Clinton calls for limited talks with Iran

[ckramer]

Source: R

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic White House hopeful Hillary Clinton on Tuesday called President George W. Bush's Iran policy "a loser" and recommended low-level talks with a country the United States has labeled a sponsor of terrorism.

Speaking at a meeting of newspaper publishers, Clinton sought to strike a balance between the hawkish approach taken by the Bush administration and her Democratic rival Barack Obama's call for face-to-face talks with the Iranian president.

"The approach that the Bush administration has taken toward Iran has been a loser. It has neither changed behaviors or produced results," said Clinton, a former first lady who would be the first woman president.

"I've advocated both that carrot and that stick, and I think that would be what I (would) take to try to create the beginning of lower levels of diplomatic engagement, some ongoing process," the New York senator said.



Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1517114320080415

---

Yep, Hill, you are a quick learner from Jimmy Carter!

I'm bitter!!!!

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Didn't Obama get thrashed for saying he'd talk to leaders of "hostile nations"?

[Lerkfish]

2. why, yes, and he got thrashed by none other than....

you guessed it chester.

[ckramer]

3. That's right, Hillary called him naive before

And now this?

Hillary is a "skillful" politician!

[journalist3072]

4. No he did not. He got trashed for saying he would do it without any type of pre-conditions

What Sen. Clinton said during that debate is that you don't hold those kind of high-level talks w/o first learning the intent (to ensure the POTUS is not being used for propoganda). And she said she would send envoys first, to do some of the initial leg-work.

It's the same thing she's saying now.

[no_hypocrisy]

5. Duly noted. Thank you.

[BearSquirrel2]

8. Those were just for talks ...

You see, Hillary is proposing "limited" talks. The difference needs no explanation. Clearly you're being unrealistic and naive. :sarcasm:

[CoffeeCat]

6. Hillary needs psychiatric help.

Um, ok. She wants Bush--President Bush--to engage in "negotiations" with Iran?

This is beyond the pale.

First off, George Bush don't negotiate with no terrorists! We all know what a closed-minded
fuckball he is. He lacks any sort of negotiation skills, decorum or diplomacy. He's incapable
of these negotiations under the best of all circumstances, and he's not interested in
any kind of diplomatic endeavors--unless they involve big, shiny cluster bombs.

Given what we know of George Bush, how can Hillary suggest that he speak with anyone in Iran--after
Hillary herself voted for Kyl/Lieberman???????

Many, many people were very upset with Kyl/Lieberman, because it defined a branch of the Iranian military
as a terrorist organization.

This shuts the door on any negotiations...then it locks it...then it seals it with concrete.

Hillary voted for this bullshit. Bush has an excuse to not negotiate and he can now suggest, "Congress declared
that their government-run military was a terrorist organization. As we all know, our government
doesn't negotiate with terrorists.'

Hillary votes to make negotiations more difficult with Iran, then she criticizes Bush for not negotiating?

Hillary legitimized the lack of negotiations with Iran. Her Kyl/Lieberman vote ensured that negotiations with
Iran would be far less likely.

Her hypocricy could fill the Grand Canyon.

[guyanakoolaid]

7. Exactly, voting for Kyl/Lieberman and mocking Obama's reaching out to this about-face is simply

:puke: