VIDEO: President Clinton Warns Against Iran Attack
VIDEO: President Clinton Warns Against Iran Attack
During a speech Friday at Kansas State University, President Bill Clinton warned against a military strike on Iran, saying it was unclear whether “we could take out whatever incipient nuclear efforts they have,” and that even if we could, it is “not clear it would be the most effective strategy.”
“Attacking them is a whole different kettle of fish,” Clinton said. “There are three times as many people as live in Iraq.” Clinton pointed out the growing pressure on Iranian President Ahmadinejad from the country’s political establishment, including many conservative elites. He also noted that Iran’s population is decidedly more moderate and pro-American than its leadership. “What we have to keep in mind in all of our dealings with Iran is not to forget about where two-thirds of the people are, …those two-thirds of the people have nothing to do with the terrorist operations, the training, and a lot of these other problems we’ve got.”
“We may not have to go to war, and we may not have a disaster,” he said. “And my view is, no matter what [President Bush] says, you need to talk to everybody before you bomb them.” Watch it:
Transcript:
CLINTON: With Iran, I think that I agree with Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton’s commission, and I think that we should be talking to the Iranians because even the Iranians, even some of the conservatives, have repudiated some of President Ahmadinejad’s anti-Israel, Holocaust-denying remarks. And I won’t keep you here long so we can take more questions but let me just say to all of you this about Iran. First of all, attacking them is a whole different kettle of fish. Now, there are three times as many people as live in Iraq. It’s not clear that with an air strike we could take out whatever incipient nuclear efforts they have, depending on where they are, and it is also not clear it would be the most effective strategy for this reason. When I was president, Iran had six elections — two for mayors, two for congress, two for president. They were the only country in the entire world that, six times in a row, voted for the most progressive, outward looking candidate they could vote for by margins of 66 to 70 percent. The problem with Iran it is the only country in the world with two governments, and under their constitution, their religious council, which represents only a third of the people, controls the funds that go to terrorists, control the funds that go to intelligence, the foreign policy funds, and has the power to take candidates off the ballot and strike laws from the books or stop them from being enacted in the first place. So dealing with them is a total headache because you’re dealing with two government. And the government with all the people behind it, they like us and they want a future with us. And the other government won’t let them go over these humps, which means that it requires great care. And the most encouraging thing for you should be — I can’t answer your question. We can’t make a deal with a government committed to destroying Israel, because we have to tell them if they do that we’ll destroy them. But the most encouraging thing to you should be is that Ahmadinejad has now been rebuked in his extremist statements by a lot of the conservatives. And you should also know the voters in Iran did not vote for him because of this. That is not why he won. He won because they voted six times for the progressives and the conservative bloc stopped them at every turn, so that the average voter’s life never got better. … So what we have to keep in mind in all of our dealings with Iran is not to forget about where two-thirds of the people are, even if those two-thirds of the people have nothing to do with the terrorist operations, the training, and a lot of these other problems we’ve got. I still believe — by the way, let me say something else I agree with. I think the Bush administration has done a better job than most people know in imposing these economic sanctions. It is not true that economic sanctions are always ineffective. They are working pretty well with Iran partly because finally because the Russians and the Chinese and others do not want the Iranians to have a nuclear weapon and set off an arms race in the Middle East. So they are actually working better than people think. Don’t give up on the fact that the political system may feel the squeeze from economic sanctions. We may not have to go to war, and we may not have a disaster, and my view is, no matter what he says, you need to talk to everybody before you bomb them. In other words, if you are going to fight with somebody, I don’t care what you don’t have in common with them, you should talk first. That way, if it happens, people respect you more.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Excelent advice. Sadly, Bush will probably ignore it.
March 5th, 2007 at 8:15 pmGee, talking to them and trying diplomacy before bombing them.
What a concept!
I don’t think Shrubby will listen, unfortunately
March 5th, 2007 at 8:22 pmAbout time he said it.
It may help that Poppy and likely the Saudis also want to restrain the Cheneyburton administration from this course of action.
But like Bowdler sez. Commander Bunnypants views himself as the anti-Clinton. We are so screwed.
March 5th, 2007 at 8:23 pmSigh. “We may not have to go to war”, “you need to talk to everybody before you bomb them” etc. Clinton is an imperialist just as Bush is – if not quite as stupid. But it’s sad to see. First we get Obama sucking up to AIPAC, now we get Clinton suggesting we have a right to make Iran’s decisions for them (when it is the US who is constantly violating the NPT).
March 5th, 2007 at 8:26 pmBill is right again and this time doubly so. Two-thirds of the Iranians are pro-America and two-thirds of the Americans are pro-American. Why should two-thirds of the population of two countries be subject to the petty demagoguery of the other outcast one-third. It is true that America need a regime change–here at home.
March 5th, 2007 at 8:29 pmVery sensible, Pres Clinton.
Cue the rabid trolls…..
March 5th, 2007 at 8:30 pmEven Bill Clinton seems to be on board with this imperial American view of the planet as our yard to police and bully as we like. Our last intervention in Iran, back in 1953, under President Eisenhower, was a “regime change…” Unfortunately, we (our CIA) helped in the overthrew the Iranian democracy and replaced it with the vile vicious dictator Shah, who tortured and murdered thousands of Iranians. Guess why would the Iranian people and the Iranian leadership be leery of the Bush crime family and their evil machinations in the Middle East…
Perhaps it is time to review the 20th century imperial involvement of the western powers in Iraq. From the 16th century to early in the 20th century, the area which is now Iraq was ruled by the Ottoman Sultanate (the Turkish Empire), which was centered in Constantinople, Turkey. The ancient city of Constantinople, which lies on the Straits of Bosporus, is now called Istanbul. At the end of World War I, the Ottoman Empire collapsed and Britain and France vied for control of the oil deposits that had been discovered in Iraq. The British forces gained the upper hand and won out. There was fierce resistance by the local peoples: Iraqis and Kurds, but British military strength and its superior firepower won out. It should be noted that the British had promised the all middle eastern Arab peoples that they would be allowed to become independent as a reward for opposing the Ottoman Empire in World War I, but that promise was broken.
