In AIPAC Talk, Clinton Offers Up Red Meat

When Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton addressed a packed crowd of Israel supporters in New York last week, she opened with a joke that signaled she was among respected old friends...

As if to head off any such effort to paint her as a naive liberal, Clinton had assured the Aipac audience that she had “no expectations whatsoever” that “anything positive would come” from talks.

Engagement with Iran, Clinton argued, would be a way to gain more information about a formidable adversary, as it was with the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

“If we are having to pursue potential action against Iran, then I want to know more about the adversary that we face,” Clinton said. “I want to understand better what the leverage we can bring to bear on them will actually produce. I want to get a better sense of what the real power centers and influentials are.”

The senator also argued that in the event the United States does need to take “drastic actions” against Iran, diplomatic action would be critical for building support in the world community and among the American people, many of whom, she said, are moving “away from a belief that the United States has a role in promoting freedom and democracy” due to the problems in Iraq...

http://www.forward.com/articles/in-aipac-talk-clinton-offers-up-red-meat-before-c/

That is the Hillary Clinton that I'd hate to have to vote for, and the reason I certainly won't be standing up for her at my caucus.

Undermining the very premise of diplomacy before engaging in talks with Iran. Nice.

are both vomit inducing.

and here i was worried that sanity might return.

what do they have to say about her and this statement?


(crickets chirping)

but she's showing much promise.

My distrust of her on Iran predates this speech, but this speech is consistent with the reasons why I distrust her. Whether or not Wes Clark wins our nomination, I think it is critical that voices like his and Dennis Kucinich get raised loud and often regarding Iran, between now and when our nominee is chosen.

1. I have no problem with Hillary's statement.

2. Somehow you left out John Edwards statements which were nearly identical to Hillary's in substance...and in fact was more hawkish than Clinton's...


I will include them since I know you want to be fair:

and btw, I don't like Edward's comments either.

but are you saying you think embroiling in another war is okeydokey with you?

When you are dealing with a country like Iran you NEVER give a chip without getting something...

The threat of military force has ALWAYS been left on the table by every President when dealing with situations such as this...it would be foolhardy to do otherwise....

The problem with Bush is, it wasn't used as point of negotiation, but as the primary strategy.

She endorsed engagement with Iran, which if it works great...if not...like she said, you gain information and international support before taking any action. Next sanctions etc...

Unlike Iraq, there is no dispute that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons...as they have all but admitted themselves. Iran is a major sponsor of terrorism and would be a threat to Israel. It is a situation that has to be dealt with...

you aren't "centrist" at all, sorry.

But I am a centrist...

as would just about anyone.

I don't think ignoring one of the prime sponsors of world terrorism getting the bomb contributes to it.

is the prime sponsor of world terrorism...

And they have over 20,000 of them...

Now that's f*ckin scary...

Though we may disagree over Clinton, SaveElmer makes some points which are indicative of a large segment of public sentiment and which have a basis in reality. Even Kennedy, the hero of the Missle Crisis, never publically renounced the use of military force to resolve the situation, and that was a much more perilous episode than this confrontation with Iran.

The Cuban Missile Crisis represented an imminent military threat from a hegemonic, expansionist power. In comparison, even many Democrats seem to forget that it was the US (and Britain) that brought about this whole mess in Iran in the first place-- it was the CIA, at the behest of British and US corporate interests, that brought about the coup which deposed Iran's democratically elected leader, Mohammed Mossadekh, in 1953 and replaced him with the shah of Iran, who brutalized his own people.

The anger about this directly led to Iranians' hatred of the USA and the 1979 embassy taking, and the creation of the Islamic Republic. So the Iranians, however distasteful some of their rhetoric may be today, have damn good reason to permanently mistrust the United States, and to strengthen themselves militarily against us. It's all the more reason why Hillary's warmongering against Iran is unacceptable.

What is conveniently ignored in all these hysterical "Hillary wants War" threads is that she is advocating first direct engagement with Iran. Something of course the current regime in Washington has no intention of pursuing, and frankly Edwards did not mention either...with all the attention on Hillary, Edwards statements were considerably more hawkish

Now I have enough confidence in Hillary's intelligence to know that she does not view the middle east in the same simplistic terms as Bush, but understands the complexities of culture and politics in the region, and her proposed solutions will not be of the "us against them" variety, will not only involve our allies in the region, but our enemies as well...

The fact remains however, that Iran is building a nuclear weapons capability, which they have all but announced themselves, they are a prime sponsor of terrorism, and would be a danger should they get the bomb.

In a negotiation you do not preemptively take possible action off the table before you start, whether you intend to do it or not. Announcing to Iran up front that we will not use military force to eliminate their nuclear capability, and that we will not apply sanctions for the same purpose simply weakens our position.

In the hands of a simpleton like Bush, this is dangerous...which is why we need to be more careful about who we put into that office....I would not have the same trepidation about Hillary, or any of the other Democratic candidates in this regard...

...apology...apology....apology....

Aw, shucks...now what?

(repeat title)

while she persistently shuns progressive Jews. Not even Lieberman did that!

