Clinton engages in heated exchange over Iran - actually includes HIllary's side

[Skip Intro]

Imagine that.

----------------

Clinton engages in heated exchange over Iran:

At the event in North Hampton, Iowa, a questioner took issue with Clinton's recent Senate vote calling on President Bush to formally call the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. He argued that such a distinction confers the president with the ability to invade the country.

"Why should I support your candidacy . . . if it appears you haven't learned from your past mistakes?" Randall Rolph asked, referring to Clinton's vote to authorize the president to use military force against Iraq.

Clinton began by telling Rolph "the premise of the question is wrong," and argued the measure calls for the terrorist label so sanctions can be imposed. The sanctions, she also said, will "send a clear message to the leadership" and lead to stronger diplomatic efforts.

The Democratic presidential front-runner then concluded by suggesting the question was planted, saying, "somebody obviously sent it to you." Listen to Clinton's heated exchange over Iran »

Rolph denied anyone had put him to the question.

"I take exception," Rolph fired back. "This is my own research. Nobody sent it to me, I am offended that you would suggest that."

"Let me finish," Clinton sharply responded, before saying "I apologize, I just have been asked the very same question in three other places."

Clinton then reiterated her position that the president does not have authority to launch an attack on Iran and said she was working on legislation with Democratic Virginia Sen. Jim Webb to put that into law.

When the questioner maintained the terrorist labeling authorized force, Clinton, sounding clearly irritated said, "I am sorry, it does not."

Rolph has a history of asking particularly pointed questions of candidates. He has asked questions in a similar fashion at events for Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. E-mail to a friend

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/08/clinton.iran/


I guess I'll have to cut this to four paragraphs in a minute - but damn, if you wanna hit Hillary, or any other candidate or political figure for something, at least show that there are two sides to every story. She declares the president has been given no authority to attack Iran. She apologizes for suggesting the questioner was planted to ask that question, explaining that she'd been asked the same question three times prior.


Why shouldn't I believe her?

[DURHAM D]

1. What a surprise - he isn't dogging Edwards. Hmmm? n/t

[Eric J in MN]

3. John Edwards isn't in Congress. He didn't vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment...

...which labels Iran's military a terrorist group.

[DURHAM D]

7. The guy was reading from a prepared sheet.

It was the third time she had been asked the same question - a question built on a false premise. Seems suspicious. When she tried to correct him on the wording of the resolution he argued with her - as if he was more knowledgeable than she. He was wrong.

Also, the timing of the aggressive questioning (aggressive because it was built on a lie) followed hard on the heels of Edwards attacking her on this vote.

The guy seems a bit of a gadfly and if you watch the whole video the crowd clapped when she cut him off because they were tired of him monopolizing the event.

Questions about Hillary's vote on the resolution are completely legitimate but why with that false setup? She does (and has been) responding to questions about her vote. I think it is legitimate for Edwards and others to question this vote. I also think it is legitimate for opposing candidates to plant/coordinate with their volunteers to attend events of the opposition and do this kind of thing. This time, however, I felt it was just a little too obvious.

[Eric J in MN]

10. It isn't suspicious that people ask her about her vote which moves

...us closer to war with Iran wherever she goes.

Citizens should be concerned about it.

[DURHAM D]

11. I gather you didn't actually read my post. Whatever. n/t

[Eric J in MN]

12. I did, too.

Was the questioner using the same exact words as the other people who asked about her Iran vote?

If not, I don't consider it suspicious.

With regard to reading his question, maybe he gets nervous when speaking in public.

[Clovis Sangrail]

13. where's the cool aid stand?

it's kinda obvious you know...

[still_one]

16. Just one question, assuming everything you say is true, so what? Nothng wrong with the question

A person in her position should be able to handle anything, and respond appropriately whether the premise of the question is accurate or not.

