Clinton Defends her Iran Vote

[illinoisprogressive]

I have to wonder. If she is soooooooo sure she was voting for diplomacy on this vote (like she thought she was in 2002 with Iraq...)then, why run for cover with Webb's bill???


In an unusual campaign mailing sent to voters in Iowa, Sen. Hillary Clinton defends her vote in favor of the so-called "Lieberman-Kyl" resolution on Iran, calling it a "vote for stepped up diplomacy" and not permission for the Bush Administration to invade the country. (Full mailing here and "here.)

Two rivals, Barack Obama and John Edwards, have compared the September vote to the 2002 authorization granting President Bush the authority to use military force in Iraq, accusing Clinton of another failure of judgment.

That Clinton takes pains to explain the Lieberman-Kyl vote, which declared Iraq's Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization and linked the structure of U.S troop presence in the Middle East in part to the Iranian threat, suggests that the Edwards-Obama charges have gelled, if only a bit.

A copy of the mailing was obtained from a Democrat in Iowa.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/clinton_defends_iran_vote_in_i.php

[CoffeeCat]

1. She thinks we're all complete morons...

She now argues that she never voted to authorize Junior to go to
war with IRAQ. She claims that she was voting for all options, and
she trusted Junior to do the right thing.

I swear, the lies these ass wipes tell us. The level of stupidity
they assign to all of us--is mind blowing.

Hillary Clinton is an intelligent, focused and politically savvy woman.
She knew damn well when she voted for IRAQ, that she was giving a neocon
warmonger carte blanche to invade Iraq. She knew it even better than
most, because these very same PNAC warmongers approached her husband when
he was pResident and asked him to invade Iraq. So, here they come again--riding
on the coattails of 9/11--asking for more war. She gave it to them, knowing
what bloodthirsty, neocon bastards they all are.

Now, she feigns innocence again with her Iran vote.

Fuck her. I am so sick and tired of being lied to and of this bullshit being
thrown in our faces. She makes me so ill I can barely stand.

At least Lieberman had the guts to quit the Dem party and cut ties with us. Hillary
does this crap in our name and it's revolting beyond repair. She perpetuates the
neocon came, then lies about it and pretends she doesn't realize that she's enabling
the warmongers "Mercy Me! I didn't realize that categorizing part of the Iran government
as a terrorist organization wasn't about friendship and diplomacy!"

Oh please!

Anyone else out there tired of Hillary Clinton treating us like morons?

As an Iowan, I will be happy to include this stellar example during the caucuses--where
I will passionately voice my opinion AGAINST her!

[jenmito]

3. Yes she does...and the MSM plays along...

She triangulates every position. Even when voting against condemning MoveOn.org but then voting to condemn ALL groups/people who speak out against the troops/generals/military. Same with criticizing Obama for taking nukes off the table re: Iran when she did the same thing, changed her position, then changed it back. Same with not csmpaigning in MI but keeping her name on the ballot. Same on her position for and then against torture in certain circumstances. And on and on it goes...

[Lucinda]

2. Seems like a very smart thing for her to do

[IndianaGreen]

8. What will be Hillary's excuse when Bush bombs Iran, perhaps next Fall?

Is she going to repeat the lie that Bush will use that:

a) It was to protect our troops in Iraq, or

b) Iran launched an unpremidated attack on Israel (according to Sy Hersh, in response to a provocatory attack by Israel and the US)?

[RufusTFirefly]

9. Simple: "If I knew then what I know now." n/t

[BootinUp]

14. You presuppose that she can stop it. n/t

[Lucinda]

25. IF he bombs

I don't think he will try and justify it by trying to retrofit a non-binding res to make it in to something it isn't. He'll find some other manufactured reason (like supporting Israel) to try and drum up big time support.

I don't think the Senate should ever stop doing their job just because of something he might try and twist into an authorization. I agree with the decision to point out what is happening on the ground in Iraq. I also agree with being very public with the assessment of the situation, and then using sanctions to try and make a change. I think they have wimped out too much as it is.

[papau]

4. vote on Kyl was effectively for sanctions - Webb makes that clear -but Obama/Edwards push is good

as it forces clarity statements over and over again.

She was never going to get any one issue Iraq war ending yesterday person's vote - and this back and forth makes that certain

Iowa is always a surprise as "likely voter" is impossible to determine in a caucus state - in 10 weeks we will know who has gotten a push for N/H

[IndianaGreen]

16. Jim Webb said that a vote for Lieberman resolution was a vote for war!

Neocons are following the same script they did in the run up to the Iraq War. Now we see some of the same enablers of that war continuing to enable the next neocon war.

[papau]

17. Jim Webb did say that it was a vote for war - most of the Dems disagreed with Jim n/t

n/t

[IndianaGreen]

18. The Democratic base agreed with Jim Webb

Same lies we were told about Iraq and the Iraq War Resolution, are now being told about Iran.

[papau]

19. True - indeed on DU a large majority agreed with Webb. I doubt Clinton will win DU! :-)

n/t

[Dewlso]

5. Flip-Flop right wing panderer.

She is just trying to present herself as middle of the road to attract the repugnant voters. Look at her health care plan. It really don't benefit the people as much as it benefits the insurance companies. She has made it this far because of Bill's popularity. Sooner or later people are going to expect something out of her and by looking at her health care plan, I wouldn't expect too much.

[jenmito]

6. Very true but watch out...

Hillary supporters will accuse you of being sexist for DARING to say that she's come this far because of Bill's popularity. I know-I've said the same thing and was accused of being sexist. :eyes: I guess they can't handle the truth so they attack the messengers. Welcome to DU! :hi:

[robinlynne]

12. They're busy over at another thread right now. it's ok.

[IndianaGreen]

15. People voted for Bush thinking that he would be like his dad. People will vote for Hillary...

thinking she will be like her husband. I think that Hillary voters will be as disappointed and angry about Hillary as those that thought that Bush would be like his dad.

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. I don't really have a dog in this fight, but bottom line for me is...

This is progress. I say that because I am not primarilly looking at Clinton's current statement regarding Iran, or that of any of our candidates actually, through the obvious campaign prism. Yeah that is easy enough to do and I don't criticize anyone who does, it's relevent to picking a candidate and all of that, but I am more interested in the bottom line, our ability now to prevent a war with Iran.

I want to see a statement like this coming out from Clinton because it means she is openly expressing concern about heading off a war with Iran, and for far too long, up until the last couple of months anyway, for the most part our candidates weren't talking about the real possibilty that the Bush Administration might soon take this nation into another Middle Eastern war. Finally though that is starting to change. Before they were mostly only buffing up their national security creds ("all options remain on the table") by saying what was unacceptable for Iran to do and not saying much else on the subject other than the standard "we should be willing to talk directly with Iran" which was fine as far as it went but it did not go far. I credit the netroots for changing that. And I credit our backlash against Clinton's Kyle - Lieberman vote with getting her further on the record about the need for the U.S. to be willing to negotiate on all outstanding issues between our nations (not restricted to the standard check list of what we want Iran to do differently).

So I can understand how some see this as only more triangulation from Clinton, and to the extent that is true I still welcome the progress this statement represents. Clinton may well end up our next President and none of the Republicans running say anything as remotely pro peace as this toward Iran (well maybe Paul, I'm not sure about that)- but even if she loses the Democratic nomination Clinton is still an influential Senator and hers is one of the voices in the national debate that now gets heard, given that she is a leading contender for the Democratic Presidential nomination.

If Clinton is pandering to us now by signing on as a cosponsor of the Webb Amendment to force Bush to receive specific Congressional approval before attacking Iran I say: "Pandering? Bring it on!" We could use a whole lot more of that type of pandering (or responsiveness to our strong concerns) right about now from a several other U.S. Senators, some of whom are running for President, to get the Webb Amendment up and moving through the Senate.

[Lucinda]

26. Really well said!

:thumbsup:

[jillan]

10. Interesting comment s over at that blog.

[IndianaGreen]

13. I found the comments very fascinating and enlightening

Here is one of my favourites:

Sounds like she was against the resolution before she was for it. Kind of like she was for Iraq before she was against it. Kind of like she was against making blanket statement on uses of nukes in Iran before she was for making blanket statements on the use of nukes in Iran.

I didn't realize triangulation meant running in circles.

If democrats think nominating someone so easily portrayed as a flip flopper is smart politics, apparently they have learned nothing from Kerry in '04.

Posted by RKA | October 20, 2007 10:50 PM

And here is the best one of the bunch, and one that I fully agree with 100-percent!:

Hillary is a very polished politician. She wouldn't be a bad leader for our country, BUT, votes like this make me wary of her abilities. My question is (and I can't get it out of my head), is she the BEST we have? I must say, my gut tells me no. I believe Senator Biden has all the qualifications America needs right now.

Posted by JDS | October 20, 2007 11:49 PM

[jillan]

20. I like that last one!

[robinlynne]

11. I'm glad she gets that she messed up big time. president? no thanks.

[Clintonista2]

21. Obama is off singing gospel music with Fred Phelps wanna-be's

Your candidate has zero credibility, thanks.

[William769]

23. That puts him right up there with the repukes.

Now I have a damn good reason to attack this asshole for anything at any time.

[Forkboy]

27. And yet that changes nothing about yours.

[cuke]

28. And yet, you have little to say about the issue

and plenty to say about your obsession

[Forkboy]

30. What's my obsession, cuke?

This should be good for a laugh...especially since you haven't commented on the issue in this thread either...hypocrite.

[cuke]

32. Other posters

It's all you ever comment on

[Forkboy]

33. You don't get around DU enough then.

Here's me talking about the death penalty

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2057897#2061062

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2057897#2061969

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2057897#2062848

here's me talking about the "no difference" meme between parties

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2055038#2058193

here's me talking about Barney Frank still being the best

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2037096#2037676

Here's my thoughts when I read about an epidemic of rape in the Congo

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1992416#1997269

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

So, you're clearly wrong...AND a hypocrite, unless you've commented on the issue in this thread in a new type of invisible post.

[cuke]

34. weak

and nothing about this issue

[Forkboy]

35. Strong...and where's YOUR comment on the issue.

You were proven wrong and don't have the class or decency to admit it.Instead you answer back with the truly weak answer in this group...AND you bitch about not commenting on the issue when you haven't done so either.

If your goal is to come across as a flaming hypocrite I'd say, Mission Accomplished.

Keep digging, this is easy and fun.

[Kahuna]

22. She turned off a lot of voters with that vote. I believe she was set

up and she fell for it. Too bad. Where is Al Gore when you need him? :(

[goclark]

24. With Bill living at her house it's hard to imagine

she wasn't given expert help from the best President.

As much as I don't want to believe it, I feel she knew exactly what she was doing on that vote.

She wanted to show that she was in support of the War because it was the popular thing to do at the time.

She didn't want to be with the crazy " Anti - War" crowd like us.

:sarcasm:

[Inuca]

36. Set up?

By who? She pandered to the "center", that's all.

[GreenArrow]

29. Edwards,

has NO authority to judge. Obama, at least, had the decency to speak out against it:

<<snip "I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military is a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history."

snip>>

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

Edwards, meanwhile, was busy co-sponsoring the IWR, and spouting off ignorant, manipulative op-ed drivel that the Bush State Department saw fit to put on its website. Drivel like this:

<<snip

"Iraq is a grave and growing threat. Hussein has proven his willingness
to act irrationally and brutally against his neighbors and against his
own people.
Iraq's destructive capacity has the potential to throw the entire
Middle East into chaos, and it poses a mortal threat to our vital
ally, Israel. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would
pay anything to get their hands on Saddam Hussein's arsenal and would
stop at nothing to use it against us. America must act, and Congress
must make clear to Hussein that he faces a united nation."
(The writer is a Democratic senator from North Carolina and a member
of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.)

snip>>

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-020919-usia01.htm

Edwards' "stand" against the war now is as cynical and self serving as his support of it then, when it actually counted.

[Inuca]

37. Unfortunately I agree n/t

[Rhythm and Blue]

31. At least she had the courage to actually vote on it.

I would think if it were as important as Obama said it was, he would have managed to get his ass down there. If he really thinks fundraising and stumping are more important than preventing war, what kind of President will he be?