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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
General Clark,
Did you not read about her speech at AIPAC no too long ago?
Hilary Clinton is every bit as disingenuous and dangerous as the current fascist in charge of the United States.
Oh and thanks for the web site, Mr Clark. As an Iranian, I appreciate all your efforts in preventing a war on my country.
Peace!
I just wish that she would stop say, "When I am President" and get a little humble and start saying, "If the American People choose me to be their next President.
General,
I hope and believe you will be Hillary's VP choice. Good on you and good luck.
With all due respect:
- How does declaring part of anothe nation's army strengthen our diplomatic hand? I think the very opposite is true
- Senator Clinton signed as a cosponsor of Senator's Webb bill only a couple of days ago. The bill was introduced several MONTHS ago. I view the decision as political maneuvering, rather than strong conviction, and most definitely NOT as a sign of strong leadership.
Dear General Clark:
"Hillary voted for a...resolu
Isn't that the reason she voted for the Iraq war? To strenghthen the President's diplomatic hand? Remember, that was the bargaining chip that would produce a peaceful resolution. What evidence do you have that antagonizing Iran in this way, and emboldening Bush in this way, strengthens our diplomatic hand? Does Bush HAVE a diplomatic hand?
If there has to be a bill, not yet voted on, that may never pass, to prohibit the president from attacking Iran, what's to prevent him from launching air-strikes tomorrow? If Hillary is worried about an attack on Iran, she should be doing everything she can to put a stop to it, instead she has voted to give the president an opening. The result of that vote is to make an attack on Iran more likely, not less.
On another subject, thanks for the help with the Darcy Burner Campaign. (Now, if you could just stop helping Hillary and get on board with Obama or Edwards!)
Sparxafire!
Gen. Clark,
All well and good, except your president knows all this and the "war" will begin with some phony "attack" on US by the "Iranians.
Good for you General.
Will the Webb amendment get the votes though? That's the $64k question. I'll bet it doesn't.
I normally agree with most of what you have to say on issues such as these, but this time, I'm sorry but I have to differ. Declaring the largest branch of another nation's armed forces a terrorist organization is not a position of strength, it is a position of "Be a good little nation, come back to the bargaining table, or we're going to sick George W. Bush on you!" Not only that, it effectively gives George W. Bush the legal argument that Congress said he could attack Iran - because we're in a war against "global terrorism", and now Iran has a terrorist army, of potentially several hundred thousand men strong, if you consider reservists. The Patriot Act clearly gives extreme powers for this administration to act against any entity determined to be a terrorist organization. Powers they are not afraid of using, and powers that don't require any kind of approval from Congress.
Secretary of State Clark? Secretary of Defense Clark? Secretary of the Dept of Peace!
Gen. Clark - Motherfunner : Sec'y. of Defense Wes Clark ! ( He is uniquely qualified for such an appointment. ).
Pull Rush off AFR !! More to follow. -ralph
He also has the experience to be Secretary of State -- lots more diplomatic experience than Hillary. No doubt Bush will use Kyl-Lieberman to bypass Congress. Whatever makes Clark think Bush won't do it again?
It's hard to be a former diehard Clarkie.
National Security Advisor General Wesley K. Clark, please!
For Secretary of Defense he'd have to get 'special permission' from the Senate; its certainly possible, but a drag in my opinion.
VP Clark?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
