Previous Next Latest

NPR Debate Roundup

12/4/07, 11:03 pm EST

The NPR debate (transcript) was a good one this afternoon. Not that it was a great debate, per se, but it was a lively intelligent discussion. And the NPR moderators could all teach Wolf Blitzer a lesson or two on how to rein in blabbering candidates and steer a discussion.

The debate dealt with just three topics — Iran, China and Immigration — a long-form format that served the Iran topic best.

It’s remarkable how badly the new NIE has wrongfooted senator Clinton, who has bet hard that hawkishness toward Tehran would serve her best in the general election should she make it to that promised land.

Signing on the Kyl Lieberman amendment, however, could prove fatal to her campaign.

Senator Biden hit Clinton hard for her tepid commitment only to slow a “rush to war” with Iran:

BIDEN: Terminology matters. I’m a great admirer of Senator Clinton. It’s not about not advocating ‘a rush to war.’ I’m advocating no war. A rush to war means that war, taken slowly, going slowly, is possible. I’m advocating no war, no justification for war.

Clinton also took sharp questions from moderator Steve Inskeep:

INSKEEP: Senator Clinton, as some of your opponents have noted, in September you voted on a resolution involving the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, which, among other things, called them proliferators of mass destruction. In view of this latest intelligence estimate, which says Iran’s nuclear program was stopped in 2003, do you believe that’s still true?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, there were other purposes for that resolution. It does label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, and there is evidence that they do support Hamas and Hezbollah, as Senator Obama just said, and in addition have, until recently, been supplying weapons and technical advisers to various factions within Iraq….

Clinton filibustered on for a bit about the benefits of turning up the heat before Inskeep redirected:

INSKEEP: Forgive me, are the Revolutionary Guards proliferators of mass destruction?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, many of us believe that.

This is jaw-dropping. The nation’s intelligence community just issued a consensus report declaring there is no nuclear weapons program in Iran. Yet Clinton still believes Iranian Revolutionary Guards are WMD proliferators?

Talk about faith-based intelligence.


Previous Next Latest

Comments

Jed Clampett | 12/5/2007, 12:14 am EST

Tim, I believe she is referring to the Revolutionary guards who are delivering EFP and other weapons to iraqi insurgents. The height of hypocresy when you consider that the US is doing the same thing by arming the Kurds that are harrassing northern Iran.

Not supporting her position, just helping you realize how she rationalizes her answer, EFPs, like any other weapon, are Weapons of Mass Destruction. If you are the recipient, doesn’t it destroy your whole world?

Joby | 12/5/2007, 3:55 am EST

We need to send a message to the neocons!

Soooo…Let’s elect the most conservative, hawkish Democrat available.

Seriously, I’m tired of people talking about how they want ‘change’ by voting for a woman, when they’re really just replacing testosterone-based egotistical warmongering hacks with an estrogen-based egotistical warmongering hack.

Politically speaking, I hope voters in early primary states care enough about this to not only hold the administration accountable (which is still priority #1), but also those in both parties who have lent their support.

DirtyDennis | 12/5/2007, 8:00 am EST

Jed/Tim,

Sadly, she’s taking the Bushney tack. The ‘Guard’ would ‘like’ to have WMDs and would ‘like’ to distribute them, ergo, they are a threat. About as much as I am to capitalists ’cause I’d like a little more money.

Still, Tim, I’m not put off by it. “It’s How The Game Is Played.” If you want to be elected, there are certain contituencies you have to ‘appeal’ to. Do I like that? Hail no (to paraphrase Wild Thing), but if I REALLY want to be Prez and go through all that BS to get there, shouldn’t I try to broaden my appeal?

To me it’s the 21st Century version of kissing babies and a chicken in every pot.

Jed Clampett | 12/5/2007, 11:29 am EST

back to that ‘war of imagination’ thing again. “I imagine they have weapons and will use them on my, therefore I’m justified in destroying their nation to protect mine.
Problem is that the main agressor in the situations is the country making the claims that they are threatened.

likroper.com | 12/5/2007, 3:41 pm EST

speaking of china; isn’t the latest DEA crackdown on landowners who have pot clubs in SF kind of like the chinese government incarcerating democracy supporters?

when are we all going to realize that the more we do unbridled business with the republica of china (and/or the CCP and/or the GOP), the more our democratic and constitutional rights will slowly erode?

Coach | 12/5/2007, 5:16 pm EST

Don’t be duped again, people. Please do not be duped. While Hillary may be ‘good’ at her ‘politics’, that doesn’t mean she’s fit to run a country, let alone a country in the shape we’re currently in. Now, more than ever, we need to completely change direction. The problem is this: This President has created such a monkeyfist in the middle east with his Billy The Kid type foreign policy, that electing Hillary will not only divide the country, it will probably divide her own party.

Joe Biden is the answer. Joe Biden has the experience. Joe Biden in 2008.

Francine Longo | 12/9/2007, 5:41 am EST

Joby – Your comments are right on the money. Too many of my women friends are eager to vote for Hillary just because she’s a woman. They don’t see that she’s the kind of woman who’s so busy trying to emulate tough guys like Bush that she’s basically the same kind of political animal.

It’s too bad. Women are a potent force and could be mainly responsible for picking the next president. But they’d be fools to go along with the gender card, expecting to get some benefit from it.

Hillary used to be a Republican at heart, and never veered far from that center. It’s laughable she’s called liberal by the right wing. Is voting for Kyl-Lieberman liberal? No way. She’s more a less a neocon sympathizing senator who’s more dedicated to looking strong than actually being wise.

Americans, please, reject Hillary’s bid before we’re all in over our heads.

Trey | 12/10/2007, 12:12 am EST

not joby..francine

Trey | 12/10/2007, 12:14 am EST

and as to the subject of her having the right to support women having abortion and killing….i want to know what gives our government the right to tell my wife what the hell to do with her body???

Post A Comment

Caution: Off-topic comments will be deleted

Name:

Comments:



Advertisement

Advertisement