Why is Hillary talking about war with Iran, according to Wall Street Journal?

[IndianaGreen]

Hillary also said no nukes for Iraq. Iraq had no nukes. Iran has no nukes. Why is Hillary beating the war drums? Doesn't she know that Bush will bomb Iran and then blame her for anything that goes wrong? Or is Hillary going to say that she is opposed to Bush's mismanagement of the Iran war, as she did on Iraq?

From an LBN thread posted by sabra:

Clinton: No Nukes for Iran
Source: WSJ

Unbowed by her political rivals, Sen. Hillary Clinton is continuing to take a hard line on Iran and its pursuit of nuclear technologies.

The Democratic front-runner, in outlining her key foreign policy objectives in the coming issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, argues that her administration would be unwilling to accept an Iran with the capability to produce nuclear weapons, according to her aides.

If Iran fails to comply with the international community’s demand that it desist form developing a nuclear fuel cycle, Clinton believes that “all options must remain on the table” to confront Tehran, says the Clinton campaign’s national security director, Lee Feinstein.

Should Iran comply, however, Clinton believes the U.S. and international community should be willing to provide Tehran “with a carefully calibrated package of incentives,” says Feinstein. He outlined the key points of Clinton’s Foreign Affairs article for reporters today.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/10/15/clinton-no-nukes-for-iran

[jab105]

1. Because she thinks that she has to out-Republican the

hardest-nose Republicans in order to "seem" strong on national security...I hate it...

Which is playing RIGHT into the Republicans hands...

She uses their language, and blames the Iraqi government for incompetence instead of us for going in there for the wrong reasons...

it's so depressing...

[w4rma]

61. No. It's not for show. It's because she supports their agenda. (nt)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

2. Out of curiosity, have any of the candidates said...

Out of curiosity, have any of the other candidates said, "My administration will be willing to accept an Iran with the capability to produce nuclear weapons."

It sounds like pretty standard rhetoric.

[Evergreen Emerald]

3. don't let reality get in the way of their outrage!

What are you thinking? Logic? Facts? Yikes what is next--the truth?

[maximusveritas]

5. I don't see anything outrageous here either

Nor do I see any mention of the word "war" in the actual article despite the title of the OP>

[IndianaGreen]

7. General John Abizaid said that we could live with a nuclear Iran

Abizaid: living with Iran's nukes

From ex-Centcom leader Gen. John Abizaid at CSIS on Sept. 17:

"Iran is not a suicide nation. I mean, they may have some people in charge that don't appear to be rational, but I doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon. ... I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear. There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran. Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well."
"War, in the state-to-state sense, in that part of the region would be devastating for everybody, and we should avoid it — in my mind — to every extent that we can. On the other hand, we can't allow the Iranians to continue to push in ways that are injurious to our vital interests."

"I believe the United States, with our great military power, can contain Iran — that the United States can deliver clear messages to the Iranians that makes it clear to them that while they may develop one or two nuclear weapons they'll never be able to compete with us in our true military might and power. ... We need to press the international community as hard as we possibly can, and the Iranians, to cease and desist on the development of a nuclear weapon and we should not preclude any option that we may have to deal with it."


Meanwhile, from IAEA's Mohammed ElBaradei:

"I would not talk about any use of force. ... There are rules on how to use force, and I would hope that everybody would have gotten the lesson after the Iraq situation, where 700,000 innocent civilians have lost their lives on the suspicion that a country has nuclear weapons. ... I do not believe at this stage that we are facing a clear and present danger that requires we go beyond diplomacy. ... We need not hype the issue."

http://www.robertdreyfuss.com/blog/2007/09/abizaid_living_with_irans_nuke.html

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

12. I agree. MAD has worked for 60 years.

I have no giant problem with a nuclear Iran. It may make the ME more stable.

But it's not something I expect to hear during a campaign

[Tellurian]

21. Iran's president is much more equipped to handle Bush

you can read here. Iran's president is already taking diplomatic steps to thwart any Bush tricks of selling Iran as an eminent threat to the US. He's instituted a relationship with the UN to neutralize Bush's provative statements and to come into compliance with UN Inspections.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RV8H100&show_article=1

You can read the stripped out Kyl-Lieberman Amendment for yourself.

