The voter who questioned Hillary was wrong

[Herman Munster]

His supposed "research" was the first version of the bill, not the version Hillary signed. Regardless, Hillary handled it well as the audience gave her a round of applause for standing her ground.

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

The New Hampton audience gave Clinton a round of applause. Some said later that she was right to stand her ground.

When the event was over, Rolph was surrounded by reporters and said he felt the need to stand his ground when Clinton challenged him: "She tried to ... accuse me of using someone else's words and being stupid. And that offended me. I felt the need to defend myself in view of that kind of comment."

Had he come to the meeting supporting any candidate? "I came here with an open mind, that's why I had to ask this question. By asking this question, that was going to be the defining moment for me. But it has been a defining moment," Rolph said.

[geek tragedy]

1. Um, no.

That bill essentially stated that Iran is killing US troops and that Petraeus's claims are the 100% gospel truth.

"When the event was over, Rolph was surrounded by reporters and said he felt the need to stand his ground when Clinton challenged him: "She tried to ... accuse me of using someone else's words and being stupid. And that offended me. I felt the need to defend myself in view of that kind of comment.""

Keep it up, your Majesty.

[papau]

7. Uh No - Stupid comment on Hillary's part - but Hillary was correct -voter incorrect -text below

The voter Mr.Rolph interpreted that measure as giving Bush authority to use military action against the Iranians - he was wrong.



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.

[cascadiance]

12. The real question isn't whether the bill authorizes Bush to use force, but whether he will USE it...

... as such!

The important thing in congress isn't just to have political cover, which those voting ror this bill are going to try and claim the language of the bill gives the, but to not give ANY bill that Bush might falsely use as a means to justify an invasion of Iraq. The average person isn't familiar with the details, and will interpret that the congress gave him permission to invade Iran, as he will no doubt LIE and say that they gave him permission to do so with this bill. And the press won't hold him accountable for violating the details of this bill.

Some have said that the earlier Iraq bill had nuances in it that should have forced Bush to only use force as a last option too, but that didn't stop him either.

Voting for this bill was a BIG mistake! Hopefully we don't have to discover why it was and find other ways of stopping this madman first!

[goodgd_yall]

17. Once again, Papau, I must correct you---see link attached

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

This will take you to the final version. It actually supports your stance much better than the one you keep posting.

[papau]

38. Thanks - and sorry - needed sleep last night and didn't catch the error until now -text 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.''

[Flea]

31. The worst part of that bill

is designating the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a turrraist group.

So everyone that opposes our agenda is a terrorist these days? Even a standing army?

What a joke.

[saracat]

2. Hillary apologist stop at nothing.Even if the young man read the unaltered Bill, she still implied

he was a"plant' and a halfhearted apology with an explanation defending herself doesn't cut in IMHO. She did not handle this well and her knee jerk response was to denigrate the questioner, just like Bush.

[fedupfisherman]

13. Totally agree

She handled it poorly

[creeksneakers2]

34. Hillary did show unwarranted contempt

She apologized. Everybody makes mistakes.

[jgraz]

35. Completely agree. It was a bullshit Rovian response

The bigger issue is Hillary's contempt for the questioner. She's not even the nominee and she's already acting like the queen.

We are not amused!!

[babylonsister]

3. So now let's blame the voters, who are there trying to get answers?

That would be all of us.

[saracat]

4. Don't you get it? He had no right to question.Just like a Bush rally.

and her response was typical .She doesn't need his vote. Just like some feel on DU.

[Kagemusha]

5. Since you've decided to stick your head up for this... explain this to me.

How does urging the declaring of the Revolutionary Guards' al-Quds force - who Gen. Petraus has just accused the Iranian ambassador to Iraq of being a member of, hiding behind diplomatic immunity - to be a TERRORIST ORGANIZATION, advance diplomacy, instead of waving a red cape in front of the Bush bull and urging it to charge at its own discretion? If it's a terrorist force, military strikes against it are OK, aren't they?

For that matter, a terrorist force has no nation, so it wouldn't even be striking "Iran", would it? Just its uniformed armed forces that have been declared a terrorist organization and therefore making every member a human free-fire zone. Why, I wonder if diplomatic immunity is valid for a terrorist.

So this advances diplomacy how?

[JDPriestly]

9. I understood that the Iraq War authorization was done by

authorizing Bush to do what it takes to fight terrorist sponsoring nations and then identifying Iraq as a terrorist sponsoring nation. So if Bush has been authorized to wage war on nations that sponsor terrorism, doesn't labeling Iran as a nation that sponsors terrorism authorize Bush to wage war on it. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002’’.
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. 50 USC 1541

PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002 116 STAT. 1501
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to—
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.—In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force
the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising
such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his
determination that—
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead
to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the
War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) REPORTS.—The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint
resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts
that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–338).
President.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:44 Oct 23, 2002 Jkt 019139 PO 00243 Frm 00005 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL243.107 APPS06 PsN: PUBL243
116 STAT. 1502 PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.J. Res. 114 (S.J. Res. 45) (S.J. Res. 46):
HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107–721 (Comm. on International Relations).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):
Oct. 8, 9, considered in House.
Oct. 10, considered and passed House and Senate.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 38 (2002):
Oct. 16, Presidential remarks and statement.
Æ
(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT.—To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with
the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress
pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93–148), all such reports may be submitted as
a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military
Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102–1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered
as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.
Approved October 16, 2002.

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

[Kagemusha]

11. No it doesn't authorize it per se. It also does nothing to stop Bush from doing so.

I'll just make this really easy for people to understand.

Poland "attacked" Nazi Germany in 1939, too. If Bush really wants an excuse for an "emergency" act of self-defense against Iran, surely he can find one. In such a case, no authorization is required. It's not hard to find an excuse. It'll even have a shred of truth to it.

Clinton didn't authorize war, no. She just made the point that the country with which we are set to go to war with is very, very evil with very, very evil people running it doing very, very evil things. But no one should take that to mean anything that... she does not specifically say she wants it to mean.

[goodgd_yall]

18. Exactly---and I think Dodd and Biden understood this

and is why they voted against it.

[calteacherguy]

6. I just made this point in another thread. The crowd applauded Clinton for setting him straight. nt

[tkmorris]

28. Doesn't mean much

At a guess I'd say the crowd was primarily made up of Clinton supporters to begin with.

[Lerkfish]

42. I lament that the days of unpicked audiences has gone

where candidates actually had the temerity to face actual citizens instead of sycophants.

[journalist3072]

8. Exactly right! Thank you so much for posting.

[JDPriestly]

10. Hillary handled this very poorly.

Even if he was a plant, he was giving Hillary an opportunity to set many of us straight. I have wondered about the same thing. Now that I see the Iraq authorization and the Iran resolution, I can see the difference. I thought the two used similar language -- perhaps because there was an earlier version of the Iran bill. Hillary should have been happy to answer this question and she should have answered it patiently. She would have earned respect for that. She answered the question in a way that made her sound paranoid, nervous, hypersensitive, irritable, not good stuff for a candidate. If this is the way she treas her staff or people who criticize her, I don't want her as my president.

[Carrieyazel]

14. This is the way she treats her staff or people who criticize her.

According to DeeDee Myers, George Stephanopoulos, David Gergen, etc.

[ruggerson]

15. Myers said that?

Interesting. Do you have a reference we can see? Thanks.

[Cameron27]

16. I'm looking forward to that source too.

[la la]

19. Did your information happen

to come from Dick Morris, by any chance?

Just wondering.

[provis99]

20. from Dick Morris?

I thought the Clintons got along with Morris? I don't mean on a personal level, but they respected the way he handled his job.

[la la]

32. ever watch

faux news? sorry---ick,

but--he's a recurring 'guest' on H+C and totally reams both the clintons--endlessly.

[Carrieyazel]

21. No, a 2001 Nightline documentary, interviews of the principals, numerous books on the Clinton years,

and not books by her Republican enemies, or biased reporters.

[JDPriestly]

23. That is reason enough to not elect her.

I'm telling you this pro-Hillary whirlwind is bad news for us. It is going to mean four more years of Republicans slaughtering our Constitution.

[ShortnFiery]

39. Yes, HRC's true personality is shining through and it's not what the M$M wants us to see. n/t

[Maribelle]

22. Hillary handled this excellently. She said she had been asked the SAME question three times

on the same outdated information.

This, I am sure, was not coincidence. I believe the person lied to Hillary when he said it was his own research, unless, of course, if he considers opening up his email to see who it is from as research.

Hillary nailed it. And this is exactly how the Democratic candidates need to respond to the fake Jeff Gannon's. But this is merely the tip of the iceberg. All the hate mongers on the right are running with this tidbit, as if they are not firmly planting their cactuses all along the parade route.

Democrats should never allow another group such as the fraudulent "Screaming window bangers of Miami" faking they are accountant types but actually looking like hayseeds in comparison to the way Miami accountants click their heels when they walk. I could tell from the first look they were not from the Miami area.

[AllyCat]

26. She'd been asked this same question because people want to know why!

I'd like to know. I'd have asked that myself and no one put me up to it either. I'd also like to know why she didn't bother to vote in the Senate giveaway of another $150B to Dear Leader to fund this quagmire.

She will continue this war as long as she needs to make the corporations happy.

Anyone who challenges her on her war views is a decent American trying to find out the truth, not a plant. But after 8 years of seeing Bush do the same thing to those who dare question him, I can see why you would want the same for your candidate, especially since they are so much alike.

[Maribelle]

27. He asked why he should support Clinton's candidacy when she did not appear to have learned ...

any lessons from having voted to authorize force in Iraq.

For the third time, the same question.

The guy obviously was a plant.


On edit: At least that was the question as reported by MSNBC snd others. And as we all know, many mistakes have been made in the past.

[AllyCat]

30. Has HRC not said that she's "learned her lesson about IWR?"

So, has she? It doesn't look like it. I can imagine many people would like to know this. He's not "obviously a plant". He just wanted to know the truth. I'd like to hear an answer, but apparently, she hasn't decided to answer it 4 times now. She shot back at him instead of using the opportunity to explain herself, because there IS NO explanation. Except that she supports war.

We all know that Bush will take a foot when given an inch. If they want to call them "terrorists", well, then this is a "war on terror". For Bush, we all know that is enough authorization and onward we march. Of course, he's been marching onward for months now, with or without Congress.

[beachmom]

24. This was a bad day for Hillary Clinton. There are varying opinions

as to the interpretations of the Kyl/Lieberman bill. I do know that many senators who I trust voted against that amendment. But that is NOT the point here. The point is she was accusatory toward a VOTER. This story, especially if there is video, is going to be a problem for Mrs. Clinton. Saying "she was right" does not make the problem go away; in fact, it makes it worse.

[Maribelle]

25. Actually, there are varying versions of the bill.

"His research" coming up with the same question already asked of Hillary twice on the same older version is far past believability on the truth scale.

On edit: I have since read a different account of what took place. Therefore, I perhaps sould hold additional comment until clarification is made.

[beachmom]

29. Come on -- the Kyl/Lieberman amendment has been discussed

everywhere. The vote was recent. People are upset about it. It is very believable that she was asked three times about it. And with no proof at all, Clinton made an assumption about this voter and put him down. That's wrong.

[tomp]

33. the question really is:

what authority does bush have in dealing with terrorists. i would assume it is pretty blanket at this point. so this clause is entirely relevant to the voter's statement/question:

"(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..."

if the irgc is now a terrorist organization and don't think bush will have too hard a time legally justifying an attack against them.

[MethuenProgressive]

36. Facts? FACTS?? That HillHaters don't want no stinkin' FACTS!!

It's much more fun for them to start 18 threads over their own fantasy about what they wished happened.

[Lerkfish]

41. Is it your contention that no one can ask Clinton a question unless they already know the answer?

I'm curious. Its hard to tell what you mean here by "facts".

[bluetrain]

37. I'm finding it almost impossible to believe that any of these Clinton supporters are, actually,

Democrats. Blows my mind. Especially on this site where there's easy access to information regarding who she is and how she votes and who she's aligned with and where she really stands. I just can't quite believe it.

[Lerkfish]

40. he was wrong to ask her a question? Or he was mistaken in his information?

if we only allow questions from citizens who already know the answer, what is the value of that?