How many du'ers continue to have a problem with HRC's Iran position? a show of hands

[Windy]

:hi:

[JeffR]

1. Here.

:)

[rodeodance]

2. not me. she wants 'aggressive' diplomacy.

[tekisui]

9. "Aggressive" diplomacy becomes war in a few foolish steps.

[Windy]

13. a bit of an oxymoron when you consider that her method of diplomacy

is to declare the military of a soverign nation to be a terrorist organization and sign on to a resolution that give the authorization to launch strikes against that so designated military of a soverign nation from within the borders of Iraq...

I don't get why some of you don't read the actual kyl/lieberman amendment.

Please understand the policies and candidate endorses before you throw your support behind them.

[AuntPatsy]

18. I understand the need for such I really do but I don't feel she explained herself well enough

I think we don't have the right to demand another country, a poweful one bow down to our wishes.


At this point in time, America is seen to be a bully world wide, I know she is attempting to gain support from the conserves who are scared of their own shadow, its true they are you know, of them bombing us.

My husband is a big brawny guy, a good fighter in his youth, even today I have seen grown men kind of cower at his anger but then he whines about being afraid of Iran? Why? Because faux news tells him too, it's amazing to me, a man I never thought would openly fear anything..so she is attempting to talk to men like that, smart men for the most part but lacking common sense by believing something some stranger on a news station tells you without fact checking about the validity of that fear.

But by doing so she pushes away those against war period, many are piling up, a slippery slope to be sure, who does she want to appease more is my worry.

[Windy]

19. Appease? Diplomacy yes. K/L was not a road to diplomacy...

She needs to do what is best for the country and our troops. Kyl Lieberman, while Bush is still in the whitehouse was a monumental mistake.

[AuntPatsy]

21. Look I agree but she is more of a politician that Kunnich and like it or not

her gender plays a role in how she is addressing the issues, she is trying very hard to make people realize that just because she is a women does not mean she is not able to keep this country safe by making hard decisions. Kunnich is a man, like it or not this is a mans world, I give her a slight pass, slight mind you but I hope that she stops playing into the game of having to prove she is as tough as any man.

I agree she has made many mistakes, but there is not one canidate, dennis included that has left me with questions as to why he said what he did. I did not like Kunnichs desire to see all private gun ownership denied, this is a violent world, thats a reality, and I want that right not messed with.

I love the way he speaks, demands, and speaks truthfully, but I would like to know why he made that statement on private gun owners?

[MethuenProgressive]

54. K/L, which she voted yes on, says the same things as the one Obama cosponsored

Obama was for that one, until he skipped out on voting on this one, which he now is against.
That flip gets a 9.9 from the Russian judge...

[mod mom]

3. Her Kyl Lieberman vote enables * . Here is what Sen Webb had to say:

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.

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

[HCE SuiGeneris]

67. "If she only knew then... yadda yadda yadda"

She is an enabler for the con's and corp's interests.

[ddeclue]

4. ME!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

5. hello

:hi:

[AuntPatsy]

6. Here

[dj49770]

7. Big problem

Yes, it's pandering of the most revolting sort to the most revolting people.

[Cha]

8. hillary's going to agrressively get

us into another War, this time on Iran..bullies need the Middle East.

[itsrobert]

10. She has one? or six?

:hi:

[Lucinda]

11. What's the alternative to it - in solving the problem on the ground in Iraq?

No one has said that Iran isn't doing what K/L states they are doing...just that it was foolish to give junior a toehold. Unless someone has a quote I haven't seen yet....

[Windy]

17. There is no evidence that Iran is acting as alleged.

The only "proof" that Bushco gives is the word of General Patraeus.

There is no hard fast objective evidence to support that contention...

Sound familiar? Willing risk that again given this administrations track record?
Apparently Senator Clinton is... But I'm not.

I learned from the Iraq debacle as did most of America. She apparently did not.

[Lucinda]

20. My understanding of it was that not only the general, and the ambassador

gave testimony, but that Salazar and Snowe reported to congress when they came back from Iraq. They both also voted with Hillary and the majority. Wish I could find a link.


Do you have any quotes saying it was inaccurate?

ON edit...after re-reading K/L it mentions others as well Gen Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. (General Jones, a DoD report, and The National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, and The Report of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq.

Which you may or may not choose to believe, of course.

[Windy]

24. Hmm.... look at that cast of characters... where's the hard data

Apparently, there really isn't any....
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2007/02/14/doubts_raised_on_linking_of_iran_to_us_deaths_in_iraq/?page=2
**AND**

Published on Saturday, February 3, 2007 by the Los Angeles Times
US Can't Prove Iran Link to Iraq Strife
Despite pledges to show evidence, officials have repeatedly put off presenting their case

by Maura Reynolds

WASHINGTON — Bush administration officials acknowledged Friday that they had yet to compile evidence strong enough to back up publicly their claims that Iran is fomenting violence against U.S. troops in Iraq.

Administration officials have long complained that Iran was supplying Shiite Muslim militants with lethal explosives and other materiel used to kill U.S. military personnel. But despite several pledges to make the evidence public, the administration has twice postponed the release — most recently, a briefing by military officials scheduled for last Tuesday in Baghdad.

"The truth is, quite frankly, we thought the briefing overstated, and we sent it back to get it narrowed and focused on the facts," national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley said Friday.

The acknowledgment comes amid shifting administration messages on Iran. After several weeks of saber rattling that included a stiff warning by President Bush and the dispatch of two aircraft carrier strike groups to the Persian Gulf, near Iran, the administration has insisted in recent days that it does not want to escalate tensions or to invade Iran.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates seemed to concede Friday that U.S. officials can't say for sure whether the Iranian government is involved in assisting the attacks on U.S. personnel in Iraq.

"I don't know that we know the answer to that question," Gates said.

Earlier this week, U.S. officials acknowledged that they were uncertain about the strength of their evidence and were reluctant to issue potentially questionable data in the wake of the intelligence failures and erroneous assessments that preceded the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

In particular, officials worried about a repetition of former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's February 2003 U.N. appearance to present the U.S. case against Iraq. In that speech, Powell cited evidence that was later discredited.

In rejecting the case compiled against Iran, senior U.S. officials, including Hadley, Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, confirmed Friday that they were concerned about possible inaccuracies.

"I and Secretary Rice and the national security advisor want to make sure that the briefing that is provided is absolutely accurate and is dominated by facts — serial numbers, technology and so on," Gates told reporters at the Pentagon.

Another reason for the delay, as is often the case when releasing intelligence, was that officials were concerned about inadvertently helping adversaries identify the agents or sources that provided the intelligence, Hadley said.

Hadley also said that the administration sought to delay the release of evidence until after a key intelligence report on Iraq was unveiled, so that Americans could place the evidence in the context of the broader conflict.

That report, called a National Intelligence Estimate, was issued Friday, concluding that Iraq was deteriorating and faces a bleak future that U.S. efforts may do little to avert.

However, the report tends to downplay the role of Iran and Syria, another target of U.S. criticism, in fomenting sectarian violence, while acknowledging that Iranian involvement "intensifies" the conflict.

"The involvement of these outside actors is not likely to be a major driver of violence or the prospects for stability because of the self-sustaining character of Iraq's internal sectarian dynamics," says the report, compiled by experts from the nation's 16 intelligence agencies.

Few doubt that Iran is working to increase its influence inside Iraq, but many of its beneficiaries have been political groups that also are allied with the United States.

So far, the U.S. government has provided scant evidence that the government of Iran is directly supporting militant Shiite groups.

U.S. military leaders in Iraq have said they have evidence that Iran is behind the supply network of explosives. Military officials have blamed Iran for the increasing casualties caused by the use of "shaped charge" explosive devices that can penetrate armored vehicles.

"What we are trying to do is … counter what the Iranians are doing to our soldiers, their involvement in activities, particularly these explosively formed projectiles that are killing our troops, and we are trying to get them to stop their nuclear enrichment," Gates said.

U.S. officials detained five Iranians in a raid in the northern Iraqi city of Irbil last month, accusing them of planning attacks on Americans.

Gates also acknowledged Friday that there was "a lot of speculation" about involvement by Iranians in the abduction and killings of five U.S. servicemen in Karbala last month. But he refused to say whether an investigation had turned up any evidence that Iranians took part.

