Clinton is relying on intelligence on Iran that she got from the Bush administration???

[bigtree]

They're telling her that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is sponsoring terrorism and she's bought it. She's bought into the administration line on Iran enough to posture against them as 'state sponsors of terrorism.'

Has she given up any suspension of belief when it comes to 'intelligence' provided by this administration? How many time does she have to be lied to before she catches on?

Her answer was disgraceful, and amazingly accommodating of the administration's PR on Iran. There's been even less manufactured evidence against Iran than the Bush administration dished out on Iraq.

Clinton looks like she's bought the whole bag without demanding the kind of proof that Congress and the American people need before posturing against Iran as some kind of threat that everyone knows will just encourage Bush to push forward with some kind of military aggression against yet another sovereign nation. She, and the others who voted for the Lieberman manifesto against Iran, are drifting American toward another preemptive military assault across sovereign borders.

The notion that *Iran threatens Iraq is belied by the numerous economic and security agreements that have been made between the Iranian government and the new Iraqi regime. The ONLY thing Iran threatens in Iraq is the U.S. interest and ambition that Bush is imposing on Iran's next-door neighbor behind the force of our military.

Iran has not threatened our country, except in defense of what they see as their own interests in Iraq. And, we haven't seen any of the level of posturing against Iran from the Maliki regime that Clinton seems to support with her approval of Lieberman's legislative provocation.

My question is, how can Clinton rely on intelligence on Iran (or anywhere else) provided by the Bush administration? She admitted (in the debate) that the Bush administration is not providing Congress with the full range of information they need to make these determinations on Iran independent of Bush's own biased dribblings he's used to bait Congress into supporting his planned aggression.

To take any of what the administration determines on Iran as settled fact is an invitation to Bush to roll right over Congress (again) and do whatever he pleases to counter the Iranian 'threat' they've manufactured and cobbled together in Cheney's office.


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[MazeRat7]

1. I think it goes to the follow up question about judgment and experience... -nt

[partylessinOhio]

2. She bought the Bush/Lies about Saddam and WMDs and Shock and Awe

and the invasion and the slaughter of his sons put on display naked on slabs and Saddam's fake trial and Saddam's hanging and this endless war for OIL. She bought the cover of the false flag of 9-11.

[dflprincess]

3. She can always claim she was "misled" again

n/t

[Turbineguy]

4. Relying on intel from the Bush Admin?

Edited for being too OTT.

[Richard Steele]

5. That should tell us all we need to know about her judgment. nm

[Hydra]

6. She and Thompson were invited to a high level counter-terrorism meeting

I saw that as a sign that both had been tapped to be the chosen reps...as for Sen. Clinton believing all of this, she's too smart to have, and besides, she's been on the inside for more than 14 years now.

When she got spanked with her healthcare program while her husband was in office, I think she learned a bitter lesson- nobody gets power in Washington without signing on the dotted line. Since then, she seems to have learned how to play the game so well and made the right allies that she may well become the first woman president...I always thought a black man would get it first.

In her transformation, however, she has gone from being one of the people I most admired in Washington to being a snake I'm not sure I would trust. Would she have real power in the Presidency, or would she be beholden to the large corporations that seem to have a stranglehold on our system?

If she was the one in control, I would give a 50% chance that she would dismantle all of this crap that's been put in place...but since that leaves the other option also, that means there is really only a 25% chance...those are long odds...

[bigtree]

7. she's obviously aligning with the pro-Israel constituency in her home state

and in Congress. Anti-Iran = pro-Israel interests. It's a calculated strategy to hold on to what she sees as a major constituency who can be withering in their opposition.

She's still amazingly wrong to rely on the administration's intelligence on Iran, and in encouraging ANY aggressive posturing against Iran's interference with Bush's own imperialism in Iraq. End the occupation, end whatever threat to U.S. forces which exist there. We still have NO proof of any nuclear weapon production from Iran. There is no 'threat' from Iran's military, except in their defense of their own interests against U.S. enabled forces posturing against Iraq's next-door neighbor.

The question may end up being, how far would she bend to a (potential) republican Congress on Iran?

[Hydra]

8. You want the truth?

1. She doesn't buy the Admin's intel. It's a convenient excuse.

2. Yes, I know she plays to AIPAC, but all of the top Tiers do...that seems to be part of signing on the doted line.

3. Would she? Sure she would, if she had to, to keep herself in office. That's the 75% thing I mentioned. The 25% chance is that she will do a massive housecleaning and sic the new and improved DoJ on all of her potential blackmailers. Does she have the balls to do that? That would be the question.

[bigtree]

9. I'm going to be praying (and fighting) for that 25% chance

I know there is a zero chance if we allow a republican to get in.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

10. When she started to spout the threat of Iran last night, it sounded eerily familiar

to the same shit she spouted when supporting the IRW, and my blood ran cold. She either is drinking the kool-aid, or she for her own purposes is begging for a confrontation with Iran. Meanwhile, as she was talking about this, she grinned the whole time. brrrrrrrrrrrrr

BTW ... Edwards pegged it right afterwards, saying that he learned from the IRW that you couldn't trust this President.

[bigtree]

11. Edwards didn't guarantee that all troops would be out of Iraq by the end of his first term.

That's some bull . . .

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

13. Please reread what I wrote. I was talking about Iran. Now if you're making a separate

comment on being pissed with Edwards, I am too. I wanted the troops out before they even went in.

I thought Edwards did well, but it's not only hard to forgive him for the IWR, but the fact that he sponsored it too.

[bigtree]

18. Clinton's posture on Iran is exactly the same as the ones which allowed Bush to drift us, then lurch

us into war on Iraq.

It looks like I called what you said bull, doesn't it?I was referring to Edwards, though.

[Hydra]

14. Edwards said some interesting things at the AIPAC conference

Along with Ms. Clinton. He lost my vote when I read some of it, even thought I REALLY want someone to do something about the income gaps.

[Vinca]

12. Deja vu all over again. nt

[Cha]

15. Yeah, she thinks we're all

stupid and we'll buy any bushit she serves up or not. What does it matter what we think when she has it all sewn up what with the cmw guaranteeing her the nom?

[WinkyDink]

16. I'm shocked, SHOCKED. LINK to thread on Hillary as hawk:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3184516

[superkia]

17. I dont believe she bought their war bullshit, I think she knew exactly...

what the goal was. Dennis Kucinich saw that it was about oil and voted against it and hes unelectable, how does that make her electable? She is in bed with them, its all about money, greed, power and the corporations that keep them in their position. She just plays both sides of the fence and her supporters choose to ignore it or are dumbed down enough to believe her every word.

A vote for Clinton is a vote for war!