HR Clinton Still Hawkish On Iran
By Steve Hynd Wednesday Jan 14, 2009 1:30pm
Spencer Ackerman* has the details of Clinton's comments on Iran at her confirmation hearing yesterday. She repeated the line that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, just as Obama has done. The 2007 NIE saying exactly the opposite seems to have passed from the villagers' memory without a whimper, so "all options" are still on the table. And she very definitely didn't, even given multiple opportunities, say that the Obama administration will despatch and envoy to Iran in its first year. Although since the frontrunner for that job is rumored to be neocon-enabler Dennis Ross, I'm not sure whether to be thankful about that.
Hugely disappointing, as was Kerry's agreement talk of "big sticks". No wonder the Iranians call her "Madame AIPAC". With Obama seemingly giving more than just lip service to the anti-Iran pro-AIPAC lobby, the next Israeli leader won't even have to worry about calling up the American president to give his SecState her marching orders.
Crossposted from Newshoggers
Login or Register to post comments.
I think this is just another pandering to the AIPAC people.
..have long pointed out the sad fact that when it comes to foreign policy and Israel,everyone from both parties with very few exceptions-even from the left--are on board the war wagon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYjkipR0xVc&fe....
I think you're conflating Argumentum Ad Populum with Argumentum Ad Baculum.
ysbaddaden the most adept and ironic of you-tubers.
there are times when you wonder if there
really is any difference in who runs the govt.
it is really hard to have faith that the elected
representatives will actually do the right thing
they were elected to do and not follow the money-minority
elite white bastards.
Well Chomsky suggests that above all it is the most powerful of Capitalists pulling the proverbial strings,to which all politicians of every stripe,try as they might, are inevitably compelled to dance.
Stop calling them "powerful capitalists"- businesses who are in bed with government aren't capitalists at all- they are corporatists in the fascist sense. But this is nothing new- when you have a government as large and with as much power such as the United States-its not a wonder that its easy to bribe them. Especially since they serve limited terms and spend other people's money with their spending programs- they don't have any incentive to actually give a fuck.
This is what Nader has been saying in public for years - and getting stoned by the left, right and middle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK2Zk744ccY
pretty much.
In the IRAQ war she fallowed the Money.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcysW9O8xr0&fe...
And NOW..?
Her Royal Clinton?
All this talk of more conflicts gives the war-tards a big stick.
So Hillary's gotta woody?
I knew it!
The Obama policy, as articulated so well by Secty. of State designate Clinton, is very clear.
We are going to have a new approach. We will speak to the Iranians. When, where, who and how will be determined by us when we feel like it. It is unacceptable for Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon that they are not seeking because we have them and do not want to share except with Pakistan, India, Israel, France, Russia and China and several little fellows with suitcases.
We will be tolerant and engage the Iranians and get a lot of countries together to support bombing them and blowing their whatevers to smitherines while we withdraw from Iraq except for the pesky Iranians who are supporting the insurgents that they oppose simultaneously.
All this will be extremely clear on our way to Afghanistan where we must win the poppy-growers and the expected and suspected terrists wherever they didn't.
It's a brand new day on the horizon, wasn't it?
Now I understand. when youput it like that, it makes perfect sense.
before or after Hillary dodges the sniper fire?
Very well stated. I had a kind of flashback to the Miss Teen South Carolina speech.
The U.S. Americans need to uh bomb the Iraq and such that the people who don't have maps uh need to pick poppies in the South Africans so we can all go to school like and make like the Abu Ghraib and uh torture the uh terrorist peoples who have maps and we will give them poppies from the US Americans and then the uh global warming will get a lot of flowers.
What do people feel should the foreign policy of the United States be toward Iran?
Sane.
well let's not go nuts...so to speak.
1) forget about revenge for the embassy. It was three decades ago.
2) Admit that no-one has any evidence that Iran has a weapons program and that uranium enrichment for a civilian program is allowed it by right as an NPT signatory. Cancel sanctions and stop threatening attacks until someone can prove that Iran has an active weapons program.
