Clinton Calls for Sanctions Against Iran

[ECH1969]

PRINCETON, N.J. - Sen. Hillary Clinton called for United Nations sanctions against Iran as it resumes its nuclear program and faulted the Bush administration for "downplaying" the threat.

"I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and chose to outsource the negotiations," Clinton said.

Earlier this week, a meeting in London produced no agreement among the U.S., France, Britain, Germany, Russia and China on whether to refer the dispute over Iranian nuclear enrichment to the Security Council, which could impose sanctions.

While Clinton was critical of the administration, she never mentioned the president by name and did not engage in the same sort of sharp rhetorical attack against him or other Republicans as she did earlier this week.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060119/ap_on_go_co/clinton_princeton

[kenny blankenship]

1. Great we can add this to the pile

of reasons to never vote for her.

[ClayZ]

5. I agree!

Someone needs to show here DU!

[Zhade]

18. Indeed!

Her furtherance of the bullshit 'Iran is a crisis' lie is, at best, not helpful.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

2. Does she just not get it?

Or what?

[Malikshah]

3. Nope-- she doesn't

nor will she get my vote.

This.has.got.to.stop.

Shame on them. And shame on those who support this particular madness.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

9. I know for a fact she has at least 30 letters

from constituants just like this one...

NO!
Not again. Please, not this time. I beg you as I did this time of year in 2003.
It is coming. The Bush Administration is going to come to you asking to expand the War Powers Act to Iran.
I can feel it in the wind. Can you?
They have no other option (they say). Iran has “ignored the world's voice.” Iran poses a “clear and present danger” to the United States, the region, and the world.
The Vice President, Secretaries of State and Defense, the Director of Central Intelligence, and the National Security Adviser have all made recent trips to the region―not to visit troops―but clearly (according to news reports) consulting with key players needed prior an Iranian strike.
We have a bad enough history with meddling inside Iran. Let's not do it again.
This group of liars and spies we call the Executive Branch have not earned the trust needed for another war of choice.



But, since she has yet to answer a SINGLE letter... even a form letter, I guess she does not care what her NY state constituants write.

Even fucking D'Amato was more responsive than this one.

I hate to say it, but the Hillary haters may have been right. Far right, but right.

[jsamuel]

19. She is like Bush... I really really wish people would understand this

She is not like Bush on social issues (race, economics), but as far as foreign policy goes, she is Bush 2. Have you heard a peep out of her about presidential powers? No? No.

I am really scared if she is going to be the next nom. of the Democratic Party...

even some social issues though... flag burning for example...


A few posts ago, I ripped the Republican Party for allowing Bush to pass through the primaries. If we let her through the Dem primaries...

[goforit]

4. She just needs to shut up!!!.....Some other Dem needs to run against her.

[Catrina]

6. She's doing the work of the neocons and this is unnacceptable in

a Democrat. This is why I would never support her for president.

[CoffeeCat]

10. Exactly...

...and I'm wondering when she went over to the dark side, and why?

Damn, they must be blackmailing everyone.

[newblewtoo]

44. In truth, she was a Goldwater Girl

So what makes you think she ever came back? She will make a great Republican president. How anyone can consider her progressive or even liberal is beyond me.

[CoffeeCat]

7. If this isn't proof of her neocon tendencies...I don't know what is...

I just want to know...how much did the thugs pay her? Or are they blackmailing her?

She's IN on the run-up to a war with Iran! She's part of the campaign.

This is part of the PNAC plan.

For God's sakes....Pat Buchanan was on Hannity's show tonight--talking about how dangerous and irresponsible a war with Iran would be. However, Hillary is on the bandwagon, helping BushCo and the rest of the PNAC scum sell this war to America and manipulate us with pre-war crapola.

I can't frickin believe this.

Hey toots! How can you not like the very plantation that you are watering, weeding and standing in yourself???????

COMPLETELY. BOGGLES. THE. MIND.

[Daftly]

8. Well, the bombs will be falling in a couple weeks.

Seriously. She is Repub light. I think they let her sit in on their plans some times. She wants to be on record as advocating this before it happens. Then if things go well she will say she advocated it long before it happened.

Lets see, according to her, we were wrong to go into Iraq without UN consent (here she is correct), but working with the EU in Iran was the wrong choice. WHAT! What is she thinking. After we are stuck in there too she will say going in was a poor choice. Conveniently, everyone forgets what a senator says before the war. It is only what they say now that seems to matter.

She is the epitomy of talking out of both sides of your face. Politicians are dispicable creatures.

[stillcool]

11. and is this why...

http://www.321gold.com/editorials/petrov/petrov011706.html
Krassimir Petrov, Ph. D.
January 17, 2006

Abstract: the proposed Iranian Oil Bourse will accelerate the fall of the American Empire

II. Iranian Oil Bourse

The Iranian government has finally developed the ultimate "nuclear" weapon that can swiftly destroy the financial system underpinning the American Empire. That weapon is the Iranian Oil Bourse slated to open in March 2006. It will be based on a euro-oil-trading mechanism that naturally implies payment for oil in Euro. In economic terms, this represents a much greater threat to the hegemony of the dollar than Saddam's, because it will allow anyone willing either to buy or to sell oil for Euro to transact on the exchange, thus circumventing the U.S. dollar altogether. If so, then it is likely that almost everyone will eagerly adopt this euro oil system:

The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target:
The Emerging Euro-denominated International Oil Marker
by William Clark
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html

The Iranians are about to commit an "offense" far greater than Saddam Hussein's conversion to the euro of Iraq’s oil exports in the fall of 2000. Numerous articles have revealed Pentagon planning for operations against Iran as early as 2005. While the publicly stated reasons will be over Iran's nuclear ambitions, there are unspoken macroeconomic drivers explaining the Real Reasons regarding the 2nd stage of petrodollar warfare - Iran's upcoming euro-based oil Bourse.

In 2005-2006, The Tehran government has a developed a plan to begin competing with New York's NYMEX and London's IPE with respect to international oil trades - using a euro-denominated international oil-trading mechanism. This means that without some form of US intervention, the euro is going to establish a firm foothold in the international oil trade. Given U.S. debt levels and the stated neoconservative project for U.S. global domination, Tehran's objective constitutes an obvious encroachment on U.S. dollar supremacy in the international oil market

[Geo55]

17. I believe they've ALL been taken

"into the backroom" and have been told it is in the interest of their country's survival that they back leaning on Iraq.(wow , on edit , the "new Iraq - Iran)
We'll know pretty soon how bad it's going to get.

[McKenzie]

20. bullseye

in fact, one inch group at 100 yards.

This is what it is ALL about. This is why HC made her "powerful" speech immediately after Gore made his (miles better) impassioned plea. The Corporation sees Gore as a threat and much prefers HC.

Once people fully understand the oil/currency relationship all the dots, or most of them, will join together.

[MisterP]

12. didn't she already ask this for Syria last year?

and of course her calls to increase the size of the force in Iraq, conveniently located between the two...

[bpilgrim]

13. she's gonna try and out gun sling the neoCONs, again...

it's due to start working soon i'm sure... the odds must have improved after 5 years of war and destruction.

:nuke:

peace

[Flabbergasted]

14. What an a-hole. Can you spell double standard

Ok I've formally lost all respect for her I'd developed lately

[VegasWolf]

15. Hillary's war stance will alienate a lot of us. She is toast to me. nt

[Charlie Brown]

16. I'm not voting for a pro-war candidate again

If Hillary gets behind the "bomb Iran" movement, there's little difference between herself and McCain, imho.

[rodeodance]

21. I am very disappointed that European/asia talks broke down-as she is. I

see nothing about dropping bombs--only of sanctions. In addition, I think she would do everything possible to avoid war. She is not beating the drums of war.

[wild potato]

22. Yes, Hillary is talking sanctions here...

...but W is going to soon be talking bombs. And Hillary's remarks make it easier for the hawks to get the public behind military action. I have no idea whether Hillary personally prefers the military option in Iran, but she's making it more likely. And if it comes up for a vote, I think she'll make her decision with her eyes fixed firmly on 2008, and vote for an attack.

[rodeodance]

23. When pressed, I do not think there is any Congressperson who will

say that military option is OFF the table. This does NOT mean she would vote for military options. I continue to believe she would do everything possible to AVOID military options.

[rodeodance]

25. I think this thread has a more accurate interpretation of what she said.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=180716&mesg_id=180830

[Zhade]

37. Why should a military option be on the table AT ALL?

Iran is NOT a crisis. We are NOT being threatened by them, it would take YEARS for them to get nukes IF they persue them at even an increased pace.

Why all this nonsense about stopping the 'Iranian threat'? There isn't one! Yeah, them having nukes isn't great (IMHO no one should have them), but it's not like the Iranian government is suicidal enough to start a nuclear war, FFS.

[The Stranger]

27. Bullshit. Once she calls for sanctions, there soon follows an "incident,"

usually something along the lines of the Nigerian Uranium Yellowcake or the Gulf of Tonkin attack, then she is pushed to sign on for military action.

