You have commented 358 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
Hillary Clinton calls for UN sanctions against Iran
2006-01-19
PRINCETON, New Jersey - US Sen. Hillary Clinton called for United Nations sanctions against Iran as it resumes its nuclear program and faulted the Bush administration for “downplaying” the threat. In an address Wednesday evening at Princeton University, a Democrat representing New York state, said it was a mistake for the United States to have Britain, France and Germany head up nuclear talks with Iran over the past 2 1/2 years. Last week, Iran resumed nuclear research in a move Teheran claims is for energy, not weapons. “I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and chose to outsource the negotiations,” Clinton said.
But I thought going it alone and not involving the international community was being "unilateral"?

While Clinton was critical of the administration, she never mentioned the president by name and did not engage in the same sort of sharp rhetorical attack against him or other Republicans as she did earlier this week.

In her wide-ranging speech before some 800 Princeton students, staff and alumni gathered to inaugurate the new S. Daniel Abraham Visiting Professor in Middle East Policy Studies Chair in Middle East Studies at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Clinton addressed several hotspots in the Middle East. She spoke about the United States’ close ties with Israel and called on Palestinian leaders to help forge a new peace process - and to provide better service to the Palestinian people. She applauded nations such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia for making recent gains in women’s rights.

And Clinton called for the United States to reduce the number of American troops in Iraq, leaving a smaller strike force. “This will help us stabilize their government and will send a message to Iran that they do not have a free hand despite their personal and religious connections,” she said. Clinton said that the United States has an important role in stabilizing the Middle East, in part because America offers a brand of optimism that can make a difference.

“History has weighed heavily on the Middle East. What we have tried to do over the last 30 years, starting with President Carter, moving through other presidents, including my husband, and now this president, is to send a uniquely American message: `It can get better. Just get over it.”’
I don't know if I would have mentioned Jimmy Carter and Iran in the same speech, but I'm glad you did.
Posted by:Steve

#12  So .com tell us how you really feel about Hildabeast. I love to read a good ass chewin here on Rantburg. Well said.
Posted by: 49 Pan   2006-01-19 20:55  

#11  I'm waiting for some wit to scam the kooky left that not only is Hillary demanding to go to war *now*, but that the rest of the kooky left support her.

That is "Hillary is leading the whole herd! Are you conforming, or not? ON TO WAR!" Just to see how many would knee-jerk instantly to call for war with Iran.

Posted by: Anonymoose   2006-01-19 20:34  

#10  Bullshit, lh. That's a novel form of moral equivalency - I'll give you the dubious credit for inventing it. BUT...

To draw the comparison you did is disingenuous and a slur upon two honest hard-working civil servants (real ones, go figure!) doing the incredibly thankless tasks for the President in the Tranzi Arena.

The entire current Tranzi Tower of Babble and Corruption must be consigned to history's dustbin - and it will be, just as previous failures. Many of us get it, have so for some time. Many more are beginning to get it. When enough get it, it will be gone. Until then, President Bush has to check off the boxes. Go figure, but he deals within the envelope of reality, unlike the brain-fartlet spewers.

As for your comment - well - to be blunt, such apparent naive trust in blatantly corrupt institutions and the intentional slander of good people in favor of blatantly partisan politicians is, at this point in time, an indicator of either purely partisan bullshit - or BDS.

Hillary is not Dr Rice, nor is she John Bolton. She's not in the same class - and never has been - by a long shot. She's a lying political partisan with a wet finger in the wind. She's a media whore who wants to be The President - cuz that's all that remains for such an ambitious example of the lust for power.

Posted by: .com   2006-01-19 14:19  

#9  Agreed, Liberalhawk. I don't think China would allow the Security Council to implement sanctions against Iran. Someone saying there should be is another matter. I still think this is posturing on Hillary's part.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2006-01-19 14:18  

#8  "She is so clueless. The UN will never issue sanctions against Iran as long as China and Russia are getting oil and nuke development contracts"

in that case John Bolton and Condi Rice are clueless as well.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2006-01-19 13:50  

#7  TOMANON, I think she does know calling for sanctions is meaningless. This has nothing to do with actual reality and everything to do with political posturing. She can sit back and say the Bush Administration let Iran get nukes all the while ignoring the Democrat' insistance on letting Europe lead the way on this. The Media will forget all about how they villified Bush for doing things without "Our European Allies". This makes her appear to be tough on Iran. Appearance is everything.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2006-01-19 11:46  

#6  F*cking unilateral warmongering b*tch.
Posted by: BH   2006-01-19 11:44  

#5  She's taking on Al Gore in his weak spot - foreign policy.
Posted by: Pappy   2006-01-19 11:31  

#4  falming? I ment flaming.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2006-01-19 11:06  

#3  She is so clueless. The UN will never issue sanctions against Iran as long as China and Russia are getting oil and nuke development contracts. Never... If she was to exhibit any clue she would recognize that this situation can more likely be set up, as her husband did, just like Bosnia/Kosovo/etc., as a NATO action.
Posted by: TomAnon   2006-01-19 11:06  

#2  Her statement of a few days ago when she said the House of Representatives was run like a Plantation drew a some criticism from the more centrist members of the Democratic Party. She was playing to her true base, the really liberal Democrats. I think that was a very calculated statement to see just how much criticism she would get and it turned out to be not all that much. This statement was made to assure the more Centrist Democrats that she is not a falming leftie. She knows she can't win by being soft on Iran od the War on Terror and she also can't win by being waht the far left wants so she's trying to appear more to the center. I don't think it will work but who knows, they nominated Kerry the last time.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2006-01-19 11:05  

#1  She's been bleating about a lot lately, trying to raise her profile.
Posted by: Frank G   2006-01-19 09:59  

00:00