Sen. Clinton: Iran Is a Threat to Israel - AP

[Eugene]

Sen. Clinton: Iran Is a Threat to Israel

By SAMANTHA GROSS
The Associated Press
Friday, February 2, 2007; 7:57 AM

NEW YORK -- Calling Iran a danger to the U.S. and one of Israel's greatest threats,
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday that "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," Clinton told a crowd of Israel
supporters. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."

Clinton, D-N.Y., spoke at a Manhattan dinner held by the nation's largest pro-Israel
lobbying group, 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.

-snip-

Full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/02/AR2007020200430.html

[rman]

1. "Is a Threat" vs "Could be a threat"

difference?

Does Hillary want to follow the neocon doctrine of preemptive strike?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

4. put simply, YES

remember the trouble she had with AIPAC after she met with Palestinian orphans? she certainly does.

Ah, hillary, you shining example of craven politics and poll-followers

[soleft]

2. She scares me more than Iran

Hawk in pant suit.

[Buzz Clik]

5. LOL!

Zell Miller is looking for ideas for his next speech. You might send him an email.

[Deja Q]

3. Wow. She can speak the obvious! So can I.

With Iran's leader spouting "Israel must be blown off the face of the map!" and lots of other things that don't sound like invitations to a romantic picnic, it's clear the guy is spoiling for a rumble or just wants to goad. And if he's that stupid to goad, how long before everybody else says "We've had enough" and gives the twerp what he seems to want so badly, except it's on him and not Israel?

The sad part is, we could have worked with the Iraqi people to not only take out Saddam, of their own accord and as such be a lot better off with out own stature as well with them and theirs, but help nix Iran as well.

Or why Bush #1 didn't opt to get rid of Saddam at the time, when it was far more reasonable to do so.

Assuming I'm not missing any details...

[Gloria]

7. The details are that within Iran there is movement to counter

Ahm....subtly diplomacy would be big help now instead of this crap we're hearing from Billary and Bushco....

Hillary is just going to be a real Buscho enabler because the press will be ready to quote her every minute....

[oblivious]

13. 'With Iran's leader spouting "Israel must be blown off the face of the map!"' Nonsense.

[woodsprite]

6. Wonder how much AIPAC donated to her campaign? n/t

[oberliner]

9. Of the $1,467,895 in PAC contributions for her 2006 Senate run

$35,618 came from pro-Israel lobby groups.

Individual contributions, however, make up 93% of the total money she received (PACs only make up 4%)

Here are the top 20 individual contributors and the amounts given:

1 Citigroup Inc $215,610
2 Goldman Sachs $180,090
3 Metropolitan Life $154,600
4 Corning Inc $135,750
5 Time Warner $133,620
6 JP Morgan Chase & Co $121,075
7 Morgan Stanley $116,060
8 Credit Suisse Group $114,650
9 Skadden, Arps et al $100,030
10 Ernst & Young $95,925
11 International Profit Assoc $88,400
12 New York Life Insurance $86,250
13 Sullivan & Cromwell $84,350
14 Cablevision Systems $83,300
15 Cendant Corp $75,500
16 Kirkland & Ellis $73,850
17 Viacom Inc $72,480
18 Akin, Gump et al $67,250
19 Patton Boggs LLP $63,388
20 Lehman Brothers $61,640

[Joanne98]

10. AIPAC is lobbying for a war with Iran....

Iran: The Core of Middle East Instability

Some analysts have suggested that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could be a key factor in stabilizing Iraq and solving other unrelated conflicts in the Middle East.

While achieving peace between Israel and the Palestinians is an important goal, this argument ignores the central role that Iran is playing in destabilizing the region.

From Iraq to Lebanon, the Islamic Republic is stirring sectarian tension, pushing for political upheaval and sponsoring terrorism, all the while pursuing the atomic capability that would give it a freer hand to step up its radical foreign policy agenda.

Iran Has Undermined Efforts to Resolve the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict itself is a case study in how Iran wields its influence to foment conflict in the Middle East.

Iran has funded, armed and inspired Palestinian terrorists, undermining international attempts to build support for a two-state solution to the dispute.
http://www.aipac.org/2387_1711.asp

[Tom Joad]

16. Yes, read Scott Ritter on this issue. In fact, read AIPAC speeches for this info.

They have been pushing for a confrontational policy toward Iran for sometime.

No room for general nuclear disarmament (that would include Israel), only military confrontation in its book.

It has much to do with the arrest of two of its executives for spying.
http://www.stopaipac.org/spystory.htm#Escalation

[Tom Joad]

15. Haim Saban, current net worth of 2.8 Billion. Record contributor to Dem Party.

And to W. Bush (and gov. Arnold of California... thanks for nothin' haim). He is also very active with AIPAC.

In the 2001-2002 election cycle, his Saban Capital group donated over $10 million to the Democratic National Committee. He holds a record for individual contributions to the Party. I think folks in the party know that he is not to be offended. Her friendship with Haim is certainly going to help her get the backing of the Party establishment.

See the nice photo of Hillary and Haim at this site.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6230.shtml (its a story about how the Saban center... named after Haim, played host to anti-Arab extremist Avigdor Lieberman, with Hillary and Bill in attendance)

It would be interesting to know how much money she has received from individuals like Haim Saban she has received. While most people in this country oppose the militarism of the Bush administration, and an even larger proportion of Jewish voters do, some of the very wealthy (non-Jewish and Jewish) do not.

[oberliner]

17. A Jewish billionaire donates millions of dollars to the Democratic party

And that's a bad thing?

Perhaps he donates such large amounts of money to members Democratic party because Democratic party members share his views on issues that he cares about?

Are you implying that Democrats are somehow going to take positions that go against their values simply because a wealthy donor holds those positions?

This is a man who has donated over 13 million dollars to the Democratic party and about 1/1000th of that amount to Republicans.

In 2002 he donated over 9 million dollars to the Democratic party and 0 dollars to Republicans.

Haim Saban has also contributed money to Labor Party candidates in Israel. The very people who are running against the right-wing Likud candiates in Israel.

Yes, he is a friend of the Clintons. They have the same goal, a resolution of the conflict resulting in two states living side by side at peace with one another.

The Clintons are intelligent and informed enough to have their own opinions about the conflict.

The Saban Center has hosted numerous forums inviting people from all across the political spectrum in the US, Europe, and the Middle East. Americans, Europeans, Israelis, and Palestinians with starkly different views have come together to engage in dialogue under the auspices of the Saban Center. I'm not sure how this can be a bad thing.

The implication of your post, that Democrats must take positions that don't offend this one super-wealthy Jewish-American citizen, seems to brush up against the sorts of sentiments one finds on the web sites of some seriously unpleasant characters.

[Tom Joad]

18. I can't disagree with mr. Saban without being implicated as being an anti-Semite?

seriously unpleasant indeed.

I made it very clear in my post (i could have put it in 50pt type, flashing colors, and it still would have been ignored, because people see what they want to see) that Saban's views contradict those of most Jewish voters.
e.g. Saban gave big money to Governor Arnold. Most Jewish voters opposed his reelection.

I suspect that most Jewish voters are not too fond of Ms. Clinton's stance on Iraq, and will vote accordingly.

I do think party insiders are sometimes too eager to please the big funders, whatever their ethnic identity. I think it's a problem.

Some may see wealthy people giving very large donations as nothing but a good thing. That's their right. But don't accuse people of anti-semitism just because some of the donors in question happen to be Jewish.

[oberliner]

19. I did not (and do not) accuse you of being anti-semitic

Obviously one can disagree with Mr. Saban without being implicated as being an anti-Semite.

I disagree with some of what he has said publically about the conflict.

Your post was not about disagreeing with Haim Saban. You did not state any of his positions with which you disagree.

You identified him as a record contributor to the Democratic Party and W. (without mentioning that he has contributed over $13,000,000 to Democrats while donating only $2,000 to Bush in the 2004 Republican primary)

You stated: "I think folks in the party know that he is not to be offended".

The implication of that post is, in my mind, to greatly overstate his influence.

That Hillary Clinton takes positions on Israel out of fear of offending Haim Saban and not because she actually holds those positions is something that I take issue with.

George Soros has donated millions of dollars in support of the Democrats and his position on Israel is not the same as Haim Saban.

It just seems to me that the influence of money coming from people who are (for lack of a better term) pro-Israel seems to somehow be greater than the influence of the larger amount of money coming from say, the oil and gas lobby or defense industry lobby or other lobby groups who might have a stake in shaping a candidate's policy on the Middle East.

Hillary Clinton gets a hell of a lot of money from trial lawyers because trial lawyers believe her positions are favorable to their cause. One rarely hears accusations against Hillary Clinton for taking pro-trial lawyer positions that she does not herself already hold simply because of the influence of that lobby.

This line of thinking seems primarily to come up in the context of pro-Israel lobby groups.

Honestly, I completely agree with you that candidates are too eager to please the big funders. But it seems to me that this argument is most often seems made within the context of big funders who are pro-Israel, and, incidentally, Jewish.

Again, let me emphasize that I am not and did not (and do not) accuse you of being anti-semitic.

However yours was not a post taking Haim Saban to task on positions of his with which you disagree.

It was a post that, in my view, implied that the Democrats are forced to take certain positions on Israel that they themselves may or may not hold for fear of not offending Haim Saban and that is what I found to be an unfair accusation. That accusation, which I dispute, is one that I've encountered on those unplesant sites (where they take the leap from that claim to the anti-semitic "Jews have too much power" argument, an argument I am not accusing you of making at all).

My disagreement is with what I believe to be your overstating of the influence of Haim Saban over the policies of the Democratic Party in general and Hillary Clinton in particular.

It also seems striking to me that the majority of wealthy donors and lobby groups that get singled out for having too much power and influence seem to be ones whose primary interest is Israel.

[breakaleg]

20. Groups having too much power and the influence they do or hope to weild, I think

get attention. Pro-Israel lobbies get play here because it's the I/P forum and we talk of things such as the US exerting it's influence on Israel to push for a resolution.

I think if it were another forum, whether it be about oil, the tobacco industry, or gun control, you would hear plenty about their respective lobbies.

[oberliner]

21. fair enough

That's a good point. This is the I/P forum so the pro-Israel lobby groups get attention here.

Do you really believe, though, that Clinton takes "pro-Israel" positions because of the money she gets from Haim Saban, as opposed to Haim Saban giving her money because she already has taken "pro-Israel" positions?

It seems like every time a Democrat makes a statement that is "pro-Israel" there is this reaction that it is somehow due to "the power of AIPAC" rather than it being their own actual views on the situation.

[breakaleg]

22. I don't know enough about her directly to have an opinion either way.

But I am very skeptical of politician whose opinions fall in line with their biggest supporters. Unfortunately it's difficult to know for certain whether they've had those opinions all along and the donations followed or they changed their stance after the donations came in.

In Hilary's case, wasn't there a post recently where her position appeared to soften with respect to the Palestinians? I thought so.

[Tom Joad]

23. It could be that people like Clinton rise up to the top because she

has the convictions she does.

Stephen Zunes (a supporter of Tikkun, and self-described Zionist) argues that aipac does not have all that much to do with Pelosi's positions on Israel/Palestine, only that she is naturally anti-Arab. and that is why she is loved by aipac, and she loves aipac. Probably some truth to that.
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3270

I do think groups like aipac reinforce these things. Even if Hillary were naturally inclined to support militaristic solutions, having these cheerleaders for war only makes things worse. That's why she feels so easy to dismiss Code Pink women and other peace activists. She has her own crowd that has pledged their support.

[Tom Joad]

25. Do you think the Christian Right has too much influence in the Republican party?

Do you think some Republican officeholders might take a more liberal view of issues such as abortion rights but do not out of concern of not offending major funders/ key backers of the party?

From what i can see that is true. Some republicans certainly do have anti-abortion convictions, and this is the reason they work against abortion. others are just playing along... they either may not have strong views and wouldn't say anything given no pressure to do so, or they would actually support abortion rights absent pressure to actively oppose it.

If it weren't for the Radical Chrisian rights influence in the Repub. party, i think there also would be far fewer "abortion = murder" fanatics within the party leadership.

It seems in both parties there is much pressure to never criticize israel. in fact, in the republican party, it comes not just from aipac and other mostly Jewish organizations, but also the Christian Right.

I think we should be allowed to critique organizations like "Focus on the Family" and groups like aipac just like any other human institution.

[Tom Joad]

24. Thanks for the clarification.

[Tom Joad]

14. Nothing. aipac itself does not contribute money to any candidates.

there are pacs that support militaristic Israeli policies, and they contribute much money to candidates and political parties.

[mazzarro]

8. Her wanton disregard for the party base disgust me

This is the same BS she echoed during the neo-con/dlc show-and-bait leading to the Iraq war. Yes she craves being the darling of the DLC wing of the party. It pains me to say that I am beginning to shut out anything about her.

[Englander]

11. From October 10, 2002;

Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

>snip

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

>snip

This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.

And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.

And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.

Thank you, Mr. President.

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

[Tom Joad]

12. Obviously, Hillary does not know the US .Constitution, or does not

believe in following it. She does have the constitutional right to disagree with it, (First Amendment), but she does have a sworn duty to follow it, even if she does disagree.

The Congress shall: "have the power to declare war" Article I, Section 8


Her wisdom may be subject to some debate also.
she put that "awesome responsibility in the hands of our President" W. Bush.
Most sober americans would not have believe W. would be responsible for anything, yet Hillary trusted W. to do the right thing.

Can we trust Hillary?

Incidently, this speech makes mention of the inspectors leaving Iraq. People should be reminded that they left at the behest of the Bill administration, before he commenced bombing the country in "Operation Desert Fox" (ironically, an operation named, knowingly or not, after the nickname of a WWII Nazi commander)