Hillary Clinton: ‘All bets are off’ if Iran deal fails

[onehandle]

Source: MSNBC

MANCHESTER, New Hampshire – Days after her former fellow New York senator Chuck Schumer came out against the White House-backed deal with Iran, Hillary Clinton on Monday warned supporters at a campaign stop here that “all bets are off” if the agreement fails.

“I’m hoping that the agreement is finally approved and I’m telling you if it’s not, all bets are off,” Clinton told about 500 supporters at the base of the McIntyre Ski Area. “That’s a very bad signal to send in a quickly moving and oftentimes dangerous world.”

The White House has been struggling to secure enough votes to sustain an all-but-assured veto of an expected Senate vote to reject the deal, which would curb Iran’s nuclear program. Critics say the deal will allow Tehran to attain nuclear weapons and given them access to funds they could use to fund terrorism.

But in a lengthy and full-throated defense of the Iran agreement, Clinton recounted her work as secretary of state to build an international coalition to implement sanctions on Iran.

Read more: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-all-bets-are-if-iran-deal-fails

---

#45 KICKING ASS FOR PEACE!

[Dawson Leery]

1. k/r

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Let's hope the agreement passes

[George II]

3. Good, decisive comment about the agreement. Let's hope people listen to Obama and her.

[think]

4. Bravo!

[A Simple Game]

5. Good, I'm glad she did this, now can she exert any influence on the traitor Schumer? n/t

[Psephos]

6. What happened to "dissent is the highest form of patriotism"?

That used to be all the rage around here.

[A Simple Game]

8. Dissent? Is that what we call taking your orders from a foreign government now? n/t

[Psephos]

9. I see. Only those "dissented" against define the terms.

How very Bush-like.

"You're either with us or with the terrorists."
- G.W.B. September 20, 2001 speech

[A Simple Game]

14. You seemed to be able to provide one

"dissent is the highest form of patriotism"

Or do you sometimes think there are exceptions.

I bet you were sitting on the edge of your chair when Netanyahu gave his speech to our Congress.

You can cast white for Schumer if you like but my next pebble for him will be black and I will call him a traitor.

[Psephos]

73. you missed the point completely

This isn't about pro-Schumer/anti-Schumer.

Personally, I find him an execrable toad. And your assumption about me in thrall to Netanyahu during his speech is pure fantasy.

[A Simple Game]

74. Well we agree on Schumer, that's something. n/t

[Psephos]

85. yes, it is

It seems like we're of similar beliefs...and yes, it's important to find like-minded souls.

That said, I try like hell to promote the tolerance (not necessarily approval) of different points of view around here. Especially those that a lot of people don't agree with, as they are the ones that promote real discussion rather than an amen chorus.

To me, a thread with 40 posts all high-fiving each other is not a discussion. It's an exercise in hive thought. My reading of history says that doesn't lead to good.

[A Simple Game]

88. Then you probably agree with me that many of the "protected" groups should be disbanded.

Especially but not necessarily limited to the political groups. If you think your candidate is the best you shouldn't be afraid to defend him or her.

[Psephos]

91. I do agree with you. Tribalism helps no one.

You go right to the heart of the matter when you observe that no one should be afraid to defend their candidate (or their p.o.v.).

[A Simple Game]

92. Tribalism, I like that, it's the perfect word.

Have a nice day and it's ended up being a pleasure chatting.

[still_one]

30. Except the reasons the Schumer used to reject the deal were republican talking points. His argument

that the "deal" could not be verified is just plain false.

This has nothing to do with dissent. The other NY York Senator is supporting the deal, so the argument that he is just abiding by his constituents doesn't hold water either, besides the fact that he didn't use that as an excuse.

However, the fact is that Schumer IS influenced by lobbying groups, which include AIPAC, Wall Street Pac, and others, and it is not unreasonable to question their influence.

In addition, Schumer has been endorsed by Harry Reid to assume his position as Majority/Minority leader in the the Senate when he steps down. That is very troublesome to have the Democratic leader in the Senate to go against not just this, but more than one Democrat proposal is disturbing to say the lease.