[cali]

17. Sorry, I don't think his premise was wrong, And I'd have

wanted to ask the same thing. That horrible resolution lends credence to all the bullshit that buschco has been uttering about Iran.

[Major Hogwash]

18. It is not a false permise - Hillary is a fuckin' warmonger! She's DLC.

And in case you didn't know this, the DLC was FOR the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Look up Al From and Will Marshall - the founders of the DLC - at wikipedia and you will find out that they advocated FOR the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

On top of that, the DLC wants Bush to bomb Iran.
It is obvious to a blind man, so open your eyes - the DLC wants Bush to bomb Iran.

[oasis]

30. Calm down. You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. (eom)

[Major Hogwash]

33. Hahahahaha. Must've touched a nerve.

You should have seen what I said about Rush Limbaugh this weekend!
Now, that was a classic!

[oasis]

29. Good post. All members should strive for a well informed DU community. (eom)

[Broke Dad]

31. Let's set the record straight Little Hill drone . . .

The town is NEW Hampton, Iowa. Been there many times. A factory town that lost its biggest employer Sarah Lee and is trying to bounce back.

Second, many of us in Iowa are damn worried about the forthcoming war with Iran. (Haven't we all seen this script before??????)

Third, in Iowa, we believe in asking all candidates the tough questions face-to-face. We also have a problem with candidates who use ticketed events like Bush and Little Hill to get only friendly audiences. Little Hill is the only Dem I know to use the tactic to silence or censor dissenting voices. We in Iowa want candidates who will listen to us and not talk down to us.

The bottom line is this resolution gives Bush and Cheney the same opening that they asked for and got to start massing troops in Kuwait in 2001 and 2002.

Little Hill wants it both ways and WE are going to call her on it here in Iowa!

ABC!

ABC!

ABC!

[Debi]

32. You know, BD, what bugs me about all of the threads on this is that

the questioner is being painted as a nutcase or a plant or dodgy.

He's an active Iowa Democrat who engages candidates at events, participated in the Democratic process and writes letters to the editor on subjects that matter to him.

If the candidates cannot receive questions (even questions that are regarding language that was taken out of a bill before it was voted on) with some calmness, how are they going to handle the crazy-all GOP spin machine?

I don't care who the candidate is that he questioned - I care that the reaction by the supporters was that he's an idiot for questioning their candidate.

Screw that. He has the right to ask the question. The campaign can get him the correct language and the person questioned could have handled him much better than she did.

:grr:

[Yukari Yakumo]

21. Nah, but he did co-sponsor the IWR, which started the mess in the first place

The quotable John Edwards: "Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States" - October 10, 2002

... Does he look before he leaps?

[Adelante]

23. There's no reason to think he wouldn't have voted for it

Iran is one of the most dangerous countries in the world, actively supporting terrorist and insurgent activity not only in Iraq but in other areas, such as Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. Our policy must aim to stamp out state-sponsored terrorism targeting Israel, our strongest ally in the region. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard will soon be deemed a terrorist organization by the U.S. As president, Edwards will ensure that such steps are not just more rhetoric, but actually lead to results. He will increase both diplomatic contact with the Iranian government and diplomatic pressure on the Revolutionary Guard to shut down its support of insurgent activity in Iraq and in other areas, such as Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. He will also work with multilateral partners to forge a coalition to apply diplomatic and economic pressure to stop Iran’s involvement in insurgent and terrorist activity in Iraq.

http://johnedwards.com/issues/iran/

If he were in the Senate now, his viewpoint isn't so different than many Democrats who did vote for it. I'm opposed to Kyl-Lieberman because it was an unnecessary provocation and I don't think it should ever have come to the floor. But it's not out of line with Edwards' own thinking or out of the realm of possibility that he would have voted for it.

[JNelson6563]

26. Yeah, his vote on Kyle-Lieberman pissed me off

Oh wait. Nevermind.

Oy.

