Does The Release of the N.I.E. re: Iran Non-Threat Hurt Hillary's

[orleans]

credibility because she voted w/bush on iran (the kyl-lieberman bill)

just wondering what others think.

(i think it did but who knows if it will have a lasting or lingering effect)

[Evergreen Emerald]

1. Why just Clinton? Here are some speeches by other Candidates regarding nukes and Iran:

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 #

[orleans]

3. because she voted for the kyl-lieberman amendment. did biden or dodd? n/t

[Evergreen Emerald]

4. ok...so everyone of the candidates feared that Iran had nuclear capability

or was working on it. The Kyl-L amendment stated that the Iranian guards were entering Iraq and stirring up trouble--and all the candidates agreed that was indeed the case.

So you are troubled with an amendment that states what everyone believed. And the reason all are criticizing Clinton (for some reason NOT VOTING AT ALL gets a free pass), because Bush may twist it and make is something it is clearly not.

I submit to you that is no way to run a government. I suggest that everyone of those senators has voted to support the war through various votes (or lack of votes). I submit to you that Clinton took a stance that may have been unpopular, but she thought it for the good of the country. While Obama waited in the sidelines to pounce once the dust settled and unwilling to take any stand.

You don't avoid passing a law because someone might break it.

[Selatius]

2. That doesn't bother me. What bothers me is her bullshit over Kyl-Liberman.

She said that amendment helped change Iran's stance in terms of Iraq and supporting Shia militias. I don't think there's evidence substantiating that, none that we've seen anyway, and Joe Biden called her out that assertion.