Incidentally, the British military forces dropped poisonous gas from airplanes on the Kurdish-Iraqi people in the town of Sulamnailya in 1925. This was the first use of “weapons of mass destruction (WMDs)†in Iraq. It was also the first use of airplanes to deliver poison gas.
March 5th, 2007 at 8:38 pmWhen it came to dividing up the Iraqi oil reserves after World War I, the British, the French, the Dutch and the Americans each finally agreed to having equal shares of 23.75% apiece.
President Dinkledorf (Bush) doesn’t listen to anyone but God. Talking to God is fine. But if you hear God talking to you, you are certifiably insane!
March 5th, 2007 at 8:40 pmHmm, I wonder how Sec. State Bill Clinton sounds? Pretty good to me!
March 5th, 2007 at 8:44 pm#9 Ugh, could we please go a couple of decades without either a Clinton or a Bush in the administration? I am so sick of machine politics.
March 5th, 2007 at 8:48 pmThere is nothing that President Clinton said there with which I disagree.
March 5th, 2007 at 8:52 pm“And my view is, no matter what [Bush] says, you need to talk to everybody before you bomb them.â€
NOOOOOOOO! … jeeeez…
what he SHOULD have said is “you need to talk to everybody AND YOU WON’T HAVE TO BOMB ANYONE.”
f’n appeasers… c’mon, bill… NO DAMN BOMBS.
March 5th, 2007 at 8:52 pm.
Bill is, of course, right. Therefore, Bush will do the wrong thing. I see no upside for this administration to attack Iran…I truly think it will be the event that forces the impeachment on the table. It will be war crimes for Bush and we will be his accomplices if we don’t stop him.
March 5th, 2007 at 8:54 pmA little Realpolitik is what we need and what I think Clinton could provide. Certainly better than what we have now at Foggy Bottom.
March 5th, 2007 at 8:55 pmThere is nothing that President Clinton said there with which I disagree.
Comment by Exley
Oy, that had to hurt.
Now try this: I agree Pres Clinton.
March 5th, 2007 at 8:56 pmIt’s good that Clinton expressed his opinion, but as most people here tonight have observed, it won’t make any difference because Bushie does what Bushie wants. Consequences, schmosequences. The boy-king gets what he wants – always has, always will.
March 5th, 2007 at 8:57 pmI agree, President Clinton.
March 5th, 2007 at 8:57 pm#10 jpark
March 5th, 2007 at 8:59 pmDoesn’t an Obama/Richardson ticket sound appealing and winnable?
“What we have to keep in mind in all of our dealings with Iran is not to forget about where two-thirds of the people are, …those two-thirds of the people have nothing to do with the terrorist operations,…”
was Clinton talking about Iran or the US?
we have a similar problem: 1/3 of the people support a fascist organization that terrorizes the other 2/3s of the US population, as well as the rest of the world.
March 5th, 2007 at 8:59 pmListening to the clip I am reminded how much I miss BILL Clinton, a statesman. I also shudder at the thought of President Hillary Clinton. They should not be confused or intertwined. Hillary is Bush without the Stetson but with more functional brain cells.
March 5th, 2007 at 9:04 pmI agree, President Clinton.
Comment by Exley
Everything still intact? :)
March 5th, 2007 at 9:07 pm8: I read somewhere else, maybe Slate or the HufPo: If you think it is delusional for the suicide bombers to think that they will get 72 black eyed virgins, how delusional is it for Bush to believe he will rise up into Jesus’ arms on a mushroom cloud of his own lighting. Or something like that.
March 5th, 2007 at 9:09 pm11: Exley I applaud the shimmer of common sense. We must be rubbing off.
#18 I think Richardson would be an excellent VP with his diplomatic experience but I am worried about Obama. He seems to be married to the DLC. Maybe the primary fight with Clinton will drive him to be more independent from the Washington insiders.
March 5th, 2007 at 9:10 pmI’m a little dizzy, Zooey….But I think I’ll make it.
Actually, I frequently found myself in agreement with Clinton on foreign policy issues when he was in office.
March 5th, 2007 at 9:11 pm#20 Well, I wouldn’t go that far. Hillary is McCain is Hillary. Those two are interchangeable. What a horrid presidential race those two would make.
March 5th, 2007 at 9:12 pmWasn’t the country better off when he was prez?
March 5th, 2007 at 9:15 pmFinally, Clinton speaks for the people.
March 5th, 2007 at 9:20 pmI’m a little dizzy, Zooey….But I think I’ll make it.
Cognitive dissonance — it passes.
Actually, I frequently found myself in agreement with Clinton on foreign policy issues when he was in office.
Comment by Exley
And now you’re in agreement with him while he’s out of office. Easy!
March 5th, 2007 at 9:21 pmClinton was completely correct and had a great speech there. He is correct and the terrorist leaders are get more pressure from the Iranian public to back down. We need to help put that pressure on and get more Iranians on our side. Furthermore, Clinton is correct that we absolutely should talk with Iran even if they don’t stop enrichment. Please note however that Clinton never said that war isn’t an option. He said we “may not” and obviously hopes we can talk the terrorist leaders out of this war. He, like his wife still realize that we cannot take the military card off the table. He also realizes if talks fail, we cannot allow them to continue enrichment and would be forced to at a minimum bomb the piss out of every nuke site and every area that is needed for production, etc. If that still doesn’t work, as clilnton suggest when saying that bombing may not take all the sites out, we then obviously have to invade full force which wouldn’t be pretty but neccessary. Overthrowing the terrorist regime however would be nice as 2/3 of Iranians are pro American and everyone who is sane wants Freedom and Democracy. No sane person wants to live under a dictator or a THeocracy.
March 5th, 2007 at 9:25 pm#23 jpark
March 5th, 2007 at 9:29 pmKeep checking in on Obama as time goes on — I think you will see he is not “in bed” with anyone other than his wife. He will have to get in the game if he is to win, but so far, he seems pretty principled to me.
He gives me hope after 6 years of increasing despair.
Richardson brings diplomatic experience, former ambassador, good governor in NM, and his southwestern state has the electoral college potential.
Clinton shouldn’t be running his mouth about things he knows very little about. He isn’t in the intelligence loop anymore as far as Washington DC, and his spouting off is dangerous for national security concerns.
He needs to be muzzled. And if you Democrats don’t do it, I will.
I liked Bill much better when he was playing the role of victim in his BJ impeachment.
March 5th, 2007 at 9:34 pm/Roger Roger….
“everyone who is sane wants Freedom and Democracy. No sane person wants to live under a dictator or a THeocracy”
I trust you would also extend this benign wish upon the people of the United States and not solely upon the Iranians. If so, join those of us who want to remove the BushChaney junta and jail them.
March 5th, 2007 at 9:36 pmKing of Prussia….I see you support that other would be King, the BushChimperor, who is the REALLY dangerous person to our national security…an insane, deluded, christian fanatic who should be locked up before dawn for the safety of my children.
March 5th, 2007 at 9:38 pmActually, I frequently found myself in agreement with Clinton on foreign policy issues when he was in office.
Comment by Exley
But of course you are, my war-loving friend. There are no parties in the US when it comes to foreign policy. Clinton bombed 5 countries and he was a Dem.
March 5th, 2007 at 9:40 pmWhen it comes to foreign policy, Northrop, Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics decide whose the next evil doer to bomb. You just follow the propaganda, like in the old Stalin days.
Hey King of DoodleySquat–close your pie hole you freakin’ A-hole. Clinton knows a great deal more about most things than a good many people. And for yer info, ANY former president can request daily intel briefings. And considering his credentials as a Rhodes Scholar and a law degree from Yale he’s probably more in touch with reality than Gentleman C Cheerleader Dubya.
In other news…
And how much of the Former President’s speech was covered by NPR or any of the mainstream media?
The Neo-Con Zionists are itching to eradicate Iran. Think of all the oil and power they will control then!
March 5th, 2007 at 9:40 pmIn case you missed it during his 8 year Presidency, Clinton is a globalization junkie.
Despite all of the Social programs (blocked) pointing to his liberal side, Clinton has always been VERY pro-business. He didn’t stand in the way of any international trade agreements, he supported deregulation as did his three predecessors.
In the ways of the free market, Clinton was as Republican as anyone. When the bubble burst, you may recall that Forbe etal. named it the “Clinton Bubble” even though they pushed for the deregulation that caused it (needed a Democrat to blame), and still do. Recall, Clnton’s relationship with poultry companies while Governor.
His stances are more moderate than the neocons to be sure, but Thom Friedmann and Clinton think alot alike when it comes to globalization.
March 5th, 2007 at 9:42 pm#30 My mind is open right now. I haven’t chosen a candidate (unless Gore runs). However, I am not thrilled about the Obama-Lieberman relationship. Obama chose Holy Joe to mentor him. Obama is a faithful Lieberman defender and I have not seen him take any bold, progressive steps. I would like to like Obama (he is only one state away) but he has a steep hill to climb.
March 5th, 2007 at 9:44 pmClinton shouldn’t be running his mouth about things he knows very little about.
Wow, that has to be one of the most insane comments I have ever seen, kinglet.
March 5th, 2007 at 9:46 pmHow many mainstream radio and TV outlets covered Clinton’s address? The man is privy to daily intel briefings if he wants them. ANY American president is. As a Rhodes Scholar he likely know more about what he’s saying than Dubya does.
March 5th, 2007 at 9:47 pmHe needs to be muzzled. And if you Democrats don’t do it, I will.
Is that a threat? Do we need to notify the Secret Service?
March 5th, 2007 at 9:48 pmf’n appeasers… c’mon, bill… NO DAMN BOMBS.
Comment by katy
Katy, he is part of the ruling class. He wont say anything that could go against the true leaders of US: corporations.
March 5th, 2007 at 9:50 pmComment by Marie #30
Good politics…
…requires IMPECCABLE timing…
…Obama’s going to need more divine intervention…
…than any candidate in history…
…judging from the fact that he’s even in this thing…
…(as his backers FULLY vetted him in their pre-announcement enclave)…
…says that there won’t be much of ANYTHING derogatory for the media to FIND on him…
…which means they’ll have to INVENT something…
…and lord knows they’re TRYING…
March 5th, 2007 at 9:50 pmComment by james k. sayre
Hey, james, interesting post. Could you provide some links?
March 5th, 2007 at 9:51 pmThe media are PUSHING Obama DOWN OUR THROATS just the way they did John Kerry.
Howard Dean was the popular favorite if any of you can recall, until the electronic media wizards DOCTORED his now INFAMOUS DEAN SCREAM SPEECH by omitting the ambient noise level in the room and amplifying his response to the crowd’s enthusiasm for his message.
OBAMA IS NOT PROGRESSIVE; and if he endorsed Joe Lieberman, well he might as well NOT be a Democrat. Lieberman isn’t.
March 5th, 2007 at 9:52 pmIran should be left alone. They are a greeat nation. A model for humanity whosrs human rights puts ours to shame. I hope the wipe Israel off the map there’s peace in the Middle East. If the Iranian Army comes here I would welcome them as liberators!
March 5th, 2007 at 9:53 pmLong live Iran!
No, Juan…The fact that I can agree with and support an individual’s actions, regardless of party, shows I judge each individual action on its merits and in context. Conversely, you seem to criticize and condemn reflexively whatever action the U.S. undertakes, without regard to the unique factual circunstances surrounding each action.
March 5th, 2007 at 9:55 pm#32 Bush is a bad president but I don’t see any legal reason to “jail” him. Luckily we live in a free country with rules that mandate presidents only get 2 terms. In 2008, Bush is gone thank god. Now if only the Dems are smart and nominate Obama or Gore so you folks win for once.
March 5th, 2007 at 9:55 pmIs that a threat? Do we need to notify the Secret Service?
Comment by JPark
Only in your own psychopathic realm do you interpret such things.
March 5th, 2007 at 9:55 pm#43 should be left alone. If backed into a corner it might strike. Plus, it just isn’t very bright.
March 5th, 2007 at 9:56 pmLET’S NOT FOGET…ALBERT GORE WON THE 2000 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. HE WON THE POPULAR VOTE AND SUBSEQUENT REVELATIONS IN FLORIDA AND THE REPUBLICAN MACHINE THERE UNDER JEB (The Bubba Brother) AND KATE HARRIS (The NutCase) GORE LIKELY WON THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE TOO, UNTIL 50,000 DEMOCRATIC VOTERS WERE WIPED OFF THE VOTERS’ ROLLS.
March 5th, 2007 at 9:56 pmGORE HAS PROVEN HE CAN WIN.
AMERICA HAS NOT PROVEN THAT IT HAS BECOME ANYTHING OTHER THAN A CORRUPT BANANA REPUBLIC.
#44 Well, as soon as something good comes out of the administration, you go ahead and let us know.
March 5th, 2007 at 9:57 pmKing, you said you were going to muzzle a former president. What delusion leap is it to assume it is a threat?
March 5th, 2007 at 9:59 pmBill Clinton needs to tell that to Bush Seniors face, so that he can call up Bush Junior to cancel his plan to bomb the crap out of Iran in late March.
March 5th, 2007 at 9:59 pm#45 Heh, you asked for it. Come on folks, how about a laundry list of all of the things Bush deserves jailing for? I will start…illegal wiretapping.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:00 pm#51 Bush hates his father, he would do it out of spite.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:01 pmTHE MEDIA ARE SHOVING OBAMA DOWN OUR THROATS. YOU CAN’T POSSIBLY BELIEVE THAT IN A MATCH-UP WITH GIULIANI OR McCAIN, THE HEARTLAND AND DEEP SOUTH WILL VOTE FOR OBAMA!!! HE CAN’T WIN!
March 5th, 2007 at 10:01 pmThis is the 2004 Redux. THEY GAVE US KERRY WHEN WE ACTUALLY WANTED DEAN. They smeared Dean with doctored audio in the infamous Dean Scream Speech. And that’s all it took to push ignorant couch potato Americans into the Kerry and Republican camps.
The Ayatollahs of Iran are wise men who’s wisdom the America should follow. Bin Laden is also a great man. He’s the Che of our era.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:01 pmIran and Al-Qaeda will be victorious and free us the enslaved masses!
Conversely, you seem to criticize and condemn reflexively whatever action the U.S. undertakes, without regard to the unique factual circunstances surrounding each action.
Comment by Exley
Please tell me, in which one of the 180+ occupations, invasions and landings, US forces DIDNT kill civilians?
March 5th, 2007 at 10:02 pmClinton is a world traveler who has kept his finger on the pulse of the world for far longer than Bush ever has or will. I would sooner listen to what he thinks we should do to resolve our problems with Iran than anyone else quite frankly. Especially that sychnopant Condi Rice over @ State or Cheney.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:02 pmI am not thrilled about the Obama-Lieberman relationship. Obama chose Holy Joe to mentor him. Obama is a faithful Lieberman defender…
Comment by JPark #36
First of all…
…No one despises Joe Lieberman’s treachery MORE than do I…
…having said that…
…Joe Lieberman used to be a good man…
…he worked for civil rights, and believed in equality and justice…
…Lieberman is now wrong, and when someone is wrong on matters of life and death…
…he/she must be shunned…
…If- as you have asserted- Barrack Obama chose Lieberman as his mentor…
…that occurred during the time when Lieberman was a good human being, and certainly a good Democrat…
…Hell, we can all remember when Lieberman was a VP candidate for the Democratic Party…
…and I (for one) voted for him…
…but that was a number of years ago and under different circumstances to be sure…
…If YOU jpark are accusing Barrack Obama of an alliance with TRAITOR Joe NOW/presently…
…please provide irrefutable evidence…
March 5th, 2007 at 10:03 pmObama Rama, do you work for Karl Rove?
March 5th, 2007 at 10:03 pm…the Obama-Lieberman relationship. Obama chose Holy Joe to mentor him. Obama is a faithful Lieberman defender…
Comment by JPark — March 5, 2007 @ 9:44 pm
HUH??? really??? i’ve never heard of that…
March 5th, 2007 at 10:05 pmoh no! say it ain’t so!!! … what do you mean???
I miss your wisdom, Mr. President.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:10 pmemobiles,
March 5th, 2007 at 10:11 pmYes I work for Karl Rove. He pays me personally. In fact I had lunch with him today.
big papa > somebody needs to tell Obama to stay clear away from Traitor Joe Lieberman. Old Joe is completely radioactive now and any association with him is the kiss of political death.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:11 pmJay Randal,
March 5th, 2007 at 10:13 pmYou support the Ayatollahs right?
Jay,
March 5th, 2007 at 10:14 pmWhat do you think of Hillary’s mock Souther accent? It was great right?
#58 Check your timeline. How long has Obama been in Congress. Now…how long has Joe been a traitor? Yes, Lieberman was a Bush-kisser in 2004. He didn’t certainly turn in 2006 (by the way, Obama supported him then too).
March 5th, 2007 at 10:16 pmObama,
March 5th, 2007 at 10:16 pmI wish Bush would attack Iran. It would lead to more deaths and chaos. The more American troops he better it helps us Democrats. In fact I love seeing dead and wounded soldiers since it helps our side!
Careful, Exley, you hang around here much more and you might just become….progressive!
March 5th, 2007 at 10:17 pmRama > if you like Traitor Joe LIE-berman, then you need help badly.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:17 pmI hope Iran would shoot down all our planes if we attack. It would embarras Bush and help the Dems. More deaths=more votes!
March 5th, 2007 at 10:19 pmPost 67 is not me > that is an imposter troll. TP has promised us to remove name hijacker trolls on here.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:20 pmPost 70 is NOT my comment either.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:20 pm45: “#32 Bush is a bad president but I don’t see any legal reason to “jail†him.”
March 5th, 2007 at 10:21 pmThe list of things Bush should die in jail for: Lieing to Congress, violating treaties (Geneva Conventions comes to mind), Lieing to the american public, and over 1 billion (by my estimation) counts of violating FISA. There are many many more crimes. Just think of how many acts of aiding war profiteering do you think he performed. Bush has committed so many crimes that: if I were a jailed murderer, I would think that it was a gip that I was in jail and that Bush wasn’t in jail.
Bush should be put on trail and then have Bin Laden cut his head off!
March 5th, 2007 at 10:24 pmCheck your timeline
Comment by JPark #66
Check your own timeline…
…jpark…
…I believe that since your last post was just MORE propaganda…
…with no REAL proof to back it up…
…you’re just shootin’ the sh*t…
…and I don’t banter idly with propagandists and haters…
…so put up…
…or quietly slink away…
March 5th, 2007 at 10:26 pm#65
That is exactly why she wouldn’t win a single southern state.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:26 pm#74
Anyone for taking Jay up on his proposal?
March 5th, 2007 at 10:27 pmHow about: Crimes against Humanity, Torture, kidnapping, false imprisonment, murder, accessory to murder, conspiracy, negligent homicide,
March 5th, 2007 at 10:28 pmand wanton and reckless disregard for the English Language.
HUH??? really??? i’ve never heard of that…
oh no! say it ain’t so!!! … what do you mean???
See above. Also, Obama voted for cloture on both Supreme Court Justices. He ripped Durbin when he made his Nazi gaffe. He said all option were on the table for Iran (specifically missle strikes). He voted for the PATRIOT Act Reauthorization. He opposes gay marriage. Honestly, his overall voting record is good. Much better than Hillary but he runs away from the left in the media. I hope he can embrace his progressiveness.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:31 pmPost 74 is NOT my comment either. You have been reported to TP hijacker troll and you will be banned from posting on here. Now go to bed before your mommy spanks your bottom.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:31 pm#75 Hmm, and I thought I was a reasonable person with honest worries about Obama. Guess I was wrong.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:32 pmComment by Tracy #77
T’rashy,
…post #74…
…is NOT Jay…
March 5th, 2007 at 10:34 pmHUH??? really??? i’ve never heard of that…
oh no! say it ain’t so!!! … what do you mean???
Comment by katy
Yes, Lieberman is Obama’s Senate mentor. As a freshman senator, it is customary for a more experienced Senator to show a freshman senator his or her way around and give tips on how to work in the Senate. Show them the ropes, so to speak.
Usually a Senator is assigned, usually the state’s elder Senator if of the same party. Obama supposedly asked for Lieberman.
It is a fact, Lieberman was Obama’s mentor in the Senate.
Did Obama really support Lieberman?
http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/2/2006/1472
March 5th, 2007 at 10:35 pmClinton is a lying scumbag. Why would you libbies believe a word he said?
Hey question, think of all of the scandals during the Clinton years, how many of their friends turned up dead, and White Water and Monica. Now, how many scandals has Bush had?
Answer libs: 0. He restored honor to the Presidency from lying Will.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:35 pmBill Clinton like all Democrats are simply, the lesser of two evils.
Either you get imperialism or imperialism lite, but unfortunately there is no politician nor party brave enough to remove our military from the 73 countries they are now in.
Foreign terrorism would go away, and we could repeal the Patriot Act and stop worrying about that chicken little threat, and instead concentrate on the much more likely chicken little threat of getting hit by lightning!
March 5th, 2007 at 10:38 pmHoly Christ, a president who can speak, talk intelligently, say the truth, and understand nuance and actual world affairs.
I forgot what it was like.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:38 pmwanton and reckless disregard for the English Language.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
Add, warrantless wiretaps, violation of the civil rights of US citizens.
and add the savage raping of the English Language.
