Clinton: "I won't shrink from military action against Iran if needed"

[villager]

Source: Reuters

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton vowed on Wednesday not to shrink from military action against Iran if it tries to obtain atomic weapons and threatened to impose penalties on Tehran for even for small violations of its nuclear deal with world powers.

In a speech to a Washington think tank, the former secretary of state reiterated her support for the accord but cautioned that she would take an approach of "distrust and verify" toward Iran if she won the November, 2016 presidential election.

"As president, I will take whatever actions are necessary to protect the United States and our allies. I will not hesitate to take military action if Iran attempts to obtain a nuclear weapon,” she said.

Clinton expects the Islamic Republic will try "to see how far they can bend the rules" of the agreement it reached in July with the United States and other major nations including Russia and China.

"I’ll hold the line against Iranian noncompliance. That means penalties even for small violations,” she said.

<snip>



Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/09/us-usa-election-clinton-iran-idUSKCN0R91DY20150909

[pnwmom]

1. "If needed."

No Dem would, if needed.

[bigdarryl]

2. This a a problem she just can't get away from that hawkish bullshit

[roguevalley]

32. its who she is. and where is this 'we' shit? She has no one in the military.

she is pathetic and sad. I will never vote for her. she doesn't have a clue about conflict of this scale. Its all bullshit to her. Politics. Gates had her pegged.

[840high]

57. ...+1

[pnwmom]

53. Who could get elected President without promising to enforce treaties, "if needed"?

[24601]

74. It's not a treaty - if it was, it would require Senate approval. It's an executive agreement which

the President, or any subsequent President, has complete discretion to void.

[pnwmom]

75. Doesn't matter. What Democrat could get elected without that promise?

The Rethugs wanted to attack Iran INSTEAD of approving this agreement. If they void it, it's to go to war.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

67. Military options against Iran have NEVER been taken off the table

not by Obama, nor will they by any future POTUS, Republican OR Democrat.

[bemildred]

3. Insufficient belligerence is not what worries me about you Hillary. nt

[Lychee2]

6. But look how it's worded.

As pnwmom pointed out, there is the little "if needed" qualification. So she gets the hawkish message out, but also offers a loophole for the doves.

All politicians do this--there's the part where you say it, and the part where you take it back. But Hillary and Bill are masters of the art.

[bemildred]

13. Yeah, it's common as dirt really. Lots of dog whistles have that form too.

To go with the non-denial denial we have the peaceful threat. But then once you start making war for peace the skys the limit for meaningless feel-good oxymorons.

[Lychee2]

20. Yes. I think it was Nixon who took oxymoronishness to its highest level.

Nixon used to contradict himself on purpose. It was to keep people from knowing where he stood. He thought this was especially useful in dealing with our enemies, because it made them think he was crazy and might do anything!

[PoliticAverse]

29. The Nixon administration was also the master of the "non-denial denial"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-denial_denial

[roguevalley]

34. given her record of votes, i take her at her word. She loves war, it makes her feel tough and

probably assuages residual angst at Bill. I personally would have hit him with a claw hammer if he had sent me out to defend him like she did.

[pnwmom]

54. "all politicians do this" -- yes. And would never get elected if they didn't

say they would enforce a nuclear treaty.

[geardaddy]

4. They don't say which "think tank"

Hmmmm.

[tularetom]

5. Clinton: "I'm jonesing for a war somewhere and Iran looks like the best bet"

Given that she's so secretive about nearly everything else, her openness about military action against Iran is unseemly to say the least.

[Lychee2]

8. "Jonesing."

LOL. "Jonesing" for a war. Great metaphor.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

77. Hillary gets scarier by the day! Go Bernie Go!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[nyabingi]

7. Hillary will find a way to attack Iran

regardless of what happens with Iran's nuclear program because she is fully committed to putting Israel's interests before those of the country she seeks to lead. I, for one, wish Iran actually desired and had nuclear weapons so as to offer a solid deterrent to Israel's hyper-aggressiveness in the region. Iran hasn't attacked its neighbors (Israel does so regularly) and hasn't purposefully attacked and killed Americans in unprovoked attack (Israel has).

I can't believe anyone who considers themselves liberal or to the left politically would take someone like Hillary seriously.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

78. After Hillary's IWR vote and her latest warmongering speech is all we need to know bout her proclivity for war. Go Bernie!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[leftynyc]

9. Seems Hillary cannot win

The right calls her an anti-semite for supporting the Iran deal and the far left thinks she's a warmonger. Both the far left and the far right are working my last fucking nerve.

[Exultant Democracy]

10. She has proved her willingness to wage a stupid war before.

[leftynyc]

44. Yawn

Have a blast in your world where everybody is pure as the driven snow. I like reality where the next President is going to be making supreme court and federal bench appointments - where the laws are actually made.

[Wilms]

50. I almost posted a pic of dead Iraqi children.

But I held back.

Have an explosive BLAST in your world where blood-soaked sand and snow are OK if you're a Democrat.

[leftynyc]

55. Post whatever floats your boat

Hysteria doesn't move me in the slightest.

[JoeyT]

51. So tens of thousands of dead innocents merits a yawn now.

It's not like they mattered anyway. They were all dark skinned and Muslim. Hardly our sort of people at all.

But remember kids: Sanders supporters are racist!

[leftynyc]

56. And another yawn

for shoving words into my mouth that were never said. Far right and far left - both dishonest purists. And I've never said one bad word about Sanders so that's also dishonest bullshit.

[JoeyT]

81. I'm hardly a purist.

But it's a sad day when not supporting a politician that voted for the slaughter of innocents for political expediency makes someone a purist. I suspect it says a lot more about the person throwing the label around than it does the person being so labeled.

No one has to force words into your mouth. You implied you're bored with talk of all those dead Iraqis, not me.

[Tea Potty]

65. Right, its not about NOT killing ppl all over the world, its about "purity" /snark

This is everything that is wrong with your average Hillary fan. Emotion over reason, and they project this worldview on others.

[leftynyc]

71. All this angst over

one vote and now you have her killing people all over the fucking world? Spare me your hysteria. Not interested.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

68. Needs to be pointed out that she didn't pull the trigger

Nor did Congress instigate the IWR that, if properly handled by the Bush (mis-)Administration, wouldn't have even necessitated war since the UN had been unable to locate WMDs. The Bush (mis-)Administration, however, thought they knew better and started dropping bombs and troops anyway when they could have just accepted the UN's findings (or lack thereof) and legitimately declared victory- all without firing a single shot.

[Exultant Democracy]

72. The trusting the wrong people with the power to wage war argument goes right to judgment.

What you are saying is she grossly misjudge the Bush administration and we should trust her now, not to be so easily fooled when it comes to say Putin or any other douche bag world leader in the future (many of whom are smarter than Bush. Having the the stupidest world leader in a generation pull the wool over her eyes is not something to crow about.

[arcane1]

76. She thought it was a good idea to give that power to George F-ing Bush.

There was no need for it, because there was NOTHING that "necessitated war" in the first place.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

79. Precisely! Hillary is not to be trusted on foreign policy issues.

I feel much safer with Bernie & Elizabeth in charge...

[Scootaloo]

14. Well, every time she talks about Iran, she brings up going to war

President Obama talks about deals and negotiations and development. Hopeful Clinton talks about war and obliteration and combat.

It's what we call a "tell". And on top of her standing record, it's a very telling tell.

[Old Crow]

18. +1 (N/T)

[PoliticAverse]

15. You don't have to be "far left" to note she voted with the majority of Republicans

on the Iraq war resolution.

[HooptieWagon]

26. And was advocating war in Libya and Syria.

Quite the hawk... Margaret Thatcher 2.0?

[leftynyc]

40. And as I've explained

dozens of times, she was a senator from NY and representing her constituents. If this one vote makes her a warmonger, we're done here.

[PoliticAverse]

43. I was a "constitutent" and her vote wasn't representing me. n/t

[leftynyc]

45. NYers were far more

likely to support the war than (for instance) CA was. You were in a minority at the time and you should know that. But if you want to stick to your guns and stay home, knock yourself out.

[cali]

61. And as I've explained to YOU many times

War is not ever a vote where you should take what your constituents want into consideration. Furthermore, it is not just that vote.

[JoePhilly]

28. They've circled around ...

... hugged ... and now need to go get a room.

[roguevalley]

35. far left equals evil to some

[leftynyc]

42. Frankly, I'm not fond

of either the far right or the far left. Both are purity bandits who have no desire to reside in the real world where there is no black and white.

[roguevalley]

52. the line between acceptable dem and far left is very small around here and usually

depends on the affiliation of the person deciding. I'm an FDR dem and that is too commie for too many here.

[leftynyc]

59. I swear

I have never seen more people trying to actively drive a wedge between people who agree more than not than on DU. I stopped giving a shit about pissing people off a long time ago.

[roguevalley]

73. then you must have missed the Deaniac wars. People need to allow others their opinion and

not give a shit. Then there would be less flames around here. Since we're all anonymous people on the internet, the idea that we matter beyond here and that my opinion deserves slagging is sort of junior high to me.

[leftynyc]

84. I was here and the

Clinton/Obama wars were also pretty bloody but I still will never understand it. People who agree on more than they don't tearing each other to shreds. Junior high is an excellent analogy.

[Demeter]

11. Amazingly enough, that pronouncement leaves me unmoved

Don't you think we have set enough of the world ablaze already for one nation, Hillary? Where are your peace efforts going to go?

Maybe it's someone else's turn to start a land war in Middle East.

And aren't you calling you former boss a sissy?

It would have been better to not raise the issue in the first place...speculation is not a good move.

[Lychee2]

22. I wonder why they think this will resonate with voters.

It doesn't resonate with me, but they must have done some private polling or held some focus groups on this issue.

[PoliticAverse]

12. She's convinced me completely. n/t

[Autumn]

16. Hillary didn't shrink from military action against Iraq either.

That worked out well. It does concern me that she can't mention the word Iran without the word war. That's a real problem as far as I'm concerned.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

17. Did you notice her threat to sabotage Israel?

Last edited Wed Sep 9, 2015, 01:12 PM - Edit history (1)

She said she was going to send them F-35s.

[Scootaloo]

19. Okay, you made me snort my coffee

Goddammit what a mess

[Jester Messiah]

25. Ok, that was excellent.

[daleanime]

31. ......

Thanks, I needed that.

[karynnj]

39. LOL

[Kelvin Mace]

21. Pandering to the Cheney crowd who have ZERO chance of

voting for her.

And one more reason for me not to vote for her.

[louis-t]

23. Every candidate is expected to answer the question.

They all have to 'prove' how tough they are.

[roguevalley]

37. it was 3 am when they made the call

[Jester Messiah]

24. And I'm sure it will be deemed "needed" if she's doing the deeming.

More profits for the corporations, more business for the hospitals and cemeteries. Why's she running as a Democrat, again? Is she a Davis-Democrat?

[JoePhilly]

27. This meeting of the Combustible Hair Club will now come to order!!

[daleanime]

30. Yes, I'm sure she wouldn't....

also fairly sure she would find it necessary. How many wars has she voted against?

[MisterP]

33. way to back the Iran deal there

and weren't we all up in arms about how treasonous it was for the Pubs to already declare they'd overturn and ignore the agreement?

[brooklynite]

36. Which part of her quote would Sanders disagree with?

[leftynyc]

47. None of it

because even Sanders knows you can't take military action off the table completely if you want to be taken seriously. But expect deflection and outright lies in answer to your question.

[cali]

63. Bernie doesn't sabre rattle. she does. a lot.

[cali]

62. her language is markedly more militant than Obama's

Completely different tone. And Bernie would never sabre rattle.the way she does

[geek tragedy]

38. Meh. Saber-rattling against Iran (and vice versa) is electoral reality.

I doubt Bernie would differ substantively, maybe less bellicosity in tone.

She'd be closer to Obama than to the Republicans, but still a step in the wrong direction re: affairs in that region.

[Faux pas]

41. Yeah we need

more war and dead bodies. Sheesh.

[karynnj]

46. for those who want, here is video of the Brookings Institute

Last edited Wed Sep 9, 2015, 02:38 PM - Edit history (1)

I just found this and have not watched it yet - http://www.brookings.edu/events/2015/09/09-clinton-iran-nuclear-deal

Some ask in the thread, where it was given - the answer Brookings Institute.

