Swing Issues? Hillary Comes Out Swinging
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/01/two-minute-nostalgia-sublime_23.html
The end of the gag rule worldwide on abortions and the actual mention of human trafficking and other abominations (except when used to bolster the need to go to war). Rather interesting kickoff to her tenure. Issues that affect half the world's population are no longer peripheral. Economic justice and tackling violence against women - things could get quite interesting.
In related news, Congonese rebel leader Laurent Nkunda was arrested yesterday. While it's hard to say who's most to blame for atrocities in the Congo, hopefully this will be a turning point to kill off the horrid civil war that as usual inordinantly affects women civilians.
Disclaimer: I gave another $100 to her 5 days ago to retire her debt. I already feel I got my money's worth.
Would you like to swing on a star, carry moonbeams home in a jar....?
Great leadership.
Thanks.
January 23, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. I was looking for good news. State is on top of the world. Prez visits State BEFORE Defense. Diplomacy first.
State gives standing, vigorous ovation to Sec. Clinton. She is smiling, Biden is smiling. Obama is smiling, Mitchell is back peacekeeping....She is taking on red tape to get needed funds abroad.
Strong, capable, determined.
I hit your link too. All the bad econ news but this is good. Check out formerly known as steve for the recent Senate vote.
January 23, 2009 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for this Des. I was ambivalent about Hillary leaving the Senate until her confirmation hearings when she spoke so passionately not just of diplomacy and adversaries, but microlending and fighting poverty women's and children's rights. Now I am really excited to see her go to work on all these issues. She'll need a lot of help and the people surrounding her are top notch as well including Mitchell.
Diplomacy is no longer a dirty word. YAY!
January 23, 2009 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also.
January 23, 2009 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're off to a great start on most fronts. I'm cautiously optimistic that she's going to be a really good Sec. of State. I'm also very happy to see that she will be leading the charge for women's issues around the world...'bout time!
January 23, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, with the focus on trafficking and women's reproductive rights... suddenly foreign policy has a whole new flavor! No wonder they appointed envoys for the middle east and I/P. I'm thrilled about the agenda items so far!
January 23, 2009 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is like the culmination of everything Hillary's been working for since she was a student at Wellesley. Go Hill!
January 23, 2009 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't trust her. She and Tzipi Livni are up to some mischief:
http://atheonews.blogspot.com/2009/01/hillary-tzipi-to-stop-iran-enrichment.html
January 23, 2009 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
My, that's a neutral trustworthy news source. How about the article direct from Haaretz:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057898.html
You can also read about some interesting Iranian attempts to buy dual-use technologies and materials through 3rd parties: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057687.html
This early into the Obama administration, it's doubtful they'll just dismiss intelligence concerns that Iran is trying to covertly build up its nuclear weapons program.
Funny enough, Haaretz also had this to say:U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's administration will offer Israel a "nuclear umbrella" against the threat of a nuclear attack by Iran, a well-placed American source said earlier this week. The source, who is close to the new administration, said the U.S. will declare that an attack on Israel by Tehran would result in a devastating U.S. nuclear response against Iran.
Wasn't that the position that liberals trashed Hillary on for months, that she was warmongering by saying that a theoretical nuclear attack on Israel would be met by a forceful nuclear response? Oh well, primaries are over, all positions can shuffle.
January 24, 2009 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quite appropriately trashed Hillary.
Are you unaware that Israel has 200 nuclear weapons of its own? Or will Iran think it needs nukes to deter American strikes?
Do you have any idea how long it will be before Iran could even theoretically possess nukes, esp. given the NIE stated that Iran had stopped development in 2003?
Or can we simply reduce the your entire message to "US Mid-East policy to appease AIPAC" with your smiley face at the end?
January 24, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try taking complex situations as complex without creating a liberal "slam dunk" that says all Iranian mullahs are God-love-good-vibes hippie children with no intent to hurt their neighbors in a thousand years. I'm not thrilled about AIPAC, nor am I thrilled about the atrocities of the Iranian Revolution or the excesses of the Shah or the US-supported overthrow of Mossadegh. There are enough bastards to go around. Ahmadinejad's only been in office since 2005. Note that many of the Arab states are worried about Iran's intentions as well. If Iran makes its program more transparent, then the idea that it's a purely civilian energy program will be easier to verify.
Here's some info from Global Security (only up through 2007, unfortunately, not sure why):
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke2007.htm
On 9 July 2007 satellite photos showed that there was a large amount of digging taking place on a mountainside near the Natanz nuclear facility. There was also a fortified building where uranium was being processed. Various structures are also being connected by roads to Iran's primary nuclear site. In a comment by IAEA spokeswoman, Melissa Fleming, "We have been in contact with the Iranian authorities about this, and we have received clarifications".
...
On 9 August 2007 ... Moscow has said that it demanded that Tehran provide information to IAEA inspectors, it should also stop of enriching uranium, and declassify its nuclear program.
On 29 August 2007 ...Iran also agreed that it was ready to explain why it had information, reportedly from Abdul Qadeer Khan, which explained how form uranium into hemispheres, which can be used in nuclear weaponry.
On 20 October 2007 The UN Security Council added new sanctions against Iran because of its nuclear program.
...
On 15 November 2007 Iran presented the IAEA with a document which showed the procedures on how to create uranium metal balls to form the core of nuclear weapons.
On 4 December 2007 US Intelligence concluded that the Iranians discontinued their nuclear program in 2003 and had not resumed it. The National Intelligence Estimate disclosed that all 16 US intelligence agencies reported that Iran was still enriching uranium and if they restarted the program with the desired to create an atomic bomb, they could produce one by 2010 or 2015.
On 18 December 2007 Russia handed over its first nuclear fuel consignment to the reactor in Bushehr. Russian officials said that while IAEA inspectors were in Iran, the IAEA would control the fuel. On it’s part, Iran promised the fuel would be for the power plant only.
Here's more on Iran's nuclear program.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran
Unlike Iraq, Iran definitely has nuclear knowhow, will have active nuclear production by March 1010, uranium enrichment capability, the centriges, 1000 mile delivery missiles, know-how about nuclear weaponization, lots of oil money to finance its operations, and a number of secretive operational and acquisition moves over the last few years. Gloss over it if you will, but the job of the intelligence community is to play it safe while resisting the politicization that hampered it in 2003.
January 24, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well before your reply above, you had a factual, on-topic reply from me on the issue of the US' about-face on funding international organizations that promote or discuss abortion. Yet, possibly because it undermined your suggestion that HRC deserves the credit, you have censored it.
There is something despicable about that, and unless you change your mind, I will post it in another thread, with this text attached.
Unless, that is, you never stray from the 'shelter' of your own blogdom . . . .
January 25, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, imagine my surprise when this time my comment went through without being referred for "approval" of the blogger. What follows in blockquote below is my comment from yesterday, minus the links to the articles in the NYT, WaPo, Boston Globe, and UK Telegraph.
My comment did not violate any of the prohibitions of the TPM "Comment Policy," but I have just found that some websites suppress what they consider to be excessive links in comments.
So, if this comment is allowed through because as redacted it does not violate some (unstated) policy of the website, then I apologize for my characterization of your actions and motives with regard to my reply.
January 25, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink