Embattled Clinton defends her vote on Iran: Three-page letter mailed directly to Iowans

[DeepModem Mom]

Source: New York Daily News

Monday, October 22nd 2007

WASHINGTON - With the President and vice president ratcheting up the rhetoric against Iran, a defensive Sen. Hillary Clinton is trying to convince Iowa voters her recent vote on Iran doesn't mean she is backing the administration.

In a three-page letter mailed directly to Iowans, Clinton (D-N.Y.) insisted her vote last month to name Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group does not put her in league with the Bush administration. Clinton wrote that she was about to vote "no" on the measure, but changed it to "yes" after Democrats removed language she thought President Bush "could use to justify military action."

"After the problematic language was removed, it was clearly a vote for stepped-up diplomacy, not military action," she said.

Her vote has come under fire from fellow Democrats. Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), one of her rivals, said Sunday on ABC's "This Week" that Bush would surely point to that resolution if he strikes Iran, either over its nuclear program or its support of Iraq insurgents.

"I think it's a gigantic mistake," Biden said, adding that Clinton would share responsibility for a U.S. attack on Iran. "Absolutely, unequivocally, positively," he said.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/10/22/2007-10-22_embattled_hillary_defends_her_vote_on_ir.html

[Magleetis]

1. Sorry

In my book labeling someone a terrorist in not conducive to increased diplomacy. Maybe its just me.

:shrug:

[dysfunctional press]

2. Fuck Hillary. she will NEVER get my vote.

never.

[dkofos]

3. She will be good for the WAR MACHINE!!

[CoffeeCat]

7. Hillary is the 10w40 of the war machine! (nt)

[leftchick]

4. she should stick to her well worn script

"If I knew then what I know now"!!!! :puke:

[CoffeeCat]

8. That comes after...

...we destroy Iran, kill hundreds of thousands of innocent Iranian men, women
and children, discover that Iran lacked the capacity for a nuclear-weapons
program, and catapult the planet into World War 3.

"Ooooopsey! Did I make bad vote again? I'm sorry about Iran and Iraq, but
we must move forward on Syria. They're the bad guys now. They're the terrorists.
I'm sure of it this time!"

Hillary: Richard Perle in a monochromatic pantsuit.

[leftchick]

16. lol!

what a vision and oh so true!

[izquierdista]

18. Or the other one

"If you tell me what you want, I'll be for it 100%!"

[Javaman]

5. 3 page "explanation"?

LOL that's rich. I will be really surprised if any person out there will read a 3 page explanation of her vote.

In the sound bite world we live in, this explanation will promptly be trashed before their eyes glaze over after reading only the first paragraph.

Yeah, we live in a complicated world but in our era of quick replies this one is dead on arrival.

How about she just states the obvious, she's an enabler.

[yava]

38. Folks, anyone has the three pages?

It would help clarify the debate!

[Javaman]

42. I read it, but I'm talking about the general pop. you know, those people

who make up the rest of the nation and not just ego maniacs here on DU. LOL

[CoffeeCat]

6. That vote allows Bush to declare war on Iran!

You can call Hillary Clinton anything you like--but everyone knows that
she is an intelligent woman and a political genius.

She understands very well what her vote meant.

She signed legislation that declares the military of Iran "a terrorist group." She knows
very well that declaring a group "a terrorist group" allows Bush to declare war on them and
do whatever he wants to them--without asking the permission of Congress.

Bush has specifically said, "We don't negotiate with terrorists". He needed Iran and their
government to be categorized as "terrorists" so his impending war crimes and other atrocities will be legal.

Hillary just helped hand that to him. She damn well knows it.

I'm so sick of her lies.

As an Iowan, she insults me. I don't care if she's got a 3-page letter or a candy-gram for
me. She just helped Junior categorize the government of Iran as a terrorist organization
and he can do what he wants now.

Hillary voted along with the neocons. At least the neocons don't try to position the vote
as a vote for diplomacy. How moronic does she believe the citizens of this country are?

[Alexander]

26. Are you planning to caucus in Iowa?

I'm no fan of Senator Clinton either, but I was wondering if you had any indicators of who is likely to win Iowa, since you live there.

[CoffeeCat]

35. I posted about this in a previous thread....

...and I'll be glad to share my thoughts.

I caucused in 2004 and I'll be there for 2008.

The caucuses are quite interesting. In my case, there were about 100 of us in the
high-school library. We all divided into our specific camps (Kerry, Edwards, Gephart,
Dean, etc). We all began debating vigorously. This is not a bunch of church mice
gathering for a tea. We were arguing. People got angry. People were aggressively
pointing out candidate weaknesses and strengths. It was democracy in action, with
people attempting to woo others into their camp.

Besides our group, there were probably 50 other groups that met in other rooms of
the high school. Many other groups in my city met in community centers, homes
and meeting rooms in grocery stores! You are assigned to a caucus location based on
where you vote. Hundreds of groups met in my city--and tens of thousands do this
across Iowa. It's like thousands of little islands of vigorous debate.

My guesstimate about this process is that it will yield bonus points for Obama and
Edwards--and I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary didn't do well. I say this because
support for her seems based on two things: 1.) Name recognition; 2.) People say they'll
vote for her because they believe others are voting for her. This equals soft
support. People are not passionate for Hillary because of her beliefs. They're
glomming onto the MSM's declaration of Hillary as winner.

Hillary's support may be widespread, but it seems thin. Edwards and
Obama supporters are passionate and committed. Many Obama/Edwards supporters can't
stand Hillary--and the majority of the more progressive candidates (Kucinich, Richardson)
are dead-set against her. I believe this will spark spirited debate.

Combine Hillary's soft support with the passionate support for other candidates--and I think the likelihood of Edwards or Obama taking Iowa is extremely high.

It's all about who can lure others into their camp.

If the current polls are junk (as many of us suspect), that will be made very clear in
the Iowa caucuses.

Just my opinion.

[TechBear_Seattle]

9. When she backs up the campaign rhetoric with actual votes, I'll believe her

Until then, her records makes it very clear that she is a warmonger no different from the Republickers.

[Maribelle]

10. It's strange that Clinton's opposition doesn't bring forward the prior version for comparison.

Strange that they would show off how weak their argument is against Clinton.

Why on earth is this political hit piece considered Latest Breaking News? That's truly a stretch.

[karynnj]

23. The reason is that the Democrats also eliminated

much of the worst language in the IWR - including many of the things Gore specifically objected to, yet it did no good. The final bill might as well have been the earlier on in terms of how Bush used it.

Anyone arguing that the step of specifically taking things out meant they were ruled out was met by someone else saying that the initial inclusion showed where Bush really was. People now give no one a break who might have thought they were negotiating in good faith in 2003. Then there could at least be some doubt that Bush would lie on issues of war and peace - now there is none.

[AllyCat]

32. The prior version lends little to the discussion. While the really

bad paragraphs were removed, this one was there for a darn good reason. And she voted for it anyway, just because the compromise seemed better than the original? If she really wanted to end this nightmare, she'd see that giving * even a smidgen of latitude (in this case, calling them terrorists when he believes he's fighting a "war on terror") is enough to keep the tanks rolling towards Iran. She wants this war as much as he does, even if the reasons are probably different.

[lateo]

11. She can attempt to defend it today...

but if Bush attacks Iran any time soon it will be the end of her campaign for President.

[spotbird]

20. I wish you were right,

but it's a done deal. It will be unpatriotic to oppose the attack on Iran. This will show she's a real hawk, willing to kill, not just talk about it.

[madrchsod]

12. every home in iowa?

that`s a ton of money to spend for someone who is polling far ahead of everyone else in iowa

[Debi]

27. Unless her internals are telling her campaign something they don't want to hear n/t

[mod mom]

13. Whose military experience are you going to trust Sen Webb, Biden and Dodd or HRC?

The Kyl-Lieberman Iran amendment -- which ratchets up the confrontation with Iran by calling for the designation of its Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization responsible for killing U.S. troops -- just passed overwhelmingly, 76-22.

Of the Dem Presidential candidates, Hillary voted for the measure, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd opposed it, and Barack Obama missed the vote. On the GOP side, John McCain missed the vote.

The bill's backers had tried to mollify its critics by taking out some of its most incendiary language, particularly the idea that "it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies."

-snip

One leading critic, Jim Webb, however, still opposed the bill because it designates the Iran guard a terrorist organization. Nonetheless, it was able to pass overwhelmingly.

-snip

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/09/kyllieberman_iran_amendment_passes_by_huge_margin.php

Webb: Lieberman And Kyl’s Hawkish Iran Amendment Is ‘Cheney’s Fondest Pipe Dream’
On the Senate floor today, Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) made an impassioned appeal to his fellow senators, declaring that the Lieberman-Kyl amendment on Iran should be “withdrawn” because the “proposal is Dick Cheney’s fondest pipe dream.” Webb cautioned that the “cleverly-worded sense of the Congress” could be “interpreted” to “declare war” on Iran. He continued:

Those who regret their vote five years ago to authorize military action in Iraq should think hard before supporting this approach. Because, in my view, it has the same potential to do harm where many are seeking to do good.

