So Hillary Clinton, presidential candidate, is trying to outflank W. to the right. In her speech yesterday, Ms. Clinton lambasted the Bush administration – not for its threats against Iran, but for weakness. In particular, she hit the administration for going along with the European-led negotiations over Iran’s nuclear research, accusing Bush of “outsourcing” U.S. Iran policy.
Here’s Hillary on Iran yesterday, speaking at Princeton:
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.
Cynics might say it’s the latest in a long line of Hillaryspeak that positions her for her 2008 bid, protecting her right flank against charges of weakness on national defense. But I don’t think so. I think she really believes this stuff, and that her continual alliance with warmongering Sen. John McCain on issues like this (McCain also called for sanctions yesterday) is a sign that Hillary is indeed a right-leaning true believer.
Her Iraq position is virtually indistinguishable from that of Bush, and yesterday she once again railed against the idea of a Murtha-style withdrawal. “There are no quick, no easy solutions to the situation we find ourselves in today.” she said. “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.”
Comments (8)
We all loved Bill. But Bill's gone now, at least from the Oval Office, and he ain't coming back.
Hillary is a strong women and probably has a shot at the DNC nod but electing her won't bring back Bill, it will just diminish him.
Hillary has her own agenda, and it is not a liberal agenda.
It is a Hillary agenda, and I'm with Bill. Let's cheat on her.
Posted by WORFEUS | January 20, 2006 8:25 PM
Posted on January 20, 2006 20:25
I am an announced Republican candidate for Congress from Vermont, who has called for the impeachment of Bush & Cheney, and a rapid withdrawal of our forces from Iraq. So this flanks
Hillary and the President on the "left" I suppose--at
least it flanks them on the side of common sense.
Dennis Morrisseau
dmorso@netzero.net
www.2LTmorrisseau.com
Posted by Dennis Morrisseau | January 22, 2006 6:44 PM
Posted on January 22, 2006 18:44
If you look at who sponsored the likes of Clinton and Kerry you will see it is the same people who support Bush. They are far right neo fascist in their world outlook. These people believe in what they preach and should not be trusted to do the right thing. They believe in the righteousness of the forced spread of capitalism and American Imperial might. They oppose any idea of fair play and believe that might makes right at all times. They will leave this world in a sorry condition and will cause the needless death of millions.
Posted by Lewis Beyman | January 22, 2006 11:07 PM
Posted on January 22, 2006 23:07
Have just returned from a trip to Israel and Palestine. People there -- both Palestinians and Israelis, noted Hillary's support of the wall and her portrait standing next to it at Gilo. It was very discouraging to them. I would recommend she be required to pass thru the Kalandiya checkpoint morning and night, every day, just as Palestinians must. Enduring that Kafkaesque nightmare, where faceless border guards shriek incomprehensible commands at crowds of hundreds of desperate people, might bring a different perspective. Or perhaps she might try a pilgrimage to Bethlehem, where Christians are greeted with barbed wire, 30 foot high concrete walls, and slam down, solid steel doors.
It is beyond my imagination that anyone can actually believe these repressive policies help U.S. security or even the security of the Jewish community worldwide. Consequently, I have to disagree that she actually believes the stuff. In fact, in her case, one has to wonder what the word "believe" means.
It is all pandering, all the time.
Posted by Felice Gelman | January 23, 2006 12:03 PM
Posted on January 23, 2006 12:03
It seems that Hillary realizes that, somewhat like Nixon, she can use the solid sentiment of those who do not trust her, as a means to re-assure her base. No matter how much she tries to position her self in the center, enough people on the right will always think of her as a leftist, that she can rest assured that liberals will trust her by not trusting her. They will assume she is being tactically dishonest or disingenuous. Bob, stop by our blog. We try to show how this is done. You may laugh or not.
Posted by Gotham Image | January 23, 2006 6:32 PM
Posted on January 23, 2006 18:32
Ralph Nader said it right: "What we have are two political parties dialing for the same dollars.
Hilary Clinton is big,posturing "blow hard".
She and the rest of her party are a bunch of cowards.
Posted by Wayne Andrus | January 24, 2006 9:49 AM
Posted on January 24, 2006 09:49
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -
Iran is "feeling the heat" of international pressure over its nuclear program and Washington will insist the issue be formally referred to the U.N. Security Council, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Thursday.
In an interview with Reuters, Rice showed little patience with Iran's belated interest in a Russian compromise proposal that would keep the case out of the Security Council.
"I think that says something about the role of (international) pressure in this process. It shows the Iranians are feeling the heat," she said.
By Carol Giacomo
Diplomatic Correspondent
42 minutes ago
So while Russia, the former Soviet Union, is offering a peaceful solution to the problem, to allow the Iranians to refine the material on their soil under UN oversight, we can't even consider the option?
Why could'nt we include our own Nuclear inspectors to oversee the process?
Referring it to the security council and sanctions will definately lead to further strain on our Relations with China and Iran, and could easily lead to war.
Once more we see this administration demonstrate their international diplomacy with all the finesse of a Dock Strike.
Yea, she'll make a great President.
Assuming their is anything left to be President of by 08.
Posted by WORFEUS | January 26, 2006 10:35 PM
Posted on January 26, 2006 22:35
Today I was watching the Charlie Rose show. he had an interview with EUGENE JARECKI, the Director of the Why we fight movie http://whywefight.com (looks like a must see). He made an interesting comment. Toward the end of Eisenhower administration, JFK (democrat) was making arguments for "missle gap" with Russians. Even though there were no such gaps (and JFK knew it) democrats were on the right of the Republican Eisenhower.
If history is any indication, democrats would next bring up the "Domino theory". That was the other favorit of JFK! Lets bring back the hen that lays golden eggs.
Posted by daryoush | January 27, 2006 3:45 AM
Posted on January 27, 2006 03:45