Hillary talks up Iran military strike

[ECH1969]

A tough-talking Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday suggested she would back a military strike on Iran if that country's radical Islamic government attempts to build nuclear weapons.

Clinton's speech seemed to position her somewhat to the right of the Bush administration, which has stressed diplomacy without ruling out any other option. Most experts on the region say a military strike is not feasible and therefore unlikely.

"We cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to Iran that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons," she said.

Her statements closely echoed comments made by interim Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who this week said his country would not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran.

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/printedition/nation/ny-ushill194593036jan19,0,561231.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-print

[GrpCaptMandrake]

1. OK. Fair's fair.

We need Hillary to re-visit that position with the understanding that Chelsea would have to be part of that process of "striking" Iran (kinda sounds like we're gonna hit 'em with a cattail, doesn't it?)

As added comfort, she can address the scenario of Chelsea taking the oath alongside Jenna and Barbara.

These "National Security" freaks must be made to stop and think about their knee-jerk responses.

:popcorn:

[hwmnbn]

2. Thank you......

WTF, is she trying to out-chimp the chimp? The success of a nation is measured not by how many wars you can fight, but how peaceful you can make the world.

If she's positioning herself like this to get elected, it will backfire.

As for Chelsea, Jenna, and Barbara.......sign em up right now.

[NVMojo]

15. Hillary the warmonger? Draft Chelsea!

[Behind the Aegis]

18. Sins of the mother, visited upon the child?

Interesting. Very progressive. :eyes:

[Ani Yun Wiya]

35. Nothing to do with sin.

It would appear a great deal simpler than that:

Politician mom is gung-ho for military action.
All logical surmise indicates a draft would be required.
Why should the offspring of said politician not meet this obligation??

[Behind the Aegis]

37. Not very accurate.

If my dad was for the Iraq invasion, should I be drafted? That is what the poster, to whom I was responding, would suggest.

There was no "if she was drafted." No, it was an absolute. I also made no declaration that anyone wanting military action, resulting in a draft, should have their offspring exempt.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

39. If your dad...

Was a pol wanting a new war,is there any reason for YOU not to serve?

Or is grunt-work something the rich or connected should always avoid?

You know, like cheney and *

[Behind the Aegis]

41. Of course there is a reason...

I am gay. I can't serve. Although, I look fabu in the uniform, it is a big "no-no."

Now, seriously, you are missing the point in a big way! The original poster (not the OP, but the one I was responding to), indicated that if H. Clinton was so 'gung-ho' then, Chelsea should go. If Hillary did support it, should her child be made to pay the price? Chelsea would stand as great a chance as any other of being drafted. If not, then we could talk.

You say: "Or is grunt-work something the rich or connected should always avoid? You know, like cheney and *" Now Chelsea is in their ranks?! Talk about "knee-jerking?"

Did you even read the article? If you did, then you will see there are a few things that aren't quite "right," as the case were. So before you are ready to send another child off to war, as you think HC is, you might want to evaluate the situation.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

43. The way I see it...

is that ANYONE who advocates, promotes, supports or instigates a war should hop right to it and get to the battlefield.
They should not require that others do their war for them.

[Behind the Aegis]

44. According to you...

..."way I see it...is that ANYONE who advocates, promotes, supports or instigates a war should hop right to it and get to the battlefield." So, Chelsea made the speech? ooops..HC made that speech, if it is to be believed. So, why are you and the other poster wanting to send Chelsea off to battle?

[Ani Yun Wiya]

45. I did not say Chelsea made the speech...

I am expressing two thoughts in my responses to the thread.

1. Warmongers should do their own work.(That means being directly involved in the fighting.)
2. A war with Iran would require a draft.(That should be equal opportunity, for rich or poor.)

Why do you insinuate otherwise??

[Behind the Aegis]

51. And, I am expressing that you and the other poster are...

...saying if what Hillary said is true, Chelsea should be drafted. That's not equal opportunity.

[rawtribe]

3. Tell me again why

a woman president would be better then a man?

Note to Democrats...I will never vote for Hillary.

[wakeme2008]

22. Me too I will vote green blue purple whatever

over a DLCer like Hillary.

[Behind the Aegis]

23. will you vote Republican too? n/p

[wakeme2008]

24. Hillary is a Repug and NO I do not vote

Republican.

[Behind the Aegis]

26. No she isn't. But, I guess that escaped you. eom

[driver8]

30. If she supports war with Iran, I will never vote for her either.

This war monger bullshit has got to stop.

[rodeodance]

34. supporting sanctions is NOT supporting war.

[Behind the Aegis]

4. Something is not right.

This article is smelly. This seems like right-wing propaganda to make Clinton look bad. Of course, that will work well with some here.

On edit: It may not be "right"-wing propaganda.

[ECH1969]

5. My local affiliate in NY had clips of her speech

She did say it would be wrong to take using force off the table as it would show weakness. But, she never said spicifically she supported going to war.

[Behind the Aegis]

10. See, that is my problem.

Reading the article, it seems that it is worded in such a way that is very "iffy," in my opinion. I have been scouring the net to find a transcript of the speech. The one paragraph, from her speech, has too many ellipsis for my taste. It is possible that the construct is still accurate, but I want to see it. The reason I question this is because of this statement: "Clinton's speech seemed to position her somewhat to the right of the Bush administration, which has stressed diplomacy without ruling out any other option." Since when has the Bush administration stressed diplomacy?! We have been hearing nothing but war-drum beating from the Bush group for months!

There are other reasons, but I will leave those be for now.

[rodeodance]

28. thanks, your post sounds more accurate. Lets not lump her in with

the current administration.

[me b zola]

9. I was writing my response while you posted yours

See post #7. I concur.

[Behind the Aegis]

12. I read it. I agree.

Something isn't 'kosher' with this article. While I do like H. Clinton, I don't place her beyond reproach. There are two things that really bother me about this article. One is discussed in another post, and the other, well, I am holding my tongue for now. However, I 'bait' you can guess what my 'star' concern is.

[me b zola]

19. If we're not careful,...

...we will figure out how to debate the differences within the party without destroying the party; I think we're on to something :) :toast:

I have a distaste for any kind of 'baiting', it has no place in honest discourse and critical thinking. I wish for all of us who wish to promote Democratic principles to stop falling into knee-jerk reactions to baiting; this has been a fault of mine that I am working on overcoming.

Here's to critical thinking and Democratic principles! :toast:

[Behind the Aegis]

21. You made me giggle!

Again, I agree with you. We may figure out how to debate amongst one another without "eating our own," which we always find so humorous when the "right" does it. I sometimes "knee-jerk" too, but not as often as I am accused of it. LOL!

May this new year bring real peace and love because the ones willing to listen and understand take power! :toast:

[rodeodance]

31. yes, think before we knee-jerk respond. thanks

[rodeodance]

32. which is to say--"talks up" in the subject line is not accurate IMHO

[Behind the Aegis]

36. Be careful!

Lest you be deemed a DLC plant, mole...and if you change your avatar to mine, you, too, can be a Mossad agent! :)

The whole article is very strange. I have seen a few other threads that make me question it even more. And, you are right, "talks up" isn't very accurate, especially when you can see a similar title in LBN where Condi, spokesperson of Bush, says the same thing. Yet, in this article, H. Clinton is to the "right" of Bush? :wtf:

[rodeodance]

52. well, the art. is silly so she would be percieved as being to the right of

bush.
anyway, you gave me chuckle. a mole huh? WTF!!

.....Yet, in this article, H. Clinton is to the "right" of Bush?

[GrpCaptMandrake]

13. There are clues in the article

that indicate bias. Perhaps even creeping left-wing bias.

But the idea that Hillary feels we must keep the threat of American Military Action on the table is completely in line with her "stay the course" approach to Iraq.

Are you willing to say that Hillary sab-re-rattling against Iran is out of character?

Some say Hillary is guarding her flank until she can tell us how she *really* feels.

If that's the case, I guess I'll just have to wait. But it's only fair to state that I won't wait for her to demand our troops be brought home and our Nutcracker-esque grand military adventure be ended until January 22, 2009.

All politicians must stand and be counted at some point, even presumptive nominees.

[Behind the Aegis]

16. Bias? Yes.

"Are you willing to say that Hillary sab-re-rattling against Iran is out of character?"

Not at all. I have not implied that at all. However, something is not right about this article.

See my other posts here about my concerns. I am not saying she didn't say some of the things she did, but the way it is written is very smelly.

[democracyindanger]

6. Kee-rist.

Clinton's speech seemed to position her somewhat to the right of the Bush administration, which has stressed diplomacy without ruling out any other option.

And what did they quote her saying?

"We cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to Iran that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons," she said.

So the Chimp in charge isn't ruling out any other option. Clinton says the same thing. Yet this supposedly puts her "to the right"--for saying the same got-damn thing.

[ECH1969]

8. She did kind of attack Chimp from the right in some parts of the speech

US 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.

In an address Wednesday evening at Princeton University, a Democrat representing New York state, said it was a mistake for the United States to have Britain, France and Germany head up nuclear talks with Iran over the past 2 1/2 years. Last week, Iran resumed nuclear research in a move Teheran claims is for energy, not weapons.

“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.

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2006/January/middleeast_January477.xml§ion=middleeast&col=

[democracyindanger]

11. I still don't see

how that's to the right. She's absolutely right. We have lost critical time in dealing with Iran--just like we lost critical time in dealing with North Korea. That's neither right nor left, it's just a fact. 'Course, these days, we're the only side dealing with facts, so if anything, she was hitting from the left.

Maybe there was more in the speech, but from those two stories, I just don't see it.

[Behind the Aegis]

14. Now, I have a HUGE problem!

ECH1969, your OP quoted a source that wrote:

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

Yet, the second source (in the post to which I am responding) says:

"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,”

Do you notice anything missing? The first source has ellipsis (indicating other words) and the second source mimics the first source without the ellipsis (indicating a straight-forward complete quote).

Something ain't right.

(BTW...thanks for both links! If you find the speech, let me know!!)

[me b zola]

7. No fan of HRC, but this seems to be some nasty spin

To the right of bush*monkey? Hardly. Rice is running around saying that they Iranians are not credible, so she says the time for diplomatic talks are over. :wtf: It seems like Hillary is trying to finesse the issue, which I feel is a mistake but that hardly places her to the right of the idiot king.

Then again, I fear how all of these messes that the pukes are making are going to effect the Dems when we take power. We will blamed for all of this shit that the gop is making now, and we need our strong voices ( Conyers, Feingold, etc) rising to the top so that we don't get sucked into the black pit that has been dug for us.

[oscarguy]

17. Senator Clinton is right about this.

I am from N.Y. State and I agree with my Senator. The first and foremost duty of all is to protect our Nation from all enemies. This is the State that suffered the most from the terrorist attacks.She is doing her job. Oscar

[me b zola]

20. Hello dear Oscar

What utter nonsense. Do you really feal as though Iran will nuke the US? Sweety, you are listening to too much faux news.

Have you ever taken an oath to the Constitution & this country? Just wondering.

[bowens43]

27. bullshit.

Doing her job? You have got to be kidding. The us has absolutely NO RIGHT to attack Iran unless Iran attacks us first. Period..

[bowens43]

25. F*ck Hillary

As far as I'm concerned, when the US gives up it's nukes it will have the moral authority to ask others to do the same. Until that time STFU.

If she were to get the nomination in 2008 , I may. have to stay home

[Behind the Aegis]

29. Good idea.

'Tis better to sacrifice your right to vote for a democrat, who may listen to your voice, as opposed to a republican, who will not listen to your voice.

[BuyingThyme]

33. Dear Crazy Senator,

Iran has a mainstream government; you work for the radical one.

[Behind the Aegis]

38. Iran is mainstream?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:puke:

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LincolnMcGrath]

40. "seemed to position her somewhat to the right of the Bush administration"

[Behind the Aegis]

42. Did that phrase seem "funky" to you, too? eom.

[ECH1969]

50. She has attacked Bush for being soft on Iran

[Connie_Corleone]

46. The article is biased.

I think I'll read the speech for myself. Maybe it's posted in full on her website.

[ECH1969]

49. just do a google search for yourself

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

48. HilMentum speaks, again, in favor of the use of force.

But, she's "not as bad" as Bush and the Republicans.