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

[EyeballKid]

In local straw polls, and in early primary states, Clinton doesn't do nearly as well as she reportedly does in the nationwide polls. The reason for this, I believe, is that the local polls grab the attention of activist elements in the Democratic Party, who are making informed choices. The mass of people polled nationwide are generally mainstream media consumers who aren't thinking about politics, but are swallowing the corporate media's script.

[baygirl]

Now there's a shock - you agreeing with Hillary! Your nose is so far up her butt, it's brown.

[Nancyann]

I don't care of Clark agrees with Clinton. However I do care that she is all over the place on many issues. How could voting to condemn the military in Iran lead to anything but the start of movement towards war, not to give sanctions a stronger hand. She is a fraud who is a weathervane politician so where she stands today has NOTHING to do with where she stands tomorrow.

[JusticiaParaTodos]

With all due respect General; Hillary Clinton has to be one of the flakiest candidates to ever run for the office of president!

Even her spouse Bill with his lies about his cohorting with women other than his wife was not as flakey as she is!

When the time to hold Bush accountable for his crimes, Hillary has done what most neo-liberals do; NOTHING! If the right war contractor gets ahold of her, her position on Iran will change dramatically! You can take that to the bank!

[Kendo Nagasaki]

Lobbyists are people too y'know..

Har har.

I've been battling the insurance companies for years. Yuk yuk.

[EyeballKid]

If we had to swallow hard and accept Clinton as the nominee, Clark would make a fine choice for VP. Over the past couple of weeks, his pro-Clinton articles appear to be overtures to the Clinton camp.

[JayWilliams]

So a resolution that names the Iran army terrorist, and authorizes taking military actions accordingly...is a vote against war with Iran? WTF?

Oh come on, her vote is to walk the line between being a warrior and being against war lust.
Is this Orewellian? Even lying Republicans can make it SOUND like it makes sense.

[Give Peace A Chance]

The terrorist are coming... the terrorist are coming...

We heard this before. Fear mongering is to scare us into voting for what appears to be the most experienced candidate (who's husband has already been President).

And if we vote for Hillary we'll lose our jobs with bad treaties like NAFTA.

We're the nation with 10,000 nukes and the one that continually invades other nations for control over their resources. While Iran has not a single nuke. So it is very obvious the intent is just to have us scared and voting for a candidate that is owned and controlled by big special interests.

Let's hope America is smart this election and doesn't vote for the corporatist puppet.

[kingofscotts]

Gen. Clark,

I think it's great that you have chosen to support Hillary's position on Iraq. I wonder though if you might elaborate on another issue to which you spoke just this week.

Appearing on MSNBC's Tucker you stated that "the congress should get involved with determining what can be said". You actually suggested a ratings system for political speech. Would you care to stand behind that statement. It was interesting when pressed to condemn equally shocking comments from Liberls suddenly you didn't want to talk specifics.

Do you General Clark actually think it's your business or the business of the US Congress to CENSOR political speech.

I know you may not allow this to be posted (censorship), but I hope you take a serious look at what you proposed and how absolutely (with respect) devestating that would be for our consitution.

Thank you for you service General.

[TexasKat]

Armed Forces Radio is managed and funded by Congress. The private sector is not. General Clark objects to Rush's characterization of ANY soldiers as 'phony' based on their support (or non-support) of Bush's Iraq War.

Since AFR is completely funded by taxpayers, allowing Rush a platform (from which Rush personally derives financial benefit) to denigrate the service of ANY soldier crossed the line.

Or did you think that Hannity, Savage and Limbaugh took over AFR because they're 'popular'?

Think again...

[littlemanintheboat]

I can't stand warmongers, repiglican or democrat or whatever - interesting read in this very blog -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-wiener/who-wants-to-bomb-iran-_b_67229.html

[mokietoto]

I just can't believe the crap I am reading on this blog. There seems to be a blind reaction to anything that is pro-Hillary. I can only think that there are two reasons for the negativity: (1) some of these bloggers are actually repugs doing their dirty work to influence any good feelings about Hillary and turn them around--this is the way Republicans work, and they are very good at it--don't fall for it. (2) the bloggers who are not repugs, but show animosity towards Hillary, have already been unknowingly brain washed by these repugs.

The vote she made about the Iran terrorists is a far cry from a vote to bomb Iran. The Democrats have made it clear that Bush will never be allowed to bomb Iran without the consent of Congress. So stop using this as a way to denigrate Hillary. So far, she has shown that she is the only one that can take on Bush and his cronies, and for that matter, Gulianni.

So get behind her--Wes Clark is absolutely right in his statements. AND STOP BEING PLAYED LIKE A PUPPET BY THE REPUGNANTS.

[ConcernedAboutRFuture]

Relax.... relax. We (NOT repukingcans) just need to voice the fact that we KNOW her better than she thinks.... and many are upset that it looks like she's catering to the Repuks. BUT, I think she really does have a strategy...somehow, she has to attract the stupid as well... and although I would much prefer Edwards, Obama or Kucinich....heck, I personally like Sen. Finegold (why doesn't he run?)...but if it comes down to it... Hillary will get any decent person's vote... she will be the default choice as well.

All this spew is simply spew... but let's all face is... there is NO WAY Hillary can do worse than Bush. No one can.

We're all going to opine until 1-20-09... and maybe a little after that too. I personally, am having a BIG party.

[Marlyn]

I disagree with you. I am sad to see General Clark and Hillary perpetuating hostilities against Iran. I had hoped the General would have a plan to GET OUT OF IRAQ, but no. Instead his plan (and Hillary's) is to continue the Bush plan to stay in Iraq indefinitely.

I am not a Republican and I am not "brainwashed" by anyone. I am against war. America is a war machine and I am so ashamed of what we are doing today.

[underdog]

A far cry - my ass. If you can't see the build up to what's about to happen in Iran (clusterfuck times ten) you are BLIND.

The democrats have made NOTHING clear except their propensity to capitulate.

This lady has been shoved down our throats as the only viable candidate for six months now.

Stand by your woman and your party. I'll be standing by my country and my conscience. If the repiglicans win because voters like you refuse to push for real change, the difference from what we have now will be minimal.

[hoopoe]

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.

going along with this dubious line of reasoning is not only an implicit endorsement of the sketchy and unverified - and even fabricated - evidence offered as a reason for this designation (and will be the thrust of the argument for going to war); it is an implicit declaration of war under the 'war on terror;' and it also legitimizes a dubious use of the term 'terrorist organization.'

as iran has recently pointed out, if their revolutionary guards are now to be defined as a terrorist organization, so must the CIA and the US Army. it's only fair and fitting, under the 'new' definition.

as such, gen. clark has just become a terrorist by our own definition. and this vote and the general's support for it are both validations of the hawks' highly questionable and unverified assertions about the IRG, which will become the justification for war. with this support corroborate the 'evidence' in support of an attack on iran. he has just become colin powell before the UN with a bogus vile of anthrax....

can we begin to see how absurd this is? why are intelligent, respectable people like gen. clark falling for this underhanded tactic? this doesn't strengthen our diplomatic hand; it makes us look like hypocrites and fools.

but it may just get him appointed secretary of defense? or state? or maybe the rumors are true, that he is a neo-con in sheep's clothing?

[Marlyn]

"this doesn't strengthen our diplomatic hand; it makes us look like hypocrites and fools."

AGREED!

[hellenhat]

I absolutely agree with you. Again and again, we must ask....who made us the world's policeman?
I am saddened by General Clark's capitulation on this....everyone keeps making so much of the fact that it is "non binding". So what, this type of vote only emboldens those of the ilk of that turncost Lieberman to make "binding" amendments to must pass bills.

Let's get off the war horse and get on the horse that brings our troops home...period....

[1stsgtbill]

I personally know General Clark, and to acuse this highly decorated soldier of being a terrorist is a slap in the face to all of us that have fought, bled and died for your right to voice your opinion.Maybe like Bush you would like to continue under a KIngs rule. This reminds me of Vietnam when all the soldiers were called war mongers and baby killers and spit on a airports and public places. You may not agree with the war but at least respect those that serve or you can volunteer to take one of their place so they can come home.

[QUESTION4HILLARY]

"Maybe like Bush you would like to continue under a KIngs rule."

Bush 43 was elected, legally, twice.

Get over IS.

[hoopoe]

perhaps i was not clear enough in my argument.

i have enormous respect for gen. clark and am in agreement with most of his stands on the issues. which is why his support of this vote perplexes me.

i point to the absurdity of labeling a legitimate military force of a foreign government as a 'terrorist organization' - as that definition is not only erroneous, but it works both ways. the iranians have just labeled the US army a 'terrorist organization,' making all who serve implicit 'terrorists.'

does this not strike anyone as strange?

it makes a mockery of the actual definition of 'terrorism,' misusing the word as a false legitimization of policy. not something we should be taking lightly, as we have recently declared 'war' on that tactic, however ridiculous that may be. in the ‘GWOT’ we cannot afford such broad and inaccurate definitions.

i am shocked that someone as smart as gen. clark, with such a distinguished military career, could have overlooked this fact or thought it unworthy of consideration.

i have not personally labeled gen. clark as a terrorist - congress has opened the door to that absurdity with this vote.

i maintain that any national armed force is above being labeled as such, unless it can be proven that it deliberately undertakes actions against CIVILIANS in order to bring about a political objective.

that’s not what the IRGC has been accused of - they have been accused of allegedly supporting guerrillas against US MILITARY personnel occupying iraq. as objectionable as that may be to us (and there is little more than hearsay to support this claim) it is not terrorism.

i am horrified at the haphazard manner in which that word is now employed, inaccurately, in creating policy in this country.

[sailboy]

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. The fine line between invading another country and assassinating a terrorist organization is two different things. Without boots on the ground, did we really invade another country? No, we have simply bombed a terrorist organization intent on killing Americans, something we have already done in Pakistan.
It is all a matter of deception, if Bush does bomb Iran and it creates a mess like Iraq, Hillary Clinton can claim foul. Neither she, nor congress gave Bush authority to invade or bomb another country. But on the other hand, if Bush does not bomb Iran, by voting for the non-binding resolution she will not seem weak on terrorist.

[Kendo Nagasaki]

Is Wes Clark looking for a job ?

As VP maybe ?

[Lane]

Kendo-
We should be so lucky!

[LizM]

Why General Clark is not supporting the leader among Democrats on foreign policy and national security and who is the only candidate who has the back of the troops and a way out of Iraq, is completely beyond any rational explanation...something else is afoot here.

[Marlyn]

I agree, General Clark WAS one of the possibly sane minds around.
SAD SAD SAD.

[DANIELLECLARKE]

CEO of the company that's now doing ""PR for Blackwater""" = connected to ""Hillary clinton"" YES YES YES

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071005/ap_on_go_ot/blackwater_pr
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070521/berman


A Few Degrees of Separation From Hillary Clinton's Top Adviser

By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Tuesday, February 20, 2007;

Mark J. Penn is a man who wears many hats: high-paid political and corporate pollster, chief executive of an international communications and lobbying company, and chief strategist to New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Enough connections for you?



Well, there are more. Penn's firm, Burson-Marsteller Worldwide -- with 2,000 employees and $300 million a year in revenue -- owns BKSH & Associates, the major lobbying firm chaired by Charles R. Black Jr. That's right, Black, counselor to Republican presidents, reports to Clinton's top strategist.

The connections get even more entangled. Burson-Marsteller is a subsidiary of WPP Group, a London-based advertising and PR giant that owns many of the biggest names on K Street. These include Quinn Gillespie & Associates, Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates, Timmons & Co., Ogilvy Government Relations Worldwide (formerly the Federalist Group), Public Strategies Inc., Dewey Square Group and Hill & Knowlton.

To be more precise, Penn's parent company employs as lobbyists and advisers an ex-chairman of the Republican National Committee (Edward W. Gillespie), a former House GOP leader (Robert S. Walker), a top GOP fundraiser (Wayne L. Berman), and the former media adviser to President Bush (Mark McKinnon).

etc etc etc

[1stsgtbill]

What is the point, so the Clinton's are well connected financially! It takes a lot of money to defeat the Republican election machine. Everyone on this page hates Clinton. Why? Is it because she is a women? Or maybe she is not liberal enough? I think it is because you are all Republicans trying to discredit her the way you did her husband.

[Prizgar]

He wants to be Sec'y of defense.

[LizM]

Then, number one, he's backing the wrong cadidtate.

[TexasKat]

Not in the cards at all. An SoD has to have been out of the military at least 10 years. Clark left the Army in 2000.