Quick summary of the beginning of this:
She supports the agreement because it is better than not having it and she lists good things it does do ( So far, so good) HRC speaks of how Bush/Cheney left office with Iran well on their way to a nuclear bomb. She then speaks of how she and Obama chose a two prong approach - fighting for international sanctions while speaking of the door being open to talk. She does an excellent job speaking of her work, which she did, getting countries on board - though she fails to credit that the P5 pushed this too.

She then spoke of the start of the negotiated effort -- and while her speech flowed beautifully, I have some real problems. First, she ignores that there was a long term multinational effort that the US had not joined. Her start is when she went to Oman twice to set up the back channel (left out of the story is that Obama, wanting a back channel sent John Kerry, then in the Senate, and then there were later HRC visits). She says two aides of hers, William Burns and Jake Sullivan started secret talks, which became more serious in 2013 and that they led to the interim agreement -- and then there were the multinational negotiations led by Kerry, Moniz and Sherman.

This is at least meant to distort who was responsible for the interim agreement as anyone just listening would credit HRC, Burns, and Sullivan for the interim agreement. In fact, that was a multinational effort itself, where Kerry and Sherman led for the US. Here is one of the contemporary articles on the Geneva negotiations that resulted in the Iran deal ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/kerry-in-geneva-raising-hopes-for-historic-nuclear-deal-with-iran/2013/11/23/53e7bfe6-5430-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html )

At this point -- I stopped watching. I was furious, but not surprised. I read HRC's book and saw that she did the same thing repeatedly - taking the credit the rest of the world gave Kerry in 2009 when he persuaded Kharzi to follow election laws, and strangely taking credit for advising Obama to agree to the chemical weapons deal -- while crediting Kerry only with a gaffe.

YES, YES, I know that I am a John Kerry supporter - a regular on the DU John Kerry site, but I really don't get why Hillary Clinton seems to always go out of her way not just to take credit for the very real things she does, but to usurp credit from others. This could actually be a great story of everyone working together -- Obama and his two Secretaries of State -- and it could be what actually happened! In contrast, both President Obama and Secretary Kerry have long been known to share credit graciously with others. In fact, both had long lists of people - from the US and elsewhere - for this deal. It did not diminish the role either played.

I may go back to hear the end -- or not. I have a problem with someone that egotistical that she misrepresents even what happened publically. I also don't get her here -- Kerry is not competing against her. She is the one very likely to be President. Is she afraid that - even as she becomes President - someone might say that JK was one of the best Secretaries of State in decades?

[closeupready]

48. Survivors of wars such as WWII often said, "It's the women and children

who suffer the most in war."

Yet, she trumpets herself as some kind of feminist.

Not seeing it, and this statement confuses me doubly, both because it seems clear she's going to find a 'needed' pretext in order to engage in some kind of war against Iran, despite the fact that it will diminish the lives of so many Iranian woman and children.

[Gregorian]

49. Peace is so unprofitable

[bikebloke]

58. She's pandering for Bibi's vote.

[Geronimoe]

60. Take all the refugees first

Before she starts another war, how about she take all the refugees that destabilizing the Middle East caused.

In 1996, Leslie Stahl asked Madeleine Albright; "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"

To which Ambassador Albright responded, "I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it."

[olddots]

64. the royal scam

N.T.

[Lychee2]

66. Hillary feels she has to show that she is as tough as the guys.

Unfortunately, "the guys" have been a little too tough of late. I am thinking of Bush and (sadly) Obama and the aggressive wars in the Middle East.

[FiveGoodMen]

69. "...and you can be damned sure I'll find that we need it"

[hughee99]

70. Is there anyone on the "other side" of this issue, who would promise no military action against Iran

no matter what?

I'm sure even Bush believes all of his military action was "needed". It's just that different people have different thresholds for what is "needed".

[roamer65]

80. With the Russians ramping up in Syria and getting Iranian flyover rights...

There will be zero action against Iran if they decide to manufacture an atomic bomb.

Any action by the U.S. or Israel would be the start of World War 3.

The Iranians are now firmly under the Sino-Russian sphere of influence.

[Tea Potty]

82. Lets blow some sh*t up!

Thats how we show the world we care.

[brooklynite]

83. Which part would Bernie Sanders disagree with?

"I will take whatever actions are necessary to protect the United States and our allies"

"I will not hesitate to take military action if Iran attempts to obtain a nuclear weapon"

Which of those two points will Sanders disagree with?