Iraq, Iran at center of Democratic debate

[DeepModem Mom]

CNN: October 30, 2007
Two votes, two conflicts at center of debate

PHILADELPHIA (CNN) – The future of troops in Iraq, and the future of a potential U.S. showdown with Iran dominated much of Tuesday’s Democratic presidential debate — with frontrunner Hillary Clinton’s votes at the center. Even with Iran a growing issue on the campaign trail in recent weeks, one of the night’s sharper exchanges focused on how to proceed in Iraq. Clinton and challenger John Edwards clashed over the next step for U.S. troops and their role. Edwards argued, “If you believe that combat missions should be continued in Iraq over the long term, if you believe that combat troops should remain stationed in Iraq, and if you believe there should be no actual timetable for withdrawal, then Senator Clinton is your candidate.

"I don't. I think that we need to end combat missions; we need to get combat troops out of Iraq. As president of the United States, I will do that. I think it's a requirement of leadership, as president. And I will do it in my first year in office: combat missions ended, combat troops out of Iraq, period."

Clinton claimed Edwards misstated her position, saying any combat role would only in pursuit of terrorists. “My understanding is that we had the same agreement — most of us on this stage — that we would bring out combat troops but we would pursue a mission against al Qaeda in Iraq if they remained a threat. Now, I don't know how you pursue al Qaeda without engaging them in combat. So I think we're having a semantic difference here. I think we should get as many of the combat troops out as quickly as possible.”

While Edwards and Senator Barack Obama criticized Clinton’s vote authorizing the war in Iraq, the debate Tuesday dealt heavily with a new vote – her support of the resolution declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Council a terrorist organization. Clinton defended her stand on Iran saying, “I am not in favor of this rush for war, but I'm also not in favor of doing nothing. Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. And the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is in the forefront of that, as they are in the sponsorship of terrorism.”

Directly confronting her critics , “So some may want a false choice between rushing to war, which is the way the Republicans sound — it's not even a question of whether, it's a question of when and what weapons to use — and doing nothing. I prefer vigorous diplomacy. And I happen to think economic sanctions are part of vigorous diplomacy.“...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/30/two-votes-two-conflicts-at-center-of-debate-2/