Hillary rips Bush on Iran

[ScreamingEagle]

Is this woman for real? Just what does she mean by "outsource"? Isn't running to the UN (which she supports) "outsourcing"? :duh3:

Hillary Clinton rips Bush on Iran
Senator says U.S. 'lost critical time' in dealing with Iran because White House downplayed threat
Yitzhak Benhorin

Tough talk: Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton issued a scathing attack on the Bush Administration, charging the U.S. government has wasted precious time in dealing with the looming Iranian nuclear threat.

"I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations," Clinton said during a speech at Princeton University, referring to American willingness to allow European powers to handle talks with Teheran.

"We cannot and should not - must not - permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," Clinton added. "In order to prevent that from occurring, we must have more support vigorously and publicly expressed by China and Russia, and we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United Nations."

'Enough with Palestinian excuses'

During her speech, Clinton also made it clear military action against Iran to curb the nuclear threat was an option.

"We cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons," Clinton said.

The senator and probable future presidential candidate also blasted Holocaust-denial remarks by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, charging the Iranian leader "is moving to create his own nuclear reality in line with his despicable rewriting of history."

Turning her attention to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Clinton said Israel's right to exist honorably must not be questioned and urged the Palestinians to do away with excuses and demonstrate their commitment to a peaceful future.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3203638,00.html

 

[theHawk]

WOW she is tough on National defense! She has my vote for Prez! :usa:

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Yep, really drawing a bead on them Iranians....

Sen. Hillary Clinton Takes Money from Pro-Regime Iranians
January 20, 2006 10:36 AM EST
by Jim Kouri, CPP

Senator Hillary Clinton yesterday accused President George W. Bush of mishandling the threat from Iran while she's been accepting money from supporters of the renegade Iranian regime.

Wealthy businessmen Hassan Nemazee and Faraj Aalaei who are associated with the American Iranian Council, a pro-regime, anti-sanctions group, are vocal Clinton supporters and contributors. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Namazee has contributed $4,000 to Clinton's reelection while Aalaei contributed $1,000.

Insight Magazine, published by the Washington Times, describes their lobby this way: "the American-Iranian Council [AIC], a pro-regime lobbying group [are] trying to get Congress and the Bush administration to lift the trade embargo on Iran."

According to reports in Hillary Clinton's home state, she's also raising money from Gati Kashani, another figure linked with the Iranian Mullahs and who also supports the regime.

On its website, the Iranian American Political Action Committee (PAC) noted, "On Friday, June 3rd [2005], Iranian-American friends of the Hillary Clinton Senate re-election campaign hosted a fundraising event in honor of Senator Clinton. The event took place at the home of Gita and Behzad Kashani in Los Altos Hills, California."

The PAC favors relaxing or eliminating Visa rule for Iranians coming to the United States and believes that Clinton would be helpful in achieving their goals. The Federal Bureau of Investigation opposes such liberalization of the visa process for the terrorist state.

But in full pander mode, the Iranian PAC reported that Clinton attacked United States Visa policy. "Senator Clinton went on to address the audience on topics specifically relevant to the Iranian-American community. She discussed immigration and acknowledged the difficulties Iranian nationals have in obtaining visas to visit family members residing in America. She stated, 'Our visa policy is not only unfair but it's not good for America.'"

During her speech yesterday Senator Clinton attacked the Bush Administration, charging that the US government has wasted precious time in dealing with the looming Iranian nuclear threat.

"I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations," Clinton said during a speech at Princeton University, referring to American willingness to allow European powers to handle talks with Teheran.

"We cannot and should not -- must not -- permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," Clinton added. "In order to prevent that from occurring, we must have more support vigorously and publicly expressed by China and Russia, and we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United Nations."

This is the exact opposite of what she's said regarding the run up to the Iraq war. Democrat Party bigwigs accused Bush then of not working with our allies -- France, Germany, Russia -- and not allowing the United Nations more time to deal with the Saddam Hussein regime.

According to critics, Senator Clinton's modus operandi is to tell audiences what she believes they wish to hear. Tell Americans to get tough on Iran so as to present herself as tough on national security, then tell Iranians she wants to help them.


cont. http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=11672

 

[dilloduck]

Yep, really drawing a bead on them Iranians....

According to critics, Senator Clinton's modus operandi is to tell audiences what she believes they wish to hear. Tell Americans to get tough on Iran so as to present herself as tough on national security, then tell Iranians she wants to help them

Pretty much sums up all politicians doesn't it?

