Clinton on Iran: Boo! Ahmadinejad is HITLER!

by: Matt Stoller

Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 18:25


Rick Perlstein has a great piece on a time when America had character, when our leaders didn't dissolve into puddles of weakness but embraced openness as a trait of strength.  He writes of the visit of Nikita Khrushchev to the US.  Khruschev hadn't threatened to wipe Israel off the map, but had threatened to wipe the US off the map, and had the weapons to do it.
Matt Stoller :: Clinton on Iran: Boo! Ahmadinejad is HITLER!

Nikita Khrushchev disembarked from his plane at Andrews Air Force Base to a 21-gun salute and a receiving line of 63 officials and bureaucrats, ending with President Eisenhower. He rode 13 miles with Ike in an open limousine to his guest quarters across from the White House. Then he met for two hours with Ike and his foreign policy team. Then came a white-tie state dinner. (The Soviets then put one on at the embassy for Ike.) He joshed with the CIA chief about pooling their intelligence data, since it probably all came from the same people-then was ushered upstairs to the East Wing for a leisurely gander at the Eisenhowers' family quarters. Visited the Agriculture Department's 12,000 acre research station ("If you didn't give a turkey a passport you couldn't tell the difference between a Communist and capitalist turkey"), spoke to the National Press Club, toured Manhattan, San Francisco (where he debated Walter Reuther on Stalin's crimes before a retinue of AFL-CIO leaders, or in K's words, "capitalist lackeys"), and Los Angeles (there he supped at the 20th Century Box commissary, visited the set of the Frank Sinatra picture Can Can but to his great disappointment the premier did not get to visit Disneyland), and sat down one more with the president, at Camp David. Mrs. K did the ladies-who-lunch circuit, with Pat Nixon as guide. It's not like it was all hearts and flowers. He bellowed that America, as Time magazine reported, "must close down its worldwide deterrent bases and disarm." Reporters asked him what he'd been doing during Stalin's blood purges, and the 1956 invasion of Hungary. A banquet of 27 industrialists tried to impress upon him the merits of capitalism. Eleanor Roosevelt toured him through Hyde Park. Nelson Rockefeller rapped with him about the Bible.

Had America suddenly succumbed to a fever of weak-kneed appeasement? Was the general running the country-the man who had faced down Hitler!-proven himself what the John Birch Society claimed he was: a conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy?

No. Nikita Khrushchev simply visited a nation that had character. That was mature, well-adjusted. A nation confident we were great.

Hillary Clinton's disgraceful statement on Iran, and her shameful statement ground zero, reveal just what kind of political leader she really is, and how she insults the character of this nation with her small-minded appeal to fear.  I'm picking on Clinton, but Edwards and Obama aren't significantly different.  Here's Richardson, who is actually suggesting that America return to its former moral sense of self.

"In speeches yesterday and today, President Ahmadinejad has confirmed what we already knew: he is a demagogue and a despot. While I would not have invited him to speak at Columbia, I do support academic freedom on American campuses. We need to start talking with other nations again-- both our friends and our enemies.

"Throughout my career, I have brought people together to get things done. I have negotiated with some of the toughest dictators in the world and come back home with American hostages and peace agreements. I know that we can end Iran's nuclear program and its support for terrorist groups.

"We need to turn down the fiery rhetoric and turn up the smart pressure. The current legislation proposed in Congress, including the Lieberman-Kyl Amendment, moves the U.S. further away from stabilizing the Middle East and finding a diplomatic solution to the region's problems. Such legislation also cracks the door for the Bush administration to take military action against Iran, something no one wants.

"With sanctions for bad behavior and economic benefits and security guarantees as rewards for good behavior, we can strengthen Iranian moderates and pragmatists and integrate Iran into the community of peaceful nations.

"We will not be successful in the region if we continue the current course in Iraq. We need to withdraw all of our troops and leave behind no residual forces. This is a major difference that I have with my colleagues running for President. We cannot achieve peace in Iraq and stability in the region until all of our troops are out."

The fearmongering needs to stop.


Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Imagine that ... (0.00 / 0)
... an American politician acting like an adult!

Thanks for sharing this. It's good to see that Richardson recognizes the value of  diplomacy. I like him more and more.

However, Obama's comments were nothing like Hillary Clinton's.

Under the headline: "Obama Defends Columbia's Ahmadinejad Invite" is this story.

It's not good when one of us has to fact-check an offhand remark to verify one of your claims -- that we can't take your word for it. It means you're losing (lost) your credibility on all things Obama. Not a good sign.

You do great things, Matt. Don't let this Obama hatred get the better of you.


fixing the link (0.00 / 0)
... the link to the story in my comment above didn't work. Here it is again.

[ Parent ]
Clinton and Columbia U. (0.00 / 0)
She said pretty much the same thing as Obama did regarding Columbia:

"If I were the president of a university, I would not have invited him, but I did not express an opinion about the decision made by Columbia," Clinton said. "Obviously I was very much against his desire to go to ground zero. I thought that was absolutely out of bounds and unacceptable and thankfully it was not permitted."



[ Parent ]
Hillary's fearmongering comments... (0.00 / 0)
... are what Stoller equated to Obama's and Edwards's comments. Obama wasn't fearmongering; in fact, he was re-asserting his position, in the face of criticism, that he would agree to meet with Ahmadinejad when he is president, pointing out that we should be talking to our enemies and our friends.

Here's what Stoller wrote...

Hillary Clinton's disgraceful statement on Iran, and her shameful statement ground zero, reveal just what kind of political leader she really is, and how she insults the character of this nation with her small-minded appeal to fear.  I'm picking on Clinton, but Edwards and Obama aren't significantly different.

Below are the opening lines of Clinton's "disgraceful" comments (from Stoller's link):

"As thousands gather today in New York to decry the hateful and inciteful actions of the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I am proud to join them by adding my voice to their efforts. ... etc. etc.

Nothing like Obama's.

Obama's comments were in line with Richardson's (the "good" comments):

Richardson said this:


"In speeches yesterday and today, President Ahmadinejad has confirmed what we already knew: he is a demagogue and a despot. While I would not have invited him to speak at Columbia, I do support academic freedom on American campuses. We need to start talking with other nations again-- both our friends and our enemies.

The comments above were basically the same as Obama's, yet Stoller compared Obama's statements to Clinton's -- with no links, no explanations, no verification, and for reasons unknown.


[ Parent ]
I Was Comparing (0.00 / 0)
Apples to Apples. Matt wasn't. I was comparing Columbia statement to Columbia statement.

Her other statements are separate from that.

As for fear mongering I have no idea to what Matt is referring to so I can't comment. I watched her this weekend and I didn't hear any fear mongering. I heard of healthcare and the economy and middle-class tax breaks and voting no on further Iraq funding. Fear mongering?

As for Obama's personally meeting with dictators in his first year, I am of the school of that would be unnecessary, unwarranted, and most likely unproductive. I don't think there is a precedent of that in our entire history as a nation for that and we seem to have come this far just fine.

As for Clinton's additional comments I see it as the usual DC sucking up to AIPAC and something Obama has done himself in the past also.


[ Parent ]
Hillary's fearmongering comments... (0.00 / 0)
Here's what Hillary said (from the link at the top of the diary):

President Ahmadinejad's outrageous comments and support for terrorism is even more disturbing when viewed in the context of the regime's quest to acquire nuclear weapons; his pro- anti-American, anti-Israeli rhetoric underscores the seriousness of the threat.

Clinton says, Iran wants nukes and supports terrorists. Be afraid. Be very afraid. Not surprisingly, she voted in favor of the Lieberman-Kyl Amendment.

Keep in mind that India has nukes, and that's OK with the Lieberman/Bush Administration. Pakistan has nukes and harbors Al Qaeda, and we send them billions in aid. Israel has nukes. North Korea has nukes.

Iran can argue that it, like these other nations, has every right to defend itself. If you lived in Iran, wouldn't you demand that right?

It's up to the U.S. to let Iran know that it doesn't *need* nukes; that we have no intentions of attacking it. But instead, Lieberman and Bush do the opposite. So, it's not surprising Iran wants nukes.


[ Parent ]
I just read (0.00 / 0)
"Kruschev's Cold War" and the archival evidence indicates that he was greatly impressed by what he saw -- the material prosperity of farmers showed him that communism was way behind.  Indeed, it led him to want to cut back on military spending, though, for a variety of reasons, his push for a detente failed and we ended up with deeper crises. 

In other words, a policy of openness can help the foreign leader think.  Who knows, maybe the laughter at the claim that Iran has no homosexuals will make him think.



New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.


Ahmadinejad isn't Hitler, he's Santorum (0.00 / 0)
The fear of Ahmadinejad is absurd, when all he is is the Iranian version of the Class of 1994 (socially authoritarian, appealing to blue collar workers feeling betrayed by elites but not actually doing anything to help them economically), with no power over foreign policy.

He's a cheap demagogue who will be kicked out the door at the next election. He's not a sign of the apocalypse and we should all quit worrying.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search