“Makes sense to me, don’t it?” — Shrub 6/6/06
March 5th, 2007 at 10:39 pm“we have a tendency to demonize and jump on and make mockery of each other across the aisle, and that is particularly pronounced when we make mistakes. Each and every one of us is going to make a mistake once in a while … and what we hope is that our track record of service, the scope of how we’ve operated and interacted with people, will override whatever particular mistake we make.”
-Barack Obama-
Thanks for the link Wayne…
…Cockburn is obviously an Obama-hater…
…but I’ll let Obama’s insightful quote…
…speak to jpark’s (#81) reasonable “concern”…
March 5th, 2007 at 10:46 pm#68,
I guess anything’s possible, BnF … But, like I said, I often agree with Clinton when it came to foreign policy, so, it is not altogether surprising that I agree with what he is saying here.
But, on the flip-side, I am somewhat surprised to see such widespread agreement with Clinton’s remarks. He did say some things here that I think would make many posters here livid:
“We can’t make a deal with a government committed to destroying Israel, because we have to tell them if they do that we’ll destroy them.”
“By the way, let me say something else I agree with. I think the Bush administration has done a better job than most people know in imposing these economic sanctions.”
March 5th, 2007 at 10:48 pm#88 I think you meant to put the reasonable in quotes. You are clearly an Obama lover that denies that Obama has a close relationship with Lieberman.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:51 pm#88 By the way Cockburn is as left as they come. Why would he dislike Obama if he were truly a progressive?
March 5th, 2007 at 10:52 pm#88 Is David Sirota an Obama hater? Beats me.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060626/sirota/2
March 5th, 2007 at 10:56 pm…Cockburn is obviously an Obama-hater…
Comment by big papa
Yep, and nowhere did I find a quote of lieberman’s bragging, that’s why I said supposedly. I don’t know heh
Obama did stump for Lieberman up untill Lieberman lost the primary.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:56 pmWhich is not supprising, since they are friends. He didn’t after the primary as far as I know.
#80
That sinks that someone is hijacking your name. I take it you are not going to use the BS Bill Maher defense?
March 5th, 2007 at 11:02 pmComment by JPark #81
Comment by Wayne #83
jpark,
Had you provided the link that WAYNE so astutely and courteously did…
…you would have avoided the appearance of being merely another muckraking Obama-hater…
…like that Coburn fella…
…nonetheless after reading WAYNE’s link “Did Obama Really support Lieberman”…
…I can merely give you my take on THAT singular incident…
…in what was apparently supposed to be a Democratic “unifying” event BEFORE elections…
…Obama (reaching out to the Lieberman of old)…
…sought to save Lieberman from embarrassment and keep an ally for the Democrats in the process…
…he failed in the latter…
…but he tried and took one for the Party- that certainly everyone acknowledges needs Lieberman’s vote…
…Having said that…
…jpark I now understand why you have “concerns”…
…but believe they are for naught…
…Obama is no closet warmongering Lieberman/Bushite…
AGAIN, Thanks Wayne!!!
March 5th, 2007 at 11:02 pm#95 Respectfully, that goes against what he has said.
U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0409250111sep25,1,4555304.story
March 5th, 2007 at 11:12 pmYou are clearly an Obama lover…
Comment by JPark #90
jpark,
You’ve clearly mischaracterized my opinion of Senator Obama…
…To be sure…
…I admire his demeanor, his style, his message, and his temperament…
…but LOVE no politician…
…love is a very personal and intimate emotion…
…and there is NOTHING personal in what I have for Barack Obama…
March 5th, 2007 at 11:13 pm#97 My apologies. Please read the link in #96. It is disturbing.
March 5th, 2007 at 11:15 pmComment by JPark #96
I thank you for your “respectful” and intelligent response…
…and offer this as a rebuttal:
1) What presidential candidate (or one hoping to run for president) can- if asked- respond that he/she would not use military force if necessary to protect and defend the nation?
2) again I’ll let Senator Obama answer for himself, later in the article it reads:
“Obama said the United States must first address Iran’s attempt to gain nuclear capabilities by going before the United Nations Security Council and lobbying the international community to apply more pressure on Iran to cease nuclear activities.”
3) One must (with any politician running for president or any office of great responsibility) ask onesself if one can “read” the character of said candidate with any true accuracy and assuredness…
Do you (jpark) believe that Obama is MORE prone to plunge this country into unnecessary (and disastrous) military conflict BEFORE say:
Rudy
John McCain
Duncan Hunter
Mitt Romney
Hillary Clinton
Al Gore
John Edwards
?…
March 5th, 2007 at 11:28 pm#99 With that response…yes, I believe Gore and Edwards would be less likely to go with the bombing over diplomacy. Again, I am keeping my mind somewhat open (unless Gore runs). I don’t trust Obama at this time but that could change in the next year and a half. I know that the question was loaded but bombing Iran is simply the most self-destructive action I can think of at this point.
March 5th, 2007 at 11:34 pmPlease tell me, in which one of the 180+ occupations, invasions and landings, US forces DIDNT kill civilians?
Comment by Juan C
I knew you couldnt.
March 5th, 2007 at 11:35 pmComment by big papa
Comment by JPark
I haven’t decided yet on any Dem candidate yet, except for Republican-Lite Hillary. She supported the Repukes in some pretty awfull bills over the last 6 years
That’s one I don’t trust at all now.
March 5th, 2007 at 11:39 pm#102 That is my stance too. I sure wish my Senator would run. He may not win but I would feel better about voting for Feingold than I have felt about anything. I am leaning toward Edwards but he has some things that really bother me, also. I sure hope it isn’t Giulliani vs. Hillary. I might have to go Republican for the first time ever. Let the flaming begin. :)
March 5th, 2007 at 11:43 pm#101, It’s not that I couldn’t, Juan. It is that I intentionally chose to ignore your attempt to divert from the topic at hand. The fact is that I judge each situation on its own merits. That is why I can support or criticize an administration’s actions, regardless of party. Conversely, you are seemingly incapable of weighing the facts, circumstances, and context of each unique situation before rendering a judgment. That makes you a classic ideologue, which is defined as “an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology.”
March 5th, 2007 at 11:52 pm#104 LOL, and you are still wrong most of the time…amazing.
March 5th, 2007 at 11:58 pmBy the way, Juan:
Your words on July 24, 2006:
Self-defense is what the Iraqi insurgency is doing…
Comment by Juan C — July 24, 2006 @ 6:32 pm
News from Iraq today:
March 6, 2007
Baghdad Car Bomb Kills 20 on Booksellers’ Row
New York Times
BAGHDAD, March 5 — The book market along Mutanabi Street was a throwback to the Baghdad of old, the days of students browsing for texts, turbaned clerics hunting down religious tomes and cafe intellectuals debating politics over backgammon.
Somehow it survived the war, until Monday, when a powerful suicide car bomb hit the market, slicing through the heart of the capital’s intellectual scene. It killed at least 20 people and wounded more than 65.
In the hours after the noontime explosion, books and stationery, some tied in charred bundles, littered the block. Plumes of black smoke billowed above ornate buildings dating to the Ottoman Empire. The storied Shahbandar cafe, where elderly writers puffed away the afternoon on water pipes, lay in ruins … This part of Baghdad dates back centuries, to the era when the Abbasid caliphate ruled over the Islamic world. On Monday, victims lacerated by shrapnel were carried over shards of glass to waiting ambulances.
“There are no Americans or Iraqi politicians here — there are only Iraqi intellectuals who represent themselves and their homeland, plus stationery and book dealers,†said Abdul Baqi Faidhullah, 61, a poet who frequently visits the street. “Those who did this are like savage machines intent on harvesting souls and killing all bright minds.â€
March 6th, 2007 at 12:07 amIt is that I intentionally chose to ignore your attempt to divert from the topic at hand.
Comment by Exley
I didnt divert from your comment about my supposed hate against the US. I guess the question is valid viceversa, why does the US hate the world? You choose sticking to your nationalism and throwing empty phrases like God Bless America, before criticizing the actions of your government regarding foregin policy. Your record is shameful, I am not responsible for that, I didnt invent all this, I am not hating anybody, I have not killed civilians, I could speak the same about the Soviet Union or Saudi Arabia if you wish, but Im not a hypocrite. I am sticking to the principles my parents gave me, regardless of nations and flags.
You couldnt answer that question cuz there is no truthful answer that doesnt hurt you.
That makes you a classic ideologue, which is defined as “an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology.â€
March 6th, 2007 at 12:16 amComment by Exley
Call me and define me as you please. I dont support murderers nor murderer regimes like you do.
I honestly don’t care to much outside of Clinton. If you folks nominate her, you lost your marbles. She is a loser canidate. Get Gore to run and if you can’t pick Obama. Don’t know much about Obama yet, but his charm will make him a landslide Lock. Gore is my pick however and yes my vote would be Gore! If you nominate Clinton, not only will much of the left’s base not show up, you will also get every single repug in the world to vote against her. It simply doesn’t make any sense to nominate a loser like Clinton.
Back to the topic of this post. Bill Clinton’s speech was dead on. Hopefully this won’t matter if TP is correct and Iran just stopped enrichment, but who knows. Bill is very smart in these matters for some reason. I like the idea of offering talks regardless of if they are enriching or not. I also like the Fact that Bill will use the Military card if talks fail as he realizes we cannot allow Iran to enrich Uranium for any reason. He also pointed out that if Iran attack one of our allies, we will destroy them. These are strong words that certainly wouldn’t sit well with the terrorist leaders of Iran. It would also offer talks with them if they want. Either way, they would know that they either fully stop all nuke activity or get destroyed.
March 6th, 2007 at 12:22 amEx, from britannica.com
Main Entry: in·sur·rec·tion
Pronunciation: “in(t)-s&-’rek-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Late Latin insurrection-, insurrectio, from insurgere
: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government
So book sellers are the imposed government? BTW, who are the ones selling weapons to terrorists? mmmm…
March 6th, 2007 at 12:23 am#107 You are wrong. If Hillary is nominated you and I both lose. She will win.
March 6th, 2007 at 12:27 am#108, So, Juan, you finally admit that what is going on in Iraq is not “insurgency,” but terrorism. Good. That is a good first step.
Next, you need to withdraw your previously stated defense of these terrorists, such as when you wrote:
“Self-defense is what the Iraqi insurgency is doing…”
March 6th, 2007 at 12:33 amComment by Juan C — July 24, 2006 @ 6:32 pm
Read again my last post, Ex.
Come on, Im watching Carlos Tevez first goal in West Ham.
March 6th, 2007 at 12:43 am#111 Well, enjoy that, Juan…I have another three weeks until baseball season begins…It’s late here. Good night.
March 6th, 2007 at 12:45 am#110 How did you get that out of Juan’s post? Wishful thinking?
March 6th, 2007 at 12:46 amTake care, Ex.
March 6th, 2007 at 12:52 ambig papa,
Your timeline is dead wrong. JPark’s is right. How can you be such a simple fool?
Shrugs shoulders and merrily strides away.
March 6th, 2007 at 1:26 amBush has some good support on this blog. Bill Clinton is only needed when Bush messes up or the Katrina victims need help as Bush watches them beg for help on TV. Bill Clinton and all ex Presidents are giving all the information that involves the govenment. So he is well informed. If only those who support Bush in the bombing of Iran would join the military in the combat zone. But no like Bush and Cheney who were to scared to join the military just sit back and send others. All Americans did very well during the Clinton years yes even Republicans. The Stock Market was doing well and the United States was out of debt. Now after only 6 years well you know the story and feel the pain. So talk about Bill all you want he is respected around the world and is intelligent and will always be there when asked to clean up after the mess made by Bush and Cheney.
March 6th, 2007 at 1:36 am#116 Sadly you were misinformed about the USA being “out of debt”. Clinton had one year he reported a surplus of $559 billion, but the true books using legal accounting principles showed a $484 billion deficit. Also, this was for ONE YEAR. The USA was still easily over $40 trillion in debt. Hell, I can’t remember when the USA wasn’t in debt. Had to be about the year before Social Secuirty started.
March 6th, 2007 at 1:40 amI am an Iranian, we have no fear if USA attack us, its just a madness and like a natural disaster, cause there would be no reason for such attack, and there is no reason for the consequences of earthquake
USA is like a bull which is freed,
and we would be bad luck if he strike us,
but it would be not harmless for them too
if its supposed we loss something, no other country would be relaxed,
March 6th, 2007 at 1:50 amno oil ship will pass Persain gulf safely
no american would be safe in his house
Had to be about the year before Social Secuirty started.
Comment by Roger_Roger
That would be 1934.
March 6th, 2007 at 2:03 amSince S.S. began in 1935 it has more than paid for itself.
Get your facts straight.
no american would be safe in his house
Comment by ali
Ali,if Iran is attacked,it won’t be because the American people approve it.
March 6th, 2007 at 2:11 amIt will be because we have madmen running this country.
I can’t say that I disapprove of your sentiment,though;let’s hope that it doesn’t happen.
What on earth is this guy talking about…??
March 6th, 2007 at 3:17 amHow many times does this administration have to say it has not intentions of going to war with Iran? Did you not hear them? WTF?
And BTW, I am tired of hearing the “Just talk to them†argument. Perhaps in a world full of dope smoking daisy sniffers that might work but in this world there are real people with real ambitions and they will kill you in a heartbeat while your trying to come up with the words to make them stop.
Just be a “Nice Guy†and no one will bother you, Why don’t you try that approach in the inner-city of any city in this country, just skip down to gangland USA and ask everybody to “Stop it†and play nice and see how long you survive.
I guess what I am trying to say is Get Your Head Out Of Your Ass!
Good men and women in this country are out there every day putting there asses on the line so you can feel safe, You keep talking like you know everything and speak about them in a condescending manner and there gonna get tired of protecting you and throw your ass to the wolves.
March 6th, 2007 at 7:15 am“Good men and women in this country are out there every day putting there asses on the line so you can feel safe.”
Comment by Ziggy
Dubya’s war has made the entire world LESS SAFE. He is a war criminal who is killing people for the sake of oil, Israel and imperialism.
March 6th, 2007 at 8:50 amComment by campground molester #115
…please be more specific…
…about the timeline I mean…
March 6th, 2007 at 9:21 am#119 How has it paid for itself? Even the Dems acknowledge that SS will die and bankrupt America if we don’t drastically change it. NO ONE thinks that we can do nothing. It is a fact that SS will die if we don’t change it. Greenspan has suggested we increase the retirement age to 75 or 76 to buy us a little more time to fix it. I am with Greenspan on this as long that the current retired folks continue to get their benefits even if they aren’t 75. Furthermore, we should remove the income cap on SS. If we did both these things SS would easily get another 20-25 years before going broke and bankrubting America. In the end, the Feds are going to have to reduce what we get back Drastically.
March 6th, 2007 at 9:39 am“We may not have to go to war, and we may not have a disaster,†he said. “And my view is, no matter what [President Bush] says, you need to talk to everybody before you bomb them.â€
Clinton what a f*cking hypocrite!!!
March 6th, 2007 at 12:11 pmFollow your own advice Bubba!
He needs to be muzzled. And if you Democrats don’t do it, I will.
Comment by the King of Prussia
You stupid as*hole, what the hell are you going to do about anything? Shut the fu*k up!!!!
March 6th, 2007 at 12:23 pmRIGHT YOU ARE, WILD BILL!!!!!
March 6th, 2007 at 3:32 pmJeez could he waffle any more, or say anything more limp.
“it was unclear whether “we could take out whatever incipient nuclear efforts they have,†and that even if we could, it is “not clear it would be the most effective strategy”
What i take away from this mealy mouthed statement is – he’s suggesting taking out their “incipient” nuclear efforts might be a reasonable thing to do – but then he backs off with a “not clear it would be effective” crapola
Get off the fence Bill and say something that has punch. Get some principles or the Democratic voters will completely ignore you and Hilary.
March 9th, 2007 at 7:50 pmWhat Bill and Hilary should be saying
Stop the war, bring the troops home now, withdraw the funding, stop all aggressive acts in the Middle East. Stop all US aggression in the world period. Withdraw the insane pre-emptive war doctrine NOW.
March 9th, 2007 at 7:52 pmFor the first time, I Agree with clinton, bush should have no business attacking Iran, talking with them is only the solution.
Hopefully another southern person will win in 2008 and that’s John Edwards.
March 15th, 2007 at 12:32 am