Can a Clinton supporter or two please explain her GOP-like denigration of Iran deal?

[Armstead]

It seems, at this point, that Obama and Kerry have successfully pulled off a foreign policy success. Not perfect, but a damn sight better than increasing the tension and isolation of Iran, and allowing them to pursue nuclear plans unimpeded.

So what's the point of throwing Obama and this deal under the bus and sounding like a cousin of Bebe and the GOP?

I would seriously like to know the rationale, and will not snark in return.

[TDale313]

1. Yes, I genuinely don't get it.

I would like to hear why this makes sense.

[Wilms]

6. Hawkish Hillary Clinton and Her Israel-First Political Sugar Daddy Haim Saban

Hawkish Hillary Clinton and Her Israel-First Political Sugar Daddy Haim Saban

Hillary Clinton’s greatest billionaire backer has been Haim Saban, a dual United States-Israel citizen and hardline supporter of Israel, who has openly commented, “I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel.”

By Stephen Sniegoski -
Jun 15, 2015

snip

With a net worth estimated at $3 billion, Saban is ranked by Forbes magazine as the 143rd richest person in the United States.

When asked last July how much he would give to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, he responded, “As much as is needed.”[2]

Saban’s support for the Clintons goes back to Bill Clinton’s presidency when Saban and his wife slept in the Lincoln bedroom on a number of occasions, a privilege reserved for only the largest donors to the Democratic Party.

Saban has supported Hillary in her senatorial and 2008 presidential campaigns and he, along with his Saban Family Foundation, donated from $10 million to $25 million to the Clinton Foundation.[3]The paleoconservative commentator Scott McConnell writes that in Hillary’s current run for the presidency, Haim Saban is her “major financial backer: one could go so far as to say that he and his donor circle constitute her ‘base’ or at least a significant part of it.”[4]

snip

http://mycatbirdseat.com/2015/06/91758hawkish-hillary-clinton-and-her-israel-first-political-sugar-daddy-haim-saban/

And the like...

[Purveyor]

28. And there is ^^^this^^^. Thanks for posting. eom

[daleanime]

2. Bookmarked

with hope.

[dogman]

3. I've looked around and found no explanation either.

They must still be gauging reaction and we should see something by the debate tomorrow. I wonder who will miss the football game to find out?

[Cassiopeia]

24. The game will be over before the debate at 9pm.

[lob1]

30. 6 P.M. in California.

[Cassiopeia]

31. Yeah, the game will be over around 8 pm EST

about 5 PST

[lob1]

33. Thanks for the info. The more people that see it, the better.

This might be a really good debate, too.

[dogman]

51. Debate is 8-10, game is 9-11:30.

Seahawks v Panthers.

[Cassiopeia]

53. If you're watching that game between 9-11:30 it's not live.

Seahawks game is at 1pm EST 10am PST

Steelers game is at 4:30pm EST 1:30pm PST

[dogman]

60. Thanks for the info. N/T

[wilsonbooks]

4. They are waiting for instructions from the headquarters.

The headquarters have not formulated a response as they are waiting for the results from the focus groups.

[draa]

7. Damn it, you beat me to it, and you're probably right.

Their silence does speak volumes though.

[senz]

8. Of course!

But how can they not be embarrassed by this silence?

[TheFarS1de]

10. The Pretzel merchants will be back soon

They just have to figure out how to make this Sanders fault

[sabrina 1]

13. It's Friday, the talking point writers are probably off duty until Monday.

I have seen a few Hillary supporters say that they are finding this to be 'pretty disturbing' though, so maybe they better call the think tank talking point people in before it's too late.

[wilsonbooks]

46. Monday is a Federal Holiday.

So normally it would be a day off, but when there is panic at the job, it is all hands on deck.

[mhatrw]

9. They seem to have aipacked it in for the night.

I'm sure they will have their talking points on this in order soon.

[Juicy_Bellows]

11. It should be classic. I await with you. Nt.

[FlatBaroque]

54. AIPACked it in!

[silvershadow]

12. She and Bibi are practically old college roommates?

[Mike__M]

14. Say, check this out

We can learn something while waiting

http://www.whatdocricketseat.info/

[cascadiance]

15. Well, she and DWS are in this together...

DWS appeared to defy her boss earlier indicating she might oppose the bill before she came around...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/7/debbie-wasserman-schultz-contradicts-obama-iran/

Perhaps she felt it would be hard to continue to play the Jewish card as a reason to oppose this, with the one Jewish candidate in the presidential race she's working has been supporting it.

[awoke_in_2003]

16. Here's an explanation

https://m.

[Enthusiast]

21. +1

[TheFarS1de]

22. I was thinking the same sort of thing

[daleanime]

62. ........

[silvershadow]

17. Her neo-con slip is showing. nt

[Jack Rabbit]

18. This make no sense to me, either

Did she self-destruct or just switch to the GOP?

[bvf]

19. Look for even more

"Sanders won't be able to do anything"-- and "Sanders must release his medical records NOW"--style OPs through Sunday, to bide time and deflect from this until after the debate.

They're hoping this will slide. The fuck it will.

Bookmarking this, but I won't be surprised if just the usual B-team shows up with its half-witted noise.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

20. I expect to hear either "Sanders is just as bad" or claims we're all pacifists or dumdums.

[stone space]

27. Pacifsts are the enemy. We need a draft so they can be imprisoned. (nt)

[Spitfire of ATJ]

52. Ever see "Punishment Park"?

[PoliticalMalcontent]

23. Clinton said something about following the path set by the Obama administration.

That was like two days ago, right? Man, what a quick turnaround.

I have zero faith in that woman to be truthful.

[coyote]

25. If I vote for Trump, at least I know what I am getting,

which is bat shit crazy. With Clinton, who the hell knows what you are getting. It changes daily and I do not trust what she says, even if she says all the right things.

[stone space]

26. Please review the discussion of enemies in the first debate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251683979

[JoeyT]

29. Well, now they've got to pick between Obama and Clinton.

One or the other is right. Either Iran is a terrible rogue state that needs to be brought to heel using military force, or they're not so bad and it's about time we started dealing fairly with them so they can be our ally against extremists.

There's a reason I voted for Obama the last time I had to choose between them.

[BlueMTexpat]

32. Well, I LOVE the GOPer twist your

subject line puts on this, without any explanation. But it is entirely what I have come to expect from some here. Shame on you!

I am an HRC supporter. HRC is the one who laid the groundwork for the Iran nuclear deal and is a strong supporter of that deal. You will not get anywhere with me for stating something so completely wrong as her "GOP-like denigration of Iran deal."

What her words were specifically about was the testing of missiles for Iran's ballistic missile program. Specifically, it is this: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-missiles-un-exclusive-idUSKBN0TY1T920151216

Unlike some here, Hillary is able to keep track of two different, albeit related, things due to those same missiles' ability to carry nuclear warheads. Even the WH has said that this test is troubling and is still considering what steps to take, although the WH has not advocated sanctions. HRC is not part of the Admin nor Congress nor even with any ability whatsoever to implement sanctions, but is simply looking ahead to the big picture.

From her experience as SoS, Hillary knows - as I do, especially in international matters - that you always lead with your strongest suit, in this case sanctions. It is a clear warning to Iran - and Iran likely got the message - that she is a Presidential candidate who will be no pushover if they ever want to test her resolve. It is in no way whatsoever intended to diminish or delay implementation of the Iran deal. Her words are not in support of the kinds of sanctions that GOPers want, which is never to let Iran off the hook ever. It is intended to give Iranians - and others - pause if they think that she, as a woman President, might let them get away with not adhering to their international responsibilities and commitments. She won't.

But to equate her words with those of any GOPers is simply wrong. It is, however, unsurprising to see those on DU who want any opportunity whatsoever to bash her take advantage of it.

My words are likely wasted here. The incident just provides some here with their latest GOPer Clinton-trashing meme.

[Metric System]

34. Our words are wasted here, which is why so many of us have given up on responding. But it is

entertaining to watch them talk to themselves in their echo chamber.

[BlueMTexpat]

40. Yes, I won't be responding to any more of these.

They have their minds made up and their inner-Hillary hatred is blatant.

[leftofcool]

42. I don't respond to any of their posts.

They don't research before they start mud slinging.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

48. ...

[sorechasm]

35. But why now? The hostages may not have been released yet. Is she risking the hostage deal to

improve her odds in Sunday's debate (by being 'tough')? Why the urgency? This testing has occurred in the past as well. Yet she waits until a deal is almost brokered to voice her disagreements with the WH? It appears shamelessly opportunistic.

Diplomats said the rocket test on Oct. 10 was not technically a violation of the July nuclear deal between Iran and six world powers, but the U.N. report could put U.S. President Barack Obama's administration in an awkward position.

Hillary puts PBO into an even more awkward position.

[bvf]

36. "...the WH has not advocated sanctions."

HRC is not part of the Admin nor Congress nor even with any ability whatsoever to implement sanctions...

Good. Let's keep it that way.

[shiriu]

37. The article contradicts your claim

From the article:

Diplomats said the rocket test on Oct. 10 was not technically a violation of the July nuclear deal between Iran and six world powers, but the U.N. report could put U.S. President Barack Obama's administration in an awkward position.

Iran has said any new sanctions would jeopardize the nuclear deal. But if Washington failed to call for sanctions over the Emad launch, it would likely be perceived as weakness.

So it's not as much that Iran violated the deal, but that some politicians did not want to be percieved as weak. Obama made the decision to not attack Iran (and not destroy the deal), while Hillary is now showing herself as a complete war hawk.

[Fumesucker]

39. The GOP hates Iran too, this would not be a remotely credible issue with them

Hillary has already said she would "obliterate" Iran if they attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, I use quotes because that is the exact term Hillary spoke.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/obliterate

When you see obliterate, think of evil alien invaders that zap a planet with a destructive ray. In one blast, the planet and all of the people on it are vaporized. The planet is truly obliterated, or completely wiped out.

[Green Forest]

43. I think you are perhaps the first Hillary supporter who has tried to address one of her policy decision.

I read your reply and wondered if you have a response to former Iranian hostage Shane Bauer's strongly negative reaction to Hillary's call for new sanctions:

Shane Bauer knows firsthand what it’s like to be a prisoner in Iran. And after news broke Saturday morning about the exchange that delivered four imprisoned Americans, he had plenty to say about Hillary Clinton’s response to the developments in Iran.

In a series of tweets posted late Saturday night, Bauer, who is now a senior reporter at Mother Jones, called Clinton’s appeal for more sanctions “totally irresponsible” and accused her of constantly inflaming tensions with Iran.

“Seriously, why would Hillary call for more sanctions *now*? As far as we know, 4 of the Americans are still in Iran. Totally irresponsible,” he tweeted.

Bauer also tweeted that while he was imprisoned in Iran, “whenever I heard Hillary’s voice, my heart would sink. All she ever does with Iran is inflame tensions.”

He expressed shock, or perhaps sarcasm, at the fact that Clinton — the Democratic front-runner in a narrow primary of three — was calling for sanctions, rather than Republican front-runners Donald Trump or Ted Cruz.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/iran-prisoner-shane-bauer-slams-hillary-clinton-217891

[Green Forest]

44. Please do not turn away. There are BITTER voices here which archives prove to have gone back to 2008

Again, I read your reply and wondered if you have a response to former Iranian hostage Shane Bauer's strongly negative reaction to Hillary's call for new sanctions:

Shane Bauer knows firsthand what it’s like to be a prisoner in Iran. And after news broke Saturday morning about the exchange that delivered four imprisoned Americans, he had plenty to say about Hillary Clinton’s response to the developments in Iran.

In a series of tweets posted late Saturday night, Bauer, who is now a senior reporter at Mother Jones, called Clinton’s appeal for more sanctions “totally irresponsible” and accused her of constantly inflaming tensions with Iran.

“Seriously, why would Hillary call for more sanctions *now*? As far as we know, 4 of the Americans are still in Iran. Totally irresponsible,” he tweeted.

Bauer also tweeted that while he was imprisoned in Iran, “whenever I heard Hillary’s voice, my heart would sink. All she ever does with Iran is inflame tensions.”

He expressed shock, or perhaps sarcasm, at the fact that Clinton — the Democratic front-runner in a narrow primary of three — was calling for sanctions, rather than Republican front-runners Donald Trump or Ted Cruz.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/iran-prisoner-shane-bauer-slams-hillary-clinton-217891

[Kentonio]

45. Please explain why Iran shouldn't be allowed to test ballistic missiles.

They're not breaking any treaties, these are weapons we and lots of other people already have, yet because it's a smaller country we don't like much, we pretend they're the ones in the wrong?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

49. Next we'll demand they disband their air force and army in the name of peace. Then we invade.

[quickesst]

47. " My words are likely wasted here."

I wouldn't waste any more time on it either. Willful ignorance is a hard nut to crack.

[Armstead]

50. I promised not to be snarky in my replies so I'll ignore that personal part of your post

I will say that IMO timing and tone are important. As usual, she made it about "me,me,me" and wanted to show how "strong and tough" she'll be, much tougher than Obama (which is the undertone).

At the moment when the positive aspects of Obama's efforts bear obvious fruit, and the agreement is going into effect, Clinton could have bitten her tongue, instead of reinforcing the GOP message that Iran is our enemy, Obama has not been effective (the undertone) and emphasizing the business still to be done.

Why not just give Obama his props, and leave the rest for later?

[roguevalley]

61. She fragged obama when the hostages were still in Iran. A hostage from before saiid that every time

she opened her pie hole he felt doomed because she inflamed the situation. You can list all the stuff you want but she's still wrong. She stuck a knife in Obama's back with her statement. You cannot spin that. She did it when lives still hung in the balance. She is utterly and totally wrong here. She hasn't seen a possible war she didn't want your kids and mine to lick.

[EdwardBernays]

38. This might help explain it

The chairman of her campaign is a lobbyist for weapons manufacturers and Saudi Arabia.

[Betty Karlson]

41. Clinton is wrong, wrong, and wrong again whenever it comes to foreign policy.

Iraq, Libya, Syria, and now this nonsense with Iran. She keeps acting as if we are still in the 20th century.

[Sunlei]

55. like it or not SOS Clinton also worked hard on USA diplomacy with Iran when she was SOS

easy to search SOS Clinton and official statements about Iran, go around 2011/2012.

GOP has always wanted war and even tried to get Israel to attack Iran.

Mrs.Clinton is no republican at all and I think its wrong of any 'real D' to act like a bagger shill for republicans.

[Armstead]

57. The "bagger shills" are criticizing Obama for being too soft on Iran

Maybe you don't think Clinton's criticisms at the moment of success doesn't qualify for that. Okay, that's debatable.

But at least please get your stories and terms straight.

[Sunlei]

58. Republicans baggers roll it all into the 'Ds' attacks against their own D parties candiditates.

It's very helpful for the republican party when Ds fight over whos to old or sick to be president., most all of their contenders are much younger aged.

Republicans have always 'criticized' Obama, our 'man of peace'. He can ignore that crap and so should real Ds.

[Ferd Berfel]

56. Anyone making Excuses for Clinton on this one, needs to read this post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1018253

[DisgustipatedinCA]

59. She's going for Republican votes, assuming stupid liberals will do what they're told.

What choice do we have, after all? Oh, right, we actually do have a choice this time.
Have fun playing Republican games, Hillary. Get ready to enjoy retirement.