Clinton urged Obama to talk tough on Iran

by Roy C | July 1, 2009 at 10:26 am

287 views | 70 Recommendations | 13 comments

Behind the scenes, administration officials, who spoke on the condition that they not be named, have revealed that Sec of State Hillary Clinton had urged President Obama to take a harder line on Iran for several days before changing his tone. Obama refused and then, without informing Sec Clinton, took the harder line on Iran's brutal treatment of the demonstrators.

This is considered the first significant awkward moment between the two former rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination.

This story would tend to confirm, rather than deny, critics' point of view that Obama, notwithstanding his denials of a change in tone, had, in fact, changed positions on Iran.

Critics welcomed the changed in tone, but Obama's failure to inform Sec Clinton of this change is seen as the first small rift between the two.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton urged President Obama for two days to toughen his language on Iran before he did so, and then was surprised when he condemned Iran's crackdown on demonstrators last week, administration officials say.

At his June 23 news conference, Mr. Obama said he was "appalled and outraged" by Iranian behavior and "strongly condemned" the violence against anti-government demonstrators. Up until then, Mr. Obama and other administration officials had taken a softer line, expressing "deep concern" about the situation and calling on Iran to "respect the dignity of its own people."

Behind the scenes, the officials, who spoke on the condition that they not be named because they were discussing internal deliberations, said Mrs. Clinton had been advocating the stronger U.S. response, but the president resisted. When he finally took her advice, the aides said, he did so without informing her first.

This was the first known example of awkwardness between the two former rivals for the Democratic nomination for president since they made up following Mr. Obama's election. The disagreement also gave some insight into the Obama administration's foreign policy decision-making process five months into its term.

The officials said they were familiar with the language Mr. Obama used in his news conference because it was sent to the State Department a day earlier, but that Mrs. Clinton did not know until he uttered the words that he would choose that moment to make them public.

2 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

albertacowpoke

at 10:39 on July 1st, 2009

The fact that this was leaked is not insignificant. I don't think that Hillary has given up her aspirations for the Office of President.

The Clinton's are and always have been calculating. They want to be in a position where they can tell the Democratic Party super Delegates I told you so.

Watch for more on this rift.

cyn.khoo

at 10:42 on July 1st, 2009

I love the phrase "first significant awkward moment".

Roy C

at 10:47 on July 1st, 2009

An insightful hypothesis that would have to await some kind of confirmation, which I suspect is correct.

Definitely something that they, the Clintons, would capitalize on, but I have to think that something like this would be brought out even by fans of Hillary and/or her position about Iran even without her express permission.

Everybody in the State Dept. cannot be happy with the Prez's handling of thugocracy. I mean, look how fast he jumped on the Supreme Court of Honduras ordering the removal of its criminal president.

Roy C

at 17:30 on July 1st, 2009

Yes, well put. Heart as in heartiness, or coure (in Italian) from which through French, we get "courage".

Roy C

at 10:50 on July 1st, 2009

True love is possible and at the same time difficult in the most unlikely of places. :)

Edmund Jenks

at 14:20 on July 1st, 2009

We all know this ... HIS heart wasn't in it!

Roy C

at 18:40 on July 1st, 2009

The problem is that the Shiite-Sunni war have been going on since the '700s and the war between the Jews and the Arabs for even longer.

That situation is much more dangerous for the world, though, granted, any situation of abuse in justice here is not acceptable at all.

DNA testing should be mandatory where possible and all cases that can be reviewed should be reviewed.

We can only negotiate with people who really do operate in good faith. If Ahmadinajad has failed to operate in good faith with his own people, then how can we expect to get better treatment?

Paschen

at 03:41 on July 2nd, 2009

Well, I think this may have been well planed and leads to a exit plan for the Democrats should they have to let go of Obama next term.

Rhonda J Mangus

at 02:25 on July 2nd, 2009

Sometimes I think President Obama is following the "keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer" philosophy (the only philosophy that explains for me why he would place Mrs. Clinton in a federal government position) -- it has to start back-firing at some point -- the challenges of "living and learning":).

Amy Judd

at 12:04 on July 1st, 2009

Wow, interesting news..

duo

at 18:25 on July 1st, 2009

I think President Obama was right to stay out of the fight for human rights in Iran. Instead, he should encourage the USDOJ to stop pretending not to know which office to look in for government records regarding USA v. Shelby County Jail in Memphis, where my brother was secretly incarcerated for 18 days until death in 2003 under yet undisclosed circumstances and the DOJ helped cover-up his death Guantanamo-style. Contrary to open disclsosure and equal justice, the USDOJ response to the Neal family's Freedom of Information Act request on Larry's death is overdue.

Also, he should "talk tough" to U.S. lawmakers regarding the need to pass bills allowing post-conviction DNA testing for all inmates who request it throughout the 50 states to help ensure that America is not violating its own citizens' human rights by keeping innocent people imprisoned and/or facing execution, since the U.S. Supreme Court holds the likelihood of wrongful convictions as being acceptable.

Obama should remind Clinton that addressing human rights violations is like charity - It should begin at home. Otherwise, some might think the U.S. leaders are hypocrites and that this nation's involvement in combatting other nations' human rights abuses is actually otherwise motivated. http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/detail/1181908

Human rights is a speck v. plank thing. Matthew 7:5

duo

at 20:08 on July 1st, 2009

Good points. I suppose neither of the countries has good reason to trust each other. It is sad. What the world needs now is respect and honor, since love is asking too much.