Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
Iran Cons Hillary

SHARE THIS:
Share

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has fallen for Iran's line that it is not developing nuclear weapons, but only wants the ability to develop one to achieve its place in the sun among the great nations of the earth.

In an interview on a Sunday show and in a leak in The New York Times that seems to have come from her (since it uses the same language), she notes that "there's a small space for doubt (about Iran's intention to build a bomb) because there are some contrary indicators. There is no doubt in my mind that they want nuclear energy and nuclear power, which they are entitled to, to be able to use it for peaceful purposes. The real problem is once you do that and you get what's called a breakout capacity, it's not long before you could do the other (build a bomb). So that's why this is so important to address now."

Pressed to comment on a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that it was clear that Iran was headed toward building a bomb, Hillary demurred.

Going Rogue by Sarah Palin FREE
Dick Morris and Eileen McGann's Biography
Dick Morris, a former political adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race. To get all of Dick Morris’s and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by email, go to www.dickmorris.com
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Dick Morris' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Join the Debate
54 Comments So Far
« Previous123Next »
seneca Wrote: Oct 22, 2009 10:40 PM
Being Secretary of State may look good, but even Hilary can't enjoy having to back the specious cant of the loonie left in the White House. She can't enjoy being bedfellow with Anita Duncan, David Axelrod, and Rahm Emmanuel.
She must also resent all the "special Ambasssdors" for all the important places - Israel/Palistine, Afghanistan/Iraq, North Korea, Iran, or being set up as the fool for dismemberment by Mr. Putin.

Watch out, Mr. Obama. The worse things get for you, the more likely she is to resign and then run for her old Senate seat in New York. The ongoing failure of your Presidency will give her a good shot at wresting the Democratic nomination for President away from you in 2012.
We all know her - a back stabbing, insanely ambitious, abused woman who will always shoot for the brass ring.
Leonard Wrote: Oct 22, 2009 2:27 AM
I often wonder if people like Hillary are so profoudly naive and incompetent that they cannot understand the reality which is so obvious to us lesser mortals. Perhaps she only pretends to be utterly stupid and presents her most unrealistic & delusional disavowal of the facts in order not to get the American public infuriated by her utterly feckless nonsense. Or are she and Obama still holding on to the absurd belief that if only Obama and Amadhinejad could sit down together and talk that Iran would abandon all intentions to build a nuclear bomb? This is the most disturbing alternative because it clearly suggests that they believe in the messianic powers of a man who is quite ordinary and even below average in intellect, experience, and wisdom. Hillary has definitely drunk more than her share of Koolaid!
Rose Wrote: Oct 22, 2009 2:16 AM
Good grief, America! Obama is about to sign the Daish Accord in December 2009 without the approval of Congress - but then Congress isn't much help in defending America any longer anyway for the most part - they just go along with whatever Obama wants to do and make laws and deals without the approval of the people or without debate and mandate them or else some thing will happen to you and me like jail or $1,000 fines per day or excessive fines or taxes - wow, hasn't this been a great election year for Americans who are hungry, out of work, homeless, bankrupt, and have no say in their government any longer?

Well, wait until December - according to the tom@economyguy.com he says that if Obama signs the Accord: It will Limit U.S. manufacturing by Cap & Trade regulations; limit personal consuption of energy; cause the cost of energy to increase; cause good & materials to become more expensive, prevent U.S. from growing out of its economic problem; assure & accelerate the shift of economic growth & profitability from U.S. to emerging markets, cause U.S. to become an even greater debtor while China becomes an even bigger creditor (which I also predicted); and increase the cost of treasury borrowing - My Opinion: Well, if Obama signs then you know where he's taking America and it's not to build up America's economy, but to re-distribute the wealth to Third World countries and destroy the middle class.
ROBERT Wrote: Oct 22, 2009 12:35 AM

PILLOW TALK educated Hillary is hardly the caliber of our nation's esteemed and finest 20th century Secretary of State... Professor Dr. Henry Kissinger (who, unlike Hillary, taught at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University).

Instead, O-Bumbo has placed in such an important position the likes of Hillary (which must make even Bill laugh) and did so to champion 'progressiveness' while intending to keep a close eye on her.

So much for this pillow-talk educated SOS... to date the least effective one since 1900.

Hillary will be amongst the first to depart O-Bumbo's Cabinet of losers. She will do so in early to mid 2010. Afterwards, she will prepare herself for an 'unexpected yet necessary' announcement stating that changed circumstances require her to run for President in 2012.