Only two years later, after more illegal invasions, torture, mass murder and bloodshed, and totalitarian repression at home with expanded wiretaps and surveillance, does she realize it is too late.

Faux News blasts day and night her comments calling for sanctions and calling her out as a hypocrit for wanting to end the illegal war, mass murder, torture, and domestic surveillance.

[JuniperLea]

30. Right!

And it's important to follow through with sanctions. Saddam followed through and look what he got. Maybe she is trying to show how it is supposed to be done! Sanctions only equal war to W. He blew it with Iraq. Maybe Hill is trying to show how it is supposed to be done.

[Behind the Aegis]

24. Something ain't right here.

I keep seeing this 'article' in various forms. Someone is spinning.

[JuniperLea]

29. I think you are right, and...

a lot of people are clearly falling for it. It's divisive! That's what they want!

In a perfect world (without W) the sanctions against Iraq would have been followed and when we saw all the needs were met, there would have been no war.

Maybe this is Hill's way of pointing out that fact and her words are being spun into a divisive plot against the cohesiveness of the Left. Judging by the reactions here, that is an easy thing to do!

Jeez.

[ixion]

26. Hillary once again proves she's a RW puppet

and nothing more.

[JuniperLea]

28. Did anyone ever stop to think that maybe she called for sanctions

because they are warranted? And that she would uphold the sanctions to the full extent, like we should have done with Iraq? Maybe she is laying the groundwork for doing things right this time and she's ready to make a huge stink if the laws are not adhered to.

I'm totally against this kind of bashing when only part of the story is known.

I don't particularly like Hill, but I really hate seeing people jump to conclusions like this.

[Catrina]

31. Warranted? When did Iran threaten the US?

What are we doing over in the ME antagonizing, killing and torturing their people? Who is responsible for this? How has it made the US 'safer'? How many NEW enemies do you think we now have in the ME since we have killled, tortured and maimed so many of Iraq's citizens? Do you know how many people the vile Sanctions on Iraq killed? Why is the US unable to take care of its own energy needs without killing innocent people in the ME and elsewhere to do so?

Have you read the writings and the latest hogwash coming from the mouths of the neocons, particularly arch neocon and avowed Arab hater, and self admitted fascist admirer, Michael Ledeen? Do you realize that the US has been led to war by a small bunch of fanatics and war profiteers and that if we fall for this again, 'Iran is a grave threat' 'we need to sanction them'! How dare the US talk about sanctioning any country because they want to use their oil their own way, or because they want to develop weapons to protect themselves from REAL threats from both the US and from Israel??


If the people of the US buy into this neocon disaster and madness once again, as Hillary appears to be doing, then they deserve whatever happens to them, imo.

[JuniperLea]

33. You prove my point

The US has done a lot of crap. Had said crap never happened, no one would bat an eye at the US or the UN looking into nuclear activity that may or may not be in compliance. Sanctions will happen under the current circumstances whether they be called for by Hill or by The Bush Regime. Who would you rather make that first call? Calling it first shows that Hill has an interest and The Regime will know right up front that she will be keeping her eye on the situation and they can expect her to be vocal.

You have to play with the cards you are dealt. Right now The Regime holds a lot of aces and the only way to play this hand is to be cunning. Hill could very well beat them at their own game.

[Catrina]

34. I wish I could agree, but we have history to look at to prove

that if that's what she's doing, it won't work out the way any decent person would want it to. We had Bush Sr. Sanctions on Iraq, Clinton, Sanctions continue and kill nearly one million innocent Iraqis. Clinton administration Sec. of State, when asked 'was it worth the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children, answers 'yes'.

Imo, there's no difference to an little Iranian child whether they die as a result of Hillary's political maneuverings, or the neocons. Dead is pretty irreversible.

Then there's what's called 'not playing political games and just doing the right thing'. I know, it's a little old-fashioned, but still imo, the best way to go.

You may admire these games politicians play at the expense of the lives of people in foreign countries, but I don't and I don't want to have to guess what someone I support is trying to do. I take their actions, and judge them accordingly.

The bottom line for me is that Iran is no more of a threat to this country than Iraq was. We are fed a pile of garbage emanating from the same lunatic sources the Iraq garbage came from, Michael Ledeen and his band of neocons. These people do not have the best interests of the US in mind.

Hillary for some reason, is going along with their madness.

What's wrong with just telling the truth? Iran is NOT a threat to the US. That is all we need to know. Nor was Iraq! So, why is Hillary willing to play these games? Because she's a neocon. Neocons are the enemies of our Constitution, and that makes them enemies of the US. She has yet to condemn the war in Iraq. I will not support a neocon warmonger, not ever.

[JuniperLea]

35. That's what I'm saying

You have to play the cards dealt. Death and destruction are always around the corner with the current admin.

We have no real idea what Hillary has up her sleeve and the RWNuts are playing Dems like a flute and using this as a divisive measure... and it's working. We need more information before labeling her as bad as them.

[brentspeak]

40. There's a big difference between Iraq and Iran

Saddam wasn't developing WMD, but we know for sure that Iran is. And the leaders of Iran, unlike, Saddam, are Islamic fundamentalists.

[worldgonekrazy]

51. AND Iran actually has the means to defend itself

If it were to happen, it would be a MUCH different and MUCH worse war (not to downplay how bad Iraq is).

[Zhade]

38. No, we DON'T have to play that card game.

Of course, the powers-that-be would like us to think we have to play it. But the fact remains, Iran has not threatened us, and penalties are not called for unless that happens.

We have NO RIGHT to demand Iran stop itself from maybe getting a nuke in the future. We have no credibility on the subject, considering our government's unwillingness to allow the UN to inspect OUR very real WMD.

We're hypocrites if we suggest otherwise.

[JuniperLea]

39. Egads

That's what I'm saying. Our credibility is shot, that's a given. Bush will call for sanctions, that's a given.

THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING!

The UN has the right to place sanctions and I'm sure it will and Bush will have his nose in there. Do something or do nothing and those things will happen without question. Wouldn't you rather have Hillary show her interest and keep on top of things and at least try to make sure that what "we" did to Iraq never happens again?

You have to fight fire with fire. Play the game the way the cards have already fallen. There is no going back and there are certain things that most certainly happen in the very near future. Why not try to keep a lid on things? Why not show a strong interest in doing things right this time?

[Zhade]

41. I guess I just keep thinking of all those dead Iraqi kids.

You know, the ones the sanctions killed.

Personally, I want Clinton as far away from foreign policy as she can get.

[JuniperLea]

42. That's the point!

The sanctions did not kill those kids! It was W's rush to war with disregard to Iraq having followed the sanctions! Sanctions are a good thing. Saddam following the sanctions was a good thing. W ignoring the fact that Iraq's sanctions had been adhered to was the evil bit!

Sanctions do not kill people! War kills people! War is NOT a natural outcome of sanctions! Sanctions by nature are to prevent war! W ignored the natural flow to things and rushed to war, that is what killed those kids!

[robbob]

43. Umm...wrong children Juni

The 500,000 child deaths cited are from a study of the ten year period following the FIRST Gulf War, and these deaths were attributed to the punitive sanctions imposed following that war. Agents used to sterilize water and many medical supplies were kept from the Iraqi people because of the potential to use these chemicals in weapon production. It was Ms. Albright who made the rather callous comment ("We think it's worth it") when asked about these deaths.

[Zhade]

49. Yes, those are the ones I meant.

NT!

[worldgonekrazy]

50. Or she's trying to avoid a war?

By getting out ahead and proposing a different solution?

I don't buy that the Bush Administration is insane enough to go to war with Iran, but then again some of the other shit they have done (see domestic spying for example) has really shocked me. Their audacity knows no bounds.

[truthInCO]

32. Hilary you war hawk!

She's upset that we wasted time outsourcing negotiations to the Europeans (wants unilateral action). She's mad that the current administration is totally downplaying the threat (drums beating). "We've lost critical time!" She's calling for sanctions even before the U.N. security council has heard the matter.

Who is she playing to this time?

[HuffleClaw]

36. hillary needs to stop parroting gop talking points

and get some democrat advisors.

[madmark]

45. What's funny while everybody postures tough with Iran which is many

years from being able to produce a nuclear device; N. Korea continues to churn them out and perfect missile technologies to deliver them to the west coast (they already hit Alaska with unarmed missile in a test). Its easy to be a bully to someone that actually doesn't have nukes (See Iraq); and hide your head in the sand from the real present threat that would require a hard decision. There is only one country that could have ever merited a preemptive strike and that was N. Korea; but they got how many devices by now while Bush screwed around with Iraq and other stupid things? 15? Letting N. Korea build a nuclear arsenal may when its all said and done end up being the biggest bush fuckup of them all.

[savemefromdumbya]

46. The Iran thing is not about nuclear

[occuserpens]

47. If this is not managed opposition then what is?

[Danieljay]

48. yep, starve the poor and the leaders get rich...good thinking Hillary. ...

I used to like Hillary Clinton...but she postures on everything nowadays. I'm not sure what she stands for anymore.

[occuserpens]

52. Dangers of smoking in the ME