The Real News Network Questions Hillary on Iran

On September 26th Hillary Rodham Clinton voted for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, which designates the Iranian National Guard as a terrorist organization. As I read through the amendment I found it harder and harder to understand how she could possible defend her vote. The amendment essentially defines the Iranian state as terrorist, it rests on intelligence as shaky as the claims that led us into Iraq, and the language reads like an extension of President Bush's "axis of evil" rhetoric. With Seymour Hersh predicting a U.S. attack Iran, this vote put Senator Clinton squarely in the Hawk's nest.

More importantly, this is a vote of support for all those involved with the Committee on the President Danger, which includes the likes of James Woolsey and a host of people from the Project for a New American Century and the American Enterprise Institute.

I contacted Senator Clinton's office for an interview but haven't heard back from her. So we at The Real News Network have posed our questions for her in this video -- the first of a series that will prompt debate through direct questions for each presidential candidate.

Comments

[mpal]

Good analysis Paul Jay. I hope the Real News takes off. We could use a source of video news that isn't controlled by big money.

[joselopez]

Something to ponder for Republicans and Democrats.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008_clinton_vs_mccain_romney

Hillary is the most vulnerable Democrat in a general election.

McCain the most electable Republican candidate.

[MPeter]

This woman is worse than Bush or Cheney. Where are those who expressed outrage when Obama called her Bush-Cheney lite?

[Dandy12]

It is extremely absurd (nihilistic) to consider a war with Iran. On Hillary's behalf, I believe this move is simply political to silence the hawks. However, the potential consequences of such an action is a quantum leap into the abyss. We may be able to leave Iraq (extricate ourselves, the sooner the better). Without some assistance and cooperation from Iran, this will be difficult to say the least. The administration carries on a monologue filled with threats, and name calling. Is this a strategy to persuade Iran to assist us with a solution, or for Iran to help ensure that this war has perpetual potential to cool off and then again heat up? In this game of experimental chemistry the administration is playing in the Mid-East, it would be very precarious to add an unknown, unstable volatile substance.

Anyone who understands Iran's 20th century (especially the latter half) history knows that America has not been a benign influence in Iran, and to proceed into the future, we need to review trespasses and grievances on both sides of the equation. This administration is determined to leave a destructive footprint in history. The Golden Age of America is over, and this administration's alchemy just doesn't work. Instead we're left with gilded tin, and a semi-hard dollar currency. This betrayal borders on bankruptsy in every sense. This administration's legacy will leave us high and dry with few friends and many enemies. The Clinton years sure don't seem so bad as some had imagined.

[hoopoe]

thanks to mr. jay for asking the necessary questions and drawing attention to the absurdity and danger of this resolution. of course, i doubt anyone will get answers from the likes of hillary clinton, but the debate needed to be re-framed to address the important aspects of this amendment and its implications.

the film brings up an especially important point: that IF an iranian national military force is attacking a US national military force, it's not terrorism.

i would add that, if iraqi guerrilla fighters are attacking US troops, it is not terrorism. and IF the iranians are supporting iraqi guerrillas, this is also not terrorism. this argument doesn’t have legs.

if therealnews ever does get the opportunity to question her, i'd love to see hillary (and others) put on the spot and made to define 'terrorism' accurately, as it is becoming obvious that our candidates (clinton and giuliani especially) who claim to be experts on terrorism don't even know what it is and when to accurately apply the word to an action or group of actors.

she should have to use that definition to explain on what grounds the charge against the IRGC is founded, i.e., what actions of the IRGC constitute terrorism. i'd bet she can't name one that is accurately defined as terrorism.

then, for fun, have her define 'guerrilla warfare' and 'conventional warfare' with respect to status of these parties under the geneva conventions, etc. (if we still pretend to abide by them.)

the very least you can do if you want to be president, beside being familiar with international law and treaties the US has signed, is get a grip on what terror actually is, and more importantly, what it is not.

[Mark701]

I have a lot of respect for Hillary but her views on Iran make me very nervous. I'm afraid if she becomes president she's going to feel obligated to show the world she's as good as any of the alpha male presidents that held the office, and bomb Iran. I hope to God she doesn't lose sight of the fact that if she's elected president it will be because America is tired of alpha male presidents.

[joebhed]

ummmm, isn't the CIA a terrorist organization?
Do I need to lay out the litany of covert actions against existing states that involved assassinations, kidnappings and weaponized violence.
While this K-L thing is a joke, of sorts, the reports out today that Herr Clinton calls for using the militaty option unless Iran agrees to give up its nuclear weapons program is not a joke.
It provides the most extreme example of the need for clear, articulate attacks on her credibility.
What friggin nuclear weapons program would that be Herr Clinton?
The one where the IAEA says it has no evidence of there EVER being one?
You remember the IAEA, they are the ones who said there was no evidence of any WMDs in Iraq.
Or is it the one where Herr Clinton's allies in the Mossad using AIPAC claim to have "incontrovertible evidence" of there being an Iranian weapons program?
If Hillary Rodham Clinton has the largesse to claim in Foreign Affairs the existence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran, then there is no atrocity that can be imagined that she is not capable of pulling off in order to satisfy her Israeli supporters.
This begs the question whether ANY of the Democratic candidates has any cajones the size of hers to call her out on this, thereby possibly offending their own little group of AIPAC supporters.
By the way, all nations of the world except Israel and the US, excuse me, did I say Israel and the US, I meant to say the US and Israel, are in support of the UN call for a nuclear-we­apons-free zone in the Middle East.
That includes Iran and Syria.
Ron Paul, anyone?

[paixa3]

Good poste. Thank you.

[hoopoe]

well, we've set the new precedent for naming institutions of states as terrorist organizations. if this is now possible, and legitimate, then iran is absolutely correct in its most recent non-binding resolution declaring the CIA and US army as 'terrorist organizations.' also, it's kind of funny.

for one, it points out the utter hypocrisy of the US calling any other nation a state sponsor of terror, since it is one of the biggest such sponsors in history, with several institutions that have engaged in terrorist activities, supported terrorist organizations around the world, and employed terrorist tactics.

as for ron paul, i love his take on things like wiretapping and foreign policy, but distrust his assertion that we should abandon all foreign treaties and organizations. me, i think we need to try to keep the UN (however corrupted) and the geneva conventions, etc., intact. they may not be perfect, but i'd be more interested in making them work than selling them out at this point in history. but, i'll have to do more research on his positions...

[brutus948]

Wow great piece. This is some of the scariest stuff I've heard in a long while. It seems like clinton or Gulianni would be one and the same.

[Halsey]

I remain, as always, befuddled as to how HRC can be a frontrunne­r...having never been polled..my voice has NOT been counted.
Republicans should love this woman..she IS one of their own..and I don't mean Eisenhauer republican's..I MEAN W repubs...or...in the "other" party..she is totally, completely a SCOOP Jackson democrat..big talker on social issues (I call it lip service)...but all for an Imperial presidency...that is why she's enabled Bushco...with the thought that SHE will inherit the power she's giving, daily, with the executive branch..she is as scary as...well.­..bush...(­almost)..

IF she gets the nomination...I will enter a period of depression...like I did when W took 2 elections...she is part of the machine..part and parcel...time to RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE!.

Obama is fading...Edwards is NOT afraid to ruffle feathers..figuring he's got nothing to lose and will NOT sacrifice his integrity to garner favor with idiots....please American..wake up...smell the napalm...
give America to Americans...those of us in the true Middle!.. I'll take Edwards, Richardson, Biden OR Dodd any day of the week over this war monger Maggiethatcher wannabe...

[bobh]

Hilary is pandering to the "ethic paranoia in NYC" that Josh Marshall mentions today.

[Countess]

Please save us from ourselves! How could Clinton be leading among democrats? It must be that a majority of democrats are for the expansion of the American-Israeli empire in the middle east or they are just too stupid to realize what they are voting for.

[bringbackimus]

Sorry to say, but the majority of Clinton supporters are (1) too stupid to realize what they are voting for (2) support her because they can't get over their teenage crush on Bill (3) because she is a women.

[hoopoe]

support for clinton is just more evidence that neo-liberalism has taken over the 'liberal' end of the political spectrum. now, we are all supposed to believe that we are obligated by the inherent Truth and superiority of our ideology to transform the world into a cloned utopia of americanism - through deadly force if necessary.

sound familiar? not very different from the neo-con ideology. neocons do it out of pure self-interest: american interests take precedent over all. neolibs do it out of a twisted logic of altruism and 'tough love': we're bombing you, overthrowing your government or sanctioning you for your own good! if only you'd learn to be like us (minus the power, wealth and influence, of course) we'd all be happy!

think of it this way: the 'neos,' both con and lib, see themselves as the world's law enforcement, turning foreign nations we don't like into penal colonies, either to suppress or convert them.

for the neo-cons, it's our duty to remove 'bad guys' from the population and make sure everyone else lives in fear of punishment to make the world safe for americans and american interests.

for neo-libs, it's our duty to punish 'bad guys' in order to reform them and make the world, however resistant, into a happy, shiny america-style utopia.

either way, we've designated ourselves the world's police, judge, jury, warden and parole board. and other nations become subservient penal colonies until they learn to acquiesce to our will. which is why the dems have offered so little resistance to the administrations policies; their motives are different, but they are ultimately driving at the same thing.

sounds a little totalitarian, no? fascist even? save us from ourselves, indeed. time for some new parties to emerge and restore the constitution, values and respect of this country... before it's too late.

[AlteredEgo]

Vote for Edwards or Obama and prove to Mrs. Clinton that she doesn't inherit the WH.

[Misanthrope2]

Why don't you give Obama a call? He is posturing against the resolution, yet he skipped the vote. And in 2004, he said that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs. Obama also authored legislation to declare the Iran Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. He seems just like Clinton in that regard.

[realpolitic]

Clinton calibrates too much. She should vote her heart and mind without worrying of the political calculations. These unelected groups, such as American Enterprise Institute, have too much influence on our foreign policy. A solid case has not been made on how Iran is interfering in Iraq and if their government is involved? Congress should demand a thorough accounting of all evidence. Further, didn't we supply the Afghans when they were fighting the Soviets?

[charon]

Very bizarre. I thought the definition of a terrorist organization was one operating outside of any established state. Since the Iranian National Guard is part of the Iranian state, what they ought to say is that the Iranian state is a hostile nation, or something to that effect. Their National Guard is a branch of the state, so by definition it can't be "terrorist."

[CyrusBeaucephus]

that word has become meaningless--Is what we are doing to Iraq 'Terrorism'?

[paixa3]

"""""Is what we are doing to Iraq 'Terrorism'?""""" YES, or oil.

[hoopoe]

exactly. 'terrorist organizations' are by definition stateless. further, attacks on military targets are also not terrorism.

there are many different definitions of the word, but all have one element in common: that terrorism is an act exclusively against CIVILIANS with the intention of creating public fear or compliance toward a political end.

any acts against military targets inside a war zone or occupied territory are absolutely NOT terrorism. it is likely best defined as either conventional warfare (in the case of national armed forces) or guerrilla warfare (in the case of resistance fighters, militias, etc..)

both are acceptable and legitimate under the geneva conventions.