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

[BUCKSBOWLBOUND]

So thus far Hillary has voted to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization (non-binding, of course) and co-sponsored a bill to prevent the President from exercising his Constitutional authority. (This has been a bone of contention to say the least for a long time.)
But what exactly is Hillarys Iran policy? Has anyone in the media dared ask her? After all, annoy her and she'll make certain that neither she nor Bill will come on your network again. That's how she got the last critical story about her killed!
If anyone actually has asked the question, did she answer it? Hillary hopes to use her supporters in the media to avoid all difficult questions and all negative stories. Clarke saying that he admires her policy is a scream, because no one knows what it is!

[meandmagoo]

Amazingly.­Wes Clark supports Hillary.

Sorry,Dennis Kucinich has the right answers.Hi­llary is Dubya Lite.

more war,more death.Just a little less is all.

[milo9]

What I've seen of Gen. Clarke I like, but it is hardly news that he endorses Hillary.

[Rainman]

I admire your work in Bosnia Wes, I also admire Hillary for her intellect. Ufortunately, most of her decisions are cerebral calulated and political. People who trust her appear to have an agenda...b­ecause she happens to be a woman or because she is married to Bill. On the Iraq war she was wrong. She says she was misled. In Maryland both of our senators voted against the war...They showed political courage that's what matters...­it is simple Wes unless you a clear focus and a brave heart nothing matters.

If one declares the Iranian Revolutionary gaurd as a terrorist organization what about the Pakistan Intellengence organization or the Mossad? All of these are part of their respective government they all appear act independently similar to Black water or our own CIA. Should other countries then declare parts of our government as terrorist organizati­on....?

[Marlyn]

What about Blackwater? Definitely terrorists, and they are spreading. Here in San Diego county they are planning to open another terrorist training camp.

http://www.sdreader.com/php/cityshow.php?id=1566

[meljomur]

General Clark,

While I have great respect for you, I too completely disagree with your assessment of Hillary standing up to Bush/Cheney.

The only Senator who has been unilateral in his opposition to the Bush White House, is Russ Feingold, it is a great shame that he is not running for president.

Anyway, John Edwards has my vote, not Hillary.

I certainly hope for the democratic parties sake, that she does NOT get the nomination!

I

[AKJM]

Thank you for your leadership and service, I have a great respect for you as well, but I too must disagree.

[repearwo]

Wes you are wrong on this one. When the US gives up nuclear weapons and WMD's then they have the position to preach to others.

If 911 showed us anything it showed us and the world that if you attack America, the American people will support swift and immediate responce, against the perpetrators.

Hillary may at this momemnt have the momentumn and Bill, but not my vote unless she quits being Bush Light.

[hrhjuli]

General,
I don't understand your uneqivocal support for Hillary.
In the Senate she has NOT been a leader in oppposition the policies of Bush/Cheney in Iraq and elsewhere. A good examples of an opposition leader in the Senate would be Russ Feingold.
Given that past performance is the best indicator or future performance,I do not support Hillary for Democratic nomination. Nevertheless,I still hold you in high regard and hope that you will take a position in a more progressive Democratic nominee's administration if offered.

[Jazz42]

Mr. Clark.
Has been in the Clintons camp since his failed run for President in 2004. My guess is if Mrs. Clinton win the nomination, he will get a very high position in her administration, maybe VP. The Clintons basically talked him into getting into the presidential race in 2004.
I have been a life long Democrat, as of today I will be casting my vote as an Independent come 2008. With Mrs Clinton as President we will get the same as we have the last 6 years and nime month

[jezuzhchryst]

If you really think Bill and Hillary Clinton are the same as having Bush and Cheney you are on some very strange trip my friend ...... and you are doing a huge disservice to the world by trying to sell anyone on such nonsense.

[WeepingWillow]

"We will return to a superpower respected by the world with peace and prosperity­." -- Can we change that to: We will return to a DEMOCRACY respected by the world with peace and prosperity. That would be a great thing to aspire to, folks. And Hillary's the one to do it!

[mode4811]

We'll have peace and prosperity because our government and the UN will continue to address travesties like Burma and Darfur. We will never have universal peace or prosperity, regardless who is president.

[mode4811]

We'll never have peace...*

[nolalily]

Maybe, after we stop the in-fighting she'll stir up and the bomb-making she'll incite in foreign nations.

[ikkytito]

How does voting to designate an army a terrorist group strengthen our diplomatic hand-plz explain. What exactly is the Republican Guard anyway?

[mode4811]

The Republican Guard were the elite forces under Saddam Hussein's contorl. Iran has the Revolutionary Guard. Here is some more info on them from the Economist:
http://www1.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=548915&story_id=E1_NSSPTQD

[mode4811]

I obviously misspelled control, up above.

[research]

I usually agree with you Clark, not this time. BushCo does need any excuse to go to war with Iran. The dems can't pass anything the repugs don't want. So now Hillary wants a bill reiterating the constitution power of congress to declare war. She won't get it.

[lizawell]

Excellent point. The Dems can't pass a bill to save their lives. They won't even be able to override Bush's veto of the SCHIP bill, which enjoys bipartisan support. What the hell makes them so sure they can pass Webb's bill re: military action against Iran? I just don't trust her.

[UNCLEJOE]

Because the Rebs & Dems are in the same pigsty eating out of the same Bush trough paid for with the workers' SS Surplus funds. It's that simple. I converted from a damn Dem when I learned Pelosi's Hubby got a Non-Bid contract in Iraq for $66,000,000 to an Independent.

[joandarc]

I disagree with the General on his support for Hillary's Iran resolution. But I have to say that I remember very clearly when Hillary took the floor in March and again in June to strongly support a resolution to force W back to the Congress before taking any action against
Iran. So those of you who say she has ccalculated her support for the Webb amendment based on her Iran vote are not exactly right. She's been there before and maybe she thought it was a good timing to re-iterate her support for the idea under Webb's name.

[NABNYC]

Read Jon Weiner's post here, now: "When I asked [Seymour] Hersh who wants to bomb Iran, he said, "Ironically there is a lot of pressure coming from Democrats. Hillary Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have all said we cannot have a nuclear-armed Iran. Clearly the pressure from Democrats is a reflection of - we might as well say it - Israeli and Jewish input." He added the obvious: "a lot of money comes to the Democratic campaigns" from Jewish contributo­rs."

Hillary wants the U.S. to bomb Iran. All the rest of this is just garbage. There is no legitimate reason for the U.S. to attack Iran. None. But Hillary wants us to. It will just make it easier for her if Cheney does it, then she can tsk tsk in public while at the same time saying "but we can't allow them to have a bomb." She always talks out of both sides of her mouth and says nothing.

If Hillary Clinton is elected, we are in for not just 5 more years of war, but decades of war.

Just read a good article at the Nation about Saddam gassing those Kurds and the U.S., with Rumsfeld, behind the scenes giving him the thumbs up. Supporting Saddam in his war against Iran. And here we are years later with that legacy, as well as the Afghanistan legacy.

When do we stop being the world's biggest warmonger and start working on building our own country again? I'm afraid we're running out of time to have all our politicians playing war and destroying more of the world, creating more enemies every day. Have they all gone insane?

[nolalily]

Yeah but, Obama voted against the bill that labels the Iranian whatchamacallit a "terrorist organization". Hillary voted for the aggressive language.

[gotalife]

Thank you sir.

With your help , the Clintons will clean up w's mess like President Clinton cleaned up his daddy's mess.

We will return to a superpower respected by the world with peace and prosperity.

She has my vote.

[ElkoJohn]

WHAT'S WITH WANTING TO BE A "SUPERPOWER" ??

[mode4811]

Superpower and peace don't necessarily go hand in hand. There will always be a superpower in the world though.

[naschkatze]

We are a super power only in terms of the military/industrial complex. In all other areas, we are a pretty mediocre country.

[zull2]

That's EVERYONE'S position on Iran. That is, all of the Democratic nominees. All of them want to pursue diplomacy. All of them have been out there against Iraq. Heck, they're so against Iraq, that some of them attack each other for not saying they want the troops out faster!

This is NOT exclusively Hillary's issue. It's the issue that she jumped on board with when she suddenly realized that all of the other nominees were on board already. When she came out talking about trying to win the war (when everyone knows it's not that at all, it's an illegal occupation) by keeping troops there longer, she realized where she needed to be and jumped right on board with the rest of the candidates on the Democratic side.

Up until that point? She had been publicly backing George Bush's war on terror the whole way and pretending to be the "moderate" voice in Congress. Instead of lending her voice early on when she really knew what was going on. I'd bet she definitely knew prior to the 2004 elections.­..and definitely when Bill Clinton endorsed Joe Lieberman last year...to which if she believed in what was right, she would have publicly disagreed with that endorsement. But if she didn't have it figured out by 2005 that there weren't any WMDs in Iraq, then I'd say she's as clueless as it gets in regards to foreign policy (which could well be true...she­'s been a First Lady and a Senator, which doesn't necessarily prove she's been negotiating peace treaties with foreign nations her entire political career).

I only mention that bit about Bill, too, because Hillary's campaign has made it a point (I consider it the type of thing that sets feminism back 30 years) to say that Hillary is somehow an extension of Bill, and by voting for Hillary, you get to have more Bill. Personally, I think she's her own person, but if she wants to "be an extension of Bill", I guess that's her choice.

[DC]

General, Senators Clinton may be smart enough to understand that "that direct dialogue with our adversaries is a sign of strength..­." as you say.

Unfortunately she has not demonstrated the strength of character and honesty to match her intelligence. She is a panderer with out mercy to whatever group or interest is sending her money. This is not what the country needs at this time.

Who can trust her?

[Bluesman48]

Imagine if we didn't speak to our children because speaking directly to them gave them more power.

People act badly and defensively when they feel powerless, not when they feel they have control over their own futures. Only "evil" people need to be denied psychological power, and Iran, contrary to neocon propaganda, is not evil. It's different, and after looking around at the way we treat the rest of the world, it's frightened.

That whole way of looking at relationships - as psychological power struggles - is so "mafia" that it's laughable. It shames me that a politician in my country would resort to relying on such silly psychological games. I can only conclude that we have a poverty of rational solutions in our present politicians.

Time for a change.

[mode4811]

Trying asking all the Iranian expats if the Iranian regime is evil. All you have to do is read something from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty or an NGO like Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International (hardly neocon mouthpieces if you ask me).

[Crowhaul]

But, Wes, you fail to point out that she is in favor of 'keeping' troops in Iraq.

Bill Richardson, on the other hand, favors full and complete withdrawal of all US troops.

Bill's got my vote. :)

[ElkoJohn]

dido the Kucinich Plan

[mode4811]

But, you know that Hillary is going to be the Democrats candidate in '08... Maybe next time...