Current Article

“I think you have to restore the checks and balances and the separation of powers, which means reining in the presidency,” Clinton told the Boston Globe’s editorial board.

Clinton also said, she doesn’t agree with Bush’s expansion of authority under the “unitary executive theory;” she would only use signing statements to clarify bills that may be contradictory or confusing, and she would seek Russia’s help in negotiating with Iran over its suspected nuclear weapons program.

Today Clinton told the AP that she’d negotiate with Iran without preconditions.

“I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions, because we don’t really understand how Iran works. We think we do, from the outside, but I think that is misleading,” she said at an apple orchard.

She characterized her recent vote to label Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization as a way to gain leverage for those negotiations.

Finally, Keith Olbermann interviewed her last night and gave her another chance to explain her Kyl-Lieberman vote as well. [The Kyl-Lieberman amendment encouraged Bush to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.] Clinton reiterated that she saw her vote as a way to gain leverage for future negotiations with Iran. She doesn’t believe her vote constituted a declaration or act of war.

LBERMANN: Senator, a lot of people were mystified, couldn’t fathom your vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment that urged naming the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization, since it’s part of their governmental military structure, no matter what we might think of that government. With one constitutional scholar on our program who wondered if just the vote by itself might not constitute a kind of declaration or even act of war. Do you think it’s one of those?

CLINTON: Absolutely not. And I think people have either misunderstood or decided to misrepresent the meaning of that vote. I believe in using pressure and sanctions as a tool of diplomacy, and that includes against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

There is no doubt that they are a key sponsor of terrorism and that they have been providing weapons and advice to the people who are attacking and killing and maiming Americans in Iraq.

But I’ve also been, I think, among the first when I went to floor in February, to say the president had absolutely no authority to take any action against Iran. And I have joined up with Senator Jim Webb to put that into law.

rage

This corporate logoed beast will say anything she thinks will get the vote. Oil is the only reason Iran is at all remotely important to America. If the Iranian gross national product was born of cashews, figs, and dates, American Senators and Congressmen wouldn’t be able to find Tehran using Google Maps. The average voting Johns and Janes really couldn’t care less about the inner workings of the Iranian government, and stand to not benefit one iota from our plunder of Iranian natural resources. So, one more time, what is Shillary offering to check and balance with her support of Leibertool’s suggested pre-emptive aggression toward a sovereign nation which is no threat to America? With our military in a state of under-funded fragmentation, thanks to the Iraq occupation, what will her response be when America gets that ass whipped while trying to take Tehran? Is she also going to deploy contracted mercenaries who will conveniently fall under no nations legal jurisdiction? She can’t have it both ways. She can’t legitimately represent the interests of corporate personhood and regular voters too.
http://noquarterusa.net/ SusanUnPC

Bush has built up the power of the presidency, steadily weakening the other branches. I’ve been waiting for some time for a candidate to speak out on this issue … one concern in the back of my mind has been if any of the candidates, Republican or Democrat, would relinquish any of the new powers Bush brought to the office, or if they’d find the temptations of power too great.

It’s been very disappointing to me that debate questioners haven’t posed these questions to the candidates.

This is the first definitive statement by a major candidate on this very key issue. And I’m extremely pleased with Hillary Clinton’s attitude on checks and balances and the separations of power.

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Leslie

Yes, me too! Hope she keeps her promises, as she’s the front-runner now.

Shirin

Whether she, or any other politicians will keep campaign promises is always open to question. No politician can really be trusted in this regard.

Shirin

“I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions”

That’s interesting, given that not all that long ago she ripped Obama apart for saying the same thing.

“we don’t really understand how Iran works. We think we do, from the outside, but I think that is misleading”

How lame is that? You know, the more you know and understand about your interlocutor going INTO a negotiation, the better off you both will be at the end of it. By the application of just a small amount of effort the kind of ignorance you so lamely admit is easily remedied BEFORE you talk with Iran.

Hillary, if your American foreign policy advisers can’t help you figure out “how Iran works”, there are plenty of Irani nationals in academia and elsewhere in the United States who have no particular agenda outside of hoping to avoid further destruction, bloodshed, and chaos, specialize in “how Iran works”, know very, very well “how Iran works”, and are conversant with a lot of the latest developments inside Iran. Why, they even speak, read, write, and understand Persian language with native fluency – ’cause they ARE natives. And some of them are even members of religious minorities – I know one well respected specialist in Iran who is Iranian Armenian.

I am sure that if you only asked, they would be thrilled to help you to understand “how Iran works”, and to keep abreast of what is going on there, particularly given your apparent sudden loss of enthusiasm for bombing and newfound zeal for diplomacy instead. Or perhaps you should just try paying some attention to alternative/progressive media. Those guys write and speak often there. You could hear what they have to say without even contacting them directly.

“Clinton reiterated that she saw her vote as a way to gain leverage for future negotiations with Iran. She doesn’t believe her vote constituted a declaration or act of war.”

Then she is either an idiot or a liar. Just knowing that Lieberman sponsored the bill is enough to know that it is not about diplomacy, but about opening the doors for Bush to bomb…bomb…bomb…bombomb Eye ran.

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Leslie

Yes, you’re right, she did rip Obama apart for saying the same thing. Oh well, that’s politics. Still, I’m glad both her and Obama value diplomacy, and would engage in negotiations before going to war. Something Bush wouldn’t think of doing.

“How lame is that?” Maybe she’s referring to Bush, who doesn’t have a clue about anything including Iran. Seriously though, one would hope Hillary will have competent advisors if she’s elected.

Her Kyl-Lieberman vote worried me too. Bush is not to be trusted, and her vote on the Iraqi resolution in 2002 should’ve told her that. With any other president, the Kyl-Lieberman bill might not be interpreted as Congressional approval for war. But with Bush it very well may be interpreted that way, and it’s not worth the risk.

Regarding the other issues she speaks about above…I’d like her to do more than just talk about this, although what she says is a step in the right direction. I’d also like her to sponsor/support bills that will put her words into action.

Shirin

Leslie, it should be clear to everyone the very fact that Lieberman’s name is on that bill is evidence that it was INTENDED to serve as a green light. Furthermore, the very act of declaring part of a country’s military to be a terrorist organization is about as far from diplomacy as you can get – it is, in fact, extremely belligerant. Setting aside the fact that the United States, not Iran, is the one who is refusing to talk, if you want someone to sit down and discuss an issue with you, you do not encourage them by hurling threats and accusations and calling them names.

And, of course, there is the obvious fact that if you apply equally the criteria that they uses to declare the Iranian military to be terrorists, then the Pentagon and the CIA are both terrorist organizations.

I would like to think that Hillary is too bright to believe that bill was meant to facilitate diplomacy.

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Leslie

Shirin,
If you’re expecting an argument from me, you’ll get none regarding Kyl-Lieberman or Hillary’s vote on it.

But regarding Iran, you and I differ. Because, for one thing, Iran is no saint, just as the US isn’t either. Iran has a deserved reputation for sponsoring terrorism and suicide bombings. Therefore, the problem with Iran obtaining nukes is the possibility that they would provide materials to terrorists to build dirty bombs. Plus, I don’t believe any nation should have nukes or any weapons of mass destruction. They ought to be banned worldwide. Just a few thoughts…

Shirin

No, I wasn’t expecting an argument. }

Seriously, I am not sure what to think about Hillary’s claim that she thought her Iraq vote and her vote on Kyle/Lieberman were votes for diplomacy. It just doesn’t make sense, and I don’t know of anyone else who has made that claim about either bill.

lidia

“Clinton reiterated that she saw her vote as a way to gain leverage for future negotiations with Iran. She doesn’t believe her vote constituted a declaration or act of war.”

Shirin, she used the same excuse for voting green light for bombing Iraq.

Shirin

Yes, I know Lidia. It looks to me like either she is very blind and not smart, or she is lying, and either one does not make me feel encouraged.

Chris Vosburg

Shrin writes: That’s interesting, given that not all that long ago she ripped Obama apart for saying the same thing.

Can you be more specific? What did Obama actually say, and what was Hillary’s comment on it?

Quote, please.

Shirin

Chris, this exchanged took place during the most recent (I think) Democratic debate, and was widely reported and discussed. I am surprised you are unaware of it.

I don’t know whether there is a full transcript available of the debate. If I find one I will copy and paste from it. I do recall that she called Obama (who IS quite ignorant on international matters) Naive when he said he would talk directly with Iran, North Korea, and (I think) Syria.