Kyle-Lieberman Amendment

9-26-07

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/kyl-lieberman-amendment/?resultpage=1&

[Sparkly]

30. But he's not running.

I think most of the candidates are positioning themselves for the general election on matters like this. I'd be shocked if any of the "frontrunners" said they wouldn't do anything if Iran was building nukes.

[skipos]

10. I agree. nt

[eridani]

59. It would be refreshing if it were the case

I don't think that even Kucinich has said "Why don't we worry about all the poorly controlled nukes in Russia, stop egging on both Pakistan and India in their nuclear arms race, and fully fund the Nunn-Lugar Threat Reduction Act instead of blathering about Iran (which, even if it did get nukes would not matter in the slightest compared to all the far more serious nuclear threats)."

[oasis]

4. Who on Planet Earth would be comfortable with a nuclear armed Iran? (eom)

[IndianaGreen]

8. Like General Abizaid said, Iran is not a suicidal nation

Face it! Even though Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons, the cruel reality is that any nation that is threatened by a US attack would be nuts if it doesn't seek a nuclear deterrent.

[Clanfear]

14. I don't think "suicidal" is the biggest concern

It's about leverage in that corner of the world. Just because they may not attack Israel, does not mean they are not dangerous with a nuke. The inevitable question for any future president is whether the U.S. is better off with Iran having a nuclear weapon. The unfortunate part is that I don't see the country electing someone who believes it is okay, or is not willing to deal with the coming probability.

[IndianaGreen]

17. The Middle East is NOT an American colony!

We have no business dictating to other nations like the Brits and the French did their colonies.

[Clanfear]

19. Who said it was our colony?

Last I checked Iran was still bound to their U.N. non-proliferation agreement. The real fact still remains is that this country is very unlikely to elect a president that is going to allow Iran to become a nuclear power. That has nothing to do with them being a colony but a part of the greater world.

[oasis]

20. It may not be equitable but, nobody wants ayatollah nutjobs to have nuclear weapons.

C'mon now.:shrug:

[IndianaGreen]

22. You let Bush have his finger on the nuclear button

I want Bush impeached!

[Clanfear]

23. And you would let Ahmadinejad have his finger on a nuclear button

How is that better for anyone? Aren't there enough nukes in the world already?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

24. Ahmadinejad has no military control authority whatsoever

just for the record.

The supreme council controls military and foreign affairs.

Ahmadinejad is kind of like the mayor of Iran.

[IndianaGreen]

25. There isn't one shred of evidence that Iran's program is anything but peaceful

The same neocon/neoliberal cabal that beat the war drums on WMD in Iraq are now doing the same thing with Iran.

[Clanfear]

26. Yeah, except that they keep defying the world community.

I'm sure a nation that was looking for peaceful means of nuclear production would continually thumb their nose at the world community to the extent that they had sanctions brought against themselves. They would also probably make threats across the region. Please.

Iran could be going about this in a completely different manner, and have been asked over and over again diplomatically to do so by our European friends, if they had no intention of producing a nuclear weapon.

[IndianaGreen]

27. Defying the US/Israel is not the same as defying the world community

In case you haven't taken notice, Russia and China support Iran.

[Clanfear]

31. I didn't know that the US/Israel controlled the U.N.

Iran has continually defied the U.N. over the past several years over the matter. Russia and China have signed off on the sanctions that are in place now. I wonder why they would do that? Considering Russia and China's records I rarely would look to them as some sort of beacon of reason. Can we even point to anything that those two countries have done on the world stage that is worthwhile in the past 50 years?

[IndianaGreen]

32. "Iran has continually defied the U.N.," so has Israel.

I don't see anyone calling for "all options on the table" when it comes to Israel. How would the Israelis interpret such a statement? Why wouldn't the Iranians interpret it the same way as the Israelis?

[Clanfear]

35. Maybe, just maybe

Because saying certain options are off the table is stupid in terms of getting the reactions you want. "Iran, we really don't want you to develop nuclear weapons, but if you do defying the U.N., all miltary options are off the able." I can really see that happening.

[Webster Green]

11. Israel has nukes and they are batshit fucking crazy too..

Are we going to bomb Israel?

[oasis]

18. Are you replying to another poster? A simple question was asked on my post.(eom)

[Lerkfish]

36. why are we comfortable with a nuclear armed N. Korea? Pakistan? India?

examine why Iran is being portrayed as a greater threat, right now.

[EVDebs]

39. Could it be OIL not nukes, that we're more concerned with ?

[Lerkfish]

43. We also demonize Chavez, who has no nukes, but who DOES have oil

There is some reason the govt. wants us to hate or fear other countries with oil...to the point of regime changing them.

[SOS]

63. Interestingly

The two demonized countries are Venezuela and Iran
Two oil rich countries who are not in bed with American oil companies.
Most of this "news" is a bunch of re-written Exxon press releases.

Yet the Saudi nuclear bomb program continues without a peep of protest.

"Saudia Arabia working on secret nuclear program with Pakistan help"

http://www.forbes.com/finance/feeds/afx/2006/03/28/afx2629000.html

[paulk]

41. we're comfortable with a nuclear armed N. Korea?

Not to mention Pakistan and India. Especially Pakistan.

I don't know about you, but I'm sure not comfortable with it.

[Lerkfish]

42. by "we" I mean the administration, and Clinton and other candidates

why are they wanting us to be uncomfortable with Iran, now?

[paulk]

55. what an absurd thing to say

no one is "comfortable" with N. Korea or Pakistan having nukes, Republican or Democrat. And it's not just the US that would rather Iran didn't get them either.

[Lerkfish]

56. you're really not understanding my point at all.

sorry.

more simply: if the criteria for targeting a country is their possible nukes and their instability, there are candiates AHEAD of Iran in line that already possess nukes.

by "comfortable" I mean we are still retaining diplomatic ties with, rather than regime changing.

do you understand now?

[cuke]

6. according to Wall Street Journal?

nuff said

[Kagemusha]

9. Fine, since that's not good enough for you...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/hillaryclinton/story/0,,2191830,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

How about The Guardian?

It's a major international story now.

[IndianaGreen]

15. The Guardian's headline: Clinton would use violence against Tehran

It arrives only days after Ms Clinton was severely criticised by her Democratic rivals for backing a Senate resolution calling on the US government to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guards, the elite division of Tehran's military, a terrorist entity.

The measure has been argued strenuously by the vice-president, Dick Cheney, and other neocons, but such a sweeping designation does not appear to have the support of the state department.

Ms Clinton was the only Democratic candidate to support the resolution, and her rivals said her vote could help the Bush administration make a future case for war against Iran.

Unlike the five other candidates to sketch out their vision of foreign policy to date, Ms Clinton gave little indication of her comprehensive world view.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/hillaryclinton/story/0,,2191830,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

General Abizaid said that we could live with a nuclear Iran, and Joe Biden said that Iran did not pose a nuclear threat.

Hillary is wrong about Iran, and Biden is right!

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

16. Good point about Biden. I'm okay wih Joe.

[cuke]

28. Nothing new there

Same as most of the other candidates.

But it's wrong when Hillary does it

[IndianaGreen]

29. Biden said that Iran was not a threat

and he knows his shit better than Hillary can ever hope to do.

[cuke]

33. Good for him

I disagree

[IndianaGreen]

34. Are you going to enlist in the military to fight Hillary's wars?

She will try to retake Latin America too, right after Iran and Syria.

[cuke]

38. Are you joining the insurgency?

Are you heading to Latin American to fight the American Imperialists?

[IndianaGreen]

44. I'll be joining the resistance, the American version of White Rose

The children of the working class are the ones dying and suffering in order to keep the investor class fat, dumb, and happy. I have no interest in seeing the investor class win anything!

[cuke]

45. You "will be joining"? Why the future tense? No time like the present

[IndianaGreen]

46. At the present I am involved in the local peace movement and in the upcoming local elections

Add to that a job, night school, and two teens, plus whatever time I spend (or waste) on the net, and I have a full schedule.

[Kagemusha]

58. The more I read your replies, the more they ressemble "Love It Or Leave It"

Just so you realize how you're coming off. Goodnight.

[Tellurian]

60. Biden voted against the Amendment...Hillary edited the Amendment

and removed anything that could vaguely resemble giving Bush authority to go to war (see post #21). Because it was a timely requirement of Sec #16 of S. 970: Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007.

[Froward69]

13. Her Trigger finger is

too itchy for my taste.

[unkachuck]

37. why is hillary talking about war with Iran?....

....because I think hillary loves corporate wars and wants to out-bush bush with corporate America....

....if elected, I believe she will support all their corporate wars for profit and will have absolutely no problem continuing the gastly PNAC legacy....

[BootinUp]

40. I will wait to see which candidates disagree with her

I suspect none will. At the most they will parse a few words differently imo. This has been the policy of American governments for decades, that is opposing the spread of nuclear weapons to countries that are deemed non-democratic or unstable or a threat to our allies or a sponsor of terrorists. A nuclear Iran or and Iran pursuing nuclear weapons would dramatically increase the chances for regional conflict.

[jillan]

48. Biden disagrees with her.

Watch this -

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-526337859449397787&q=biden+iran&total=41&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

1 minute 15 secs - listen to what the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee had to say.

[BootinUp]

50. Is that so? "At the end of the day if they had the weapon on a missile..."

"...I'd take it out."

Like I said he parsing words.

[jillan]

51. He said they are a decade away from having a nuclear bomb.

He explained how weak the Iranian gov't is, and how poor they are.

And he said there are much better ways to deal with them.

Here are other comments from Biden:

Looking ahead, he called a possible attack on Iran “mindless,” and criticized his Senate colleagues for voting to classify part of Iran’s military as a terrorist organization, suggesting it could give Bush another pretext to take unwise action.

---------------------------------------------
“The Most Disastrous Thing We Can Do At This Moment Would Be To Invade Iran” — Sen. Joe Biden
ANDREA MITCHELL: “Hillary Clinton and anyone else who voted to declare the Iranian army as a terrorist organization — do you think that Hillary Clinton is giving President Bush a green light to invade?”

SEN. JOE BIDEN: “I think they are being very naive, thinking he will look at the letter of the law, rather than the intent, which is saying that it is a terrorist organization. What’s that old expression — first time I get fooled, OK. Second time, it’s my fault. He did the same thing before with regard to Iraq. I don’t know how he couldn’t have learned a lesson about this.”
--------------------------------------------------

He has said more about Hillary's vote, but I can't find his comments right now.

[BootinUp]

52. I thought the main point was that he wont let them have nukes

(all options are on the table just said it differently)

Hillary also favors using diplomacy (Sticks and carrots) to prevent them achieving a nuke, she also favors direct negotiations. I see no difference.

[jillan]

53. Biden voted NO - Hillary voted Yay - that's the difference.

[BootinUp]

54. Seriously

The K/L resolution is another message to Bush that the Senate does not support military action, and a message to Iran that we will continue ratcheting up pressure. Both sides have been avoiding serious negotiation.

I know you see it differently.

[killbotfactory]

47. Because starting a war is the only way to ensure that diplomacy will work. nt

[Lerkfish]

57. and only by killing a million civilians will we win their hearts and minds.

we can only bring them democracy if we destroy their infrastructure.


:sarcasm:

[IndianaGreen]

62. Seymour Hersh wrote that the Pentagon was planning to use tactical nukes on Iran

because Pentagon planners felt that was the only way to be certain that Iran's nuclear installations are destroyed. How many millions will die from the fallout? How many of them will not be Iranians but people exposed to the fallout carried by the winds?

Anyone that entertains the idea of first use of atomic weapons is unfit for the Presidency!

[CK_John]

49. A presidential candidate must speak to other audiences, such as world leaders, both friend and foe.

Only the successful candidate thinks beyond the primaries.