I am not a pacifist by any means, but war with Iran will likely have worse consequences than the current war in Iraq. Saying that military action cannot be taken off the table is one thing, but here she appears to be admitting that her touting of diplomacy with Iran is merely a political ruse designed to make a war with Iran more politically feasible. This is far worse than saying that military options should be left on the table.

Iran does not possess nuclear weapons.

Iran does permit IAEA inspections of its nuclear research facilities.

but on the other hand -

Israel does posess nuclear weapons, by its own admission.

Israel refuses to sign international non-proliferation agreements regarding nuclear weapons.

Israel does not permit IAEA inspections of its nuclear research facilities at dimona.

So which country is in violation of international law?

but AIPAC's big buddy has the lesser claim to the moral high ground when it comes to nukes...

Not to mention the war crimes Israel is committing during their occupation and colonization of Palestine...

and democracy."

It is up to citizens of other countries to move themselves to freedom and democracy. We cannot do it for them!

And if it were possible to bring freedom and democracy to another country by force, with what force would we currently bring it? We have absolutely no reserve fighting force at the minute, no sign that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down, no money to fight a on a third front and no draft to drag soldiers off to fight said war unless young people like Chelsea are ready now to volunteer for service in Iran.

If Senator Clinton thinks that the war in Iraq was to spread freedom and democracy, she is one of a) delusional, b) lying, or c) just plain stupid.

I pray that I will not be forced to vote for her in a contest of lesser evils in 2008.

"I pray that I will not be forced to vote for her in a contest of lesser evils in 2008."

This is what's bothering me so much, countless longtime Dems won't vote for her, period-- if Hillary were nominated, Third Parties might well make their best showing since the early 1900's. I've never seen the level of animosity against a Democratic candidate as I've seen against Hillary in our party meetings.

:wow:

who'll be itching to invade Venezuela and Russia, too.

I also am extremely disappointed in Edwards.

I have a strong economic populist streak that Edwards speaks to, but his statements and appearances with Likudnik types here and abroad have me very, very worried. There is no way the we can think about health care with a war going in three locations unless he's ready to raise taxes on a sliding scale from 0-100% on income and confiscate all capital gains for the next 15 years.

I don't get it with Obama. He does nothing for me. Maybe it is the policy proposal set out here on DU a few months ago, whereby Detroit would agree to build lots of ethanol vehicles if Washington would take their health care and pension benefits off their hands.

I think that the extremely low net energy and low scalability of ethanol limit ethanol to a small role in transportation energy, and if all retired auto workers get a nice pension and health care package from Washington (and my uncle gets it, so I know), then all retired persons will wonder why each of them is not getting that nice package, too. Duh! Do I want the author of that running the country? Tell me more about all the CO2 that the coal-to-oil plant will pump into the atmosphere, Obama!

The last primary candidate that I liked was Tom Harkin, who is excused on his ethanol position by the nature of his constituency--he can't win without it and Obama can, so long as he doesn't have to run against a stronger opponent than Alan Keyes. And before that, it was Walter Mondale, and we should have raised those taxes!

Curmudgeon of the Year, signing out.

would bat an eye about de-stabilizing Venezuela in order to pay back U.S. corporations...

immediate diplomatic endeavors with Iran and with our allies. She is certainly right when she concludes that the world no longer sees America as a country seeking peace.

That's the problem.

She speaks about those who no longer want to spread freedom and democracy, which is code for hawks.

Then she suggests talking with Iran.

So just where is she?

Then she makes snide remark about the spy case. Personally, I don't like spying or anything that looks anything like it, and I don't think that spying should be taken lightly, even if undertaken by our closest allies, formal or informal.

Each country is, in the end, in it for itself, and that is as it should be. Here in the U.S., we should not forget it. Perhaps someone should remind Sen. Clinton that nations are like individual humans in that regard. I'm sure she would understand.

All she is saying in what you give us is that she DOES support talks with Iran (engagement) but that she wanted to assure people that she doesn’t think that talks will lead to an immediate solution or that Iran will quickly back down.

Diplomacy and coalition-building are the keys to solving a problem like the one Iran presents right now. The world is worried because of the Iranian race to achieve nuclear weapon status. Diplomacy and coalition-building are needed. But Diplomacy can’t work without the hint of a possibility that not only are we willing to negotiate with the Iranians, and are even perhaps willing to offer them carrots, but that also we reserve the option to use a stick – to use force.

All that Clinton (and I think Edwards got into trouble here recently for saying something similar) is doing is making Diplomacy plausible by leaving theoretical options open.

A light consommé, that’s all she doled out. Now if she’s really been giving “red meat” to AIPAC, she might have said something like,

“As President, I would be willing to talk with the Iranians. But if Mr. Ahmadinejad persists in driving Iran down his dangerous nuclear road, let me assure him that, as President, I would also be willing, and more than able, if the security of the world required it, to rain down upon him a Holocaust that he would have neither the ability nor the opportunity to deny.”

That's what I seem to remember reading recently. Are Clinton and Edwards mentioning that in their "I'm a big tough guy too" spiels?