It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hillary Blasts Bush Over Iran

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 08:33 AM
link   
NY Senator Hillary Clinton sharply criticized the Bush administration over its handling of the Iranian nuclear crisis, saying it has been "downplaying" the threat posed by Iran. She further attacked Bush for relying on the European EU-3 negotiating team to deal with the situation:



ynetnews

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton issued a scathing attack on the Bush Administration, charging the U.S. government has wasted precious time in dealing with the looming Iranian nuclear threat.

"I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations," Clinton said during a speech at Princeton University, referring to American willingness to allow European powers to handle talks with Teheran.

"We cannot and should not - must not - permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," Clinton added. "In order to prevent that from occurring, we must have more support vigorously and publicly expressed by China and Russia, and we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United Nations."


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Hillary has staked out a position to the right of Bush on Iran, and I must say she is right. The problem with Iran is more serious than it's being made out to be and something needs to be done immediately.




posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 08:39 AM
link   
This is just the start of Hillary trying to appear presidential.
She's set to announce her run. Probably October or so is
when she'll do it. That's my guess.

She's definately the Dem. front runner and assumed Dem.
nominee for the 2008 run. She HAS to make these statements.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Yeah well, usually I don't like criticising ol' President Clinton, but this time she's just using this to Bushbash...

for once the Bush Administration has acted reasonabely prudently and allowed existing diplomatic missions from Europe follow course before beginning any major sabre rattling or cries for sanctions...

Clinton shouldn't try to go more sensationalist-right wing on foreign policy issues... it doesn't go with her hip east coast Senator image

[edit on 20-1-2006 by Qoelet]



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 08:50 AM
link   
I don't like Hilary. She's trying to ban violent video games, because they supposdly make kids violent.
I guess Hitler, Vlad, Khan, they all played GTA too?



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   
These petulent, childish assertions of "Bush bashing" are really getting to an annoying level.

She's a member of the opposition, a public figurehead and a politician with aspirations. Do you not expect her to criticise the actions of a Government that is clearly handling Iran with no tact at all?

So please, try to regurgitate a little more than talking points.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Qoelether hip east coast Senator image


lmao

she's not hip
she's not east coast.
she's a poser.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Crakeur ... now THAT is something I can agree with you on.
She's NOT East Coast. She's Arkansas through and through.

Hip and East Coast don't go together anymore. Not since
Kennedy and Kerry have taken over the N.E. Dem. image.
Both are buffoons. Biden is the only one from the N.E.
to escape that.

Nerdling - Yes, absolutely. As I said, this is just the start of
her trying to sound 'presidential'. Campaign season is about
to get started and she's definately the front runner for the
Dems against the Republicans. These types of comments
are to be expected. However ... I don't see that this administration
is not handling Iran with 'tact'. I see it handling Iran appropriately
- so far. But of course she can't say that, she's the 'opposition'.

I'm just glad it's her and not Kennedy or Kerry. Hillary comes
across more reasonable and actually competant ... whereas
Kennedy and/or Kerry just sound like sour grapes. If she has
complaints and voices them, then it opens up debate on the
subject instead of just political mud like Kennedy and Kerry draw.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Hillary seems to have a political identity crisis. She used to be this very liberal senator, then became more moderate, and now takes a position further right than the president. Whats going on here, its freaking me out. Really though, all kidding aside, people can be liberal or conservative and still hold consensus on views of the other side. I'm a conservative and I'm for gay rights, like Rudy Guilliani. I do think shes doing it for political gain, but I wont discount the possibility that its how she really feels on the subject of Iran, and yes she is right on this one.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 09:36 AM
link   
I agree with most of Hillary's analysis (surprisingly) but I disagree on her comments about working with Europe over negotiations. We (the U.S.) have a virtual total ban on trade with Iran already, so have very little leverage economically, but the EU does trade with Iran heavily, so it was at least feasible that Iran would listen to Europe.

Unfortunately, though, that has not worked and we need to be united in stopping Iran now.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Crakeur ... now THAT is something I can agree with you on.
She's NOT East Coast. She's Arkansas through and through.



when she was running for senate she had an office in my building (so did gore). the secret service would tie up the elevators whenever she came by. she'd try and talk to people in the lobby, try and shake hands with people and talk about the upcoming election. nobody wanted anything to do with her. everyone I know (except my mother in law) hates her (all new yorkers). to me she is the very embodiment of a politician. With most of them you can at least hold out hope that they can be trusted. She comes across as totally insincere.

there's a poll in today's NY Daily News. If she goes up against McCain, he'd get 52% of the vote to her 36%. In a race between Hillary and an unnamed republican (no name - testing to see the party boundary lines) she has 41% to 39% of the votes. That ain't grand.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris
Hillary seems to have a political identity crisis.


Man, you got that right! She's downright confusing!




Really though, all kidding aside, people can be liberal or conservative and still hold consensus on views of the other side.


So very true! I hold opinions on both sides of the spectrum, some quite extreme on both sides...


Nventual - I don't like Hillary either and I'm really concerned that she might be the 'other' choice to go up against the next BushCo representative. I don't want BushCo in the White House any longer, and regardless of who's next in their line, they'll be a continuation of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, I'm sure of that.

If Hillary's the Dem's choice, then there's really not much hope at all for this place...
I do agree with her that the gov't has wasted precious time, but on national security and other issues, not the Iran situation.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 01:26 PM
link   
I'm not Clinton lover, but she is right. The BEST way this can end is with a conventional war. The worst way it could end is to continue pointless negotiations until they have the bomb and there is nothing we can do.

I’m willing to go fight. Who is with me?





Man, you got that right! She's downright confusing!


What democrat isnt? They sway which ever way the wind blows.

[edit on 20-1-2006 by Dronetek]



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 01:32 PM
link   
everyone knows that diplomacy with Iran is a waste of time, especially if that UPI story of their planning a nuke test is true.

however, the White House has done the right thing, letting the other nations deal with it. Don't think for a second we don't have a hand in there somewhere. We just can't be the public face leading this charge.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 01:39 PM
link   
I'd agree with the identity crisis statement; except, Hillary is having no crisis of identity. She is as thoroughly calculating as ever. The question is, whose interest is she really representing?

She wants to be president so she is trying to out-Bush Bush (to the right). Go even more more hardcore. I wish she would keep her beak out of foreign policy altogether. She has no experience in that realm and throughout her pre-white house days and time there, she was no friend of the military.

Vote for her. She will tell you whatever you want to hear.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   
As far as Iran goes.. Bush has done the right thing by allowing the EU-3 to lead the diplomatic effort. China and Russia are opposed to an assault on Iran. They can cause us major headaches if they choose to not play ball.

I laughed the other day when I saw a headline declaring that the US government wanted to expand nuclear energy here. So why is it so inconcievable to believe Iran would like to use it, too?


ps on the Hillary thing.. You gotta love her big talk. It was her husband, Clinton the great, whose administration got chumped by North Korea.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
however, the White House has done the right thing, letting the other nations deal with it. Don't think for a second we don't have a hand in there somewhere.


Why are you so sure? I mean the White House wasn't so eager to let "other nations" deal with "it" when it was the issue of Iraq. How can I assume that W and the gang have more acumen now, when the situation is 100 times more serious?

I see the present administration as fairly incompetent, and had we not invaded Iraq, Iran's position would have been much less tenable, and we'd have so much more resources in case a real intervention becomes necessary.

I figure it's highly unlikely that Europe will go to war with Iran anyway, so it's less than clear what "dealing with it" can mean anyway.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 01:53 PM
link   
until now, dealing with it has been negotiating and keeping an open dialogue and now bringing it to the security council.

Iran hates the US and none of the meetings and negotiations etc would have happened had a bush cronie been directly involved. Now, is that good? Maybe not. Perhaps, by taking a more passive approach we have given them the time they needed to finalize their work. I don't know but I am going to take the approach that a US presence in those meetings would have meant Iran was not going to even be open to discussion so I stick with my opinion that a back seat, as it were, was proper here.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
until now, dealing with it has been negotiating and keeping an open dialogue and now bringing it to the security council.

Iran hates the US and none of the meetings and negotiations etc would have happened had a bush cronie been directly involved. Now, is that good? Maybe not. Perhaps, by taking a more passive approach we have given them the time they needed to finalize their work. I don't know but I am going to take the approach that a US presence in those meetings would have meant Iran was not going to even be open to discussion so I stick with my opinion that a back seat, as it were, was proper here.


Crakeur, I trust the opinion of www.stratfor.com on this. Basically Iran is not going to buckle on this, since it is their desire to become the leading Islamist state at any cost, even if it involves sacrifice, such as suffering air raides from XYZ Air Force. This seems consistent with the current events. If they get the bomb, it's a plus for them, if they don't, they have caused enough confrontation and political pain to the US and Israel, to achieve some of same goals anyway.


[edit on 20-1-2006 by Aelita]



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   
personally I think they are trying to lure Israel into attacking the nuclear sites so they can drag other nations onto their side.

I don't disagree that this is inevitable but I think that, had the US been more visibly involved from the beginning, any military actions would have been blamed on the war mongering, anti-muslim, anti-arab president.

this way, we are brought in as a UN member helping the UN coalition rather than a US led charge of the coalition of the willing



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dronetek
What democrat isnt? They sway which ever way the wind blows.


Oh, please! EVERY situation isn't about Dems vs Repubs and Liberals vs Conservatives. Hillary is doing this because of who SHE is (she hopes the next president), not because of some innate democrat disease...

[edit on 20-1-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



new topics




 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join