Iran has no nukes! Does Hillary's Iran vote show she lacks judgment & temperament for Presidency?

A prudent President would wait until the facts were known before rushing into war. A prudent President would carefully weight all alternatives before committing the nation into a Bay of Pigs fiasco or another Iraq War.

The late President Kennedy regretted listening to all the hawks and hangers on of the Eisenhower Administration that told him the CIA's invasion of Cuba was going to be a cakewalk. Kennedy fired the head of CIA, and his experience led him to decide to withdraw from Vietnam after the Diem assassination fiasco, a decision which was never carried out due to his own assassination.

The late President Kennedy did not listen to the hawks that wanted him to invade Cuba and bomb Soviet intermediate ballistic missile facilities in that island. Had he done so, we wouldn't be here today to talk about it.

Unlike President Kennedy, Hillary has always chosen to listen to the hawks. At the february AIPAC convention, Hillary railed against Iran, threatening to use all options on the table to stop Iran's nuclear program. Just as she did on the lead up to the Iraq war, Hillary disregarded any views that contradicted her own hawkish views on the Middle East. Instead, Hillary chose to give Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran, even to the point of repeating the unsubstantiated claims that Iran was involved in attacks on US troops in Iraq.

QUESTION: In view of recent developments, which include NIE and the Pentagon's no longer claiming that Iran was involved in attacks on US troops, do you feel that Hillary Clinton's vote on Kyl-Lieberman shows that she lacks the judgment and temperament for the Presidency?

for us.

which pretty much means that we are screwed no matter who we get as the democratic candidate.

Thank you!

Where were you when this issue was hotly debated in DU?

IndianaGreen is a good egg.

I'm sure he/she didn't notice you were new!

then I would have to vote yes; her vote on Iran (and her explanation thereof) do not speak well of her. However, with so much going on, with there being so many issues, with all of the other candidates having comparable flaws (or at least all that are rated as having any chance of winning) isn't it just a bit much to be forcing a vote on this particular issue?

I think so; therefore I voted other.


I don't particularly like Hillary Clinton. I won't vote for her in the primary, but I'm not about to start Clinton bashing in an attempt to stop her, and as against any conceivable Republican or third party candidate, I would give her my reluctant vote in the general,

Even while cursing her for having successfully triangulated the candidates and issues to corner my vote.

Last time I checked, Hillary Clinton has not authorized, let alone ordered, war with Iran.

yes indeed

You beat me to it. And did a far better job than I would have.

...with the exception of Kucinich and perhaps Biden. I voted "other". The main reason given here why that vote was so wrong was that it would encourage Bush/Cheney to attack Iran because of its nuclear program; obviously neither Congress nor our candidates nor many here at DU were confident that Iran was not moving forward on a nuclear program when that vote was held. Instead many argued that U.S. diplomacy was needed, not further threats (and some here argued that Iran had a right to have nukes).

That K/L vote centered on Iran's Revolutionary Guard and it's alleged terrorist nature, and those allegations are not affected by revised intelligence on Iran's nuclear program. All of the Democratic candidates (including Hillary with Kucinich the exception) currently regard Iran as an adversary to the U.S., and they all expressed concern over the possibility that Iran was developing nukes. The debate has been over how exactly to deal with Iran, and almost all of our candidates favored keeping all options on the table regarding that. Most thought that K/L was a dangerous vote for the Senate to take with Bush in the White House, but they never removed all options off the table.

Edwards spoke up against it, as did Obama.

There is no evidence that Iran is involved in attacks on US troops in Iraq.

Declaring a part of Iran's government a terrorist organization, gives Bush the green light to attack Iran based on authority already given to him by Congress in the aftermath of 9-11.

Your OP stressed the new intellingence on Iran's nuclear program. I disagreed with Clinton's K/L vote, but you will not hear most of our candidates agreeing with you that there is no evidence that Iran is involved in attacks on US troops in Iraq (depending on how you define "involve"). Clinton was alone on the K/L vote, but she was not alone in thinking that Iran has been actively opposing U.S. interests in the Middle East; she was not alone in thinking that the Revolutionary Guard has been backing terrorism in the Middle East, and she was not alone in believing that the U.S. needs to keep all options on the table to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions.

...that the proper way to deal with this problem is by INCREASING the level of hostility between the US and Iran. Very Bushlike....Remember the "Axis-of-Evil"?

No sale.

because he has no political courage.

be cautious in dealing with Iran?

Chalk one up for Joe!

and he has been soooo right on the issues!

No excuse for intellectual laziness.

"Biden was first"

"And it was Biden that was the first to say that we shouldn't be worried about Iran.
Chalk one up for Joe!"

Is the answer 2007 since you mentioned the debates? Others have been speaking about about this longer than the recent debates which is why I questioned the remark.


I agree with your comment

"No excuse for intellectual laziness."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3789234

sorry I didn't respond sooner.

evidence for quite a bit longer which is why I asked which year. Also Kucinich was one of the few to vote against the Iran Freedom Acts of 2005 and 2006 calling them stepping stones to war and has spoken out many times to try and push back against the administration's war drums.

Below are some links, there are others if you care to search.

Great link provided in the other thread by eleny, copied below.

http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/dennis-kucinich/false-iran-report/

"Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH), Ranking Member of the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, today, called on Chairman Christopher Shays (R-CT) to hold hearings on a false and misleading report approved by the Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, on Iran’s nuclear weapon capabilities.

September 15, 2006

Dear Mr. Chairman:

According to the Washington Post ("U.N. Inspectors Dispute Iran Report by House Panel", September 14, 2006), the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) conducted a prepublication review of a House Intelligence Committee staff report on Iran which has come under scrutiny for making false, misleading and unsubstantiated assertions about Iran’s nuclear program."



Resolution of Condemnation Regarding Iran
Dennis Kucinich speaking from the Floor of the House

Link to this entry in the Congressional Record

Feb 16, 2006

http://www.kucinichforcongress.com/floor_speeches/intl_condemn_iran16feb.php



Kucinich Speaks Out Against House Bill That Lays The Ground Work For War Against Iran
Leads House Opposition To HR 282

Washington, Apr 26, 2006 -

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=42687


Iran: There Is Another War Being Planned
Dennis Kucinich speaking from the Floor of the House

http://www.kucinichforcongress.com/floor_speeches/intl_iran27sep.php

Sep 27, 2006

"Mr. Speaker, Hans Blix, former chief U.N. weapons inspector, cautioned the U.S. before it attacked Iraq that Iraq was not an imminent threat. He was right. Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. Now America is more vulnerable than ever because of this administration's pathological deceptions.

"Yesterday, Dr. Blix said Iran is not an imminent threat and we should open up direct talks with Iran, not attack Iran. He is right again.

"Last week Intelligence Committee staff reports' deliberate distortion of the degree of Iran's uranium enrichment was exposed by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Nevertheless, according to credible reports, the administration has had covert operations in Iran, selected 1,500 bombing targets, and is preparing a naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which will set the stage, not only for a war against Iran, but also for $5-a-gallon gasoline.

"Meanwhile, the State Department and the Department of Defense will not even appear in classified briefings to discuss the plans for a war against Iran.

"Wake up, America. There is another war being planned."


It is unfortunate that some Dem candidates and their supporter's are now using this as a political tool.

I think it's because both of them vote from their heart, not from the polls.

says about one of their hearts?

:shrug:

"Dennis and Joe. So VERY different, yet so similar in many ways. I think it's because both of them vote from their heart, not from the polls."

They will do what they think is right. And that is about all they have in common!

I have run across alot of people at DU that like both Biden and Kucinich. I am actually one of those people.
And the only thing I can figure out - because the are so different - is what I just mentioned. Neither of them care about which
way the wind is blowing. They won't say something just to get votes. They are both confident in themselves.

my take on it anyway :P

I have heard that vote is really hurting her in Iowa too.

I'm just saying ...

They held that press conference on violent videos on the same day the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group released their report on Iraq, thus avoiding embarrassing questions on Iraq.

They both traveled to Israel in 2002.

Irony of that trip:

1. Lieberman met with all parties in Israel-Palestinian conflict, including with representatives of Israeli peace movement.

2. Hillary only met with Likud officials and representatives of the settlers.

Though she doesn't realize it yet.

ANYONE who supported aggressive, illegal war in Iraq has not the judgment or moral foundation to be President. Won't stop it from happening though.

For the life of me, I can not understand why Joe Biden doesn't get more traction. He's right on just about every issue of real importance and he's the one that get us out of Iraq and not leave a complete bloodbath there when we do.

...It had to do with the Iran Revolutionary Guard.

And did not the resolution assure that Bush could NOT go to war against Iran without Congressional approval?

What are you talking about?

since the results of any DU poll about Hillary are inversely proportional to reality.

How many times has this ambitious and amoral woman given Bush the benefit of the doubt? How many have died on account of her judgment?

A president needs to be able to deal with all the nations and peoples of the world. If my cards had been dealt differently, and I was born in Iran, I would be hung for being gay.
I find anyone's-- especially Obama's-- refusal to condemn such governments Bush-scary.

.

particularly the transgendered, or anyone too different. I wouldn't want another country to bomb or invade the US using the mistreatment of LGBTs as an excuse, and neither would the Iranians.

BTW, Iran does recognize the transgender, and offers them free surgery, all thanks to a fatwa by the late Ayatollah Khomeni. The US doesn't do that.

The point being is that we shouldn't be in the Middle East. All the countries there suck, particularly when it comes to LGBTs. Even in Israel, a very rational country except when it comes to their apartheid to the Palestinians, LGBTs have been attacked and murdered by Jewish extremist wackos.

Not one drop of American blood is worth for the entire Middle East!

was hid from 2003.

since they couldn't get the American people to do more dying in Iran, as they done in Iraq.