Hillary Needs To Rewrite Her Flawed Foreign Policy Towards IRAN!

it is a wee bit too NEOCONSIH given the NIE findings.....

Hillary's view.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl4wnhmrtVQ

http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/news/statements/details.cfm?id=250529

<snip>

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. I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines. But let's be clear about the threat we face now: A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime's pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not — must not — permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. 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. And 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.

Part of the problem that we confront with Iran today is, of course, its involvement in and influence over Iraq. We continue to lose brave young men and women nearly every day in Iraq. It was my honor to visit our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. I have met with them and their families all over New York, at Fort Drum, in New York City, at Walter Reed Army Hospital, and I know how brave and committed they are to their mission while they are fighting in extremely difficult circumstances. As I have said before, there are no quick, no easy solutions to the situation we find ourselves in today. The long and drawn-out conflict this administration triggered consumes a billion dollars a week, involves 150,000 American troops, has cost thousands of American lives and many seriously injured returning American service members.

I do not believe that we should allow this to be an open-ended commitment without limits or end, nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately. If last December's elections lead to a successful Iraqi government, that should allow us to start drawing down our troops during this year while leaving behind a smaller contingent in safe areas with greater intelligence and quick-strike capabilities. This will help us stabilize that new Iraqi government. It will send a message to Iran that they do not have a free hand in Iraq despite their considerable influence and personal and religious connections there. It will also send a message to Israel and our other allies, like Jordan, that we will continue to do what we can to provide the stability necessary to prevent the terrorists from getting any further foothold than they currently have.



REALITY.....


U.S. Finds Iran Halted Its Nuclear Arms Effort in 2003

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/world/middleeast/04intel.html?em&ex=1196917200&en=78e2a27e95427807&ei=5087%0A




And the bullshit about Iran in Iraq.....


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18041.htm

No Evidence of Iran’s role in violence and instability in Iraq – confirms British Foreign Minister
By Mehrnaz Shahabi


07/19/07 "ICH" -- -- David Milliband, British foreign secretary, confirmed in an interview (1) with the Financial times, 8th July, that there is no evidence of Iranian complicity in instability in Iraq or attacks on British troops:

Asked by the FT, “What do you think of Iran’s complicity in attacks on British soldiers in Basra”?, Miliband’s first response was, “Well, I think that any evidence of Iranian engagement there is to be deplored. I think that we need regional players to be supporting stability, not fomenting discord, never mind death. And as I said at the beginning, Iran has a complete right, and we support the idea that Iran should be a wealthy and respected part of the future. But it does not have the right to be a force of instability”. However, prompted more closely, “Just to be clear, there is evidence?”, he replied, “Well no, I chose my words carefully…”.

This confession came in the context of an implied accusation or a not so subtle suggestion of Iranian role in the instability in Iraq which seem to have stimulated the question “There is evidence?”, to which the reply “Well no …”; a possible disappointment, was nonetheless crystal clear: There is no evidence.

Contextually, this important admission by the British Foreign Minister of absence of any evidence linking Iran to the violence and instability in Iraq was preceded by the discussion about Iran’s nuclear programme and Britain’s readiness to impose another set of punishing sanctions on Iranian people, for Iran’s non-compliance with the security council’s resolutions which have no basis in international law, imposed based on supposed suspicions for which again, there is no evidence .

Confirmation of the absence of evidence was then followed by yet another confirmation that Britain is leaving the military option “on the table”, on pretexts for which, there is no evidence, either of Iran’s breach of non proliferation rules or its threat to international peace and security. This confirms that despite a change of faces and make up, Britain continues to tow the American foreign policy and is in danger of being dragged into another illegal and immoral war, contrary to the will of the British people, and contrary to the evidence of its own finding. Jack Straw rejected as madness, any idea of military attack on Iran. Yet, Miliband refused to remove the military option off the table.



WHY does she repeat the neocon LIES?.....

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/22/africa/fighters.php?WT.mc_id=rssfrontpage


Foreign fighters in Iraq are tied to allies of U.S.

<snip>

Also striking among the Sinjar materials were the smaller numbers from other countries that had been thought to be major suppliers of foreign fighters. As recently as the summer, American officials estimated that 20 percent came from Syria and Lebanon. But there were no Lebanese listed among the Sinjar trove, and only 56 Syrians, or 8 percent of the total.

American officials frequently accuse Iran, the largest Shiite nation in the Middle East, of sending powerful bombs to Iraq and of supporting and financing Shiite militias that attack American troops. They also contend that top Iranian leaders support efforts to arm Shiite fighters.

But whatever aid Iran provides to militias inside Iraq does not seem to extend to supplying actual combatants: There are only 11 Iranians in American detention, U.S. officials say.

...the Israel lobby.

and the oil company profits help too.

...the neocon propagandist handbook.

If you had told me to read that speech was given by Joe Lieberman or Bill Kristol
or Richard Perle---I would have read the speech without questioning who you said
the author was.

I am once again--blown over that Hillary supporters do not mind that their candidate
is on the same page as the neocons. It's just absolutely unbelievable.

it is unfathomable. :crazy:

what the hell he would or wouldn't do...oh I know...he doesn't vote so he can jump on the popular decision and say I woulda coulda shoulda if I had been there.