Hillary's promise to nuke Iran: Nov/Dec 2007 "Foreign Affairs"

[dailykoff]

In case anybody thinks Hillary's vote for the 2002 IWR was a forgivable lapse and her vote for the September 2007 Kyl-Lieberman amendment, basically giving Bushco a green light to nuke Iran, was another one, here's an article in the Nov/Dec. issue of "Foreign Affairs" printed under Hillary's name that makes it absolutely clear that she's ready to extend the Iraq fiasco into Iran:

"Iran poses a long-term strategic challenge to the United States, our NATO allies, and Israel. It is the country that most practices state-sponsored terrorism, and it uses its surrogates to supply explosives that kill U.S. troops in Iraq. The Bush administration refuses to talk to Iran about its nuclear program, preferring to ignore bad behavior rather than challenge it. Meanwhile, Iran has enhanced its nuclear-enrichment capabilities, armed Iraqi Shiite militias, funneled arms to Hezbollah, and subsidized Hamas, even as the government continues to hurt its own citizens by mismanaging the economy and increasing political and social repression.

"As a result, we have lost precious time. Iran must conform to its nonproliferation obligations and must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table."

link: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86601-p40/hillary-rodham-clinton/security-and-opportunity-for-the-twenty-first-century.html

And as far as I can tell, bombing Iran is about the only real plank in her platform. She's never come close to retracting it.

[FrenchieCat]

1. Her vote confirms it......

but of course, we can't discuss that.

Only she can answer the red phone, in her mind.

[dkf]

3. I don't trust her with the red phone.

Especially after seeing this original post.

[dailykoff]

4. Right, a red phone call in Hillary's future

means another 911 and another decade of disaster in the middle east.

[usregimechange]

2. That is almost word for word what Bush said

[dailykoff]

12. Yeah and he was so proud of that on-the-table line.

Hillary's article is also strangely similar to the text of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which she voted for, andwhich includes the following paragraphs:

It is the sense of the Senate--

(2) that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;

(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;

(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;

(5) that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization . . . .

Everything but the WMD and aluminum tubes.

link: http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/issues/kyllieberman.html

[ShaneGR]

5. Where is the promise to nuke Iran?

I see leaving options on the table, not promising to do anything. Nice stretch though.

[dailykoff]

6. It's a euphemism.

"If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table." She's not talking about a Parchesi game.

[Forkboy]

9. ...

:spray:

[KLee]

10. lmaoooo

Parchesi game:rofl:

[Ravy]

13. Just like the claim of a vote to go to war with Iraq....

they are hoping you won't read closely and take their word for it.

[Califooyah Operative]

14. Yea, it wasn't called the Authorization for Use of Military Force or anything like that... nt

[ElsewheresDaughter]

7. On September 24, Barack Obama--“surgical missile strikes” on Iran may become necessary........

On September 24, Barack Obama--the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate from Illinois, and a shoo-in favorite--suggested “surgical missile strikes” on Iran may become necessary. “aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in" given the ongoing war in Iraq, Obama told the Chicago Tribune.

"On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse,” he said. Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if “violent Islamic extremists” were to “take over.”

A U.S. strike on Iran could well open up a new war front. When the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) conducted a recent series of war games involving an attack on Iran, an Air Force source told Newsweek, "The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating."

Why would Obama, whose staunch opposition to the Iraq war made him a hero among Democratic Party liberals, consider attacking Iran?

[dailykoff]

8. Also in September, Clinton voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment.

Obama did not. Unlike Hillary he's not ready to let Chimp and Cheney tell him what to bomb when.

[MonkeyFunk]

16. Nor did he vote against it.

[dailykoff]

17. He effectively voted against it. Clinton voted FOR it.

Just like she voted FOR the IWR in 2002, and just like she voted AGAINST banning cluster bombs dropped on civilian targets on September 6, 2006. Three strikes and she's out.

[KLee]

11. Wonder what will happen with PAUL vs CLINTON...

could be interesting, look it up

[JTFrog]

15. Paul is slime. But it won't help having her and Bill in court near GE time if she's the nominee. nt