Chris Vosburg

Shirin writes: I don’t know whether there is a full transcript available of the debate. If I find one I will copy and paste from it. I do recall that she called Obama (who IS quite ignorant on international matters) Naive when he said he would talk directly with Iran, North Korea, and (I think) Syria.

That’s funny, I googled (july democratic debate)up a transcript in a few seconds. Wanna know what’s missing from the transcript?

Well, for one, any instance of Hillary calling Barack “naive.” Second, any instance of Hillary calling Barack “irresponsible.” Third, any sign of disagreement between Hillary and Barack on this issue. Needless to say a read of the transcript will show that didn’t “rip Obama apart” for this.

So where did you get the idea that Hillary called Barack naive? Simple. From the AP article which TPM links to, here’s crack reporter Holly Ramer’s first line:

Hillary Rodham Clinton called Barack Obama naive when he said he’d meet with the leaders of Iran without precondition. Now she says she’d do the same thing, too.

The transcript doesn’t bear this out, so it would appear that you– and you too, Leslie– have been punked by an AP reporter with a narrative axe to grind; that Hillary is a flip-flopping flannel-mouthed liar, just like bad old Al Gore.

Transcript here.

Relevant portion reproduced below, and note that not only does Hillary agree with Barack Obama in it, but so does Edwards– with them both in fact. Stop the presses!

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

COOPER: I should also point out that Stephen is in the crowd tonight.

Senator Obama?

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.

And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We’ve been talking about Iraq — one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they’re going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.

They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region.

COOPER: I just want to check in with Stephen if he believes he got an answer to his question.

QUESTION: I seem to have a microphone in my hand. Well, I’d be interested in knowing what Hillary has to say to that question.

COOPER: Senator Clinton?

CLINTON: Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are.

I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don’t want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration.

And I will purse very vigorous diplomacy.

And I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way. But certainly, we’re not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Senator Edwards, would you meet with Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il?

EDWARDS: Yes, and I think actually Senator Clinton’s right though. Before that meeting takes place, we need to do the work, the diplomacy, to make sure that that meeting’s not going to be used for propaganda purposes, will not be used to just beat down the United States of America in the world community.

Shirin

Chris,

1. Apparently you missed the fact that Leslie has confirmed what I said took place. Hillary Clinton called Obama naive. I heard it with my own ears.

2. I have not say that Clinton called Obama irresponsible. Please give up your habit of putting words into my mouth. It does not work well with me.

3. I heard it myself with my own ears. Hillary Clinton ripped Obama apart and called him naive for saying he would talk to Iran, North Korea and to Hugo Chavez. He may also have said he would talk to Syria – I am not sure about that. She may have said these things in a subsequent interview and not in the debate, but I heard it myself, and so did a lot of other people, apparently including Leslie. It was widely publicized, and discussed.

Chris Vosburg

Shirin writes: Apparently you missed the fact that Leslie has confirmed what I said took place.

Don’t be silly. As I said, both you and Leslie appear to have been punked by the AP writer who planted this silly Hillary meme. Doesn’t make you bad, just wrong.

Shirin writes: Hillary Clinton called Obama naive. I heard it with my own ears.

Then why does it not appear in the transcript which I have excerpted and linked to above?

Look: The AP writer, mindful of the fact that she has a narrative to adhere to, says that Hillary called Barack naive. This wonderfully complements the trumped-up “Hillary Schools Newbie Obama” story that the press loves so much (because conflict is the meat and potatoes of the dramatist).

Only problem is, it’s a bogus narrative. You read the AP article. You read the transcript. There’s no instance in the transcript of Hillary calling Barack naive. She actually agrees with him, for heaven’s sake, that dialog is needed with all of these nations.

Face it: The AP writer actually led her piece with a statement that could perhaps charitably be described as opinion– but in a courtroom would be called perjury– to smear Hillary.

And you, Shirin, ever eagle-eyed for Hillary missteps, couldn’t resist this sloppy bit of Hillary-bashing. You fell for it, for no other reason than because you enjoyed the way it made Hillary look bad. That’s all there is to it.

Shirin again: Hillary Clinton ripped Obama apart and called him naive for saying he would talk to Iran, North Korea and to Hugo Chavez.

Which returns us to my first question.

Where? Clearly not in the debate you cite–but were unable to find a transcript for, incidentally– so where?

Shirin

“both you and Leslie appear to have been punked by the AP writer who planted this silly Hillary meme.”