3) Admit the ridiculous "IEDs from Iran" fable is just that. It's been debunked in all of its several evolving versions but it keeps on being quoted as gospel.
4) Clean up its own act so that it has some moral high ground when it lectures Iran on its human rights record.
5) Revive, if it still can, Iran's 2004 offer of a Grand Bargain on everything from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to oil contracts.
Regards, C
You know my views on the subject. To make the steps you've outlined achievable some moderation on the part of Iran's leadership would go a long way. A little less of "The Great Satan' nonsense would be a good start. I'm not sure why anyone thinks Israel is a major factor in the US posture regarding Iran. There is enough prior history between the US and Iran to make for tough diplomatic ground without introducing that motif.
Bingo!
I was looking for an in for my argument that AIPAC is a strawman. It's good old American politics that drives this. Cernig can wish that Americans would let go of the embassy- and many of us have- but huge chunks of Americans need an Alamo.
And then there's the oil. Funny how often people around here seem to eschew the theory that we're in it for the oil.
It has a lot to do with the all powerful Israel Lobby and their endlessly cynical manipulation of the "anti-semitism" charge.
Robert Wexler and Henry Waxman, iirc, weren't for the invasion of Iraq were they? Isn't that another war that AIPAC led us in to? Yet they were against it?
WTF? How is it that someone can take money from a PAC and not obey its every command?
lets go with very powerful-as a cursory glance at campaign contributions should illustrate quite nicely.
Of course the RNC is another pervasive force for endless war.
Those who seek war are a cancer upon our society and the world.
n/t
Look, HRC (for example), isn't a Jew, so she's got no loyalties there. And now that she's no longer the Senator from NY, she's not necessarily so beholden to Jews. Was she bought? Well, the contribution levels are limited enough so that there are probably Arab-American PACs that would be able to raise as much as or more in contribution $$$.
So maybe these positions Hillary takes are to please an audience that's genuinely American...or, shame on me for thinking this, she takes these positions because she believes they're right.
I found this excerpt from The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy By John J. Mearsheimer, Stephen M. Walt.
I learned more in the past hour about how the lobby exerts its influence than I ever have.
Here's the excerpt:
http://books.google.com/books?id=KrR_00AxrUcC...
Maybe they're just better informed than you.
“A 2002 - 2007 Financial Times survey (the leading Anglo-American business publication) of 1872 op-eds, editorials and letters contained ‘not a single (item) by any spokesperson or representative of a major (or minor) oil company calling for the invasion and occupation of Iraq or the bombing of Iran.’
“In contrast, the one-sided Daily Alert digest of pro-Israeli and Middle East propaganda (from 2004 through September 2007) published 960 issues with on average six daily articles calling for an immediate or near-term preemptive US and/or Israeli attack on Iran. Tightened economic sanctions also plus divestment and boycotts of Iranian products.
“During the same period, the Financial Times (in 1053 issues) published no Big Oil op-eds, commentaries or letters advocating war or harsh measures against Iran. Quite the opposite. Large and smaller oil companies want peace and stability everywhere and the right to negotiate deals with all oil-producing states, including Iran. They also fear conflict will disrupt business. Damage or destroy their installations, and undermine transport routes and shipping lanes from wellheads to market destinations.”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?contex...
Because if I were an oil man I'd be out front screaming that I wanted this war so I could line my pockets. That would be great PR.
How about proxies in the government named Bush and Cheney?
How about the contradiction of oil men placing pro-war proxies and seeking stability? Where's the evidence of back-door pressure?
Besides, despite AIPAC's proxies and spies in the administration, pro-Israeli sources still deemed it prudent to "publish 960 issues with on average six daily articles calling for an immediate or near-term preemptive US and/or Israeli attack on Iran." What about that PR?
That Israel spies on us and otherwise tries to influence our government is a given.
I'm arguing that it doesn't matter how much AIPAC spends, that HRC or Obama or anyone else actually arrived at their positions independently; and that it doesn't really make those politicians beholden to AIPAC- that the relationship is one in which a group of like-minded people are giving financial aid to a like-minded person they hope to see elected, with an eye on passing legislation favored by all of the noted parties.
How do you know that the Israel lobby isn't a front for the petroleum industry?
I don't find it ironic that US military support kicked in right about the same time as the OPEC embargoes of the mid '70's. Israel had been a client of France before that.
Your first point was that oil lobbyists would not lobby publically and conspicuously for war when they had puppets in the government already doing their bidding, as it would be bad PR. Why then did Israel push for war (as documented) when they too had proxies and great influence? Effective PR is deemed necessary by interest groups, regardless of their prima facie conflicts of interest. And they know the best tactics don't include being "out front screaming."
As to your fantasy that politicians arrive at their positions "independently," there are mountains of evidence suggesting the opposite; Public Citizen is a good place to start. Do interest groups shell out buckets of money on lobbyists because they are ineffective?
The energy lobby and Israel lobby can and do have overlapping interests, but these are neither static nor identical.
The following is an excerpt from Foreign Agents: The American Israel Public Affairs Committee From the 1963 Fulbright Hearings to the 2005 Espionage Scandal.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/gsmith.php?articl...
I'm not sure why anyone thinks Israel is a major factor in the US posture regarding Iran.
Because an awful lot of the influential US talking heads and think-tankers who want to attack Iran also support Israel "right or wrong". The Heritage Foundation, AEI, JINSA, WINEP, Ledeen, The Kaplans, Krauthammer, Kristol, Woolsey, the Cheneys, Kudlow, Gingritch, Rubin, Pearle, Peretz, Ross, Zuckerman. To suppose there's no link between their advocacies would be naivete.
In their controversial 2006 paper about the influence of the “Israel Lobby” on U.S. foreign policy, the respected realist scholars John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt wrote that part of the "Lobby's" success stems from its efforts to extend its reach beyond Beltway politics and into the domain of policy institutes. "The Israeli side also dominates the think tanks which play an important role in shaping public debate as well as actual policy. The Lobby created its own think tank in 1985, when Martin Indyk [who would later become an influential Mideast adviser to President Bill Clinton] helped to found the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP). Although WINEP plays down its links to Israel, claiming instead to provide a 'balanced and realistic' perspective on Middle East issues, it is funded by individuals deeply committed to advancing Israel's agenda." They continue: "The Lobby's influence extends well beyond WINEP, however. Over the past 25 years, pro-Israel forces have established a commanding presence at the American Enterprise Institute, the Brookings Institution, the Center for Security Policy, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). These think tanks employ few, if any, critics of U.S. support for Israel" (see "The Israel Lobby," London Review of Books, March 23, 2006).
...In 2006 and 2007, WINEP shifted more of its focus toward Iran. It created a new series, "Agenda: Iran," in which the institute intends to address "the most difficult but vital questions for U.S. policymakers confronting the Iranian nuclear challenge." Its first publication was the 46-page "Deterring the Ayatollahs: Complications in Applying Cold War Strategy to Iran," edited by Clawson and Eisenstadt. Though WINEP's Agenda: Iran series has so far produced only "Deterring the Ayatollahs," it lists several forthcoming titles, including " Salvation by Aggression? Apocalyptic Visions and Iran's Security Policy," by Mehdi Khalaji ; "The Last Resort: Potential Iranian Responses to Preventive Military Action," by Patrick Clawson and Michael Eisenstadt; and "Speaking about the Unspeakable: U.S.-Israeli Dialogue on Iran's Nuclear Program," by Chuck Freilich.
Regards, C
How about lets stop the threats? And if people in our country and people in Iran want to trade with each other let them do it. That's how our foreign policy should be towards every nation on Earth. Nothing more nothing less.
Whether they're threats of war, or of halting trade
I've got a problem with threats based on faulty assumptions. Like these.
then be able to buy any weapon or technology they want on the open market? The F-14 fighters are getting a little long in the tooth.
Iranians should just call up 1-800-WAS-BOMB like the rest of the world does. I'm sure there would be something in the catalogue they could order. Delivery in 30 days or it's free!
This administration is going to be whoring for AIPAC, too. Plus, another ill-advised and illegal war of agression will help to boost the profits of the death industries.
Change we can believe in, what?
Paul
Very well said. One suspects that the administration will indeed be prostrating itself before Israel because they will be listening to such emotional, rabid followers of Israel such as these people [scroll down to the second video with Max Blumenthal]. Note the women toward the end of the video clip who believe that Israel should be slaughtering the Palestinians because it is God's will that these people should be killed. And if one also watches the first video segment, one finds Al Franken essentially giving his approval to Israel's massacre of the Palestinians.
http://dennisperrin.blogspot.com/
but this disappoints me tremendously.
Is he ill informed?
Pray for the loss of innocents on both sides?
What is the "score", if you will?
How many dead Israelis?
How many dead Palestians?
Because I think Israel "squandered" long ago being the innocent and righteous party in this conflict when they killed a hundred (five hundred?) times the Palestinians than Palestinians killed Israelis.
Al Franken's Israeli position: a MAJOR flaw for someone I viewed as near perfect.
Tim
I agree, coming from someone who bought and enjoyed his book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, that I also am surprised and disheartened by Franken's position. But unfortunately, his positions on other important issues have been less than honorable also such as:
* Agreeing with Obama that U.S. troops should remain in Iraq.
* Agreeing with Obama that U.S. troops should be redeployed from Iraq to Afghanistan where they can continue to inflict more misery and suffering upon the Afghan people.
* Agreeing with Obama that Bush and Cheney should not be impeached.
* Agreeing with Obama that the insurance and pharmaceutical companies should take part in a health care plan at the expenxe of a single payer plan.
war must always be in the cards.
So that billions and trillions will be spent on "defense".
It's the way of both parties.
Until and unless we Americans arise and reclaim our government.
the director of national intelligence did an interview on charlie ROSE last thurs. he says the he believes the
iranians now have a missile capability to deliver a nuclear warhead and they're experiencing increasing success with centrifuges. the have close to 6000 centrifuges for enrichment.
it is troubling
problem is, bush and cheney destroyed the cia section that was in charge of confirming iran's wmd plans, with plames outing
when are we starting the trial already
isnt treason during a time of war punishable by death?
bush and cheney deserve no less than what happened to the rosenbergs
say that iran doesn't have a delivery method, based on analysis of their latest missile tests. Also, all that uranium is useless for a bomb in its current state and cannot be redirected for further enrichment without the IAEA knowing about it instantly.
Does anyone have proof Iran has another 6,000 working centrifuges stashed in a cavern somewhere? Didn't think so.
Regards, C
when ROSE asked mcConnell did you think Iran wants to build a nuclear weapon or have the capability? he says he believes Iran wants to build a nuclear weapon but he doesn't have proof. this is what Obama is going to hear. listen to the interview charlierose.com
are these the same assholes that knew iraqs weapons of mass destruction were just north south east and west of bagdad?
they'd need a lot more centrifuges than that to proceed to weapons grade enrichment and the missile they have or claim to have are not quite up to the task as yet.
once embraced and kissed the wife of yassar arafat
so lets be fair now....ok?
she was dodging sniper fire!
of course, my first choice is now embroiled in a scandal with one of my oldest friends
i cant win
she is going to be confirmed and the state dept will look much as it did under bill
is that really so bad?
Hillary shows up for the job. The Point Point Clap Clap Hillary. The Kitchen Sink Hillary or the Instant Cry Hillary. She's a corporate tool.
are trying to get the numbskulls to see through this baloney by showing the people of Iran instead of the propaganda we see every day.
http://www.ricksteves.com/iran/iran_menu.htm
I've always taken his advice on how to pack for an extended trip.
until you see that show and picture the country and it's people lying in a heap of rubble, then you'll unnerstand
I am listed on his web site, have three of his travel collects as premiums for PBS donations, and even bought the carry-on bag he uses; mine is blue. He is a good man with an inquisitive nature and sensitivity to other people and their cultures. I feel his opinion matters, even more so since there is almost nothing that comes through about any country that has some political issue with the United States, except through a political filter. I’ll be looking forward to the program if for no other reason than it will be nice to hear from someone not trying to sell an ideology beyond saying that people are people wherever you go.
he is a very kind man and you'll love that show except it makes the US look like a ghetto in comparison.
Good on you for being a follower of Steves
It's truly sad when important issues such as this are debated on past and traditional arguments. Why aren't our policy makers reviewing books such as "Lords of The Land" written by 2 Israeli scholars in Idith Zertal and Akiva Eldar? They in a most honest and sincere manner, indict their own Israeli Govt. for looking the other way as their messianic settlers seize land from the Palestinians for annexation. But then again, bring up any criticism against Israel and you're labeled an anti-semite - I never knew there was a perfect race of people on Earth...congratulations Zionists, I apologize.
"They in a most honest and sincere manner, indict their own Israeli Govt. for looking the other way as their messianic settlers seize land from the Palestinians for annexation."
No doubt upon publication,immediately and bitterly denounced as "self hating Jews".Larry David btw,has done some funny stuff on the subject of SHJs.He gets brow-beaten by a fellow Jew for whistling something from Wagner.Anyway....
necessarily true about being labeled an anti-Semite for criticizing Israel although this particular site does get a little over the top at times. There is much to criticize on both sides of this clash. Try Newshoggers. The debate is far more civil as a general rule.
Well, now you know, the Neocon Zionist cabal has been fucking our way of life long enough. It is time to bring this issue to the forefront and demand an accounting. No, do not balk because you fear being labelled a racist or anti semitic. Many, and should I say most Jewish People agree this Zionist Monster must be put down. They have controlled our Government and our financial institutions to our detriment. They are taking us to the abyss.
The U.S. has nothing to fear from any fixed, identified target.
The Iranian leaders, crazy as they are, aren't so crazy not to know that to launch a nuke at any target is to commit immediate national suicide.
should have nukes. Then these stupid government war dogs would leave them alone. After all the US has done to that country over the years, who could blame them if any of it was true?
In an odd way you might be right.
Either arm everyone to the teeth or get rid of the damned things for good.
I agree as long as you have rogue states like the United States who fancy themselves policemen of the world, people should understand why countries targeted for imperialism need to defend themselves.
I guess Obama wants to be a "wahr prezzidunce" too, with Hillary by his side cheering him on with bloodthirsty advice.
I am totally turned off Obama now, after supporting him wholeheartedly. I did not know he was planning to be a war-monger like GW, though I feared it with his choice of Hillary.
to see the reactions of everyone here to Obama's being president.
I have predictions, but I'll keep 'em to myself.
Ya, I hear you loud and clear. Guess they can enjoy themselves for that 4 year stint he'll get.
He'll be running for his second term right out of the gate, being the politician he is. The very good politician he is.
But four years from now, Americans will be worse off.
Yes, we'll be so worse off in 4 years that the Pentagon and Army War College is already prepping scenarios for US uprisings and insurrections.
this is a nice little movie: Land of the Free
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=82984...
well ill help yah out there! a year from now youll be hard pressed to find many here that will say they voted for obummer!
Come back many more times.
ok they all suck your a man of vision!
That's the real reason he's kissing Rep hacks butts like Billy Kristolmeth. Their support is his only chance for re-election when the realization hits.
Superdelegates Turned Down $1 Million Offer From Clinton Donor - May 19, 2008 02:50 PM
by Nico Pitney and Sam Stein
One of Sen. Hillary Clinton's top financial supporters offered $1 million to the Young Democrats of America during a phone conversation in which he also pressed for the organization's two uncommitted superdelegates to endorse the New York Democrat, a high-ranking official with YDA told The Huffington Post.
Haim Saban, the billionaire entertainment magnate and longtime Clinton supporter, denied the allegation. But four independent sources said that just before the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, Saban called YDA President David Hardt and offered what was perceived as a lucrative proposal: $1 million would be made available for the group if Hardt and the organization's other uncommitted superdelegate backed Clinton......
ENTIRE ARTICLE -
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/19/supe...
********
AND FROM MATTHEW YGLESIAS:
10 Jun 2007 08:46 am
If you're interested in the foreign policy views of major Hillary Clinton financial backer Haim Saban, there's no need to follow the Atrios path of attempting guilt by association with Kenneth Pollack. He discussed his views on the Middle East and Persian Gulf region in great detail in a reasonably recent interview with Haaretz:
"When I see Ahmadinejad, I see Hitler. They speak the same language. His motivation is also clear: the return of the Mahdi is a supreme goal. And for a religious person of deep self-persuasion, that supreme goal is worth the liquidation of five and a half million Jews. We cannot allow ourselves that. Nuclear weapons in the hands of a religious leadership that is convinced that the annihilation of Israel will bring about the emergence of a new Muslim caliphate? Israel cannot allow that. This is no game. It's truly an existential danger."
SOURCE - http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archiv...
is a Zionist supreme, glad someone is keeping an eye on him
on HRC's foreign policy.
Let's just say she does not have a peaceable attitude toward the rest of the world.
you're saying Hillary is going with the "throw the kitchen sink" at them approach that worked so well for her in the past? For some reason, I see her globetrotting, her hubby beside her with a leash around his neck and a smile on his face. Perhaps even a muzzle, on both ends.
But it will certainly be at Obama's behest. I just can't imagine him choosing someone with such a strong foreign policy record and expecting her to work against her own principles. That would be far more cynical than I think he is.
And yes, I'm sure she'll use Bill as needed in her travels, as long as he keeps his mouth and pants zipped.
visit, say Russia, the news media cameras will be everywhere...cue Hillary to come out with her pantsuit on...Putin smiling like he's constipated...cameras flashing as they shake hands...camera rolls over the crowd...and there will be Bill bangin' Putin's secretary on the just signed treaty.
Putin's secretary is a man. Not that there's anything wrong with that. And he can type at 120 wpm and speak four languages with native fluency. I met him in Denver.
You think that'll stop him? :D j/k
triangulation though bob?
But I can.
Praise Bob!!!
Not sure if Hillary is pandering to AIPAC or if it's just the typical Dem I-need-to-sound-tough-or-they'll-call-me-soft-on-terror thing.
In the run up to her NY Senate campaign, Hillary Clinton received donations from AIPAC and pro-Israel organizations in the US. One can say that she owes her career to the Israeli lobby. It's a make-you or break-you lobby.
I'll explain.
Unlike the Persian Gulf states who contribute large sums to Bill Clinton's fund, the Israel lobby is embedded in the U.S. government. For example, take Richard Pearl who on 9/12/2001 marched into the Oval office and declared that Iraq must pay the price.
The Pentagon's Douglas Feith is another. You've got vocal senators who raise funds for other democratic senators, so their voices and their endorsements are important. Take Chuck Schumer, for example.
The bottom line is that it's not just money. It's influence and networking. If you've got strong connections, the money plays a secondary role. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours type of thing.
This book is a must read:
http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreig...
Four copies at my public library for free.
The elected democrats are openly and arrogantly supporting Israel , no many what they say and do.. Look at Senator Schumer from NY.. Schumer gave a speech on the grand stand of a Pro-Israel demonstration in favor of Israel's slaughter on Gaza citizens.
We now have most of our democrats which have to be sanctions by Israel's organizations like AIPAC before they have a change of being elected for the democratic nominee....
Why do you believe Kucinich was left off of the news media and even censored from some of the presidential democratic candidate debates.
I believe this is also the main reason that democrats gave immunity to the telecom illegal spying on the American citizens. Israel was the main player an in control of the illegal spying for verison , AT&T and their own private company in 50 or our states...
Can you imagine the information they has not only on our elected officials but every American citizen in this country... Maybe this is another reason they have such control over the democrats and their policies they pass..
Login or Register to post comments.