Did Clinton really call this Iowan a 'plant' for asking about her Iran vote?

[bigtree]

these campaign reports can be biased and unreliable, but . . .


October 07, 2007 2:43 PM by Chuck Todd


NEW HAMPTON, Iowa -- {snip}

Randall Rolph, from nearby Nashua, asked why he should support Clinton's candidacy when she did not appear to have learned any lessons from having voted to authorize force in Iraq.

Clinton accused the man of being a plant who had been sent to ask the question, to which he took exception, saying the question was a result of his own research.

"I apologize," Clinton said, explaining that she had been asked the very same question in three other places.

The crowd applauded when the senator ended the back and forth by saying the two had a disagreement and offering to put Rolph in touch with her staff, who could provide him with the text of the legislation, which she suggested he had misunderstood.

After taking several more questions, Clinton ended by saying she valued these kinds of conversations and urging Iowans to support her in the caucuses.

"I'm taking nothing for granted," she said. "I hope I'll be able to earn your support."

Rolph said after the event that he was a registered Democrat who had come with an open mind but that he would not be supporting Clinton after the way she responded.

"Who in this room believes we aren't going to attack Iran before Bush leaves office?" Rolph said.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/07/400826.aspx

[ret5hd]

1. MAYBE you've been asked the question so often because IT MATTERS!

[Demeter]

2. If This Is The Best We Can Do, I Despair

Somebody buy that woman a CLUE!

[Donnachaidh]

14. perhaps her people need to hand out a sheet of *Do not ask* questions

Isn't that what Chimpie's people do? :sarcasm:

[Bolo Boffin]

16. No, they just need to hand HER a "Do Not Go There" list

This is what James Carville and the like are for.

[Demeter]

17. A Hit! A Palpable Hit!

Thanks for the Shakespearian opening! A Bard a day keeps the boredom away.

[Bolo Boffin]

10. Yep.

This was a big mistake, and you'll know it if the media pounce on her. They've been looking for their shot against her for a while, and this plays right into the "vast right-wing conspiracy" narrative.

However, many in the media would prefer to not have Rolph's points be heard, so we'll see if it actually does get picked up. Rolph appears to be quite vocal about his politics as a quick Google of his name will show, and it would be interesting to see him on a talking head news show.

[papau]

43. Stupid comment on Hillary's part - but Hillary was correct -voter incorrect -text below

Stupid comment on Hillary's part - but Hillary was correct -voter incorrect -text below

TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED:

SEC. 1535. SENSE OF SENATE ON IRAN.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:

(1) General David Petraeus, commander of the Multi-National Force Iraq, stated in testimony before a joint session of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives on September 10, 2007, that ``t is increasingly apparent to both coalition and Iraqi leaders that Iran, through the use of the Iranian Republican Guard Corps Qods Force, seeks to turn the Shi'a militia extremists into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests and fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq''.

(2) Ambassador Ryan Crocker, United States Ambassador to Iraq, stated in testimony before a joint session of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives on September 10, 2007, that ``Iran plays a harmful role in Iraq. While claiming to support Iraq in its transition, Iran has actively undermined it by providing lethal capabilities to the enemies of the Iraqi state''.

(3) The most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, published in August 2007, states that ``Iran has been intensifying aspects of its lethal support for select groups of Iraqi Shia militants, particularly the JAM , since at least the beginning of 2006. Explosively formed penetrator (EFP) attacks have risen dramatically''.

(4) The Report of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, released on September 6, 2007, states that ``he Commission concludes that the evidence of Iran's increasing activism in the southeastern part of the country, including Basra and Diyala provinces, is compelling. ..... It is an accepted fact that most of the sophisticated weapons being used to `defeat' our armor protection comes across the border from Iran with relative impunity''.

(5) General (Ret.) James Jones, chairman of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, stated in testimony before the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate on September 6, 2007, that ``e judge that the goings-on across the Iranian border in particular are of extreme severity and have the potential of at least delaying our efforts inside the country. Many of the arms and weapons that kill and maim our soldiers are coming from across the Iranian border''.

(6) General Petraeus said of Iranian support for extremist activity in Iraq on April 26, 2007, that ``e know that it goes as high as Suleimani, who is the head of the Qods Force. ..... We believe that he works directly for the supreme leader of the country''.

(7) Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, the president of Iran, stated on August 28, 2007, with respect to the United States presence in Iraq, that ``he political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly. Soon we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course we are prepared to fill the gap''.

(8) Ambassador Crocker testified to Congress, with respect to President Ahmedinejad's statement, on September 11, 2007, that ``he Iranian involvement in Iraq--its support for extremist militias, training, connections to Lebanese Hezbollah, provision of munitions that are used against our force as well as the Iraqis--are all, in my view, a pretty clear demonstration that Ahmedinejad means what he says, and is already trying to implement it to the best of his ability''.

(9) General Petraeus stated on September 12, 2007, with respect to evidence of the complicity of Iran in the murder of members of the Armed Forces of the United States in Iraq, that ``e evidence is very, very clear. We captured it when we captured Qais Khazali, the Lebanese Hezbollah deputy commander, and others, and it's in black and white. ..... We interrogated these individuals. We have on tape. ..... Qais Khazali himself. When asked, could you have done what you have done without Iranian support, he literally throws up his hands and laughs and says, of course not. ..... So they told us about the amounts of money that they have received. They told us about the training that they received. They told us about the ammunition and sophisticated weaponry and all of that that they received''.

(10) General Petraeus further stated on September 14, 2007, that ``hat we have got is evidence. This is not intelligence. This is evidence, off computers that we captured, documents and so forth. ..... In one case, a 22-page document that lays out the planning, reconnaissance, rehearsal, conduct, and aftermath of the operation conducted that resulted in the death of five of our soldiers in Karbala back in January''.

(11) The Department of Defense report to Congress entitled ``Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq'' and released on September 18, 2007, consistent with section 9010 of Public Law 109-289, states that ``here has been no decrease in Iranian training and funding of illegal Shi'a militias in Iraq that attack Iraqi and Coalition forces and civilians..... Tehran's support for these groups is one of the greatest impediments to progress on reconciliation''.

(12) The Department of Defense report further states, with respect to Iranian support for Shi'a extremist groups in Iraq, that ``ost of the explosives and ammunition used by these groups are provided by the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force..... For the period of June through the end of August, events are projected to rise by 39 percent over the period of March through May''.

(13) Since May 2007, Ambassador Crocker has held three rounds of talks in Baghdad on Iraq security with representatives of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

(14) Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress on September 10, 2007, with respect to these talks, stating that ``I laid out the concerns we had over Iranian activity that was damaging to Iraq's security, but found no readiness on Iranians' side at all to engage seriously on these issues. The impression I came with after a couple rounds is that the Iranians were interested simply in the appearance of discussions, of being seen to be at the table with the U.S. as an arbiter of Iraq's present and future, rather than actually doing serious business ..... Right now, I haven't seen any sign of earnest or seriousness on the Iranian side''.

(15) Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress on September 11, 2007, stating that ``e have seen nothing on the ground that would suggest that the Iranians are altering what they're doing in support of extremist elements that are going after our forces as well as the Iraqis''.

(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--

(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;

(2) that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;

(3) 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;

(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;

(5) that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224; and

(6) that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.

[bigtree]

45. break it down and don't be snowed by the fine print

The Senate has 'resolved' that Iran is a threat to our military forces. Ultimately, that determination amounts to a declaration of war if the Revolutionary Guard is 'decided' by Bush to be unrestrained by diplomatic means. That's what he did with the IWR, which was NOT a direct authorization of force.

Anyone questioning her vote can make a reasonable inference about what Bush might do with that determination, given the way he disregarded the provisions in the IWR calling for restraint and the 'exhaustion of all peaceful means'. It's no secret that the Bush administration has already had the Pentagon draw up Iran attack plans which include the use of nuclear weapons against the alleged Iranian bunkers. Even Sen. Clinton has refused to rule out the use of force against Iran. (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Senator_Clinton_wont_run_out_war_0203.html).

