Slog - Comments on What Exactly is Clinton's Iran Policy?

Comment by Big Sven

Big Sven — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:35:32 -0800

What part of...

"I believe that a policy of diplomacy backed by economic pressure is the best way..."

...and...

"The Bush Administration should use this opportunity to finally engage in robust diplomacy"

...do you not understand?

Comment by Ryno

Ryno — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:36:58 -0800

Blah blah blah. Too bad she didn't show it in the only form that matters--a vote.

If I wanted to live in a country with her vision of executive power, I'd move to Russia and get it over with already.

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:45:24 -0800

I heard that Mitt Romney wants to bomb Iran.

But none of his five 20-something sons have ever served in combat units over in Iraq.

Yeah, sure.

When you put your own life and that of your own family on the line.

Comment by Jiberish

Jiberish — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:59:18 -0800

is this like her vote for iraq?

Comment by pox

pox — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 14:19:42 -0800

Nuclear power is a red herring. Iran is a threat because its oil is controlled by the Iranian government. This is about removing a competitor for the last of the oil profits. Clinton either doesn't get it or is continuing the deception to further her own ambition. She's either dumb or dishonest on this issue.

Comment by gnossos

gnossos — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 14:34:45 -0800

what pox said...either dumb or dishonest.

Comment by Cascadian

Cascadian — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 14:38:04 -0800

There really aren't partisan positions on foreign policy. There are dumb policies and smart ones, but pretty much both parties are in favor of a well-funded military that's willing to bomb the shit out of any country that does anything remotely contrary to US imperial policies.

So, it's hard for me to get too worked up about Clinton's foreign policy, which sucks as much as her husband's did. It's better than Bush, because at least it's a smart imperialism, but it's still crappy.

Find me a politician willing to abandon military force except in real self-defense or in full compliance with the UN charter, who's not in thrall to the Israel lobby, who's willing to cut military spending, wants to close US bases around the world, and actually supports the idea that only Congress can declare war, and I'll vote for that politician if they're not complete idiots on other issues. But that's just not going to happen.

Failing that, I'll have to make my decision based upon who's the smarter imperialist, and who will do the most to prevent unnecessary American deaths. Clinton's pretty much as good or bad as the rest of the Democrats. Sad, but true.

Comment by Ernest Burroughs

Ernest Burroughs — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:49:18 -0800

Smart Imperial policy? What kind of Tom Foolery is this? I could not stand the hippies and antiwar buffoons back during the Viet Nam war, but strangely I miss them now. The world has become very simple for Americans, either we pull out of Iraq or this war is going to destroy our country. Clinton has promised to leave our troops in Iraq if elected, but with a million dead Iraqis and a trillion dollars owed, this is just unacceptable. The Democrats have become a liability to this country. I voted for Kerry in the last election, but I am voting for Ron Paul in the next. Clinton is just as guilty as Bush in this travesty. I always lamented the genocide committed against the Native Americans by my ancestors, and by God, I will not support another Genocide against the Iraqi people just because some right wing Jews got a hair up their ass, and the boys at Exxon need to make a pretty penny.

Sincerely