I hope all of you that voted for O-Bumbo do not make the mistake of voting for this Bimbo!!





sqrt(cos(180)) Wrote: Oct 21, 2009 11:47 PM
"Who'da thunk it?"

Sure, sure, she "stayed" with the fornicator in chief because she wanted to ride his coattails, but, you mean she didn't see this coming when she was preggers with the ugly kid? Of course she got conned!

You could pee on her foot and tell her it's raining--as long as she was praying for rain. Whoops! I mean "wishing really, really hard for rain"; obviously, she wouldn't actually STOOP to praying.

i (10/21/2009 - 11:45 PM)
sky Wrote: Oct 21, 2009 10:43 PM
sky Wrote: Oct 21, 2009 10:41 PM
He simply saw a man who stood on a podium and told his people that they will conquer other nations because their cause was greater than the weak.

The world never listened and 120 million people died.

When someone says they want to kill you, it is advisable to listen.

To do otherwise is insane.
sky Wrote: Oct 21, 2009 10:36 PM
The Knight of England saw the signs and acted.

Our Government elected see the signs of war and talk about health care.

It is true, that if you run from war for the sake of peace. Then you will have made your choice.

You desire peace? You shall have war.



sky Wrote: Oct 21, 2009 10:25 PM
Read the posts before me, and I ask what do you see?

Insanity.

The posts talk about wives and gibberish when Mr. Morris is simply telling you to look and see the very real potential for war.

He is telling you that the leaders elected to prevent war are blind.

In such a circumstance as in 1936 you cannot help but come to the same conclusion as did Winston Churchil. That those who sacrifice their values for the sake of peace will have war.


Saint-Denis Wrote: Oct 21, 2009 10:09 PM

Well, you have certainly beat me in the marriage lottery. I last a whole six years with the last 5 years and 364 days hitting myself in the head.
Rick Wrote: Oct 21, 2009 9:16 PM
Betty Wrote: Oct 21, 2009 8:09 PM
Is it me or does his mouth look like a cartoon clam?
Saint-Denis Wrote: Oct 21, 2009 3:29 PM

Yep, but you had better dream about your wife only. See, I am divorced and liberated to dream about as many non-Hitlery pantsuit wearers as is humanly possible!
Rick Wrote: Oct 21, 2009 3:04 PM
way for women. Ahhh, the opposite sex.

Anyway, I was going after Mr. Morris with that, I should take the time to note that.

Here it is.
Akagi Wrote: Oct 21, 2009 2:22 PM
I on a regular basis bash the Secretary of State of the United States--Dr. Rice--"the democratic process is 'provocative' is it?" Colin Powell--who I loathe, Baker (amoral, money grubbing slime that he is), Albright, Christopher, Haig, Kissinger and on and on.

I find little fault with Hillary as Secretary of State because she has been basically invisible--what has she actually done as SOS?
Akagi Wrote: Oct 21, 2009 2:18 PM
"Yes, the nonsense that 6 million Jews were killed by the germans using "gas chambers" with the killing agent being an insecticide (zyklon-b). That hurts because finally a head of state has stated the obvious about a fragment of WW II propaganda which was hijacked by various zionist groups to justify their theft of Palestine from the Palestinians."

Ironic you have a Jewish name, eh?

The Israelis often play the "holocaust" card just as China often plays the "Nanjing" card, but both happened. How many died--who knows? Maybe only 4 million, maybe 10, 6 seems a reasonable number that has been cited--and not only were they gassed, but shot, straved and worked to death--malnutrition and disease also took their toll and not all that died were Jews either--homosexuals, communists, socialists, etc also.

When the camps were liberated Esienhowered ordered that there be detailed photos taken because he knew 60 and 70 years and 80 years later when all the Allied liberators were dead, and all the survivors were dead and all the Germans (and their allies) at the camps were dead someone was going to say "It never happened." You do yourself no favors by denying a historical fact because it causes people to reject everything you state, even points that may be valid.
Akagi Wrote: Oct 21, 2009 2:15 PM
"Morris the warmonger"

No. He is burning with hate for Hillary--if Hillary came out in support of apple pie, Morris would find something to say that was a bad idea.

"If Iran was a threat to world security, then China and Russia would be on our side. They are not ! So Iran is not the threat to world security that Morris claims."

Since Iran hasn't without being provoked attacked another country--something the US can't say--in over 100 years, probably true. But China and Russia both have interests in Iran--weapons sales, oil, gas, etc.

"But Iran's president is a threat to israel !"

Israel has an nuclear stockpile on par with China (perhaps as many as 450 weapons), Iran has zero. Iran is has thousands of foreign troops on both sides of its borders from a country that called it the Axis of Evil and the last non-nuclear member of the Axis of Evil was invaded, its government overthrown and put under American occupation.

The president of Iran is basically powerless and he doesn't control Iran's nuclear program--who cares what he says, which is mostly to play to the domestic audience which is yes anti-Israel.

Akagi Wrote: Oct 21, 2009 2:02 PM
Upland William:

China has for centuries been an inward looking society. It was China that was the victim of having its territory carved away--by the Brits, French, Russians, Japanese and others--not the other way around.
Akagi Wrote: Oct 21, 2009 1:58 PM
First, off, you were lucky last week. If the Hogs had some people that could actually throw the ball where it should be thrown...

The DPRK didn't need any help from Bill Clinton. The deal in 1994 was for LWRs which are good for making electric power, but poor at making components for nuclear weapons and it had a perfectly good HWR (which is excellent for making the fuel for nuclear weapons)online (off and on) since Reagan.

Obama didn't blame America for the world's problems--he said at times the US had acted arrogantly and had been dismissive of others views. "You are either with us or against us." Yes, sounds pretty arrogant to me. Bush's middle name seems to have been "arrogant S*B"--"see you at the bill signing" ring a bell?

gatorbait Wrote: Oct 21, 2009 1:12 PM
Its all in the BLOOD, Bill Clinton set back and watched Pakistan build Nucleur Facilities and He even gave N Korea Nuclear Fuel on a HANDSHAKE

This is how LIBERALS see the WORLD

WE, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ARE THE LIBERALS ENEMIES NOT THE GOVERNMENTS OF PAKISTAN AND N KOREA OR IRAN

HELL EVEN OUT FEARLESS LEADER RAN AROUND THE WORLD BLAMING AMERICA FOR THE WORLDS PROBLEMS

They will do exactly what BILL(THE SDUCMIESTER) Clintoon did

APPEASE OUR ENEMIES

HOW SHAMEFUL IT IS THAT THERE IS A PARTY IN THIS COUNTRY THAT HATES ITS OWN PEOPLE SO BAD THAT IT WOULD WANT THEIR OWN COUNTRY TO BE DEFEATED AND PUT BACK IN ITS PLACE

GOD HELP US
Saint-Denis Wrote: Oct 21, 2009 12:56 PM
"Or, how about the kid they sent to Gitmo that was driven to suicide?"


Yeah, and what about the 34 students killed in Chicago this year? I care more about our kids than those thugs. Period.
Upland William Wrote: Oct 21, 2009 12:47 PM
All the nations in SW Asia and the Mid-East are playing a new form of the Great Game that existed in that area up to WWII. They're all trying to build spheres of influence over neighbors using military, economic, and political tools. Israel acquired nukes as a final weapon against its overwealming neighbors. Iran wants nukes in order to intimidate other states, who will then want nukes to protect against Iran, ad nauseum. This same scenario played out repeatedly in earlier times, but the addition of nukes to the mix makes the Game more deadly.

Of course, the really big players are Russia and China, both with centuries of irridentist policy to guide them in the current situation. The only entity with the power to change the equation is the US. Unhappily, the current US "leadership" is composed of people who should never have been allowed out of kindergarten, as their perceptions of the world seem to be at that level of understanding.
USMC_RET. Wrote: Oct 21, 2009 12:47 PM
a PURE EXAMPLE OF PROGRESSIVE DOMINATION OF OUR EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM.

POOR KID.

usmcpgw Wrote: Oct 21, 2009 12:41 PM
i saw a picture of a guy who urinated on an electric fence. OUCH!!!!! what was left wasnt a pretty sight.dont think he could aim it anywhere. no barrle on that gun.
Tom Wrote: Oct 21, 2009 12:39 PM
Thank you for putting it in proper perspective. Don't get me wrong, even her enabling personality might be preferrable to BHO mm mm mm, but anyone who allows infidelity as she has is not what we need as POTUS.

Which would be worse? Good question. A woman who might let the US be manipulated by a rogue nation, or a maxist intent or "fundamentally changing America".

We must find a true conservative leader.
« Previous123Next »