Clinton: Edwards' Iran charge goes 'way too far'

CNN: December 5, 2007
Clinton: Edwards' Iran charge goes 'way too far'


Dodd, Biden, and Edwards were critical of Clinton's Iran vote Tuesday during a radio debate.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Sen. Hillary Clinton's recent vote to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization drew a fresh round of fire Tuesday from her presidential rivals during a debate in Iowa.

As in past debates, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards was the harshest on the New York Democrat for the three month-old vote, saying it allows for an all out declaration of war on Iran. Clinton immediately fired back, calling the charge "outlandish" and saying it went "way too far."

"I understand politics, and I understand making outlandish political charges, but this really goes way too far," she said. "In fact, having designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, we've actually seen some changes in their behavior. "There is absolutely no basis for a rush to war, which I oppose and have opposed for two years," she added."

Sen. Joe Biden, who voted against giving the revolutionary guard the terrorist designation, hit back on Clinton, saying, "It's not about not advocating a rush to war — I'm advocating no war." Edwards said the vote was "exactly what Bush and Cheney wanted," and Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd called his vote against the measure "leadership on a critical issue."

Sen. Barack Obama, who missed the Senate vote, held back on criticizing Clinton directly, but took issue with the measure for suggesting "that we should structure, in some way, our forces in Iraq with the goal of blunting Iranian influence in Iraq."

The sharp exchange was an exception in an otherwise calm two hour radio debate aired on NPR....

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/05/clinton-edwards-iran-charge-goes-way-too-far/

If Bush says an organization is terrorist, that does not mean that it is. Also does not mean that it is not. Hillary appears to take Bush at his word. If Bush says the organization is terrorist, it must be.

Edwards has explained that he believes that he was wrong in voting to authorize the War in Iraq. He has stated quite plainly that he believes he made that mistake because he trusted Bush too much. Edwards learned the lesson: Don't trust Bush.

Hillary has not learned that lesson.

Yet, just this week, the publication of the NIE on Iran proves once again that Bush is not to be trusted with regard to his judgment about the Middle East. Why was the Iran NIE finally made public? Because, with the Kyle-Lieberman Bill passed in Congress thanks to the votes of Hillary and others, Bush doesn't need the specter of "nukular" weapons to justify war with Iran. Bush now has the specter of a n Iranian military terrorist organization. He has Hillary and the other naives to thank for this.

and his words at the Herzliya Conference in Israel, were downright hawkish.

Consider the possibility that she knows that Bush is a liar. I mean, it's pretty obvious to us simple folk. I can see maybe believing some of the hype a few years ago when we were hot on the trail of murderers. Shouldn't those running for president be capable of seeing such blatant lies?

After making the epic mistake of voting YES on the IWR, Hillary repeated that mistake by voting YES on K-L. She learned nothing except calculations on preserving her political backside.

...lesson.

Hillary, however, shows a real lack of leadership we don't need from someone who could *possibly* be our nominee!!

K-L was the piece de resistance in this campaign. It separated the wheat from the chaff. And Hillary is the only candidate that fell on the wrong side of this vote.

Like Obama says, if that's the end-result of experience, America can do much, much better.

a warmonger.
Neither characteristic is acceptable (again!) in our President.

And people WANT her as President!!

The bad guys in Iran are supplying bombs to people in Iraq who use them to kill our troops.
K/L calls for strong diplomacy to get the bad guys in Iran to stop.
That's not OK with you?

edit: added second 'in Iran'

regarding Iran?
The wholesale labeling of a nation's standing army as a 'terrorist organization' is not 'strong diplomacy' it is more warmongering rhetoric from a government which specializes in it.
And while I was never First Lady, which apparently makes one an expert on international affairs, I'd suggest that the best way to keep our military from being attacked in Iraq (by Saudis, Libyans, Morelocks....whomever)might be to GET THEM THE HELL OUT OF THERE.
For the record, I've never supported the 'Bush Position' on ANYTHING...but hey, that's just me.

It's a shame. Back in 2003 he looked promising, too.

CNN says: Sen. Hillary Clinton's recent vote to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization...

Her chief rival also supports labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, a fact that might have some bearing on the subject of the article.

CNN notes Obama's soft-peddled criticism of K/L as if it were a stylistic note. Obama did not criticize the IRG designation itself because he SUPPORTS IT.

Everybody who follows these things closely, a category that seems to not include CNN's political writers, knew before Senator Obama opened his mouth that he would take pains to not criticize the IRG designation because he supports it. This is a standrd part of his speeches and debate performances.

He has NEVER criticized the IRG designation.

He publicly AGREES with Condi Rice's decision to make the IRG designation.

Here is Senator Obama's reaction when Sectretary of State Rice designated the IRG as a terrorist supporting entity, in October, 2007:

"It is important to have tough sanctions on Iran, particularly on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which supports terrorism," Barack Obama said. "But these sanctions must not be linked to any attempt to keep our troops in Iraq, or to take military action against Iran." The senator from Illinois added that "unfortunately, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment made the case for President Bush that we need to use our military presence in Iraq to counter Iran -- a case that has nothing to do with sanctioning the Revolutionary Guard."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/25/iran.campaign