Clinton Denies Calling for Regime Change in Iran
Secretary of State Clinton is denying what she obviously called for on September 19: regime change in Iran. Her spokesman rejects that this is what she meant, but read her words:
And I can only hope that there will be some effort inside Iran, by responsible civil and religious leaders, to take hold of the apparatus of the state.
That means replacing those in power — in other words, regime change.
She even went so far as to warn the regime of a popular uprising:
When you empower a military as much as they have to rely on them to put down legitimate protests and demonstrations, you create a momentum and unleash forces that you do not know where they will end up.
Clinton was clearly offering moral support for an internally driven regime change, or at least challenges from figures within the regime to restrain Khamenei, Ahmadinejad, and their ilk. She stopped a few steps short of actually endorsing the democratic opposition, as the Obama administration still sticks to the flawed but conventional view that doing so de-legitimizes them. “But we also knew that the worst thing for those protesting was for them to be seen as stooges of the United States,” she said. A spokesperson for the Green Movement has asked for more direct moral support and the regime has consistently labeled its opponents as U.S. and Israeli agents without making a dime’s worth of difference, but these facts have yet to shake away this misguided view.
Administration officials are simultaneously warning that the regime is becoming a “military dictatorship,” in what can only be a calculated decision to label it as such. Clinton’s remarks follow her other recent statement that although she has “grave disagreements” with Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1979 Islamic Revolution,
the early advocates of it said this would be a republic. It would be an Islamic republic, but it would be a republic. Then we saw a very flawed election and we’ve seen the elected officials turn for their military to enforce power.
Here, Clinton acted upon another calculated decision to criticize the regime as violating the principles of the original Islamic Revolution in order to promote a fissure between the regime and its more conservative opponents who haven’t repudiated the original revolution or openly called for regime change.
The tone of the Obama administration on this issue is different from when it first came into office. President Obama’s first Persian New Year greeting respectfully referred to the “Islamic Republic of Iran” and was conciliatory, without any challenge being made on behalf of the people. The second one devoted four paragraphs to outlining the regime’s abuses and the commonalities between the values of the U.S. and the Iranians fighting for their freedom.
WELL, IT’S ABOUT TIME!!! Where were these idiots when Iranian people were protesting in the streets and being killed by the dozens, possibly thousands, by the Revolutionary Guard? We have lost over a year, ONE YEAR, trying to “negotiate” with a bunch of insane religious fanatics, rather than try to overthrow the current regime through the use of covert operations and destabilizing the regime by supporting any and all political groups that want to overthrow the regime.
This just shows you how incredibly stupid and naive Obama is when it comes to foreign policy. If we had instituted a full-court press against the regime right after last year’s elections, the regime could have collapsed by now. But no, Obama for some strange reason didn’t want it to look like we were aiding the people who were ASKING for our help in overthrowing the current government. Now we have an even stronger dictatorship in Tehran that has supressed most of the opposition through sheer terror and murder. Great. Nice job, Mr. Presient. Just shows you what terrible results you get when you elect a person with absolutely NO executive or real-world experience in ANYTHING. How’s that “Hope and Change” working for you now? November can’t come soon enough.
A slippery slope indeed. Though our means of ‘addressing’ Iran with kid gloves for so long has had these inevitable consequences. ‘Sanctions’ has been our and our allies in the EU’s overwhelming response. Sanctions?
Though dialogue with a hellbent regime as that of Khameini is delicate in nature as well.
Expectedly though disappointing from a leadership standpoint, Clinton WILL be the cog in this administration to address Iran and its strained relationship with, well everyone but Russia.
Though to get an accord with our allies in a unifying effort remains to be seen.
Hillary can get a little confused.
Like when she was trying to make a case for greater foreign policy experience than Obama and claimed to have landed under sniper fire in Tuzla (Bosnia)in 1996, a story she elaborated on several speaking occasions.
When, in fact, the landing was uneventful and she and her daughter were greeted by a little girl with flowers.
Why, you’d think she was Richard Blumenthal (running for senator from Conn.) who used the phrase “when I served in Vietnam” over many years’ time when it turns out he’d never set foot in the place. Or Joe Biden who claimed to have landed in a helicopter under fire in Iraq.
Hillary was also confused when she stated that claims about her philandering husband amounted to a “vast right wing conspiracy” and, of course, on the disposition of those Rose law firm billing records.
Point being, why do we put up with these people ?
And who can forget the bell-ringer: Hillary’s surprise “discovery” of “missing” Rose law firm billing records–under her own bed–two years after the court had subpoenaed those documents?
I still remember when Hilary’s campaign for the nomination in 2008 broadcast an ad implying that she was a far more responsible choice because she had already been there when the phone in the White House had rung in the middle of the night. While that was presumably true, what the ad DIDN’T say was that she was NOT the President at the time but was only the woman who (sometimes) slept with him. Even if she was allowed into the White House situation room to discuss options during those events, she was not in the position of having to make the decisions and, at best, was only one of several voices influencing the discussion. Yet the commercial had the gall to imply that SHE was actually making the decisions on how to resolve those crises.
Too bad Clinton and Obama weren’t as solicitous of the interests and will of the Honduran people (and their constitution), when said people resisted an attempted Chavista coup by a rogue president.
Why it would seem necessary to report the words of such a dysfunctional person, frankly, is beyond me. Like her weather-vane husband, the truth stands only as an impediment to aspirations and reality an inconvenience.
For her to hold any public office is turn the suroundings into a sewer.
At an earlier time she would not be suffered to live so long.
Time to take out all the garbage and skip the soap opera.
Iranian people WANT regime change NOW!!!
Can you get it in your head now Mrs Clinton?!!!! I’m not even addressing this to Obama the appeaser!
Stop playing the game of mouse and cat with a murderous regime!
It’s becoming really sickening!!!
.. Ms. Clinton was also just a wee bit mistaken when she said,”I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland,”
she did attend a nice ladies tea party tho
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1581150/Nobel-winner-Hillary-Clintons-silly-Irish-peace-claims.html
I am agree totally with Shiraz…. people of IRAN WANT THE MULLAHS TO BE OVERTHROWN…WE DON’T WANT BRUTAL AND DICTATOR REGIME OF IRAN ANY MORE …. THIS IS THE VOICE OF IRANIAN PLEASE HEAR US AND STOP THESE APPEASERS….
I wonder if the MSM will ever concede that Clinton, Holder, Obama and Napolitano don’t have any “gravitas”, which was their favorite word to describe what Ed Koch was lacking when he ran against Mario Cuomo. (Or was it when G.W. ran against the Gorster?)
Didn’t I read a few days ago that Clinton actually sent a “Happy Birthday” greeting to the President of Iraq?