Hillary Clinton, War Goddess-"intent on out-newconning the neocons"

[kpete]

Antiwar.com
Justin Raimondo

Hillary Clinton, War Goddess
She wants permanent bases in Iraq – and threatens war with Iran

She's intent on out-neoconning the neocons – a risky proposition, given the proclivities of her Democratic base, but one that she embraces, it seems, as a matter of high principle. If she's running for the Democratic presidential nomination, she should logically – in the name of opportunism – tilt left, i.e., toward the antiwar camp. Yet she is tilting rightward, or, at least, in a distinctly neoconnish direction: an indication that, in her own mind, she's already the nominee.

Surely such arrogance deserves punishment.

Right now, the main political obstacle to the peace movement isn't George W. Bush and the Republicans: they are plummeting in the polls, in part due to voter dissatisfaction with the way the Iraq war is going, and will be lucky if they can retain control of both houses of Congress in the next election. The main danger isn't the GOP, it's the DLC – the Democratic Leadership Council, one of the main engines of the War Party's influence over the Democratic elite. It is the DLC that has so far prevented the anti-interventionist wing of the Democratic Party from asserting itself at the national level. As the Clintonites, the Kerryites, the Kos-folk, and the growing antiwar caucus draw battle lines in the struggle for the soul of the party, the scene is being set for a new manufactured "crisis" over yet another "rogue nation" supposedly building "weapons of mass destruction." One of the first signs of this internecine fight is an effort by antiwar Democrats to challenge and oust Sen. Joseph Lieberman – the most visible and vocal Democratic supporter of the Iraq war, and a longtime advocate of going after Iran – in the upcoming party primary. One wonders, however, how these "Kossacks" will react to the increasing likelihood of Hillary as our commander in chief: although I would love to be proven wrong, my big fear is that, despite her Amazonian aggressiveness when it comes to foreign policy, these supposedly "antiwar" Democrats will find her Xena-like persona irresistible.

http://antiwar.com/justin/

[rodeodance]

1. regarding Iran--as I listened to her speech she said the Adm. was

slow--did not take Iran seriously-outsourced diplomacy. She advocated for Russia to a lead in talking with Iran.

I do not see this as going to the Right of Bushco. She was not advocating war.

[Captain Hilts]

2. No, she isn't. nt

[MadHound]

5. Sounds like she's rattling the saber pretty hard to me.

"We cannot and should not – must not – permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. In order to prevent that from occurring, we must have more support vigorously and publicly expressed by China and Russia, and we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United Nations. And we cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran – that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons."

Take away any option, a polite euphimism for bombing Iran back to the Stone Age. Sorry, but we do not need this war hawk in office. She is out of touch with the party, and she is becoming more out of touch with reality every day. How are we supposed to bring about peace when we keep electing people who want war?

[tocqueville]

9. all this is empty rethorics anyway

the Iranians want nukes not to be invaded, not to launch them on their neighbours and specially not on the US.
Russia and China don't mind the Iranians having nukes, as long as they can trade oil or gas with them.

Sanctions won't work, because only some countries will apply them. Besides sanctions never work.

the real reason of the show with Iran is that the Iranians want to trade influence on the Iraqui shiites (keeping them quiet) against dealing in peace with their own business.

the real nuclear attack against the US will be the euro bourse if it ever happens.

[mattclearing]

12. No would-be President is going to disagree with Israel on this one.

Bottom line.

Israel is going to bomb the nuclear facilities the second they are sure that weapons are being developed and know where they are.

And we will stand behind them with a wink and a nod.

[MadHound]

13. And we would be morally wrong to do so, as would Israel

Sorry, but what in the hell gives the US or Israel the right to bomb a sovereign country that is trying to defend itself? After all, it isn't like Iran's enemies, the US and Israel, don't have the bomb, we do, thousands of times over. It has also been shown with North Korea that if a country has a bomb or two, they are much less likely to be invaded.

