Clinton: No Nukes for Iran

[sabra]

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.



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

[Selatius]

1. OK, Iran decides to build a nuke. What does that mean? War?

Are we seriously prepared to do take on Iran on top of Iraq/Afghanistan?

[redqueen]

6. Prepared? No. Planning to do so anyway?

Hmmm...

[ohio2007]

70. it means; 1st, measurable seismic activity from an underground test are recorded.

But then again, Iran sits on a very severe and active earthquake region.

Guess they could try to hide behind natural quake readings but the nuke signature is a smoking gun.
Very much like the North Korean mine test. They say it was a bit of a dud. But in a dirty way, they can say it worked. Just needed refinement and more field tests I suppose.


So then the question is;
Does a seismic signature mean war ?

What if this seismic signature wasn't recorded in an underground shaft?
Say it was conducted in a controlled environment with a population of humans, live guinea pigs and rhesus monkeys.

[spotbird]

2. Grenada, Panama, Iraq

All wish they had been nuclear powers in the years before the US invaded them.

The problem with Iran's quest to become nuclear is it is perfectly rational, if dangerous to the rest of us. Nuclear nations aren't invaded, ask North Korea how it works.

[INDIA]

77. 2007 N .Korea or 1953-2006 N. Korea?

N Korea didn't have nukes (we think) for decades and wasn't invaded. And the Falkland Islands were invaded by Argentina. UK is nuclear.

[ohio2007]

3. passing the torch.....

Maybe the 'Iran Invasion' will happen on her watch.btw
what's her stand with the House of Saud?

[no_hypocrisy]

4. The next question is whether a predominantly democratic House and

Senate would follow her lead to further persecute Iran for this objective were she to be elected.

[marmar]

5. Hawkish Hill....eager to prove she can blow shit up too.

Lord help us. :nuke:

[endarkenment]

7. War Party much, Senator Clinton?

I simply cannot support a candidate who is proposing another war of aggression.

[JackORoses]

8. to Hell with Hill

[Lerkfish]

9. "unwilling to accept" sound particularly ominous

and very familiar.

[Lerkfish]

10. Perhaps some Clinton supporters will come along and help explain this comment?

thanks

[creeksneakers2]

62. There's nothing unusual about her current stand

Its the normal diplomatic position taken by the US in a standoff. "Not accept" can mean sanctions or other inducements short of war. Negotiators leave war out there as a possibility because the threat might intimidate the other side into submitting.

Hillary is a staunch supporter of Israel though and I can see her being willing to take this to a higher level. For now, she doesn't want to. Iran appears to be coming to an agreement with the IAEA which would make escalation pointless.

[Le Taz Hot]

63. She didn't oppose the war with Iraq,

why should she oppose war with Iran? Iraq had sanctions. Iraq had inspectors -- Bush kicked them out (the MSM is always mis-reporting this saying Saddam kicked them out). Israel took out Iraq's nuclear capabilities several years earlier. There was no evidence of WMD's. Yet, she STILL voted to go to war with Iraq. Based on past behavior, there is no reason we should expect her to do anything different.

[AndyTiedye]

11. There Is No Room for the 70% Who Oppose the Iraq War and Don't Want an Iran War in The Election

[Amonester]

15. There Is Room for the 70% Who Oppose the Iraq War and Don't Want an Iran War

Meet Loyal To True Democratic Party Values and True Democracy In The United States Presidential Canditate :

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x62498


The problem is that the illegal and immoral facist transformation of the US began years ago and it's already been almost completely transformed as of today, and as a result, the only one true democratic candidate who will govern for the People is systematically marginalized by the "transformer$" themselves because they want the People to continue to vote against their best interests.

[endarkenment]

21. that looney fringe left can sit it out.

They are deranged children anyhow. None of that 70% even regularly showers.

[Zhade]

75. You're a fucking asshole.

Just so you know.

[EFerrari]

12. I am unable to accept your administration AND the US ability

to produce nukes, so we're even.

[Gloria]

13. Oh, for a moment I thought the headline was saying that she wouldn't BOMB Iran

and actually felt a sigh of relief....

Now, back to reality....

[superkia]

14. Why does our country ALWAYS find a smoking gun for war?

Mr Putin says Russia shares the concerns of the international community about the transparency of Iran's nuclear program.

But he says there is no evidence that Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb - nor that it wants to.




Even in 2005, there was no proof like the U.S. wanted to find, it just doesn't stop until they FIND whatever they say they find and boom, its Iraq all over again. There was no evidence before and Clinton signed on for war, what do you think she will do with Iran? I wonder if Americans will wake up and defeat the corporations that have been running our country into the ground or will we just give them who they want?

[Amonester]

16. Because the Oil Lord$ never get enuf profits from gouging consumers.

The same can be said about the Military-Industrial-Complex Lord$ who never get enuf profits looting the treasury (present & future taxpayers).

[fenriswolf]

17. OMG their

nuclear program is totally transparent, they let the international atomic energy agency walk all over the place, they want nuclear energy not the "nuke" and with total transparency we would now if production of weapons grade radioactive material was taking place. WHY is it illegal for another country to look for different ways to produce energy?

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

18. so if a canidate runs to the left for the nomination and to the center for

the general election it looks like we will have two Republican canidates for president, I can just see the debates now as Hillary fights with the Republican over who will torture more people.

[endarkenment]

20. I'll see your waterboard and raise you a tooth extraction!

I'll see your tooth extraction and raise you a cigarette burn!

We are screwn.

[rodeodance]

19. NO nuclear Proliferation like we had with NK under Bush. Fine with me.

[Michael101]

22. She is as dangerous as George Bush.

She is acting like she is the next president and we have not even decided that yet. She stinks...
Lets surprise her in the primaries by voting in a real Democrat because she's definitely lost it.

[hogwyld]

66. Like it or not

She is going to be the next president. It has already been decided for us.

[HuffleClaw]

23. almost a word for word parroting of bush, how predictable n/t

[mvd]

24. Please, no more illegal wars

So would she invade Iran if they don't comply? I surely hope this is just "tough talk."

[fujiyama]

25. LOL: "No Nukes for Iran"

WTF kind of headline is that? As though Obama, Edwards, or any other major candidate prefers "nukes FOR Iran".

I think most of us don't prefer Iran has nukes - we just don't feel attacking them is a good way of stopping them from developing it...Simply because - a) we don't really have the troops to do it, b) it's gonna just piss off more people - and strengthen the religious nutjobs in Iran including Ahmedinedouchebag, c) Iran is not the same threat to us as it is for Israel - if they wish to, they should attack Iran, and d) it's freaking crazy and will lead to untold deaths!

Hillary's blustering is just saber rattling of the worst sort. Pathetic.

[ProudDad]

26. Does that mean the silly woman is going to

kill all Iranian scientists?

Once the genie is out of the bottle...

http://www.linkbase.org/nuclear-bomb-plans/

BFD... Find something real to blather on about...

[MisterP]

27. Papen: we need to threaten Rydz-Smigly to deflect the NSDAP's talking points

[IndianaGreen]

28. 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?

[Evergreen Emerald]

29. Is it ok with Edwards and Obama that Iran have nukes?

Or is this just more postingcrap

[seriousstan]

30. Clinton would use violence against Tehran

Source: guardian unlimited

Hillary Clinton today moved to secure her position as the most hawkish Democrat in the 2008 presidential race, saying she would consider the use of force to compel Iran to abandon its nuclear programme.

In an article for Foreign Affairs magazine intended as a blueprint for the foreign policy of a future Clinton White House, the Democratic frontrunner argues that Iran poses a long term strategic challenge to American and its allies, and that it must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons.

"If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table," Ms Clinton said.

"If Iran is in fact willing to end its nuclear weapons programme, renounce sponsorship of terrorism, support Middle East peace, and play a constructive role in stabilising Iraq, the United States should be prepared to offer Iran a carefully calibrated package of incentives," Ms Clinton wrote.



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

[mike_c]

31. Sen. Clinton is much like Bush in that respect-- she NEEDS a war...

...or at least the threat of violence somewhere in the world to prove her toughness.

[Alexander]

32. Women are traditionally viewed as weak on issues of defense/war

for God knows what reason. Therefore many female politicians have felt the need to prove their "toughness" as you described.

Margaret Thatcher had the same problem, hence a carefully staged photo-op with a scarf in a tank (which Michael Dukakis tried and failed to emulate).

This sort of rhetoric is guaranteeing that Hillary Clinton won't get my vote.

[FREEWILL56]

56. Women don't need to prove they're tough.

Ask any husband just who is it that winds up winning the arguements and he'll say she does once he can admit to it and it is quite well known how nasty and mean some women can get. I certainly don't buy that she's putting on a tough show to prove herself as this is her and has been her all along if you look at how she's been voting all of these years. She's not acting and she's not getting my vote either.

[journalist3072]

33. No president takes options off the table; and she's simply saying all options are on the table

Yet you want to portray her as some war mongering hawk.

[saigon68]

34. She's really a lapdog of certain interests southwest of Syria

[Pastiche423]

35. She portrays herself as a warmongering hawk

[IndianaGreen]

42. Including the use of tactical nukes! Hillary is an atomic cowboy!

If I wanted a testosterone filled President, I would vote for another crazy man. I don't need a woman to outdo the stupid things that men do.

[newburgh]

47. This is a *-invented issue, she has no business falling for this...

unless, of course, she's the same as him: a WAR-MONGERING HAWK. Any invented excuse for more war. At this point, I am wondering why I should vote at all. It's all part of the plan, I know. I've voted in all elections since I registered 20 years ago. Lately the local school board didn't accept the no vote on the $100million bond(a year and a half after a $50million bond) and just put it up for vote again and didn't do any public notice. So now I believe ignorance is indeed bliss and that only money rules our "democracy"- or whatever it is.

[yava]

49. Journalist full of shit

Your slogans are far right-wing (oil) or zionist motivated. Where do you dig out of history that no president takes the military option off the table to negociate?
In fact, its hard to open negociations agaist a strong adversary if you don't.
When a president takes your position, he/she is essentially telling the other gov that they have lost already and all to negociate is rendition.
Is that where you see the situation right now?
Also, think about WHO will have to go to war to die, is it you or your kids?
Journalist, how old are you and how much are you worth?

[Zhade]

76. This poster also thought Jesus is better than anything for everyone.

Block of salt with that one, yo.

[MidwestTransplant]

36. Obama, Edwards and Richardson would all say the same thing.

[peacetalksforall]

37. Good, I'm glad she said it and I sneer at all the big money people

who are contributing to her. Imagine the vileness - violence.

Al, it's getting close to the minute.

[msongs]

38. umm, the article says "she would consider", NOT she would. facts are inconvenient nt

[journalist3072]

40. Exactly! Some DUers will go to any extent to make a point for their political expedience

irregardless of the facts.

[movonne]

51. Are you sure that she is not going to do it...I feel she wants to be

the next war president....

[seriousstan]

53. The FACT is that I have to use the original headline.

Some DUers will go to any extent to make a point that they are asshats.

[humbled_opinion]

39. Look Hillary is not a viable candidate in my book

1. She is vilified by the right to the point that her Presidency will become divisive much as Bush has been.

2. She is a warmonger everyone here knows that she will continue the military occupation of Iraq and possibly further the entrenchment into its neighbors.

3. The right is coordinating a full scale attack against her in the coming campaign for here many varied positions on issues and the things she did in the WH as first lady.
here is but one recent example:

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-targeting-clinton-on-phone-call-snooping-2007-10-16.html

4. The right intends to dredge up all the dirt from Bill and others in the first Clinton Administration.

[harun]

41. When we have so many other good candidates, I agree

Wait until the first few primaries. Everything will change then.

[ohio2007]

43. You'll be singing "Hail to the Hillary Chief" before you can say

November,2008

you can bet on it

[IndianaGreen]

44. And a year after that, we will be at war with Iran!

I hope all the Hillary supporters enlist in her military to fight in her wars!

[Hardrada]

54. Which goes to the tune of "Pie in the Sky1"

Hail to the Hillary Chief
Who will bring all the bad guys to grief.
She will rectify all that is wrong
As we merrily sing this old song:
We will smile by and by
In that Hillary Land in the Sky.
She will rule! O that's cool!
She'll be Queen in the Sweet Bye and Bye.

[harun]

61. Then you might want to head here:

http://www.army.com/enlist/

[ohio2007]

72. What about 'the draft' ?

Seems you will have to find a doctor about "a foot problem" you have Rush ;)

[humbled_opinion]

46. Now some serious strategy would be for Edwards and Obama ...

to start a whisper campaign that if Edwards is elected in the Primary the ticket will be Edwards/Obama. IMHO that ticket wins a landslide in 08. Solves most of the mess that Bush got this country into and really changes this country to a beacon of hope in the world...

[harun]

60. It wins in a landslide and keeps most Repug's at home, Hillary

brings them all to the polls.

[humbled_opinion]

65. Exactly the repukes have no viable candidates that are meeting

approval of the evenagelicals...in that case Hillary will anger them into action.. Obama/Edwards don't phase them...

[Emillereid]

52. Personally I still have Clinton fatigue.

[Roland99]

45. She's selling herself to those disenchanted with the GOP..

And spewing what her DLC, AIPAC, and WINEP masters tell her to.


She gets elected, expect *nothing* to change.

[flaminbats]

48. if Clinton wants to look like Goldwater, she'll succeed

maybe she'll invite Harry and Louise to be stars in the next generation of atom bomb ads :nuke:

[NoodleyAppendage]

50. FU*K YOU, HILLARY...and your neocon-eque need to appear "strong"

Just what the world needs right now...another US politican to ratchet up tensions in the Middle East. Good luck with screwing up our country, you spoonfed corporate scumbag to the uneducated masses. No vote from this free thinker.

J

[LiberalFighter]

55. Will Republican Congress members give her the vote to go to war?

If the intel supports using force against Iran?

[Honeycombe8]

57. Any country would have to SAY they'd consider violence...otherwise, Iran would know...

there would be no serious consequences. Regardless of whether that country WOULD actuallly go to war or not.

Trick is knowing whether the person means it or not.

[CoffeeCat]

58. Hillary is an abomination!

What an embarrassment to our party she is!

How pleased the neocons must be...as she extols their talking
points as if their reality, is now the new, legitimate reality--even
in Democratic circles.

Screw her for behaving this way. Why is she doing this????

If the neocons had their sites on Zimbabwe, Hillary would be toeing the
line and pontificating about Zimbabwe and how it had better do x,y and z--or else!

It's perverse, because Hillary knows better than anyone else, that these
PNAC warmongers are lying, corrupt bastards who love war-for-profit more
than they do this country. The same bunch of misfit neocons who went
to war with Iraq, asked her husband to go to war with Iraq a few years
earlier. He declined! She knows the game they are playing!

Shame on this woman!!! She's a disgrace to our party!

She's Richard Perle in a dress, and I don't want it in our party---the party of hope,
the party of working people and the party of PEACE.

Be gone with you, misguided, warmongering Hillary!

[Solar_Power]

68. Please, show some respect to the next President

Just kidding :)

[MilesColtrane]

59. "The U.S....should be willing to provide Tehran “with a carefully calibrated package of incentives"

...delivered from 40,000 feet after taking out their air defenses.

Jesus, we are all fucked.

[Javaman]

64. So I guess the on going monitoring by the IAEA is just bullshit then

run by nothing but peace loving puppets of the ultra left wing peaceniks. Sigh.

more bullshit and bluster from the blond bush*...take that anyway you want.

So is she just blowing smoke to the repukes in the audience to give the appearance of looking tough ultra right style or does she actually believe this colossal piece of horseshit she's spewing?

inquiring minds want to know.

[Islander Expat]

67. Shillery will protect us from those horrible evildooers!

She used to live in the White House, don't ya know?

[Imagevision]

69. So, we're bitchin over Bush bombing Iran but saying Yay...! for Hillary if

she decides it's ok to bomb/murder another few million people because it's the American thing to do at a time when there's an election?

[ohio2007]

71. Guess it depends on how reliable her 'intelligence' is and who gathers it for public

review.

How many will lockstep to bush-lite (D) ?

[Andrushka]

73. Tell us something we don't know, Hillary

Clinton: No Nukes for Iran

Ahmadinejad: No Nukes for Iran

Larijani: No Nukes for Iran

Khamenei: No Nukes for Iran

Duh. :crazy:

[unkachuck]

74. "all options....

....must remain on the table” to confront Tehran, says the Clinton campaign’s national security director, Lee Feinstein.

....does this mean hillary is likely to start World War Three like bushco?