Clinton explains Iran vote to Iowa voters - Waterloo/Cedar Falls Courier

[Debi]

http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2007/10/21/news/breaking_news/doc471b8a333aff2448710389.txt


DAVENPORT --- Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has sent a mail piece to Iowa households explaining a vote she made last month in favor of declaring Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

<snip>

In the piece, which hit some mailboxes on Saturday, Clinton says she supported the amendment to a defense policy bill to clear the way for sanctions against Iran and and to push the country toward negotiations. She noted that 75 senators voted for the amendment.

<snip>

Clinton said in the mail piece that she nearly voted against the amendment, but that Senate Democrats worked to remove language "President Bush could have used to justify military action."

"Only then did I and a lot of other Democrats vote for the resolution in order to pressure Iran by clearing the way for sanctions and pushing the President to get them to the negotiating table," Clinton said in the flyer. "I was there, I exercised leadership, and I explained my vote at the time."

Clinton has taken fire not just from her rivals for the vote, but also on the campaign trail. Two weeks ago, she exchanged words with an activist in New Hampton, Iowa, who was critical of the vote.

<snip>

A Clinton spokesman said Saturday the flyer is aimed at showing her strength and experience, and he reiterated her contention that it does not provide authority for a military strike. "She was one of the first senators to make clear that President Bush does not have the authority to use force in Iran," said Mark Daley, the spokesman.

"The right course is diplomacy."

In the flyer, Clinton said she opposes the president taking military action in Iran without "full congressional approval."

<snip>

An original version of the Iran amendment contained language that said it should be U.S. policy to "combat, contain and roll back" Iran’s violent activities in Iraq. Critics said that was too expansive and the language was removed.

++++++++++++

[MethuenProgressive]

1. Can we get a scan of the flyer?

And post it every time the Usuals misrepresent her vote (and Obama's skipping out of town) on this resolution?
:kick:

[Debi]

2. I haven't received the flyer yet

:shrug:

Maybe it's on her website.

[Think82]

3. her vote was stupid.

Biden explains it very well in this great interview from today:

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3756981

[MethuenProgressive]

4. Biden is stupid.

Don't you love it when the debate get so existential?
And here's why:

So is there any real difference between Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton on Iran? Mr. Obama contends that one distinction lies in Ms. Clinton's acceptance of language in the Senate resolution that "it is a critical national interest of the United States" to stop Iran from creating a Hezbollah-like force in Iraq. Mr. Obama claims that such language is "saber-rattling" that could be used by the Bush administration to justify an attack on Iran. This is hard to fathom. Not only is there no mention of the use of U.S. force in the resolution, but last year Mr. Obama gave a speech in which he said it "is in our national interest to prevent" Iran or Syria from using Iraq as "a staging area from which to attack Israel or other countries."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/20/AR2007102000984.html

[Think82]

7. you did not address anything that Biden said, you Hillary tool

The language in the amendment that is objectionable is calling Iran's national army a TERRORIST GROUP. We have NEVER DONE THAT before in our history. Why areyou supporting her on this? Do the Clintons have something on you?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

13. Obama and Dodd sponsored the same language. Biden did not.

So you are on firm ground.

[cuke]

14. We have designated ENTIRE NATIONS as terrorist nations

but it's Oh so much worse to do it to just a part of a govt.

Also, it doesn't call the entire army a terrorist group, just the IRG.

[Kahuna]

9. Ooo. The WaPo says so in their editorial so it must be true.

That was truly desperate, Bro.

[Bitwit1234]

5. We are all stupid.

[illinoisprogressive]

6. if hillary is so convinced the vote was for diplomacy then why did she run for cover

with Webb's bill. and if she thought it a vote for diplomacy with iraq though the rest of the country knew that vote was for war, and now Oops! she did it again, then how does she explain her always thinking the wrong thing.
she was not paying attention during the White house years and had no idea what was happening with iraq, and was easily hoodwinked by Bush twice, so, how can anyone trust her apparently bad judgment and being so easily fooled.

[Kahuna]

8. Oh please. Same story as the last time you voted to

.."send a message..." :puke:

[Sparkly]

10. I don't understand how it cleared the way for sanctions.

Haven't sanctions been imposed without this?

[geek tragedy]

11. Do not question the Queen. n/t

[Debi]

12. A copy of the letter from Politico

Here's the story:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1007/Clinton_plays_defense_on_Iran.html

Here's the letter: