(Bill) Clinton doesn't support attack on Iran - AP

[Eugene]

Clinton doesn't support attack on Iran

By John Hanna, Associated Press Writer | March 2, 2007

MANHATTAN, Kan. --Former President Bill Clinton said Friday sanctions against Iran
were working better than people think and questioned whether a military strike would
work to end its nuclear program. He argued that two-thirds of Iran's population wants
a moderate government and that sanctions could have some influence on the nation's
powerful clerics.

"We may not have to go to war, and we may not have a disaster," he told about 9,000
gathered at Kansas State University. "You need to talk to everybody before you bomb
them. In other words, if you're going to fight with somebody -- I don't care what you
don't have in common -- you should talk first."

The former president's comments answered audience questions following his 45-minute
lecture. His remarks touched on a wide range of topics, including the need to improve
health care and the economy in the United States and alleviate poverty abroad.

-snip-

"We should be talking to the Iranians," Clinton said. "Attacking them is a whole
different kettle of fish."

-snip-

Full article: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/02/bill_clinton_opposes_attack_on_iran

[Alamom]

1. Common sense from Bill, as usual. Thanks for posting. n/t

[PresidentObama]

2. Absolutely Bill.

"You need to talk to everybody before you bomb
them. In other words, if you're going to fight with somebody -- I don't care what you
don't have in common -- you should talk first."

War is NOT the answer. Diplomacy is!!

http://www.stopiranwar.com

[madfloridian]

3. "attacking them is a whole different kettle of fish" ??

They are more powerful so we need to be more careful than we were about attacking Iraq?

Where was he when we attacked Iraq? Or were they smaller fish in the "kettle of fish"?

He never spoke out against Iraq, in fact he appeared to have approved of the invasion.

[Tellurian]

4. His quotes sounded like..

He is preempting, a preemptive strike, by Bush attacking Iran.

[madfloridian]

5. Well, that's more than he did about Iraq..

So I must give him credit for that. Our Democrats are knocking down any bill to get them out...and if Bush bombs there our soldiers are hostage. It is way way way past time someone spoke up without sounding hawkish.

I firmly believe that if he had made it clear Iraq was under control, we would not have been in this situation, this mess. He could have been far more influential than he was.

[Tellurian]

6. They have a saying..

you don't get even, you get elected. Then you get even.

[madfloridian]

7. There should be a saying about people in high places...

letting our country go to war under false pretenses and lies.

[Josh]

8. I remember him being cautious -

he said something about the inspectors needing to do their job, because if Iraq *did* have weapons, what would make them more likely to fire them than an invasion by US forces?

[madfloridian]

11. He said more.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1051

[FrenchieCat]

9. Damn.....those sound like Wes Clark's words coming out of Bill's mouth.....

meaning Wes Clark's strategy is working after a few years. Good!

We are averting war. :headbang:

That's a good thing! :thumbsup:


"How can you talk about bombing a country when you won't even talk to them?" said Clark.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/dc-notes-wes-clark-is-_b_37837.html

Wesley Clark on Iran: "We Need to Talk"
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/30/221916/857

"I'd, I'd send a high level emissary to talk to the Iranian leadership and have direct dialog with Iran. "
http://securingamerica.com/node/1243

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. There is a differennce though in how Clark speaks out against War with Iran...

...and how other Democrats have begun to do so.

Clark is the only one who says it is we who have a gun to Iran's head, not the other way around. Clark is the only one who talks about containment and who reminds people that the United States coexisted with a nuclear armed Soviet Union for decades. Clark is the only one who points out why Iran has a right to feel that the United States is already at war with them, after Congress set aside 75 million dollars for regime change in Iran. Clark is the only one who doesn't simply say "all options must remain on the table", but points out "there's a military option, but it's a bad one".

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

10. ...but his wife does!!!

:hurts: