The actual dialogue between Rolph and Clinton

[ruggerson]

Make up your own mind:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/10/07/clintons_iran_vote_prompts_a_h.html


"Well, let me thank you for the question, but let me tell you that the premise of the question is wrong and I'll be happy to explain that to you," Clinton began. She offered a detailed description of the resolution, which she said stressed robust diplomacy that could lead to imposing sanctions against Iran, and then pointedly said to Rolph that her view wasn't in "what you read to me, that somebody obviously sent to you."

"I take exception," Rolph interjected. "This is my own research."

"Well then, let me finish," Clinton responded.

Rolph, from nearby Nashua, fired back that no one had sent him the material.

"Well, then, I apologize. It's just that I've been asked the very same question in three other places," she said. Clinton then explained that she had gone to the Senate floor in February to state that Bush does not have the authority to use military action against Iran and that she is working on legislation to put that into law. Rolph once again challenged her recent vote, suggesting that it amounted to giving Bush a free hand..

"I'm sorry, sir, it does not," she said, her voice showing her exasperation. "No, no, let me just say one other thing because I respect your research. There was an earlier version that I opposed. It was dramatically changed ... I would never have voted for the first version. The second version ripped out what was considered very bellicose and very threatening language."

[Cameron27]

1. I'd like to see the video,

but he asked a question that included the passage of Kyl-Lieberman that was extracted before the vote, but Clinton could have handled it better IMO.

[papau]

11. I agree - Stupid comment on Hillary's part - but Hillary was correct -voter incorrect -text below

TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED:

SEC. 1535. SENSE OF SENATE ON IRAN.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:

(1) General David Petraeus, commander of the Multi-National Force Iraq, stated in testimony before a joint session of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives on September 10, 2007, that ``t is increasingly apparent to both coalition and Iraqi leaders that Iran, through the use of the Iranian Republican Guard Corps Qods Force, seeks to turn the Shi'a militia extremists into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests and fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq''.

(2) Ambassador Ryan Crocker, United States Ambassador to Iraq, stated in testimony before a joint session of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives on September 10, 2007, that ``Iran plays a harmful role in Iraq. While claiming to support Iraq in its transition, Iran has actively undermined it by providing lethal capabilities to the enemies of the Iraqi state''.

(3) The most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, published in August 2007, states that ``Iran has been intensifying aspects of its lethal support for select groups of Iraqi Shia militants, particularly the JAM , since at least the beginning of 2006. Explosively formed penetrator (EFP) attacks have risen dramatically''.

(4) The Report of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, released on September 6, 2007, states that ``he Commission concludes that the evidence of Iran's increasing activism in the southeastern part of the country, including Basra and Diyala provinces, is compelling. ..... It is an accepted fact that most of the sophisticated weapons being used to `defeat' our armor protection comes across the border from Iran with relative impunity''.

(5) General (Ret.) James Jones, chairman of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, stated in testimony before the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate on September 6, 2007, that ``e judge that the goings-on across the Iranian border in particular are of extreme severity and have the potential of at least delaying our efforts inside the country. Many of the arms and weapons that kill and maim our soldiers are coming from across the Iranian border''.

(6) General Petraeus said of Iranian support for extremist activity in Iraq on April 26, 2007, that ``e know that it goes as high as Suleimani, who is the head of the Qods Force. ..... We believe that he works directly for the supreme leader of the country''.

(7) Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, the president of Iran, stated on August 28, 2007, with respect to the United States presence in Iraq, that ``he political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly. Soon we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course we are prepared to fill the gap''.

(8) Ambassador Crocker testified to Congress, with respect to President Ahmedinejad's statement, on September 11, 2007, that ``he Iranian involvement in Iraq--its support for extremist militias, training, connections to Lebanese Hezbollah, provision of munitions that are used against our force as well as the Iraqis--are all, in my view, a pretty clear demonstration that Ahmedinejad means what he says, and is already trying to implement it to the best of his ability''.

