Does Hillary Support War with Iran?

Gareth Porter
Does Hillary Support War with Iran?
Posted October 15, 2007 | 03:45 PM (EST)

Since her vote for the odious Kyl-Lieberman amendment, Hillary Clinton has been forced to make what appear to be moves in the direction of the position of the vast majority of Democratic voters on the issue of war with Iran. But these moves, aimed at assuaging the anxiety and anger of anti-war voters, fail to address the real question: Does she support an unprovoked military assault on Iran or not?

She has been on the defensive on Iran primarily because she was the only Democratic candidate to vote in favor of the odious Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which approves not only the administration's declared intention to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a "terrorist organization" but administration's carefully crafted and completely unsupported case for war with Iran. Clinton has offered a lame excuse for that vote, telling a campaign audience Saturday that the amendment would give the United States "leverage when we negotiate with them." That position represents an almost perfect political straddling of the issue - invoking both negotiations and toughness toward Iran in the same breath - that allows a Democratic candidate to appeal to all but hardcore antiwar voters.

Even more serious, she told the same audience Saturday that the Iranians "are supporting sending weapons into Iraq right now that are used against our troops". That tortured formulation tells us that Clinton cannot be counted to exercise any independent judgment about the facts surrounding the administration's case for war.

That is why Clinton's co-sponsorship of the Webb amendment requiring the president to seek congressional approval before any military action against Iran should not be taken seriously. Some bloggers have viewed that move as a hopeful clarification of Clinton's Iran policy. But calling for a vote on the issue is not an indication that Clinton is opposed to war with Iran. She has carefully avoided saying anything about her views on that issue except insofar as they can be inferred from her acceptance of the administration's rationale for war.

Her campaign and her Senate office have carefully refrained from issuing any statement about the Webb amendment, much less the bigger issue at stake. The reason for her reluctance to have the spotlight shown on her position is clearly that she is unwilling to state flatly that she is opposed to war with Iran.

In fact, of course, she is one of the leading supporters in the Senate of the Bush administration's policy of threatening war against Iran. In a speech last February 2 to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Clinton said, "U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," she said. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."

<SNIP>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-gareth-porter/does-hillary-support-war-_b_68540.html

If that means a few random Persians get blown up, so be it.

corporate masters want.

Clinton and Iran

What particularly worries me about Hillary Clinton's continued hawkishness on Iran is its basic coherence. Clinton, more so than any of the other candidates, really is speaking, legislating, and voting with her eventual presidency in mind. She's been making a real effort not to offer critiques, or support popular legislation, that will harm her capacity to pursue her eventual agenda. That's fine and well and good. But on Iran, the whole picture is a little worrying.

So we know Clinton is an "all options on the table" type who's repeatedly said that Iran cannot be allowed to achieve nuclear weapons. We know she voted for the Lieberman-Kyl amendment which, in point of fact, was a way of creating an underlying case for attack. I used to be worried that these moves would help give Bush credibility for attacking Iran. Lately, I'm more worried that they help give Clinton an eventual argument for bombing.

To be sure, there's some contradictory evidence here, most notably, the resolution she co-sponsored with Webb to force Congressional authorization of any attack against Iran. It's a good bill, and would, if passed, effectively hamstring Bush. But it probably wouldn't hamstring Clinton, who could almost certainly pull together a coalition of hawkish Republicans and centrist-to-liberal Democrats to authorize an attack on nuclear facilities, and could use such already-passed resolutions as Lieberman-Kyl to make the argument.

I don't want to overstate the case here. I don't know what's in Hillary's heart, nor what she'll do. But her signals have overwhelmingly been in the direction of ratcheting up the rhetoric on Iran and underscoring the impermissibility of a nuclear Iran -- and thus her own implicit promise to use military force is Iran refuses to disarm. Even if she didn't want to attack Iran, she could be backing herself into a corner. But since I think she's too smart to do that, its hard not to conclude that these moves reflect her actual inclinations on the issue.

http://ezraklein.typepad.com/#extText40248420

Ezra Klein or Wes Clark...who to trust on this issue...?

Tough choice there...

Perhaps he's begining to wonder why he put his eggs in the Hillary basket after all.

As he has written several well thought out articles on the vote...the correct vote...

Of course it was sooooo important your guy couldn't even be bothered to comment on it until he decided it might be something he could use in his campaign...

Oh and has Obama commented on Dick Durbin's lack of judgment on this issue yet?

Is Obama going to allow Iran to go "nuclear" or isn't he and if you say he is going to allow Iran to go "nuclear" how does it square with his statements that he isn't?

The question about military strikes - or endorsing Lieberman and Kyl war plans - is another matter...entirely.

This is simple...

If diplomatic efforts fail will Obama allow Iran to go nuclear?

That's a binary question...

Your fascination with Obama is intriguing.

EDIT: The only mention of Obama in the OP is the following, which I agree with.

***

Unfortunately, neither Edwards nor Obama have done anything to indicate that they will actively oppose war against Iran either. The only hope for reversing the present momentum for war is that Democratic voters will begin a massive shift to a candidate who has been straightforward in opposing war with Iran from the beginning. Bill Richardson declared in an op-ed last February, "Saber-rattling is not a good way to get the Iranians to cooperate. But it is a good way to start a new war -- a war that would be a disaster for the Middle East, for the United States and for the world."

attack indiscriminately.

I mean, I would to if my candidate joined the Lieberman-Cheney axis of warmongering.

Again.

They deflect her IWR vote by conconcting some story about how Obama claims he doesn't know how he would have voted on it.

They deflect her endorsement of the Bush-Lieberman-Kyl war plans by arguing that Obama only spoke out against it and didn't vote NO.

All. They. Got.

on Iran is unfit for the presidency. Full stop.


And that includes Dick Durbin.

"On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. ... And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point."


-Senator Barack Obama (D) Illinois

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0409250111sep25,1,4555304.story

"Sen. Barack Obama said Friday the use of military force should not be taken off the table when dealing with Iran, which he called "a threat to all of us."




Obama: Iran threatens all of us
Won't rule out force in speech in Chicago to pro-Israel group

March 3, 2007

Obama said global leaders must do whatever it takes to stop Iran from enriching uranium and acquiring nuclear weapons. He called Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "reckless, irresponsible and inattentive" to the day-to-day needs of the Iranian people.

The Iranian "regime is a threat to all of us," Obama said.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/281249,CST-NWS-OBAMA03.article

to me.

Typical Clinton response to her own bad record--muddy the waters with deceptive counterattack against her opponent.

How do you feel about Hillary going around claiming that Iran is killing US troops? Was it Cheney or Bill Kristol who slipped her those talking points? Maybe it was her PNAC set of advisors.

Obama is on the record as saying a "nuclear" Iran is unacceptable; your obscurantist tactics nothwithstanding...

:crazy:


on edit-as of today since he has had at least two diametrically opposed positions

so let's endorse Petraeus's testimony with a Senate vote."

You do realize that Bush has all the justification he needs to bomb Iran, i.e. because they're involved in killing US troops in Iraq?

Hillary tells everyone who'll listen that Iran is killing US troops. Does that sound like someone who wants to prevent an attack on Iran?

Sounds like Joe Lieberman to me. He'd make a perfect running mate for her.

"Sen. Barack Obama said Friday the use of military force should not be taken off the table when dealing with Iran, which he called "a threat to all of us."



http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/281249,CST-NWS-OBAMA03.article


That the "politics of hope"...Tell any group what they want to here and "hope" they vote for you....

You should have stuck to the semantic argument...As bas as that was it was working better for you...




:rofl:

advising him?

You know

General Keane
Michael O'Hanlon
Martin "PNAC" Indyk.

And, Hillary supporters apparently don't comprehend the difference between non-proliferation and a freaking war.

Oh well. When a person is supporting the closest thing to Dick Cheney in the Democratic party . . .

I guess I have more faith in him than his supporters.

from getting nukes is Rudey Ghouliani.

Though Hillary will likely join him.

Your obscurantism nothwithstanding.



"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

-John Adams

Oh yeah, it isn't.

If Mr.X tells Mr. Y that certain acts are unacceptable it is logical to assume Mr.X will try to prevent Mr. Y from engaging in said acts; unless Mr.X was being disingenuous...

I hope you are not accusing Senator Obama of being disingenuos...

commit one to military action. Duh.

To dispense with your dissembling, a counterfactual example:

The actions of the government of Myanmar are unacceptable. By saying that, I do not endorse an invasion of Myanmar.

This has been your lesson for the day.

Now go bang the war drums with 'your girl.'

All three candidates said a "nuclear" Iran is unacceptable and that they would not rule out military force to prevent Iran from going nuclear...

Here's the good part...

"Now go bang the war drums with 'your girl."

-geektragedy

I would rather bang the drums with you, cupcake...


:rofl:

But after her IWR and Kyl-Lieberman votes, all bets are off.

:scared:

What an intellectually bankrupt post. Simply because one states a fact does not mean they are pro-war.

--to be made in Iraq. :sarcasm:

The occupation has actually succeeded in locking down the Iraq/Syria border, but the Iran/Iraq border is wide open. Now WHY would arms dealers want to get in that way? :sarcasm:

Iran is undoubtedly responsible for the entire world trade in small arms. :sarcasm:

Iran really, really wants to overthrow an Iraqi government directly controlled by its own SCIRI allies. :sarcasm:

Yes.

Good luck ever getting a straight answer from her.