I Support Hillary's Position on Iran

Like many of you, I am concerned about what I am reading and hearing about the apparent interest in parts of the Bush White House to go to war against Iran. And like you, I believe that we Democrats must do everything we can to prevent Bush and Cheney from sending this country into another preemptive war. (I invite you to visit my website StopIranWar.com)

Fortunately, Hillary Clinton has been on the front lines in opposing any effort by the Bush administration to sidestep the Congress. Eight months ago, she took to the Senate floor to warn the President that he could not attack Iran without specific congressional authorization. She said then, long before other members of Congress stood up, "If the administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary the President must come to Congress to seek that authority."

Last week, Hillary voted for a non-binding resolution that designates the odious Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization in order to strengthen our diplomatic hand. On Monday, she joined Senator Jim Webb in co-sponsoring a bill that would prohibit the use of funds for military action in Iran without specific authorization by Congress.

I support Hillary in both these votes. She is committed to ending the unilateralism of the Bush-Cheney administration. She is a strong supporter of direct nuclear talks with Iran, because she believes that direct dialogue with our adversaries is a sign of strength and confidence, and a prerequisite to achieving America's goals and objectives.

She has been one of the leaders in the Senate in standing up to the Bush administration's dangerous approach to Iran. And as president she will reject the Bush administration's ideologically blinkered vision of the world that denies America the tools and the flexibility necessary to build and more peaceful and secure world.

Comments

[susanlno]

Glad to see you're in favor of such a principled, steadfast politician as Hillary "Wind Sock" Clinton, who changes her political positions as she finds it expedient, though she usually avoids taking a firm position on anything if she can possibly avoid it (it's called "plausible deniability," only most politicians overestimate how plausible it is). Senator Clinton is a corporate-owned warmonger who cannot be trusted.

[SensibleAmerican]

So says Ralph Darth Nader!!!

[research]

You see that Blackwater's lawyer is one of Hillary's top advisors?

[Dandy12]

Wesley Clark is absolutely right. Attacking Iran is a quantum leap into the realm of the experimental chemistry we're playing in the Mid-East. We have seen what has transpired so far in opening the Pandora's Box called Iraq. The box containg Iran has probably more potentially dangerous repercussions. Perhaps this admistration wants to further ensure a state of perpetual war.

[Bocababs]

Sir,

I was amazed at the way you held your own on TUCKER the other night. He likes to interrupt a lot. On Hillary...I was one of those who stood toe to toe with all those totally against her as the Dem Nominee. I wanted Al Gore to run, but now that you have signed on board, and some unions I admire, I am taking a second look. I am not quite there yet...but I am looking and listening very intently to what she stands for.

[diogeron]

Which position? This week's postion or last week's. Unlike Bob Dylan, Hillary does need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

Obama is the change agent.

[Mookie1948]

I am a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat and will gladly vote for whomever wins the Democratic nomination. That said, I believe Senator Clinton's vote to declare the Republican Guard a terrorist organization is a mistake which could easily serve as a justification for war. On the other hand, Bush is going to do whatever he wants by invoking his authority as commander-in-chief.

The Democrats can only stop him by playing the appropriations card, but they still think that they'll retain more voter appeal by not playing it....hence all the non-binding resolutions opposing some dimension of the war.

It's all so sad, and I bounce between anger and depression.

[SensibleAmerican]

Clinton is polarizing, a neocon ... see what I mean?! The usual ramblings of the clueless left-wing-socialists! Someone wrote about the Country being "lost". Yep! It was Paradise Lost when Nader screwed Gore in 2000

With Hillary as our 44th President, it will be Paradise Regained!

As for the Nader-herd, they protested when Reagan was in power, they ranted when GHW Bush was President, they complained when Clinton was our 42nd and ofcourse they continue to rant ... (to be continued) ...

[peaceandfreedom]

Cents-Less--

Seriously--go back to the Fox News boards. They want hillary to be prez as badly as you do.

The name calling, the hyperbole (that means exaggeration...)the cutesy verbal ripostes--Please stop. And say hi to Rush for us!

[Zhonni]

I am still waiting for when you will start making sense,SensibleAmerican.

[Kirby]

You are mistakened! Bush will do what he wants because that is what Israeli extremist Zionists want. Let's face it; we're not given much of a choice in this mess as long as AJC's AIPAC has the majority of the Hill on the payroll.

[DenverDem]

I listened to Clark on Air America the other day. That, and this article convince me that he wants to be VP on a Clinton ticket.

I can think no politician in America more polarizing than Hillary Clinton. Why would we want someone like her to be president when there are so many important issues to be resolved that require the talents of someone who is NOT polarizing????

[walktothesea]

I can settle this one right now. The Clintons are Neocons. Anyone who cannot see that is blind. If she is elected, things will get worse...much, much worse. I am praying she stumbles and that Gore is inserted into the race. He outshines everyone one both sides of the aisle and this is his calling. If things stay as they are, it will be the Dread Crossdresser Guilliani vs The Clinton Cabal. No one will win that fight, especially us.

[maxiw]

hillary thinks congress should decide,so she will,as member vote to bomb iran. ???

[Theron]

I am praying she stumbles and that Gore is inserted into the race.

Oh come on walktothesea, please stop with the Gore fantasy! Yes, I too voted Gore in '00, but he ran a dreadful campaign! It was his race to lose. Clintons be damned! If Shillery gets the nomination, I will vote Green or Libertarian...

[QUESTION4HILLARY]

Vote for Hillary-Whatever in the primary.

And McCain-Rudy in the general election.

[Brujos1]

As a long-time admirer of former General Wesley Clark, I was discouraged to see him enter the political fray, thereby severely reducing his status as an independent expert on military affairs. If he was going to endorse any candidate, he should have endorsed those Democrats, Republicans and independents whose position he can support on Iran. For Hillary Clinton or any senator, it's easy to "send messages", only to be ignored. As for Clark, we need a leader who can forge the strongest team, regardless of self-interest. Retired General Clark has just become yesterday's news.

[kmbo]

I am dearly hoping that Hillary is beaten in the primary. I can not stand her votes on the war authorization, the flag burning amendment and now the Kyl / Lieberman amendment. Hillary is not nearly different enough from the status quo. While I want a woman President, I don't want just any woman. I think her support in the polls and with fund raising is very impressive, but I think it's very soft. I am sorry that she has been so willing to adjust her principles to whatever it takes. I want someone with courage and integrity. I've had enough of this kind of compromise.
I am still waiting for my candidate to get in the race.

Gore 2008

[BonnieJW]

I agree. I think the big poll numbers are a result of the fact that 90 percent of us have not yet decided who we're voting for. The fact that she has a huge war chest just confirms the fact that she has all the lobbyists and Rupert Murdock in her pockets. Do we want a pres with THAT kind of obligation?

[SensibleAmerican]

"I think the big poll numbers are a result of the fact that 90 percent of us have not yet decided who we're voting for"???!!!
Who is "us"?! If 'us' is the American population, you are so wrong that it is beyond funny! If 'us' is the Nader-herd, it does not matter really ...

[blooddoc]

First of all, I have to say I agree with you. Hillary is not my first choice for the Democratic candidate, either - I really wanted Gore to get in the race, but the fact is: he ain't gonna. He's shown no interest in entering the political fray again, and seems happy just being a celebrity author/speaker/producer/Nobel winner(?). SO...if Hillary is the best we can do - and the money is talking - then that's it. Though it's early, it looks like it may be Hillary/Dems vs. Rudy/Repubs, and for me that's a no-brainer. Can you really stand another 4+ years of right-wing rule? Can the country stand it? And don't say Hillary and Rudy would govern alike, that's bulls**t. Like others here, I'll dream about Gore entering the race, but until that happens I'll just work to defeat the Republicans.

[kmbo]

I would never suggest they would govern alike. I think we'll have a Democrat for President and if Hillary is the nominee, I will support her, even if it makes me just a little sick. At this point, I need a cure for 7 years of sickness and even though I know any Democrat will be much better, it doesn't seem enough to just be better.
I want a hero, I want the smartest, wonkiest, most experienced, and honest person out there and it's not Hillary. It's not Bill either. Someday (after 8 years as VP?) it may be Obama.
Gore 2008

[persiangal]

Forget about Hillary. She will do nothing for us and she is dangerous. I'll be voting for Kucinich and I don't care if that takes votes away from Hillary and causes a republican to get elected. She won't be any different from them anyway.

Vote with your conscience...........

[Tubby]

Voting for the elfin candidate will be a throw-away vote. Hillary's gonna get the nomination and will battle Rudy. The Republicans will be laughing in the background, because they win either way.

[motamanx]

She voted for Bush to continue his march to being the dictator he wants to be. She does nothing to stop him. She has done noithing to stop him.

She is wrong

[dantanna]

hillary voted for the iraq resolution in 2002 due to her political ambitions and she is NOT sorry for it. she did not look nor cared about the consequences and 5 years later there she goes again thinking about the general elections (where she might end up thanks to the ignorants in the democratic party who could end up picking her as the nominee and in fact giving away the WH to the republicans) she gives bush a green light AGAIN to do whatever the hell he wants before he leaves office... and there they are wes clark and most democrats backing her up - democrat voters please wake up she cannot be your choice - i am a NY independent btw who is backing democrats but not if hillary is the nominee.

[coloneblog]

Senator Clinton's co-sponsorship of Senator Webb's bill to prohibit the use of funds to invade Iran was meaningless. First-off, it'll never pass; secondly she had already given her support to the non binding resolution declaring Iran's Revolutionary Guard terrorist status. That's really all bush needs to give the US military the OK to hit selected non nuclear targets in Iran, essentially a broadening of the Iraq War strategy. OK, so then the sovereign nation of Iran decides to aggressively respond, bush declares it a provocation and launches an all-out air attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. So by her vote and the support of other Democrats for the non binding IRG's terrorist resolution, the Democrats have once again given Cheney/bush their complete trust. Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly said that "knowing then what she knows now, she would have never voted to give bush the military option to invade Iraq;" she just did it again giving bush the military option to invade Iran. Sounds like John Kerry to me!

[rjcrane]

Sorry Wes Clark. While I believe you mean what you say about Hillary the fact is the reason she now supports a bill with Webb to try and prevent Bush from attacking Iran, is because she was stupid and/or naive enough to have voted for the Kyl-Lieberman resolution. How many chances does Hillary get to allow herself to be conned by the likes of Bush while attempting to play hawk so she doesn't appear weak on defense?

RJ Crane, editor
topplebush.com

[ApolloSpeaks]

HILLARY'S DREAD OF IRAN

sailboy writes

Hillary Clinton has shown no opposition to invading Iran; all she has done is shown her opposition to President Bush thinking he has the authority to invade Iran without Congressional Authorization.

I think now that Hilary Clinton and Congress have voted for the non-binding resolution designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization has in effect given the Bush administration the perceived congressional authority to go after them.

Apollo says:

Sailboy is floating down the river with the right idea. After 28 years of failed diplomacy with fearful insecure revolutionary Iran-all revolutionary regimes with global ambitions are necessarily and permanently insecure-Hillary dreads the thought of having to deal with nuclear mullahs. As Bush now has the authority to attack the revolutionary guard the first shot could be the start of war with Iran and the decimation of their military and nuclear infrastructure-an event that Clinton would publicly condemn but privately welcome as she would inherit a foreign policy with a greatly weakened Iran.

By the way, in case the reader doesn't know, Russia has withdrawn all of its nuclear engineers from the Iranian nuclear facility at Bushier-which would, I believe, be Bush's first target in an attack.

[MT3]

How many times does the overhwelming force of the US military have to get thrashed before somebody in this country wakes up: the US is a lousy army who've LOST every fight they got into since Hiroshima except the invasion of Grenada for this reason: the enemy knows what they're fighting for. If the US goes to war with Iran, the US will LOSE it

[dirtystrat]

"If the US goes to war with Iran, the US will LOSE it"

Actually what we've seen is that when politicians get involved with war strategy, we ALL lose.

[horhay]

"If the US goes to war with Iran, the US will Lose it" I think the US will lose the US; the dissolution of the USA. There are many Americans that have already had enough of this gunboat diplomacy and total lack of respect for the Constitution and Geneva Conventions.

The war in Iraq is a civil war for now.
If Iran is invaded or bombed, it will probably mean World War on a level never imagined. We need to make sure that we do not go down that road.

[deminmo]

Congress better make sure we do not travel that road, and if nukes are used its all over for the US.

[JustusLeague]

Hillary will choose a general to be her VP to up her administration's military cred and focus on those strategies while she works the social issues end of the street. Wesley Clark is the obvious choice.

[ConnieInCleveland]

Sorry but Wesley Clark is no longer a 'voice of reason'. The Iran issue is far too important to give George W. Bush another blank check.