The Left Coaster: Comment on How Senator Clinton Alone is So Devastatingly Wrong On Iran

Comments: How Senator Clinton Alone is So Devastatingly Wrong On Iran

Thank you so much for taking on the Reality-Based Community, eriposte! Nice to know my instincts were correct from the beginning - people on the left are also willing to believe catchphrases and halftruths to back their own prejudices. 'Course it makes them just as human as everyone else. Good lesson for all of us.

What I'd love to see you tackle next? The whole Hillary as victim shit. I'd like to slap Ferraro for coming out and whining that the boys were picking on the girl, but seeing the headline "Clinton Surrogate says Attacks were Sexist!" at TPM made me want to puke. A supporter is not a "surrogate" no matter how many committes she runs, and unless Ferraro is official spokeswoman of the campaign, she's on her own with the victim garbage.

Posted by iamcoyote at November 6, 2007 09:22 AM

Eriposte, if you want to see sober judgment from an Obama supporter, you have to check out this diary:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/6/11825/4247

Pakistan is falling apart, so what's the obvious answer? Attack Hillary!

Posted by MarkL at November 6, 2007 09:32 AM

"...this type of saber-rattling is happening through the words of Obama and Edwards as well...."

So we should vote for Hillary because Obama and Edwards are doing it too?

b-b-but Kyle-Liebermann isn't dangerous. Then why did Hillary sign a letter (a LETTER!) saying that K-L didn't authorize war? Sorry but you're trying to have it both ways.

Posted by Gay Veteran at November 6, 2007 10:11 AM

If Kyle-Liebermann truly is not a step towards war with Iran then WHY did Hillary subsequently help "...Sen. Jim Webb spearhead a letter to the White House which warned Bush not to take any military action against Iran without Congressional approval...." (Thursday :: Nov 1, 2007, Obama, Biden Refuse To Sign Warning Letter To Bush On Iran, by Jeff Dinelli)?

Sorry, but she is playing both sides of the street.

Posted by Gay Veteran at November 6, 2007 10:17 AM

Seems to me that Clinton, Obama and Edwards are more similar than different. Clinton has more experience (but not more than Biden, Dodd, or Richardson). Despite her being labeled as polarizing, it seems that once people get to know her, they find they can work with her and can find common ground. I don't think she would be that divisive as president--of course the question is whether people who don't know her personally will get over this label she has and vote for her.

I think Obama can also work with people and maybe bring them together. I think he's a little green, but if he chooses his cabinet and advisers well, he should do ok.

I actually think Edwards could be the most divisive and the least able to bring people together. I think he's dedicated to his causes, which can be a good thing, but too much of a good thing just gets us nowhere.

Posted by CG at November 6, 2007 10:32 AM

Edwards, in these times of offshoring of American jobs and declining real income, is willing to return to the Democrats' economic populist roots. He is the anti-Reagan.

Posted by Gay Veteran at November 6, 2007 10:54 AM

scout, your grammar is worse than Bush's.

Posted by T2 at November 6, 2007 11:13 AM

the ash-tray says you were up all night

you finally went to sleep as the sun caught fire

you've changed

Posted by baby arm at November 6, 2007 11:17 AM

here is today's quiz: Which world leader is being described in this quote from the New York Times:
"This is what you get when policy is centered slavishly on a single, autocratic ruler rather than more broadly on his country."
Is it Bush or Musharraf?

Posted by T2 at November 6, 2007 11:39 AM

Gay Veteran,

You said:

So we should vote for Hillary because Obama and Edwards are doing it too?

No, do you see anything in this post or any of my other posts saying you should vote for Hillary? I try not to insult the intelligence of my readers and I appreciate it when they return the favor.

You also said:

b-b-but Kyle-Liebermann isn't dangerous. Then why did Hillary sign a letter (a LETTER!) saying that K-L didn't authorize war?

Because some very stupid people - including prominent Democrats - have been saying again and again that KL provided a "blank check" or authorization for war.

Posted by eriposte at November 6, 2007 12:23 PM

The most despicable thing about this whole K-L jabber fest is that Obama and Edwards are claiming that since K-L Bush has a blank check for war with Iran. Nothing could be further from the truth and they're playing politics with this position in this way could actually amount to them helping Bush attack Iran.

I'm beginning to think they wouldn't care, so long as it got them some more votes.

Posted by RalphB at November 6, 2007 01:17 PM

I have been waiting for someone to point these utterly misleading attacks on Hillary and the passes given to O & E. Their criticisms sound a lot like "I am the compassionate conservative" nonsense of the present occupant of the White House.

Hillary may be nuanced (thank God) but O & E talk out of both sides of their mouths, are too inexperienced to formulate sane foreign policy and now are extremely unlikeable. Belittling the front-runner for their own ambitions and making it possible for the Democrat to lose the election certainly isn't progressive or patriotic.

Posted by logic101 at November 6, 2007 03:18 PM

Did someone say "sane foreign policy".....when have we ever had any?

Posted by Parallax at November 6, 2007 06:59 PM

You know, I read your response to my comment on the last Hillary the victim thread. Why don't we here in the reality based community stipulate to the fact that Obama and Edwards are former DLC lackeys who offer little difference in policy from Hillary.

I believe your 'digging' exercises oculd be put to better use; perhaps say, determining the extent to which the Democratic Party has aided this administration in the continuation of the Iraq War since 2003 (after their 'mea culpas' and rationalizations). For example, you could dig up all of the war funding bills and then explain where Hillary & Co. stood (after the dead-on-arrival ammendments and conditions failed to become embedded into them).

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence....but the absence of absence is probably evidence of evidence. The Truth is Out There. Stop pointing out the species of each and every tree and tell us what forest Hillary is in.

I don't expect to hear any of this 'cold reality' from Jeff Dinelli, but you (Eriposte) have been here for a few years.

Posted by Tampa Student at November 6, 2007 08:04 PM

Tampa Student,

I am not yet ready to build the forest. I am looking through the trees right now to understand the candidates on an issue-by-issue basis. There is still time to figure out the forest and I'm going to take my time over it.

It is undeniable that many of the Democrats running for President have at times enabled Bush's worst excesses either through active or tacit support or by not dissenting aggresively. That is a sad reality. What is however an ever more obvious reality is that when the house is on fire, I'm not going to support someone who is going to pour gasoline and set the whole neighborhood on fire - which is what the GOP candidates are vying for.

Posted by eriposte at November 6, 2007 09:31 PM

eriposte, "...this type of saber-rattling is happening through the words of Obama and Edwards as well..." leads to the inference that we should vote for Hillary because Obama and Edwards are doing it too. Don't blame me for your writing.

And this bears repeating since you ignored it: If Kyle-Liebermann truly is not a step towards war with Iran then WHY did Hillary subsequently help "...Sen. Jim Webb spearhead a letter to the White House which warned Bush not to take any military action against Iran without Congressional approval...." (Thursday :: Nov 1, 2007, Obama, Biden Refuse To Sign Warning Letter To Bush On Iran, by Jeff Dinelli)?

Posted by Gay Veteran at November 7, 2007 07:00 AM

Huh? To me it says I shouldn't give any weight to either Clinton, Edwards or Obama over the issue because they're all basically doing the same thing. In otherwords, don't use this issue to decide between these three.

Don't blame me for your writing.

I don't think he would EVER do that.

I don't believe eriposte ignored it. But here's my take. I can't understand how so many people find the concept of Clinton maintaining a tough stance on Iran's nuclear program while at the same time explaining Congressional perogative on war making to an Executive who seems unclear on the specifics of such to be some sort of conflict. Kyl-Lieberman keeps the pressure on Iran while the Webb letter makes it clear that Bush can't take action without Congressional approval. Where's the problem?

Posted by snark at November 7, 2007 07:39 AM

Kyl-Lieberman keeps the pressure on Iran while the Webb letter makes it clear that Bush can't take action without Congressional approval.

Exactly. And just because Bush is ratcheting up the "bomb Iran" rhetoric, doesn't mean that Iran is harmless. Should Clinton ignore that reality out of fear that the media might make a big deal out of her vote? I thought that's why everyone was pissed at the Dems in the first place. I guess there's just no pleasing some folks.

Posted by iamcoyote at November 7, 2007 07:46 AM

"Kyl-Lieberman keeps the pressure on Iran while the Webb letter makes it clear that Bush can't take action without Congressional approval."

What planet do you live on? How do you think the korporate media are reporting this?

Plus, wow, Hillary signed onto a letter, A LETTER for god's sake.

Posted by Gay Veteran at November 7, 2007 11:23 AM

What planet do you live on?

Earth. And you?

How do you think the korporate media are reporting this?

Why should I give a fuck how the corporate media is reporting it? Should Hillary Clinton be conducting affairs of state according to how she thinks the media is gonna report on it? What utter nonsense.

Plus, wow, Hillary signed onto a letter, A LETTER for god's sake.

It's a form of communication. Yeah know, when two people or groups of people want to communicate with each other. They often do it by letter. Get over your hysterics.

Posted by snark at November 7, 2007 12:14 PM

Plus, wow, Hillary signed onto a "Sense of the Senate", A "Sense of the Senate" for god's sake.

There, all fixed.

Posted by iamcoyote at November 7, 2007 01:35 PM

Isn't all the pants-pissing over this a bit much coyote?

Posted by snark at November 7, 2007 01:55 PM

I should think so, snark. I think it's finally sinking in that lots of the garbage said about Hillary isn't applicable, and her record and positions aren't much different from Edwards and Obama. What's awfully funny, though, is instead of softening their attitudes on Hillary, some folks are hardening their hearts toward the other two. Hate is hard to let go of.

Human nature. Always amusing.

Posted by iamcoyote at November 7, 2007 02:17 PM

"Why should I give a fuck how the corporate media is reporting it?"

gee, I don't know, maybe cause a lot (most?) of Americans get the "news" from the korporate media

"It's a form of communication. Yeah know, when two people or groups of people want to communicate with each other. They often do it by letter. Get over your hysterics."

oh my god! a letter! Hillary sign a letter! was it on official Senate stationary? jeez, what's next, waving a piece of paper and declaring "peace in our time"?

Posted by at November 7, 2007 06:07 PM

gee, I don't know, maybe cause a lot (most?) of Americans get the "news" from the korporate media

So what? Again, is HRC supposed to legislate according to how stuff is gonna be reported? Finger to the media wind so to speak?

oh my god! a letter! Hillary sign a letter! was it on official Senate stationary? jeez, what's next, waving a piece of paper and declaring "peace in our time"?

You are completely irrational at this point. The letter has the same standing as the Sense of the Senate resolution that has you pissing yourself so badly. If the Senators seek to make the president aware that by law he needs their consent to start hostilities with Iran why is a letter not sufficient. And yes, I imagine it was on official stationary. Do you think the only way Congress and the president communicate is via legislation? If they need to pass some legislation that says the president needs to seek their consent wouldnt that indicate that such is not currently the case? Why create a redundant law?

You've let your irrational loathing of Clinton and your pants pissing hysteria over the Kyl Lieberman Resolution completely consume you.

Posted by snark at November 7, 2007 06:50 PM

I am more and more perplexed at the vitriolic aimed at HRC from so many in the blogosphere. What the hell has she done to earn this attitude - any more than most of the other politicos in DC? Is it a leftover from so much disappointment over Bill and his blatant flaws? Is it that she is not "progressive" enough? (I think her record is ranked right up there!) Is it her fence-sitting on Iraq? Is it her comfortability and shmoozing with the DC establishment?

I have a suspicion that her position(s) on Iraq and her cozying up to the establishment are the main sore points. I would love to see her take a stronger position on Iraq (like "withdraw all troops"), but, then, I would also love to see all the Democratic Senators and Congresspeople do the same! And they haven't. It pisses me off, but it doesn't mean that I start hating anyone. And, sure, in the ideal world giving the finger to the DC establishment would be great too. But, if you really want to ensure the win in 2008, would I do it? I doubt it.

And to then to totally buy into the campaign rhetoric of Obama and Edwards, without any critical thinking at all...Wow, talk about naive! First of all, let's look at Obama. I guess he made a speech in 2002 against the war. At that point he was only a state Senator in Illinois. Would he have acted the same if he had been in Congress at the time? Who's to really know, but his voting record from 2004 till 2006 on war issues (like funding) does not lead one to believe it. As far as his shunning the DC establishment is concerned, mostly he's seen to do that by not accepting PAC money. But if you're running a campaign where your main theme is that you are against "politics as usual", of course you're going to take that step! But, only when your network fundraising has shown substantial results!

And, then, there is Edwards. He apologized for his Senate vote authorizing the war - but when? Only when he had committed to running for the nomination! Isn't that just a wee bit suspicious? Again, like Obama, he's trying to run as a "maverick" outsider. So, naturally he has to run against the whole DC establishment!

Anyway, I have another suspicion about why HRC is unpopular with the blogosphere. On one hand, she doesn't appear to need us very much; and, on the other, we don't seem to influence her and her organization much at all! A bit galling, I would say! But, really, the point I want to make, here, is that the blogosphere is in danger of over-rating itself (since 2006, especially). The other problem is that the blogosphere has no control over the netroots, and, indeed, their once close relationship is becoming much looser! Any well run campaign can now establish its own netroot organization and milk it. Ron Paull anyone??

Posted by islandpartisan at November 7, 2007 07:48 PM

"You are completely irrational at this point. The letter has the same standing as the Sense of the Senate resolution that has you pissing yourself so badly."

gee, wonder which one Dear Leader will refer to when he attacks Iran.?

"If the Senators seek to make the president aware that by law he needs their consent to start hostilities with Iran why is a letter not sufficient. And yes, I imagine it was on official stationary."

I'm sure Bush appreciates the extra toilet paper.

"You've let your irrational loathing of Clinton and your pants pissing hysteria over the Kyl Lieberman Resolution completely consume you."

When did I say I loathed Clinton? Or is merely questioning her vote on Kyle-Liebermann now considered "loathing" by Hillary's Harpies?

As for Kyle-LIEbermann, after Iraq it would be utterly foolish not to question the sanity of voting for such Congressional resolutions. It's not the Feingold resolution after all! But no, no, you go ahead and stick your head in the sand (note I did not say ass).

Posted by Gay Veteran at November 8, 2007 11:43 AM

Are you done pissing yourself now?

Posted by snark at November 8, 2007 12:09 PM

For the record here are the statements on Iran by all three leading Democratic candidates taken from their essays in Foreign Affairs. Given that journal position as leading organ of the foreign policy establishment, I think it's fair to assume that what a candidate says in its pages is a pretty reliable indicator of they will conduct national security.

Candidate One:
Throughout the Middle East, we must harness American power to reinvigorate American diplomacy. Tough-minded diplomacy, backed by the whole range of instruments of American power -- political, economic, and military -- could bring success even when dealing with long-standing adversaries such as Iran and Syria. Our policy of issuing threats and relying on intermediaries to curb Iran's nuclear program, sponsorship of terrorism, and regional aggression is failing. Although we must not rule out using military force, we should not hesitate to talk directly to Iran. Our diplomacy should aim to raise the cost for Iran of continuing its nuclear program by applying tougher sanctions and increasing pressure from its key trading partners. The world must work to stop Iran's uranium-enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy. At the same time, we must show Iran -- and especially the Iranian people -- what could be gained from fundamental change: economic engagement, security assurances, and diplomatic relations. Diplomacy combined with pressure could also reorient Syria away from its radical agenda to a more moderate stance -- which could, in turn, help stabilize Iraq, isolate Iran, free Lebanon from Damascus' grip, and better secure Israel.

Finally, we must develop a strong international coalition to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and eliminate North Korea's nuclear weapons program. Iran and North Korea could trigger regional arms races, creating dangerous nuclear flashpoints in the Middle East and East Asia. In confronting these threats, I will not take the military option off the table. But our first measure must be sustained, direct, and aggressive diplomacy -- the kind that the Bush administration has been unable and unwilling to use.

