Edwards and Iran

EEdles Period 3

The issue about Iran is extremely controversial. Liberals think that going to war with Iran would be disastrous for stability in the Middle East region and also for our economy and our troops who are already overseas. On the other hand, conservatives think that it would be absolutely disastrous if we did not take military action against Iran because they are capable of attacking us at home and also they pose a threat to the rest of the world.

John Edwards believes that we should not go to war with Iran, that we should recognize it as a country that could eventually pose a threat to our nations’ security. Edwards agrees that an Iran with nuclear weapons would be unacceptable and that if Iran did obtain nuclear capabilities, he would be willing to take an aggressive stance. Edwards believes that talking to Iranian leaders would be more beneficial then simply just blowing them up. It is made clear that Edwards does not want to go to war unless Iran is in possession of nuclear weapons and is a major threat. On December 3, 2007 Edwards states, “The new NIE finds that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that Iran can be dissuaded from pursuing a nuclear weapon through diplomacy. This is exactly the reason that we must avoid radical steps…” (Chapel Hill, North Carolina

http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/iran/20071203-iran-nie/)

Some believe that Edwards would be doing the right thing by not going to war with Iran, but instead having a treaty. By taking a stand on the issue with Iran, Edwards is going against both our president George W. Bush and the other people he is running against for president. “Edwards' willingness to pursue a nonaggression pact with the Iranian government could put him at odds not just with President Bush, but also with his Democratic rivals, none of whom has gone as far in advocating an alternative to the administration's increasingly confrontational stance toward Tehran.” (http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Story?id=2905550&page=1). Later in October, Edwards still found himself at odds with the Bush Administration. He issued a statement saying, "Today, George Bush and Dick Cheney again rattled the sabers in their march toward military action against Iran. The Bush Administration has been making plans to attack Iran for many months. At this critical moment, we need strong leadership against George Bush's dangerous 'preventive war' policy, which makes force the first option, not the last." (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/25/iran.campaign/index.html) Some of Edwards’ appeal is that he goes against the Bush Administration. He also would not be sending more troops into harms way.

However, the appeal of a “preventive war” policy is such that if Iran has the capabilities to attack the United States with weapons of mass destruction then it will be beneficial to attack Iran before they attack us. Republican candidate Mitt Romney said he, “…would consider a military blockade or ‘bombardment of some kind’ to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon.” (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21488653/) Not only are the republican candidates for going to war with Iran, but Clinton, a democratic candidate, does too. She says, ‘“We must work to check Iran's nuclear ambitions and its support of terrorism, and the sanctions announced today strengthen America's diplomatic hand in that regard. The Bush administration should use this opportunity to finally engage in robust diplomacy to achieve our objective of ending Iran's nuclear weapons program while also averting military action.’’’ Clinton later realized that her vote was a mistake and that the sanctions only made tensions higher between the United States and Iran. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21488653/)

Even though Edwards would like to avoid military action he still sees that, "Iran threatens the security of Israel and the entire world," Edwards said, echoing a line peddled by many neoconservatives. "Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons." (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=161493) Edwards sincerely believes in a more confrontational Iran policy. Edwards is also trying to win the support and money of pro-Israel supporters who would vote for him and possibly donate to his campaign. He is also trying to impress the foreign policy intelligentsia by talking tough.

Edwards still feels strongly about this issue even though he is not in the running for president anymore. His impact on the race is important because candidates are taking stronger stances on this issue.

Work Cited Section

Ari, Berman. "Edwards's Iran Problem." The Nation 29 Jan 2007 08 Feb 2008 .

Associated Press. "Edwards raps Clinton, Romney on Iran." msnbc 27 Oct 2007 08 Feb 2008 .

Edwards, John. "Edwards Statement On New National Intelligence Estimate On Iran." John Edwards 08 (2008) 1. 08 Feb 2008 .

Steinhauser , Paul . " Iran becoming new Iraq on campaign trail." CNN OCt 27 2007 08 Feb 2008 .

Terry, Moran. "Edwards: Treaty With Iran Possible." ABC News 27 Feb 2007 1-2. 08 Feb 2008 .

Hillary Clinton's View On Globalization (Revised)

As candidates currently strategically plan out what they are going to say in presidential debates, they look for a way to tell the American people what they believe about various topics. One of these important topics is the topic of Globalization. Hillary Clinton’s perspective on the issue of Globalization greatly differs from that of her husband, Bill Clinton. Unlike her husband, Hillary Clinton believes that free trade may not be the answer after all to a good future in the American economy. Hillary and other country leaders believe that free trade won’t really benefit everyone’s economy. Therefore she plans to end what many presidents have tried so hard to keep intact. “In Clintons View, a trade policy that would pick up where that of current President George W. Bush leaves off is “not an action.”(Steingart) Hillary Clinton’s husband, Bill Clinton, was also a part of the North American Free Trade Agreement. The North American Free Trade Agreement was so that the United States could trade with other countries without them paying anything and the same goes for the other countries. The use of George W. Bush’s name is what also makes Clintons plan seem even better. This is because the use of his name, him being a greatly disliked president and all, will help her take a lead in the election. According to many articles though there is a great ‘marital discord’ in Clinton having a very different opinion on Globalization that that of her husband.
There are numerous reasons why Hillary has decided to end that long lasting policy that her husband and several other presidents have tried to keep intact. This policy of which she is working so hard to get rid of, says that there should be free trade in the world because if there is all countries will be more economically stable. Recently the American people’s jobs have gone to other countries. This is because it is much easier to pay someone a very low and unreasonable wage in other countries. One of those countries is China. “Contemporary America’s biggest export now appears to be the well-paid jobs of its middle class. The trend that began with blue collar workers has expanded to software engineers will hit investment bankers and pharmaceutical researchers next.” (Blinder) These jobs that are now being “stolen” in other countries has put America in a different place in this world. In the world America used to be the leader in the economy but now that power has shifted to another country. It is Hillary Clintons plan to bring that economic position back to America by ending free trade. It is also said that the American people “could face the threat of outsourcing.”
It is Hillary Clintons plan to use the theory of Deng Xiaopang, Chinas great reformer. He was a man that was “skeptical” about everything and that favored a policy of small steps. This is what Hillary Clinton if currently doing because she is one presidential candidate that has to proceed with caution. This is because she is a woman that is in the current race for president. If Hillary soon plans to change the ‘free trade’ policy that has been going on for years she will have to do it in a very clean and precise manner because like Deng once said “No one has taken this road before, and it is necessary to proceed with caution.” Though there are many people that don’t believe that globalization should stop there are still those that are for it such as Shapiro. “The next administration has a responsibility to create a new bargain on trade,” says Shapiro. “The bargain is, we will continue to expand open trade and we will make the significant investments required to enable American workers to benefit from it.” (Heilerman) No matter who gets elected to be the next president of the United States of America, that person will have to face the country and have to deal with the vastly important issue of globalization. Whether it be Hillary Clinton or another they will have to make a decision that would benefit the middle class workers in the United States. This is because they are the people that are losing their jobs to the people that work for very little pay in other countries. Another person that is a great believer in Hillary’s plan for globalization is Chinas current leader: Hu Jintao. He is also a strong believer in this free trade poicy. No matter what happens though, Hillary Clinton has some interesting ideas on how to improve America’s economy.
Bibliography:
1."Hillary Clinton's Innovation Agenda." Hillary for President 02/7/2008 http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/innovation/.

2.Steingart, Gabor. "The End of Globalization." The West Wing 02-7-2008 http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,522628,00.html.

3.Heiemann, John. "Marital Discord." New York 02-7-2008 http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/34457/.


KGalvan
Period 3

Hillary Clinton's View On Globalization

As candidates currently strategically plan out what they are going to say in presidential debates, they look for a way to tell the American people what they believe about various topics. One of these important topics is the topic of Globalization. Hillary Clinton’s perspective on the issue of Globalization greatly differs from that of her husband, Bill Clinton. Unlike her husband, Hillary Clinton believes that free trade may not be the answer after all to a good future in the American economy. Hillary and other country leaders believe that free trade won’t really benefit everyone’s economy. Therefore she plans to end what many presidents have tried so hard to keep intact. “In Clintons View, a trade policy that would pick up where that of current President George W. Bush leaves off is “not an action.”(Steingart) Hillary Clinton’s husband, Bill Clinton, was also a part of the North American Free Trade Agreement. The North American Free Trade Agreement was so that the United States could trade with other countries without them paying anything and the same goes for the other countries. The use of George W. Bush’s name is what also makes Clintons plan seem even better. This is because the use of his name, him being a greatly disliked president and all, will help her take a lead in the election. According to many articles though there is a great ‘marital discord’ in Clinton having a very different opinon on Globalization that that of her husband.
There are numerous reasons why Hillary has decided to end that long lasting policy that her husband and several other presidents have tried to keep intact. This policy of which she is working so hard to get rid of, says that there should be free trade in the world because if there is all countries will be more economically stable. Recently the American people’s jobs have gone to other countries. This is because it is much easier to pay someone a very low and unreasonable wage in other countries. One of those countries is China. “Contemporary America’s biggest export now appears to be the well-paid jobs of its middle class. The trend that began with blue collar workers has expanded to software engineers will hit investment bankers and pharmaceutical researchers next.” (Blinder) These jobs that are now being “stolen” in other countries has put America in a different place in this world. In the world America used to be the leader in the economy but now that power has shifted to another country. It is Hillary Clintons plan to bring that economic position back to America by ending free trade. It is also said that the American people “could face the threat of outsourcing.”
It is Hillary Clintons plan to use the theory of Deng Xiaopang, Chinas great reformer. He was a man that was “skeptical” about everything and that favored a policy of small steps. This is what Hillary Clinton if currently doing because she is one presidential candidate that has to proceed with caution. This is because she is a woman that is in the current race for president. If Hillary soon plans to change the ‘free trade’ policy that has been going on for years she will have to do it in a very clean and precise manner because like Deng once said “No one has taken this road before, and it is necessary to proceed with caution.” Though there are many people that don’t believe that globalization should stop there are still those that are for it such as Shapiro. “The next administration has a responsibility to create a new bargain on trade,” says Shapiro. “The bargain is, we will continue to expand open trade and we will make the significant investments required to enable American workers to benefit from it.” (Heilerman) No matter who gets elected to be the next president of the United States of America, that person will have to face the country and have to deal with the vastly important issue of globalization. Whether it be Hillary Clinton or another they will have to make a decision that would benefit the middle class workers in the United States. This is because they are the people that are losing their jobs to the people that work for very little pay in other countries. Another person that is a great believer in Hillary’s plan for globalization is Chinas current leader: Hu Jintao. He is also a strong believer in this free trade poicy. No matter what happens though, Hillary Clinton has some interesting ideas on how to improve America’s economy.

Bibliography:
1."Hillary Clinton's Innovation Agenda." Hillary for President 02/7/2008 http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/innovation/.

2.Steingart, Gabor. "The End of Globalization." The West Wing 02-7-2008 http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,522628,00.html.

3.Heiemann, John. "Marital Discord." New York 02-7-2008 http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/34457/.


KGalvan
Period 3

Clinton on Education

Clinton has many has many different views for the different levels of education in America. She is also involved in a number of different educational programs throughout the country. Clintons is the most involved in the no child left behind act that started five years ago. Clinton believes that if the congress gave all the money that was promised to the schools then the No child left behind act will have more of and impact on the education of children. “It is crucial that we increase funding for No Child Left Behind to ensure that all children have access to critical programs that have proven records of improving children’s lives.” Clinton fully supports more funding for this program. She does not just support it she was heavily involved in getting the bill written and passed. She also states that the this act will help, “America’s children to move our education system forward so all children can successfully compete in our global economy." Clinton made this statement marking the fifth anniversary of passing the No Child Left behind Act. Clinton has worked for over 30 years to help raise awareness of the education standards in our nation’s schools. Hilary who is a member of the senate will put forth an effort to revitalize the No Child Left Behind Act and make important changes to it.

Clinton also speaks strongly on the importance of a Higher Education. She states that every extra year of schooling, “a person’s income by 5 to 15%”. She says that if this higher education were wider spread our countries economy would be better off. She feels that the more people are educated, the decision they make will help the countries development.
Elementary and Secondary education is also important in Clinton’s eyes. She says that when the bill was passed a promise was made with the government and the schools. She wants the children of America to have the best education possible because they will one day be competing for jobs on the international stage. She also is a huge supporter of the early child education, preschool. Clinton is a huge supporter of the Head Start program in New York, which allows for underprivileged children and their families a chance to be educated. Over 50,000 families in New York alone benefit from this program. It also has teaches the children valuable reading and writing skills that they will use for the rest of their life’s.
In 2000 Clinton was asked, “Why don’t you support vouchers for low-income parents?” Clinton responded with great decisiveness and said that she would never support anything if it meant talking money away from the schools of America. She also said that she supported trying to add 100,000 teachers to reduce class sizes in New York.
In 2005 Clinton voted yes on a 52 million dollar grant which would allow for more community learning centers. This bill also entitled that after school programs would have more money and teachers. She also voted yes for a bill that would grant the elementary schools with 5billion dollars. Half of the bill would go to grants and the other half would help to support education finance incentive grants. Clinton also voted yes for smaller class sizes, and more individual tutors for at risk students, all in part of her effort to prepare the youth of America that would be competing in one of the most demanding work places in the world, the United states of America.
Rknapp

Mitt Romney Climate Change

APayzant
Period 3

Mitt Romney, a republican nominee for the up coming United States presidential election, takes a clear stance on many of the current political issues. However, one of the main issues that Mitt Romney seems to be ignoring is the issue of climate change or global warming. When it comes to the issue of climate change, Mitt Romney has been very vague on where he stands on the issue. He has not given a definite answer to the people of the United States explaining what he would do to fix the problem or how he feels about the issue. Romney has stated, “some in the Republican Party are embracing the radical environmental ideas of the liberal left,” and protested that “Kyoto-style sweeping mandates, imposed unilaterally in the United States, would kill jobs, depress growth and shift manufacturing to the dirtiest developing nations. Republicans should never abandon pro-growth conservative principles in an effort to embrace the ideas of Al Gore.” Mitt Romney does not seem to be very concerned with the global warming issue. It is questionable whether he believes that global warming even exists and that it could a large problem that should be taken care of. Although Romney tries to ignore the issue of global warming and does not include anything about the issue in his campaign website, he did support the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. “The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or RGGI, is a cooperative effort by Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states to reduce carbon dioxide emissions -- a greenhouse gas that causes global warming.” Supporting the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative eventually led Romney to fee businesses that had exceeded the emissions limit. "New England has the highest energy rates in the country, and RGGI would cost us more,” Romney stated. The high cost of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative led to Romney, in December of 2005 to no longer supporting the plan and no longer using the plan to help solve the problems of climate change. Mitt Romney does not support the proposal for wind farms in Cape Cod. He believes that these wind farms will ruin the visual aspect of Nantucket. It is also believed that Mitt Romney may be tied to the Astroturf group. This is a group that was set up to question and deny the science of global warming, even though it promotes itself as a group that is concerned with the environment. Mitt Romney does not take a clear stance on the political issue of climate change. It is questionable whether he even believes that it is an issue of any importance; or even if he thinks that it even exists at all. Mitt Romney continues to ignore the issue and also continues to “flip-flop” his position on the issue.

Citations:
"Mitt Romney Ignores Global Warming." Progressive Patriots. 24 May 2007. Progressive Patriots. 6 Feb. 2008 <http://progressivepatriots.com/2007/05/24/mitt-romney-ignores-global-warming/>.
"Political positions of Mitt Romney." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 6 Feb 2008, 08:16 UTC. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 8 Feb 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney&oldid=189457045>.
"Statement By McCain Campaign On Mitt Romney's Flip-Flopping On Climate Change And Gas Tax." All American Patriots. 29 Jan. 2008. All American Patriots. 6 Feb. 2008 <http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/48741655_statement-mccain-campaign-mitt-romneys-flip-floppi>.
Taino, . "Romney Tied to Global Warming Denier Group." Governor W. Mitt Romney. 15 Jan. 2008. Zimbio. 6 Feb. 2008 <http://www.zimbio.com/Governor+W.+Mitt+Romney+/articles/297/Romney+Tied+Global+Warming+Denier+Group>.

Obama - Climate Change

Tmcclanahan
Per3

“Well, I don't believe that climate change is just an issue that's convenient to bring up during a campaign. I believe it's one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation. That's why I've fought successfully in the Senate to increase our investment in renewable fuels. That's why I reached across the aisle to come up with a plan to raise our fuel standards… And I didn't just give a speech about it in front of some environmental audience in California. I went to Detroit, I stood in front of a group of automakers, and I told them that when I am president, there will be no more excuses — we will help them retool their factories, but they will have to make cars that use less oil.”
— Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA, October 14, 2007



Climate change is a global issue that has brought about an increasingly argumentative debate over the years. Barack Obama has many ideas on climate change that he says will have a very positive effect on the country and the world. Those who support him believe that he is planning a great environmental future for the country. Others even believe that his ideas to solve the climate change problem are not extreme enough or are not an accurate solution. Obama has made several speeches that explain his ideas about climate change which include: reducing carbon emissions 80 percent by 2050, investing in a clean energy future, supporting next generation biofuels, setting America on a path to oil independence, improving the energy efficiency 50 percent by 2030, and restoring U.S. leadership on climate change.

“The power to fight back against climate change lies in the hands of all Americans,” said Senator Obama.

Obama’s views on the reduction of carbon emissions are based on a cap and trade system. This would require the cooperation of coal and mining companies pay for every ton of emission that they release in order to help the support the development energy efficient products. He also states that he will invest 150 billion dollars in the next ten years in order to advance to the next generation of biofuels and to invest in the low-emissions coal plants. Also, he says that he fund the Clean Technologies Development Venture Capital Fund with 10 billion dollars a year for five years in order to help move new technologies from labs out into everyday society. His plans for next generation biofuels include having government contracts with companies who are experimenting with ways to use biofuels such as Cellulosic Ethanol. This goes along with his ideas of incorporating renewable fuel standards. “Obama will require 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels to be included in the fuel supply by 2022 and will increase that to at least 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels like cellulosic ethanol by 2030” (Source C).

Obama has been joined by Senators Olympia Snowe and Jeff Bingaham in attempts to introduce a “legislation that would create a national education program to build awareness about the causes and effects of global climate change.” This Climate Change Education Act will help to educate Americans on the effects to the environment caused by things like carbon emissions and greenhouse gases. “As we develop national solutions to reduce carbon emissions from our factories and motor vehicles, every student should know that lifestyle choices like changing a light-bulb or driving a fuel-flexible car can help our progress.” Obama says that by informing people of the damages that are done they will begin to do what they can to help. The act is also said to “launch a national information campaign to promote new ways to address climate change” (Source D).

"We know our oil dependency is jeopardizing our planet as well. That the fossil fuels we burn are setting off a chain of dangerous weather patterns that could condemn future generations to global catastrophe" (Source B). The ability to have oil independence would greatly help the environment. If the goal of oil independence is reached it would mean that oil consumption would have been reduced drastically. Obama also plans on aiding manufacturers so they are able new fuel efficient machines, such as cars. He stated that by doing simple things, like changing to florescent lights, in mass that there will be a clear physical change of the climate in the next twenty to thirty years.



Source A: "Barack Obama is Not Serious About Global Warming." GRISTMILL. 2008. Grist Magazine, Inc.. 8 Feb 2008 .

Source B: "Barack Obama on Environment and Energy." Explore Candidates and Issues. 2007. Glassbooth. 8 Feb 2008 .

Source C: "Energy and Environment." Obama 08. Obama For America. 8 Feb 2008 .

Source D: "Obama Bill Provides Every American with Tools to Fight Climate Change." Barack Obama. 08 jan 2008. 8 Feb 2008 .

Hillary's Views on Iran

JWachman, Period 3

With all the hype that has been surrounding Iraq in the last decade it is easy to get confused about where Iran comes in and what the issues are surrounding it. The deal is that Iran has harbored fugitive Al Qaeda members, charged US officials, and is attempting to extend its influence across its border into western Afghanistan. Iran’s leaders are working quickly on an effort to develop a nuclear weapon; and, unlike Iraq, Iran's program has never been disrupted by UN-sanctioned weapons inspectors. In the face of its long, harsh war with Iraq in the 1980’s, Iran has criticized US efforts to overthrow Saddam, probably because some in Tehran fear they might be next on America’s list. With this background information it is much easier to comprehend the views that the 2008 Presidential nominees take concerning Iran.

Hillary Clinton, a democratic frontrunner in for the 2008 election, has taken a side and clearly stated that she believes that Iran is a threat to the U.S. "U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," Clinton told a crowd of Israel supporters. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table." Clinton has also expressed that because Iran uses its influence and its revenues in the region to support terrorist elements, America needs to tap into all of its recourses, including diplomatic and economic, as well as the threat and use of military force to ensure our country’s safety.

As the election nears and people are becoming more curious about what the deal is with Iran, more and more people are writing criticisms on the views. Back in October of 2007 seventy five senators, including Hillary Clinton, voted on a measure which asked the Bush administration to declare Iran’s 125,000-member Revolutionary Guard Corps a foreign terrorist organization. According to a statement put out by Clinton following her vote in favor of the measure she explained that, “in order to apply greater diplomatic pressure on Iran,” this measure needed to be supported. While Senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd voted against the measure, as well as Barrack Obama and John Edwards admitting that they would have voted against the measure, the New York Times felt that Hillary’s move was, “more hawkish than even most of the Bush administration has been willing to venture so far.” Many foreign policy experts say that Hillary’s favored aggression towards Iran would greatly intensify America’s confrontation with them. The New York Times writer Helene Cooper suggested that Hillary’s move was an election strategy. “Part of the reason for Mrs. Clinton’s vote... is that she has already shifted from primary mode, when she needs to guard against critics from the left, to general election mode, when she must guard against critics from the right. That means she is trying to shore up her national security credentials versus Republican candidates, and is trying to reassure voters that she would be a tough-minded commander in chief.” Supporting the measure was compared to being the same as if Iran declared that the United States military is a terrorist organization because it carries out President Bush’s orders.

As the war in Iraq materializes into what General William E. Odom calls, “the greatest strategic disaster in United States history,” and the cost in lives and money continues to rise, we are already being set up for the second act of war in the middle east in what Antiwar.com says is the Democrats taking up where the Republicans could be leaving off. Justin Raimondo wrote on how because the Bush administration has done little to confront Tehran Hillary Clinton has been prompted, “to take on the Bushies for supposedly ignoring the alleged threat from Iran.” Raimondo brings up how, “This administration's increasingly hysterical statements on the alleged ‘crisis,’ supposedly sparked by Iran's resumption of its nuclear energy program,” aren’t in line with intelligence because Iran is at least 10 years away from actually producing a usable nuclear weapon. The entire article from Antiwar.com focuses on accusing Clinton of Being a “War Goddess” because of her wishes to set up permanent bases in Iraq to more easily be able to threaten war in Iran. Raimondo ends by stating his fear that, “despite her Amazonian aggressiveness when it comes to foreign policy, these supposedly ‘antiwar’ Democrats will find her Xena-like persona irresistible.”

In a future news article written by Timothy Ash of Guardian Unlimited entitled The tragedy that followed Hillary Clinton's bombing of Iran in 2009, massive suicide bombings and simultaneous attacks that took place in response to President Hillary Clinton’s orders to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities in March 2009 are discussed. May 7, 2009 was said to be a day to go down in history following, “massive suicide bombings in Tel Aviv, London and New York, as well as simultaneous attacks on the remaining western troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Total casualties were estimated at around 10,000 dead and many more wounded. The attacks, which included the explosion of a so-called dirty bomb in London, were orchestrated by a Tehran-based organization for ‘martyrdom-seeking operations’” (Ash). After the initial seemingly successful bombings of 37 sites in which Iran was said to be on the verge of making a nuclear weapon using its own version of P-2 centrifuges a terrible rift in U.S. alliances and a drastic rise in oil prices followed. According to comments by readers following this article the scenario is both logical and possible.

Bibliography

Ash, Timothy. "The tragedy that followed Hillary Clinton's bombing of Iran in 2009." Guardian Unlimited 20 April 2006 4 February 2008 .

The Associated Press, "Hillary Clinton calls Iran a threat to U.S., Israel." International Herald Tribune 1 February 2007 4 February 2008 .

Clinton, Hillary. "IRAN: No Military Action On Iran Without Congressional Authority." 14 February 2007.

Cooper, Helene. "Clinton’s Iran Vote: The Fallout ." The New York Times 14 October 2007 4 February 2008 .

Raimondo, Justin. "Hillary Clinton, War Goddess ." Antiwar.com 23 January 2006 4 February 2008 .