Why Is Hillary Greasing the Skids for Another War?

[illinoisprogressive]

While running for the White House on a pledge to end the war in Iraq, Senator Hillary Clinton has just voted to brand Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization -- even before the Bush administration has done so.

Well now, is she's racing to outflank the president on the right, or implicitly authorizing another war? Oh no, she assures us. When asked about her vote during a campaign stop in New Hampton, Iowa, on Sunday, she said that it simply gives the president authority to impose penalties.

Interesting. Back in 2002, when she voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq, she did so only ON HER OWN UNDERSTANDING that the president would first get approval from the United Nations. But she voted against an amendment -- moved by Senator Carl Levin of Michigan -- that would have required the president to do precisely that.

Now she claims that she's authorizing only penalties, not war.

A lovely distinction. But if Iran's Revolutionary Guard is indeed a terrorist organization, as Hillary's vote says, doesn't the War on Terror compel us to fight it with everything we have? Where are the brakes on the car that Hillary has just boarded?

There aren't any. But as Seymour Hersh has just shown in the NEW YORKER, Hillary's new car has a 500-horsepower engine all tuned up by Pentagon planners. Bored to tears with the futility of fighting in Iraq, not to mention Afghanistan (remember that one?), and overloaded with soldiers who have absolutely nothing to do after eighteen grueling months of combat, they're just itching to open a third front in Iran.

Even if sanity somehow stops us short of bombing Iran, invading it, or both, the Senate vote offers yet another example of what our Middle East policy has become. We have replaced diplomacy with demonization. Even though Hamas won the most recent election in Palestine and will be crucial to its future, we have branded it a terrorist organization. Even though we now know that the war against Iraq's insurgents cannot be won on the battlefield, and even though we must also see that Iran is absolutely crucial to any diplomatic or political resolution we might hope to achieve in Iraq, we are doing everything possible to demonize Iran.

More:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-heffernan/why-is-hillary-greasing-t_b_67626.html

[TomClash]

1. Israel really wants this one

and the money must keep flowing.

[IndianaGreen]

3. Israel also wanted war with Iraq

How many American men and women have died as a result?

[TomClash]

39. Not the way it wants this

Other factors trumped Israeli support for the Iraq War - like control of the second largest supply of oil reserves in the world. Mearshimer/Walt are wrong on this issue - Iraq is easily the worst chapter in an otherwise excellent book.

But Israel wants regime change badly in Iran for several obvious reasons, some plausible and some bogus. If we attack Iran and it does not go well, you can lay the blame directly at the Israeli/neo-con doorstep.

[Purveyor]

4. Shhhhh....this is only to be 'whispered' in the dark and smokey cloakrooms... eom

[cali]

7. LOL!

one trick pony is the phrase that comes to mind.

[bvar22]

32. Wonder if there is a connection?

[Skip Intro]

37. say hi to the elephant in the corner

[IndianaGreen]

2. K&R

IWR is (take your pick): Iraq War Resolution or Iran War Resolution. Hillary voted for both!

[Cleita]

5. She's been successful at getting Republican campaign

contributions, now she's going for their votes. That's what's going on. If she wins with this strategy we will have another eight years of Republican rule under the guise of the Democrats. We are losing our party.

[samplegirl]

6. Blustering herself up to look tough....

I hope it costs her leadership.

[smalll]

8. Just to Piss You Off.

No, :sarcasm: but seriously, is Hillary plotting a war with Iran? I doubt Hillaryland has even had a task force assigned to research the question, focus-group it, and come to a provisional decision. If they have, I bet they came down on "no." Invading Iran turned out to really bomb in the focus groups. Cut badly all the way across, from soccer-moms to young-marrieds, young professionals, blacks, wine track voters, beer track voters - they all hated it!

[Didereaux]

9. seriously...it may be unavoidable thanks to Cheney&Co...

Wars are funny things, not unlike family spats most times. Starts out with a little dig, then another, then a threat, counter-threat etc. At some point human nature generally draws a line from which it will nat retreat back to...then war! The Iran problem in regards to nuclear warheads is real, has been for a long time. Same with North Korea. The Cheney administration, for as yet to me unfathomable reasons chose to attack Iraq and ignored the real threat except for sporadic token references, but even the axis of evil, rememer that phrase(Iran/Syria/North Korea) disappeared, like bin Laden from the whackos vocabulary.

Before you argue that Iraq was chosen because of oil, remember that oil is in abundance in Iran. Perhaps Iraq was perceived(correctly)that it would be an easier mark than Iran, and could then be used a a springboard to Iran...or Israel factor or or or

whatever, Iran may have been given sufficient time now, and sufficient threats have been made that the next president may be faced with a real problem.

For you literalist nutjobs who will jump on this and demand 'proof', links whatever THIS IS CONJECTURE, MY CONJECTURE OKAY? So go back you your corners or rocks or whatevers.

[Totally Committed]

10. If it looks like an AIPAC warmonger, and it quacks like an AIPAC Warmonger,

we must ALL be dead ducks. Or, something like that.

TC

[partylessinOhio]

14. I agree, and I won't vote for an AIPAC warmoner.

Hillary isn't Bill Clinton. Those days are gone forever.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran

U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs.


Obama said the United States must first address Iran's attempt to gain nuclear capabilities by going before the United Nations Security Council and lobbying the international community to apply more pressure on Iran to cease nuclear activities. That pressure should come in the form of economic sanctions, he said.

But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said.

"The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?" Obama asked.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0409250111sep25,1,4555304.story

[Cameron27]

15. Edwards isn't shy about taking on Iran either:

"Iran represents a great challenge for the United States. We can best prevent Iran from threatening our interests through a 'smart power' strategy that will combine carrots and sticks, direct engagement, and international pressure to convince moderate Iranians that they cannot and must not pursue nuclear weapons." – John Edwards

John Edwards believes it is of the utmost importance that we prevent Iran from possessing nuclear weapons. Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a politically unstable leader and an open supporter of terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran's possession of nuclear weapons could also set off a regional nuclear arms race in an unstable region in the world, which would directly threaten US interests. As president, Edwards would take aggressive steps to resolve the situation and to protect the United States and our allies.

http://johnedwards.com/issues/iran/

"Washington shouldn't rule out the use of military force against Iran, former US senator John Edwards told The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday while on a visit here. He also backed Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's unilateral realignment plan."

snip: “We cannot allow Iran to have nuclear weapons,” he declared, endorsing America’s current approach of working with the Europeans using diplomatic levers.

But he said the “carrots” on offer have to come with heavy pressure, such as “serious sanctions.”

In terms of the “stick” of military strikes, he said, “I would never take any option off the table.”

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1149572637421&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. It's Intellectually Dishonest , IMHO, To Single Hillary Out For Behavior Others Are Also Engaging

In

And I'm out...

Good evening...

[Cameron27]

20. Absolutely,

and have a great evening. I've got to pick up my son in a few minutes, and then I'm out myself.

[Hydra]

19. All three have said it

Which is why I'm not thrilled to death by our top-tiers. War is NOT F***ING GOOD FOR BUSINESS! Quit saying that it is!

[Froward69]

12. If she trumpets war with Iran

the republicans would have to agree. :sarcasm: she really doesn't care what the rest of us think.:hide:

[cobalt1999]

13. She isn't.

That was a simple question.

[Hydra]

16. I've heard from good sources that this is already a done deal

And if we accept Clinton's cheerleaders POV, she's got the nomination bagged.

Given those facts, why shouldn't she be greasing the wheels? She never had a problem with invading Iraq- she just would have done it differently. The Neocons are ok with the strategy in place. Cheap soldiers that come home in body bags or half-blow up, denied PTSD treatment and various types of medical care while the Iraqis kill each other and we help keep the pot stirred. She apparently had something more efficient in mind.

George will bomb, and she'll inherit it. Don't you love how our gov't works?

[cali]

21. *snicker*

sorry, I don't buy that you've heard from "good sources" without just a wee bit more info.

[Hydra]

22. This is a public message board

I'll talk all day about what I'll do after the fall, so to speak, but I don't give specifics to strangers.

Let me say that this was a person I trust, and I didn't want to believe them. That was before the Moveon.com censure and the Kyle-Lieberman amendment. Color me disappointed and one of the converted.

By the way, did you get over whatever was bothering you this morning? Some of your posts were quite "reactionary" to put it politely.

[cali]

23. Oh, please. Look who's talking. n/t

[Cameron27]

24. I'm going to have to back cali on this.

It's because this is an anonymous political message board that inside info has to be backed up with some proof. If you don't want to get specific, don't expect to be taken seriously.

[Hydra]

28. *yawn*

Plenty of people from the inside have blown the whistle on this. One of the most frightening pieces on this I saw this morning.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1999233

I still prefer Sy's piece:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0709/30/le.01.html

BLITZER: And here's what also you write. You say, "Now the emphasis is on surgical strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere, which the administration claims have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq. What had been presented primarily as a counter-proliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism."

And there's obviously different kinds of military moves you deal with fighting terrorism as opposed to proliferation, nuclear weapons, for example.

HERSH: Absolutely. And you can also sell counterterror. It's more logical. You can say to people, the American people, we're only hitting those people that we think are trying to hit our boys and the coalition forces. And so that seems to be more sensible.

Because the White House thinks they can actually pitch this, this would actually work. In other words, you can do a bombing and not have the world scream at us and also get the British on board.

2 pieces out of hundreds of people screaming for them not to do it. I give them zip chance of succeeding in preventing it- after all, the three top tier dems are calling for it.

[illinoisprogressive]

17. Seriously, it is concerning and I just don't want another war.

[calteacherguy]

25. No. nt

[MGKrebs]

26. A resolution is an instrument of diplomacy.

The IWR could have resulted in Saddam resigning or avoiding conflict somehow, and in fact we did learn recently that he allegedly offered to resign, but was turned down by Bush anyway. So if that story is true, the IWR probably worked to the extent that it could.
http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/3178

The Iran resolution is a step in a process, and a resolution IS an instrument of diplomacy.
Does the experience of Iraq affect how Iran reacts?
If George Bush is intent on attacking no matter what, why do we try to blame others for his insanity?

[earthlover]

31. The IWR was NOT "an instrument of diplomacy"...far from it!

The Bush adminstration failed to even try serious diplomacy with regard to Iraq. The IWR was just a ratification of their pre-conceived plan to invade Iraq!

I seriously doubt if the Bush Administration is doing any better with regard to diplomacy with iran than with iraq.

No...a thousand times no...."the Iraq resolution probably worked to the extent it could..." The fact that we went to war anyway, in spite of any reactions by Iraq, demonstrates that diplomacy was never a part of the picture!

It is a Brave New World when we are told that the Iraq Resolution worked....

[bvar22]

35. Same BS. Different day.

You could cut & paste the exact same rationalizations from conservative DUers trying to defend our brave representatives who voted "YES" on the IWR.

[MGKrebs]

38. Look, it's information.

Would Saddam have offered to resign one month before the attack if he wasn't pretty damn sure it was coming?
What does diplomacy entail if not resolutions and statements? How much credibility does a diplomat have if their counterpart feels that their government isn't backing them?

Maybe I'm in the wrong forum. Ideas don't get discussed in GD-P anymore.

[AtomicKitten]

27. if it walks like a duck ...

[mmonk]

29. Yes, no matter her intention.

I know this is part of the battle between you two parties, but had to be answered in the way I look at it. Should be a discussion in GD.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

30. Rightly or wrongly, in order to enhance her chance of winning in 2008.

The same reason Chris Dodd picked whatever tie he wore today.

It is the same reason every single candidate does everything.

[Freddie Stubbs]

33. And yet Obama did not vote against this

[mentalsolstice]

34. Reality perhaps? n/t

[Carrieyazel]

36. Because she has no problems with war, and likes it because she mustn't be called weak.

[dfgrbac]

40. Because she is an imperialist - like most of the candidates.

Peace candidates are few.