New York Sen. Clinton says Iran a threat

Friday, February 2, 2007 · Last updated 7:27 a.m. PT

New York Sen. Clinton says Iran a threat

By SAMANTHA GROSS
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
photo
Senator Hillary Clinton,D-NY, speaks at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) dinner, Thursday, Feb. 1, 2007 in New York. (AP Photo/Dima Gavrysh)

NEW YORK -- Calling Iran a danger to the U.S. and one of Israel's greatest threats, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said "no option can be taken off the table" when dealing with that nation.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1153AP_Clinton_Iran.html]

We have to accept the idea of attacking Iran and escallating our war against the middle east.

Somehow, keeping all options on the table never seems to mean diplomatic options anymore.

This is one of the reasons I will not support Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Primary. She's a Hawk.

No to Hillary, for too many reasons to list. Those who want the reasons repeated won't be swayed anyway.

Clinton, Hillary Rodham* $37,118 for 2005/2006 and $56,118 career totals. She trails Leiberman by only 10k, and has Richard Lugar beat by about 5k. The b*tch is RepukeLite and no different than any other scumbag pol.

http://www.wrmea.com/archives/May-June_2006/0605031.html


From the article:

Clinton, D-N.Y., spoke at a Manhattan dinner held by the nation's largest pro-Israel lobbying group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," Clinton told the audience. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."

Some 1,700 attendees applauded as she cited her efforts on behalf of the Jewish state and spoke scathingly of Iran's decision to hold a conference last month that questioned whether the Holocaust took place.

Sharon interview from London Times, 2002.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1105-02.htm

It helps to explain things.

You do know that Sharon is in a coma, don't you?

Are the positions of Ehud Olmert, Benjamin Netanyahu, Avigdor Lieberman and Effi Eitam different from Sharon's 2002 position?
Do they favor negotiation and diplomacy? Was Olmert's "pivotal moment" speech just bluster?

:banghead:

compared to the Princes and Emirs who bankroll Bushco.

http://www.michiganpeaceteam.org/mpt/archives/quick-facts/index

"Israel, whose population is 0.1% of the total world population, gets roughly one-third of all US foreign aid. Annually this amounts to more than $3 billion in US taxpayer dollars going to Israel. $2.04 billion of that is military aid.... " :wow:

Apparently AIPAC does expect payback for their campaign contributions :rant:

I have been accussed of all sorts of things for opposing the policies of the current Israeli leadership by people here who KNOW it's pro-America to be anti-neocon/PNAC.

Supporting Israel is different than supporting the outrageous hawks in Israel.

But if she is taking Likud $$, she is NOT my candidate. If she is pro-Israel AND pro sane policy, I might be able to forgive a few other shortcomings.

Problem with Hillary is not my support but rather the extreme viscreal reaction too many in the middle and the moderate right have to her. Don't see how to win in 08 without cross over voters and I don't see many of them marking for Hillary.

She isn't real left, she isn't right, and the middle isn't crazy about her so what is the attraction?

Republicans, imo.

but her ambition has overridden all her professed liberal views.

she obviously has no 'skin' in the PNAC game x(

Senator Clinton’s Remarks to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)



http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=268474

Democrats.com deleted this Hillary/AIPAC story, actually the one from the actual AIPAC link.... It was the straight story link, copy was modified to their copyright specifications, actual title from AIPAC link used, no comments or editorialization added either.

Moderators deleted it at Democrats.com without explanation.

It's only this administration that thinks diplomacy is for wimps. Our candidates know better.

Why hasn't Hillary been advocating for non-military options since she became a senator? So far, it seems that there is no military option that she won't support, until she maybe changes her mind years later.

It is sad, hundreds of thousands of people dead and we are repeating the same mistakes all over again. Hillary and anyone else that doesn't believe invading Iran would be a tragedy to this planet is part of the problem not the solution. We are talking about the fact that Bush is currently doing the exact same thing he was doing in 2002, and these fucking morons are falling for it again.

If she does not realize that Iran will close the Straits of Hormuz, causing oil to go to $200 a barrel, causing major economic disaster at home, pissing off China and Russia, then she is dumber than a box of rocks.

Of course, Bush either doesn't know or doesn't care about these things. But Hillary was supposed to be smart.

money I'll bet she stands to make huge bucks from high oil prices, increased "defense" spending and more WAR.

I now know the answer to the line in the song "WAR what is it good for...........making money say it again, making money"

kinda means she's evil too. Sooo, what do we do now, that Pelosi and Hillary have screwed us the same way Bush screwed the GOP voters? They might be the sheeple, but we're the ones wearing egg on our face

trained "suicide bombers." We will not win a struggle with Iran, neither quickly nor slowly. Iran will make Iraq look like our invasion of Grenada.

Just a different ideology driving her.

Hillary is the queen of power grabbing. She wants to be on both sides of every issue. Bottom line she was way to quick to jump on the Bush Iraqi Gambit and way to slow to make up her mind that it was a mistake. We need candidates like Dennis Kucinich and Wesely Clark their positions were clear at the beginning and are clear now that is true leadership...

the pro-lifers... Hillary and Bush both use other issues to make money at war. God almighty , when the hell are we ever going to learn... we oughtta have Ike's "Military Industrial Complex" speech on every wall of every classroom in USA

Hill is talking softly but carrying a big stick. She's a girl and talking tough is savvy. I have every confidence all of our candidates understand and honor diplomacy and would only advocate force as a last resort. It would be STUPID for any of the candidates to say otherwise considering the volatile world stage.

strategic postures rather than reasoned positions. I could just heave.

what? Not like she's in the military or has a child that's gonna go over there and be killed or maimed.

Whatever happened to fucking diplomacy, hillary?

because it might enlighten them. Blind hate is no fun if you have all the information.

if you look hard enough you can find s o m e t h i n g to hste in every candidate.

let alone be our president. Sorry to all you Clinton supporters but you all need to wake the hell up. This is 2002 all over again, and these idiots haven't learned a damn thing.

see any real Dem support for her. The support comes from the media because it is a big story and she is pro big media.

in their next State Primary. She only cares about gleaning more power, not about NY State. At least her and Bill have something in common, i.e., they'll do (and say) seemingly anything for increased power. :shrug:

I am so tired of her triangulating and acting like anything but a leader on foreign policy.

Someone please step up, and grab the nomination from her.

see my post and lancdem's.

doesn't mean we attack them

Every responsible elected official says leave all the options open.

I vaguely recall something that sounded like that.. from the last century, but it's quite fuzzy now. I must Google "diplomacy" to see if I recognize it.

including the importance of dipomancy?

As lancdem said, she did say we should be talking to Iran and Syria. The emphasis that makes it appear to be warmongering is from the media. I'm not a Hillary supporter, but we must remember that after the Bush administration, the next most enthusiastic pushers of constant war is the corporate media.

:eyes:

:puke:

Saying, "No option can be taken off the table" directly translates to "We are considierng blowing you to smitherenes" these days. Why is she using the same terms that the right wing use?

Technically under the US Constitution, states only get TWO Senators...not all 100!!

:shrug:

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

like this.

AIPAC has their nasty fingers into too many of our congress people

i'd wager that iran sees us & our client israel as threats, too.

especially since we overthrew their government, installed a brutal monarch, covet their oil reserves, and both of us have nukes & ICBM delivery systems that work.

hillary, you have to win the nomination before you lean right. a lot of us are to the left of kucinich & we all vote.

war-mongering, Israel pandering band wagon as the Bushits!

I so wish a real grown-up like Al Gore would run!

Here's Al Gore speaking about Israel to AIPAC . . .

When we took office almost eight years ago, President Clinton and I decided that the United States needed to chart a new course with regard to the Middle East peace process. Unlike our immediate predecessors, we chose to get intimately involved, but we also established a firm new rule, and we have followed this rule faithfully: that we must not and would not in any way try to pressure Israel to agree to measures that they themselves did not see were in their own best interests.

Now that principle is one that I have long believed in. It is a commitment to Israel that was not new for me in this administration. I stood against the efforts of the two previous administrations to pressure Israel to take stands against its own view of what was in Israel's best interests. When a friend's survival is potentially at stake, you don't pressure that friend to take steps that it believes are clearly contrary to what is in that friend's best interests. In 1988 I took a strong stand against a previous administration's efforts to force Israel into concessions that would have, in my view, threatened its security. And in 1991, I vividly remember standing up against a group of administration foreign policy advisers who promoted the insulting concept of linkage, which tried to use loan guarantees as a stick to bully Israel. I stood with you, and together we defeated them and we stopped that effort.

You remember and I remember facilitating peace, not forcing it; standing by our friends, not against them. These have been the hallmarks of my approach for my entire career. And if I'm entrusted with the presidency, it will be my approach in the Oval Office.

I will never, ever let people forget that the relationship between the United States and Israel rests on granite, on the rock of our common values, our common heritage and our common dedication to freedom. If from time to time we disagree, I will always work to make sure that we emerge even stronger, with a better understanding of each others' interests, so that we're always working to reinforce one another. I will never forget that Israel's security rests on Israel's superiority and arms. That is why, two years ago, the United States and Israel established a new strategic partnership ushering in an unprecedented level of military cooperation. I am absolutely committed to making sure that Israel's qualitative edge always remains, and always remains strong.

This is a view that any Dem presidential hopeful will support because this is what Dems generally believe and it is right. DU is just an aberration in this regard. Do a little reading.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/Gore.html

to the current crazy policy of this administration and Hillary vis a vis Iran. I have no doubt that Gore would take a more diplomatic approach and would ramp down the warmongering rhetoric. Personally I think we should re-think our relationship with Israel and not let Israel's concerns dictate our foreign policy. I agree with Scott Ritter that what is good for Israel is not always good for the US.

. . for anybody in the world. I'm sure Al Gore and any Dem running for president (who has any chance of winning) would agree with that.

do the region or the world any good either. We really must put an end to all nuclear weapons. If Israel really wants to feel safe and secure it would end the occupation of Palestinean lands, end it's 'Jewish' state status and make all citizens of Israel equal in a real democracy.

According to both the UN and the CIA, Iran is many years away from developing a real nuclear arsenal -- and as Scott Ritter points out their plutonium is contaminated with molybdenum and they haven't even solved that problem yet. Even though their president makes inflammatory remarks, remember he has no real power. The Mullahs do -- and they have offered to talk to the US (putting everything on the table) but the Dick turned them down. Israel's problems are not our problems. Iran is no threat to us. It certainly isn't in our interest to attack Iran because of speculation that they are developing nuclear weapons -- and thus far the UN has been unable to confirm that they are.

That the Democrats drink from the Israel kool-ade as much as the Repukes do doesn't make it right for the US.

And keep in mind that Iran has not attacked anyone lately nor conducted a brutal occupation of another's lands -- which can not be said of either the US and Israel.

Anyway, read Rebuilding America's Defenses at the PNAC website and you will see that the neo-cons have had Iran targeted for a long time -- and it wasn't about nukes -- it's about regime change and maintaining our domination of the mid-east in charge of the oil.

And NO, I am not an anti-semite -- far from it. But I certainly don't confuse Jews with the Israeli governments policies. Among the most strident of us against Israeli policies are Israelis.

"We really must put an end to all nuclear weapons."
That's a great suggestion, then we can go back to having real wars again. Pandora's box was opened back in 1945. Nobody is going to close it back up now.

"If Israel really wants to feel safe and secure it would end the occupation of Palestinean lands, end it's 'Jewish' state status and make all citizens of Israel equal in a real democracy."
Jews have lived in the region since Abraham purchased the cave of Machpelah from Ephron the Hittite as a tomb for his wife 3,000 years ago. As such, who are you (or we) to say that they are occupying land that they are less entitled to than anyone else?

"A nuclear weaponized Israel -- and for that matter the US -- doesn't do the region or the world any good either."
A.) The US and israel aren't the only countries with nuclear weapons.
B.) Nuclear weapons, possessed by responsible governments/nations, prevent war and lead to stability. The Iranians have done little to demonstrate the necessary temperament to possess nuclear weapons and yet not use them.
C.) Iran is, without a doubt, a U.S. enemy. Only a fool of the greatest magnitude would defend the position that we should allow them to possess nuclear weapons.

"According to both the UN and the CIA, Iran is many years away from developing a real nuclear arsenal"
North Korea was many years away from obtaining nuclear weapons a few years ago too.

"Iran is no threat to us."
Maybe not militarily (arguable) but, when allied with China and empowered with a nuclear arsenal, they become a major economic threat to the US and our interests.

"It certainly isn't in our interest to attack Iran because of speculation that they are developing nuclear weapons"
At the same time, only a handful of Americans would suggest that it is in our interest to allow them to obtain nuclear weapons. It seems unlikely that they are going to give up on their enrichment activity because we asked them really nicely. That limits our options.

"And keep in mind that Iran has not attacked anyone lately nor conducted a brutal occupation of another's lands -- which can not be said of either the US and Israel."
No, but they have been sponsoring terrorist acts and organizations for the past few decades. They can hardly be called peaceful citizens. You would have to be drinking some potent kool aid to suggest otherwise.

edit typos

"We really must put an end to all nuclear weapons."
That's a great suggestion, then we can go back to having real wars again. Pandora's box was opened back in 1945. Nobody is going to close it back up now.

I have no doubt that if we don't get rid of nuclear weapons, someone will eventually use them and destroy us all. (Bush/Cheney have reportedly put so-called battlefield nukes on the table regarding Iran). As Einstein said: "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
We can choose peace rather than war. We simply have to identify first as a human and secondarily as our ethnic/national selves. Wars are not part of human nature - real wars with armies didn't really come about until after the agricultural revolution which ushered in ownership of resources and different social strata, i.e. rich and powerful vs. poor and slavery/peasantry. I believe if we do not evolve soon, we will destroy ourselves. Our technological prowess has outstripped our social evolution. But we can -- if we want to.



"If Israel really wants to feel safe and secure it would end the occupation of Palestinian lands, end it's 'Jewish' state status and make all citizens of Israel equal in a real democracy."
Jews have lived in the region since Abraham purchased the cave of Machpelah from Ephron the Hittite as a tomb for his wife 3,000 years ago. As such, who are you (or we) to say that they are occupying land that they are less entitled to than anyone else?

Ancient history is irrelevant -- there was no Israel for a couple thousand years. By the time Israel was formed by the UN, there were other people living there. Those people have been displaced and have basically been refugees from their own land. Try to see it from the Palestinian point of view too. Read NormaN Finkelstein.

"A nuclear weaponized Israel -- and for that matter the US -- doesn't do the region or the world any good either."
A.) The US and israel aren't the only countries with nuclear weapons.
So? Proliferation will ultimately lead to destruction.
B.) Nuclear weapons, possessed by responsible governments/nations, prevent war and lead to stability. The Iranians have done little to demonstrate the necessary temperament to possess nuclear weapons and yet not use them.

Remember the only country to use nuclear weapons was the US. And don't tell me that that ended the war sooner, etc. -- that has been debunked by historians. Is that your idea of a responsible government -- and the present administration has not even ruled out using them against Iran. I guarantee you that if we don't disarm -- we will eventually take the whole house of cards down with us. Nuclear weapons will not prevent war.

Though I hope Iran doesn't go nuclear, it is understandable why they might want to -- since Israel and the US possess them in large quantities. Actually if your argument that possession of nuclear arms prevent war, then maybe this is the solution. I don't believe it though. Actually the Iranians have not invaded anyone for over two hundred years. Your allegations concerning their temperament smacks of racism. Yes, their President rants and raves -- but he has no actual power. (And a careful reading of him suggests that he is calling for regime change in Israel, not genocide of Jews. The real power in Iran is the Mullahs -- and they have as recently as 2003 three offered to talk with the US with everything on the table -- but Cheney turned them down. Now who is more reasonable? Remember too that under the anti-proliferation treaty Iran is allowed nuclear energy and the rest of the nuclear nations are supposed to be disarming. Read Scott Ritter's Target Iran.
C.) Iran is, without a doubt, a U.S. enemy. Only a fool of the greatest magnitude would defend the position that we should allow them to possess nuclear weapons.

I think not -- they are however a threat to our domination of the mid -east ( i.e. control of oil) -- and as far as I'm concern we are the problem -- what gives us the right to dominate lands thousands of miles from our shores? The world will be better off when and if the US lets go the empire and returns to being a country among others. Read Chalmers Johnson's Blowback trilogy

"According to both the UN and the CIA, Iran is many years away from developing a real nuclear arsenal"
North Korea was many years away from obtaining nuclear weapons a few years ago too.

To go war with Iran based on paranoid thinking is crazy. Remember we thought Iraq had WMDs too. And I don't think Iran having a nuke or two is going to be a threat to the US nor probably Israel anymore than the US and Israel are a threat to Iran.

"Iran is no threat to us."
Maybe not militarily (arguable) but, when allied with China and empowered with a nuclear arsenal, they become a major economic threat to the US and our interests.

Oh my god -- if you and others continue to see the world and other people as threatening, discord and war will be what we get. There is another world that is possible.

"It certainly isn't in our interest to attack Iran because of speculation that they are developing nuclear weapons"
At the same time, only a handful of Americans would suggest that it is in our interest to allow them to obtain nuclear weapons. It seems unlikely that they are going to give up on their enrichment activity because we asked them really nicely. That limits our options.

Actually they have offered to talk

"And keep in mind that Iran has not attacked anyone lately nor conducted a brutal occupation of another's lands -- which can not be said of either the US and Israel."
No, but they have been sponsoring terrorist acts and organizations for the past few decades. They can hardly be called peaceful citizens. You would have to be drinking some potent kool aid to suggest otherwise.

Watch the Battle of Algiers -- I'm sure the so-called terrorists would gladly trade their poor man's weapons for our planes and tanks and all the other advanced weaponry that both the US and Israel use every day. Let me assure you getting bombed or shelled or shot is extremely terrifying

John Pilger: Iran: The War Begins
Saturday, 03 February 2007
By John Pilger

As opposition grows in America to the failed Iraq adventure, the Bush administration is preparing public opinion for an attack on Iran, its latest target, by the spring.

01/03/07 "ICHBlog" -- -- The United States is planning what will be a catastrophic attack on Iran. For the Bush cabal, the attack will be a way of "buying time" for its dis aster in Iraq. In announcing what he called a "surge" of American troops in Iraq, George W Bush identified Iran as his real target. "We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria," he said. "And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

"Networks" means Iran. "There is solid evidence," said a State Department spokesman on 24 January, "that Iranian agents are involved in these networks and that they are working with individuals and groups in Iraq and are being sent there by the Iranian government." Like Bush's and Tony Blair's claim that they had irrefutable evidence that Saddam Hussein was deploying weapons of mass destruction, the "evidence" lacks all credibility. Iran has a natural affinity with the Shia majority of Iraq, and has been implacably opposed to al-Qaeda, condemning the 9/11 attacks and supporting the United States in Afghanistan. Syria has done the same. Investigations by the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and others, including British military officials, have concluded that Iran is not engaged in the cross-border supply of weapons. General Peter Pace, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said no such evidence exists.

As the American disaster in Iraq deepens and domestic and foreign opposition grows, "neo-con" fanatics such as Vice-President Dick Che- ney believe their opportunity to control Iran's oil will pass unless they act no later than the spring. For public consumption, there are potent myths. In concert with Israel and Washington's Zionist and fundamentalist Christian lobbies, the Bushites say their "strategy" is to end Iran's nuclear threat.

In fact, Iran possesses not a single nuclear weapon, nor has it ever threatened to build one; the CIA estimates that, even given the political will, Iran is incapable of building a nuclear weapon before 2017, at the earliest. Unlike Israel and the United States, Iran has abided by the rules of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which it was an original signatory, and has allowed routine inspections under its legal obligations - until gratuitous, punitive measures were added in 2003, at the behest of Washington. No report by the International Atomic Energy Agency has ever cited Iran for diverting its civilian nuclear programme to military use........more...http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/300/2/

:thumbsup:

but they are a decade out from developing those weapons the last I heard. There is time to talk with them. Something this administration does not want to do, they just want to start another front in the war. All of those supposed Dem's in congress that are for a war with Iran need to have some integrity and go join the neo-con branch of the republic party. Iran is not a threat any more than Iraq was. Hillary and John Edwards are both pushing this be afraid, Iran will kill you line of crap.

A nuclear Iran is not a good thing, but neither is starting another war based on more BS and a lack of diplomacy, and that is the difference. Clinton and Edwards want the BS reason along with all of the fear-mongering.

as well in the eyes of the MAJORITY of the World Community.

But ole' Might makes Right. We (USA) have NO higher moral ground after illegally invading and occupying a sovereign country. We are not to be trusted. In fact, the USA is feared MORE than those ole *savage* Iranians by the rest of the world.

Too bad our whorish M$M won't tell you the truth. ;)

oh yeah, we're pissed

EVERYTHING is Hillary's fault.

Kucinich/Nader 08!!!!

She just has a sorry ass veiw of war.

Nader?

Perhaps we could find someone who hasn't sold his roots out from under himself? Someone who is more interested in removing Repukes than promoting himself?

Possibly?

and he's been correct all along... he's been promoting the truth ...if that's "promotion" then, give me more

If so , I'll go for that... how about Kucinich/Nader as co-presidents? That way we won't end up with a puppet this time

what he would do? He preferred diplomacy.

You pandering little twit.

Chelsea Clinton has decided to join the US Army and volunteer to fight on the front-line in the war against Iran alongside the Bush twins!

That is why Hillary is pushing for WAR.

:sarcasm:

But Clinton, a top 2008 Democratic presidential contender, also called for a dialogue with countries hostile to Israel - including Iran and Syria - as a way to promote peace in the Middle East.

"I have advocated engagement with our enemies and Israel's enemies," Clinton told a crowd of Israel supporters on Thursday. "I believe we can gain valuable knowledge and leverage from being part of a process again that enables us to get a better idea of how to take on and defeat our adversaries."

I'm so disappointed in her.

but she sold herself to the highest bidders.

on it as well.

The difference b/w her and Bill is night and day. Bill would've most certainly pursued diplomacy over all costs. I knew there is reason why I won't vote for her. She is just an opportunist.

Gore, please do us a favor and run. Please?

I don't think Bill would have "pursued diplomacy over all costs" with Iran.

diplomacy has its limits.

the lives of 500,000 Iraqis dieing from starvation and ameoebic dysentery (from lack of clean drinking water).

speech the OP neglected to post

that's what she says, that she would pursue diplomacy; ie, talk to Iran and Syria, something BushCo has said. Also if you read some of the other posts on this thread, you will find that Gore's postition is not much different than HRC's.

This shows her to be no better than the Bush gang and their Lieberman puppet in terms of understanding how the world works and how to make us safe.

No surprise really, though, her husband's foreign policy was pretty neocon itself...

but then, the DLC's PPI is the flip side to the neocons' PNAC.

Hillary is either a shameless panderer to the ultra-rightwing in Israel, represented in America by AIPAC, or she is a warmonger, or both.

I've had enough of Dems acting like Repukes. We put you in office for a reason Dems. Don't betray that or you will find yourselves out on the streets again.

and this is an example why.
When the Puppets go begging to
ANY special interest group in the hopes
of aquiring a massive "war chest"
to buy the nomination, it's bad news
for voters no matter how you "rationalize" it.

I'll work/donate my arse off for Gore or Fiengold
but nary one cent or vote for the DLC crowd.
No more dynastic scions or nepotisticly endowed
media endorsed-front runner "rock-star" canditates either.

Without Gore in the race (yet)
I still have hope but things look bleak so far.
I'm not looking forward to voting Green in '08
but at least it will be an honest vote for real change.

one more reason she won't ever be president

American people?

Is there no one who can claim to be objective and not married to this group?

He'll promise you a flush economy and a national renewal you had never even dreamed possible. He'll give you hope. He'll be a dynamic speaker, absolutely alive with conviction; he will send the recession packing, raise wages, promise the middle-class prosperity again. All over the country, people from both the left and right will hear things in his platform that they like: national healthcare, end to illegal immigration, environmental protection, a flat tax, additional supports for struggling families. He'll ask for so little from you in return: a vote, maybe a boycott, maybe drop a business contact or a friendship here or there.

His platform's already written, and he's waiting in the wings for the time just after the Iran crisis, when you will be fed up enough to ask for him and put your trust in him. His name, his party, are yet unknown; but when America "wakes up," he will appear for you.

Tucker



This is my prediction, based probably on heavy cold meds and sake. Not to get all spooky or anything--but if you find this candidate, remember, I told you you'd find him. Know that behind his mask is the face of pure evil.

They're like "mafia wives", only worse... it's your and my kids going down, not theirs

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x309
(as he seems to fly under the radar on this)
Actually, unlike Hillary, he is ready to attack

Edwards: 'Iran must know world won't back down'

Ron Brynaert
Published: Tuesday January 23, 2007
Print This Email This
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html

what topic will she pick in order to raise campaign contributions

"Hillary on Iran: Who cares? I'm sure it will all work out on it's own."

"Hillary advocates sending nuclear technology to Iran."

"Hillary: End the Israeli occupation"

"Hillary joins with Iran, denies Holocaust."




:eyes:

just not me.

you missed one

"Hilary: So Iran nukes a few countries, its ok."

Although only one of them is not ridiculuous, you present them all as if they were. But those are in fact four things she will never say. You helped make a point, AIPAC owns her.

except you displayed how rabid your loyalties are to another country at the cost of a nuclear holocaust and support for an approach attempted by Hitler: the supremacy of a need for "lebensraum" at the cost of a world war if need be.

That nothing other than Hillary espousing a fringe left viewpoint on the Israel/Iran situation would make DU happy. The democratic congress as a whole supports Israel and is showing concern over the Iran situation. Hillary represents the Democratic party's platform on the issue.

Yet her voicing her opinions on the matter somehow makes her a Bush-pandering Repuke.

She has made a stance on the situation, she has a backbone. If you don't like it, you don't need to support her in the primary. But I assure you that the majority of Democratic candidates, minus maybe Kucinich who has no chance of winning, will espouse a very similar viewpoint.

It must suck to have such a minority view on the situation. The rest of the Democratic party is comfortable taking a realistic viewpoint on the situation.

Blow up the fucking dirty brown people, nuke 'em all.

Wonder where that viewpoint comes from?

But supporting Israel and keeping a close eye on the situation with Iran does not = "blow up the fucking dirty brown people", as you so eloquently put it. Sorry if Hillary has a worldview based on reality.

Kindly point me to a Democratic presidential contender, besides Kucinich,(who will not win, or even make his way into the top 5) who has a radically different viewpoint than Hillary on both Israel and Iran. I won't hold my breath.

So you think Iran is more dangerous than Israel or the United States?

That's also a very common viewpoint.

Don't worry, you appear to be very main-stream in your opinions.

:rofl:

You people are effin hilarious!

:rofl:

deserve nor should be the President....

Very disappointing...

that she says to a different group of voters youre going to be in for a long election cycle. and if you chose not to support her as a result, dont complain when mccain uses his little bush campaign machine to fear his way into the white house.

Dennis Kucinich and Wesely Clark were right in the beginning, are right now and are right for the future.

I don't want any candidate, no matter how much I like them, use a war with Iran as an option to get donations and votes.

Remember high school? Campaigns are the same game , only the stakes are much, much higher

one vote, since IAEA's el Baradeie has testified, pretty conclusively, that Iran is at least 10 years away from a bomb.

:crazy:

Guess here rhetoric depends on who she's seeking money from that day. Such a disspointment.

"...some leading Democrats and prominent TV pundits still try to talk as tough – or even tougher than Bush – about Iran.

For instance, former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, supposedly one of the more liberal Democratic presidential candidates, spoke via satellite to a security conference in Herzliya, Israel, in January telling senior Israeli government officials that he shared their view that Iran was the world’s preeminent threat.

“At the top of these threats is Iran,” Edwards said. “Iran threatens the security of Israel and the entire world. Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons. …

"We have muddled along for far too long. To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table.”

Edwards even chided Bush for not being aggressive enough in confronting Iran."

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/020207.html

elected. A shame that she's echoing Bush again, though. We went through this on Iraq with doctored intelligence reports.

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

With a nuclear weapon, they could do a lot of damage to Israel. Palestineans will die with Isralis if that is allowed to happen.

Personally, I think we should just let the Israelis find and destoy the facility which Iran is using to make nukes. If the Iranians complain to the UN, we should back Israel. The Israelis did a good job in the 80s handling Saddam in a similar fashion.

all for AIPAC.

that she'll never get out of.

I still haven't read the article, but after seeing the comments that if you DO read the article, you'll see that she IS being "reasonable", I found myself going back to see whom she is addressing. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) dinner. DUH!!!!!!!!!!!

She said what needed to be said to that audience... and she's going to pay for it.

I'm not a Hillary Supporter, but this just doesn't bode well for any Democratic candidate. They will be spun and spun until they all look either "wishy-washy" or somehow "anti-American" or "anti-Democrat" or "war-hawk"... whatever spin will cost them support.

Clinton's being treated this way now because she's being treated like a front-runner... in time, each candidate will have a turn at being made out as a bad guy.

2008 is looking very ugly... at the beginning of 2007.

if they want to be hawks on iran to suck up to the isreali money lobby- let them wallow in their campaign funds and choke on them.

If either get the Democratic nomination, you'll not vote?
Vote for the repug?

Please suprise me and actually answer.

