Sorry, but the Iranian Election is 5 Days away. WTF is SoS Clinton doing

musing about an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel? She's more than accomplished enough to dodge, or smother any question. 12 June, 2009 the Iranian Presidential Election. I know there's another tread on this but it's the timing stupid!. If this is at Obama's direction, it's the first truly DUMB, foreign policy misstep of the Administration

:scared:

I don't want to get flamed-ddd today

Hawk or no hawk, it doesn't add up.

those comments

that other countries don't base their political decisions on what we think, do, or say about them. As the toddler matures, he starts to become aware of the fact that the whole world doesn't revolve around him.

Listen to any foreign radio service and the US Administration is amongst the top three stories, day afer day.

the 800-lb Gorilla. What we say and do does have an effect on the world. Not always a decisive one, I grant, but an effect nevertheless.
Hillary's comments are truthful, and maybe not as damaging as some here think. When one contrasts her statements to those of President Obama in Cairo, we see the carrot and the stick in play. Obama saying "sure, you can have peaceful nuclear power, but getting nukes wouldn't be aceptable", and the SoS telling Iran what lay in store if they continue with belligerence, it makes a marked contrast for the Iranian voter between Ahmacrazyfucker and his opposition.

scared shitless about what we (USA! We're Number One!) MIGHT do.

Remember those two cities we nuked? Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The Japanese will never forget our might and what we are capable of ... neither will the rest of the world.

She didn't just bring it up, it was brought up by the interviewer.

Secondly, the reform candidate is running on a platform that rejects Iran doing things to continue to piss the rest of the world off and he is doing pretty well in polls. So its very possible that if the people of Iran caught wind of the question and/or the comments, it may push them even more towards the reform candidate because they don't seem to actually WANT to get into a war with us and Israel.

I think you are severely overreacting.

asked. Look Hillary is as smart as whip, and been in this game a long time.

:sarcasm: I call BS. When a politician doesn't want to answer a question they don't.

Prodemocracy people to "Sista Soljah" HRC.

I suspect though, it was in response to AIPAC/Israel's reaction to Obama's speech. The fact is that it is hard to find a serious politician in either party who has not said that they are concerned with Iran becoming a nuclear power.

There have been some accounts - notably - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/opinion/24leverett.html?scp=2&sq=Hilary%20Mann&st=cse , which speaks of HRC talking down the chances of diplomacy - which is Obama's position. (Oddly, Nickolas Burns, who was under Secretary of State under Bush spoke at this SFRC hearing ( http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2009/hrg090506a.html ) was optimistic that Obama could have success in getting Russia and China to join him on a threat of sanctions - which Bush couldn't do. In Russia's case, Burns put their reluctance down to thinking negotiations was a first step to war - as it was with Iraq.

Aside from probably getting bombed, that is?

"To fix our Iran policy, the president would have to commit not to use force to change the borders or the form of government of the Islamic Republic. He would also have to accept that Iran will continue enriching uranium, and that the only realistic potential resolution to the nuclear issue would leave Iran in effect like Japan — a nation with an increasingly sophisticated nuclear fuel-cycle program that is carefully safeguarded to manage proliferation risks. Additionally, the president would have to accept that Iran’s relationships with Hamas and Hezbollah will continue, and be willing to work with Tehran to integrate these groups into lasting settlements of the Middle East’s core political conflicts."

Why should the Western world trust Iran to carefully safeguard proliferation risks?

If the Iranian people react to Hillary's "obliteration II" the way they did to Chimpy's rhetoric just before the last Iranian election, they'll keep Ahmadinnerjacket in office.

And if he's re-elected, NuttyYahoo will start a war within a month. Because it's the reason he wanted to be in office again in the first place.

Both Iran and Israel have lunatics for leaders, but only Israel can actually put their insanity into action.

in Iran. Bibi may be a RW nut, but I still trust Israel far more than Iran.

Who, exactly, in the past 200 years has Iran attacked?

I think not. As much as Israel is partially responsible for the situation in the M.E., I wouldn't trust Iran as far as I could throw it.

region have not been an aggressor against the smaller states around it is because they didn't have nukes?

You've bought the propaganda.

Fantastic response. Well done!

They were not found in Iraq so that MUST MEAN THEY are in Iran! <Meant very sarcastically>

Seriously I loved your response and if I knew something about graphics would offer you a second gold star.

Khomenei was actively insighting the Shia population in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East to rebel against their leaders. Technically he wasn't the aggressor, but it goes without saying that such action would eventually insight military conflict of some sort.

that's what started the war. He was trying to take advantage of post revolution chaos which did not go as he hoped.

I would say that the extent of the hostilities were mostly Saddam's fault. But Khomenei provided the spark that Saddam needed to go into Iran and get the rest of the Arab states help him do it.

after Iran overthrew the US installed shah, Saddam feared that Iran would work to free the oppressed Shia population of Iraq. He started the rhetoric and used a local assassination as a pretext for invasion. When he got his ass kicked, he backed up and ask for a timeout which Iran did not grant him an instead went on the offensive. The UN got together and offered payment from many Arab states as reparation which Iran refused. No Arab states fought with Iraq, The US did. we gave him chemicals weapons and many people think that the US government secretly green lighted Saddams invasion before hand.

I said that Khomenei's encouraging uprising of the Shia populations not only in Iraq but in the rest of the Arab world gave him a reason to fight Iran and gave the rest of the Arab states reason to encourage Saddam to do so even though they did not back up that encouragement with troops. And I'm well aware of the fact that the United States had a major hand in aiding Saddam and supplying him with chemical weapons. It would hardly surprise me if we secretly encouraged him since it is well known that the United States was never neutral even though our official policy of supporting Saddam wasn't announced until '84.

for invading Iran. I personally feel that it was fear of losing his dictatorship and hunger for power that lead him to think he could take advantage of the Iranian chaos. Fact remains, he was the invader.

Saddam hungered for power and wanted to assert himself as the head of the Arab world. My point about Iran is that Khomenei's encouragement of the Shia to rebel gave Saddam the justification he needed to start a war. Saddam was already a tinder box waiting to burst into flames and Khomenei provided the spark. It's akin to the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand providing the spark that started World War I.

Saddam was undoubtedly the aggressor. But my point is that Khomeini isn't entirely innocent because he knew Saddam was itching for a fight and he provoked him rather than try to diffuse the situation or at least maintain the status quo. Another thing is that Khomeini had something to gain from a war as well. The Iran-Iraq War did a great deal to solidify the power of the revolutionary regime.

Put another way, I don't think Khomeini was quite as intent on fighting a war as Saddam was. But war wasn't exactly Khomeini's last choice, either.

If there was any purpose, it was to say that the COST to Iran if they bomb Israel is that we will bomb them. This would be intended to DETER Iran and to assure Israel that we were retaliate in support of them. Why do you think HRC answered this way.

It doesn't say that IRAN will do the safeguarding.

I understood perfectly well what Hillary said.

Seems simple enough to me.

And reminding them that the path that their current leadership is taking them isn't the best way forward.

I could almost kiss your dragon!!

:*

I'm sure you remember that is how the extremists in Iran ended up taking over when they had earlier been heading to a certain loss.

If Ahmadinejad is tossed out on Friday that combined with the elections in Lebanon will be huge political victories for the Obama Administration. Republicans will have an impossible time trying to argue that Obama's foreign policy is making us less safe when it is helping get pro-western leaders elected in the Middle East.

to "America/Israel vs Iran" rhetoric, it will be a huge defeat for Obama.

She should have kept her mouth shut. A SERIOUS mis-step, at the least.

nt

I don't know how much the Iranian media has picked up the story. I certainly hope not very much. Iranians, even the moderates, are a fiercely nationalist people. Such a comment can only recall to memory of her previous, "obliterate Iran" comment and further stroke nationalist ferver which only play into the hands of Iranian hardliners.

any that did probably said duh, of course the U.S. Sec. of State is going to say that.

from the past. Obama has publicly acknowledged - the first time by ANY president - that we were instrumental in the overthowing of a democratically elected Iranian government, offering up a mea culpa for it. He has stated that Israel and the Palestinians are equal partners in the search for peace.

If what Hillary said CAN be interpreted as the same old story, it undercut anything that Obama said in Cairo.

He plays a clip from a primary debate. He asks her to comment.

Is this what has everyone's panties in a wad?

Good grief.

I believe what they were referring to was her new statement yesterday:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6451892.ece

Good heavens. He must be posting upthread as well.

I stand by the underwear comment.

Pathetic bunch of chicken littles.

Also, she appears to be solely responsible for her words/deeds/statements/positions--unless she does something LAUDABLE, in which case Obama is responsible for her words/deeds/statements/positions, and thus deserves the credit.

Ahhh, the DUniverse.

Her dedicated choir here at DU laud, in fact exaggerate what they like and point a collective finger at Obama on things they don't. People that actually support the president are always cognitive of the fact that as POTUS the buck stops with him.

My personal favorite here at DU recently is the post by the choir lauding Clinton for singlehandedly bringing Sean Goldman back from Brazil, paying no mind to the fact that Congress has been working on this for years and that the boy, in fact, did not come home because a stay was granted, small matters apparently in the fabrication of Clinton lore.

Clinton's jacked-up rhetoric on the already incendiary ME isn't helpful at any time, and particularly so five days before an election in the region.

edited for double word

stops with him."


Oh goody.... I'm bookmarking your post for future reference just in case you decide in the future that something is Hillary's fault.

I'm assuming there won't be an edit by you. I have a LONG memory. Cheers!

Clearly her proclivity is that of a war hawk, and she needs to remain mindful of the fact that Obama is POTUS and it is his policy, not hers, that she represents.

Slip-ups on her part like this particularly with the dicey timing aren't helpful to President Obama's overreaching plan for the region. Lebanon just elected a pro-western government. I only hope her going off script doesn't jeopardize a favorable outcome in Iran's upcoming election.

On edit: Thanks for proving my original point, that some here are only interested in poofing up and running interference for the Clintons, and very little else. That kind of tunnel-vision focus played out on a political discussion board is pathological.

I like to get what I say just right, deleting a double word in my first post and elaborating at the end of my second. And still lacking anything substantive to say, you ankle-bite on superficial minutia.

On edit: :hi:

SuperDouble Edit: *snort*

You're wasting your time with that one, it's not worth responding.

:eyes:

:hi:

for God and War Profiteering purposes.

There's a Hell of a lot of WEALTH to be aquired in the Death and Destruction Industry.

If you follow the money, you'll always have the TRUTH.

At least that's what we're told here by certain posters.

They live in a parallel reality.

:shrug:


:7

and we can't demonize them anymore?

She was asked the question and gave a brutally obvious answer. She did not say the US would carry out such a retaliation. Would anyone, anywhere on this planet, think there wouldn't be retaliation to any nuclear attack on Israel?

Politically, had she refused to say that there would be a retaliation for a NUCLEAR attack, what do you think the headlines would have been, in this country and around the world? It was a trap of a question. She was smart enough NOT to dodge it.

Question: How does her stating the obvious affect the Iranian election?