“At best, it’s a deliberate attempt to divert attention from a failed diplomatic policy,” said Webb. “At worst, it could be read as a backdoor method of gaining Congressional validation for military action, without one hearing and without serious debate.” Watch it:


Webb said that amendment’s attempt to categorize the Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp as “a foreign terrorist organization” would, for all practical purposes, “mandate” the military option against Iran. “It could be read as tantamount to a declaration of war. What do we do with terrorist organizations? If they are involved against us, we attack them.”

-SNIP

We haven’t had one hearing on this. I’m on the Foreign Relations Committee, I’m on the Armed Services Committee. We are about to vote on something that may fundamentally change the way the United States views the Iranian military and we haven’t had one hearing. This is not the way to make foreign policy. It’s not the way to declare war.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/25/webb-kyl-lieb-iran/

Sen. Webb blasts Lieberman/Kyl Amendment: “This proposal is Dick Cheney’s fondest pipe dream”
By: John Amato on Tuesday, September 25th, 2007 at 12:30 PM - PDT


Sen. Webb went on the offensive today and denounced the Lieberman/Kyl amendment as warmongering and a big fat, wet kiss to the “William the Bloody” Kristol wing of the GOP—including the star of the Neocons: Dick Cheney. Lieberman is setting the stage with all his Iran amendments that have the sole purpose of bringing the US into war with Iran. This must be defeated and I implore the Democratic Party to vote this down. A big shout out to Jim Webb for standing up against this amendment. Call your Reps…(We have a “Contact Congress” box on the lower right hand column)




Webb: We are about to vote on something that may fundamentally change the way that the United States views the Iranian military, and we haven’t had one hearing. This is not the way to make foreign policy. It’s not the way to declare war, although this cleverly worded sense of the Congress could be interpreted that way.

Those who regret their vote five years ago to authorize military action in Iraq should think hard before supporting this approach, because in my view, it has the same potential to do harm where many are seeking to do good. The constant turmoil that these sorts of proposals and actions are bringing to the region is counterproductive. They are regrettable substitute for a failure of diplomacy by this Administration.

I do not believe that any serious student of foreign policy could support this amendment as it now exists.

This proposal is Dick Cheney’s fondest pipe dream. It’s not a prescription for success. At best, it’s a deliberate attempt to divert attention from a failed diplomatic policy. At worst, it could be read as a back door method of gaining congressional validation for action with one hearing or without serious debate.

WATCH IT @

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/25/sen-webb-blasts-liebermankyl-amendment-this-proposal-is-dick-cheneys-fondest-pipe-dream/

[Strelnikov_]

15. "designation of its (IRGC) as a terrorist organization responsible for killing U.S. troops"

And since the IRGC is essentially a branch of their armed services, the resolution essentially established that a state of war exists between the US and Iran.

On edit: Just as Sen. Webb notes.

[cuke]

31. Biden and Obama also supported calling IRG a "terrorist organization"

They supported S970, which called the IRG a terrorist organization

Now, all of sudden, they think it's a bad idea

[pattmarty]

14. I sincerely hope she loses Iowa to Edwards.

[ShortnFiery]

21. To add, I hope against hope that whatever way is best, Edwards and Obama join forces.

IMO, that's the only way to win against HRC. :shrug:

[AllyCat]

30. I hope she loses to ANYONE in Iowa. ANY of them are better than her n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

17. Even if I agreed with her, sending a 3-page letter is not the best way to

convince the general public.

This was a problem I had with John Kerry's website in 2004: you had to wade through a lot of verbiage to figure out what he actually thought about any given issue.

One page with bullet points is far less likely to get tossed into the trash or make people's eyes glaze over.

Either Hillary's campaigners don't know how to do a successful mass mailing or she has "helpful" saboteurs in her Iowa campaign.

[Debi]

34. Well, who did the campaign hire to do the direct mail in Iowa?

That's who is going to make $$ off of the mailing.

[spotbird]

19. Did she bother to read the

intelligence brief this time?


Has anyone heard how she plans to vote on FISA? Dollars to dough nuts she'll vote against the bill and for the end of debate.

[Solly Mack]

22. Anyone have a copy of the 3 - page letter?

I'm curious

[peace13]

24. Wow she's stooped to a new low.

Our local crackpot running for office did that one year. A three page handwritten letter, copied and mailed out to thousands. It succeeded in turning off her supporters as well as undecideds. Good luck with that Hillary. Get the message, we are sick of war and deceit.

[noonwitch]

25. Well, they are a terrorist group-that doesn't mean we have to go to war

But they are a terrorist group, nonetheless. Remember the embassy hostages?

[DLnyc]

36. 'They' did not exist then

If by 'they' you mean the Iranian Republican Guard, they were not in existance in the late 1970;s. Around 1978 (?), Iranians revolted against Shah Pahvleeva (sp?), a brutal dictator installed and supported by the US. Since there was no formal opposition government at that time, there could hardly have been an established Iranian Republican Guard, and even if that name had been used 29 years ago, the connection to todays elite army group in Iran is pretty thin.

I think you should cite actual acts of the actual group if you want to call a group a 'terrorist organization', not just a vague guilt by association (i.e. the IRG is an elite group in today's Iran, today's Iran sprang from the '78 revolution, the '78 revolution took actions that the US didn't like, therefore ... ??).

But the Iran resolution has apparently achieved its purpose: it is now apparently acceptable to label individuals in Iran as terrorists without the inconvenience of having to cite actual acts done by those actual individuals. This sure seems similar to the process that led to the insane attack on Iraq: first Saddam was demonized, then it became acceptable to say Saddam "certainly" has WMD (without need of any silly evidence, since everyone 'knew' he was evil, so finally there was no way to slow the rush to war.

Sorry, I don't think your conclusion is well thought out.

[AllyCat]

28. Calling the part of Iran's military "terrorists" is still problematic when

you have a pResident that thinks he has a war on terror.

3 pages???? Who on earth is going to sit down to read that? Well, she has the money to afford it I suppose. Personally, she appears to be a war monger just like her buddy Bush.

She's an awful candidate that is being pushed by our right-leaning media. God, when are people going to see this.

[cuke]

29. Obama and Biden also called Iran's military "terrorists" also

[AllyCat]

33. Obama didn't bother to show up for the vote. Biden at least voted no

I do feel Biden is probably covering his tracks though, but I have not followed a lot of what he's said while campaigning. If they both called them that, then they aren't making this any easier, but an actual vote in the Senate is just what Shrubie will use to justify his assault and then say, "well, the Dems wanted it too" right before the election.

[Buns_of_Fire]

37. Why do they see her as "embattled"?

With up to a 30-point lead (depending on which poll you believe), it seems to me that you don't become "embattled" until that lead slips into the single-digits, and you've got others nipping vigorously (and publicly) at your heels.

Unless, of course, your internal polling is showing you something different than the Great Unwashed Masses are being told (as was suggested earlier in this thread).

Either way, though: A THREE-PAGE LETTER? Methinks perhaps the lady doth protest too much?

[MilesColtrane]

39. So Hillary was against the resolution before she was for it?

Sounds like another candidate who was doomed to lose.

[IndianaGreen]

40. Hillary was against it before she was for it.

Shades of Kerry in 2004, and an omen of the disastrous candidate that she will turn out to be.

[NoodleyAppendage]

41. Pandering, Neocon Bootlicking, Nakedly Ambitious and NOT a Liberal.

Hillary is our party's WORST NIGHTMARE. Heaven willing, she will NOT be our candidate. To hell with her and her corporate propaganda "inevitability" campaign.

J

[Red1]

43. Well,

I see that the freepers continue to plague this "liberal" site with their Hillary Hate message,

Too bad me little rightys, Mrs Clinton will be the next President representing the democrats of this great country. Get used to it.

[Zhade]

44. Why does she assume anyone is stupid enough to fall for this transparent tactic?

Geez, Clinton, you can't even have the courage to stick by your own fucked-up votes?

[AtomicKitten]

45. She has the distinction of being the only Democratic candidate -

to not learn the first time the dog bit her.

Oy vey.

[rodeodance]

46. read her lettre here:

"After the problematic language was removed," Clinton adds, "it was clearly a vote for stepped-up diplomacy, not military action."

Earlier in the letter, the candidate underscored her opposition to military action against Iran "without full Congressional approval."

According to Smith, the letter is part of a larger campaign mailing which also includes a compilation of quotes from Gen. Wesley Clark and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), two top Democrats who stand by Sen. Clinton on her Iran vote. The missive, Smith asserts, suggests that Clinton "thinks her tough talk toward the country threatens to alienate some Democrats, and that her rivals' suggestions that she is too hawkish on Iran may be having an effect."

Read the full text of the letter at Politico.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Clinton_defends_Iran_vote_