What does she expect the Bush administration to do with the determination against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard? Practice diplomacy? This administration? The only time they get serious is when they're gathering support for some military action or the continuation of some military action.

The Lieberman resolution was an invitation to the Bush administration to further contemplate or pursue their clear ambition to proceed with some sort of military aggression against Iran. Everyone knows this. There should be NO ambiguity on that point after the administration's past disregard of the restraint implied and mandated in the IWR.

[papau]

75. It's "non-binding" - and resolved "whereas" mean nothing, and Bush will disregard anything

n/t

[bigtree]

48. and, um . . .

(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;

[mmonk]

62. That's the part I find untenable and not worthy

of any body of the US congress at this time.

[papau]

76. Policy in Paragraph 3 refers to our activities "in Iraq"

[papau]

77. Sorry - posted text before modification - text that passed below

KYL-LIEBERMAN MODIFIED AMENDMENT NO. 2011 SEC. 1535. SENSE OF SENATE ON IRAN.
(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) General David Petraeus, commander of the Multi-National Force-Iraq, stated in testimony before a joint session of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives on September 10, 2007, that ``t is increasingly apparent to both coalition and Iraqi leaders that Iran, through the use of the Iranian Republican Guard Corps Qods Force, seeks to turn the Shi'a militia extremists into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests and fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq''.
(2) Ambassador Ryan Crocker, United States Ambassador to Iraq, stated in testimony before a joint session of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives on September 10, 2007, that ``Iran plays a harmful role in Iraq. While claiming to support Iraq in its transition, Iran has actively undermined it by providing lethal capabilities to the enemies of the Iraqi state''.
(3) The most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, published in August 2007, states that ``Iran has been intensifying aspects of its lethal support for select groups of Iraqi Shia militants, particularly the JAM , since at least the beginning of 2006. Explosively formed penetrator (EFP) attacks have risen dramatically''.
(4) The Report of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, released on September 6, 2007, states that ``he Commission concludes that the evidence of Iran's increasing activism in the southeastern part of the country, including Basra and Diyala provinces, is compelling. . . It is an accepted fact that most of the sophisticated weapons being used to `defeat' our armor protection comes across the border from Iran with relative impunity''.
(5) General (Ret.) James Jones, chairman of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, stated in testimony before the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate on September 6, 2007, that ``e judge that the goings-on across the Iranian border in particular are of extreme severity and have the potential of at least delaying our efforts inside the country. Many of the arms and weapons that kill and maim our soldiers are coming from across the Iranian border''.
(6) General Petraeus said of Iranian support for extremist activity in Iraq on April 26, 2007, that ``e know that it goes as high as Suleimani, who is the head of the Qods Force . . . We believe that he works directly for the supreme leader of the country''.
(7) Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, the president of Iran, stated on August 28, 2007, with respect to the United States presence in Iraq, that ``he political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly. Soon we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course we are prepared to fill the gap''.
(8) Ambassador Crocker testified to Congress, with respect to President Ahmedinejad's statement, on September 11, 2007, that ``he Iranian involvement in Iraq--its support for extremist militias, training, connections to Lebanese Hezbollah, provision of munitions that are used against our force as well as the Iraqis--are all, in my view, a pretty clear demonstration that Ahmedinejad means what he says, and is already trying to implement it to the best of his ability''.
(9) General Petraeus stated on September 12, 2007, with respect to evidence of the complicity of Iran in the murder of members of the Armed Forces of the United States in Iraq, that ``e evidence is very, very clear. We captured it when we captured Qais Khazali, the Lebanese Hezbollah deputy commander, and others, and it's in black and white . . . We interrogated these individuals. We have on tape ..... Qais Khazali himself. When asked, could you have done what you have done without Iranian support, he literally throws up his hands and laughs and says, of course not . . . So they told us about the amounts of money that they have received. They told us about the training that they received. They told us about the ammunition and sophisticated weaponry and all of that that they received''.
(10) General Petraeus further stated on September 14, 2007, that ``hat we have got is evidence. This is not intelligence. This is evidence, off computers that we captured, documents and so forth . . . In one case, a 22-page document that lays out the planning, reconnaissance, rehearsal, conduct, and aftermath of the operation conducted that resulted in the death of five of our soldiers in Karbala back in January''.
(11) The Department of Defense report to Congress entitled ``Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq'' and released on September 18, 2007, consistent with section 9010 of Public Law 109-289, states that ``here has been no decrease in Iranian training and funding of illegal Shi'a militias in Iraq that attack Iraqi and Coalition forces and civilians . . . Tehran's support for these groups is one of the greatest impediments to progress on reconciliation''.
(12) The Department of Defense report further states, with respect to Iranian support for Shi'a extremist groups in Iraq, that ``ost of the explosives and ammunition used by these groups are provided by the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force . . . For the period of June through the end of August, events are projected to rise by 39 percent over the period of March through May''.
(13) Since May 2007, Ambassador Crocker has held three rounds of talks in Baghdad on Iraq security with representatives of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
(14) Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress on September 10, 2007, with respect to these talks, stating that ``I laid out the concerns we had over Iranian activity that was damaging to Iraq's security, but found no readiness on Iranians' side at all to engage seriously on these issues. The impression I came with after a couple rounds is that the Iranians were interested simply in the appearance of discussions, of being seen to be at the table with the U.S. as an arbiter of Iraq's present and future, rather than actually doing serious business . . . Right now, I haven't seen any sign of earnest or seriousness on the Iranian side''.
(15) Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress on September 11, 2007, stating that ``e have seen nothing on the ground that would suggest that the Iranians are altering what they're doing in support of extremist elements that are going after our forces as well as the Iraqis''.
(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--
(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;
(2) that it is a critical national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;
(3) that the United States should designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224; and
(4) that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.
Insert prior to section (6) the following:
(16) Ambassador Crocker further testified before Congress on September 11, 2007, with respect to talks with Iran, that ``I think that it's an option that we want to preserve. Our first couple of rounds did not produce anything. I don't think that we should either, therefore, be in a big hurry to have another round, nor do I think we should say we're not going to talk anymore . . . I do believe it's important to keep the option for further discussion on the table.''
(17) Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated on September 16, 2007 that ``I think that the administration believes at this point that continuing to try and deal with the Iranian threat, the Iranian challenge, through diplomatic and economic means is by far the preferable approach. That's the one we are using . . . we always say all options are on the table, but clearly, the diplomatic and economic approach is the one that we are pursuing.''

[bigtree]

81. This is clearly going to be used by Bush to cover for his next justification for remaining in Iraq

The "surge" was enabled by the rhetoric of so many of our Democrats claiming to want to "fix" what Bush broke in Iraq. Now that he's lost hope of 'reconciliation' he'll shift to his next specter in Iran as reason to remain deployed to counter the threat that the majority in Congress affirmed with their vote for the Lieberman resolution. Even if he doesn't attack Iran, this resolution gives license for Bush to continue his aggressive posture against Iran's involvement in their neighboring territory.

What happens when Bush determines that he's exhausted all diplomatic means, like he did in the IWR. He has a ready resolution as cover. All he has to do is claim he's protecting our troops in Iraq as a threat against the forces Congress declared 'terrorist' with their vote for the resolution. Cover.

[papau]

82. icense for Bush to continue his aggressive posture against Iran" - I agree - but crossing

borders at one time required a bit more of a war resolution that this - but then I doubt that Bush requires any resolution, strong or weak, on the topic or off, to attack another oil producing country for his friends in the oil industry.

[The Backlash Cometh]

28. She should be prepared to answer that question.

It should be a canned answer by now.

[ProudDad]

65. Canned answer! Hillary????

Wow, I thought she was Ms. Spontaneity!!!

No canned answers from her...


sometimes -- NO answers from her...

[The Backlash Cometh]

70. I know. It's troubling.

[H2O Man]

33. Perfect response.

You are absolutely correct.

[blondeatlast]

83. Exactly. nt

[cali]

3. bzzzt. Wrong answer Hillary.

A plant? That suggests she's seriously out of touch, and it stinks of a certain kind of sleazy tactic to discredit the questioner.

[saracat]

4. Wow.Just Wow. This is the authoriatarian stuff we should be concerned with.

I beg the Hillary folks to please pay attention to this. Does this not seem reminicent of Bush? Does she not marginalize anyone who dares to question her? This is not a good thing no matter how it is spun. Not good at all.This is not "NOTHING".Just as the Kyl ?Liberman vote was not "NOTHING > JUst as her being under the influence of Mark Penn is not "NOTHING". Please listen.

[AndreaCG]

20. She apologized to the guy though, from what I can tell from the report

When has Shrub ever done that?

[saracat]

29. And that makes it all okay? Her knee jerk reaction was the same.

[ProudDad]

66. He apoligized to this guy (the next day)

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/14/bush-reporter-shades/

[opihimoimoi]

5. Too Many Plants make a Forest....a forest of PUBs....the fruit are horrible and the nuts bitter

[bigtree]

12. maybe she's distracted by the path she's on

and can't recognize foliage from her own forest

[ElizabethDC]

6. That sounds odd - I wish the article provided more quotes of her alleged accusation. n/t

[bigtree]

8. Todd can be emailed

[DURHAM D]

11. There is a more complete article (AP) previously posted.

I wonder why you posted this one?

[bigtree]

13. don't start crap. just post the other one.

[DURHAM D]

15. Sorry - I don't take orders from you. n/t

[bigtree]

19. You're the one coming on here claiming to have some other version of this

put up or . . .

[ElizabethDC]

21. Here's the other article

Excerpt about the exchange:

Randall Rolph of Nashua challenged her for voting last month to designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. Some Democrats said they feared that such a designation could be interpreted as a congressional authorization of military force in Iran.

Rolph compared Clinton’s vote on the Iran measure with her vote to authorize war in Iraq. ‘‘It appears you haven’t learned from your past mistakes,’’ he said.

Clinton responded that his interpretation was wrong and suggested that someone put him up to asking the question. The man said he did his own research and was offended that she would accuse him of getting it elsewhere. She apologized but insisted he must be looking at the wrong version of the bill.

Their exchanged grew heated as he insisted the bill would authorize combat. Clinton snapped back, her voice rising, ‘‘I’m sorry, sir, it does not.’’

‘‘I know what we voted for, and I know what we intended to do with it,’’ she said. She said it gives the authority to impose penalties.

Link: http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/592701,iowa100707.article

[bigtree]

25. cool, thanks. She handled that *worse than any of her other recent confrontations

needs more polish on her spin

[rucky]

36. This would've been a good opportunity for her to clarify her vote...

by offering the wording of the bill that assures it's not what the guy fears it is.

[ProudDad]

67. So she's still too fucking stupid (or crafty?) to realize

(or admit) that bush will take this POS "sense of the Senate" to be a blank check to do whatever he wants in Iran...

Just as he did the last time she voted "against"/"don't know"/"Don't Remember"/"FOR" WAR in Iraq with her yes for IWR...

Guess she hasn't learned shit about bush the war monger in the last 5 years...

Or maybe DiFi cut her in on a piece of the war profiteering action the other day when hillary visited DiFi at her 16,000,000 bungalow in Pacific Heights... hmmmmm?

[lateo]

71. ‘‘I know what we voted for, and I know what we intended to do with it,’’

Maybe that would have been a good time to explain to everyone there what exactly was "intended" with that vote.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bigtree]

18. Why didn't she just answer the question?Why don't you?What did she learn?

The vote for Lieberman's Iran bill does nothing but give cover for Bush aggression toward Iran. She admitted that she accepts the administration's 'intelligence' on Iran. Who believes ANYTHING from this administration?

[SlowDownFast]

37. Put down the Kool-Aid. n/t

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Yael]

7. And you will CONTINUE to be asked this question until it is answered satisfactorily

Even if that means admitting that you are wrong and of questionable representation of those who put you in the Senate.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. He must have come late and missed the ring kissing ritual.

Not to mention the proper questions warm-up.

[Nedsdag]

30. .....

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[gateley]

23. I'm surprised she would intimate that - that's such a Republican paranoid attitude.

She usually comports herself so well, she must be completely exhausted, and who wouldn't be?

Still, an unfortunate statement.

[ProudDad]

68. "that's such a Republican paranoid attitude"

Well, Yeah!!! :shrug:

[babylonsister]

24. Apparently her muscle didn't catch this wiley wabbit! nt

[Terri S]

26. From the article:

Randall Rolph, from nearby Nashua, asked why he should support Clinton's candidacy when she did not appear to have learned any lessons from having voted to authorize force in Iraq.

Clinton thanked him for the question and explained her Iran vote would lay the groundwork for using diplomacy and sanctions to pressure that government.

That was exactly what she said her authorization for the Iraq war was. So the question still remains, Hillary, what did you learn????

Answer?... non answer... what else is new. Nice touch attacking the questioner.. better work on that image softening a bit more.

[bigtree]

27. Right. Bush cares NOTHING about diplomacy, except as a pretext to military aggression

The frickin Iran regime change office headed by Elizabeth Cheney is at State. She should just admit that she agrees with Bush on Iran and defend that. The second you say force is an option it becomes a tool in Bush's arsenal.

on refusal to rule out force to stop 'pro-terrorist' Iran: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Senator_Clinton_wont_run_out_war_0203.html

[blogslut]

35. You said

The frickin Iran regime change office headed by Elizabeth Cheney is at State.

I had not heard about this. I knew Cheney junior was an official for US/Iraq but I had not heard about her involvement with Iran. If that woman is involved in Iran, well, that's very bad thing. Got more info for a lazy gal?

[bigtree]

41. self-described 'democracy czar'

here's an account from WW4: http://ww4report.com/node/1696

Cheney daughter leads Iran "regime change" campaign

03/06/2006

From the London Times, March 5:

THE war in Iraq is her father’s business but Elizabeth Cheney, the American vice-president’s daughter, has been given responsibility for bringing about a different type of regime change in Iran.

Cheney, a 39-year-old mother of four, is a senior official in the State Department, which has often been regarded as hostile territory by Dick Cheney’s White House team. Nonetheless father and daughter agree it would be better for the mullahs’ regime to collapse from within than to be ousted by force.

The question is whether democratic reform can be achieved before Iran becomes a nuclear power. That is the younger Cheney’s job. In the State Department she is referred to as the “freedom agenda co-ordinator" and the “democracy czar" for the broader Middle East. “She’s fantastic and dynamic," said a colleague.

Her official title is deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs and she is in charge of spending the $85m (£48m) — up from $10m last year — recently allocated to promote democracy in Iran. Much of it will be spent on broadcasting the views of exiles, dissidents and reformers inside Iran.

Cheney is better known to Iranian listeners of Voice of America’s Persian service than she is to Americans, although she publicly backed her sister Mary’s right to privacy when Democrats made an issue of her lesbianism in the 2004 election.

She rarely gives interviews but set out her agenda in a speech to the Foreign Policy Association’s annual dinner last June. Cheney said there was a “direct parallel" between reform movements in the Arab world and Poland’s Solidarity in the 1980s, which lit the “spark of freedom" in the Soviet bloc.


from SourceWatch:http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Iran-Syria_Operations_Group


The Iran-Syria Operations Group (ISOG) appears to be an extension of the Office of Iranian Affairs (OIA), which, in turn, is a reincarnation of the Office of Special Plans (OSP).

The OIA, "apparently housed in the same Pentagon offices inhabited by its predecessor and involving some of the same slimy personnel," including Abram Shulsky, head of the OSP under Douglas Feith. OIA staff report to "none other than Elizabeth Cheney, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, and daughter of the Vice President," Gary Leupp wrote May 29, 2006, in Dissident Voice.

The purpose of ISOG, likewise headed by Elizabeth Cheney, is "to encourage regime change in Iran. It's no secret that Cheney has over $80 million at her disposal to promote democracy in Iran. But ISOG isn't simply about promoting democracy. It's about helping to craft official policy, doing so not with one but two countries in its sights, and creating a policymaking apparatus that parallels--and skirts--Foggy Bottom's suspect Iran desk," Lawrence F. Kaplan wrote April 10, 2006, in The New Republic Online.

