The remarks by former President have come at the right time.However, he should have added that USA should also agree to talk to Iran without any precondition.Stopping the present uranium enrichment on small scale means that the outcome is predetermined.Why should I ran agree to such an arrangement whereby the very subject becomes a predetermined conclusion. The ex-president also rightly pointed out the result of a military strike.It would lead to disaster.What that 'disaster' means also should have been eleborated by the ex-president.

You make peace with enemies not allies. (i dont know who said this but it is ironic that it was an Israeli)

Olmert and the self-hating left are the greatest threat facing Israel today - greater than Iran or any of the arabs. Their suicidal policies - which would be considered treason in any other country - disturb me far more than the destructive aims of their neighbours.

From the man who gave al-Qaeda eight hassle-free years to prepare for world jihad while he stained Monica's dresses we should take advice on how to deal with Ahmedinejad?

never were's. GO AWAY! I have some respect for Carter at least he wasn't a draft dodger who sent other men to fight a war he wasn't about to, then cut and RAN when the going got rough. Clinton is one of the reasons why we have some of the trouble in the Middle East we do. Sure Iran wants to talk. It's a stall tactic for them. The military option must always stay on the table and be ready to be implemented by a man who will do it without reservations. That is the only thing that will really move the Iranians to be serious about rethinking their position.

He's so full of it I'm surprised his eyes don't turn brown. It does, however, cascade forth from his mouth in a never-ending stream of BS.

If you would not trust this man with your daughter, why would you listen to his advise on anything else?

Clinton is ill-informed about the nature and threats of Islamist-Jihadism poses to the non-Islamist world. People who are knowledgeable of the situation in the Middle East and the subject of Islamist-Jihadism will not be calling the religion of the dark forces peaceful and advocating talking with the wolves--the fanatics who have American and Israeli blood in their hands and whose aim is the destruction of Israel. And Iran is working feverishly on its nukes to accomplish its evil intention. If Clinton thinks that talking with the Islamist-Jihadist fanatics will bear fruit, he must be an idiot or a nut. For a President who did nothing to defend America's interests around the world when Saudi/Islamist-Jihadist terrorists were blowing American interests in the Middle East and Africa, his proposal about talking with the Islamist-Jihadist fanatics in Iran is like advocating talking with Hitler or Bin Laden. This may well be damaging his wife's political chances for high office.

A man who doesn't know when he is having sex---- and they let him talk about world affairs That must qualify as joke of the month

the notion that usa considers war with iran which is a self fulfiilling disaster, contrary to any rational genuine american interest or shooting oneself in the stomach not the foot, especially when the usa is in the iraqi swamp, the idea they would even consider this, proves only one theory: ISRAEL RULES USA, AND THE USA IS FORCED TO DO ANYTHING FOR ISRAEL'S SAKE.

I completely fail to see why silly ideas of former US presidents(Clinton, Carter), or state secretaries ( Baker, Kissinger), or local monarchs ( King Abdulka), and their utterances make headlines. These people failed many times. their ideas have proved wrong, and still they think they know it all. Also I fail to understand the insatiable wish of leftists to tlak and negotiate with bad guy ( in case of Iran with sheer raving loonies). What can you negotiate with Ahmanejin or Kim Jon-Il? These nutcases are on self-destruction course!

I find your talk-back bit selfish.If the exPresident had suggested that no talks should be held with Iran,you would have approved of the same and his sex life would not have mattered.The fact that he suggested to the contrary makes him useless.On the whole you have to know that Bush Administration miscalculated their adventurism in to Iraq right from the begining and what you witness today is the outcome of wrong policy.With the present state of affair,Iran and Syria are in a position to increase the suffering of the American troops.Wisely, few suggestions were made by different personalities in USA.Whether Bush adhers to this suggestions or not is obviously upto him.

...Iraq in Decmber 1998? See : http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/16/iraq.strike.03/ He is simply trying to score political points for the Democrats.

America should prostray and surrender to Iran....that is what should happen....we are all Ahmadnajade.

Bravo, Tuvia! Absolutely on point.

Sorry to hear that you are all Ahmadinejad. But you will be even more sorry.

thats right...we own your bank accounts and your mothers....so suck it up....and by the way...why dont you learn how to spell so you dont appear to be the nitwit that you really are

clinton is only half right: a military strike will only delay, but not end iran's nuclear weapons programme - because it can always be rebuilt. while he is correct in pointing out that 2/3 of iran's population does not want a fundamentalist government, that does NOT translate into "pressure", because iran is not a western-style democracy. the people don't tell the mullahs what to do, the mullahs tell the people. talks or sanctions will not dissuade the government, any more than carpet bombing would. where clinton is wrong, is in not advocating regime change, which is the only way to STOP the crazies that are leading iran into an islamic armageddon.

the us "engaged" with pakistan? the us backed pakistan against india (probably for all the wrong reasons), and then embraced pakistan in the hunt for bin laden (even though pakistan invented the taleban). even though the pakistanis play nice with the americans (while cutting deals with the taleban behind their backs), and the americans use them for intelligence and propaganda purposes, they were neither "engaged" not "married" to the americans, and they never will be. pakistan has been the prime supplier of knowledge and equipment for "islamo-nukes" to libya, egypt, iraq, and iran, and who knows how many more. i can that "screwed" rather than "engaged".