I can’t speak for Leslie, but I did not even read the AP article, which I believe was published today. I heard this right after the debate took place – which was how many weeks ago now? – and long before the AP article came out.

What I do know is that I heard these things with my own ears. I can even see Hillary Clinton in my minds eye as she was speaking. It might have been in an interview or a press conference subsequent to the debate. Not everything that appears on TV has a transcript available.

You are free to not believe me. It makes no difference to me one way or the other, but I know what I heard. I also know I did not get it from that AP article, which I did not see until tonight.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Leslie

Chris and Shirin,
It’s been reported everywhere that Clinton called Obama naive: here, here. Believe Bill Clinton also called Obama naive. [Saw it on Huffington a while ago.] Just do a google search Chris, you’ll get lots of hits. It’s been part of Hillary’s strategy to paint Obama as inexperienced and naive.

But, regarding Clinton’s supposed flip-flopping on negotiating with Iran, she may not have:
From TPM’s the Horse’s Mouth here.” Then Taylor Marsh says the same thing here.

Shirin

Thanks, Leslie.

But come on! It is nearly 3:30 AM where you are, so go to sleep already!

Jeeeez! And I thought I was a night owl!

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Leslie

LOL. It’s Friday night sci-fi!

Chris Vosburg

Thanks, Leslie, for the link to the Davenport Iowa Quad Cities Times, who called Hillary to ask about her legislation, together with John Kerry, to rescind the authorization for the Iraq, uh, whatever the hell it is that Bush thinks he’s doing there.

Within this phone interview, one will in fact find the seeds of the tempest in a teapot that drives the current discourse about Hillary.

Apologies to Shirin especially, and you as well, for unfairly characterizing this as pure hokum.

That being said, it’s not pure hokum, just unfounded hokum.

It’s worth examining what Hillary actually did say in that interview, with context, so by way of penance, I’ve taken the time to transcibe the relevant portion of the mp3 of that phone conversation available at the Davenport-Iowa-newspaper-of-record’s website for you all. I find it highly instructive.

—————————–

I: I understand you want to talk about your legislation with Senator Kerry, and I want to ask you about that. During the debate last night, Senator Obama said that the time to ask how we’re going to get out of Iraq is before we got in, and that you didn’t think enough about an exit strategy before going to war. Did you?

C: Well, [laughing] absolutely. First of all, as I have said many times, this is a vote that I cast sincerely at the time. I would not vote that way were I to do it over again. But at the time, I joined with Senator Robert Byrd to put a one year limit on the congressional authorization, and that was not successful, and I regretted that, because we were giving the President authority to put inspectors back into Iraq but to back it up with with force, but I thought it should be limited to one year. Now we have to figure out how we’re going to move the President to change his policy in order to begin to bring our troops home, and that’s what Senator Kerry and I are focused on.

I: I don’t know if you’ve seen it, but Obama’s people said today that you basically reversed yourself last night by saying that you wouldn’t promise to meet with leaders of certain countries, but back in April you said it was a terrible mistake for the President to say that he wouldn’t– that he won’t talk with bad people. Was that a reversal?

C: Not at all. I think it is wrong for any President to say that he or she will not talk to people because they’re bad or they’re evil. But the question was very specific, as to whether either of us would talk to a list of leaders of five countries with which the United States has serious difficulties within the first year of becoming President, and I thought that was irresponsible and frankly naive to say that you would commit to meeting with Chavez and Castro and others within the first year. As I said last night, there needs to be a lot of diplomatic effort. When the President says that he’s not talking to these people, he means no one in his administration is doing the diplomatic spadework to get ready to have any kind of relationship of any sort. So I think the question was very specific and Senator Obama gave an answer which I think he’s regretting today.

I: That’s not to say that you wouldn’t rule out, or that you would rule out meeting with any of these leaders within the first year.

C: No, I said exactly what I meant, that I wouldn’t commit to doing that within the first year, and I think that you could very easily be used for propaganda purposes. If you’re not going to get anything from any kind of meeting with such leaders, why would you do it?

———————————

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Leslie

Chris,
I believe Talking Points Memo had Obama’s quote up today. Because Hillary has changed her position, so TPM was comparing the statements. Hillary’s remark to Obama occurred during one of the Dem debates.

http://noquarterusa.net/ SusanUnPC

Obama has torn into HRC for voting for the Kyl/Lieb. amendment.

Yet he didn’t have the cajones to vote himself. Yesterday, he was on with Wolf Blitzer — and Blitzer quizzed him repeatedly about why he didn’t vote. His (lame?) excuse was that he was campaigning in New Hampshire and that it’s hard to know when these votes will take place, and he couldn’t get back to the Senate. Please.

Also: One of Obama’s key supporters, Sen. Dick Durbin, also voted for Kyl/Lieberman.

Most important is that not voting on controversial bills is a pattern of Obama’s, and has been since he was in the state senate. He ducks. That is not leadership.

Shirin

“Obama has torn into HRC for voting for the Kyl/Lieb. amendment.”

As well he should have. It was an unconscionable vote.

And I agree with you about his cowardly habit of ducking out of “difficult” votes. That is one of several reasons that I do not support his candidacy.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Leslie

Yeah, he keeps missing those important votes. Yeah, that’s the excuse I heard too. You’d think if he knew the vote was going to come up that day, anytime that day, that he’d be in the Senate to vote on it. It was that important!

Shirin

Unless, of course, he was afraid to go on record either way. (hehehehehehe)

Retired

Good, insightful comments. It is frightening that she is a front runner for her party. Even more frightening when you take a look at Republican front runners. Do we have a rational choice for President, or must we choose between the lesser of evils? If the latter, what does this say about our society?

Shirin

There is no rational choice. In the primary I will vote for the person I would prefer to see as president, and not for the person I think has the best chance of winning. In the election for president, I will vote for a third party candidate.

In the meantime, I am looking for a new home. Right now Syria is looking very interesting to me, specifically Aleppo. It is a beautiful city with a very cultured population. I may retire there to continue my music studies. My music mentors have some connections there. It is also an excellent place to study high level Arabic literature. Culturally Syria is quite close to Iraq, and anyway by now there are a lot of Iraqis there, including some people I know.

dancewater

If she thinks that negotiations should be entered WITHOUT PRECONDITIONS, then why did she vote for Kyl-Lieberman and call their Revolutionary Guards terrorists? I guess that is not a precondition, it is a huge insult and saber-rattling move.
Bill Keyes

Rage

I agree completely.

Saying all this doesn’t be squat.

1..Hillary said…

“I think you have to restore the checks and balances and the separation of powers, which means reining in the presidency,”

Wow she thinks this is important!! Impressive…when did she have this revelation? Right after she took a high school reference course in civics? How is she going to do it? Send congress a letter saying saying ” You know guys I am not like King George and you should really reverse all those silly laws you passed when he had you by the short hairs!!

2. “Clinton also said, she doesn’t agree with Bush’s expansion of authority under the “unitary executive theory;”

Wow another enlightening statement!!…..maybe she believes his expansion of authority was okay it just should have been done a different way.

3.Today Clinton told the AP that she’d negotiate with Iran without preconditions.

Really?? Yet another enlightening statement.

Pres H……”Yes Mr. Iranian President we can talk with no preconditions”.

Pres A……..But but what about those ships off our shore????

Pres H……..Oh don’t worry about them there just playing big boys war games, . you know how guys are!!

Pres A…….How about my Rev Guards? They’re not really terrorists you know.

Pres H……Well that’s a good point, but that condition will have to stay.

Pres A……WHY??

Pres H……Well My predesessor The Almighty and Powerful OZ, oops I mean
King George, oops I mean The Honorable President of the Us,
George W. Bush deemed it so, so who am I to dispute it?

Pres A……Well, I don’t….uh…maybe ….

Pres H……No other questions, Pres A? Good now lets talk about all those
nukes you are making, shall we????

4. Hillary Said…..

“There is no doubt that they are a key sponsor of terrorism and that they have been providing weapons and advice to the people who are attacking and killing and maiming Americans in Iraq.”

“There is no doubt that they are a key sponsor of terrorism” Oh yeah says who?? any proof?? oh i get it if she says it it becomes gospel.

4…”…..that they have been providing weapons and advice to the people who are attacking and killing and maiming Americans in Iraq.” Same answer…..Oh yeah says who?? any proof?? Oh I get it if she says it it becomes gospel.

Who ya gonna believe???

Ghost Busters??

The Man Behind The Curtain??

Hillary???

The CIA??

The NID??

God???

Bill O’Reilly???

Sean Hannity???

Rush?? (Not the Rock Group silly)

The list goes on….

Add suggestions….

Take your pick…

Tally the votes…

The Winner is

????????????
sheerahkahn

“She doesn’t believe her vote constituted a declaration or act of war.”

I remember a chorus of people saying the same thing when the excrement hit the rotating oscillator in Iraq… “but…but…my vote wasn’t for war…wait…seriously…my vote was for…wait!…everyone, please, believe me…wait!”

If Ms. Clinton cannot see that her vote, regardless of her intent, could be used to escalate a war-footing with Iran…she has no business in politics, and she has no business being President of the United States.
We, as a nation, cannot afford that kind of naivete, or mistake again.
http://www.food4humanity.org hoosierhoops

“Clinton also said, she doesn’t agree with Bush’s expansion of authority under the “unitary executive theory;”

Can’t Clinton simply sign executive orders after taking office and reverse his rulings?
Isn’t that what Bush did to Clinton?
There will probably more resinding orders come out of hillary’s office in 30 days than Carter makes pills..
BTW.. Does Carter even make pills anymore? I haven’t seen one since i was a kid..
Which to bring up another saying..’More things than you could shake a stick at’
Has anyone ever shaken a stick at something?
I feel a Andy Rooney moment coming on. maybe i should lay down..
http://alansmithee.5u.com/blog AlanSmithee

sHillary says these things largely because she believes the people who vote for her are morons who will swallow anything she says so long as it sounds good. And, you know what?

She’s fucking right.
Ken Hoop

Even Durbin retreats to Zionist Lobby appeasement.
A Kucinich/Paul ticket anyone?
http://www.deadtide.com Kyle

She says whatever she thinks will get the votes. She’s Mitt Romney in a pantsuit. Nothing more, nothing less.
bg

“It looks to me like either she (Hillary) is very blind and not smart, or she is lying, and either one does not make me feel encouraged.”

Shirin,

She is not blind and she is very smart. That is why she is leading the polls. She knows how to move to the center on issues that will get her elected. She’s learned from the best on how to be a politician.

Diplomacy with Iran sounds great in theory, but may not be feasible in practice. You can negotiate with the elected officials, but the clergy who hold the real power (and control the IRGC) will not likely negotiate with a non-Islamic government. Not an easy solution either way, because bombing would have no great effect either.

The curious thing about the bill is the timing, why wasn’t IRGC put on the terror list back in the 80′s when they sponsored the Beirut bombings? I saw the interview on Olberman last night, I found it interesting that Hillary’s talking points about Iran sounded verbatim to Bush’s, that Iran is sponsoring terrorists killing American troops in Iraq. Perhaps when Hillary says she intends to extend diplomacy, perhaps she intends to extended diplomacy in a Clauswitz fashion (just as her hubby did with cruise missiles at suspected training camps and stray laser guided bombs landing in Chinese embassies).

Shirin

“the clergy who hold the real power (and control the IRGC) will not likely negotiate with a non-Islamic government.”

Pardon my bluntness, bg, but where on earth did you get this certifiable bullshit? They will negotiate with any government or entity of any kind that has something to offer and will negotiate with them.

Honestly, whoever fed you this steaming mile high pile of manure is an ignoramus steeped in bigotry.

“Not an easy solution either way, because bombing would have no great effect either.”

Oh, bombing will have an effect. Believe me, bombing WILL have an effect.

“why wasn’t IRGC put on the terror list back in the 80’s when they sponsored the Beirut bombings?”

1. I know it is popular to slap the terrorism label on any act of violence committed by someone the U.S. government does not like, but the Beirut bombings were by definition not terrorism.

2. Where is the proof that they sponsored the Beirut bombings?

3. If the Revolutionary Guard should be put on the terror list, then the Pentagon, the U.S. military, and the CIA deserve it even more.

4. Speaking of being on the terror list, why is the U.S. military working with MEK, an organization that has been on the terror list for a long time.

“I saw the interview on Olberman last night, I found it interesting that Hillary’s talking points about Iran sounded verbatim to Bush’s, that Iran is sponsoring terrorists killing American troops in Iraq.”

Yes, I find it quite interesting that Hillary is, to a great degree, echoing Bush’s very own talking points. That is one of several reasons that I will not vote for her.

A few points:

1. I know it is popular for Americans to slap the terrorist label on everyone they don’t like, but by definition, killing U.S. troops in Iraq is not terrorism, and those who are doing so are by definition not terrorists.

Attacking and killing troops who have used massive deadly and destructive violence to force their way into your country, to maintain a brutal and oppressive occupation, and to force the will of a foreign government on your country and its people is called resistance, not terrorism, and is legitimate and allowed under international law.

2. U.S. troops do not belong in Iraq. No one would be killing or in any way harming U.S. troops in Iraq if they were not there killing and destroying and harming Iraqis.

3. Where is the proof that Iran is responsible for killing U.S. troops in Iraq or anywhere else?

“Perhaps when Hillary says she intends to extend diplomacy, perhaps she intends to extended diplomacy in a Clauswitz fashion (just as her hubby did with cruise missiles at suspected training camps and stray laser guided bombs landing in Chinese embassies).”

Yes, well, don’t get me started on Bill Clinton’s genocidal record when it comes to Iraq. (Genocidal is not my word, it is the word used by two former U.N. humanitarian coordinators in Iraq and the Iraq director of WHO, all of whom resigned in disgust over what the sanctions were doing to the Iraqi people.)

Shirin

BG,

Further thought on the deeply ignorant and bigoted comment that the “clergy” who run Iran will not negotiate with a non-Islamic government (and I am not saying you personally are .bigoted, because I do not believe you are, you are just incorrectly informed):

To realize what utter rubbish this is, consider the fact that the Iranian government talk and negotiate and do business with non-Islamic governments and other entities all the time. They couldn’t manage in the world if they did not.

Two examples are China (atheist), and Russia (Christian/atheist).

You might also consider the fact that Iran has a significant non-Muslim population, including Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and a few others, all of whom, with the exception of the Baha’is, are fully recognized, have religious freedom, and receive government funds for their religious institutions. Sunnis in Iran, who are, of course Muslims, are actually treated less well than every other group except Baha’is.

Want more examples of why your contention is nonsense? I’ll be happy to oblige.

Retired

Thanks not only for breaking the code on Iran’s clerics, but sharing it with us. The clerics are about exclusive in dealing with fellow Muslims as the Chinese are exclusive in dealing with fellow communists.

Iranian clerics act in what they see as their paragmatic best interest. If this means cutting a deal with the Great Satan, they will do so. How much more evidence do we need of this than what is openly available to see with our own eyes?

Shirin

Retired, the notion that the Iranian clerics who run the country are a bunch of wild-eyed religious fanatics who think if non-Muslims as satan’s spawn is pure propaganda intended to demonize. As a matter of fact, overall they are more politically and socially moderate than Mr. Big Mouth Ahmadi Najad makes himself sound (and he is not nearly as outrageous as he is made out to be – many of his statements have been incorrectly or maliciously translated, usually by the notorious MEMRI, or simply misrepresented).

I forgot to include the fact that major religious minorities in Iran have representatives in the parliament and other parts of the government as well. The only two groups that encounter significant discrimination are Sunnis, who do not get equal support from the government for their religious institutions, and Baha’is who have no recognition, no religious freedom, and are horribly oppressed if they try to practice or express their religion. This is not random, and there are reasons for it, but it is certainly completely unacceptable.

GR3

Senator Clinton thinks the amendment was “a tool of diplomacy”? Her phrase gave me a good laugh. Maybe she is thinking of Condi and not the monsters in charge.
I hope if she is elected, they let her take the reins of government. We’ll see.
http://www.phoenixwoman.wordpress.com Charles

Does anyone understand what Clinton has done?

She provided the legal authority for Bush to attack the Revolutionary Guards, then issued a statement on the Senate floor saying that she, personally, thought he should ask for a Senate resolution to do anything about it. It’s analogous to signing a mortgage contract, then saying on the way out the door that the seller should knock 5% off the price.

I hope no one was taken in. She has handed Bush the rope to hang this nation with and is relying on all of us not to understand.
mudkitty

We understand. It’s bad. They want to rewrite the dictionary.
bg

Shirin,

Always good to hear from you, no need to apologize for bluntness.

“Honestly, whoever fed you this steaming mile high pile of manure is an ignoramus steeped in bigotry.”

I will address this one later, I need to look some stuff up for you.

“Oh, bombing will have an effect. Believe me, bombing WILL have an effect.”

Let me clarify, no Positive effect. I meant to say that bombing would not deter Iran from their past, present or future courses of action, if anything, it will solidify their position.