"The question is whether democratic reform can be achieved before Iran becomes a nuclear power," which is "Cheney's job," Sarah Baxter wrote March 5, 2006, in the UK's Times. "In the State Department she is referred to as the 'freedom agenda co-ordinator' and the 'democracy czar' for the broader Middle East."

Cheney and her father, Vice President Dick Cheney, "agree it would be better for the mullahs’ regime to collapse from within than to be ousted by force," Baxter wrote.

ISOG "was established to plot a more aggressive democracy promotion strategy for those two 'rogue' states. Funding is to come from $75m that Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state, announced in February she was requesting from Congress this year, plus some $10m already in the budget," Guy Dinmore wrote in the April 21, 2006, Financial Times.

[blogslut]

57. Thanks for the info

Old Liz is as bad as Daddy, that's for sure.

[bullwinkle428]

59. Hurray for nepotism!!

:rofl:

[Inspired]

31. So this is what impresses Tweety so much?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1993698

WTF? :shrug:

[Lerkfish]

32. attacking a questioner personally for a valid question?

and making the issue the legitimacy of the person asking the question instead of addressing the question....

now, where have I seen that before?......hmmmm..

think.....think.....

[TheUniverse]

34. Would she perfer he get tased and leave in handcuffs?

So someone who questions her vote on Iraq is a plant? Tough shit Hillary, learn how to answer tough questions. And learn how to respect Americans who deserve the right to question candidates running for office.

[spindoctor]

38. Meet the next president who will only appear for selected audiences...

...and answer pre-approved questions only.

[tavalon]

39. Clinton is not my choice

That said, she apologized.

[bigtree]

42. she should know that question is a legitimate concern

apologized? What else could she do? If her comment had gone unchallenged she might not have.

[tavalon]

44. Um, she could have used the Bush tactic

and had him forcefully removed. Apology for wrongdoing is a sign of maturity, a sign, btw, mostly lacking on both sides of the political aisle. My point was that she handled her goof appropriately, not that she didn't goof.

[bigtree]

46. right. the standard now is that anything short of tasing . . .

she tried to brush the question off and apparently offered the 'apology' only after she was rebuffed on her defensive tactic. She only gets credit from me for recognizing when to pull back from the spin she was using.

[Pastiche423]

51. There would have been no "goof"

if she had answered the American citizen's question w/o calling him a plant.

Earlier on in this long ass primary, I was worried that too many people might support her. But at the rate she's going now, I doubt I will have such worries.

[emilyg]

47. No she did NOT.

[bigtree]

49. what did she say, then?

[emilyg]

50. do your work - google.

[bigtree]

52. I have two reports here. If you have another one . . .

I'd be interested to see it. The two reports I have on this thread are convincing enough to me. "No she did NOT" and "Google" isn't a very good rebuttal.

[ElizabethDC]

53. There are about six threads going on about this in GD-P right now, if you're interested

basically, the guy was reading his question off of a piece of paper and, at some point while she was answering the question, Hillary said that someone must have sent him the question because she'd heard the same exact thing three times already.

So, effectively, she never used the word "plant."

[bigtree]

54. thanks. fair enough.

Can we agree that she was trying to deflect the question with that tactic? Do you think the questioner should have taken offense? I have.

(I haven't been to GDp in a while. I wonder when the admin is going to make it the exclusive area to discuss this stuff? There's definitely a select crowd there as there is in GD. Thanks for the heads up about the other threads. I have been lazy, but this can consume so much time.)

[ElizabethDC]

55. Well, in all fairness, she was in the midst of answering the question when she said that

so I don't think she was trying to deflect it, but she certainly did get a little to defensive. And she apologized to the guy.

[bigtree]

56. I want her to be directly accountable for that vote

I think she was wrong on so many levels on this one, not the least of which is the enabling nature of the resolution. She's clearly aware of the controversy. She should be pressed on this over and over, I believe.

[charlie]

58. WaPo has more of the exchange

Rolph asked Clinton to explain her Senate vote Wednesday for a resolution urging the Bush administration to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. Rolph interpreted that measure as giving Bush authority to use military action against the Iranians.

"Well, let me thank you for the question, but let me tell you that the premise of the question is wrong and I'll be happy to explain that to you," Clinton began.

She offered a detailed description of the resolution, which she said stressed robust diplomacy that could lead to imposing sanctions against Iran, and then pointedly said to Rolph that her view wasn't in "what you read to me, that somebody obviously sent to you."

"I take exception," Rolph interjected. "This is my own research."

"Well then, let me finish," Clinton responded.

Rolph, from nearby Nashua, fired back that no one had sent him the material.

"Well, then, I apologize. It's just that I've been asked the very same question in three other places," she said.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/10/07/clintons_iran_vote_prompts_a_h.html

[bigtree]

60. she seems a bit naive about our access to information, at best

At worse, she'd trying to deflect or marginalize his question by framing it as some organized attack. This is politics and she's a practiced pol.

Plenty of folks characterized that vote from the moment the Lieberman resolution was proposed. Some folks just want to know why she's accepting the administration 'intelligence' on Iran and using that administration 'evidence' as reason for giving them the cover of this determination. She knows this is a legitimate question, I suspect. I think that's why it seemed to get under her skin.

[charlie]

61. Not to mention

she's only been asked 4 times. Every day is Groundhog Day on the campaign trail, there isn't a question she hasn't been asked multitudes of times. If she's gonna get prickly just 4 times in, she needs to go practice her composure in front of a mirror. She could've finessed it if she'd stuck to her boilerplate, but now everybody knows what issue sticks in her craw. Bad move.

[ProudDad]

69. She ought to freakin' apologize for her

stupid vote for that POS amendment...

But that wouldn't occur to her.

According to her main backers: "There's good money to be made, supplying the army with the tools of the trade"

Gimme an "F"

Gimme a "U"

Gimme a "C"

Gimme a "K"

What's that Spell!!!

[Bluebear]

63. She said the research was something "that somebody obviously sent to you"

which is an odd way to address a questioner.

[ProudDad]

64. Wow, someone actually being able to ask her a question

Well, DUH hillary -- you fucking voted for war and refuse to address that huge mistake (known at that time to be a potentially HUGE mistake by anyone to the left of Attila the Hun) except to excuse it...

Here in my town last week, she blew in and out (with $250,000 from a few rich fucks in the northeast where the rich fucks live) before anyone got wind she was even here...

Straight from the airport to the "gated community", pass the hat, back to the airport...

In a Democrat leaning town...

No access for YOU!!!

[MethuenProgressive]

72. No she didn't. And here's the quote:

Text

She offered a detailed description of the resolution, which she said stressed robust diplomacy that could lead to imposing sanctions against Iran, and then pointedly said to Rolph that her view wasn't in "what you read to me, that somebody obviously sent to you."

[bigtree]

79. It's pretty clear to me that she tried to deflect from the question

by questioning the source. Standard political bullshit.

[Le Taz Hot]

73. She's going to get creamed in the General.

Its hers to lose and just like all DLC candidates for the last 11 years, she'll manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Simply amazing. Absolutely the WORST candidate they could have shoved down our throats.

[Vinca]

74. She should be asked about that vote every time she steps in front of a camera.

Even George Bush can figure out the vote enables him to "pursue the terrorists" over the border into Iran and take them out. The "War On Terror," after all, has been rubber stamped time and time again.

[fightindonkey]

78. Hillary Said The Right Thing After

[bigtree]

80. How does her answer square with her earlier refusal to rule out force against Iran?

She should know that Bush doesnt give a wit about diplomacy? What happens if he decides that he's exhausted the diplomatic means like he did with the IWR?

What did she learn?

[AzDar]

84. Yes, Hillary....clearly the good citizens of Iowa aren't well-informed

or clever enough to ask *YOU*, the designated nominee, a relevant question.
MUST be a 'plant'....:puke: