hijinx87]

31. "refusing to rule out"

is a very different thing than "advocating".

[MiniMe]

44. I agree totally. Saying you won't rule it out isn't the same as saying you will do it,

unless you are *

[DianaForRussFeingold]

33. Hmmm... She did not rule out LieBerman as her running mate

:puke:

[k_jerome]

34. why would she rule it out? has anyone ruled it out? nt.

[Lerkfish]

38. why isn't diplomacy held to the same regard as military preemption?

you never hear anyone saying "diplomacy will always remain on the table"

here's the thing with saber rattling: either you eventually use the saber and become a tyrant, you cow the other into involuntary submission until they find the right time to strike back at you, or you have to back off and appear impotent.

saber rattling only leads to wars, it never prevents them.

[tblue37]

36. I believe she and Edwards have both disqualified themselves

with their saber-rattling over Iran. Gore/Clark, Clark/Obama, some such ticket--not Clinton, and not Edwards, because both are repeating the error they made on the IRW, and in both cases it is pure political calculation, not conviction, that leads them to do so. The fact that it is such DUMB political calculation just underscores their unsuitability as candidates. Even with their finingers to the wind, they can't seem to tell which way it is blowing!

[Lerkfish]

37. chimp set the precedent of unprovoked, preemptive wars of aggression

forever afterwards the path of the US is forced to consider that, which was previously unthinkable for the united states, to be part of the "options".

This administration has forever doomed the planet.

how about saying "diplomacy is never taken off the table"...funny how no one says that, now. Ya notice?

[freedomfries]

39. diplomacy is an option too!

Clinton's statement is not only pandering to her audience. Her statement is disingenuous, as she is quite aware of the fact since Iran has made contless ouvertures to the US since 9/11 to collaborate and negociate on regional issues.

[Joe Chi Minh]

40. Well, from what I read on here yesterday, unlike the US, in particular,

they have been meticulous observers of international agreements. And even if they wanted to, and had initiated a programme to do so -which they haven't - they couldn't complete the manufacture an A-bomb for something like a decade, I believe it was.

But listen, never mind about that! Any country that swimming in oil deserves to be pounded into oblivion, (especially if its people people have brown skins). That combination is way beyond Abou Ghraib or the imperial invasion of a non-belligerent foreign country. Indeed, it must outrage the sensibilities all decent human beings! It's also traitorous. Just ask Cheney.

[truedelphi]

42. Jim Webb the Senator from Virginia was brilliant on

The subject of Iraq invasion over the weekend.

He pointed out that much of the arms flow that went into Vietnam during our conflict there came from China - that China also had nukes - and that we certainly saw no need to invade China. (WHich at the time was called by the same term "rogue nation" that we now use for Iran.)

Unfortunately his remarks were made just before the beginning of SuperBowl 41 - so doubt too many AMericans saw him.

Anyway, one has to wonder if Clinton is talking about the beliefs in her heart of hearts, or rather the monetary influence coming to her from AIPAC.

[mtnsnake]

45. No politician alive would answer any differently than she did.

It's not like she said bombing Iran is something she'd like to do. Jeeeesh.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

47. Does Clinton rule out a carpet bombing campaign on the UK?

How about ruling out of US nuking Tel Aviv?

I mean, if we should never rule anything out...

[Hippo_Tron]

51. A better answer would've been "I wouldn't rule anything out, but I don't see it happening"

That addendum is extremely important considering that it's possible Bush is planning to invade Iran without cause. I have no problem with Senator Clinton saying that she wouldn't rule anything out. But it would help if she would make it absolutely clear that given the current circumstances she would not support military action against Iran.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

55. This is the biggest problem I have with all of the saber-rattling

Everybody is talking endlessly about at least bombing Iran to get rid of its nuclear program in its infancy but nobody is talking about why Iran with nuclear weapons would be any more of a threat than Pakistan, North Korea, Russia, China, and any other country (including US) that currently possesses or is seeking nuclear weapons. I know that Iran's leader is a blowhard and that he has publicly called for Israel's destruction, etc. but OUR leader has actually invaded Iraq under intentionally misleading pretenses and is now openly talking about launching a bombing campaign ON Iran. The mere fact of Iran developing or even obtaining nuclear weapons doesn't seem to be ENOUGH of a justification for launching a pre-emptive strike to knock them out, especially since anything short of another invasion/occupation/regime change will likely fail to deter their nuclear ambitions and a bombing campaign inflicted on Iran is likely will probably only encourage them to re-double their efforts to obtain one. Of course, Bush/Cheney has not placed our country in any kind of position of moral authority regarding nuclear weapons as they have demonstrated that we have no intention of ridding ourselves of our own dangerous nuclear arsenal and are even attempting to increase and refine our nuclear capabilities. How can we go around dictating who can and can't have nuclear weapons yet insist on preserving our own right to keep ours? I personally hope to live to see the day when NOBODY wants to have anything to do with nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons.

[robbedvoter]

56. You mean, just like Edwards? Imagine that!