**"In A Time Of Universal Deceit, Telling The Truth Becomes A
Revolutionary Act" - George Orwell, Author ..... "All Truth Passes
Through Three stages. First, It Is Ridiculed, Second It Is Violently
Opposed, And Third, It Is Accepted As Self-Evident" –Arthur
Schopenhauer, Philosopher <http://www.msiradio.com>**
--
--
APFN-1 YahooGroups:
Subscribe: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apfn-1/join
Unsubscribe: apfn-1-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
APFN MSG BOARD:
`In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.'
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/Indices/149495.html
APFN CONTENTS PAGE:
http://www.apfn.org/old/apfncont.htm
APFN TWITTER
http://twitter.com/signup?follow=APFN1
Find elected officials, including the president, members of
Congress, governors, state legislators, local officials, and more.
http://congress.org/congressorg/dbq/officials/
SUPPORT APFN:
PMB 206, 7549 W. CACTUS RD. #104, PEORIA, AZ 85381
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "APFN" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to apfn+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--- Begin Message ---
* Print
* Share
resize:+ - reset
Published on Wednesday, January 29, 2014 by The Guardian
Are Hillary Clinton's Presidential Ambitions Clouding Her Morals?
Whether or not Clinton has formally announced her candidacy, her silence on
Iran speaks louder than words
by Stephen Kinzer
Hillary Clinton. (Photo: Mark Wilson/Getty Images North America)Asked in an
interview this week about her presidential ambitions, Hillary Clinton gave an
answer that qualified as a howler even by Clinton standards: "I'm not thinking
about it."
Clinton is widely considered the presumptive Democratic nominee for president
in 2016. Given the atavistic chaos that afflicts the Republicans, many view her
as the virtual president-elect. Time magazine ran a cover story this month
headlined "Can Anyone Stop Hillary?" The New York Times Magazine followed with
a cover story of its own, the latest in a stream of media coverage of the
juggernaut that is Clinton's unannounced presidential campaign.
One of the surest signs that Clinton is running for the presidency is her
refusal to take a position on the greatest geopolitical question now facing the
United States. President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry are engaged in
a high-stakes effort to end 35 years of hostility between the United States and
Iran. Debate about this initiative is intense in Washington. No one, however,
knows the opinion of the woman who was Kerry's immediate predecessor and is
evidently seeking to govern the United States beginning in 2017.
Kerry has asserted that negotiations with Iran are "one of those hinge points
in history," and argued that they give the United States "a chance to address
peacefully one of the most pressing national security concerns that the world
faces." Senator Dianne Feinstein, who heads the Senate Committee on
Intelligence, has warned that those who seek to block reconciliation are on a
"march toward war."
Sentiments are just as strong on the other side. Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu of Israelhas denounced negotiation with Iran as a "historic mistake"
that is making the world "a more dangerous place". His partners in Washington
vigorously echo that view. One of them, Senator Mark Kirk, has accused Obama of
behaving "like Neville Chamberlain" and charged that he is setting the stage
for "a large and bloody conflict in the Middle East involving Iraniannuclear
weapons".
This is the most far-reaching foreign policy debate that has broken out in
Washington in more than a generation. The stakes for the United States, Iran,
the Middle East and the world are huge. American politicians are falling over
one another to press their views. Clinton is the glaring exception.
Throughout her career, Clinton has stayed well within the Washington paradigm
on foreign policy issues. Like many American politicians who came of age during
the Cold War, she takes an us-versus-them view of the world. She has never
dissented from the Washington chorus that portrays Iran as an irredeemable font
of evil. Had she remained on the job as secretary of state rather than
resigning and paving the way for Kerry, the United States would certainly not
have made an effort to engage Iran.
Now that a preliminary agreement has been struck and international inspectors
are monitoring Iran's retreat from its nuclear program, it is reasonable for
Americans to expect their leaders to say whether they favor or oppose this
process. That is especially true of Clinton, who until a year ago was the
global face of US foreign policy. Yet her silence has been deafening.
Clinton has a habit of not taking any position until it is clear which position
will be most politically beneficial. "No doubt we will find out HRC's true
convictions just as soon as her focus groups report in or her major donors tell
her what to think," Stephen Walt wrote in his Foreign Policy blog.
Here lies the dilemma. A strong statement by Clinton in favor of reconciliation
would be a game-changer in Washington. She would be giving a centrist,
establishment endorsement of her former boss's most important foreign policy
initiative. That would provide political cover for moderate Democrats terrified
of antagonizing the Netanyahu government and the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee, which is leading the anti-reconciliation campaign in Washington.
Such a statement, however, would risk outraging pro-Netanyahu groups and
individuals who have been among Clinton's key supporters since her days as a
Senator from New York. Having spent years painstakingly laying the ground for a
presidential campaign, she does not want to risk a misstep that would alienate
major campaign contributors.
Clinton's choice is clear. If she opposes détente with Iran, she will look like
a warmonger who prefers confrontation to diplomacy. If she supports it, she
will alienate a vital part of the base she is relying on to finance her
presidential campaign. With this in mind, she has chosen to remain silent on
the central foreign policy issue of the age. It is a classic act of political
cowardice – the kind that often leads to victory at the polls.
Copyright 2014 The Guardian
Stephen Kinzer is a former New York Times reporter and the author ofOverthrow:
America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq(2006) and Reset Middle
East: Old Friends and New Alliances: Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey,Iran (2011).
www.stephenkinzer.com
Dr. S. Akhtar Ehtisham
Blog syedehtisham.blogspot.com
All religions try to take over the establishment and if they fail, they
collaborate with it, be it feudal or capitalist.
--- End Message ---