The anti-AIPAC pro-America candidate,... he was always wise to this illegal non-registered foreign agent in our midst. Now we are seeing the "fruits", or should I say poison , of AIPAC's efforts. Too bad we didn't listen to him decades ago

great idea! He who brought us "there's not a dime worth of difference"
between Bush and Gore.

Right Ralph, because Gore and Bush have the same globlal warming policy, same policy on the war, etc.....

not meaning specifically Gore and Bush... but when it comes to 2008 , if McCain and Hillary are running, then there won't be a red cent's worth of difference between the two of them... literally.

no law requires me to vote in every race.

i will also be ACTIVELY working AGAINST both of these two in particular, every step of the way- at the very least.

We know who you're working "AGAINST" - is there anyone you'll be
working FOR?

nt

I'm going to investigate all of them now, Repub , Dem, Green, Indy, whatever, they gotta pass my "no blood money" test from here on

Oh, brother.

I am shocked, shocked, I tell you, that someone dumb enough to vote for the Iraq war now wants to get us involved in an Iran war. Say, Hillary, how about if you vote for an Iran war, Chelsea automatically gets drafted for it, hmm? :eyes:

HRC should be getting a lot of the rightwing vote, since she's pro-war and concerned about flag-burning.

where is says she "now wants to get us involved ina an Iran war."
Ill be holding my breath.

were great at just making shit up.
Now I know there are plenty on the left who do the same thing.

AIPAC is a KNOWN war-mongering non-registered foreign agent and haven of spies> WHY is she speaking there?

and edwards. f u both
same story, different year

Pretty amazing...

Hillary, Bye!

you didnt vote for Kerry?

buh bye Hillary! GOOD RIDDANCE!

:kick:

buh-bye Edwards too!

Her support for the war-machine lies surprises me less than Edwards'.

Why single out Hillary?

AmeriKa can do better!!!

We can lose on 3 seperate fronts at the same time!!!

http://www.aipac.org/1680.asp#2522

Good grief, she looks like Bolton standing there

Hillary only panders to rightwing Jews, as she does when she appears in AIPAC-sponsored events, or when she shunned Israeli peace activists when she visited Israel in 2002. On a side note, Lieberman also went to Israel in 2002 and he met with everyone, from settlement supporters to anti-settlement Israelis, to Palestinians.

The fact is that there is a wide range of opinions in the diaspora and in Israel about Israel's policies vis-a-vis her neighbors and the Palestinians, and they don't include the warmongering one hears from American neocons and Israeli rightwing extremists.

Published on Monday, February 5, 2007 by the Guardian / UK

Prominent Jews Call for Open Debate on Israel
· Pinter and Farhi among signatories to open letter
· Institutions accused of not representing community

by Julian Borger

A group of prominent British Jews will today declare independence from the country's Jewish establishment, arguing that it puts support for Israel above the human rights of Palestinians.

Independent Jewish Voices will publish an open letter on the Guardian's Comment is Free website calling for a freer debate about the Middle East within the Jewish community. Among the more than 130 signatories are Stephen Fry, Harold Pinter, Mike Leigh, Jenny Diski and Nicole Farhi, as well as leading academics such as Eric Hobsbawm and Susie Orbach.

"We come together in the belief that the broad spectrum of opinion among the Jewish population of this country is not reflected by those institutions which claim authority to represent the Jewish community as a whole," the letter says. Jewish leaders in Britain, it argues "put support for the policies of an occupying power above the human rights of an occupied people" in conflict with Jewish principles of justice and compassion.

The statement does not name the institutions it is criticising. But one signatory, Brian Klug, an Oxford philosopher, writing an accompanying article on Comment is Free, singles out the Board of Deputies of British Jews for calling itself "the voice of British Jewry" while devoting "much of the time and resources of its international division to the defence of Israel".

Mr Klug also criticises Britain's chief rabbi, Sir Jonathan Sacks, for telling a pro-Israeli rally in London last year: "Israel, you make us proud."

"Others felt roughly the opposite emotion," Mr Klug writes.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0205-04.htm

He and McCain were in the misnomered "Committee for the Liberation of Iraq" (PNAC spin-off) in 2002 also:

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1458

... Hillary is almost as kneejerk about Iran as Bolton was about Iraq

Tragic that it's really red though> blood money

She and all the other war dogs are the threat - to everyone's safety and security, not just Iranians.