[Eric J in MN]

2. The bill doesn't authorize bombing Iran in so many words,

...but if Bush does bomb Iran anyway, he can claim afterwards that it was part of his War-on-Terror authority on account of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment labelling the Iranian military a terrorist group.

Members of Congress should have a philosophy: Don't do anything to give Bush more power.

[pansypoo53219]

5. give hitl...oops, georgie an inch

he WILL take a mile.

[Poll_Blind]

8. On page 7 of the bill "urgent" was crossed out and replaced with "critical".

As in a "critical" threat to the United States in Iraq. Bullshit it doesn't authorize military action.

PB

[petersjo02]

4. I'm with Rolph on this one

I've wanted to be able to support Hillary for several years. It's just getting harder and harder for me, and I think this exchange, knowing how things turned out with Iraq not so long ago, has pushed her out of contention for me, anyway.

[WCGreen]

6. Same here...

It's like that old Who song....

Meet the new boss...

Same as the old boss...

[DURHAM D]

9. You aren't bothered by the fact that Rolph was wrong about

the provisions of the resolution? You aren't worried about the fact that the premise of his question was a lie?

I think she needs to explain her vote but at the very least she should only be required to respond to what she voted on and not what Rolph (with his poor reading comprehension) made up.

[Cameron27]

14. I'm bothered by it,

and I don't think she should have voted for the damned thing to begin with. But when Rolph threw his pointed question at her, he could have at least read from the right resolution.

[EST]

15. Try to see it from an angle that doesn't attack Hillary, but does

try to examine it critically, holding firmly in mind that cheney/bush is eager to have any excuse and every excuse so they can attack at will.

Cheneybush is spectacularly and thoroughly convinced that they have the right to attack terrorism or terrorists anywhere in the world. If any group is named terrorist, or if chenybush is allowed to name, their clear answer and opinion is that they have the right to treat them as they will without prior authorization from anybody!

With that in mind, it is easy to imagine the resolution as the key needed to allow cheneybush to attack Iran. They are flippin crazy bastards, unapologetic fascists who fail to appreciate the irony of their own craving for dictatorship and despotism.

This is not to try to flatten Hillary, but she has made some alarming mistakes in judgment before, especially in evaluating the stunning level of evil extant among republicans. Many of us--who are certainly as intelligent and careful as she is--are convinced she is unfortunately misguided in her interpretation this time.

[avrdream]

19. If I was a sitting Senator, I would want the strongest resolution possible that would allow

the U.S. to proceed diplomatically. I love Hillary and think she was looking at it from that angle but, the problem is, Cheneybush don't seem to need much from Congress to go to war. I won't be angry at Hillary or any of the others who voted on this amendment because I believe the person we REALLY don't trust is George W. Bush.

Anger here seems related to giving him any old excuse to go to war again. I certainly understand that anger.

[EST]

24. Exactly, expressly, depressingly one hundred percent spot on!

The fly in my ointment is that, apparently, Hillary doesn't yet understand that point. It seems to me that she--of all people--should be thoroughly aware of this.
You can't give gangsters even one little point. They'll always turn on you and hurt you. No point in giving them ballbats and ammunition.

[bahrbearian]

22. I've heard it discribe as Cheney's pipe dream...

now where did I hear that....

[Kahuna]

20. Yeah. I can't believe she's still repeating that tripe about, 'sending a clear..

message...' :puke: She said the same thing about Iraq. She doesn't learn. And I will not be surprised to learn that she was set up with that vote. Rove is somewhere rolling of the floor laughing.

[MethuenProgressive]

25. Does DU care that his question was based on a false premise?

Many on DU just don't care what the bash-Clinton band wagon du-jour is really about.
They'll gleefully climb onboard no matter what.

[Adelante]

27. Nope - Yep

Yet another bright shimmering object.

[Alamom]

34. Pathetic, isn't it......nm

[oasis]

28. Fox News said Sunday that they planned to Rolph. Did anyone here see it?