Video: Albright “concerned” about “accident in Persian Gulf” resulting in war

posted at 4:35 pm on March 30, 2007 by Ian

Channeling the likes of Rosie O’Donnell and CNN commentator Jack Cafferty, former Secretary of State under the Clinton administration Madeline Albright said she was worried about an “accident” in the Persian Gulf resulting in a war. Alright added since the Bush administration feels “empowered” they are more likely to start a war with Iran. Continuing, Albright commented it is possible to deal with countries like Iran diplomatically without “appeasing” them. As if she would know. Transcript below.

Exit questions: Why is Madeline Albright still relevant? Will Condi be on CNN six years after the Bush administration ends?

COOPER: Britain’s prime minister, Tony Blair, spoke today about stepping up the pressure on Iran. You have said in the past pressure needs to be put on them.

How do you put on pressure and, yet, de-escalate at the same time?

ALBRIGHT: Well, I think that the sanctions that the U.N. voted last week are very important. They show a unanimity of agreement among the powers on the council. And that is pressure.

But, at the same time, I hope that there are a lot of diplomatic activities going on behind the scenes. As you pointed out, the British are now breaking off a variety of relations. The — their foreign secretary was trying to talk to the Iranians. I think that she’s gone back to the United Kingdom.

But I do think that there are others that should be able to help. I’m concerned, Anderson, about an accident in the Persian Gulf, with our forces in there and the Iranians, with kind of loose ships. We do not need another war at this point.

###

COOPER: I want to read to you — just to get a different viewpoint in here, I want to read you what Michael Rubin, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, wrote, more conservative.

He said — quote — “That Iranian decision-makers took such a step is not the result of too little diplomacy, but, rather, too much. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s May 31, 2006, offer to engage Tehran resulted not in a suspension of uranium enrichment, but rather public gloating by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei,about U.S. weakness. Nor did the British ‘softly-softly’ approach toward Tehran or its proxies in Basra bring peace in our time. Rather, it convinced the Revolutionary Guards that the British were targets of least resistance.”

Do you buy that?

ALBRIGHT: Not at all. And it’s exactly that kind of hyperbole that’s gotten us into the mess that we’re in, in Iraq.

I think it’s very important for us to recognize that it is possible to deal with countries diplomatically without appeasing them. And I think that we should be very careful, in terms of all the saber- rattling. This is why we are in such a terrible situation, both in Iraq. And I’m very worried about Afghanistan.

COOPER: At the core, why do you think Iran has done this? Is it to pressure Britain in Iraq, to — to break — you know, to increase the — the moves for British troops to get out of Iraq?

ALBRIGHT: I think it’s hard to read all their motives.

Partly, what’s going on here, Anderson, is that they feel very empowered by the war in Iraq. I mean, one of the major miscalculations of this war, and what makes it such a disaster, is that it has given increased power to Iran in the region, much more than it’s had in decades. And they are, now, I must say, overreaching.

But I think they are very inexperienced in all of this. I think it is very important to de-escalate this. It’s very easy to get into another war. And I don’t think that’s where the mood of the American people is at this time.

COOPER: Secretary Albright, we appreciate your time.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

The entire Clinton-era strategy for the Mideast was to appease and delay, let the next administration worry about it. Now that we’re here, we have to recognize that the animalistic nations Islamic republics have no respect for words, only actions.

stonemeister on March 30, 2007 at 4:44 PM

She needs to only be concerned with preventing waxy buildup.

benrand on March 30, 2007 at 4:51 PM

Accident, oh the surrealism (stressing the subconscious or nonrational significance of imagery arrived at by automatism or the exploitation of chance effects, unexpected juxtapositions, etc.) :

1. an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss; casualty; mishap: automobile accidents.
2. Law. such a happening resulting in injury that is in no way the fault of the injured person for which compensation or indemnity is legally sought.
3. any event that happens unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or cause.
4. chance; fortune; luck: I was there by accident.
5. a fortuitous circumstance, quality, or characteristic: an accident of birth.
6. Philosophy. any entity or event contingent upon the existence of something else.
7. Geology. a surface irregularity, usually on a small scale, the reason for which is not apparent.

Entelechy on March 30, 2007 at 4:51 PM

Well, I think that the sanctions that the U.N. voted last week are very important. They show a unanimity of agreement among the powers on the council. And that is pressure.

Yeah, Mahmoud is shaking in his sandals. Get real. Can Democrats do anything, or say anything, without blaming Iraq or Bush?

amerpundit on March 30, 2007 at 4:52 PM

A typical Clintonian… always worring and blaming the United States for the ills to the world.

gmaninatl on March 30, 2007 at 4:52 PM

We will be saddled with this BS for decades to come if we do not act to stop this garbage while we can. Why these morons cannot see that is beyond comprehension.

Viper1 on March 30, 2007 at 4:52 PM

That “accident” already happened. The question is whether the Brits will recognize it as the opening shot.

As for the second exit question, I’ll have to answer that with one of my own – Will CNN be around 6 years from now for Condi to rescue?

steveegg on March 30, 2007 at 4:53 PM

Sure ,they’ve been attacking the West with impunity for decades, why start fighting back now?

bbz123 on March 30, 2007 at 4:55 PM

Bad, bad American government. Just a bunch of bullies waiting to do something terrible to the poor inexperienced mullahs. Poor poor mullahs.

WTF??!?!

KelliD on March 30, 2007 at 4:55 PM

Albright is still relevant because she allows us to hearken back wistfully to the good old days when everyone liked us.

World B. Free on March 30, 2007 at 4:57 PM

Hyperbole?

Someone needs to airlock that cadaver.

unamused on March 30, 2007 at 4:57 PM

Name the last war started by an “accident.” Wars are the result of one side pushing the envelope until the bubble bursts…usually into their face. Christ, you would think that these birds never picked up a history book.

I do not fear the Iranians. I do fear our fearing them.

spd rdr on March 30, 2007 at 5:00 PM

And they [Iranians]are, now, I must say, overreaching.

That’s the only piece of trollop to drop from her lips which didn’t bounce when it hit her shoes.

Exit questions: Why is Madeline Albright still relevant?

Why was she ever?

Of course we don’t want another war; but, when does anyone really want to have even one? Honestly, talking to them too much makes the West look even more impotent.

Anyone else notice that the forced “confessions” of those soldiers were written on “From the Desk of Cindy Sheehan” stationary?

yo on March 30, 2007 at 5:03 PM

I wonder if she has a bejeweled pin of herself as a water carrier. Maybe with some diamond crusted mullahs off to the side?

KelliD on March 30, 2007 at 5:07 PM

She must be feeling neglected because she was on WNYC this morning, too. Same crapola.

BillLalor on March 30, 2007 at 5:07 PM

Exit questions: Why is Madeline Albright still relevant? Will Condi be on CNN six years after the Bush administration ends?

To question 1: NO, but relevant for allowing Iran and NK to proliferate their nuclear ambition’s.
As to question 2: Yes, unless CNN is irrelevant in 6 year (not that it isn’t already)

Kini on March 30, 2007 at 5:07 PM

I’m concerned that an accident occurred in the bedroom of Albright’s parents several decades ago.

thirteen28 on March 30, 2007 at 5:07 PM

When the mother of the Korean bomb speaks, people listen!

Anton on March 30, 2007 at 5:08 PM

Maybe we should send the Madman in Iran a Michael Jordan autographed basketball or perhaps Maddie Notbright could mow his lawn.

silenced majority on March 30, 2007 at 5:08 PM

Just thought I’d let you know that Madeline Albright bathes in the moisture of Anderson Cooper’s soiled and bloodstained underwear.

Yrs vry trly,

Matticus

See you Monday.

Matticus Finch on March 30, 2007 at 5:12 PM

This from the same lady who stated said the world would be better off with the US not being the only superpower with nukes.

Wade on March 30, 2007 at 5:14 PM

Partly, what’s going on here, Anderson, is that they feel very empowered by the war in Iraq. I mean, one of the major miscalculations of this war, and what makes it such a disaster, is that it has Democrat surrender monkeys have given increased power to Iran in the region, much more than it’s had in decades.

Fixed it for ya.

fogw on March 30, 2007 at 5:15 PM

Why worry? Now that the UN is involved, certainly everything will work out for the best, right Madeleine?

Ass clown.

jaleach on March 30, 2007 at 5:15 PM

Yeesh, now I need to watch Alien vs. Predator to get that ugly image out of my mind.

infidel4life on March 30, 2007 at 5:20 PM

How many acts of war do the enemy have to commit before liberals will go to war? Who could forget Ms. Halbright?

Capitalist Infidel on March 30, 2007 at 5:22 PM

I thought I flushed that down the toilet this morning, and look, it put on a dress and ended up on CNN…….. go figure?

PinkyBigglesworth on March 30, 2007 at 5:23 PM

Isn’t she partly responsible for the n.korea problem? Just askin’.

tormod on March 30, 2007 at 5:24 PM

Hmmmm.

“That Iranian decision-makers took such a step is not the result of too little diplomacy, but, rather, too much. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s May 31, 2006, offer to engage Tehran resulted not in a suspension of uranium enrichment, but rather public gloating by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei,about U.S. weakness. Nor did the British ’softly-softly’ approach toward Tehran or its proxies in Basra bring peace in our time. Rather, it convinced the Revolutionary Guards that the British were targets of least resistance.”
Do you buy that?
ALBRIGHT: Not at all. And it’s exactly that kind of hyperbole that’s gotten us into the mess that we’re in, in Iraq.

Madelein Albreight 1998:

“Saddam’s Goal… is to achieve the lifting of the UN sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s WMD programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.”

Zetterson on March 30, 2007 at 5:24 PM

“What a blast it is to be here with Michael Moore.” -Madelene ‘Neville’ Albright….Democratic National Convention.

Her and Bra-zynski……a match made in heaven. Revoke her citizenship, send her back to Europe, postage due.

Limerick on March 30, 2007 at 5:24 PM

It is so embarrassing that this, what ever the hell she is, was ever a representative of the United States of America that I cringe with shame. You can thank PIPAS for that one and remember that if elected you will see many, many, more hobits (think Donna baby) running the country!

NEMETI IN SYRACUSE on March 30, 2007 at 5:25 PM

Madeleine Albright: part of the problem, not part of the solution.

ReubenJCogburn on March 30, 2007 at 5:32 PM

Lord, she looks horrible!

Topsecretk9 on March 30, 2007 at 5:34 PM

Pardon my Amurican but, Albright ain’t.

But I do think that there are others that should be able to help. I’m concerned, Anderson, about an accident in the Persian Gulf, with our forces in there and the Iranians, with kind of loose ships. We do not need another war at this point.

Iran doesn’t want a war they just want to win a chicken chesting contest and with liberals in charge we would pay them to win it.

This slackjawed comment comes from a major player in the engineering of the present day No. Korea nuke crisis.
She threw the all powerful dialog bomb at the Kimmie and then shaking in fear, Kimmie detonated a nuclear bomb last year.
Liberals obviously can’t take a hint.

Dialog is a wait just a minute while I get ready to blow your brains out tactic.

Speakup on March 30, 2007 at 6:04 PM

All she wants is for everyone to get along – is that so hard??

Rick on March 30, 2007 at 6:14 PM

I can’t. . Just can’t bring myself to watch.

I still that image of her with her uncle Kim and the
basketball.

Texyank on March 30, 2007 at 6:48 PM

I want to know where people get the idea that diplomacy solves anything? This is rediculous and illogical. Diplomacy allows you to determine which ACTIONS need to be taken that will solve the problem. The next time these fool burecrats on national TV say we need “diaglogue” “diplomacy” or “discussions” I want somebody to not let them get away with it and actually ask the questions of to say and what the negotions are.

One side always taking (hostile) actions while the other side talks about it, is not “diplomacy”

Resolute on March 30, 2007 at 6:51 PM

I believe she is on Mahers show tonight, that should be good for a few more video clips!
I will be interested to see if Maher realizes how serious this is, or if he blames this too on Bush. (like I don’t already know!)
Brzeinsky (sp?) was on last week, bashing Bush as well, which I found hilarious. How can anyone from carters administration claim to know how to deal with terrorists? Christ, if they had dealt with Iran then, maybe we wouldn’t be having these problems now!

redshirt on March 30, 2007 at 6:51 PM

“Anderson, look, I tried m best to do away with grime and mildew, but even I can’ tbe totally successful when dealing with dirt that doesn’t respond to Mr. clean. I tried Bounty, it’s the quicker, picker-upper, too.”

benrand on March 30, 2007 at 7:17 PM

How many acts of war do the enemy have to commit before liberals will go to war?

Capitalist Infidel on March 30, 2007 at 5:22 PM

Just one more. Always, just one more.

