Clinton: We may need to confront Iran

[jmc247]

Source: 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.

Read more: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1177514487245

---

This is what the vast majority of 'centrist' dems were saying about Iraq in 2002. Now they claim they were mislead. They are full of crap.

[SoFlaJet]

1. Just one more reason

I will NEVER vote for her

[kestrel91316]

2. I may have to rethink my willingness to vote for the good Senator if

she gets the Dem nomination.

[rinsd]

6. Why? Obama and Edwards believe essentially the same thing.

You should read the full article, not the hit and run job by the OP.

[burrowowl]

44. Go Kucinich!

He does't think like McCain, Hillary, Obama, Edwards that Bomb Bomb Iran is an option. It is not!

[PSPS]

12. You'd be foolish to go that far

This can (and should) affect whom you vote for in the primary. But witholding your vote from whoever wins the nomination is just a vote for the republican nominee.

I'm not a big fan of Hillary (or any of the current crop of contestants), but I'm certainly going to vote for whoever gets the nomination.

[TheWatcher]

55. Perhaps you should use a bit of logic here.

The last thing anyone wants is another GOP Nightmare, but the problem is, how are things ever going to be any different in this country if OUR nominee ends up doing the same thing, i.e. starting ANOTHER War, as the GOP candidate?

Who is going to represent We The People?

If both candidates offer no alternative, where is the CHOICE? Where is OUR representation?

[MGKrebs]

71. Trying to change the electorate by casting protest votes is risky

and often counter-productive. What we really want to do is create an electorate that demands different behavior. Winning candidates, by definition, have to get the most votes, so the ones that do the best job of responding to the most voters perceptions usually win (with the obvious exceptions).

The Republicans have been building a constituency that accepts their worldview for 30 or 40 years through media manipulation, disciplined messaging, grassroots organizing, coalition building, and targeting many, many local races for school boards, etc. It would be the very rare Dem presidential candidate that could be charismatic enough and persuasive enough and progressive enough to turn all that on it's head via a campaign. Dean came close, but lost. For a while, I though Clark might be able to do it, but I am losing confidence in that. The Republicans are undoing a lot of their work themselves, so we shouldn't have to wait 40 years or run Martin Sheen for prez, but otherwise I don't see that candidate out there right now.

In the meantime, we are probably not going to have much choice. But I could be wrong.

[bullimiami]

3. i dont know why she feels like she has to always play tough.

anyone who would be impressed wouldnt vote for her anyway and she just puts off those that would vote for her.

[rinsd]

5. How is saying this playing tough?

"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."

[bullimiami]

13. is it another case of misleading quotes?

that sure doesnt seem tough.

[rinsd]

16. Yes, I believe the OP intentionally framed it in a dishonest fashion (nt)

[bullimiami]

94. wow. surprising___ _______ _______ _______ _______not.

[AnOhioan]

95. The OP followed the rules of this forum

The title of the post is the title of the article

[rinsd]

105. One can follow the basic set of rules and yet dishonestly frame something

Even Skinner felt the need to point out what was actually said.

[MGKrebs]

20. I think it would probably be worth some votes,

although I agree that it may be costing her at least as many.

It's just fascinating to me to watch her campaign. The right wing spin machine works so hard to destroy her and she continues to stay in their (metaphorical) face. We can also clearly see that the repubs try to paint Dems as weak on security every chance they get and even if they have to make up the chances, and she appears to be trying to be the most hawkish of the candidates. In your face! She does NOT shy away from a fight, and anybody who claims she is weak or lacks courage I think is definitely mistaken. She may choose her battles carefully, and she may not choose the battles we like all the time, but she has chosen some very difficult ones KNOWING that it will be, well, really difficult, in many ways.

I think her handlers are very, very good, but they are walking a tightrope. Regardless of who I end up supporting, I will be interested to watch this campaign from a political "case study" kind of perspective. This is big-league politics on steroids.

[demo dutch]

46. I agree

[ProudDad]

99. If she keeps rattling the sabers

she's gonna LOSE...

[leftchick]

37. because she gets a LOT of $$$$$

from AIPAC connections. THAT is what it is all about for her.

[leftynyc]

54. That's nonsense

She may get money from AIPAC but her hawkishness is because she knows many Americans don't feel ANY women is strong enough to be commander in chief. It's her gender that is driving this, nothing else.

[leftchick]

83. lol

that is a good one. :rofl:

[rinsd]

4. Classic DU smear, half a quote in a hit 'n run post. How about the rest of the quote

"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."

In other words, she has the same exact position as Edwards and Obama just spelled it out beyond "no option off the table"

[ccpup]

7. thank you for the clarification

with the rest of the quote. But please don't tell me that I'm going to have to start using the same search-and-verify tactics for the info I see (and trust) on DU that I use for the MSM! I would like to believe my fellow DUers are trustworthy folk without ulterior "let's smear that candidate with only the info that supports my hatred of her/him" motives I find elsewhere. :-(

[rinsd]

9. It makes me sad that we do deliberate misinfo on our own people (nt)

[truthisfreedom]

17. Some people hate Hillary so much they end up working for the thugs when they post here.

I find it highly objectionable, and it makes me question ALL posts by these people.

[Connie_Corleone]

18. I hate to tell you, but yes. Search and verify during primary season.

Primary season is murder around DU.

[Tesha]

72. Hey, it worked against Dean! He was routinely smeared here. (NT)

[Warren Stupidity]

47. Oh that is much better.

Sorry, but she has learned nothing. Oh great, she will talk directly to the Iranians, and then join McCain in a rousing chorus of Bomb Iran when the Iranians politely refuse to yield their sovereignty.

[Exiled in America]

78. Saying military force should be the LAST option, is better than the OP distortion.

I'm sorry, but not matter how much someone may not like Clinton, no potential US leader should be criticized for saying that military force "might" have to be used in the future of our country. That's just a common sense statement. What's important however, is that Clinton is on the record claiming that her position is that force should be an absolute last resort, not a first resort, after all other possible options have been exhausted.

That's good policy. Now, whether you believe she'll follow that policy effectively or not is another matter.

[rcdean]

48. Who the hell gave us the right to say who can have nukes?

I feel obliged to note that she was evidently misquoted--as pointed out in #4 above.

Still all the Dems have bowed to Jerusalem's right wing and said essentially that the US may have to act militarily to prevent Iran from gaining nukes.

Why? What makes Iran more treacherous with nukes than NK or the USSR 1954-1988, or Russia and the Ukraine today, or China since 1962 or India & Pakistan?

All nuke nations come face to face with the truth of MAD. We put up with a cold war for 40 years with Russia. We can put up with one with Iran if necessary.

The idea of attacking Iran would not only be disastrous it would also be foolish. There is no way to destroy their deep underground fortified bunkers where the components are being made.

All we would do is piss them off even more than the 3-generation rage they have been in since our CIA deposed their democratically elected government and installed the Shah in the 1950s. So they'd be a nuke nation unfathomably irate with us.

Why do none of the Dems have the cajones NOT to kiss the Israeli's asses on this? Why do we have to let Israel's perceived (not actual) best interests guide our foreign policy?

[Consequences]

112. Because they're the chosen ones! Just read your Bible. (n/t)

[Exiled in America]

77. WOW you're right, that OP post was QUITE the spin. I was all said to be angry...

I think it sad when you can't trust anything put on DU to be truthful and fair anymore. :(

I'm not currently a Clinton supporter, but I'm also extremely irritated by unfair and biased characterizations of ANY candidate. I'll defend Hillary's right to fair treatment and honest truth-telling on these boards as much as I'll defend edwards' right or obama's right or any other candidates' right.

[rinsd]

81. Exactly.

"I'll defend Hillary's right to fair treatment and honest truth-telling on these boards as much as I'll defend edwards' right or obama's right or any other candidates' right."

:thumbsup:

[Greeby]

8. Strange bit of doublethink from Senator Clinton

She wants to win over Democratic voters, yet she wants to bomb the shit out of a country for no goddamn reason

[rinsd]

14. Except that she doesn't want to bomb the shit out of anyone

She spelled out what no option off the table means which was military action as a last resort with world approval.

[Old and In the Way]

30. I don't read it that way at all.

Full disclosure: she is not my candidate in the primaries.

I think Hillary has a unique preconception that she has to overcome...namely, as a woman, she can't be tough enough to be President on certain issues, like war. I think she's appealing to the conservative/security Democrats and to the larger GE pool of voters.

That said, I have no doubts that she has no hidden agenda to be a bloodlusting C-of-C. While she'll be sounding hawkish in the primaries/GE to preempt any attacks on her ability to be tough with our enemies, I think she will actually refocus on domestic issues like energy and health, nurturing things that this country really needs.

[ends_dont_justify]

10. so it looks like we're damned if we do damned if we don't

Isn't there a candidate out there who's pro bringing the troops back and not going to war in the middle east anymore?

[JTFrog]

56. DK

DK is the only one I know actually running at the moment. Keeping my fingers crossed that someone else joins soon.

[DURHAM D]

11. The centrist dems were not mislead - they were lied to.

Also, the centrist dems were not in charge. Have you been paying attention?

You apparently haven't moved off a dime in years. You are the one I suggest who is full of crap.

By the way, I am not a Senator Clinton supporter. However, I hate the lies that get spun here on the DU more than the lies told by the WH and the media.

[PSPS]

19. Whether misled or lied to, it still demonstrates insufficient critical thinking skills.

Everyone knew bush was a liar as soon as he was installed and summarily "forgot" all of his campaign promises. By the time the Iraq fiasco came to pass, the outrage was enough to drive millions of people into the streets, not only here but around the world.

Either Clinton and her ilk knew it was a lie and went ahead with it anyway, or they lack basic decision-making qualities that, apparetly, everyone else has. Who needs either one as a president?

Nevertheless, if Clinton turns out to be the nominee (I think she's peaked and will drop out,) I'll still vote for her. Anything else, including not voting, would amount to a vote for The Cabal II.

[DURHAM D]

21. I wonder if you noticed that Senator Rockefeller within the past few

days (the ranking member and head of the Intelligence Committee)was complaining that he can not get intelligence information from the various national security and military entities that are required to provide him the information.

I assume this was his shot across the bow of the various groups that he is going to come after them with subpoenas if necessary. They have a duty to him and they are ignoring him.

[superconnected]

22. No I didn't notice, but thank you for pointing it out.

Very important.

[ShortnFiery]

24. The Centrist Dems LIED to themselves and choose careers over constituents. n/t

[never cry wolf]

42. Yes they were, so were we all lied to in the american public

I did not believe the lies for a minute... I'll wager that most dems knew more than I... I'll also wager that Rove orchestrated the vote a mere few weeks before the mid-terms so that any congresscritter opposing was was the equivalent of hester prin....

Dems who caved did so in fear of being labeled against the security of "der homeland."

I understand the political pressure thay faced at a time when 60-70% of the public actually thought pissypants was somewhat competent...

[Name removed]

15. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ShortnFiery]

23. Oh boy, more tough talk from The Wife of Big Dog. :(

:thumbsdown:

I'm not being condescending because at every DAMN opportunity, HRC USES Bill as a campaign ad.

[Malva Zebrina]

25. If her message is not clear, as evidenced here in the commentators

we need to ask why.

She, consistently, is not clear in her approach or language, obviously ,if some cannot seem to parse it without making excuses.

At this time, it is important that the message be CLEAR from any so called "front runner". From her, it is, consistenly, not. Which leads many of us to question her approach. The accusation that she is calculating rears it's head over and over. I do not trust Senator Clinton at all, and the longer it goes on, the less my trust.

I ask why her message is not clear so much so that there is controversy over it.

[MGKrebs]

60. Perhaps you want the situation to be simpler than it is.

It is a rare politician who can make clear, concise statements about complicated issues and have them make sense AND be capable of winning elections.

Poets are poets, politicians are politicians. Perhaps Maya Angelou will run for you.

[Faux pas]

26. Sounds like she's full-on pandering to the f-ing right. I'll add that

to the list of reasons I have NOT to vote for her.

[Dhalgren]

27. The "military option" should not be on the table, at all. A real

statesperson, a real leader would say that we have military aims at no one. We want to work in concert with all nations to arrive at mutual, blah, blah, blah. There is absolutely no reason to even suggest military action, even remotely. Everyone in the world knows that every country in the world has a military option with every other nation - why mention it? You mention it to pander to the neocon/neoliberal empire/corporate moneyboys and that is the only reason. You have to let the MIC know that you want to play ball with them. I will never be able to support any candidate who advocates having a military option "on the table", period.

[DURHAM D]

34. Would that include Gen. Wesley Clark - someone who

makes a point of saying it should never be taken off the table. As in, it helps with negotiations to have it in your back pocket.

[Dhalgren]

64. That includes everyone who would run for President.

This whole idea of using threats before any real negotiations has even begun is not just juvenile and counterproductive, it is dumb diplomacy. We have to stop treating other nations as if they were recalcitrant children and begin to treat with them in a manner that is mutually beneficial. This idiotic swaggering around flexing out less than sterling military might is just so ludicrous. It is ridiculous, pathetic, and very telling. Any politician who makes these kinds of statements is saying, "I am a whore for the MIC! I will do anything the MIC wants - anything!" I want no more of that, thank you very much...

[Joanne98]

28. grrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!

[Downtown Hound]

29. All the more reason to get rid of her before she becomes the nominee

Which, I think seems more and more likely all the time.

[jamesinca]

53. I don't know about that

She is trying hard to pick up some political muscle in CA and the Latino/Hispanic vote too. Fabian Nunez is the Assembly leader.

This story is taken from the Sacramento Bee


Politics
Núñez endorses Clinton; will co-chair campaign

By Peter Hecht - Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 12:55 pm PDT Wednesday, April 25, 2007

With seven presidential candidates coming to San Diego for this weekend's California Democratic Convention, Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez on Wednesday declared his support for the current frontrunner.

In a conference call with Hillary Rodham Clinton, Núñez endorsed the New York senator and former first lady, saying: "She is tested, proven and she can lead this nation."

In a mutual declaration of political affection, Clinton named Núñez as a campaign co-chair and lauded the speaker as someone "who gets things done in a bipartisan way."

"I am going to be relying on him very heavily," she said.

Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama are due to address delegates at the state Democratic convention Saturday. Other leading contenders, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, are scheduled to appear Sunday.

[MisterP]

31. she's trying for Evita but keeps hitting the "Isabel Perón" button instead

[IndianaGreen]

36. LMAO

Hillary shares with Evita the same passion for hair coloring. Time will tell if Evita's corruption turns out to be another of Hillary's traits.

[Clarkansas]

32. Read the whole article. I don't want Hillary to be our nominee

but this post is unfair.

[onehandle]

43. It's a link to a right-leaning site and not the full story.

This one got under the radar it would seem.

[karynnj]

65. The Jersualem Post is not right leaning

It is, of course, pro-Israeli. There are many REAL right wing leaning papers. There are also formerly liberal leaning neo con influenced papers, like the NYT and WP. For example, here is part of their coverage on Nancy Pelosi. I wish the US MSM were so "right wing".

"In fact, David Hobson, a Republican from Ohio who accompanied , said that the Speaker did not stray very far from Bush administration policy. Hobson said Pelosi "did not engage in any Bush bashing she did not...bash policies as they relate to Syria." Instead, Hobson said, Pelosi urged to curb the number of suicide bombers who cross the Syrian border into Iraq to "murder our troops and the Iraqi people."

THE CRITICS are feigning outrage because they don't like Pelosi and because, by visiting Syria, Pelosi has revived one of the Baker- Hamilton Report's prescriptions for ending the Iraq war: engaging Iran and Syria. Baker- Hamilton recognizes that Syria and Iran can do more to impede the extrication of our soldiers and marines from Iraq than any other countries on the planet (with the exception of Iraq itself).

The Israeli government added to the Pelosi controversy by saying that Pelosi did not carry any private messages from Jerusalem to Damascus. But the Israelis have been using intermediaries to convey information to the Syrians for a long time. It is inconceivable that the highest ranking American in memory to visit Damascus would visit Israel, en route to Syria, and not be asked to convey a message to Assad from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert."

This is as good a defense as I've seen of Pelosi anywhere in the press. Even among official Democrats, there were few who defended her as completely as this. Also, note the last paragraph. When was the last time you saw the NYT of WP so clearly call the Bush administration on lies?



The organization Clinton spoke to is overtly Democratic as its name infers. Looking at their issues page, you can see that they supported Pelosi against the stupid smears when she went to Syria. Using search - I found a defense of Dean and an excellent pre-election comparison of Bush and Kerry on Saudia Arabia. (This was better than things I saw almost anywhere in 2004 - it really exposes Bush and had information on good things Kerry did - some of which were news to me.

[onehandle]

82. "viewed as having a moderate right of center slant on news coverage"

Freepers link to this publication frequently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Post

[karynnj]

93. It just shows how shifted to the right the US is

I was going by the articles I could see - which have always seemed no more to the right than the NYT.

[bemildred]

33. Then again, we may need to elect someone else. nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

35. Why is she sounding like Bush? Is she trying for GOP votes?

I don't get it. What's with her? Or maybe most of the country is still under the influence of the right wing drug and she feels she needs to appeal to that in order to get votes?

[davhill]

38. Someone needs to ask her directly

Does she subscribe to the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive warfare? Yes or No.

[paulk]

91. it's clear from the article that the answer is "no"

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."


you did read the article, right?