Candidate Two
We also need to renew our commitment to engagement and diplomacy in order to solve problems before they occur, rather than scrambling to deal with crises after they have erupted. With engagement comes far greater knowledge and the potential for progress and even trust. Presidents Kennedy and Reagan talked with Soviet leaders at the height of the Cold War, in both cases turning back major threats to our national security. We need to do the same with Iranian and North Korean leaders.
Iran presents a complicated challenge for the United States. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a dangerous radical and a strong supporter of Hezbollah and Hamas. He has said repeatedly that Israel should be "wiped off the map" and last December sponsored a conference for Holocaust deniers in Tehran. Iran cannot be allowed to possess nuclear weapons.
Unfortunately, the situation in Iran has only worsened under this administration. With a threat so serious, no U.S. president should take any option off the table -- diplomacy, sanctions, engagement, or even military force. When we say something is unacceptable, however, we must mean it, and that requires developing a strategy that delivers results, not just rhetoric. Instead of saber rattling about military action, we should employ an effective combination of carrots and sticks. For example, right now we must do everything we can to isolate Iran's leader from the moderate forces within the country. We need to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions through diplomatic measures that will, over time, force Iran to finally understand that the international community will not allow it to possess nuclear weapons. Every major U.S. ally agrees that the advent of a nuclear Iran would be a threat to global security. We should continue to work with other great powers to offer Tehran economic incentives for good behavior. At the same time, we must use much more serious economic sanctions to deter Ahmadinejad's government when it refuses to cooperate. To do this, we will have to deal with Iran directly. Such diplomacy is not a gift, nor is it a concession. The current administration recently managed to have one single-issue meeting with Iran to discuss Iraq. It simply makes no sense for the administration to engage Iran on this subject alone and avoid one as consequential as nuclear proliferation.

Candidate Three
The Bush administration has opposed talks with our adversaries, seeming to believe that we are not strong enough to defend our interests through negotiations. This is a misleading and counterproductive strategy. True statesmanship requires that we engage with our adversaries, not for the sake of talking but because robust diplomacy is a prerequisite to achieving our aims.
The case in point is Iran. Iran poses a long-term strategic challenge to the United States, our NATO allies, and Israel. It is the country that most practices state-sponsored terrorism, and it uses its surrogates to supply explosives that kill U.S. troops in Iraq. The Bush administration refuses to talk to Iran about its nuclear program, preferring to ignore bad behavior rather than challenge it. Meanwhile, Iran has enhanced its nuclear-enrichment capabilities, armed Iraqi Shiite militias, funneled arms to Hezbollah, and subsidized Hamas, even as the government continues to hurt its own citizens by mismanaging the economy and increasing political and social repression.
As a result, we have lost precious time. Iran must conform to its nonproliferation obligations and must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table.
On the other hand, if Iran is in fact willing to end its nuclear weapons program, renounce sponsorship of terrorism, support Middle East peace, and play a constructive role in stabilizing Iraq, the United States should be prepared to offer Iran a carefully calibrated package of incentives. This will let the Iranian people know that our quarrel is not with them but with their government and show the world that the United States is prepared to pursue every diplomatic option.
Like Iran, North Korea responded to the Bush administration's effort to isolate it by accelerating its nuclear program, conducting a nuclear test, and building more nuclear weapons. Only since the State Department returned to diplomacy have we been able, belatedly, to make progress.
Neither North Korea nor Iran will change course as a result of what we do with our own nuclear weapons, but taking dramatic steps to reduce our nuclear arsenal would build support for the coalitions we need to address the threat of nuclear proliferation and help the United States regain the moral high ground. Former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, former Defense Secretary William Perry, and former Senator Sam Nunn have called on the United States to "rekindle the vision," shared by every president from Dwight Eisenhower to Bill Clinton, of reducing reliance on nuclear weapons.
To reassert our nonproliferation leadership, I will seek to negotiate an accord that substantially and verifiably reduces the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals. This dramatic initiative would send a strong message of nuclear restraint to the world, while we retain enough strength to deter others from trying to match our arsenal. I will also seek Senate approval of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty by 2009, the tenth anniversary of the Senate's initial rejection of the agreement. This would enhance the United States' credibility when demanding that other nations refrain from testing. As president, I will support efforts to supplement the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Establishing an international fuel bank that guaranteed secure access to nuclear fuel at reasonable prices would help limit the number of countries that pose proliferation risks.

Now can any tell the differences between these three statements? I can't and I have BA in international relations and MA in political science. Which candidate seems most belligerent. Well Candidate 2 does say "When we say something is unacceptable, however, we must mean it" and Candidate 2 also clearly says that even military force must be on the table. But this probably a distinction without much difference.

So who said what? Candidate 3 is Hillary Clinton, Candidate 1 is Obama and Candidate 2 is John Edwards.

Posted by Reference Librarian at November 8, 2007 04:31 PM