Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday that Iran will never achieve its goal of obtaining a nuclear weapon, declaring to Tehran: "Your pursuit is futile."
"What we want to do is to send a message to whoever is making these decisions, that if you're pursuing nuclear weapons for the purpose of intimidating, of projecting your power, we're not going to let that happen," Clinton said.
"First, we're going to do everything we can to prevent you from ever getting a nuclear weapon. But your pursuit is futile, because we will never let Iran — nuclear-armed, not nuclear-armed — it is something that we view with great concern, and that's why we're doing everything we can to prevent that from ever happening. … We believe, as a matter of policy, it is unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons."
Hillary Clinton: Iran’s pursuit of nukes ‘futile’ – Mike Allen and Daniel Libit – POLITICO.com.
In the last four or five days we’ve seen a renewed Hillary Clinton, giving major policy speeches that appear on the surface to steer a much more Bush (or Clinton) foreign policy path than the equivocating, sniveling foreign policy of her boss.
I think this is a sign that Hillary is attempting to assert herself as her own woman and is the first indication that she is breaking with her boss. Since this is a Clinton we are talking about, you can bet the new tone is a direct result of their analysis of Obama’s dropping poll results and rising concern in the country over the foreign policy decisions Obama has been making.
If Obama appears to be weakening, look for Hillary to jump ship and challenge Obama from the right for the 2012 nomination.
I have to say it looks very much like the wheels are starting to come off of Barack Obama’s little red tricycle.
8 users commented in " Hillary goes off the reservation "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackCosmic, when I heard about Hillary’s comments this morning, I had the exact same thoughts.
Any sane human knows that the Clintons measure every word against polls. And any sane human knows that Hillary still has a bad case of the reds over whipping Obama in the primaries, and having the nomination stolen by pc super-delegates…given to a jerk that hadn’t paid his dues.
Whatever Hillary is, she is not stupid. She knows that even Obama does not have the stones to tell her to shut up…she still enjoys tremendous loyalty among most dems. And, she knows that Obama is more and more fragile with each passing day…all it would take to sink his leaky ship is for her to resign due to “philosophical differences” that she WILL NOT DISCUSS.
Of course, in the months to follow, those “differences” would leak out to selected press outlets…
I’ve wondered if Hillary is planning a Ted Kennedy-like challenge to a sitting President in 2012. I do not know. But I am sure that she is testing his mettle. The Clintons are not going away…and certainly are not going to be relegated to “back of the bus” status.
When it comes to the Clintons, it is not possible for them to go “off the Reservation.” They are nobody’s Indians.
I’m not nearly as optimistic as you guys are. Obama and his gang still have AT LEAST 3.5 years to wreak havoc in this country in spite of diminishing popularity using extra-legislative tools and strategies such as executive order, governmental mandates via agencies like the EPA, manipulation of the census, the Fairness Doctrine (or the application of Orwellian ‘localization’ mandates), parliamentary ‘reconciliation’, etc. The Dems will also focus on immigration reforms designed to swell the ranks of likely Democrat voters to solidify their voter base and, of course, we still have a well-funded ACORN out there meddling in fair elections to the detriment of Republicans and/or conservative candidates.
I expect the remainder of Obama’s first term to be characterized by even more outrageous over-reaching by liberal ideologues (even if comprehensive healthcare reform is somehow defeated). My sense is their agenda and ideology are ultimately more important to them than public opinion. Remember, they know better than we do…and they are willing to achieve their aims outside normal democratic channels…
Why am I always the one who has to throw water on the fire?
What she said was…”"What we want to do is to send a message to whoever is making these decisions, that if you’re pursuing nuclear weapons for the purpose of intimidating, of projecting your power, we’re not going to let that happen,” Clinton said.”
IF, IF, IF, IF, IF
This qualifier cannot be ignored. I guarantee that Hillary knows it’s there.
I have read dozens of posts about this statement. Almost all of them characterize HRC’s statement as some sort of definitive “The US will never allow Iran to have nukes!”
It ain’t. In fact, it says almost nothing.
Just sounds good.
Drax:
You misunderstand my point in commenting on this. I never suggested that this was some sort of hard and fast rule that the US would not accept nuclear weapons and would take military action to stop it. Although it DOES put that on the table for the first time in Obama’s administration.
My point is that this is a significant departure from the Obama approach to this and is in fact much closer to the Bill Clinton approach and not terribly far from the George W. Bush approach.
My comment really had nothing to do with Iran. My whole point was that this is Hillary taking a different tone, and in my opinion, this is the first crack between Hillary and Obama and I expect that crack to grow.
It’s possible that the words Hillary uttered might actually be words Obama didn’t want her to utter.
What Hillary said here is in response to what she said earlier.
http://www.raptureforums.com/forum/israel-middle-east-news/27088-clinton-if-us-extends-defense-umbrella-over-me-iran-will-not-safer.html
Early in the week Hillary says we have plans to put a missile defense in place if Iran gets nukes. Later in the week (in response to the firestorm resulting from her earlier statement) she says (in a qualified manner) that we won’t let them get nukes.
Nothing coming out of Hillary’s mouth or out of the Obama administration mean anything to anyone.
That’s what you get when you have a President who has no fundamental values other than his radical views on societal equity — who selects as members of his cabinet people who have no fundamental values other than their own political advancement.
Drax:
I appear not to be communicating my intent well.
Whether what Hillary and Obama say mean anything to any other country, or even to this country isn’t the point. The question is whether it means anything to OBAMA AND HILLARY, which I think it does. I think Hillary is positioning herself to bail from the Obama administration based on “philosophical differences” and then to use that to mount a challenge to Obama from the right for 2012.
This is just the first step in that direction.
I understand what you’re saying.
I’m saying that what she said has nothing to do with her future political aspirations — it is merely a response to what she said earlier — a response to the firestorm she created by saying that we might have a plan to place a “missile shield” in the Middle East in the event Iran obtained nukes.
Saying such a thing implies that we have accepted Iran’s acquisition of nukes.
This remark isn’t aimed at 2012 — but at her remarks earlier in the week, merely her attempting to clean up her earlier words (which, of course, had no more meaning than her later words — see, again, the “if” portion of her later words…)
Hillary is done as a presidential candidate. She can’t “attack from the right,” as that would split the party and usher in an easy win for the Republicans.
No. She just wants a SCOTUS seat.
Hmm… perhaps you are right. I find it hard to believe that Hillary has given up on the Presidency. But maybe she has.
I would rather have Hillary than Ruth Bader Ginsberg…
Leave A Reply