Hillary on Iran: "No Option Must Be Taken Off the Table"

Raw Story reports that Hillary Clinton gave a speech at an event by the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC Friday night in which she refused to rule out using miltary force with Iran.

Clinton told some 1,700 AIPAC supporters that the US must take any step to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," she said. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."

"To deny the Holocaust places Iran's leadership in company with the most despicable bigots and historical revisionists," she added. Clinton excoriated the Iranian administration's "pro-terrorist, anti-American, anti-Israeli rhetoric."

"We need to use every tool at our disposal, including diplomatic and economic in addition to the threat and use of military force," she added.


She didn't say we're going to war with Iran. She said she's not ruling it out. If, as New Yorker investigative reporter Sy Hersh reported last April, a classified CIA report has found there is no "firm evidence" Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons, and that doesn't change, I don't think Hillary would initiate a war with Iran.

As Hersh said last week in a speech he gave, it's Bush we need to be worried about because there's two years left on his term.

Let's keep our eye on the ball. It's Bush, not Hillary, who presents the clear and present danger.

Update: Iran and Bush related: Joe Conason:

Whatever George W. Bush may tell us about his intentions toward Iran, every action and order indicates that he will seek to expand the war eastward from Iraq. Despite the warnings voiced by wiser military and diplomatic advisors, the President still seems to be listening to the same discredited neoconservatives whose fantasies and falsehoods drove us into the Iraqi quagmire.

Also check out Larisa at At-Largely who follows all things Iran-related.

And, Tapped's Ezra Klein talks to John Edwards on Iran.

< NYPD Releases Disturbing Stop-and-Frisk Statistics | You Get What You Pay For >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Lies (none / 0) (#1)
    by Edger on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 12:19:28 PM EST
    "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."

    Bush keeps saying the same thing. And Bush keeps taking the diplomatic option... off the table.

    AIPAC (none / 0) (#2)
    by squeaky on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 12:26:47 PM EST
    I read another version of the story which reported that she toned down the warmongering toward Iran and the crowd did  not applaud. In other words she got an icy response because she did not deliver the required warmongering, no holds barred tough talk.

    Our elected leaders are afraid of pissing off AIPAC and that is a big problem:

    Despite her thinly veiled support of the Bush Doctrine, the AIPAC people at the dinner at which Hillary spoke did not feel she was bellicose enough, according to the NY Post:

    Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton drew grumbles at a pro-Israel dinner in Times Square last night when she encouraged "engaging" with Iran before taking stronger action to keep it nuke-free.....

    .....Clinton's remarks at the Marriott Marquis were met with little applause , and after she left the stage, several people said they were put off by the presidential candidate.

    "This is the wrong crowd to do that with," said one person at the dinner, noting the pro-Israel crowd wanted to hear tougher rhetoric.


    And this video clip: (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 12:29:23 PM EST
    Sounds good... but (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 12:47:18 PM EST
    By January 2009 it'll be too late to not vote for her (assuming she wins the nomination) if she "forgets" she said "I will".

    Sorry (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 12:49:27 PM EST
    That was meant to be a reply to Squeaky

    Hillary Clinton: a clear and present danger (none / 0) (#6)
    by Andreas on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 02:22:24 PM EST
    Both George Walker Bush and Hillary Clinton present a clear and present danger. Clinton is one of the main representatives of US imperialism.

    Aipac traitors (none / 0) (#7)
    by bernarda on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 02:32:33 PM EST
    "the most despicable bigots and historical revisionists" are Israelis with their denial of Nakba. Well, also the Aipac brown-nosers like Clinton, Edwards, and Pelosi.

    What does Aipac's site say,

    "For more than half a century, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee has worked to help make Israel more secure by ensuring that American support remains strong."

    Nothing about making America more secure. Also,

    "As America's leading pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC works with both Democratic and Republican political leaders around the country to ensure that the U.S.-Israel relationship remains strong and vital. With the support of its members nationwide, AIPAC has worked with Congress and the Executive Branch on numerous critical initiatives, including:"

    The list is long, but only about Israel.

    Just what is the definition of a traitor?

    Brzezinski warns that Bush is seeking pretext (none / 0) (#8)
    by Andreas on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 02:40:31 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton is making clear that she will support the war on Iran which the Bush/Cheney-regime is preparing. Those who support Clinton will share resonsibility for this mass murder.

    The WSWS writes:

    Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser in the Carter administration, delivered a scathing critique of the war in Iraq and warned that the Bush administration's policy was leading inevitably to a war with Iran, with incalculable consequences for US imperialism in the Middle East and internationally.

    A political bombshell from Zbigniew Brzezinski
    Ex-national security adviser warns that Bush is seeking a pretext to attack Iran

    By Barry Grey in Washington DC, 2 February 2007

    Killer rabbit (1.00 / 1) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 09:44:38 AM EST
    Yeah. The NSA guy for the President who got us into this mess, and who is watching his creditability disappear, spouts off.

    Tell him to go see if he can defend us against that killer rabbit that attacked Carter. He sure as heck did nothing about Iran when he had the chance.


    Completely appropriate (none / 0) (#9)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 03:43:34 PM EST

    If Hillary wants to be prez, it is completely appropriate to leave all options on the table.  Taking any option off the table before negotiations start would seem poor negotiation strategy.

    AIPAC is the Israeli Right (none / 0) (#11)
    by jondee on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 04:46:07 PM EST
    The Israeli Right has to triangulate the same way the American Right and, even, what could be called the Iranian Right does; which means, inpractice, compromising on all sides with the all-or-nothing, millenialist nut factions operating in The Greater Israel, Rapture Ready America and Sharia Law Now Iran. And yeah, Im making "a moral equivalence" between all religious factions that believe, in effect that The Great Warlord in the Sky has reserved the prime real estate and other special favors for some (us), but not for others (them). Right now AIPAC is firmly in the hands of the Israeli Right (not Israel) and Hillary is, if not in the hands of AIPAC, scared to death of them.

    Of course (none / 0) (#12)
    by jondee on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 04:49:09 PM EST
    every good, obedient, wingnut knows that the Israeli Right is Israel, just as the Rethugs are America.