Question for IWR Dems now stepping back from support for Iraq war: What about Iran?

[BurtWorm]

“One person in the audience here pressed Mrs. Clinton on her vote for military action in Iraq in 2002, saying she allowed “the president to go to war,” and asked for specific steps she would take to end the war and withdraw the troops. The senator replied with her familiar talking points: She said she did not see her vote as one “for pre-emptive war,” but rather as leverage for the president to work diplomatic channels.

“If we had known then what we know now, there never would have been a vote, and I never would have voted to give the president the authority,” she said to applause from many of the 1,000 people gathered on the fairgrounds here in eastern Iowa, near the Mississippi River.

What she left out of her answer today, among other things, was that she said in 2002 that she was casting her vote for military action “with conviction,” and that most members of Congress at the time were well aware that a vote for military action could likely lead to war in Iraq. At the time, she said that she believed “the best course” was to pursue stronger weapons inspections through the United Nations.

One of her likely rivals for the Democratic nomination, former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, has repudiated his similar vote in 2002, calling it wrong and apologizing — going much further than Mrs. Clinton has been willing to go.

...

For her part, Mrs. Clinton said she wanted to “bring the Iraq war to the right end,” but she also acknowledged, referring to the likely 2008 presidential field of candidates, “That’s easy to say and everyone coming to Iowa is going to say it.”

...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/us/politics/28cnd-hillary.html?hp&ex=1170046800&en=cc99d0e54c08d953&ei=5094&partner=homepage


It's too easy, as Sen. Clinton admits, to make noises against the Iraq war, now that it's crystal clear even to the most insider of Washington insiders that it's unpopular. She and Edwards (and Kerry and Hagel) are showing some inkling that they can follow the lead of the people on Iraq. Can any show that they can lead on the question of Iran? Or would they have to wait until we're mired in another war to be able to take a position against it?

This is an urgent question that should be addressed to both HRC and John Edwards (and Obama and the rest) every chance there is to get an answer: "Do you support going to war against Iran to stop its nuclear program or to stop its support for Hezbollah in Lebanon or Shiite parties in Iraq? Where do you stand on the the future of military conflict in the Middle East, post-Bush."

[delphinium]

1. Excellent question

I don't think anyone's asked HRC or Obama that, have they? It definitely needs to be asked.

[BurtWorm]

4. I don't know if it's been asked of Edwards, but he volunteered this answer

when he was in in Israel recently.

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2007%20Opinion%20Editorials/January/25%20o/Senator%20John%20Edwards%20Pledges%20Before%20Israeli%20Leaders%20Not%20to%20Allow%20Iran%20Have%20Nuclear%20Weapons.htm

In a speech at a conference in Herzliya, Israel, former Senator John Edwards (NC-D) took aim at Iran, warning that the "world won't back down." The 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee, who recently launched a new presidential campaign also said that Israel should be allowed to join NATO.

Although Edwards has criticized the war in Iraq, and has urged bringing the troops home, the former senator firmly declared that "all options must remain on the table," in regards to dealing with Iran, whose nuclear ambition "threatens the security of Israel and the entire world."

"Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons," Edwards said. "For years, the US hasn't done enough to deal with what I have seen as a threat from Iran. As my country stayed on the sidelines, these problems got worse."

Edwards continued, "To a large extent, the US abdicated its responsibility to the Europeans. This was a mistake. The Iranian president's statements such as his description of the Holocaust as a myth and his goals to wipe Israel off the map indicate that Iran is serious about its threats."

"Once Iran goes nuclear, other countries in the Middle East will go nuclear, making Israel's neighborhood much more volatile," Edwards said.

Edwards added, "Iran must know that the world won't back down. The recent UN resolution ordering Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium was not enough. We need meaningful political and economic sanctions. We have muddled along for far too long. To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate - ALL options must remain on the table."

[Robbien]

14. I hate that the Israel lobby

has the Democratic party dancing to their tune.

The lobby is rich and powerful. We saw what it did for Lieberman.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. Sssshhhhh! "Practical politics" doesn't allow hard questions.

Don't you realize that it's not about war and peace or bodies and wounds?

It's all about POLLS!

We needn't ask "our" candidates questions of substance, they know best what's good for us. And, if they're wrong, and the denials don't work, they'll apologize!

Feel better now?

[delphinium]

3. There've plenty of questions about Iraq, though

just none about Iran.

[OHdem10]

5. The Most Most Most Important Question now IS

Mr. or Ms. Presidential Candidate:

Please spell out for me your approach on how we deal with
or handle the Iran Situation. ( No dodges accepted)

IMO, The President has determined he is doing whatever is
necessary to hold Iraq the best he can just long enough
to hand it over to the next president. Remember his statement
Iraq will not fail under my watch. He has the money in the
pipeline to cover this surge. Once all the troops are
there, he does not believe we will cut funding because
we do not want to hurt the troops.

There is a good chance he will at least bomb Iranian
Nuclear Sites. These are each embedded in neighborhoods
and highly populated.

It is much more important that our Congress get about
the business of intervention. Bush yells about what
terrible things will happen if we leave Iraq. I say
there will be much more serious consequences if we bomn
Iran. The Middle East will be a sight we do not
wish to see or try to deal with.

[Individualist]

6. The "if we had known then what we know now" excuse is BS

Those who voted for IWR knew exactly what they were doing.

[BurtWorm]

7. kick

[Luckyduck]

8. Best question ever!

:kick:

[BurtWorm]

10. thank you.

[FrenchieCat]

9. Here's a good piece on that....

here... http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2007/01/iran_and_us_politics_the_good.html#more

IRAN and U.S. Politics - The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
snip
The Presidential '08 hopefuls, by a margin of too many, appear eager to play cowboy a la George Bush! We are hearing lotsa bravado, slogan filled "Bushisms" formulated while on the campaign trail or in smoky conference rooms filled with Neocons luminaries.

"Bring them on" has been replaced with "We will not tolerate under any circumstances", and "Make our Day" by "all options are on the table", more often said twice in succession for added emphasis and effect.
snip
So how do we handle Iran? Do we threaten, cajole, bluster, or do sanctions a la Iraq? What exactly are the steps to be taken in order to keep Iran in a place acceptable to the United States and most of the world?

In otherwords, what's the Iran plan?

Sure, the candidates will tell you all that is wrong with Iran; they are evil and Ahmedinejad, untrustworthy. The candidates will firmly insist that the military options and all other possibilities remain on the table, while slamming a hand to the table. But what does that really mean? Tell us something that we don't know! How is the table set? Which china pattern will we be using? Will any other country help us decide? Is there both a steak and butter knife laid out, and is the tablespoon included?

The truth is that hard questions must be asked by Americans in reference to any action regarding Iran. Where should we place the emphasis? Will it be diplomacy, punitive sanctions, or will it be "Shock and Awe" all the way baby?

What are plans A, B, C, D, etc...?

What if the worse should happen, and we end up in a military confrontation with Iran; What would it look like, and what would it achieve? Would it solve anything? And what about the rest of the world; how would they react? Russia, China, Europe, Moderate ME countries?
more....

[BurtWorm]

11. Excellent find! (Or is it yours?)

Thank you!

:toast:

[Luckyduck]

12. kick

:kick:

[Luckyduck]

13. kick

:kick: