In Wake Of Intelligence Report, Rivals Pounce On Clinton's Iran Vote

A new assessment by the nation's intelligence community that says Iran halted its covert nuclear weapons program in 2003 provided fresh ammunition Tuesday for Democratic presidential candidates seeking to portray Sen. Hillary Clinton as too hawkish on Iran.

In an Iowa radio debate hosted by NPR News Tuesday afternoon, several of the candidates sharply criticized Clinton's September vote to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization as misguided, and characterized it as part of the Bush Administration's efforts at saber-rattling in the Persian Gulf.

"Among the Democratic candidates there's only one who voted for this resolution. And this is exactly what Bush and Cheney wanted," said former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.

The non-binding resolution, known as the Kyl-Lieberman bill, passed 76-22, with Illinois Sen. Barack Obama skipping the vote.

Clinton rejected the notion Tuesday that she had encouraged a rush to war with Iran, and said her opponents were rewriting their own records on Iran, pointing to earlier statements by Edwards and Obama about the threat posed by Tehran.

"There was a very broadly based belief that they were pursuing a nuclear weapon," Clinton said of the Iranians. She dismissed the idea that she sided with the Bush Administration on Iran as a campaign ploy.

"I understand politics and I understand making outlandish political charges, but this really goes way too far.

Obama accused Clinton of misrepresenting his record, and stressed his advocacy for unconditional talks with the government in Tehran, a position that earned Clinton's scorn at an earlier Democratic debate.

Story continues below

"What I've been consistent about was that this saber-rattling was a repetition of Iraq, a war I opposed, and that we needed to oppose George Bush again," Obama said. "We can't keep on giving him the benefit of the doubt, knowing the ways in which the manipulate intelligence."

Analysts predicted that the new intelligence report could become a fresh headache for a Clinton campaign that has lost some altitude in recent days as new polls out of Iowa show Obama pulling ahead in that critical early voting state.

"I think in general it reinforces people who have been talking about diplomacy first," said California-based Democratic political consultant Bill Carrick. "I think Senator Clinton has a particular vulnerability because she has voted for the Iran resolution."

Iowa caucus voters are very sophisticated and pay attention to foreign policy issues like Iran, Carrick said, and they are not likely to ignore this week's developments.

However others cautioned against overplaying the significance of the Iran report to the presidential campaign, saying that while the NIE has set the Beltway on fire in the past 24 hours, there are other issues -- such as health care and the economy -- that are more pressing for American voters. It is those bread and butter issues that will help shape the dynamic of the campaign in the month before the Iowa Caucuses.

"If Hillary is floundering, it is not because of her foreign policy record," said Washington DC-based media consultant Jim Duffy.

Duffy and Carrick said that the ultimate damage the NIE does to the Clinton campaign will be determined by how seriously Obama and Edwards want to press the issue. If they move on the Iran report becomes a "below the radar" issue, both men agreed.

Comments

[repearwo]

As WEll they should. IT the one main reason that I will never vote for Hillary. Twice now she has been bamboozled, or leads us to believe that. "If I had known then what I know now" is irresponsible crap.

I want a president that know what they need to know when they need to know it, and one that will not just make it up. That covers Bush and Bushlite Clinton.

Richardson is looking better and better.

[MPeter]

HRC is unfit to lead and her campaign is now in the gutter. Read this AP story:

Judy Rose, a Clinton coordinator in Jones County, Iowa, forwarded it without comment to eight people on Nov. 21, according to a copy of the e-mail obtained by The Associated Press. One of the recipients was a Clinton staffer and another was Gary Hart, a Democratic Party official in Jones County.

Hart is a supporter of Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd and posted an item about the "hateful" e-mail on the liberal blog Daily Kos. The Clinton campaign responded by asking Rose to step down.

[Beaux510]

While I've thought that all the Whitehouse's saber rattling and every vote in favor of Kyl-Lieberman was ridiculously stupid and counter productive, I wonder what has happened behind closed doors regarding Iran, that led to this latest revelation about Iran's supposed N Weapons program, and why one of the people responsible for this latest report was saying exactly the opposite just a few months ago.

This from the Weekly Standard:

"Consider that on July 11, 2007, roughly four or so months prior to the most recent NIE’s publication, Deputy Director of Analysis Thomas Fingar gave the following testimony before the House Armed Services Committee (emphasis added):

"Iran and North Korea are the states of most concern to us. The United States’ concerns about Iran are shared by many nations, including many of Iran’s neighbors. Iran is continuing to pursue uranium enrichment and has shown more interest in protracting negotiations and working to delay and diminish the impact of UNSC sanctions than in reaching an acceptable diplomatic solution. We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons--despite its international obligations and international pressure. This is a grave concern to the other countries in the region whose security would be threatened should Iran acquire nuclear weapons."

It just seems suspicious that a matter of a few months could make the difference of night and day. I'm not worried about Iran, but when something like this happens, I am extremely doubtful about both the report and the hidden actions behind it. What are they really trying to do?

[Maxbyte]

I'm beginning to believe Hillary is trying to be all things to all voters. Middle-of-the-road candidates end up as road kill.

Her efforts not to tick off a large part of the GOP, including Bush, are going to backfire in spite of the fact that she doesn't go out of her way to praise Bush, either.

Her biggest mistake so far - that was absolutely transparent - was her three-step dance around the driver license for illegal immigrants. Every time Spitzer was forced to modify or toss his attempt to issue valid driver's licenses to illegals, Hillary changed her position in kind.

And I'm darn annoyed with the new euphemism for illegal immigrants: undocumented workers. What crap! They moved into this country through Mexico. That makes them immigrants. They did that willfully and without applying for permission to immigrate to America, and they knew that is a crime.

Using any contorted logic, they are "illegal immigrants".

[GuiltyByStander]

Joe Biden has been saying for weeks that a yes vote on Kyl-Lieberman was a mistake. (And I say that an absences was too.)

This is another reason why we have to look beyond the "front-runners". Take a minute to hear what Joe Biden said last night on Hardball:

www.joebiden.com/hardball

Clinton, Obama and Edwards are just tagging along on foreign policy -- and not very well at that.

[Lemeritus]

This goes to the heart of the HRC issue for me. I hesitate to say that, because she's a woman, she tends to overcompensate to appear strong on defense -- but that's what I believe. While I think the entire country was caught up in the frenzy to attack Iraq (I was not, but I know many good people who were), I think Clinton should have known better in 2002. And her vote in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman resolution was unconscionable. (I won't even get into my favorite rant about her failure to show up for the Mukasey vote in an effort to stay on topic.)

I had looked forward to being able to vote for Hillary, but I seem to be looking more and more through her to other candidates.

Yet! Should she be the Democratic choice come the general election, here are the three reasons I would absolutely vote FOR her:
1. Thomas
2. Alito
3. Roberts

[IntelligentDesign]

Hillary's vote here is inexcusable and indefensible, and it will haunt her in the primaries.

[yako]

Follow the money. H.C. has the biggest war chest of any of the Demo candidates. She owes the Big Money interests, pro-mideast presence, big pharma, Rupert Murdoch (also pro-mideast presence). She's shown no leadership quality. No problem. Big money will tell her what to do if she gets into the WH.

[xrayman]

Obama does not get a free pass on this one. He hedged his bets and didn't show up. Now he's using it to make political hay. At least Clinton had the guts to make a politically unpopular vote with the left leaning Dem base. And as Clinton said both Edwards and Obama have made statements critical of Iran.

The vote was not a war resolution. It was a non-binding resolution. They even sent the president a letter explaining that the resolution was not a "green light" to go to war with Iran.

Clinton was using the vote to put pressure on Iran to stop any nuclear ambitions. The assessment at the time was that they were going ahead with their nuclear bomb program.

And as I said this resolution was "non-binding," not a green light for war.

[bluesky49876]

Exactly why this a news item? It does clutters up the page with stupid non-consequential stories.

[BenjitheWolfdog]

I was very troubled by Clinton's vote at the time, it seemed clear that the Administration was again beating the drums of war and I felt that this was not a responsible or well thought out vote. Besides, I'm immediately against anything which is sponsored primarily by Joe Leiberman and Kyl. This report has convinced me that Clinton lacks circumspect and judgement necessary to lead us out of the mess Bush and Cheney have gotten us into. I will still vote for the ultimate Democratic candidate but won't actively support financially or otherwise Clinton as I will someone like Edwards or Obama if they are the nominee.

[Tsunami]

Obama once again was not present for the debate or the vote on Iran. Obama=Opportunist. He won an easy Senate seat and it went to his head. He cannot beat a Repugnant in the race that counts. The media is elevating him only for the reason that they know he will then be beaten by any one of the Repugnants in the general election. Don't fall for it.

[OfficialA]

Coleridge described the aesthetic principle of the "willing suspension of disbelief" where one suspends judgement in exchange for entertainment. It is now, unfortunately, also a political principal: a political "leader" willingly exchanges healthy scepticism for easy political cover.

Trouble is, the lives lost in a work of art are not real, but those lost in the body politic are.

We deserve better.

[MRb1000]

She will make most Democrat stay home.

[radlib1]

Hillary worship is a lot of dog drool.

Hillary may, indeed, be the Democratic nominee for President in the end. And, in that case, I'll have to vote for her because all of the Republican potential nominees are puke-worthy pygmies in comparison.

But, just because she's "ahead" in the "polls" doesn't mean I have to support her now in the primaries. Remember, she did vote to authorize the Bush War on Iraq. Remember, she did vote to authorize the Kyl-Lieberman bill, paving the way for another, monumentally stupid War on Iran. She's basically a smart, political weasel who supports outsourcing American jobs (NAFTA) and will go along with her Big Money supporters (Wall Street, Pharma, Insurance, etc) before she cares about the wants and desires of the common people. (Remember, she did grow up as a Republican.)

At least, John Edwards (who, unlike Hillary, admits he was wrong on Iraq and the Bankruptcy Bill) is now upright and outfront fighting for the real needs of the people of America. Hillary is fighting only for herself, for her own victory. Hillary's more power-hungry than she is a patriot or a "woman of the people."

If Kucinich was truly viable (or if Paul Wellstone was alive), I'd be supporting them. If Al Gore was running, I'd support him in a second. But we have to pick the best of the candidates we have now to beat the Republicans -- for myself, I'd still choose John Edwards or even Obama over Hillary.