You have commented 339 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
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Bill Clinton Supports Dialogue With Iran
2006-12-08
THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) - Former President Bill Clinton on Thursday endorsed the idea of talks with Iran and Syria to help ease the bloodletting in Iraq, saying it would also be in Tehran's interests.
I am the Master of Jaw Jaw.
Clinton spoke in the Netherlands the day after the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel that included senior officials from his administration, proposed engaging the two Middle Eastern countries - and U.S. foes - in the search for peace in Iraq. "I agree that we should reach out to the Iranians and the Syrians and try to get a regional solution. Right now the Iranians don't want to do anything, probably because their policy seems to be, whatever causes America heartburn is good for us," Clinton told the Dutch TV program Nova.
Brilliant. Just bloody brillaint. How have we lasted 6 yrs without him?
"But the truth is there are 1.6 million Iraqi refugees already," he explained, adding that there could be as many as 10 million if the situation deteriorated to a point similar to the worst days of the Bosnian conflict.
Just a wild-assed guess, there Bubba? You've been hanging with the UN fools, lately... Boned the Staff up on their ditzy stats, didja?
"Most of them would be in Iran. I don't really think Iran wants that, so I think there may be an opportunity for us all to work together."
Heh. The world's so simple to a simpleton. Yep, they're just like us, Bill, 'cept they wear funny hats.
President Bush, however, has objected to that recommendation. He said Iran and Syria "shouldn't bother to show up" to an international conference on Iraq unless they stop financing terror. Repeating a long-standing demand, Bush said his administration would not enter direct talks with Iran unless it suspends uranium enrichment, which the U.S. believes is aimed at making nuclear weapons. Iran maintains its nuclear program is peaceful.
Talking "peace" with people while they work to make nukes to wipe out Israel does have a certain logic to it. Bill? Can you follow that?
Clinton, who was visiting the Netherlands to discuss global warming with business and political leaders, said he also supports the withdrawal of some American troops from Iraq. "I think if we were to leave as soon as we could physically get out of there, there would be more chaos and more death in the country .... so I don't favor that," he said.
I like to split the peach difference.
But he said pulling out some troops "would send a signal that we're changing policy, and it, I think, would free up some troops to try to be strong in Afghanistan."
Thank you, General Clinton.
Posted by:.com

#17  The part where you think that's a bad thing, Sneaze Shaiting3550. Unfortunately.
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-12-08 22:57  

#16  Clinton-Carter: what part of "Death to America," don't you understand?
Posted by: Sneaze Shaiting3550   2006-12-08 18:05  

#15  I agree with Bill. Worst case, the Iranians wipe out Israel. So, there's not much downside. Buy my book!
Posted by: Jimmuh Carter   2006-12-08 17:35  

#14  If wonder if he is one of the Democrats that met with HAMAS in an undisclosed country?
Posted by: Bob   2006-12-08 16:12  

#13  We could seriously reduce greenhouse gas emissions if Bill Clinton would JUST SHUT THE HE$$ UP!
Posted by: Old Patriot   2006-12-08 15:15  

#12  Sorry, mods, my tech knowledge is not great. Thanks for fixing the link.
Posted by: Jules   2006-12-08 14:06  

#11  The desperation and cognitive dissonance from the great intellectuals in this report and in the public arena of politics is startling.

As a wise man once said (Orwell, I believe): "[fill-in-the-blank] is so stupid only an intellectual would believe it." These "great intellectuals" certainly bolster that idea.

But up until now I was willing to at least credit him with not blabbering as much nonsense in his post White House years as his fellow Dhimmi, our beloved Jimmuh Carter.

Is that even possible to blabber as much nonsense as Jimmuh? Even taking Chomskys [Chomskies?] and Ward Churchills into account* I'm not sure.

* - excluding IQ-challenged celebs and the obviously insane.
Posted by: xbalanke   2006-12-08 13:47  

#10  ST2776-Good point.
Posted by: Jules   2006-12-08 12:13  

#9  Maybe I haven't been following this guy too closely. But up until now I was willing to at least credit him with not blabbering as much nonsense in his post White House years as his fellow Dhimmi, our beloved Jimmuh Carter. No more, Bill. You're just another dumbass Dhimmi except that you still have that zipper problem and a wife who's willing to accept it because of her own aspirations. Let's just hope that Rodham is not as dumb and not as preoccupied with her dong as Bill.

BTW, Jules, you forgot one more thing Iranians will demand if we talk to them: recognition of the Hizbollah government in Lebanon.
Posted by: Sleaper Thraviter2776   2006-12-08 12:00  

#8  Ya, but where's Monica on this issue?

Clinton is jus following the other clintonoids (Half Bright, etc.) in reminding everyone what was so screwed up about the 90s.
Posted by: Captain America   2006-12-08 11:06  

#7  From Drudge, more on the Baker strategy of the ISG:

LINK
Please post addresses in proper link format, rather than as long URLs which can bust the page formatting in some non-IE browsers. Thanks.
Posted by: Jules   2006-12-08 10:39  

#6  This man would support dialogue with a rattlesnake if he thought there was a way it would keep his name in the news.
Posted by: Broadhead6   2006-12-08 10:19  

#5  Well, let's look at President Clinton's military track record. Granted, hindsight is 20/20, but we also live in a "post 9/11 world" too.

* 1993 WTC bombing: a law enforcement issue.
* Gays in the military? Sure, damn the effects on morale!
* Mogadishu: Let's cut and run, even if it is a UN "Peacekeeping" issue.
* 2 African embassies: Whoops, did I just bomb an aspirin factory?
* USS Cole: Let's just lob one of 'dem dare $2 million JDAMs into a $10 tent and hope we get binny!
* Iraq: Sure, Saddam can kick out the weapons inspectors, and break upwards of 17 UN resolutions. Let's just keep flyin' them "No fly zones" (at the cost of billions) and keep Saddam "boxed in."
* N. Korea: Oh sure, I trust that Hennessey drinking playboy. Why, he's a lot like me! Could you get Jimmuh Carter over there to "strike a deal," and include Maddy Halfbright too. I'm too busy with Monica to be bothered by issues like global nuclear proliferation to two-bit maniacal dictators and reclusive regimes.

One final note. Our OFFICIAL U.S. Gov't policy on Iraq became "regime change" under Clinton. He signed it and made it policy. Bush only implemented that policy, the cowboy!
Posted by: BA   2006-12-08 10:12  

#4  Via the Beeb:

"Mr. Baker said he saw a value in inviting Iran to regional talks, even if Tehran refused the invitation, an outcome he saw as likely.

"What do we lose by saying, 'we're getting all of Iraq's neighbours together, we want you to come, and if they say no, we show the world what they're all about?'"

Is that our goal, showing the world what they're all about? Is this all a media-lit, popularity-restoring strategy? Is the target of the ISG restoring the good opinion of the "world community"? Is the worst possible consequence in today's world to be seen as not embracing Iran? The WORST?

There is more than one outcome to his supposition:

We invite Iran, they refuse.

We invite Iran, they agree to come, and want to negotiate Israel-whether it should be in Europe or the Middle East or at all.
We invite Iran, they come, and demand recognition of the Hamas government of Palestine.
We invite Iran, and they demand resumption of aid to Palestine and a fat purse to Iran, to boot.
We invite Iran, they come, and want to negotiate their right to nuclear "energy".
We invite Iran, and lose time--losing the opportunity to stop their realization of nuclear weapons.
And 1000 other scenarios.

I'm getting an education on Mr. Baker and Mr. Hamilton.
Posted by: Jules   2006-12-08 10:09  

#3  But he said pulling out some troops "would send a signal that we're changing policy, and it, I think, would free up some troops to try to be strong in Afghanistan."

Yeah, right, Bill. At least until we get that Afghan Study Group up and running under President Rodham so we can grease the skids outta there too?
Does that sound about right?
Posted by: tu3031   2006-12-08 09:28  

#2  If "leaving as soon as we could would cause more chaos and death", then what does leaving more slowly or in spurts mean? Chaos and death slowly, in spurts?

"But he said pulling out some troops "would send a signal that we're changing policy, and it, I think, would free up some troops to try to be strong in Afghanistan."

What if changing policy a la ISG INCREASES the chaos and death in Iraq? What if it INCREASES the attacks on coalition soldiers and civilians? Still gonna plan on freeing up some troops to TRY to be strong in Afghanistan? And you do imagine that shift in policy will have no repercussions on America's reputation, how other regional powers view our strength and resolve?

The potential for disaster in following the recommendations of the report is truly frightening. There is a complete disconnect in the Iran portion of the argument. Mr. Baker & Hamilton, et al, are recommending a strategy dependent on Iran's good will. Why should we believe in such a thing, when a good regional ally has been repeatedly threatened with annihilation, and when Iran regularly and publicly talks about their desire to see America go down? Do those positions indicate good will?

This panel is so desperate that they are willing to risk the stakes of the region-Israel, Lebanon, Iraq-on Iran's good intentions?

"Right now the Iranians don't want to do anything, probably because their policy seems to be, whatever causes America heartburn is good for us." Check.

""But the truth is there are 1.6 million Iraqi refugees already," he explained..."Most of them would be in Iran. I don't really think Iran wants that, so I think there may be an opportunity for us all to work together." SAY WHAT? Your primary rational for why Iran will help us, despite all signs to the contrary, is that they'll have refugees? Do you understand that millions of refugees mean nothing to the Iranian regime-that they will dispose of them as they like, because no one can or cares to do anything about it?

The desperation and cognitive dissonance from the great intellectuals in this report and in the public arena of politics is startling. I suppose it shouldn't be, but it is. I look at his picture as I read his words and get dry heaves.
Posted by: Jules   2006-12-08 08:57  

#1  Bill Clinton supports outright surrender to Iran.
Posted by: bigjim-ky   2006-12-08 08:14  

00:00