Clinton says she'd negotiate with Iran

[John Q. Citizen]

Clinton says she'd negotiate with Iran By HOLLY RAMER, Associated Press Write


CANTERBURY, N.H. - Hillary Rodham Clinton called Barack Obama naive when he said he'd meet with the leaders of Iran without precondition. Now she says she'd do the same thing, too.

During a Democratic presidential debate in July, Obama said he would be willing to meet without precondition in the first year of his presidency with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.

Standing with him on stage, Clinton said she would first send envoys to test the waters and called Obama's position irresponsible and naive.

But asked about it Thursday by a voter, the New York senator said twice that she, too, would negotiate with Iran "with no conditions."

more....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071012/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_iran

[SaveElmer]

1. Absolutely no change in position...

It is truly amazing how lazy and ignorant the modern media is...

My great grandfather was a newspaper editor...and a Republican...and he would be embarrassed by what he saw today...

[jmp]

3. How is that NOT a change in position???

:eyes:

[aquart]

4. This was discussed here yesterday.

But you keep trying.

[jmp]

13. How about an answer instead of a deflection.

...

[SaveElmer]

9. Because it isn't...

She has ALWAYS advocated direct negotiations with Iran...she disagrees with Obama that the President of the United States would take a meeting with no groundlaying first...

Go back and look at the transcript of the deebate if you doubt me...

[John Q. Citizen]

11. What is it about "no preconditions" that is so hard to grasp?

Is she gonna haul in some astro turf for the "ground laying?"

[SaveElmer]

17. Unbelievable...

Go back and check the transcript of the debate then come back and make the same argument...

Buruther!!

[jmp]

12. You're talking gibberish.

She said that SHE would negotiate without preconditions. How is that different from taking a meeting without precondition? :eyes:

[Maribelle]

18. Perhaps you might want to learn the difference between ...

The president meeting with a leader -and- diplomatic negotiations.

[jmp]

21. Who is Hillary going to negotiate with if not her opposite number in Iran?

:eyes:

[Maribelle]

23. What do you think Hillary meant when she said Ahmadinejad is a figurehead.

Hillary knows full well Ahmadinejad answers to others.

I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions because we don't really understand how Iran works. We think we do, from the outside, but I think it is misleading. We spent a couple of weeks paying all this attention to Ahmadinejad. He is a figurehead. He does not have the real power. The real power is held in the supreme leadership and the clerical leadership. They actually control the Iranian revolutionary guard. So I think we should engage in negotiations. And I want to have some leverage when we go into the negotiations.

And we all know already what she said about the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and that terrorist thing they have going on, don't we.

[SaveElmer]

19. ...

:rofl:

[Maribelle]

16. You are correct, absolutely no change in position

The actual exchange

NH Voter:
Is it acceptable for Iran to get the bomb?

Clinton:
Is it acceptable for Iran to get the bomb? Well I think the short answer is, that is not something we want to see happen. That, you know, Iran has a long history of sponsoring terrorism, they support Hezbollah. We know they have been responsible for bombings around the world, including killing Americans in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. They are now deeply involved in killing Americans by providing weapons and providing technical assistance. So there is no doubt that we have got a difficult relationship with Iran. But here is what I would do as president.

I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions because we don't really understand how Iran works. We think we do, from the outside, but I think it is misleading. We spent a couple of weeks paying all this attention to Ahmadinejad. He is a figurehead. He does not have the real power. The real power is held in the supreme leadership and the clerical leadership. They actually control the Iranian revolutionary guard. So I think we should engage in negotiations. And I want to have some leverage when we go into the negotiations.

Negotiations is exactly what she said she would do when she said And I will purse very vigorous diplomacy .

[jmp]

2. She needs to say that now ...

To counteract her stupid vote to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a target in the "war on terror".

[John Q. Citizen]

5. That was my thought too. Of course, the IWR was just to get Iraq to the table also...

[jmp]

15. I remember. She wants to be tough ...

But not responsible.

[KKKarl is an idiot]

6. She is really good at this

She goes from the right to the center to the left and back again. This strategy seems to work for her. Obama & Edwards cannot seem to keep up with her. She has a different position every week.

[peacebird]

7. I have nothing against people changing their minds about issues,

my question is - does she now apologize to Barack Obama for calling him naive when he said he would meet with Irans leaders without precondition? She got a lot of mileage off that - so If she has come to see the wisdom of talking with out enemies as well as with our friends then perhaps she ought to just come out and admit she was wrong before.

If not - then it's a flip-FLOP.

[SaveElmer]

10. She didn't change her mind...

This has been her position all along...

The only flip-flop is in the media reporting...

[John Q. Citizen]

14. "No preconditions." Are you disputing the quote reported?

[SaveElmer]

20. No preconditions...

Does not mean that she personally would take a meeting with the Iraqi President...as Obama said he would do

As she clearly said in the debate, she would immediately start negotiations with Iraq at lower levels...

No preconditions means say not requiring them to get rid of their nuclear program first as Bush is demanding...

Her statement yesterday in no way conflicts with that...

[jmp]

22. What part of "I" confuses you?

"I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions..."

[SaveElmer]

24. So if Hillary says...

I will rebuild the infrastructure of this county...

Does that mean she is going t o go out personally and fix all the bridges...

You are engaging in pathetic sophistry...

Since I know what she ACTUALLY said in the debate means little to you I have scant hope this will clarify it in your mind...but here is the transcript...

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat travelled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

COOPER: I should also point out that Stephen is in the crowd tonight.

Senator Obama?

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.

And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We've been talking about Iraq -- one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.

They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region.

COOPER: I just want to check in with Stephen if he believes he got an answer to his question.

QUESTION: I seem to have a microphone in my hand. Well, I'd be interested in knowing what Hillary has to say to that question.

COOPER: Senator Clinton?

CLINTON: Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are.

I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration.

And I will purse very vigorous diplomacy.

And I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way. But certainly, we're not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be.

(APPLAUSE)

CNN/You Tube Debate Transcript Part I

[jmp]

26. "Does that mean she is going t o go out personally and fix all the bridges..."

No, it would only mean that she would say that she wouldn't the next day.

But I don't deal in hypotheticals. I prefer to focus on what she actually said. That may prove inconvenient for you though. :eyes:

[Maribelle]

27. Hillary said: And I want to have some leverage when we go into the negotiations.

Do you understand what she meant by having some leverage? Do you thhink she meant the mechanical advantage gained by using a lever?

[SaveElmer]

28. Apparently it is inconvenient for you...

As I have provided a transcript of the debate where she said the exact same thing...

But don't let it get in the way of a good Hillary bashing!!!

[BootinUp]

29. You are losing this debate

imho.

[Froward69]

8. The republicans will beat her to death with this...

and the irony of irony's is she voted to make it more difficult to even talk with Iran.

[Maribelle]

25. Beat her to death with this? Fat chance.

There is no irony in any of this if you take a good look at what she actually has said and done in toto.

[Froward69]

30. You underestimate them= Thats Dangerous

[Maribelle]

31. I do not underestimate that they will try with all their might.

And I do not underestimate that they will beat with all their might.

It's the "to death" that will fail, miserably. It will be their underestimation of Hillary that will be dangerous for them. She will unceasingly and increasingly show them off for the wretched petty thugs that they are. Just you wait and see.

[Froward69]

32. I am sure

I also am sure the repukes will rent buses, to get every bucktoothed inbred idiot out to vote against Hillary. Just you watch. Of all our candidates, the repugs I know, FEAR Biden. no one else. they joke that us Dems are too stupid to nominate someone truly viable. and that we are blinded by the name Clinton. and romanced by the idea of a female president. ANY female president.