"I would just tell you flatly that the investigation is still going on, and the information that I've seen is ambiguous," Gates said. "It's not clear yet."

In a major speech on Iraq last month, Bush accused Iran of "providing material support for attacks on American troops" and vowed to "seek out and destroy" weapon transport networks.

Since then, Air Force officials have said they are planning new missions that could include flights along the Iran-Iraq border aimed at disrupting weapons shipments.

Iranian officials challenged the Americans to produce evidence of their charges, and Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, pledged last week to do so.

The increasingly harsh words from the Bush administration stoked fears of a possible U.S. attack on Iran. In recent days, the White House and top U.S. officials have sought to counter the concern. Gates became the latest administration official to offer such reassurances.

"The president has made clear, the secretary of State has made clear, I've made clear … we are not planning for a war with Iran," Gates said Friday.

Times staff writer Julian E. Barnes in Washington contributed to this report.

[Lucinda]

38. The article is old data from last February. K/L gives the dates

of the reports that the sense of the senate was drawn from. Mostly spring through this fall.

[Windy]

31. You may also want to read the disturbing language of the actual amendment....

The pertinent part has been highlighted in bold, below.

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.

[Lucinda]

37. That's not the final version that passed.

http://desertbeacon.blogspot.com/2007/09/ky-lieberman-amendment-passes-ensign.html

[eridani]

50. How would people who never get out of the Green Zone know jackshit?

How fucking stupid does she think we are? The Shi'ite militias (Badr Brigades, anyway) happen to be an arm of the Iraqi government. The Madhi Army is far more nationalistic and tends toward being anti-Iranian. The Iranians would want to help people like that because why? The Sunni militias are anti-Shi'ite. The Shi'ite Iranians would want to help them because why?

No doubt all kinds of weaponry is being smuggled into Iran, which has a pretty porous border with Iraq. The good old profit motive of arms dealers everywhere is discounted because why?

[Lucinda]

74. Well no doubt, if Biden, Edwards, Obama and the others faulted the intel

they would say so. As would the media. To my knowledge they haven't. What they have said is that they feel she was naive to support it because of what junior might do. I haven't seen ANY criticism that the intellegence or testimony was innacurate. I assume they have better information than you or I do.

And according to K/L it's the Iranian Republican Guard Qods Force that has been assisting Shi'a militia extremists, especially the Jaysh al-Mahdi.

[eridani]

81. Better information? Geez, now where did assuming that our government had "better information"

--get us in 2003? The media gave us nothing but cheerleading bullshit then--why would it be different now? There has been all kinds of criticism on the intelligence--just use the DU search function ferchrissakes!

Excuse me, but what bullshit is this about "Shi'ite exremists" anyway? There are two major Shi'ite groups in Iraq, one of whose militias (Badr Brigades) happens to be loyal to the government of which we are supposed to be an ally. They are very pro-Iranian. Sadr's Madhi Army is far more nationalistic, and many of its members resent those who were wealthy enough to fade and shade to Iran during Saddam's repression. Which groups are the Quds Force supposed to be aiding, and why? Neither makes much sense as Iranian policy.

[Lucinda]

83. As I mentioned before, I have seen no one refute the information in K/L

They have only been critical of those voting for it in terms of what the WH might try and do as a result. No one, to my knowledge, has said it was incorrect information.

I have no idea which factions they are supposed to be assisting. I just posted some of the details provided in K/L.

If you have any information that shows anyone refuting the info in K/L, I'd love to see it.

[doc03]

102. We supplied Osama Bin Laden with weapons

when the USSR occupied Afghanistan. Wouldn't that have given the USSR cause to attack the USA? The USA supplied Saddam Husein with WMD's when he was fighting Iran. He used the poison gas we supplied him against the Iranians and his own people, that was against the Geneva Conventions. Wouldn't that have given Iran the justification to attack the USA and shouldn't Rumsfeld and others been tried for war crimes along with Saddam.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

76. Leaving Iraq.

Duh.

[Lucinda]

79. That doesn't help them on the ground right now though.

[AndyTiedye]

12. NO WAR IN

IRAQN

[KoKo]

14. Big Problem and she was very clear in her position tonight... Also on SS

where she wants a 'study commission.' All that lobby money sure speaks when you have to set up a Commission about SS.

