“The Revolutionary Guards are deeply involved in Iran’s nuclear program.” -- Camp Clinton 9/2007

[JackORoses]

"The campaigns of the leading Democratic candidates seized Monday on an intelligence report showing that Iran had halted its development of nuclear weapons, saying the findings justified their more cautious approach to Tehran.
...
In fact, in September Mrs. Clinton, Democrat of New York, voted in favor of a Senate measure declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guards “proliferators of mass destruction,” a vote that was condemned by her rivals in the Democratic field. After the vote, her aides issued a statement saying, “The Revolutionary Guards are deeply involved in Iran’s nuclear program.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22091449/

*

This is what her "Foreign Policy Experience" gets us?

I, along with millions of others, will pass.

[peacetalksforall]

1. She may be too gullible to be President. I always championed for

her in the 90's. I always thought that if she had free rein, she could do a lot of great things. Then came the campaign speecheslive votes, especially the vote for Iraq War II (she was supposed to know more than we did). Then came all the rest of the speeches, votes, and positions. Then came the DLCers, in force. I hope we can say NO to the DLC.

[annie1]

36. I agree. I think someone talked her into it, and she doesn't seem...

to have had the conviction or integrity to seen her own way out of it. I too liked her in the 90's, and also think she could do a lot of great things, but whoever talked her into this vote she can barely even state a reason for voting for it now. I'm surprised at her. and dissapointed. and it seems very naive of her. What a shame. and how could her husband not have talked her out of it?

[sniffa]

2. maybe it's just her naivety

i mean, her running for president isn't the right experience for president.

now, to explain that statement away with something twisted, and foolish.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. You make a valid point that you then undercut by focusing on one candidate

Obama and Clinton have the same rhetoric on Iran, almost word for word. So why is she singled out for special attention?

It undercuts the sincerity of your attack.

If you favor someone other than Obama you should be happy to attack both front-runners for their consistent Iran-hawkery

(If you favor Obama the OP is deeply hypocritical, but I'm guessing you don't)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3789491&mesg_id=3789491
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3789312&mesg_id=3789312

[rinsd]

4. "I, along with millions of others, will pass." Much like Obama.

[havocmom]

5. Passing on HRC is like Obama?

huh?

[rinsd]

8. Passing on voting.

[havocmom]

19. OP made personal statement: "This is what her "Foreign Policy Experience" gets us?

I, along with millions of others, will pass."

Passing on HRC not on voting

How does Obama enter into that?

OP sited a classic example of HRC's judgment being dead solid wrong.

[jefferson_dem]

6. She's busted yet again.

Such poor judgment. Haven't we learned already?

[AtomicKitten]

16. We can only hope.

There is no question in my mind that the GOP has every intention of staying in Iraq and that if Hillary is the Dem nominee, she will simply argue fighting a better war.

Enough.

[ORDagnabbit]

7. hasnt found a war yet she would not support....n/t

[Froward69]

9. Too bad the guy with all the experience

the one who knows this stuff and is far more equipped to lead is trailing the three biggest jokes on the subject.


The clear choice IS Joe Biden.

[Jennifer C]

15. You're right

Biden is the clear choice.

Everybody needs to take a closer look at him. He deserves serious attention.

And I agree, the top three are the biggest damn jokes on the Iran issue.

[cali]

10. JE had posted on his site that the Revolutionary Guard

was a terrorist organization. He scrubbed it, but it was caught with a screen shot.

"The Politico's Ben Smith reported November 5, 2007, that a key passage on Edwards' website regarding Iran has been changed.<1>

"As of September 7, the passage read:<2>
"'Iran’s Revolutionary Guard will soon be deemed a terrorist organization by the U.S. As president, Edwards will ensure that such steps are not just more rhetoric, but actually lead to results.'
"The passage now reads:<3>
"'Congress recently passed a bill to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. We saw in Iraq where such steps by Congress can lead President Bush. Edwards has announced his opposition to this bill.'"

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_Edwards

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. Sadly I am not surprised

Edwards has frequently blown hawkish on Iran, it was his first instinct to do so, just as it was with Iraq. Here we have evidence of a mid course political adjustment, kind of a smoking gun actually. If he simply defended his earlier statement and put it in a broader context that explained where he disagreed with other candidates, that would be fine. But this is a creative rewrite of his political position.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

13. Anybody who cites concerns with a potential Iran war as determinative

ought to stick with Kucinich or maybe Biden.

The top tier are all Iran hawks, and Obama's parsed opposition to K/L while overtly and consistently supporting the IRG terrorist designation is a low-comedy sort of scam

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. Truth...

...but team Clinton, the last time there was a Clinton in the White House, sent Jimmy Carter to North Korea to negotiate face to face to head off a brewing possible war with North Korea over their nuclear program and came away with a peace agreement that prevented a war.

I would hope all of our hawkish tier of candidates are more hawkish in word than in deed.

Kucinich and Biden have been the peace candidates on Iran, none of the others pass that test.

[TeamJordan23]

12. I guess all that experience sure makes you smart. nm

[suston96]

17. Oh, dear...Google is such a good friend......

http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav051904a.shtml

"EURASIA INSIGHT

IRAN’S REVOLUTIONARY GUARDS MAKING A BID FOR INCREASED POWER
Kamal Nazer Yasin 5/19/04

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, the military force that has served as the main pillar of support for the Islamic republic, is seeking to play an independent role in the country’s domestic political life. The entry of the Revolutionary Guards into the political fray can have many unintended consequences, including the rearrangement of Iran’s policy-making process.

Iran’s conservative clerics created the Revolutionary Guard Corps to defend the 1979 Islamic revolt from both foreign and domestic enemies. Before his death in 1989, the spiritual leader of the revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini, prohibited the Revolutionary Guards from becoming actively involved in politics, which for much of the Islamic republic’s history has been marked by factional infighting. In addition, the Iranian constitution prohibits members of the armed forces from direct engagement in politics.

However, recent domestic and regional developments enabled the Revolutionary Guard commanders to break the taboo on political activity. Conservative clerics became increasingly reliant on the country’s security forces as they went about re-establishing their firm grip on power.

On the domestic front, hard-liners relied heavily on the Revolutionary Guards to manage get-out-the-vote and other activities that helped secure a conservative landslide victory in the controversial February parliamentary elections. .

At the same time, the Revolutionary Guards domestic prestige has been significantly enhanced by the fact of its management of Iran’s nuclear program. The program, under intense international scrutiny because of its arms-making potential, is a source of tremendous national pride in Iran. "

I'll keep looking.......

[Lucinda]

18. K/L does NOT state that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards are proliferators of mass destruction

http://iranlegislation.wikispaces.com/space/showimage/kyl-lieberman+modified+iran+amendment+9-26-07.doc

[JackORoses]

21. I guess that makes it a good amendment?

[Lucinda]

23. What it does is make the article suspect, if the author is misrepresenting the K/L ammendment.

If that is incorrect, what else might be? I'd still like to see the supposed campaign "quote" in context though...

[JackORoses]

31. i guess that makes Hillary suspect as well, since she misrepresents herself so often

[suston96]

20. Wow! More on the IRG and nuclear stuff....

"......The Revolutionary Guards also possess their own large and capable intelligence agency. The "Unit of Reservation of Information" exists in parallel with and is quite influential within the Ministry of Intelligence. Like the ministry, the Revolutionary Guards' intelligence unit operates both within Iran and abroad. The IRGC also has responsibility for Iran's strategic missile force of Shahab missiles and is thought to control the country's suspected nuclear weapons program. Several Revolutionary Guards commanders have been named in UN Security Council resolutions applying sanctions intended to force Iran to reveal more information about nuclear projects."

Oh, but that's right. There is no Iranian nuclear weapons program. The IRG is, uh - irrelevant.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2649

******

What nuclear program? There ain't no such thing.....

"The IRGC operates most of Iran’s surface-to-surface missiles and is believed to have custody over potentially deployed nuclear weapons, most or all other chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) weapons, and to operate Iran’s nuclear-armed missile forces if they are deployed.

The links between the IRGC and Iran’s nuclear program are so close that its leaders were singled out under the UN Security Council Resolutions passed on December 23, 2006, and March 24, 2007, and had their assets frozen. The commander, Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi, deputy commander, Brigadier General Morteza Rezaie, and the heads of the IRGC ground forces, naval branch, Al Quds Force, and Basij (Mobilization of the Oppressed Force) were all involved."

http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_pubs/task,view/id,4002/

But not to worry. No such thing as an Iran nuclear program. We just been told that.

[JackORoses]

22. you know that Hill was implying Nuclear Weapons,

Quit muddying the waters with info regarding Iran's Domestic Nuclear Energy Program.
There is a vast difference, and you know it.

She thought they were trying to build Nuclear bombs and stated as much with her vote.
She was wrong.

[suston96]

24. Whoa......!

We aren't talking about domestic nuclear anything. Read the posts and the links.

The IRG has been connected with Iran's nuclear weapons program. Don't wanna believe what I posted? That's OK. Facts are facts.

If you want to believe that Iran, which has been working on nuclear weaponry since the days of the Shah, has no such nuclear capability, feel free to do so.

Lack of evidence just means that the evidence hasn't been found. We scored on the Iraq WMD that didn't exist, or we found no evidence. Maybe we will be lucky again.

[JackORoses]

30. "Lack of evidence just means that the evidence hasn't been found." = Circular Logic

I guess you believe God is a Giant Spaghetti Monster, as well,
since the evidence proving the contrary hasn't been found, yet.

[suston96]

32. Lack of evidence......

....means that the Iranians have done a good job of hiding their nuclear stash.

The only thing that is circular - going around in circles - is the gullible American public and the spastic Hillaryites and Obaminations and the Edwardications around here.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

34. Yep, just like Iraq did such a good job hiding all their WMDs!

oh wait, I remember now. The war-hawks told us they moved them all to Syria (even though we can't seem to find any evidence of that either)

:eyes:

[Viva_La_Revolution]

33. check your sources, they're both right wing...

Since January 1993,<1> it is led by Executive Director Robert Satloff. Several current and former members of WINEP have served in senior positions in the administrations of Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
Members of its Board of Advisors include Warren Christopher, Lawrence S. Eagleburger, Alexander Haig, Max Kampelman, Samuel W. Lewis, Edward Luttwak, Michael Mandelbaum, Robert McFarlane, Martin Peretz, Richard Perle, James Roche, Cheryl Halpern, George P. Shultz, R. James Woolsey, and Mortimer Zuckerman.<2> Scholars include Soner Cagaptay, Andrew Exum, Mehdi Khalaji, Mohammad Yaghi, and many others, as well as two former IDF officers, Chuck Freilich and Ze'ev Schiff.


The current president and CEO of CSIS is John Hamre, former Deputy Secretary of Defense. He has held the position since April 2000.
The Chairman of the Board of Trustees is Sam Nunn, a former Democratic Senator from Georgia and longtime chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services. Its board of trustees includes many former senior government officials including Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, William Cohen, and Brent Scowcroft. Its Transnational Threats Director is Arnaud de Borchgrave<1>.

wikipedia.com

[suston96]

25. NPR

This is on NPR right now.

[mrdmk]

26. Grasshoppers, One must remember that Bush Jr. does anything, it is because he thinks politically

he does not think about policy, end of story.

Bush Jr. just threw a bomb onto Mrs. Clinton's campaign by releasing the NIE and he did not help Obama's run for the Presidency either. Everyone must remember Bush Jr. thinks the ends justifies the means and he certainly does not have to deal with the consequences. Maybe this is a lesson for Clinton and Obama not to ride on this little pricks coattails when it comes to foreign policy.

edit: Mangled English i.e. Bush-speak.

[Kucinich4America]

35. Wouldn't Chimp have also harmed all of the Repukes as well?

All of them (except Ron Paul) stand on stage and spew the PNAC approved bullshit about what a "threat" Iran is. Since fear of terraist boogeymen is all they have to run on, why would Chimpy leak something that would hurt his own party's candidates more than it would Hillary or Obama?

[mrdmk]

37. The Democrats have more to lose than the Republicans do!

Every poll indicates at this point the Republicans are in a no win situation. Plus you have Karl Rove going around saying that the Democratic Senators in 2002 are responsible for starting the Iraq war. In the past you had both Hilary and Obama saying that a military option was possible with Iran. The Republican candidates will follow Bush's lead and continue that Iran is a dangerous country and needs to be dealt with. On the other side, Clinton is already back-peddling on the vote to consider Iran's Republican Guard a terrorist organization. This is how the media is going to play it, a divide a conquer strategy.

[BornagainDUer]

27. Could this be the reason why the Repugs want her to win the nomination?

[Think82]

28. Only a matterod time before everyone falls onto Biden, IMO.

[Think82]

29. that's "matter of" I've had too much coffee.

[mike_c]

38. Clinton parrots the neocons and repackages their lies as dem moderation....

No thanks, indeed.