Clinton blasted on Iran
Hillary Clinton is taking more hits today for her stand on Iran in the wake of a blockbuster new intelligence assessment that concludes that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program four years ago.
She is the only US senator of those seeking the Democratic presidential nomination who voted in September for a resolution declaring Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group. Her rivals have been pressing the case that the resolution encouraged the Bush administration to move toward military action -- and have been pointing out that Clinton also voted to authorize the war in Iraq, where weapons of mass destruction -- the ostensible reason for the invasion -- were never found.
"The only difference this time is that we didn't start a disastrous war before we found out that the intelligence didn't hold up," Chris Dodd said in a statement. "Our experience should have shown us the danger in trusting this administration as it marched to war....Unfortunately, Senator Clinton instead chose to lend credence to the administration's position.
"It's easy to say 'fool me once, shame on George Bush,' but when she's been fooled twice, shame on her."
Iran is also Topic A of the Democratic debate in Iowa now airing on National Public Radio, and Clinton's rivals are going after her.
"Among the Democratic candidates, there's only one who voted for this resolution," John Edwards said of Clinton.
Clinton defended her vote, arguing that it was not a vote for military action, but instead for economic sanctions and enhanced diplomacy
"None of us is advocating a rush to war," she said during the debate. "We have two different ways of approaching this. We have the same goal."
Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group killing our troops in Iraq. that did not stop when Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program four years ago.. fortunately, Senator Clinton had the guts to take a stance. Most Dems want to deal with Iran with “kid gloves”, that approach will lose the election for them
Did ever occur to anyone that Miss Clinton having been in the White House just before GW may have had some intellegence knowledege that others may not have been privliged to. Just a thought.
This is taken way out of context. It is hard to say that she was blasted. This was a debate and you are not showing a fair representation of what was said. I suggest people listen to the debate and make up your own mind. To put out the headline "Clinton blasted" is really unfair. It should be more like "candidates provide vision for their leadership". Because that is what this was really all about. But if you want to be sensational, how about "Candidates take pot shots at Bush".
If you have enough enriched material, you have the bomb. The hiroshima type bomb was so simple it was not even tested. The famous trinity blast was for the plutonium implosion type bomb. The fact that Iran may not have enough enriched material for a bomb until 2009 or 2010 should not give anyone peace of mind seeing as it will be 2008 in just a few weeks.
Why would the First Lady have access to highly classified material? I understand that she is the President's wife but I doubt that the President would share this information with the First Lady. If so, who else is the President sharing classified infromation with (Monica?)? As for the intelligence on Iran, we have known since 911 that US intelligence on the Middle East is flawed. The Iraq War with the search for non-existent "weapons of mass destruction" is another validation of our weak intelligence. As a US Senator, Ms. Clinton is aware of this. Knowing this, she still followed the current administration's lead. The real question is she a Dem or Rep?
The vote to define Iran’s Revolutionary Guard is of LEGAL significance. Doing so allows the current President to engage in conflict (start a war) with the Revolutionary Guard (and thus IRAN) without consulting Congress. Clinton therefore voted to give the president the power to attack IRAN. It is not “guts to take a stance,” but rather the exact same mistake that happened when voting on IRAQ. If you think it was a smart move, than you might as well vote republican, as it is their pro-war attitude that she is espousing (and the people she is giving control too without obviously knowing the situation). Besides her fundamentally flawed vote, more basically we need to get some change in here. I don’t see why America should be run by the same 2 family’s for more than a quarter century all in a row (the 2 Bush terms, and 2 Clinton terms assuming Hillary got elected twice = 28 years!). I thought we left the Royal families behind 200 years ago.
Richardson needs a makeover. Its time to call in the personal image consultants.
Its sad to say the US public is so shallow, but he is completely under the radar. He has excellent international experience along with an understanding of diplomacy and its nuances. Too bad all of that appears to be over the heads in our current administration.
I think the issue here is "Credibility" and the ability to sort out the truth from the language of the chaos makers.
Bottom Line: none of these people are a Truman, Eisenhower, or a Roosevelt. They are what they are, products of our time, to our shame.
Iran’s Revolutionary Guard are helping to kill our troops. wake up people!
Hillary Clinton should be ashamed for voting the way of the neonuts, both in 2002 and 2007. What the heck was she thinking both times? She shows a complete lack of judgement and sense of reality when it comes to foreign policy. She has a complete lack of temperance. Even the recent dumb butt attacks on Barack Obama show this. She honestly thought that attacking Obama's character for writing essays that he wanted to be President in kindegarden was somehow legit.
All these things show exactly how out of touch Hillary Clinton is with the American people. On the flipside, they show how ahead of the curve Barack Obama is. he was right on Pakistan when he said he wouldn't rely on Musharaff and Hillary called him niave. He was right in 2002 when he called the Iraq war a "dumb war", and he was right a month ago when he spoke out loudly against Hillary's vote to authorize Bush to attack the Republican Guard in Iran as terrorists.
Obama has proven time and again he has what it takes to be a President, while time and again Hillary only proves she's a dinosaur.
Obama 08
anyone ever think that saddam moved his wepons omd to syria or maybe iran before the war started, something to think about
Whether or not Iran's Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organization seems to be besides the point -- what is more interesting is the poitical tact taken by Hillary's opponents in utilizing her vote against her. In my own opinion the manner in which Barack Obama has behaved leaves me to wonder what type of leader he will be. Given the chance to put his money where his mouth is he failed to show up on the Senate floor to debate and more importantly vote on the resolution. Wasn't that his responsibility? -- So far he appears to be all bluster with no substance. A combination of Kennedy Charisma and ironically the recycled vision of Bill Clinton -- who was the original candidate from Hope.
What is not being said here is how could Hilary give Bush the opportunity to interpret a resolution the way HE wants. Just look at his responses yesterday, "this NIE changes nothing regarding our policy towards Iran." "I didn't ASK what new information was contained in the NIE" - in August.
Hilary is an opportunist with no compass. She knew damn well that she needed to have clear language in the resolution to make sure that the Iraq mistake did not occur again. She chose not to insist on that language before voting yes on it. The resolution gave her the arguable ability to state that the resolution did not give Bush the authority to attack Iran. So, she calculated her political future at the expense of troops.
Send your comments to masspolitics@globe.com
browse this blog
by categoryInside Boston.com