“but the Beirut bombings were by definition not terrorism.”

Interesting perspective, not sure I agree if we call terrorism an act intended to scare or intimidate someone else through violence or threats of violence. But from a military stand point, it was a very successful asymmetric attack which scared the US government to change policy.

However, further in your defense, if you were to use the State department’s definition of terrorism, “The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant/*/ targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”, than I have to agree with you. The Marines barracks was of course combatants, and I suppose you could argue that the CIA were in fact acting as unconventional combatants.

But my point was that the US did call it terror when in happened, regardless of definition. I question the timing of finally put IRGC on the list, not the circumstances or semantics of the word.

“If the Revolutionary Guard should be put on the terror list, then the Pentagon, the U.S. military, and the CIA deserve it even more.”

Agreed to a certain degree, that is why I don’t feel that IRGC should be on the list if we were to be completely intellectually honest with ourselves. I don’t care much for the way Iran does business, but I do respect their right to self defense, which I believe they’ve been practicing in the best way they can.

About the MEK, by our own laws, we should not be working with them. We had very strict orders in that regard. Back in 03, the MEK begged us to allow them to continue their fight against Iran, and many of us, myself included, were all for allowing the MEK to patrol the Iraq/Iran border. But our laws did not allow it.

“3. Where is the proof that Iran is responsible for killing U.S. troops in Iraq or anywhere else?”

We’ve had this argument before. The proof is abundant that Iranian agents are supporting Iraqis through training, materials and tactical leadership. It is very similar to how the CIA supported Muj against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. No CIA officers shot down any helicopters, but they did provide the Stingers and training. IRGC are providing training and EFPs to Shia militia in the same way. We’ve caught these materials moving across the border, the circuit boards have Iranian “fingerprints”.

Part of my comment about the difference between the clergy and executive branch goes back to the relationship with the IRGC. For the Iranian President (whose job is to negotiate with other governments), he has plausible deniability on all IRGC actions in the same way Eisenhower had plausible deniability of CIA cover and clandestine direct actions (he wasn’t always told what or how they did things).

Plausible deniability is the key word for the Iranian President, and the clergy’s control of the IRGC gives him that. That is part of the explanation about my comments regarding the clergy’s role. More to follow.

Shirin, just out of curiosity, who are you considering voting for President? Are there any candidates that you like? If there are no candidates you approve of, what would it take to get your vote?
CK

Ah the joy of being able to declare unilaterally that Alioto, Scalia, Thomas et.al. are really enemy combatants and have them summarily moved to Gitmo is just too sweet an exercise in realpolitic for any good demopublican to just give away. The ability to use the unitary powers of the presidency to silence Rush and Anne and BillO and some other mouthclowns.
In my pocket I have a little list… ( about 3500 and growing ).
Memories of Whitewater and the 6 year unending harrassment of her and hers could add more names to that list. I wonder how mellon Scaife will enjoy 8 years of IRS audits, sec investigations, and eventual enemy combatant status, after being expropriated of any assets and finding that anyone who might consider aiding him could be defined as an enemy combatant also and thus be expropriated also.
Power sweet sweet power power to balance the books on old scars, power to remind people that it isn’t nice to compare someone’s child to a dog and suggest that the death of that child would be a good thing. ( ah Mr Derbyshire might want to consider that actions have consequences and that the consequences are not always immediate.)
mudkitty

Can Shirin vote?

Shirin

Yes, Mudkitty, sorry to tell you that Shirin can vote. She is also allowed to vote.

Thinker

Charles, I was going to make an individual comment, but you took the words right out of my mouth. Drop any holiday plans to Iran, say, for the next 100 years.

I’ll say it differently. Clinton has shown she is a deceiver already issuing now you see it, now you don’t statements. The intelligent amongst us know she is working for the wrong side, which is why her term as President will be where the real battle for sovereignty takes place. The only change to that [outcome] is if she has a mishap, but they will do everything and anything to ensure that doesn’t happen. The best way of getting elected is to be put up against a cretin (*thinking* President Bush) – strike that- put up against an unpopular person.

Clinton has effectively given Bush the right to nuke Iran and then said it wasn’t my decision in advance [in case] I get elected. This means that Bush must nuke Iran or nothing will happen. He has said it is his intention, so why wouldn’t he do it? What’s stopping him?