But, Iran was really the worst.... And, she smiled through it....

[Renew Deal]

15. Hand

:hi:

[Maven]

16. I do.

:hi:

[mmonk]

22. I'm against using war as an instrument of policy.

;-) :hi:

[fightthegoodfightnow]

23. Flapping Hands

:hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi:

[Viva_La_Revolution]

25. here!! nt

[Lilith Velkor]

26. *raises hand*

[RebelSansCause]

27. hey nt

:hi:

[OHdem10]

28. It troubles me--but I think I can understand--There is a very

important "special interest" group she may fear to cross.

It does make her appear to having it both ways.

[Jennifer C]

29. Yes

:hi:

[HughMoran]

30. I do

I understand the "normal" posturing that needs to happen, but with Cheney/Bush in the WH, any support for their posturing means "it's OK to start bombing now - Hillary said it was OK".

[blondeatlast]

58. Word, brother! If anyone, even *, Sr. in the WH, I wouldn't worry quite so much.

But with *, Jr. calling the shots, :scared:.

[JohnLocke]

32. Here.

[emilyg]

33. Not me.

[TahitiNut]

35. Great. Enlist. Do you want desert camo or forest camo?

:eyes:

[Alexander]

92. Would you like some Fascism with your war?

[TahitiNut]

34. Well, d'uh! I hope folks who support her position are among the first in to Iran.

That's what it takes. Motivation. :eyes:

[balantz]

36. Both hands

up here :hi:

[Blackhatjack]

39. (Waving Hand) "I do...."

I am not convinced by what Hillary says that we will be getting out of Iraq, and that we won't be in a fight with Iran before the end of her first 4 years if she were our President.

[me b zola]

40. Me

:hi:

[sakabatou]

41. .

:hi:

[AntiFascist]

42. Yes

:hi:

[JackORoses]

43. I think she has been poisoned by her Asbestos Pantsuit

I really fear for the future if she is at the helm

Nothing Important will get done fast enough

To many Corporate toes to step on

Global Warming can wait til 2050

Iraq can go til 2013

and in tonight's debate she reiterated, "We need to get tough with Iran"

It's pure triangulation aimed against her opponents playing to a conservative/centrist audience. Casting the other candidates as extremely liberal for wanting out of Iraq and nothing to do with an Iran War.

Watching her debate reminds me of the kid in class whose parent did their Science Fair Project. They know all the right issues and catch phrases to talk about. But they leave you empty as far as meaning and sincerity.

[leftchick]

44. she says the exact same thing as cheney

and other neocons about IRAN! Yes, I have a huge problem with that!

:grr:

[Greyhound]

45. Two from the Greyhounds.

:hi::hi:

[AzDar]

46. ...

:hi:

[Skidmore]

47. A whole family of hands here.

And we have problems with HRC on other issues too.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

48. I have a huge problem with her position.

:hi:

[xiamiam]

49. yep..i have a problem with hillary and her iran stance ..and a lot more as well..nt

[Nimrod2005]

51. Present

[barbtries]

52. here

and iraq

[LaurenG]

53. I have a problem with that stance. nt

[blondeatlast]

55. Here. nt

[Jacobin]

56. hand

[JTFrog]

57. Aye. n/t

[LWolf]

59. Yes. I continue to "have a problem" with her IRAN position. n/t

[NC_Nurse]

60. Right here.

:hi:

[immoderate]

61. Ooh ooh!

:hi:

--IMM

[Usrename]

62. I don't like it.

:hi:

[Terri S]

63. Among other things, you bet I do

:hi:

[SIMPLYB1980]

64. Not me I think its just about right.

[Alexander]

94. If you like war so much, go enlist.

Otherwise quit being a chickenhawk keyboard commando.

[Hun Joro]

65. Here.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

66. ...

:kick:

[Hydra]

68. I have a problem with all 3 top tiers

Regarding this issue. Give me a damn anti-war candidate among the electable dems!!!!

[bvar22]

69. Here.

Hand raised.

[Daphne08]

70. Yes

[shadowknows69]

71. Yo

[Lugnut]

72. Here!

:hi:

[in_cog_ni_to]

73. I have a problem with not only her Iran vote, but also her IRAQ vote and the fact she refuses

to say she was WRONG. She keeps insisting her vote was based on information she was given..."at that time" and she thought she was told the truth. I knew the thugs were LYING about why we needed to invade Iraq. Why didn't she? Her excuses just don't fly with me.

[Froward69]

75. Here!!!

and that line of security trumping human rights... horse shit.

[Norwood]

77. Right here!

[Generator]

78. Yep and the fact that Wes Clark endorsed her

after that business about no war with Iran-well maybe he is promised to be secretary of state or something-but sorry, I lost all respect. I listened to her again last night standing up with her spiel to the guy that served three turns in Iraq-"Iran would be bad for our military" he says-indeed-and she gives some neo-con approved crap speech about the carrot and the stick-bullshit-if we ever do go to war with Iran-unlike the Iraq vote-that one will never be forgivable in my eyes and I'm sure in that veteran's and his mom's eyes.

The Iranian nuclear threat at this moment in time is a hoax. It's not a threat. But she continues to say it is.

Guess who was the sponsor for the IWR-Lieberman-who was for this one-Lieberman-yep, Edwards was one of 16 that signed on-but unlike Hillary he actually learns something from history. Any go-ahead to this admin is the worst judgment possible.

[AtomicKitten]

80. Here.

:thumbsup:

[Bright Eyes]

82. Here!

:hi:

[KamaAina]

84. Oh! Oh oh! Oh oh oh oh oh oh!

[Deja Q]

85. I agreed with her - until she started tripping up her cue cards during the debates.

I can't even believe if she's honest about that.

Never mind the flipping between "I want to help the middle class!" while saying "I want to bring in unlimited H1Bs!" and saying nary a reason why for both, you bet I've got problems with her as a legitimate candidate; her not having a penis has got NOTHING to do with it at all so don't pull the reverse sexism on me, thanks all the same.

Oh, Iran is a threat and their claim "We're gonna use nukes for energy even though we've got lots of oil and gas to sell" is baseless and isn't being believed.

[MasonJar]

86. I am pro-Hillary. She will make good decisions I truly believe.

[Blackhatjack]

88. Very civil response. Can you explain in positive terms why you agree with her votes/positions?

She has a voting record and a public record when it comes to the Iraq War and Iran.

As a supporter, can you explain in positive terms her votes and positions on the Iraq War and Iran?

It would be helpful. THank you!

[TahitiNut]

90. Terrific. That's a triumph of faith over reasoned analysis. Bravo.

:eyes:

I sometimes wish I could be so sanguine.

[Deja Q]

106. That deserves a DUzy...

:D

[Alexander]

93. In other words, you're a Hillary supporter who can't answer the question.

Typical.

:eyes:

[HamdenRice]

87. Here. No more Bushes. No more Clintons nt

[Individualist]

89. I do

[Lydia Leftcoast]

91. Me--even the idea that Iran is a "problem" is ridiculous

Iran is like a hornet's nest. It won't bother anyone who doesn't keep swatting at it. Ideally, no one would have nuclear weapons, but if Pakistan, India, and Israel can have nuclear weapons, why not Iran?

[Truth2Tell]

95. Me.

I have a problem with it.

:hi:

[Pastiche423]

96. I do

[mudesi]

97. (nm)

[MzShellG]

98. There is no doubt......

HRC knows from experience how * operates. What is her excuse this time? Everyone saw how he used congressional resolutions to propel his march to Iraq. This Iran situation is an Iraq redux. How can she pretend otherwise?

[Spirochete]

99. I do

:hi:

[leftofthedial]

100. weasely positioning

she has supported the illegal aggression in and occupation of Iraq at every turn and now does same wink-wink-nudge-nudge routine on prospects of attacking Iran and has never explained her position, except to insult our intelligence by pretending that she didn't know a vote for the IWR would empower king george to invade Iraq. If indeed she isn't lying about that, then she is too damed stupid to be President. If she is lying, then we can't trust her.

She claims to be in favor of brining troops home, but then wants to leave them there for a long time.

I don't trust or believe her.

[BringEmOn]

101. Here!

:hi:

[Bennyboy]

103. Both hands up!!!!

[bunnies]

104. hands!

:hi: :hi:

[lumberjack_jeff]

105. Ooo! Ooo! I can answer this one Mr Kotter! n/t