(9) General Petraeus stated on September 12, 2007, with respect to evidence of the complicity of Iran in the murder of members of the Armed Forces of the United States in Iraq, that ``e evidence is very, very clear. We captured it when we captured Qais Khazali, the Lebanese Hezbollah deputy commander, and others, and it's in black and white. ..... We interrogated these individuals. We have on tape. ..... Qais Khazali himself. When asked, could you have done what you have done without Iranian support, he literally throws up his hands and laughs and says, of course not. ..... So they told us about the amounts of money that they have received. They told us about the training that they received. They told us about the ammunition and sophisticated weaponry and all of that that they received''.

(10) General Petraeus further stated on September 14, 2007, that ``hat we have got is evidence. This is not intelligence. This is evidence, off computers that we captured, documents and so forth. ..... In one case, a 22-page document that lays out the planning, reconnaissance, rehearsal, conduct, and aftermath of the operation conducted that resulted in the death of five of our soldiers in Karbala back in January''.

(11) The Department of Defense report to Congress entitled ``Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq'' and released on September 18, 2007, consistent with section 9010 of Public Law 109-289, states that ``here has been no decrease in Iranian training and funding of illegal Shi'a militias in Iraq that attack Iraqi and Coalition forces and civilians..... Tehran's support for these groups is one of the greatest impediments to progress on reconciliation''.

(12) The Department of Defense report further states, with respect to Iranian support for Shi'a extremist groups in Iraq, that ``ost of the explosives and ammunition used by these groups are provided by the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force..... For the period of June through the end of August, events are projected to rise by 39 percent over the period of March through May''.

(13) Since May 2007, Ambassador Crocker has held three rounds of talks in Baghdad on Iraq security with representatives of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

(14) Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress on September 10, 2007, with respect to these talks, stating that ``I laid out the concerns we had over Iranian activity that was damaging to Iraq's security, but found no readiness on Iranians' side at all to engage seriously on these issues. The impression I came with after a couple rounds is that the Iranians were interested simply in the appearance of discussions, of being seen to be at the table with the U.S. as an arbiter of Iraq's present and future, rather than actually doing serious business ..... Right now, I haven't seen any sign of earnest or seriousness on the Iranian side''.

(15) Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress on September 11, 2007, stating that ``e have seen nothing on the ground that would suggest that the Iranians are altering what they're doing in support of extremist elements that are going after our forces as well as the Iraqis''.

(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--

(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;

(2) that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;

(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;

(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;

(5) that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224; and

(6) that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.

[goodgd_yall]

18. Wrong version. See link attached.

http://irannuclearwatch.blogspot.com/2007/09/revised-lieberman-kyl-amendment.html

[papau]

24. Sorry and again that thanks for catching my error - text that passed is below

KYL-LIEBERMAN MODIFIED AMENDMENT NO. 2011 SEC. 1535. SENSE OF SENATE ON IRAN.
(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) General David Petraeus, commander of the Multi-National Force-Iraq, stated in testimony before a joint session of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives on September 10, 2007, that ``t is increasingly apparent to both coalition and Iraqi leaders that Iran, through the use of the Iranian Republican Guard Corps Qods Force, seeks to turn the Shi'a militia extremists into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests and fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq''.
(2) Ambassador Ryan Crocker, United States Ambassador to Iraq, stated in testimony before a joint session of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives on September 10, 2007, that ``Iran plays a harmful role in Iraq. While claiming to support Iraq in its transition, Iran has actively undermined it by providing lethal capabilities to the enemies of the Iraqi state''.
(3) The most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, published in August 2007, states that ``Iran has been intensifying aspects of its lethal support for select groups of Iraqi Shia militants, particularly the JAM , since at least the beginning of 2006. Explosively formed penetrator (EFP) attacks have risen dramatically''.
(4) The Report of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, released on September 6, 2007, states that ``he Commission concludes that the evidence of Iran's increasing activism in the southeastern part of the country, including Basra and Diyala provinces, is compelling. . . It is an accepted fact that most of the sophisticated weapons being used to `defeat' our armor protection comes across the border from Iran with relative impunity''.
(5) General (Ret.) James Jones, chairman of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, stated in testimony before the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate on September 6, 2007, that ``e judge that the goings-on across the Iranian border in particular are of extreme severity and have the potential of at least delaying our efforts inside the country. Many of the arms and weapons that kill and maim our soldiers are coming from across the Iranian border''.
(6) General Petraeus said of Iranian support for extremist activity in Iraq on April 26, 2007, that ``e know that it goes as high as Suleimani, who is the head of the Qods Force . . . We believe that he works directly for the supreme leader of the country''.
(7) Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, the president of Iran, stated on August 28, 2007, with respect to the United States presence in Iraq, that ``he political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly. Soon we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course we are prepared to fill the gap''.
(8) Ambassador Crocker testified to Congress, with respect to President Ahmedinejad's statement, on September 11, 2007, that ``he Iranian involvement in Iraq--its support for extremist militias, training, connections to Lebanese Hezbollah, provision of munitions that are used against our force as well as the Iraqis--are all, in my view, a pretty clear demonstration that Ahmedinejad means what he says, and is already trying to implement it to the best of his ability''.
(9) General Petraeus stated on September 12, 2007, with respect to evidence of the complicity of Iran in the murder of members of the Armed Forces of the United States in Iraq, that ``e evidence is very, very clear. We captured it when we captured Qais Khazali, the Lebanese Hezbollah deputy commander, and others, and it's in black and white . . . We interrogated these individuals. We have on tape ..... Qais Khazali himself. When asked, could you have done what you have done without Iranian support, he literally throws up his hands and laughs and says, of course not . . . So they told us about the amounts of money that they have received. They told us about the training that they received. They told us about the ammunition and sophisticated weaponry and all of that that they received''.
(10) General Petraeus further stated on September 14, 2007, that ``hat we have got is evidence. This is not intelligence. This is evidence, off computers that we captured, documents and so forth . . . In one case, a 22-page document that lays out the planning, reconnaissance, rehearsal, conduct, and aftermath of the operation conducted that resulted in the death of five of our soldiers in Karbala back in January''.
(11) The Department of Defense report to Congress entitled ``Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq'' and released on September 18, 2007, consistent with section 9010 of Public Law 109-289, states that ``here has been no decrease in Iranian training and funding of illegal Shi'a militias in Iraq that attack Iraqi and Coalition forces and civilians . . . Tehran's support for these groups is one of the greatest impediments to progress on reconciliation''.
(12) The Department of Defense report further states, with respect to Iranian support for Shi'a extremist groups in Iraq, that ``ost of the explosives and ammunition used by these groups are provided by the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force . . . For the period of June through the end of August, events are projected to rise by 39 percent over the period of March through May''.
(13) Since May 2007, Ambassador Crocker has held three rounds of talks in Baghdad on Iraq security with representatives of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
(14) Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress on September 10, 2007, with respect to these talks, stating that ``I laid out the concerns we had over Iranian activity that was damaging to Iraq's security, but found no readiness on Iranians' side at all to engage seriously on these issues. The impression I came with after a couple rounds is that the Iranians were interested simply in the appearance of discussions, of being seen to be at the table with the U.S. as an arbiter of Iraq's present and future, rather than actually doing serious business . . . Right now, I haven't seen any sign of earnest or seriousness on the Iranian side''.
(15) Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress on September 11, 2007, stating that ``e have seen nothing on the ground that would suggest that the Iranians are altering what they're doing in support of extremist elements that are going after our forces as well as the Iraqis''.
(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--
(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;
(2) that it is a critical national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;
(3) that the United States should designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224; and
(4) that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.
Insert prior to section (6) the following:
(16) Ambassador Crocker further testified before Congress on September 11, 2007, with respect to talks with Iran, that ``I think that it's an option that we want to preserve. Our first couple of rounds did not produce anything. I don't think that we should either, therefore, be in a big hurry to have another round, nor do I think we should say we're not going to talk anymore . . . I do believe it's important to keep the option for further discussion on the table.''
(17) Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated on September 16, 2007 that ``I think that the administration believes at this point that continuing to try and deal with the Iranian threat, the Iranian challenge, through diplomatic and economic means is by far the preferable approach. That's the one we are using . . . we always say all options are on the table, but clearly, the diplomatic and economic approach is the one that we are pursuing.''

[daninthemoon]

2. Thanks for the text. If she seriously thinks bushler won't consider

this vote labelling Iran's military "terrorists" as being all the justification he needs for bombing, she hasn't been paying attention. Or am I missing something? Why does she say it doesn't give bushler military authorization, but also say "she is working on legislation to put that into law"? Which is it? Why would we expect the rethugs to allow such a measure to get to the floor given the recent track record? Reading this actual text is not helping my opinion of her.

[babylonsister]

3. Here, too:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3587389

[ruggerson]

4. Sorry, didn't see your post

:hi:

[babylonsister]

8. No probs!

:hi:

[bigdarryl]

5. you left out the part where she said shes been asked the same question 3 other times on the...

campaign trail. it shows that some people have a problem with her vote.

[ruggerson]

6. Re read it

n/t

[TwilightZone]

10. "I've been asked the very same question in three other places"

Is that what you were talking about? It's right there in the post.

[jgraz]

7. Her attempt to dismiss him is right out of the Rove playbook

"that somebody obviously sent to you"

What crap. Is this the kind of dialog we expect from a Democrat?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

12. She was offering him a graceful out, not dismissing him

The "dismissal" is baked in the cake. What the man was saying was FALSE, so it was going to be contradicted somehow.

She was read something she never voted on in her life (the ammendmnet as first circulated) and asked how she could defend voting for it.

She never accused the guy of being a plant, or of having been sent there. Her supposed false accusation was actually letting the guy off the hook, allowing for the possibility that he had been sent some bogus campaign literature that he accepted in good faith, rather than assuming the guy was a maliscious liar.

The fellow declined the graceful out, and offered that he did his "own research." His research apparantly did not extend to inquiring as to the actual text of the measure, information readily available to anyone. But he's the victim because his bogus version of the measure was disrespected?


I'm sure this could have been handled more gracefully, but it's not much of an outrage for someone to "dismiss" a falsehood.

[jgraz]

21. The fact that she argued by attacking the messenger is the issue here

If anything, she was looking for a graceful out for herself. I happen to agree with Rolph that her vote was the height of cowardly warmongering, but the real problem with this exchange is how Clinton chose to address it.

She, in effect, DID accuse the guy of being a plant, or at the very least a sheep following the "vast rightwing conspiracy." What Hillary demonstrated there is something I saw when helping Jerry Brown challenge her husband in 92: a propensity to take a big steaming dump on anyone who challenges her. She's not interested in a dialogue, she's interested in her message. Anyone who takes her off that message gets hammered down quick.

We don't need another four years of this crap. We need a president who can bring the people back into the process, not shut them out for fear of what they might say.

[PurityOfEssence]

13. Silence, peon!

To dismiss the person as an obvious shill or dupe is even a tad worse than it sounded at first.

This literally says that what he is asking as his own question is really from someone else. That's verging on an accusation of plagiarism, but certainly a fatuous pronouncement to diminish an opponent.

To say that he's echoing or dittoing the thoughts of others is accusing him of presenting himself under a false premise and potentially even betraying the trust of the crowd by being there at the behest of others. It also serves to heap ridicule on anyone who could presume to question her decisions. Depending on the circumstances, it can also put the person in a bit of physical danger. Mobs are fun.