When Chuck Schumer says Passing Obamacare in 2010 Was a Mistake, he is questioning the Democratic leadership, and frankly, it is very proper to question HIS leadership.

No, this isn't about dissent, this is about a WRONG decision, just like the IWR was a wrong decision.

[MADem]

26. Schumer has permission to vote as he pleases. It gives him cred with

people across the aisle and enables him to serve as a water-carrier.

Frankly, I would be surprised if he voted any other way.

I think they'll manage without his help.

[A Simple Game]

28. The way he plans to vote is no surprise to me, I expceted it. n/t

[geek tragedy]

34. Schumer betrayed Clinton with that vote. He's siding with the Republican

nominee on the biggest foreign policy issue.

Effectively, he's said that Marco Rubio or Scott Walker would do a better job handling foreign policy, especially w/r/t Israel.

He is compromised.

[MADem]

38. I doubt she is at all surprised. It won't matter at the end of the day.

They're counting votes. They've got enough to pull it off.

He's not compromised, he just is what he is, and this is not surprising, that's all--he's going to be the next Democratic Leader in the Senate. He's a rainmaker and a very talented administrator. He's not as good as Reid on parliamentary procedure, but he'll get there.

He has the support of his peers, despite this deviation, and we'll get past this.

[geek tragedy]

39. the problem is Schumer has shown no willingness to fight for things liberals care about

but has shown a willingness to fight for things liberals hate.

if sucking up to Wall Street and AIPAC are his major concerns, he can't lead the caucus.

[MADem]

45. You keep expecting him to be someone he is not. You will endure disappointment so long as he

serves in the Senate. That will likely be for a while.

He can -- and will -- lead the caucus. I know you are displeased with this, but it's not up to you. His fellow Democratic Senators WILL vote him in--not because of or despite his political views, but because he's a very good housekeeper. He will keep the paperwork moving, he will keep the deals percolating, he will direct his minions to horsetrade, he will raise a king's ransom in PAC money, and he will distribute it to his esteemed colleagues in need of some fiscal love.

[geek tragedy]

46. and that's the problem, he will trade away most of the stable

without getting anything in return

[MADem]

47. No, he won't. He'll carry out the legislative agenda of the POTUS.

Harry Reid is an ardent foe of abortion rights. He doesn't let that personal view and vote inform his duty as leader.

Schumer is smart; he knows the deal, he can do that too.

[geek tragedy]

52. Schumer thinks the ACA was a mistake.

Think he's going to be really determined to protect it?

[MADem]

53. You plainly don't understand the role of Leader. nt

[geek tragedy]

55. has Schumer exhibited the qualities of a leader?

Has he demonstrated that he's a team player?

[MADem]

57. Yes-he has been number two for awhile. He has raised a fortune. He pushes

the paper, he rides and guides the whips, he kept everything humming when Reid had that terrible accident.

How much anti-abortion legislation have you seen coming out of our leader's office? Answer--none. Personal votes are personal; there's a clear, bright line that isn't crossed.

[muriel_volestrangler]

65. Not what you want in a Senate minority leader, though

Carrying water for the majority side.

[MADem]

77. He won't be carrying it to those guys, though.

He'll be speaking off the record to international actors who regard him as "open minded." When he carries a message on the lines of "NO MEANS NO" he will be believed. He's useful in that regard.

He will be leader, I believe. And his job will be to prosecute the party agenda, not his own.

If Leaders went off the rails like that, we'd have an aggressive push to revisit Roe v. Wade coming from the left. After all, Harry Reid is robustly anti-abortion. He does not allow his personal views to inform the party agenda--and that is how it should be. His personal votes are his own, of course. If he can't, in good faith, push for a desired result, that's when deputies are useful. And there's lots of talent in the Democratic caucus.

[mahannah]

7. This is not a game.

[tularetom]

10. So she's taking credit for the agreement and at the same time

threatening "bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran" if for some reason it falls through.

I'd be concerned if I thought there was any chance she'd ever be elected president.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

23. What?

How did you gleam that from this article. Nowhere does she state support for military action against Iran.

[leftynyc]

24. For Heaven's sake

Is there anything - ANYTHING - Bernie supporters wont whine about when it comes to Hillary? Apparently not. Even when she agrees with you.

[tularetom]

33. Well, what's your interpretation of "all bets are off"?

I don't think the US can unilaterally reimpose the sanctions, so she can't be referring to that.

Sounds to me like she's practically drooling in anticipation of the deal falling through so she can prove how "tough" she is.

[Hoyt]

37. Oh, like, who knows what Iran will do? Who knows how badly this will affect any future agreements

we try to draft with Iran or other countries? Who knows how other countries will view us -- as anything but warmongers. And a lot more fallout.

[MADem]

48. No, there isn't anything. It's rather sad, isn't it? nt

[Snotcicles]

83. They doesn't speak for Bernie supporters. Got it? Use a narrower brush. nt

[MADem]

27. I think you need to re-read. You didn't take her point at all. nt

[still_one]

31. I guess when you have such a bias against someone you have to make things up about that person

[tularetom]

36. I'll admit to a dislike of her, but I'm not making up "all bets are off"

What do you think she meant by that? Sounded like a veiled threat to me.

But I guess it sounds good to AIPAC.

[still_one]

41. So you bring AIPAC into it. Schumer is against the deal, Hillary and every other Democratic

candidate except Jim Webb is for the deal. AIPAC is against the deal, so Hillary is NOT abiding by AIPACs wishes as you presume.

As for the comment, it will be another year and one half before the next president takes office. The U.S. agreeing to it or not will be decided before anyone of the candidates, Democratic or republican take office. If the deal is voted down, and if somehow they are able to over ride the veto, what will happen in regard to the U.S. participation in the deal is UNKNOWN. Will the other countries still open trade agreements with Iran, so the U.S. is the only country that would be boycotting? Will the U.S. role effectively be irrelevant.

Those are some of the questions, but there are a lot more that have nothing to do with war. In fact, except for a couple of the republican candidates who said they would immediately bomb Iran right after they were inaugurated, most of them have no alternative except to keep the sanctions on.

So with that context in mind:
"All bets are off", in its very simplest terms, means that the effectiveness of the U.S. continuing sanctions on Iran is unknown.

However, the reality is that this is really a moot point. First, it looks like they won't be able to over ride a veto. Second, if they were able to over ride the deal, what would happen without the U.S. participation is unknown. "All bets are off"

[Cha]

11. Mahalo onehandle.. thanks Hillary!

[restorefreedom]

12. wow i thought the hawk would stay in its house

for a little longer during primary season. i have been trying to focus on the evil ness of the repubs, but i can't not say something about this.

this is the kind of war hawkishness that the country does not need right now and one of the many reasons people are flocking to bernie

please proceed, madam secretary.......

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. "a lengthy and full-throated defense of the Iran agreement"

This is an excellent development. To be frank, all bets ARE off if this goes down to defeat, Obama says pretty much the same. Without this agreement there's not much standing in the way of another war whether or not we think one would be justified. Hillary has been a staunch supporter of Israel, we needed her to come out strongly for this deal.

[stevenleser]

15. Correct. Now how do we get through to #'s 10 and 12 above that they didn't get it? nt

[restorefreedom]

16. oh i got it.

i read the link. i just don't believe that its this deal or bust. we HAvE to find a way to avoid another war in the middle east. this deal is important, but if bibi and his campaigning manages to find a way to sandbag it, we have to try again imo.

war is not an option. at least not for me.

[AlbertCat]

18. war is not an option. at least not for me.

Me too.

Why are "all bets" off. Can't anyone think of another one? Can't she?


And of course Congress is supposed to be the only body that can declare war. Or is that Dubya thing she voted for still good?

[840high]

20. me3

[MADem]

29. Because the sanctions remain in place if we don't come to accord with Iran.

Look north--who are their neighbors? Who has been a bit truculent in the region lately, and has enjoyed trying to goad/bait Obama?

Look west--what's happening there? Who, besides the Turks, has the manpower to address some of those issues? Better them than us, at this stage of the game--it's their backyard.

Good grief, it's geopolitical a-b-c--not rocket science.

Everyone benefits if we move forward on this measure. It doesn't mean we're Happy Families, but it is a start.

[geek tragedy]

40. Most of the sanctions will get lifted. EU, UN, China, Russia, India

will all lift their sanctions.

[MADem]

42. But we won't--and our greedy corporate bums will be pressuring Congress to find a reason

to be especially outraged at Iran.

They'll be pushing for SOMEONE to start firing at them, and while that may be good news for the bomb and bullet manufacturers, it's not good news for the region.

We'd never invade them--they are very nationalistic. We're not the only ones who sing patriotic songs and wave flags. And they have recent experience in fighting to the death with very little equipment.

It would be a bloodbath.

[geek tragedy]

44. of course, invasion and regime change are the only way to prevent a country

with the size of Iran from developing technology pioneered 70 years ago.

The neocons never have an end game. They just want to blow the world up.

[MADem]

50. Not according to HRC, or Obama, or any of the other Dem candidates.

[geek tragedy]

51. if you rule out multilateral diplomacy, then it's invasion or let them get the bomb nt

[MADem]

58. No. Israel could deliver a bunker buster and stop that business easily.

The challenge is the "secret sites." That might require a little humint, but not invasion.

[Adrahil]

59. It is not NEARLY that easy....

The Iranians have been very careful to embed and disperse their nuclear research facilities and personnel. This isn't a matter of one well placed bomb. I'm not sure an invasion would happen, but it would be a lot more than an isolated strike.

Rejecting this deal means either an almost inevitable war, or simply letting Iran develop the bomb.

[MADem]

80. All they'd have to do is threaten it.

And HUMINT is a wonderful thing. Persians are very gregarious people, they love a good chat.

A well placed bomb (or three) can slow things up nicely, if needs must--but there are more subtle ways to gum up the works, too.

Give the Saudis a few short range nukes that work -- or simply threaten that--that'll shut 'em up, and likely shut 'em down.

It's harder to hide things from inspectors nowadays. They're also not going to want to risk losing gains they've made on the international stage--especially when their population gets used to better times--there just might be some regime change without us having to do a thing (which would be a nice outcome, for a change).

I think we can thread this needle easily, with just a little bit of will. It will be a long and patient slog, but I think the end result will be worth it.

[Adrahil]

81. "give the Saudis a few short range nukes..."

Said no one with anynsense at all.

[MADem]

82. The Israelis have already suggested it as an option. I guess they have no sense?

And they're talking about their own assets, not ours.

They wouldn't necessarily have full command/control, but they'd have some sway--a bit of mutally assured destruction, writ small.

KSA take very seriously their role as guardians of the holy places, and there are ayatullahs in Iran who believe that the minority shi'a should have that charge, not the House of Saud.

Unless Iran's leadership gets a bit more secular and a bit less focused on a fundamentalist religious bent, they're going to keep banging that drum. Get someone nutty enough in there, and they could start thinking that God was speaking to them. One never knows. Carrots and sticks....

[geek tragedy]

62. Israel doesn't have that bunker buster. Only we do. And ours may not be good enough

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203363504577187420287098692

You also can't use bunker busters on education and knowledge.

[MADem]

75. Since Israel gets much of their weaponry--or the money to buy their weaponry--from us, that's

pretty much a foregone conclusion that they'd take delivery if/as needed.

It's not like they've never hit a nuke facility before.

The idea is to use the least amount of 'goose' to get the process done, whatever the process may be. When even implausible deniability can be employed, it will be rolled out.

[geek tragedy]

76. they hit an above-ground nuke facility.

the US would still have to sell it to Israel

[MADem]

78. They'd jump at the shot--some factions, anyway.

Those bunker busters got plenty of press in Tel Aviv. If you kill the people running the program, too (like this has never happened before, either) you can grind it to a halt as well.

Then, there's always THIS counterintuitive idea:

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.655797

I can remember a time when Israel worked under the table with both KSA AND Iran, in the Shah days, so nothing is impossible. Enemy of my enemy and all that.

The worst case scenario isn't always the likeliest one.

[BlueMTexpat]

56. So you think that it will be easy to get

Britain, France, Russia, China, Germany, and Iran to sit down together again with the US - which will totally have lost its credibility with its allies, let alone Russia, China, and Iran - and hammer out another deal in the near future? What planet are you living on?

It is only because SoS Kerry and Prez O have as much credibility and goodwill as they do that THIS deal was able to be approved, considering all the players and competing interests involved. There are also several lesser powers who were not involved with this deal: India, Nigeria, South Africa, Brazil, Indonesia, etc. They are watching this situation carefully and the US could be found wanting with all of them too. India already has nuclear weapons (as does Pakistan); others in the list I mentioned are closer than we might think. Japan would be but nuclear has lost a lot of its "charm" since Fukushima and Japan will always have the unimaginably awful specters of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

If Israel shows that it can sandbag THIS deal because US lawmakers are so beholden to its RW and which anyone who is an expert in nuclear issues and/or international law believes is a good one, then there is no motivation for other countries who actually support this deal (all of those mentioned, including EU countries) to include the US in future deal-making.

If the deal fails, it will be understood that NO deal where Iran has anything whatsoever to do with nuclear will satisfy Israel and thus the US, which is apparently under Israel's thumb. Ironically it is the US, as everyone in the world knows, that is the ONLY country that has ever used nuclear bombs against civilians. Hypocrisy thy name is US.

Any Dem who votes against this deal is a traitor and a hypocrite. That includes Schumer. I will continue to denounce him and any other Dems who betray us on this. War may not be the immediate outcome, but it will be an outcome.

[restorefreedom]

64. i agree with you on the votes

i am livid with schumer's turnaround. and about the hypocrisy. thhere is something weird about the only country ever to have used a nuke telling everyone else what to do.

but i am sick of war in a part of world pretty far removed from us where we don't belong.

if bibi fucks this up, he can deal with iran, solo. he owns it. we should stay home. and if that makes me an isolationist, so be it.

no more american lives for other people's wars.

[BlueMTexpat]

87. Unsurprisingly, I totally concur.

But, apart from the Iran Deal actually being the best chance for nuclear controls on Iran, there is also a real loss of face and influence for the US at stake. Do the antis really think that our allies may not break rank with us in as many areas related to Iran as they can if they see that we cannot deliver on this? They have their own policy interests.

The President and John Kerry put their own credibility and goodwill on the line. It is a remarkably good deal all things considered and, if passed, could serve as a template for controlling nuclear use in the very interested Nation-States I mentioned as well as others that are developing their own programs. It is in many ways as important as the Limited Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty under JFK in 1963 that literally may have saved us from nuclear holocaust in the 1960s. I heartily recommend that you read, if you haven't already: JFK and the Unspeakable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_and_the_Unspeakable)

As a practitioner of International Public Law for 25+ years myself, I know that all credible IPL practitioners support this deal - in addition to all credible nuclear engineers and scientists. Is it perfect? No. But it can be tweaked as necessary. Going without a deal will only allow nuclear development without monitoring. That is in no one's interest and yes, could indeed lead to another ME war that we can be drawn into.

This is why I consider Schumer and any other Dems who vote against the Iran Deal to be outright traitors. They are expert neither in the law nor the facts and are simply falling into line with the Israeli - and US - RW. If Schumer continues NOT to support the deal - I still have some faint hope that he will see sense instead of pandering to Bibi N, Inc. - then he is NOT fit for leadership of the Dem Senate. Period.

[freshwest]

17. We must apply pressure to keep this deal in place. n/t

[WillyT]

19. Wait... She Supports The Deal, But Then Warns That If It Falls Through, "All Bets Are Off" ???

What... exactly does that mean ???

If the Repukes and Dems manage to scuttle it... she'll go full Schumer ???



Damn Hillary... I already didn't want to vote for you.

[tularetom]

25. No, it doesn't mean she'll go full Schumer

It means she'll go full McCain.

[MADem]

43. That's asinine. nt

[geek tragedy]

35. she means we better get that deal approved.

because if they get 2/3 of both houses to reject a diplomatic agreement, a war is a certainty given the same lobbyists and interests will be pushing for war in 2 years.

[Adrahil]

60. <sigh> Yeah ANY interpretation to hate on Clinton.

She means we lose all leverage on Iran. They will be free to pursue nuclear weapons because the sanctions regime will collapse. We'll be left with the options of accepting a nuclear Iran or pursuing military action eventually.

[azurnoir]

70. and let's not ignore this part

As president, Clinton said she would rally other countries to keep Iran in check: “I know how to build a coalition against them because I did it once.”

Clinton and Schumer are political allies and friends. Both represented New York in the Senate at the same time.

Now as for Schumer, I'm not surprised as I read Israeli English language papers pretty much daily and they all even the supposedly Left leaning Haaretz had ads aimed at Schumer asking folks to call (his numbers were part of the ad) and encourage him to say NO to the Iran deal, these ads ran daily from the time the deal was announced to the day he announced he would not support it.

[davidpdx]

21. Good

I hope she is putting pressure on some of her former colleagues who are on the fence. The stronger Obama's legacy is the better it will be for her campaign if she is the nominee. She will hopefully be able to use it as an example of the Republican's obstructionism if the deal passes.

[villager]

22. Good! So now we have former NY Senators supporting it, too!

Glad to see Schumer looking like more and more of an "outlier..."

[still_one]

32. It is important to note that the other NY Senator from New York supports the deal, Kirsten Gillibran

[villager]

68. Exactly....

n/t

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

49. "All bets are off"? Whoa! That sounds SERIES !!!11!

What are these bets of which she speaks?

[Adrahil]

61. She means we lose any leverage on Iran because the sanctions regime will collapse.

There would be no deal with Iran, because why would they negotiate another deal with us? Why would they ever trust us?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

63. If that's what she meant ...

... then that's what she should have said. Your words are clear. Hers were not.

If that's what she meant, then that would open a whole discussion about who trusts who in the region. There's a lot of mistrust, treaty or not treaty.

[Adrahil]

66. It seemed obvious to me what she meant in context. It's a common turn of phrase. nt

[closeupready]

67. She's wimpy. Even 'tough talkin' Hillary' sounds fearful.

She's afraid of being specific because she's afraid someone might not like it.

Just not an inspiring person in any way.

[wordpix]

71. heard my Sen. Blumenthal (D-undecided) on this last night in person

He was asked many q's on Iran by a small town audience. Sen. Blumenthal is one of the brightest lights in the US Senate, and he was a fabulous AG in CT. He is undecided, but one thing he mentioned was the sanctions. Basically, the sanctions against Iran have worked well b/c there was a coalition of nations all agreeing to uphold the sanctions. If this agreement doesn't pass, Sen. B. says the coalition will be gone and then we will have to probably go it alone with trying to restore what sanctions we can, which will be ineffective. He said the companies are already pouring into Iran to do business, now that they think the sanctions will be lifted.

He also said our credibility and Obama's are on the line if Congress won't pass the agreemt.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

72. If all sanctions fall away with no agreement, and no coalition, ...

... then Israel will be free and possibly justified in doing their own special kind of "inspection".

That's one interpretation of "all bets are off".

[Iliyah]

54. K & R

Hell yeah!

[blackspade]

69. Warmonger.

So if her allies in Congress manage to kill this deal I guess we all know what "all bets are off" means...
I guess she didn't get enough death with the Iraq War.

[HassleCat]

79. Why the opposition?

I guess people like Schumer believe an agreement will prevent us from bombing Iran if we feel like doing so. Note to Schumer: we can bomb anyone we want, any time we want, for any reason we want. Or for no reason at all.

[Fearless]

84. What does that even mean??

She has certainly mastered the art of saying nothing

[harun]

90. Got to agree with you. Politician speak for "I will start a war" and "I won't start a war".

[DallasNE]

86. This Debate Reminds Me Of The

League of Nations vote where isolationist Republican Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge was a ring leader in getting that measure killed. Out of those ashes rose the likes of Hitler. Fast forward to today an we have a new set of Republicans leaders that are ready to set the conditions for another large and costly war. No thanks!

[maddiemom]

89. Just reading that Rueben Rivlin, the PRESIDENT of Israel approves the deal.

You never hear about this guy, due to Netanyahu head honcho PRIME MINISTER. I really wasn't even aware of him.