In addition, it would be a hypocritical position for the US to take. Here we are, a rogue terrorist state that illegally and immorally invaded a sovereign nation on the flimsy excuse of WMDs, while we're the single largest possesor of WMDs on the planet. And who has Iran invaded lately?

Sorry, but if we invade Iran, whether at the behest of Bush or Hillary, we will be wrong, and hundreds of thousands of people will oppose such an invasion with every fiber of our being.

And quite frankly, for many many of us on the anti-war left, it will spell the end of our involvement with the Democratic party if Hillary does such a move. For it will finally spell out in letters a mile high that neither major party has our interests at heart.

[mattclearing]

14. I don't disagree with you.

I'm not even sure it's possible to get the Democratic nomination without the AIPAC seal of approval. And it's sad.

These are exactly the kinds of foreign entanglements Washington warned of.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Poor Hillary. So much ambition, so few principles.

Worked for her pal Dubya, but unlikely to work for her.

[bryant69]

4. Worked for her husband too, when it comes to that

But he was good at it; I don't know if she is.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Village Idiot]

6. Thank the Gods!!!

Hillary is a NON-CHOICE.

[Smarmie Doofus]

7. Some thoughts re. our Iron Maiden:

>>>>>>although I would love to be proven wrong, my big fear is that, despite her Amazonian aggressiveness when it comes to foreign policy, these supposedly "antiwar" Democrats will find her Xena-like persona irresistible>>>>>>

I think if she makes a "comeback" among the part's antiwar core constituency it will be less that we can't resist her "Xena -like " persona and more that we will regard her as a pale, wan, and probably disingenuous version of the real deal: i.e. the hard- right totalitarians that have monopolized the FED gov't over the last few years.

It's easy for even a detractor ... like myself... to envision her forever rattling her saber toward eye-RAN... and all things 'evil', but much harder to picture her actually giving the go-ahead for an unprovoked war of aggression,a la Bush Co. Thus, the base may stay with her, as the lesser of two evils.

I believe her people think she can reprise Bill's '92 game plan. I doubt it... as much of that success was attributable to Bill's personal charm, and ability to speak publicly. Hillary is woefully short-changed in both departments. So we may see more than just the perfunctory saber rattling from Ms. Clinton.

I don't think she can be nominated, in any scenario. I'm willing to BET she can't be elected.

[DemonFighterLives]

8. Reports this morning that McCain would trash Hillary

like 50 something to 30 something. I sure don't think McCain is special since he fell all over himself for dubby. But Hillary being ordained by the left is beyond believable. She is pushing the jomentum platform.
McCain also reported to be leading Brand x democrat. I guess we'll have to find a real winner. Imus was chuckling about either Gore or Kerry, but I think a Gore/Kerry ticket would be the best to right this nation and reveal all of the evil of the b*shies.

[OneBlueSky]

10. the main problem with a Hillary candidacy -- beyond whatever . . .

her stands are on the issues -- is that it would make the entire campaign about Hillary, instead of about the critical issues we face as a nation . . . it would focus on the past, not on the future . . .

[SaveElmer]

11. Sorry...but this is a bunch of crap...

And a complete and utter distortion of Hillary's views...not to mention poorly written and utterly childish.

[MadHound]

15. HIllary's own words friend,

"We cannot and should not – must not – permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. In order to prevent that from occurring, we must have more support vigorously and publicly expressed by China and Russia, and we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United Nations. And we cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran – that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons."

Doesn't sound like crap to me, sounds like she's rattling that ol' war saber again, trying to out hawk the neo-cons. Not a good way to connect with her base, which is overwhelmingly anti-war.

[ChiciB1]

16. No! No! To Hillary...

I'm NOT Even going to try to comment about it, I've done enough of that!

All I know in my heart is that SHE IS NOT what the Democrats need to win!!

In fact, as I've said many times before, I think if she IS nominated the Democrats WILL almost assuredly LOSE AGAIN!

[Moderator]

17. Locking....

Links to anti-war.com are not permitted.