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

[IntegrityIntact]

No, no, no General Clark. Hillary is a bad, bad girl and not my girl any longer. Someone pray tell my silly little head how voting to designate IRG as terroists "strengthens our diplomatic hand"? huh??? Seems to me it would only serve to incite and detract from ANY kind of diplomacy.

John Edwards for President 2008!!

[nolalily]

Right. I would think that the effect of this legislation would send the Iranians into bomb making poste-haste.

[Noelle]

"She has been one of the leaders in the Senate in standing up to the Bush administration's dangerous approach to Iran."

With all due respect General, Hillary Clinton has shown about as much leadership as George Bush has shown intellectual curiosity.

Hillary only cares about two things, Hillary and Hillary's donors and you know better than anybody who those donors are and what they want. She has been running for president since the day her husband left office and hasn't done anything that hasn't been calculated. Co-Sponsoring a bill that Jim Webb has been fighting for for months after voting for the Iran resolution has to be the most disingenuous and sleazy political move yet. She has already labeled Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization which gives the President the pretext to do what he will with Iran thanks to the Patriot Act which she also voted for (but my guess is she already knew that).

Leadership is courage. Russ Feingold has courage. Senator Feingold was the ONLY Senator to vote against the Patriot Act. How unimaginingly lonely that must have been. Robert Byrd, all alone on the Senate floor the night before the war started, warning of what was to come and asking "Where Is Everybody". Howard Dean, Barack Obama and Al Gore speaking out against the coming war in Iraq when Bush had the country behind him and dissenters were being crushed.

I really respect you General. I just hope you know what you are doing because I would hate to see you put in the position by the Clintons that Colin Powell was by the Bushes.

[JimPivonka]

Clinton's statements justifying her vote and position on Iran are counterfactual.

The resolution was a political instrument designed, not to encourage Cheney Bush to shift to a more rational approach in engaging Iran, but to stir up and encourage the War on Iran fever raging in the Fortress America crowd. By encouraging that fever, and prostrating herself before the Freepers and irreconciliables in Know Nothing America, she makes war more likely!

She knows that her assertion that Cheney Bush needs Congressional Authorization before attacking Iran is disingenuous. Senatorial speeches do not change the law, let alone the way in which the current regime interprets the law. She claims to tell the President what he can and cannot think about the law - and that that by doing so she has opposed this war.

Clinton's vaunted experience in government assures her awareness that such assertions, no matter that they are on the floor of the Senate, are ineffectual opposition to Cheney Bush premptive wars. She knows that it is her vote that counts, as much as she may try to avoid those uncomfortable and inconvenient permanent records of her true intent and conviction, or to deny their import when they are unavoidable.

In his September 2, 2007 posting at Bob Scheer's Truthdig Major Scott Ritter notes that

"Congress has already provided legal authority for the president to wage war in Iran through its existing war powers authority (one resolution passed in 2001, the other in 2002)."

Clinton's Senate floor posturings do nothing to address those authorities. Scott Ritter recommends a more direct approach, and Clinton can, if she wants to do more than posture, offer the legislation he suggests, to "repeal the war-powers authorities currently on the books, thereby forcing the president to seek new congressional approval for any new war."

She could also work to "counter the disinformation being spread by the Bush administration and others about the nature of the Iranian threat" - instead of whipping up war fever with votes furthering the disinformation campaign being run out of the White House, supported by oil billionaire funding.

[naschkatze]

A very well thought out refutation, Jim. I'm too lazy to write a long comment but glad you did.

[godlessclif]

Scott Ritter is a good man, that is why Bush has to smear him. Ritter was really in Iraq. JimPivonka has posted a thoughtful argument based on facts.

While typing I am listening
to C-Span and an Atlantic editor named Bing is totally deluded by Bush propaganda.

[lgillooly]

I agree with you General Clark. I also agree that Mrs. Clinton should stop saying "when I am President". It is a bit cocky and the US ctizens seem to want to find ANYTHING to dislike her. When I ask people why do you hate her they really cannot answer intelligen­tly.Usuall­y it is "because I do"" Real geniuses,but the reality is there.Sadl­y,it is a popularity contest for many and the messengers are right wing radio nuts or Hannity and Coulter lunatics.
Keep up the good fight and do whatever you can to wake up Pelosi and Reid to put Impeachmnet on the table to slow down this madness of invading Iran. They seem to like a good fight ,so let's give them one.

[globalcitizenlinda]

General Clark,
I am very disappointed with your unequivocal support for Mrs. Clinton for voting Yes on the Iranian resolution – the first formal step to the war with Iran. I USED to hold you in great esteem and supported your candidacy in the 2000 election but first your endorsement of her candidacy and then this article have greatly disappointed me!! While I recognize your loyalty and strong ties to the Clintons since your days in Arkansas, I had wrongly assumed that a gentleman of your integrity, intelligence and personal accomplishment would draw the line somewhere in actively agitating for another war – this time in Iran. Many times I have listened to you as you strongly advocated that part of your support to end the Iraq fiasco is to protect the healthy of the armed forces which has been decimated by the Bush-Cheney administration. Where then did these concerns go??? Is the loyalty to this family that hungers for absolute power (no matter the cost) made you ignore those current members of the forces who look up to you and probably fighting in the desert? I also wrongly thought that your experience abroad has taught you that in long -term the US gains more from a positive incentive (the proverbial carrot like the Peace Corp, education, development projects) than the use of force. I hope that deep down you realize that when history of this nation is written, you name may in fact be written in the same column as the other previously well respected general – Collin Powell - who did not stand up to be counted at a critical when the nation needed your intelligence and leadership to chart the right course. I am one of those who believe that a person’s integrity is one of the most precious characteristic one has and thus should be guarded jealously.

[Countess]

I respect General Clark but I believe he is being fooled by Mrs. Clinton who will continue the occupation of Iraq leaving permanent bases there and will attack anyone Israel orders her to.

[TexasKat]

I'd say the absolute best thing HC could do would be to listen to General Clark's advice.

I'm a firm believer that he advised her to support Jim Webb's fine bill to prevent Bush from taking this country into the NEXT war -- the one Bush/Cheney wants to start with Iran.

He's been tireless in trying to prevent it from happening and I was very pleased to see her take his words to heart.

[charlietuna11]

i like general clark.i personally feel he would be a great asset as a running mate.i dont trust hillary and she hasnt given me any reason to.its frustrating,the best candidates in each party have little or no support or traction with the voters.im sick of going to the polls having to pick between two negatives.­from now on if thiers not a candidate worthy of my vote,i will jump the line and move on to the next office.

[kellygrrrl]

General Clark - Nothing would bring me greater comfort than to know that you were at the helm.
I am clinging to hope that you will be Hillary's running mate.

[TakLoufer]

Clearly this article is tantamount to General Clark throwing his hat into the (VP) ring. I'm voting for HC anyway; Clark seems the reasonable and rational choice. Obama would only pull in a few bleeding-heart liberal diehards and minorities.

[scooperss]

I don't and we'll probably have a repeat of the explanations of how we ended up in Iraq.

[Qbear]

Hillary ENDED her campaign voting AYE on Kyl/Lieberman.

She handed Cheney the keys to her campaign, now she's scared witless he'll drive it off a cliff....r­ight into Iran.

The "do-over" attempt supporting the Webb Bill is laughable, Bush would veto it if it passed. The Kyl/Lieberman Sense of the Senate is what Cheney will use to attack IRAN.

Hillary wasn't my first choice as nominee, but I would have held my nose and voted for her before Kyl/Lieberman, now I'll actively attempt to stop her from getting Democrat delegates, and if she becomes the nominee, the Convention will resemble Chicago 68.

[Bluesman48]

If Hillary wins the nomination, there will be an all-out war in the Democratic Party. The New Democrats will split off and form a third party and the Republicans will take the White House. The Old Democrats will fizzle.

I don't know a single Democrat willing to vote for her, even in the general, after Lieberman/Kyl.

[naschkatze]

This is a sad scenario but probably one that has to be undertaken eventually. There is too wide a gap between the old DLC establishment and those of us who know that the country has to head in a new direction or go under.

[leftLibertarian]

Like Hillary, I equivocate.
I'm both for her and against her.

[colleen2]

I support Hillary in both these votes.

Of course you do.
If she wants to stop Bush why does she so consistently enable and assist him?

[Issak]

You mean like Obama?

[UltraClassic]

General Clark, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. As far as the bill co-sponsored by Jim Webb, I'd ask you to take off your political hat for a moment and put back on your national defense hat.

Let's imagine just what could happen if this bill passes. One hint for you, GW will be gone shortly, Hillary may win. Then what are you going to do, un-pass the bill/law?

This is great political theater, but is it smart? Seems to me that you are giving the Iranian president as well as the religious leaders more room to manuver than you are giving President Bush. Am I right on this? Do you trust the Iranians more than you trust President Bush. It's ok, just be honest about it. Plenty of readers on this website do.

Semper Fi General, UltraClassic sends

[snaggster]

Hilarious! King George W should not be trusted about anything. I'll tell you what I trust the Iranians to do. They'll keep on selling their oil. We don't need to take it.

[dantanna]

with all due respect general; this time you are so wrong in backing up hillary in her decision to back the iran resolution - you really believe in all honesty that voting for this resolution although non-binding will not be used by the bush administration as an authorization to bomb iran? only a fool will beleive they will not. i cant beleive a man of your caliber is backing up a fake power-hungry like hillary - so dissapointing. your off my short list of public servants with integrity.