Hillary confronted in Nashua,Iowa--suggested someone put questioner up to asking about Iran vote

Zing....the sound of another voter turned off....

Why don't we try to add to voters instead of the opposite?

Sheesh.

I don't care what he believes. He has the right to demand answers of a fucking public servant without said publically paid public servant questioning his motives. she's not queen. yet.

--but we already knew that, since most of DU detests Shillary. So the candidate (and/or her followers--not fans, but followers) dismisses the legitimate concerns and complaints of the citizens as nutcasery. Great way to win votes.

NOT.

He's a real nutcase. :eyes:

taking on the Bush administration and crooked politicians the likes of Tom Delay. :shrug: That makes him a nut case?

and you know it.

So you discredit him as a "nutcase" for asking about Hillary's outrageous vote on Kyl Lieberman?

It's not folks here on DU that's pissed about it-have you heard Keith Olbermann?

Sounds like a remix of her IWR. Anyone who puts trust in bush to pursue diplomatic efforts when all the signs point to his determination to start another war is either complicit or ________ (you can fill in the blank yourself).

More and more of the Vietnam vets are getting the message out about Hillary.
Don't think she'll be the favorite pick of the VFP group either.

HRC's response to this very relevant question has lost her any chance at my support in the upcoming Iowa caucuses. My husband has asked me several times why I balk at supporting her. I tell him it is a general feeling of unease about her, an unease that proved itself valid today.

As far as remarks down thread, the questioner is wise to be dubious about the ethanol lobby. I suspect they're not much different from the oil lobby. They see a chance to corner the market and make lots of money. Ten or 20 years from now, small Iowa towns that are all but extinguished since the bust of the early 80s won't have seen their situations improve one iota because of the projected corn and ethanol boom. That money will be going right in the rich guys' pockets, just like the oil money always has.

:eyes:

TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED:

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.

:banghead:

KYL-LIEBERMAN MODIFIED AMENDMENT NO. 2011 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 critical 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 the United States should designate Iran's 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
(4) 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.
Insert prior to section (6) the following:
(16) Ambassador Crocker further testified before Congress on September 11, 2007, with respect to talks with Iran, that ``I think that it's an option that we want to preserve. Our first couple of rounds did not produce anything. I don't think that we should either, therefore, be in a big hurry to have another round, nor do I think we should say we're not going to talk anymore . . . I do believe it's important to keep the option for further discussion on the table.''
(17) Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated on September 16, 2007 that ``I think that the administration believes at this point that continuing to try and deal with the Iranian threat, the Iranian challenge, through diplomatic and economic means is by far the preferable approach. That's the one we are using . . . we always say all options are on the table, but clearly, the diplomatic and economic approach is the one that we are pursuing.''

KYL-LIEBERMAN MODIFIED AMENDMENT NO. 2011 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 critical 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 the United States should designate Iran's 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
(4) 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.
Insert prior to section (6) the following:
(16) Ambassador Crocker further testified before Congress on September 11, 2007, with respect to talks with Iran, that ``I think that it's an option that we want to preserve. Our first couple of rounds did not produce anything. I don't think that we should either, therefore, be in a big hurry to have another round, nor do I think we should say we're not going to talk anymore . . . I do believe it's important to keep the option for further discussion on the table.''
(17) Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated on September 16, 2007 that ``I think that the administration believes at this point that continuing to try and deal with the Iranian threat, the Iranian challenge, through diplomatic and economic means is by far the preferable approach. That's the one we are using . . . we always say all options are on the table, but clearly, the diplomatic and economic approach is the one that we are pursuing.''

Doncha know by now that Hillary haters don't care
about facts?

she couldn't take the challenge so her voice rose and she insisted someone had put in up to asking a question many of us here on DU ask everyday. Sheesh.

HRC is such a tool ...

There's no effing way I will vote for her for dog catcher much less POTUS. And before I get flamed, it won't matter because I live in a solidly GOP state that hasn't voted for a Dem since ... hell who knows. It's been repuke since Nixon!

the guy's motives. Maybe someone can inform her of something called ... the internet. The assertion he made was old hat, and she should have been made aware of the rumblings made all over the blogosphere.

measure to require Congressional approval before action against Iran--a measure, by the way, that had been languishing since last spring. What's with the timing on her sudden co-sponsorship? Hmmm.

hiiiiii yack yack yack yack yack yack yack yack yack......


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YIX4C2V5w8

:shrug:

I don't know the merits of the questioner or the Sen. Clinton's response, but I would have immediately asked her how she could guarantee that Congress' intent would be followed? Given the extensive history of this crooked administration for grabbing as much as it can on the flimsiest of pretexts, I wouldn't trust them around the corner with a burnt-out match. Is she willing to offer us some guarantee that she will unfailingly be on the look-out for any stove-piping done by these crooks? And if she fails to be on top of it, then what?

______________!!! (you can fill in the blank).

Will you LEAD THE FIGHT to stop an attack on Iran? Or in 2 years will you be making excuses about how you didn't have the same intelligence as Bush and were misled into another war?

and she wants to be president.she hasn't changed if the case she doesn't like criticism.

The first time the dog bites you, it is his fault ...

It sounds like that guy was just echoing what John Edwards said instead of bothering to actually read what the measure itself actually said.

but there must have been something about the guy that set her off, because she normally doesn't respond like this.

I don't think that this is at all indicative of her usual behavior.

:)

It's almost as bad as BushCo calling everyone who opposed the invasion of Iraq "UnAmerican".

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

No matter how stupid the question is, you've got to be respectful and give the person the benefit of the doubt. It looks like this is getting significant coverage and might tie in with the stories of her laughing off other more legit questions.

That's why it may sound like a repeat of JE's question.

much like bush's goons hers are programed to not allow dissent.

:grr:

If you've ever watched an event of hers on CSpan or elsewhere, you'll see that people in the audience ask her all kinds of questions, even the tough ones. :)

if you have read the accounts of several DUers at candidate events where they were told to "shut up" by Hillary's goons, you would see she does not tolerate dissent. Exactly like the asshole she wants to replace.

from last summer. She attended the blogger forum for the democratic candidates last July and can tell you first hand how hillary's goons roughed up her and anyone else who dared to dissent. She had a couple of threads from then I am sure you could find in search.

That's unfortunate, but does nothing to indicate a pattern within the campaign. You said "several DUers."

sycophant. I will stop now. :eyes:

I really am interested in seeing some of the info. In the interactions that I've had with Hillary's staff at events, they've all been excessively polite. If people have had bad experiences, I'd like to know.

You have a star if you were at all interested you could find it. You are choosing to ignore it and not seek out contrary information to how you feel about her. I can not help you with that. It is called the ostrich factor.

I usually post links when asked but I find it infuriating that the hillary lovers discount them and rarely read them. I am tired of it, so follow the dots I left. If you care.

sheesh. You don't post links for me because I'm a Hillary supporter? Besides, I was the one who ASKED for contrary information.

"several people" at the Take back America forum. I mis typed. Sorry they all are not DUers but this one reported on it....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

The truth about Hillary being booed at Take Back America today

Several bloggers tell the story better than I can. I have posted some links below. I was in the room when Hillary was booed and the crowd was NOT booing the military, we reacted when Hillary blamed the Iraqi government for the mess in Iraq. And yes, the RW blogs have already claimed that we were booing the troops. Some of the RW bloggers were there and they had a better seat than I did. So this just proves their agenda to demonize the left, even if that means they lie to do so.

One thing the media hasn't reported is that Hillary had several people in the back of the room and they went around trying to shut up anyone who reacted negatively to anything during Hillary's speech. When I shouted "BRING THEM HOME" a young guy tapped me on the shoulder and asked me to show Senator Clinton some respect. I asked him where was her respect for the 3500+ troops who have died and he walked away and left me alone.

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/06/20/the-ladies-of-tba /

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=25778

http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2007/06/why-does-byron-yo ...


And then there is the great Medea Benjamin and her continued run ins with "Hillary's Goons"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkvpBtOzfMc&v3

<snip>

MATTHEWS: They didn’t invite us into Iraq, and I wonder now whether we’re picking up some of the bad habits of the war front. What do you think, Medea?

BENJAMIN: Well, I think post-9/11, we have lost a lot of our civil liberties. And the Republicans and the Democrats are doing it. I got pulled out of a hearing for wearing this shirt, with peace signs on it and “Peace” in different languages.

MATTHEWS: I hear Conyers doesn’t like you guys much over…

BENJAMIN: Conyers doesn’t like me…

MATTHEWS: … in the Judiciary Committee, either.

BENJAMIN: I got pulled out of a Hillary Clinton rally for wearing this shirt.

MATTHEWS: No!

BENJAMIN: Yes.

MATTHEWS: Pulled out of the rally?

BENJAMIN: Pulled out of the rally.

MATTHEWS: Who were the pullers?

BENJAMIN: She has goons, just like the Republicans have goons, and they drag you out of there and they say, No signs other than the signs that we hand to you. The Republicans and the Democrats do the same thing.

http://www.rwcs.com/blog/?p=1571



Proud2Blib, at the time called them Hillary's people. Medea refers to them as "goons". Whatever term is used, How can one defend her quashing dissent, just like bush?

no hillary apologists dare reply?

:shrug:

Hillary's people packed the back of the room. Some had signs and some just roamed around watching the crowd. I watched Hillary's people police the back of the room as she spoke and their attempts to quiet anyone who spoke out. When Hillary blamed the Iraqi people for our continued military presence in Iraq, there were boos and Hillary's people asked several people to be quiet and "show the senator some respect". It reminded me a study hall in high school with student monitors.

As soon as Hillary finished speaking, her people in the back of the room left. I never saw most of them at the rest of the 3 day conference.

Medea Benjamin on the Randi Rhodes show

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkvpBtOzfMc


I'll try to find some more later. :) I have to log off and run some errands.

Oh, Medea. :)

At the recent Hillary event I attended in downtown Oakland, there were 14,000 attendees and I did not see a single Hillary goon. I have to admit that I was not specifically looking for said "goons". Perhaps you could tell us what they look like, so we can be on the lookout for them. Do they wear shirts or hats that say "Hillary's goons" on them?

P.S. How do you know that these "goons" were not just other Hillary supporters who took issue and were overboard in their reaction (I am not saying their actions were right, btw)?

I think people like to imply that Hillary hires staff to bully people. As a volunteer for Hillary's campaign, I can tell you that I've met a number of members of her staff, and none of them have been in the least bit goon-ish. It would be nice if these "goons" had identifiable shirts or hats, though, so that I can avoid them in the future. :)

When you volunteer to work on Hillary's campaign, are you asked if you'd like to be one of the regular volunteers or whether you'd rather be one of the "goons"?

but perhaps there's a series of secret handshakes I have to learn before the offer is made.

Oooh! Really? I LOVE secret handshakes. It would be especially groovy if we were issued secret decoder rings, too!

:)

Doesn't that count for something? Just kidding.

Hillary had an unwarranted reaction the questioner and never should have said what she said to him. She quickly apologized though, and that counts for a lot with me. Everybody makes mistakes.

I can understand why she might have anger. She gets a lot of unfair slams. She'll need to control her temper from now on though.

on some of the things for which she votes.

For example, she still insists that the "Authorization to Use Military Force" was NOT a vote for war. Maybe she's the reason that Bill was confused by the meaning of "IS".

For the record, Bill Clinton was not "confused' about the meaning of the word "is". During his deposition in the Paula Jones case, Clinton was asked something to the effect, "So, there "is" no sex of any kind going on?", referring to Monica Lewinsky. Clinton truthfully replied "no", inasmuch as his affair with Lewinsky had ended sometime previously. Opposing counsel could have (and should have) asked a follow-up question to narrow Clinton's answer down if they wanted to ascertain whether "sex had gone on" in the past. But, they didn't.

Later, the lawyers for the OIC (I think) tried to claim Clinton had perjured himself in that answer, to which Clinton correctly pointed out that "is" does not mean "was". One could make the argument that Clinton "knew" what they were getting at and should have offered up information thusly. However, in the adversarial system of justice/jurisprudence our founders wisely adopted, Clinton had no obligation to "help" the other side. It is their job to establish their case. Further, in Bronston v US, a UNANIMOUS Supreme Court held that merely misleading or evasive testimony is not perjurious and it is, in fact, the duty of opposing counsel to focus the deponee's testimony through the acuity of their questioning.

My overall point is that you're parrotting a RW talking point which they have used to paint Clinton as a liar, when in fact, it was they who were on shaky legal ground. I think it's fine if you want to take issue with either Hillary or even Bill, on the issues. But, please, leave the RW talking points to RWers.

Could it be that this blunder may have cost her the Iowa caucuses?? Let's hope so.

I would suggest the Clinton team check for t-shirts at rallies like Bush did in 2004.

Actually, that has already happened on a couple occasions and a little birdie told me that it's going to happen a lot in the near future and be on YouTube within a couple hours.

and the media and the right and the far left will all try to get her with it.

"Clinton responded that his interpretation was wrong and suggested that someone put him up to asking the question. The man said he did his own research and was offended that she would accuse him of getting it elsewhere. She apologized but insisted he must be looking at the wrong version of the bill."


The journalist is recounting the story, but something as explosive as this should have DIRECT QUOTES. Anything less means it is an interpretation. I want more information, before I can fully conclude that the WP writer has captured the event properly.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3587719#3587799

"Well, let me thank you for the question, but let me tell you that the premise of the question is wrong and I'll be happy to explain that to you," Clinton began. She offered a detailed description of the resolution, which she said stressed robust diplomacy that could lead to imposing sanctions against Iran, and then pointedly said to Rolph that her view wasn't in "what you read to me, that somebody obviously sent to you."

"I take exception," Rolph interjected. "This is my own research."

"Well then, let me finish," Clinton responded.

Rolph, from nearby Nashua, fired back that no one had sent him the material.

"Well, then, I apologize. It's just that I've been asked the very same question in three other places," she said. Clinton then explained that she had gone to the Senate floor in February to state that Bush does not have the authority to use military action against Iran and that she is working on legislation to put that into law. Rolph once again challenged her recent vote, suggesting that it amounted to giving Bush a free hand..

"I'm sorry, sir, it does not," she said, her voice showing her exasperation. "No, no, let me just say one other thing because I respect your research. There was an earlier version that I opposed. It was dramatically changed ... I would never have voted for the first version. The second version ripped out what was considered very bellicose and very threatening language."

I wonder how that version got started. (sarcasm)

...and videotape it.

:rofl:

So Hillary was 100% correct in her vote. This is the same
outfit sending arms and men to kill our soldiers in Iraq.
Hillary will do everything possible to prevent another 911
which caused murder of 3000 innocent men, women & children.
I applaud her. She is not a defeatist like Edwards.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Dem values should not amount to putting your tail
between your hind legs and running away. The
terrorists of all stripes must be confronted and
defeated. That is how Truman, FDR, JFK acted. And
they were all good democrats.

... but you know that already, right?

I may have a lot of learn, but what I know may be more than
what you know.

For what I know for sure is that FDR attacked Hiltler's
regime inspite of the peaceniks. He probably saved all
of Europe becoming part of the third reich and more jews
gassed in ovens.

What I know for sure is Truman had the kahuna's to nuke
the Japanese empire into submission and thereby saving
perhaps a million casualties if the war had dragged on.

What I know for sure is that JFK made a stand against
communist aggression in S. Vietnam.

That is recorded history. Learn your history.

Therefore I prefer someone like Hillary who will not put
tail between hind legs and run. Unlike Edwards.

--if our soldiers were not in Iraq, nobody would be "sending arms" to kill them.
And by the way, how do you know WHO is sending arms to whom? Oh, I forgot, the little madman emperor said so, so it must be true! The boogeyman, aka "Iran," is "sending arms." Just like he said Saddam Hussein had ties to "al Qaeda" (another boogeyman) and had WMD ready to destroy us within 45 minutes. Gullible much?? Some people are just easy to fool, I guess, even multiple times! No wonder the hucksters and charlatans of the world will never go broke!
Since the U.S. is the world's biggest manufacturer and supplier of arms, and also bases its entire economy on those production and sales, I suspect that the majority of arms used to kill our soldiers came ultimately from the U.S.--live by the sword, die by the sword and all that ...
I guess if/when the other countries in the world realize they are going to have to stop the U.S. imperial war mongers by waging war/invading the U.S., you will meekly surrender and kiss their butts? I mean, you wouldn't want to be a "terrorist" or anything, would you?

I heard it straight from military generals. But they might
be puppets of the emporer?

Can you tell me how many of our troops were in Iraq on 911?

and ours over there aren't?

We are sending arms and men to kill their soldiers in Iraq, so I am fuzzy on the distinction you are making.

I am not specifically calling Iran as a terror sponsor solely
based on their supplying arms & personnel to insurgents in Iraq.
I am basing it on Iranian support of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and
their support of Hamas.

We are in a very small minority in considering them a terrorist organization.

what are her motives? Who put her up to her positions?

questioning motives cuts both ways.

"She suggested"? Yeah, right... Where's the quote? The You-tube video? The Wapo/MSM hates Clinton, so until I see/hear/read what actually happened I'll just consider the source as unreliable.

was posted many times, including upthread. Here it is again:

"She offered a detailed description of the resolution, which she said stressed robust diplomacy that could lead to imposing sanctions against Iran, and then pointedly said to Rolph that her view wasn't in "what you read to me, that somebody obviously sent to you." "

And to suggest that the MSM hates Clinton.... well... it takes a lot of imagination.

Amazing, the lengths that the MSM will go to to attack the Clintons.

a reality or an understanding problem.

Bush believes that he has authority "to hunt terrorists" wherever they may be found.

There is very little that is ambiguous about the AUMF

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

I really wish that people here would stop whistling in the dark. The designation of the Iranian army as a terrorist organization authorizes Bush to use all the force he deems necessary against it.

there's plenty of time left in the campaign for slip-ups like this, and any of them can change things. The other candidates aren't immune either.

A bartender that served a drink to a clearly drunk patron, would be liable if that patron gets in his/her car and has a wreck killing an innocent person. The same can be said if you were to give the keys of your car to a drunk friend, only to see him/her crash the vehicle and cause a fatality. In both cases, we would say that the bartender and you, enabled the accident and tragedy that followed.

Hillary is a war enabler by giving Bush the authority to do anything!

She's such a compromised candidate, I can see why see gets testy when confronted about the truth of her deceptions.

The only thing we can be certain about Hillary is that as President she will give us 4 more years of war!

Published on Monday, October 8, 2007 by CommonDreams.org

The Big Lie: ‘Iran Is a Threat’

by Scott Ritter

Iran has never manifested itself as a serious threat to the national security of the United States, or by extension as a security threat to global security. At the height of Iran’s “exportation of the Islamic Revolution” phase, in the mid-1980’s, the Islamic Republic demonstrated a less-than-impressive ability to project its power beyond the immediate borders of Iran, and even then this projection was limited to war-torn Lebanon.

Iranian military capability reached its modern peak in the late 1970’s, during the reign of Reza Shah Pahlevi. The combined effects of institutional distrust on the part of the theocrats who currently govern the Islamic Republic of Iran concerning the conventional military institutions, leading as it did to the decay of the military through inadequate funding and the creation of a competing paramilitary organization, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Command (IRGC), and the disastrous impact of an eight-year conflict with Iraq, meant that Iran has never been able to build up conventional military power capable of significant regional power projection, let alone global power projection.

Where Iran has demonstrated the ability for global reach is in the spread of Shi’a Islamic fundamentalism, but even in this case the results have been mixed. Other than the expansive relations between Iran (via certain elements of the IRGC) and the Hezbollah movement in Lebanon, Iranian success stories when it comes to exporting the Islamic revolution are virtually non-existent. Indeed, the efforts on the part of the IRGC to export Islamic revolution abroad, especially into Europe and other western nations, have produced the opposite effect desired. Based upon observations made by former and current IRGC officers, it appears that those operatives chosen to spread the revolution in fact more often than not returned to Iran noting that peaceful coexistence with the West was not only possible but preferable to the exportation of Islamic fundamentalism. Many of these IRGC officers began to push for moderation of the part of the ruling theocrats in Iran, both in terms of interfacing with the west and domestic policies.

The concept of an inherent incompatibility between Iran, even when governed by a theocratic ruling class, and the United States is fundamentally flawed, especially from the perspective of Iran. The Iran of today seeks to integrate itself responsibly with the nations of the world, clumsily so in some instances, but in any case a far cry from the crude attempts to export Islamic revolution in the early 1980’s. The United States claims that Iran is a real and present danger to the security of the US and the entire world, and cites Iranian efforts to acquire nuclear technology, Iran’s continued support of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran’s “status” as a state supporter of terror, and Iranian interference into the internal affairs of Iraq and Afghanistan as the prime examples of how this threat manifests itself.

On every point, the case made against Iran collapses upon closer scrutiny. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), mandated to investigate Iran’s nuclear programs, has concluded that there is no evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Furthermore, the IAEA has concluded that it is capable of monitoring the Iranian nuclear program to ensure that it does not deviate from the permitted nuclear energy program Iran states to be the exclusive objective of its endeavors. Iran’s support of the Hezbollah Party in Lebanon - Iranian protestors shown here supporting Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah during an anti-Israel rally - while a source of concern for the State of Israel, does not constitute a threat to American national security primarily because the support provided is primarily defensive in nature, designed to assist Hezbollah in deterring and repelling an Israeli assault of sovereign Lebanese territory. Similarly, the bulk of the data used by the United States to substantiate the claims that Iran is a state sponsor of terror is derived from the aforementioned support provided to Hezbollah. Other arguments presented are either grossly out of date (going back to the early 1980’s when Iran was in fact exporting Islamic fundamentalism) or unsubstantiated by fact.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/08/4404/

testing its first nuclear device? Ditto with India?

Can't be! The IAEA you are referring to must be smarter
than the old IAEA since the new IAEA is cock sure about
what Iran is upto.