 

[Mr. P]

She’s dippin her toe in the water, and gearing up for 08.

 

[KarlMarx]

Is this woman for real? Just what does she mean by "outsource"? Isn't running to the UN (which she supports) "outsourcing"? :duh3:

Fer sure.... when Bush decided to invade Iraq, we were being unilateralist and didn't go the UN and Lord knows what will our allies, the French, think?

Now.... Bush has "outsourced" negotiating with Iran to the UN

Perhaps she thinks that, her husband, Der Schlickmesiter, did such a bang up job with negotiating with the North Koreans, perhaps he can show Dubya how it's done.... oh, wait a minute.... the North Koreans reneged, pulled the wool over his eyes and Madalene Not-So-Bright and are even now close to completing a nuclear bomb, too. Which left Dubya with a huge mess to clean up along with Iraq, Iran, Al Queda, the PLO, the economy,....


<table border=1 width=100% height="100%">
<tr bgcolor=#CCCC88><td align="center"><strong><i>
For sale, very cheap .... one slightly used Senator that has hardly been north of Westchester County comes complete with a </i></strong><br><u><strong><font color="red" size="20">BIG MOUTH!!!!!!</font></u></td></tr></table>

 

[Mr. P]

....

<table border=1 width=100% height="100%">
<tr bgcolor=#CCCC88><td align="center"><strong><i>
For sale, very cheap .... one slightly used Senator that has hardly been north of Westchester County comes complete with a </i></strong><br><u><strong><font color="red" size="20">BIG MOUTH!!!!!!</font></u></td></tr></table>

Karl...you can give that shit away, much less sell it!

 

[dilloduck]

Is this woman for real? Just what does she mean by "outsource"? Isn't running to the UN (which she supports) "outsourcing"? :duh3:

Reality doesn't count in politics and politicians will avoid it. Do you see any Republicans calling her out for a debate? No--they let all the talking heads flap their jaws and analyze it.

 

[KarlMarx]

Karl...you can give that shit away, much less sell it!

<table border=1 width=100% height="100%">
<tr bgcolor=#CCCC88><td align="center"><strong><i>
For <font color="red" size="4">FREE</font>.... one slightly used Senator that has hardly been north of Westchester County comes complete with a </i></strong><br><u><strong><font color="red" size="20">BIG MOUTH!!!!!!</font></u><br>

<strong><i>so full of s###, she would make excellent fertilizer</i></strong>


</td></tr></table>

 

[Mr. P]

<table border=1 width=100% height="100%">
<tr bgcolor=#CCCC88><td align="center"><strong><i>
For <font color="red" size="4">FREE</font>.... one slightly used Senator that has hardly been north of Westchester County comes complete with a </i></strong><br><u><strong><font color="red" size="20">BIG MOUTH!!!!!!</font></u><br>

<strong><i>so full of s###, she would make excellent fertilizer</i></strong>


</td></tr></table>

I was thinkin along that line...But, does it "work" or just lay there?

 

[Mr. P]

I was thinkin along that line...But, does it "work" or just lay there?

Wait...what's that song..."I don't want her, you can have her, she's too FAT for me"..

 

[KarlMarx]

Wait...what's that song..."I don't want her, you can have her, she's too FAT for me"..

or, to paraphrase the late, great Henny Youngman, "take my Senator... please!!!!!"

 

[Gunny]

Is this woman for real? Just what does she mean by "outsource"? Isn't running to the UN (which she supports) "outsourcing"? :duh3:

Is she kidding?

 

[Mariner]

real. As conservative commentator David Brooks points out, the Iran situation makes it much harder for the PC-Bush crowd here to divide everyone into two camps (pro-war=strong=Bush vs. anti-war=weak=Democrats). I'm sorry i can't give you the link--the article is for subscribers only.

New York Times
January 22, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
Hating the Bomb

By DAVID BROOKS
The Iraq debate split the country into two partisan camps, but the Iran debate is much more complicated. It's opening up a rift between conservatives and the Bush administration. It's dividing Democrats into rival factions: those who can contemplate the eventual use of force against Iran and those who can't.

It's an anguished debate because all the options are terrible. But this will be the major foreign policy controversy of the 2008 presidential election, and you can already see four different schools emerging:

THE PRE-EMPTIONISTS John McCain and most American conservatives believe the situation reeks of Nazi Germany in 1933. An anti-Semitic demagogue is breaking treaties and threatening to wipe Israel off the map. The madman means what he says and can't be restrained by normal economic or diplomatic incentives.

Therefore, Iran cannot be allowed to get the bomb. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may not immediately lob the big one onto Tel Aviv, but a psychotic, hegemonic Iran would unleash its terrorist vassals and strangle democratic efforts in the Middle East, and could set off a cataclysmic war.

Pre-emptors would work with Europe and the U.N. to step up pressure on Iran, while making it clear the world is willing to do what it takes to halt the nuclear program. As McCain said on "Face the Nation": "There is only one thing worse than the United States exercising a military option. That is a nuclear-armed Iran."

THE SANCTIONISTS Democratic presidential contenders like Hillary Clinton and Evan Bayh have begun hitting the Bush administration from the right. But as Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution notes, this is not just campaign posturing. Centrist Democrats also believe Iranian nukes are unacceptable. Such nukes would set off a regional arms race. They would lead to Cuban missile crisis standoffs in the world's most unstable region. If Iran completes its program, that would completely delegitimize the international system.

The Sanctionists don't rule out a pre-emptive strike, but they don't emphasize it. Instead, they say the U.S. should be directly involved in negotiating with Iran, and the world should quickly impose serious economic sanctions, what Chuck Schumer calls an "economic stranglehold."

THE REFORMISTS Oddly, the Bush administration finds itself on the cautious, noninterventionist side. Bush officials have been walking away from broad economic sanctions and pre-emptive strikes (while not formally ruling them out). Blustery threats may sound good, they say, but when you are governing, you have to consider the consequences; you have to hold the global coalition together; you have to make sure Iran isn't provoked into really dismantling Iraq.

In all my conversations with senior administration officials, I have never heard them be so cautious about what they can know and tentative about what they can achieve.

Their chief leverage, they say, is that Iran is not North Korea. The Iranians do not want to be global pariahs. There is an Iranian elite that likes travel and conducts international business, and it is beginning to react against Ahmadinejad's radical talk.

The administration believes blunt sanctions will drive the populace into the arms of the regime, but surgical sanctions will motivate internal reformers to change the regime's course. Privately, some administration officials believe there is no way to prevent Iran from getting the bomb; we might as well try to make the regime as palatable as possible.

THE SILENT FATALISTS Mainstream Democrats have been remarkably quiet on this issue. Their main conviction is that American-led military action would be disastrous. This shapes their definition of the problem. A nuclear Iran may not be so cataclysmic, they privately say. Why shouldn't Iran have as much right to the bomb as any other nation? The regime may be nasty, but it's containable with deterrence and engagement.

These liberals argue that if we weren't in Iraq, we'd have a lot more freedom to act against Iran, though you could also say the crisis would be worse if Saddam were still in power.

These four approaches have one thing in common: they all stink. For example, despite administration hopes, there is scant reason to believe that imagined Iranian cosmopolitans would shut down the nuclear program, or could if they wanted to, or could do it in time - before Israel forced the issue to a crisis point.

This is going to be a lengthy and tortured debate, dividing both parties. We'll probably be engaged in it up to the moment the Iranian bombs are built and fully functioning.

 

[Psychoblues]

real. As conservative commentator David Brooks points out, the Iran situation makes it much harder for the PC-Bush crowd here to divide everyone into two camps (pro-war=strong=Bush vs. anti-war=weak=Democrats). I'm sorry i can't give you the link--the article is for subscribers only.

New York Times
January 22, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
Hating the Bomb

By DAVID BROOKS
The Iraq debate split the country into two partisan camps, but the Iran debate is much more complicated. It's opening up a rift between conservatives and the Bush administration. It's dividing Democrats into rival factions: those who can contemplate the eventual use of force against Iran and those who can't.

It's an anguished debate because all the options are terrible. But this will be the major foreign policy controversy of the 2008 presidential election, and you can already see four different schools emerging:

THE PRE-EMPTIONISTS John McCain and most American conservatives believe the situation reeks of Nazi Germany in 1933. An anti-Semitic demagogue is breaking treaties and threatening to wipe Israel off the map. The madman means what he says and can't be restrained by normal economic or diplomatic incentives.

Therefore, Iran cannot be allowed to get the bomb. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may not immediately lob the big one onto Tel Aviv, but a psychotic, hegemonic Iran would unleash its terrorist vassals and strangle democratic efforts in the Middle East, and could set off a cataclysmic war.

Pre-emptors would work with Europe and the U.N. to step up pressure on Iran, while making it clear the world is willing to do what it takes to halt the nuclear program. As McCain said on "Face the Nation": "There is only one thing worse than the United States exercising a military option. That is a nuclear-armed Iran."

THE SANCTIONISTS Democratic presidential contenders like Hillary Clinton and Evan Bayh have begun hitting the Bush administration from the right. But as Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution notes, this is not just campaign posturing. Centrist Democrats also believe Iranian nukes are unacceptable. Such nukes would set off a regional arms race. They would lead to Cuban missile crisis standoffs in the world's most unstable region. If Iran completes its program, that would completely delegitimize the international system.

The Sanctionists don't rule out a pre-emptive strike, but they don't emphasize it. Instead, they say the U.S. should be directly involved in negotiating with Iran, and the world should quickly impose serious economic sanctions, what Chuck Schumer calls an "economic stranglehold."

THE REFORMISTS Oddly, the Bush administration finds itself on the cautious, noninterventionist side. Bush officials have been walking away from broad economic sanctions and pre-emptive strikes (while not formally ruling them out). Blustery threats may sound good, they say, but when you are governing, you have to consider the consequences; you have to hold the global coalition together; you have to make sure Iran isn't provoked into really dismantling Iraq.

In all my conversations with senior administration officials, I have never heard them be so cautious about what they can know and tentative about what they can achieve.

Their chief leverage, they say, is that Iran is not North Korea. The Iranians do not want to be global pariahs. There is an Iranian elite that likes travel and conducts international business, and it is beginning to react against Ahmadinejad's radical talk.

The administration believes blunt sanctions will drive the populace into the arms of the regime, but surgical sanctions will motivate internal reformers to change the regime's course. Privately, some administration officials believe there is no way to prevent Iran from getting the bomb; we might as well try to make the regime as palatable as possible.

THE SILENT FATALISTS Mainstream Democrats have been remarkably quiet on this issue. Their main conviction is that American-led military action would be disastrous. This shapes their definition of the problem. A nuclear Iran may not be so cataclysmic, they privately say. Why shouldn't Iran have as much right to the bomb as any other nation? The regime may be nasty, but it's containable with deterrence and engagement.

These liberals argue that if we weren't in Iraq, we'd have a lot more freedom to act against Iran, though you could also say the crisis would be worse if Saddam were still in power.

These four approaches have one thing in common: they all stink. For example, despite administration hopes, there is scant reason to believe that imagined Iranian cosmopolitans would shut down the nuclear program, or could if they wanted to, or could do it in time - before Israel forced the issue to a crisis point.

This is going to be a lengthy and tortured debate, dividing both parties. We'll probably be engaged in it up to the moment the Iranian bombs are built and fully functioning.

Mariner,

I admire your confidence and analogy. But, right wingers have nothing but WAR to express their ideolgies. The right wing Iranians are going for the bomb. The right wing Iraqis are going for insurgency. The right wing North Koreans get a charge out of nuclear threats. Everywhere you can see, right wingers want WAR. Even our current prez. Without WAR, GWB would only be a minor stain in American History. With the Iraqi WAR, he will inevititably be a major one. Dig it?

Whatever happened to true American values and foresight? Gone With The Wind?

Psychoblues

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Mariner,

I admire your confidence and analogy. But, right wingers have nothing but WAR to express their ideolgies. The right wing Iranians are going for the bomb. The right wing Iraqis are going for insurgency. The right wing North Koreans get a charge out of nuclear threats. Everywhere you can see, right wingers want WAR. Even our current prez. Without WAR, GWB would only be a minor stain in American History. With the Iraqi WAR, he will inevititably be a major one. Dig it?

Whatever happened to true American values and foresight? Gone With The Wind?

Psychoblues

Easy, you libs turned into socialist, anti-americans.

 

[Mariner]

I'm a Hindu, and hence a bit of a pacifist, but when a threat such as Hitler or Osama bin Laden comes along, I think we have to act decisively and forcefully. I supported the intervention in Afghanistan (though I think we could have done more to rebuild afterwards). If in fact Saddam Hussein had been funding Al Qaeda, I would have supported that intervention too.

You're certainly right that war builds popular support and is a great political tool. Karl Rove advocated invading Iraq for its political benefits to the Republican party 1.5 years before Bush actually did it.

Of course, Al Qaeda doesn't need Saddam Hussein's funding. Every time we fill up our gas tanks, we send our $$ to places where it can be donated to Islamic terrorist groups. The bin Laden fortune came from construction businesses in oil-rich countries, i.e. it was our money turned against us. Energy independence would go a long way towards making us safer. Our Hummers, Tahoes, muscle cars, and McMansions might be our undoing.

Mariner.