[slowry]

39. disrupted poorly

[onehandle]

41. "centrist dems are full of crap"

The mods, apparently, are asleep.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren Stupidity]

45. Another reason to not vote for Clinton. nt.

[Hieronymus]

49. Thanks .. I hadn't planned on voting for her anyway.

[Phrogman]

51. Right on, I can't believe so many people can't see through her bullshit

Why are so many Americans so easily conned?

[tavalon]

52. Buh bye Hill

You're still a pretty good Senator but I think you just ended your campaign for President. Please pick up your departing prizes as you exit.

[lostnotforgotten]

57. Just One More Reason To Not Vote For The Bush Enabling War Monger

eom

[dennis4868]

58. She is....

Bush in a dress....the hell with her....GO OABAMA!

[rinsd]

73. Obama has the SAME EXACT POSITION ON IRAN!

Does anyone read the articles or do they just knee jerk react?

[Enthusiast]

59. She is dead to me.................

[The Stranger]

61. Ralph Nader was right.

When push comes to shove, these Democrats are nothing but GOP enablers.

[Roland99]

62. Pandering to yet another Israeli lobby?

I admit I don't know much of the NJDC. Is it anything similar to AIPAC?

[MethuenProgressive]

63. OP edits whole quote to smear Clinton:

"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."

-----------------------

The subject line should've read: Clinton: must engage directly with Iran
But that wouldn't help the Republicans bash her, would it?
It's always interesting to see the same DUers falling for FOX-style "reporting" on Clinton again and again and again...


Clark/Obama '08!

[Skinner]

66. Here's a longer excerpt (4-paragraphs)

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.

Read more: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1177514487245

First of all, she was saying that military action was a last resort.

Second, if you look closely you will see that none of the other Democratic candidates ruled out confrontation with Iran. The only difference is that instead of beating around the bush and saying "no option should be taken off the table," Hillary actually named some of those options that should not be taken off the table. And don't try to tell me that the other candidates do not include military action as an option, because you and I both know that is not true.

Third (and I expect I will get reamed for saying this), all of the Democrats are right to keep military action as an option, at least in their public statements. I don't think any possible President of the United States should be sending the message to any rogue regime that they can do whatever they like without consequenses.

[Zandor]

79. Even if it's not true?

"...all of the Democrats are right to keep military action as an option, at least in their public statements."

You seem to be saying they should say that whether they really feel that way or not.

[Exiled in America]

80. Agreed completely.

It's hilarious to me that I'm defending Clinton so much in this thread, because she is the only candidate that I actively do not like. Haven't made any feelings up about the other candidates yet.

But still, I hate to see any candidate unfairly characterized and I feel like the OP's comments are misleading. Though I stay silent on the question of whether or not it was intentional.

[Emillereid]

87. Not all democratic candidates keep a military option on the table --

Kucinich doesn't.

[rinsd]

89. I don't think Gravel does either. Doesn't matter as both are largely irrelevant (nt)

[Skinner]

90. Fair enough.

Instead of saying, "all of the Democrats are right to keep military action as an option..." I should have said, "those Democratic candidates who have kept military action as an option are right to do so..."

[ProudDad]

100. She doesn't have to pull this shit in front of this group

http://www.njdc.org/about/

This is NOT AIPAC...

[raccoon]

67. self delete

Too quick on the draw. :-)

[legin]

68. Wouldn't it be nice if the Democratic candidates

spent 3 days sticking their heads up OUR arses for a change,
as opposed to ........etc, etc.

[GeorgeGist]

69. Once again ...

no proof.

[Doremus]

70. Who needs a neocon chickenhawk when you have Hillary?

This woman is so NOT what I'm looking for in a president.


:mad: :puke: :eyes:

[SOS]

74. ""if we do have to take offensive military action against Iran"

What's the justification?
If Iran attacks the US, then self-defense is self-evident.
If not, we don't need any more phony "preventative" wars.

Self-defense or political pandering?

Brezinski recently said that an attack on Iran would be the end of the US as a global leader.
Hundreds of thousands will die, it will take 10-15 years and bankrupt the US.

Hell no.

[sbyte]

88. That's right, but offer solutions like...

Why wage war against a people when it is the religious leadership that is bent out of shape. This battle is a battle of Ideas and Ideology. It appears that that at this point that is is the women that have the most to gain from Ideological change. That is what needs more support. It has started already with the women of the Nobel peace prize. Coverage on
CSPAN a few months ago.

So Hillery, Why not mention efforts that affect your gender as an approach to supporting change in Iran. Identify with your enemy not alienate them. It's the underground diplomatic effort of human rights vs the heavy handed male dominated cultural norms.

[Occulus]

75. She just lost my vote... even if she's the nominee. n/t

[rinsd]

76. Well considering she has the SAME position as every candidate except Kucinich

I suspect you are not going to have a pleasant 2008.

[Hekate]

84. That may be true -- but with what? BushCheney have nearly wrecked our military.

Iran poses an actual threat to the region -- unlike the fake threat that Iraq posed before the Bush debacle.

The worst thing right now is that the American people have been rendered war-weary and cynical, and so has the American military.

Aside from that--which I'm sure she knows anyway --Hillary's FULL quote is quite sensible.

Hekate

[humbled_opinion]

97. OMG so why are we going after Iran now... They are a Threat to who?

I mean you would think that people on this board didn't learn squat from having little dicator in the WH taking on country after country...

Hillary is playing right into the NEOCON nut scenario it was never really about Iraq anyway it has always been about Iran and Syria. Although Saddam did hate Israel he was impotent... Iran is up and coming and backed by the Soviets... Israel is scared and so we get sucked in ...

[ChairmanAgnostic]

85. Bill, STFU.

quit the pandering for the AIPAC vote.

shame on you.

[Emillereid]

86. I will not vote or work for any candidate - democrat or republican -- who

does not call for an end to the Iraqi occupation and who thinks it's OK to wage war on Iran! In the 2008 election I'm going to vote my conscience, not my fear of republican victory. And they will win if the democrats keep playiing the REPUKE lite card.

[ShortnFiery]

108. Well put!

I agree 100% ... we need leaders who are willing to TALK instead of default to TREATS and SWAGGER. :hi:

[Sapere aude]

92. She just lost my primary vote.

[humbled_opinion]

96. She is a Hawk on Iran... She is going to wind up getting more

of our troops killed then Brush.

[ProudDad]

98. What a crock of bullshit!

If this is true she's NO BETTER THAN the bush crime family!

On edit: Every day in every way she appears more and more to be the Dem version of Maggie Thatcher..

[entanglement]

101. From the same article: Bill Richardson promises to increase military aid to Israel

Aid for development is one thing but military aid?

[noonwitch]

102. Let's hope we don't have to deal with Iran militarily, but they must still be dealt with

I prefer finding a way to encourage the Iranian people to overthrow their own government.

[ShortnFiery]

107. How about, instead, recognizing Iran's sovereignty and stop beating plowshares into swords? n/t

[dmallind]

103. And what exactly CAN the right answer be?

Should we have no military involvement anywhere ever - no exceptions? That's a pipe dream and if she were stupid enough to say that she would lose far more votes than she'd gain. Absolute, no exceptions pacifism is NOT a manistream vote winner.

She gave the best possible answer (if you quote the whole response). Yes it's possible we might have to be militarily involved with Iran. It's possible with Albania and Zimbabwe too! It should however, always be the last resort and only used in defense against actual hostile acts. But to say we would not respond if Iran starts nuking any country they don't like (starting no doubt with Israel, but then going on to any country not sufficiently pure in their view of Islam) is political suicide.

Unlikely? Sure - but notice she did not say when or why we might have to confront Iran and she certainly didn't say she supports bombing them now, or bombing them if they keep enriching uranium.

You can never say never. Any politician who says they would never use military force in any circumstance whatsoever is either a fool or a liar.

[ohio2007]

104. doesn't matter. By this time next year the debate will be over

and all will be lock stepping behind the Hillary ticket

jmo

watch

[dmallind]

106. Koresh I hope so

Well actually I hope they'll all be lock stepping behind the Bill Richardson ticket, but given that's a probability on a par with world peace and snow in Tampa in July, I'll settle for everybody lock stepping behind a HRC ticket, or Obama ticket. Any ticket with a D after it is fine by me at this point.

[anotherdrew]

109. how about you protect America by confronting the fascists here first? n/t

[kimmerspixelated]

113. Touche'!

[HuffleClaw]

110. *yawn*

one more example of pandering from hillary the opportunist.

[cigsandcoffee]

111. She's right. We may.

I hope we don't, but it's not outside the realm of possibility that force would be called for. I'd sure never vote for a candidate that would rule it out, because doing so would be foreign policy suicide.

[kimmerspixelated]

114. But wouldn't it be nice

to go through at least a few years with no war whatsoever!

[cigsandcoffee]

115. It sure would.

But sometimes it's the only viable option. A President would be a fool to rule it out. One just doesn't know what will happen.