General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTom Cotton thought Hillary would take his side
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/10/politics/tom-cotton-2016-presidential-candidates-iran-letter/"I suspect she might have reservations about this ill-fated nuclear deal with Iran as well," Cotton said on CNN's New Day.
not so much:
The Democratic frontrunner for the 2016 presidential campaign told reporters at the United Nations on Tuesday that "one has to ask, what was the purpose of this letter?"
"There appear to be two logical answers," Clinton said. "Either these senators were trying to be helpful to the Iranians or harmful to the commander-in-chief in the midst of high-stakes international diplomacy. Either answer does discredit to the letter's signatories."
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)still_one
(92,303 posts)Attention so the Hillary haters can have a hey day leaping to a conclusion that a repukes assumptions are valid
There are sensitive negotiations going on right now with Iran and both Kerry and the former SOS are not going to give attention or credibility to the crazies unless the media asks them
Why acknowledge garbage and give them any credibility?
The press would love to interfere with he negotiations on behalf of the repukes
Enrique
(27,461 posts)in ways that many considered to be out of the mainstream. I for one was glad to hear her come out so strong now. Another option would be for her to say nothing, I'm glad she came out strong instead.
She has always called for diplomacy over punishment.
Cotton was trying to drum up faux outrage, nothing more.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)On the day of a crucial vote in her nomination battle against fellow Democrat Barack Obama, the New York senator said she wanted to make clear to Tehran what she was prepared to do as president in hopes that this warning would deter any Iranian nuclear attack against the Jewish state.
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel)," Clinton said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."
"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/22/us-usa-politics-iran-idUSN2224332720080422
She's also been a big fan of onerous sanctions, and has expressed doubts that Iran has any interest in a deal.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Nothing new about that posture.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)The US would obviously intervene in such a scenario.
Her doubts about the deal were cautious, said over a year ago. Her current statements today indicate that she thinks the odds are a lot better.
This smearing of Clinton is idiotic.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And with the promise of total obliteration. I personally find such genocidal rhetoric unacceptable from any US figure, regardless of the impetus for it.
Your mileage obviously must vary. Provided it's Clinton saying it? Provided it's Iranians getting threatened so? What's the key to getting you to pass this off as dovish rhetoric?
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)"If's" and "mights" littered her rhetoric. She did not say that Iran would attack Israel, at any point.
In fact, quite the opposite seems to be the history: http://swampland.time.com/2014/01/16/hillary-clinton-discussed-u-s-approval-of-an-israeli-strike-on-iran/
Clinton did not like the idea of using Israel to attack Iran.
Clinton likely released intel to thwart any such visions: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hillary-clinton-likely-released-classified-documents-to-thwart-israeli-preemptive-military-attack-on-iranian-nuclear-facilities-says-freedom-watch-founder-300044130.html
Also, remember, this was back when the media was questioning whether Clinton would be tough enough on the international scale. Damned if you do damned if you don't. Always the Clinton way.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Clinton seems comfortable with the term. I'm not.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)As per usual.
The subject was whether Clinton is hawkish on Iran.
Her statements today prove irrevocably that is not the case. And taking a quote out of context, dropping all of the caveats, is par for the course.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)verb oblit·er·ate \ə-ˈbli-tə-ˌrāt, ō-\
: to destroy (something) completely so that nothing is left
A person who thinks "obliterate" is acceptable terminology in foreign relations is not a dove. it doesn't matter if said obliteration is conditional (though the fact the condition's parameters are wholly make-believe bullshit is interesting in its own way.)
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Is this Palin speak?
BainsBane
(53,038 posts)And they aren't the only ones.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)they also want a war with Iran.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Hillary is for peace, say anything else is a lie, she is a strong person, who
would protect this country, but she is always for peace like Obama,
I glad Obama is in charge of foreign policy, I don't think he is always right,
but I trust him: that is all we can do in some circumstances. I didn't
want vote for him I was worried he was too young (but I did). He has been right in
in almost all of his choices in foreign policy. If I you chose a place for him,
after Hillary becomes President. I wish he could be in charge of Defense,
I would feel very safe if Hillary and Obama were working together on
the safety of this country. He like would not like that, but I found him
to be very talented in foreign policy.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,101 posts)Righties tend to parrot better than they think.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)He is in trouble, and very stupid, Hillary is noway is connected to
him We need to know if laws have been broken. We have
have grand jury tells how deep the treason goes!!
People need to go to jail!!
jwirr
(39,215 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)to think she would have sided with this.
malaise
(269,103 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)City Lights
(25,171 posts)They need to be publicly shamed.
groundloop
(11,520 posts)In fact I contributed a few thoughts on the topic myself and urge everyone else here to contribute their insight as well.
City Lights
(25,171 posts)bullwinkle428
(20,629 posts)have to face re-election for another 5 1/2 years.
mainstreetonce
(4,178 posts)Let Jebby sign it. Walker too.