Clinton says pressure on Iran works, attacks top two rivals on issue

Clinton says pressure on Iran works, attacks top two rivals on issue
By Aaron Blake| Posted: 12/04/07 6:25 PM
December 04, 2007


Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday cited the new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) evaluation on Iran as evidence that pressure on that country has worked, while her opponents continued to criticize her more hawkish stance on relations with Tehran.

In a radio debate in Iowa hosted by National Public Radio on Tuesday afternoon, Clinton fired back on the issue by attempting to rope in her top two competitors closer to her position.

The candidates said with near unanimity that the NIE, which said Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003, shows that President Bush has been foolhardy in his so-called “rush to war.”

Clinton, who has taken a more forceful tone toward Iran than her Democratic opponents, went a step further and asserted that the report shows Iran can be contained through some harsher measures, coupled with diplomacy.

“I think we do know that pressure on Iran does have an impact. I think that’s an important lesson,” Clinton said.

Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said flat-out that such a conclusion was wrong and suggested the program was stopped prior to major steps to contain it.

“With all due respect to anybody that thinks that pressure brought this about, let’s get this straight: In 2003, they stopped this program,” Biden said.

more...

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/clinton-says-pressure-on-iran-works-attacks-top-two-rivals-on-issue-2007-12-04.html

o my, haven't seen that character for a looong time. Peabody, is it? from rocky and bullwinkle? boris and natasha.
hahahahahah!

"Look, America, nutthin' up My sleeve"

I feel the echo. :applause:

Iran has stopped considering nuclear advancement?

I say don't let up on the pressure.

He's on my short list!

If you apply enough diplomatic pressure you can go back in time and make your adversaries change their course of action. Someone needs to think before they speak.

If you took out Hillary's name I would have thought this was Lieberman speaking.

Matt Continetti of uber-conservative The Weekly Standard said the same thing on Hardball.

Apparently, neocons have the same BS cover-their-ass talking points whether they are Republican or Democrat.

When Clinton said pressure works, she was specifically referring to changes going on in Iraq (Irans involvement there).

“I think we do know that pressure on Iran does have an impact. I think that’s an important lesson,” Clinton said.

this thread, from people who also listened.

she emphasized the changes in Iran behavior more recently with regards to Iraq. This was her main point about pressure working with regards to the K/L resolution.

The Iran Revolutionary Groupies are indeed terrorists and they are also in charge of the Iran nuclear weapon program, which the Intelligence community says doesn't exist.

American Intelligence? They the ones who lied about Iraq WMD back in 2002? Are they the same American Intelligence that swears that Iran has no nuclear program or stockpile now?

Wow! I feel so much better, and safer now.

Fool me once, shame on you... fool me twice... won't get fooled, again!

Good lord. I cannot believe she would go down this path. This is why the Bushies have gotten away with it all.

:argh:

and all the doubletalk. She's gone over to the dark side, I fear.

In today’s NPR debate, Sen. Obama criticized re-structuring our forces in Iraq to blunt Iran’s influence on the war:

There was another problem with it, the resolution that was we haven’t spoken about and that was that it suggested that we should structure in some way our forces in Iraq with the goal of blunting Iranian influence in Iraq- now this is a problem on a whole bunch of fronts but number one- the reason that Iran has been strengthened was because of this misguided war in Iraq. We installed- helped to elect- a government in Iraq that we knew had connections with Iran- and so the notion somehow that they’re not going to have influence and we may be using yet another justification for a continuing mission in Iraq- I think is an extreme problem and one of the reasons why this was a bad idea.
A year ago, Sen. Obama said we should keep forces in Iraq to 'send a clear message' to Iran:

A reduced but active presence will also send a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in this region…Make no mistake, if the Iranians and Syrians think they can use Iraq as another Afghanistan or a staging area from which to attack Israel or other countries, they are badly mistaken. It is in our national interest to prevent this from happening.
12/4/2007 3:19:13 PM #

Fact Check: Sen. Edwards and Sen. Obama on Iran’s nuclear threat
In January, Sen. Edwards emphasized the nuclear threat by Iran speaking to a conference in Israel:

Speaking by satellite to a conference in Israel, Edwards said stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons 'is the greatest challenge of our generation.' 'All options are on the table to ensure that Iran will never get a nuclear weapon,' Edwards told the seventh annual Herzliya Conference on Monday, according to The Jerusalem Post.
In September 2004, Sen. Obama suggested to the Chicago Tribune editorial board that he would use surgical missile strikes against Iran:

he United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said. 'The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?" Obama asked. Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said.
12/4/2007 2:54:01 PM #

Sen. Obama Shifts On Iran Negotiations
Today at the NPR debate, Sen. Obama said he would lead high-level Presidential diplomatic efforts with Iran:

should have stopped the saber rattling- should never have started it- and they need now to aggressively move on the diplomatic front- I’ve started that consistently since the beginning of this campaign and that is for the President to lead diplomatic efforts to try to the prospect of joining the World Trade Organization the prospect of overtime in exchange for behavior that is something that has to be perused.
But in an interview with Harretz Daily Newspaper in May 2007, Sen. Obama said he would only pursue ‘low-level talks’ with Iran and said high level talks would be inappropriate:

I asked whether the U.S. should talk with Tehran even as the centrifuges are still spinning and producing more enriched uranium. Obama's answer is both yes and no: "Its important to have low-level talks" with Iran even without them freezing the enrichment, he said. However, high-level talks "will not be appropriate without some sense of progress" on the enrichment issue.
12/4/2007 2:30:22 PM #