I didn't try to clip out any portions and it would be stupid for me to try and deceive people when they could read the article itself. Why would I even post the link then? I'm not that biased, I think Clinton was a crook and only has his selfish interests at heart. Anyway you slice it, Clinton has bad mouthed this country overseas and talked about how he likes how a Islamic enemy country is run better than his own. Seems like he is saying that it is a good thing that the Iranian Constitution allows the ayatollah and the mullahs to control 70% of Iranians since he points out this is the only country in the world and he does identify with the liberals and progressives of Iran, clearly. Iran is clearly an enemy of the USA. Just think if we set up a government based on religion like Iran. Most Americans wouldn't go for it. I don't see how you could spin this in his favor or try and change the words in his mouth.:nope:
I had totally forgotten about this. I was thinking about the hostages in 79. I will read more into this and see if this was ever proven or a theory. I will say if this is true Reagan totally blew it and should have taken military action to deal with the situation. I just don't understand why this stuff happens! We have muscle and shouldn't be afraid to use it no matter what!
That's not what he's saying at all. He is saying that 66-70 percent of Iranians are pro-western democracy and not anti-American, but that the Iranian constitution mutes their voices. He is saying that sound democracy is being hinged by religious fanaticisim. He identifies with the majority of Iranians who are pro-reform. Did you even read this transcript?
You are assuming this or re-arranging words here... Quote:[It is] the only one with elections, including the United States, including Israel, including you name it, where the liberals, or the progressives, have won two-thirds to 70 percent of the vote in six elections: two for President; two for the parliament, the Majlis; two for the mayoralities. In every single election, the guys I identify with got two-thirds to 70% of the vote. There is no other country in the world I can say that about, certainly not my own. Quote
Geez, Sourdough. He doesn't say that at all! My friend, you have it absolutely freakin' backwards. Clinton said the Iranian Constitution had allowed the mullahs to control the government even though 70% of the country was western-friendly. What he said was that Bush was doing the right thing by pressuring Iran, but since the majority of the Iranians do not support the mullahs, it would play into the hands of the mullahs to actually attack Iran. It would turn the Iranian middle class to the other side. Iran is a revolution waiting to happen. Ahmadinejad was elected by a tiny margin and there is a large group that think he is keeping the country out of the 21st century. In just a year, he has already gotten Iran into possible UN sanctions and is trading military challenges with a superpower who has air bases in the region in all four directions, troops on the ground on the east and west, and a giant navy astride their oil export routes. When the sanctions start, and the people feel any hardships, Ahmadinejad will be blamed. What Clinton is saying is that attacking Iran isn't going to help us. But making the Ahmadinejad administration look bad and covertly encouraging the Iranian underground might. It wouldn't be the first collapse of an Iranian government that we have engineered. And it is far cheaper and more effective than a war. Sourdough, Clinton is saying that Bush is playing this one right, so far.
All he is saying is that Iran has a progressive majority. If you would take the time to read the entire transcript and stop taking things out of context you would see how wrong you are.
Sourdough, this is in January, 2005, six months before Ahmadinejad came into power. Clinton is talking about the moderate Khatami government then in power. And he emphasiszed that two-thirds is a large progressive majority to be controlled by unelected islamists by comparing it to the close elections we have here in America and in Israel.
I don't care one way or the other anyway, thought it was strange and will give the benefit of the doubt. Clinton hung himself lying over and over on Fox News
I did read it and it didn't make clear to me if he was talking about the people or the Liberals. Like I said above, I thought it was a bit strange and am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I also thought his interview with Chris Wallace was quite strange. Have decided to get the Richard Clark book soon and read what it says although I have a problem getting the whole Clinton strategy on the war on terror from one source. I've never seen a presidential figure act like that before, I'm actually embarassed for Bill Clinton. This is what happens when you have to re-write history and steal or exchange papers in the national archives.