This "playing of the crowd" is an appropriate microcosm to her triumphal bandwagon approach: only a dolt or a traitor could possibly resist her inevitable ascension, and they deserve a bit of peril.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

14. Your reading comprehension is suspect. Nothing in the real exchange supports your characterizations.

[PurityOfEssence]

16. "what you read to me, that somebody obviously sent to you."

Redux: you're presenting a statement as your own words when they aren't.

The intimations abound, and beyond the misrepresentation issue are that he's not capable of coming up with this himself or that he's in the service of others.

This implies that disagreement with her Iran vote is the stuff of inferiors or deceivers.

There's no "this sounds like" or anything like that, it's "SOMEBODY OBVIOUSLY SENT YOU". Speak to a dog like that and it'll bite you.

Nothing more than that one simple sentance is needed to support my contentions. It's sneering dismissal, and it reeks of superiority and privilege.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

17. Here's another sneering dismissal ...

Redux: you're presenting a statement as your own words when they aren't.

(The alternative is "You are Lying." She was offering him the face-saving out that his falsehoods were not his own, rather than exposing him as a liar in a crowded hall.)

The intimations abound, and beyond the misrepresentation issue are that he's not capable of coming up with this himself or that he's in the service of others.

(Again, you seem to think that coming up with lies is something to be proud of. It does not demean a person to suggest his words are not his own WHEN THOSE WORDS ARE LIES. You seem wounded that anyone would rob a person of the dignity of being a presumed liar.)

This implies that disagreement with her Iran vote is the stuff of inferiors or deceivers.

(It implies only that what the man had just said was FALSE, which it was.)

There's no "this sounds like" or anything like that, it's "SOMEBODY OBVIOUSLY SENT YOU". Speak to a dog like that and it'll bite you.

(You now infer vocal tone based on nothing but your imagination and prejudices.)

[ruggerson]

19. Hey

enable your fucking mailbox. At least for a day. :)

[PurityOfEssence]

20. Where's the lie? If that's her idea of graciousness, I wouldn't want to cross her on an "off" day.

Your premise rests upon his undeniable lie. Where's the lie? Have you seen or heard the text of his question?

The actual application of this resolution is VERY open to interpretation. That's the heart of the problem. One person's robust diplomacy is another person's email. Affixing this label is making them pretty much fair game.

What's his lie?

[bluestateguy]

9. This is part of the problem with having senators as presidential nominees

And yes, I know, I too am supporting a former senator, but it's problematic for all candidates with a voting record.

Senators have to cast votes. Lots of them. Up or down, yes or no.

Explanations for those votes on complicated pieces of legislation just don't jibe well on the 15 second news soundbite.

There is so much complex parliamentary drivel, that the details just kind of get lost in all of the Washington gobbledygook:

"Well, I voted against the first version, but then they took out the supplementary provision that called for an independent commission to be set up to measure the benchmark. As a member of Subcommittee B, I introduced a motion to recommit measure D, which would establish a preliminary amendment to...

:boring:

Such blather only makes the candidate sound like a blowhard and a prevaricator.

[BeyondGeography]

15. She was right on the facts but she lost her cool

but she'll still be called flawless anyway.

[Forkboy]

22. More of her legendary warmth?

Even if the guy is wrong that's one hell of a shitty, condescending answer.

[wyldwolf]

23. How dare Clinton dispute an independent netroot researher! How dare she!

And in front of people? how dare she!

[Tellurian]

25. Precicely...

It seems Mr. Rolph's final comment to the press says it all:

"Who in this room believes we aren't going to attack Iran before Bush leaves office?" Rolph said.

After Sen Clinton derailed Rolph's toy train, it's understandable he would be a little miffed because....
Hillary foiled Rolph's planned speech by correcting the facts and Rolph was no longer in a position to castigate Senator Clinton for helping Bush go to War with Iran.

In essence, Hillary not only removed the "teeth" from the Kyl/Lieberman Amendment..She separated Mr. Rolph from his own "toothy" speech!

:rofl:

[MonkeyFunk]

26. Where did she accuse him

of being a plant, as was so breathlessly and repeatedly posted here?