At Least Hillary Has The Guts To Be Honest & Go Beyond "No Option Is Off The Table" Regarding Iran

[KittyWampus]

Disclaimer- I am not supporting Hillary at this time. And had JUST been warming back up to Richardson. Now without a candidate in Democratic Primary.

At any rate, Jerusalem Post has an article today that makes it sound like Clinton is hawkishly calling for military confrontation with Iran.

In reality, she just said the exact same thing as Edwards, Richardson, Obama, Clark etc. That the military option is a possible LAST resort. This is clear if you read more about her speech.

While I'm not crazy about Hillary as a candidate for various reasons, I give her bonus points for being honest and saying the words "military option" rather than the euphamism the rest of the Democratic pack uses "no option is off the table". Both phrases mean the same thing.

...............................................................................................

From Jerusalem Post:

Democratic presidential candidate and New York Senator Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that it might be necessary for America to confront Iran militarily, addressing that possibility more directly than any of the other presidential candidates who spoke this week to the National Jewish Democratic Council.

Clinton first said that the US should be engaging directly with Iran to foil any effort to gain nuclear weapons and faulted the Bush administration for "considerably narrowing" the options available to America in countering Iran.

Still, she said, all avenues should be explored, since "if we do have to take offensive military action against Iran, it would be far better if the rest of the world saw it as a position of last resort, not first resort, because the effect and consequences will be global."

Other candidates who addressed the NJDC only went as far as saying that "no option should be taken off the table" when it came to thwarting Iran's nuclear ambitions. All of the major Democratic presidential contenders appeared at the three-day conference, but Clinton received the most time and applause. She hit on the importance of the US-Israel relationship and the need to recover the three Israeli soldiers kidnapped last summer by Hamas and Hizbullah, but she devoted most of her address to domestic issues popular with Jewish Democrats, such as education, healthcare and the separation of church and state.

[snappyturtle]

1. I'm sorry but I just don't like Hillary.

She frightens me. I believe ANY talk of the possibility of war on Iran is scary. Pandering for votes is not a strength....lead us Hillary, tell us how to diplomatically win. Another war for us isn't militarily feasible and probably unaffordable. If she were honest she should have told NJDC that if Israel decides to attack Iran that the U.S. (other than our foreign aid) can't be of much help or support. But what do I know? This is my gut talking.

[Benhurst]

2. In point of fact, no option is off the table when dealing with any nation.

But with a psychopathic warmonger in the White House, Clinton, Edwards, Richardson, Obama, Clark, et al should hang their heads in shame for glibly providing cover for his dealings with Iran or any other country.

The Republic hangs by a thread. Our leaders should act accordingly.

[G_j]

3. yikes, guts?

it appears the only candidate with any real "guts" is Kucinich.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Erecting bogeymen is a good way for politicians to raise money.

Hillary, and the rest, (save Dennis), understands the value of flagwaving, fear, and bluster.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H.L. Mencken

[GeorgeGist]

5. How about the option ...

of providing some actual proof. That appears to be off the table with all these knuckleheads.

[William769]

6. As usual she is correct. NT

[warren pease]

7. I suppose that would include "nukulur" weapons? n/t