When are the grownups going to stand up and start slapping this cowardly crap down? Right now the world resembles nothing so much as the story of Lord of the Flies, or a bizarre grade school reality show. Undisciplined children drunk with their own power.

There are some very bad decisions being made, by people who should know better.

techno_barbarian on March 30, 2007 at 7:23 PM

She’s worried about a friggin’ accident! Someone please inform her of the obvious and tell her the actions from Iran are no stinkin’ accident.

Yakko77 on March 30, 2007 at 7:33 PM

How many acts of war do the enemy have to commit before liberals will go to war? Who could forget Ms. Halbright?

Capitalist Infidel on March 30, 2007 at 5:22 PM

You don’t! You capitulate! You Surrender! YOU SUBMIT!

Hair club for men will be growing bushy beards.
Women, well burqas and beatings. All things equal.

Kini on March 30, 2007 at 7:35 PM

This crap is the same ideology that got us attacked in the first place. No more of this bullshit diplomacy. I am sick and tired of the world thinking they can do what they want without any consequences. The west is weak…and Albright represents that weakness

msipes on March 30, 2007 at 7:38 PM

You wanna de-escalate Madeline? How about we take out their one and only gasoline refinery and then embargo all gasoline shipments into their country?

How about, Madeline, we bring their economy to a halt? No one killed, no nuclear fallout, just send everyone back to looking for a donkey and a cart? Do you think the Iranians would put up with the Mullahs after that?

Babs on March 30, 2007 at 8:14 PM

that’s funny… she used the same T-Point on the Colbert Report a few days ago.

Opinionnation on March 30, 2007 at 8:42 PM

Halfbright causes me to have very bad flashbacks

Captain America on March 31, 2007 at 12:23 AM

I keep getting 24 flashbacks . . .”Warning nuke”

- The Cat

MirCat on March 31, 2007 at 12:35 AM

Why would anybody in his right mind listen to a woman with her lousy track record?

I remember the Faukland Islands, are there no men left in Briton?

Mojave Mark on March 31, 2007 at 2:29 AM

I can’t wait to see who the house will fall on – Albright or Helen Thomas.

Laura on March 31, 2007 at 10:10 AM

I wish that Cooper had followed up by asking Albright what she meant as “accident”. My guess is that she would be agnostic at best about whether the incident occurred in Iraqi or Iranian waters and just might consider the “accident” to have been the Brits trespassing on Iranian territory.

rokemronnie on March 31, 2007 at 9:41 PM

Babs, I think they have more than one refinery. I’ve long been an advocate of using Iran’s dependence on refined fuel to topple the mullahs, and the articles I’ve seen say that there are nine refineries in Iran that make diesel fuel and gasoline.

In any case, they haven’t invested any $ in their oil infrastructure from the well to the pump since the revolution. Their refineries are deteriorating from overuse.

We need to do this quickly. Michael Ledeen mentioned that Iran is subsidizing motorist’s conversion to CNG. Iran produces natural gas as part of it’s oil mining and this would make it less dependent on refined gasoline and diesel.

I say buy some Russian cruise missiles on the black market. Take out the refineries and have some previously unknown Sunni group take credit.

Even if we did it openly, I suspect that now might be a good time to do it, since the Iranian people may blame the regime for starting the crisis instead of rallying around the flag. With no refineries and a naval blockade of incoming tankers, the Iranian economy would collapse in fairly short order.

rokemronnie on March 31, 2007 at 9:53 PM

Babs, I think they have more than one refinery. I’ve long been an advocate of using Iran’s dependence on refined fuel to topple the mullahs, and the articles I’ve seen say that there are nine refineries in Iran that make diesel fuel and gasoline.

In any case, they haven’t invested any $ in their oil infrastructure from the well to the pump since the revolution. Their refineries are deteriorating from overuse.

We need to do this quickly. Michael Ledeen mentioned that Iran is subsidizing motorist’s conversion to CNG. Iran produces natural gas as part of it’s oil mining and this would make it less dependent on refined gasoline and diesel.

I say buy some Russian cruise missiles on the black market. Take out the refineries and have some previously unknown Sunni group take credit.

Even if we did it openly, I suspect that now might be a good time to do it, since the Iranian people may blame the regime for starting the crisis instead of rallying around the flag. With no refineries and a naval blockade of incoming tankers, the Iranian economy would collapse in fairly short order.

rokemronnie on March 31, 2007 at 9:55 PM