Comments on: Clinton spars with questioner over Iran http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/ All politics, all the time Mon, 21 Dec 2009 22:07:36 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: dawn -- Gaithersburg, MD. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-93747 dawn -- Gaithersburg, MD. Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:49:50 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-93747 JAMES, THE REAL ONE, PHOENIX AZ: SIMPLER QUESTION: Do you really think that our armed forces were not ALREADY skirmishing with Quds Forces scurrying to the border after attacking them or supporting those who attacked them -- BEFORE Kyl-Lieberman? Keep your ocean-front property and I will sell you some flood insurance when you build there. JAMES, THE REAL ONE, PHOENIX AZ:

SIMPLER QUESTION: Do you really think that our armed forces were not ALREADY skirmishing with Quds Forces scurrying to the border after attacking them or supporting those who attacked them - BEFORE Kyl-Lieberman?

Keep your ocean-front property and I will sell you some flood insurance when you build there.

]]> By: Coach Haughton NH http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-93539 Coach Haughton NH Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:29:23 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-93539 Great whenever someone gets proven wrong they get mad and spin my words. I asked you when was the last time we declared war? I understand kyl-liberman fully. My point was for the third time that this president is very unpopular. And should he choose to go to war whether he seeks authorization or not...It will be much easier to sell a war against a terrorist organization...and it is irresponsible to give george bush that kind of clout. I think that that was clear...you are so angry because I am saying something opposed to your beloved clintons. Emancipate yourself from Hillaryland! Great whenever someone gets proven wrong they get mad and spin my words.

I asked you when was the last time we declared war?

I understand kyl-liberman fully. My point was for the third time that this president is very unpopular. And should he choose to go to war whether he seeks authorization or not...It will be much easier to sell a war against a terrorist organization...and it is irresponsible to give george bush that kind of clout.

I think that that was clear...you are so angry because I am saying something opposed to your beloved clintons.

Emancipate yourself from Hillaryland!

]]> By: dawn -- Gaithersburg, MD. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-93148 dawn -- Gaithersburg, MD. Thu, 11 Oct 2007 01:48:30 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-93148 COACH HAUGHTON NH: Just WHAT IS your point, Coach? If Bush doesn't need Congressional Authorization to take action against a terrorist state, then you should know that Iran has ALREADY been designated a state sponsor of terror. Bush has ALREADY said that those who sponsor terrorism are the same as terrorists. So, according to your "logic," Bush can already initiate a "police action" against Iran as a "terrorist" state. According to your own argument, he NEVER needed Kyl-Lieberman to attack Iran. Funny then, that Bush hasn't already used this justification to attack Iran. You know what else is funny? Bush said that Saddham Hussein harbored and trained terrorists, but Bush still went to Congress for a use of force authorization. Incidentally, THAT was the last time that Congress authorized force against another state, REMEMBER? Sen. Clinton voted for the use of force resolution and that's why you think she'd make a terrible president, REMEMBER? I suppose if you can't keep track of your own arguments, it's useless to expect you to drill down on the fine points of Kyl-Lieberman. COACH HAUGHTON NH:

Just WHAT IS your point, Coach? If Bush doesn't need Congressional Authorization to take action against a terrorist state, then you should know that Iran has ALREADY been designated a state sponsor of terror. Bush has ALREADY said that those who sponsor terrorism are the same as terrorists. So, according to your "logic," Bush can already initiate a "police action" against Iran as a "terrorist" state.

According to your own argument, he NEVER needed Kyl-Lieberman to attack Iran. Funny then, that Bush hasn't already used this justification to attack Iran. You know what else is funny? Bush said that Saddham Hussein harbored and trained terrorists, but Bush still went to Congress for a use of force authorization.

Incidentally, THAT was the last time that Congress authorized force against another state, REMEMBER? Sen. Clinton voted for the use of force resolution and that's why you think she'd make a terrible president, REMEMBER? I suppose if you can't keep track of your own arguments, it's useless to expect you to drill down on the fine points of Kyl-Lieberman.

]]> By: James (the real one), Phoenix AZ http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-92810 James (the real one), Phoenix AZ Wed, 10 Oct 2007 20:46:37 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-92810 Dawn - MD, Simple question: Do you REALLY think President Bush (with the Kyl-Lieberman Resolution) will NOT target Iran's elite guard if they run back into Iran?? We've got some ocean-front property here in Phoenix I'd like to sell you! Dawn – MD,

Simple question:

Do you REALLY think President Bush (with the Kyl-Lieberman Resolution) will NOT target Iran's elite guard if they run back into Iran??

We've got some ocean-front property here in Phoenix I'd like to sell you!

]]> By: Coach Haughton NH http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-92552 Coach Haughton NH Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:50:04 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-92552 you miss the point entirely dawn. tell me the last time we declared war please. Police action on a terrorist organization is a lot easier sell that this president needs lest he face impeachment with approval ratings like that. If he attacks forces inside Iran, will you defend hilliar or hold her accountable. you miss the point entirely dawn.
tell me the last time we declared war please.
Police action on a terrorist organization is a lot easier sell that this president needs lest he face impeachment with approval ratings like that.
If he attacks forces inside Iran, will you defend hilliar or hold her accountable.

]]> By: Coach Haughton NH http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-92450 Coach Haughton NH Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:01:40 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-92450 I SERIOUSLY DOUBT CNN WILL POST THIS ONE! To Meks You are one of several slaves that I am fighting to emancipate from hillaryland. I find it amusing that you post things like that and accuse me of "vitriolic hatred". My comments reflect my analysis of the facts...if my brashness upsets you I think that may be an indication that you are finding it difficult to debate some of the facts that I present. You are correct in a lot of what you say...but I think you need some additional facts to understand my point. You are correct the grand ayotulla directs the revolutionary guard. The grand ayotulla also has all the real power in Iran. I don't suggest that hilliar desires war with Iran...I suggest that this president has a proven track record of unjust, rash and wreckless military action...I suggest that hilliar is irresponsible in this vote and has repeated the same mistake she made with her iraq vote. If you see the above facts straight from the legislation (the argument you gave me is the same from hilliars website...hmm) it is clear and apparent that while it may not be his immeadiate intention to do so..George Bush now has the authority and justification to take military action against the Revolutionary Guard. In reality that is war with Iran because their elected government is mostly symbolic because all power lies in the hands of the ayotullas. Economic sanction on the country of Iran would serve to combat the Revolutionary Guard as well. It may not be as effective but at least it wouldn't help draw the ruling force in iran into the presidents " Global War On Terror". You constantly accuse me of not having my facts right when I happen to be dead on. When I give you more facts you get mad and accuse me of vitriolic hatred. The arguement you presented was the same as on hilliars website. We are similar in that we really look into the issues before drawing conclusions. I think the differece we continue to have is that you love the clintons so much that you adopt their rhetoric as truth. You are not stupid in doing so because they have a very well spun rap. That is the problem I have with the entire party this cycle. My facts are DEAD ON! Reread the legislation that I suggest. Keep in mind what we know of George Bush's character. And I think a guy as smart as you should be able to concede that this vote was not a good thing. Also you know that suggesting that she intended to put a prohibition on war with iran into law was an absolute stunt. Not enough votes, veto, constitutional powers. I don't hate you or anyone else Meks but stop being her pawn for the sake of america. Obama 2008 I SERIOUSLY DOUBT CNN WILL POST THIS ONE!

To Meks

You are one of several slaves that I am fighting to emancipate from hillaryland.

I find it amusing that you post things like that and accuse me of "vitriolic hatred".

My comments reflect my analysis of the facts...if my brashness upsets you I think that may be an indication that you are finding it difficult to debate some of the facts that I present.

You are correct in a lot of what you say...but I think you need some additional facts to understand my point.

You are correct the grand ayotulla directs the revolutionary guard. The grand ayotulla also has all the real power in Iran. I don't suggest that hilliar desires war with Iran...I suggest that this president has a proven track record of unjust, rash and wreckless military action...I suggest that hilliar is irresponsible in this vote and has repeated the same mistake she made with her iraq vote.

If you see the above facts straight from the legislation
(the argument you gave me is the same from hilliars website...hmm)
it is clear and apparent that while it may not be his immeadiate intention to do so..George Bush now has the authority and justification to take military action against the Revolutionary Guard. In reality that is war with Iran because their elected government is mostly symbolic because all power lies in the hands of the ayotullas. Economic sanction on the country of Iran would serve to combat the Revolutionary Guard as well. It may not be as effective but at least it wouldn't help draw the ruling force in iran into the presidents " Global War On Terror". You constantly accuse me of not having my facts right when I happen to be dead on. When I give you more facts you get mad and accuse me of vitriolic hatred. The arguement you presented was the same as on hilliars website.

We are similar in that we really look into the issues before drawing conclusions. I think the differece we continue to have is that you love the clintons so much that you adopt their rhetoric as truth. You are not stupid in doing so because they have a very well spun rap. That is the problem I have with the entire party this cycle. My facts are DEAD ON!

Reread the legislation that I suggest. Keep in mind what we know of George Bush's character. And I think a guy as smart as you should be able to concede that this vote was not a good thing.

Also you know that suggesting that she intended to put a prohibition on war with iran into law was an absolute stunt. Not enough votes, veto, constitutional powers.

I don't hate you or anyone else Meks but stop being her pawn for the sake of america.

Obama 2008

]]> By: dawn -- Gaithersburg, MD. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-92392 dawn -- Gaithersburg, MD. Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:22:28 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-92392 JAMES THE REAL ONE: The President cannot attack Iranian forces in Iran without Congressional approval: Kyl-Lieberman does not give this approval. According to our Constitution, Congress makes declarations of war. (Art. I, Sect. 8:11). Declarations of war are made against states as long as they still possess sovereignty. If simply labeling a country "terrorist," makes them eligible for attack on the president's say-so, President Bush could have attacked Iran, A STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR, long ago. As badly as some in his administration want to go after that country, why haven't they cited Iran's status as a state sponsor of terror as authority for doing so? BECAUSE IT ISN'T. The President is OF COURSE free, with or without Congress' authorization, to attack any Quds Forces he should happen to find in IRAQ because the United States is the lawful occupying power there. As for Osama bin Laden: again, I assert, the man was an INDIVIDUAL CRIMINAL. It would be very strange if the President needed a Congressional authorization of force to arrest or kill a criminal. If Osama bin Laden is the only authority for your argument that labeling part of the regular army of a state entitles the president to attack it without Congressional authorization, that's the END OF THE STORY. The cases simply bear no comparison. If you have some other authority for your novel theory of warfare, I'd be happy to hear it. COACH HAUGHTON NH: Yes, Kyl-Lieberman REQUESTS (NOT AUTHORIZES) that the president exert military power against the Quds Force in IRAQ. Do you seriously believe that if Quds Forces shoot at our armed forces in IRAQ, or supply IEDs that kill our armed forces in IRAQ, that the president doesn't ALREADY have authority to exert military power against them? For your "argument" that simply labeling a part of another state's armed forces "terrorist" gives us authority to "go to war with" them, please see above. JAMES THE REAL ONE:

The President cannot attack Iranian forces in Iran without Congressional approval: Kyl-Lieberman does not give this approval. According to our Constitution, Congress makes declarations of war. (Art. I, Sect. 8:11). Declarations of war are made against states as long as they still possess sovereignty. If simply labeling a country "terrorist," makes them eligible for attack on the president's say-so, President Bush could have attacked Iran, A STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR, long ago. As badly as some in his administration want to go after that country, why haven't they cited Iran's status as a state sponsor of terror as authority for doing so? BECAUSE IT ISN'T.

The President is OF COURSE free, with or without Congress' authorization, to attack any Quds Forces he should happen to find in IRAQ because the United States is the lawful occupying power there.

As for Osama bin Laden: again, I assert, the man was an INDIVIDUAL CRIMINAL. It would be very strange if the President needed a Congressional authorization of force to arrest or kill a criminal. If Osama bin Laden is the only authority for your argument that labeling part of the regular army of a state entitles the president to attack it without Congressional authorization, that's the END OF THE STORY. The cases simply bear no comparison.

If you have some other authority for your novel theory of warfare, I'd be happy to hear it.

COACH HAUGHTON NH:

Yes, Kyl-Lieberman REQUESTS (NOT AUTHORIZES) that the president exert military power against the Quds Force in IRAQ. Do you seriously believe that if Quds Forces shoot at our armed forces in IRAQ, or supply IEDs that kill our armed forces in IRAQ, that the president doesn't ALREADY have authority to exert military power against them?

For your "argument" that simply labeling a part of another state's armed forces "terrorist" gives us authority to "go to war with" them, please see above.

]]> By: Reggie , Anaheim, Ca. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91901 Reggie , Anaheim, Ca. Wed, 10 Oct 2007 03:57:32 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91901 Hill didn't read the 2002 NIE report before voting for the Occupation! Therfore if you don't read the Bin Laden bound to strike the US, then you shouldn't be President! We have a fool / king now that failed do so and sat in a classroom after the second plane flew into the WTC. Obama was against the cash kow for the Military Industrial Complex! Wise UP! Hill didn't read the 2002 NIE report
before voting for the Occupation!
Therfore if you don't read the
Bin Laden bound to strike the US,
then you shouldn't be President!

We have a fool / king now that failed
do so and sat in a classroom after
the second plane flew into the WTC.

Obama was against the cash kow for the
Military Industrial Complex! Wise UP!

]]> By: bj, houston, texas http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91844 bj, houston, texas Wed, 10 Oct 2007 02:14:22 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91844 i really hope this lady does not become president. i really hope this lady does not become president.

]]> By: J.Crobuzon http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91489 J.Crobuzon Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:21:22 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91489 James, the possibly unreal one, it isn't a video game! Nice idea that the prez could follow our enemies in every country in the world and punish them. Maybe he could wear that Master Chief suit from Halo when he does that. But here in reality we have to live with the aftereffects of our wars. We haven't declared war on anyone since WWII, in case you thought we had; all our wars have really only been police actions. It's really hard to declare war on someone unless they bomb Pearl Harbor. James, the possibly unreal one, it isn't a video game! Nice idea that the prez could follow our enemies in every country in the world and punish them. Maybe he could wear that Master Chief suit from Halo when he does that. But here in reality we have to live with the aftereffects of our wars.
We haven't declared war on anyone since WWII, in case you thought we had; all our wars have really only been police actions. It's really hard to declare war on someone unless they bomb Pearl Harbor.

]]> By: Coach Haughton NH http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91468 Coach Haughton NH Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:12:36 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91468 This is directly from the Kyl-Liberman amendment that passed. (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 [Page: S11866]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 I wasn't sure about this so I looked it up on the senate website. This DOES give the president justification to take military action against the Iranian army. She is playing the word game by saying that it does not give the president the authority to go to war with Iran. It's not an authorization of war, but the president does not need such a vote to take military action against a terrorist organization. That was the point in giving them the label. To fully understand you need to look up the emergency economic powers act as well. This is very scary folks. First Iraq...now this? Calling it like I see it. This is directly from the Kyl-Liberman amendment that passed.

(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

[Page: S11866]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

I wasn't sure about this so I looked it up on the senate website.

This DOES give the president justification to take military action against the Iranian army. She is playing the word game by saying that it does not give the president the authority to go to war with Iran. It's not an authorization of war, but the president does not need such a vote to take military action against a terrorist organization. That was the point in giving them the label.

To fully understand you need to look up the emergency economic powers act as well.

This is very scary folks. First Iraq...now this?

Calling it like I see it.

]]> By: Bubba, Swainsboro GA http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91452 Bubba, Swainsboro GA Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:02:06 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91452 Rocco, if we start voting that other countries are terrier states we will have really gone to the dogs. Rocco, if we start voting that other countries are terrier states we will have really gone to the dogs.

]]> By: Zack, NJ http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91414 Zack, NJ Tue, 09 Oct 2007 19:28:15 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91414 We call the Revolutionary Guards terrorists, and many others will call our Marines terrorists. How did the other candidates vote on this? We call the Revolutionary Guards terrorists, and many others will call our Marines terrorists.

How did the other candidates vote on this?

]]> By: Thomas, St. Petersburg, FL http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91389 Thomas, St. Petersburg, FL Tue, 09 Oct 2007 19:12:33 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91389 I had to post this again because the "Freedom of Speech" censors at CNN removed it: This verbal tussle demonstrates that Hillary does NOT want to answer difficult questions. This is why she refuses to go on the top rated cable news program, "The O'Reilly Factor". Senator Kerry made that mistake during the 2004 presidential election (he has since admitted that avoiding O'Reilly in 2004 was a huge mistake). I will not even consider voting for a politician who refuses to answer questions on issues that affect the life of my family and me. I had to post this again because the "Freedom of Speech" censors at CNN removed it:

This verbal tussle demonstrates that Hillary does NOT want to answer difficult questions. This is why she refuses to go on the top rated cable news program, "The O'Reilly Factor".
Senator Kerry made that mistake during the 2004 presidential election (he has since admitted that avoiding O'Reilly in 2004 was a huge mistake).

I will not even consider voting for a politician who refuses to answer questions on issues that affect the life of my family and me.

]]> By: James (the real one), Phoenix AZ http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91371 James (the real one), Phoenix AZ Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:56:22 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91371 Dawn - MD, (Before Kyl-Lieberman Resolution): Iran is a STATE. The military protecting Iran is the (state-sponsored) elite guard. We can't attack a STATE therefore nothing we can do about Iran's military. (After Kyl-Lieberman Resolution): Iran's elite guard is now deemed a "terrorist organization". IT IS NO LONGER a STATE issue, rather - it is a TERRORIST issue (a-la Bin Laden). Now we can attack Iran's elite guard. Holy moley Dawn, can you REALLY not see the difference? Dawn – MD,

(Before Kyl-Lieberman Resolution):

Iran is a STATE. The military protecting Iran is the (state-sponsored) elite guard. We can't attack a STATE therefore nothing we can do about Iran's military.

(After Kyl-Lieberman Resolution):

Iran's elite guard is now deemed a "terrorist organization". IT IS NO LONGER a STATE issue, rather – it is a TERRORIST issue (a-la Bin Laden). Now we can attack Iran's elite guard.

Holy moley Dawn, can you REALLY not see the difference?

]]> By: Meks, FL http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91368 Meks, FL Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:53:26 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91368 To Coach Haughton: The big lying dog! We can impose economic sanction on a country without declaring them a terrorist state but we cannot impose economic sanction on a part of government who strategically aid insurgents with IED's to maim our soldiers,(though i believe the war is pointless), without labeling them with something. Revolutionary Guard is not a state but rather an entity within the Iranain government which runs its own government and is not totally ressponsible to the Iranian president. They have stronger powers in some ways since they take directive from the body of mullahs (headed by supreme commander, Khomeini). Get your facts right before evoking your emotions and vitriolic hatred on this blog. All the bill did was to label them terrorist so state department can impose economic sanction on the members of this group and the group itself. Why don't you for once be honest to yourself. To Coach Haughton:

The big lying dog! We can impose economic sanction on a country without declaring them a terrorist state but we cannot impose economic sanction on a part of government who strategically aid insurgents with IED's to maim our soldiers,(though i believe the war is pointless), without labeling them with something. Revolutionary Guard is not a state but rather an entity within the Iranain government which runs its own government and is not totally ressponsible to the Iranian president. They have stronger powers in some ways since they take directive from the body of mullahs (headed by supreme commander, Khomeini). Get your facts right before evoking your emotions and vitriolic hatred on this blog. All the bill did was to label them terrorist so state department can impose economic sanction on the members of this group and the group itself. Why don't you for once be honest to yourself.

]]> By: Rodney Dallas TX http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91324 Rodney Dallas TX Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:12:51 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91324 You people are saying she dodged the question. She didn't dodge the question. She answered it. He said why did she give approval to invade Iran. She said she didn't. She gave approval to list them as a terrorist organization so that sanctions can be applied. You people need to know all the facts before you start talking. The question was answered. She satisfied my curiosity. You people are saying she dodged the question. She didn't dodge the question. She answered it. He said why did she give approval to invade Iran. She said she didn't. She gave approval to list them as a terrorist organization so that sanctions can be applied. You people need to know all the facts before you start talking. The question was answered. She satisfied my curiosity.

]]> By: Pat, Huntington, NY http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91296 Pat, Huntington, NY Tue, 09 Oct 2007 17:49:53 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91296 Wow! She sure gets a response! Over 260 of them to this article alone! I commend her in her response. She was asked the same exact question three time at three different venues and therefore, the temperment of her response is reasonable. As for the specifics of her response, it is as she said - in order to place sanctions on Iran, the Congress had to first declar its armed forces terrorists. How that translates to a resolution giving Bush unfettered authority to invade Iran is beyond me! And he's not ready to invade Iran...he knows he can't with the current state of our military stretched so thin right now. Wow! She sure gets a response! Over 260 of them to this article alone! I commend her in her response. She was asked the same exact question three time at three different venues and therefore, the temperment of her response is reasonable. As for the specifics of her response, it is as she said – in order to place sanctions on Iran, the Congress had to first declar its armed forces terrorists. How that translates to a resolution giving Bush unfettered authority to invade Iran is beyond me! And he's not ready to invade Iran...he knows he can't with the current state of our military stretched so thin right now.

]]> By: dan http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91293 dan Tue, 09 Oct 2007 17:48:03 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91293 Let's see: 8 years Bush Sr VP 4 years Bush Sr Pres 8 years Clinton Bill Pres 8 years Bush Jr Pres 8 years Clinton Hill ? Pres 8 years Bush Jeb ? Pres 8 years Clinton Chelsea 8 years Bush Jenna 60 year empire.... (i bet Bush sr will really feel like a dope being the only one who didn't get 8 years as pres... at least he had the 8 as vice, though) Let's see:

8 years Bush Sr VP
4 years Bush Sr Pres
8 years Clinton Bill Pres
8 years Bush Jr Pres
8 years Clinton Hill ? Pres
8 years Bush Jeb ? Pres
8 years Clinton Chelsea
8 years Bush Jenna

60 year empire.... (i bet Bush sr will really feel like a dope being the only one who didn't get 8 years as pres... at least he had the 8 as vice, though)

]]> By: mike, dallas,tx http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91289 mike, dallas,tx Tue, 09 Oct 2007 17:46:03 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91289 Van, from NY, you are one poor soul! "Don't listen to these people, most of whom have based their opinions on their biases and haven't even heard the actual exchange." And what is your "UNBIASED" source ? "Hillary is 44..." That is really pathetic if that is your supposedly objective source of information. That is a Hillary propaganda site that is operated by people who won't even disclose themselves who they are and won't post any comments from the public. Basically they are an echo chamber of Hillary propaganda. I feel for you Van! Van, from NY, you are one poor soul!

"Don't listen to these people, most of whom have based their opinions on their biases and haven't even heard the actual exchange."

And what is your "UNBIASED" source ?
"Hillary is 44..." That is really pathetic if that is your supposedly objective source of information. That is a Hillary propaganda site that is operated by people who won't even disclose themselves who they are and won't post any comments from the public.
Basically they are an echo chamber of Hillary propaganda.

I feel for you Van!

]]> By: Wynter, Loudon, NH http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91282 Wynter, Loudon, NH Tue, 09 Oct 2007 17:41:19 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91282 James (the real one), Your statements don't pan out. What I was saying was the truth of the matter. You and others seem to enjoy stating that the Kyl-Liberman Resolution is some grand scheme to start another war in the region. And your pandering of this as such is simply false. The Iraq War that we are stuck in now, thanks to the current administration had to go through a good many steps to get even the troops on the ground. There was the attempts at getting the U.N. Security Council to impose more than little sanctions. And there was the continuous bombardment of false information from the administration on who had what and when in the arena of WMDs over there. It wasn't until there was enough, I will use the term "proof" loosely here, that a formal Declaration of War was put to Congress. And I am missing the years and years where Iraq tossed out the inspectors and then let them back in, moved a few things around, then kicked them out again. And the no-fly zone, etc. As you can see it ain't as easy as you seem to make it out! The fact is that we have a country named Iran that has it's Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iraq and they are not there for a picnic. Their ordinance has been found in IEDs and their personnel have been picked up. Now going as far as complaining to Iran and labeling their guard forces as terrorists? I would say that it fits. But declaring a war? Congress has no intention of doing it and the country wouldn't stand for it. Telling it like I see it, Wynter James (the real one),

Your statements don't pan out. What I was saying was the truth of the matter. You and others seem to enjoy stating that the Kyl-Liberman Resolution is some grand scheme to start another war in the region. And your pandering of this as such is simply false.

The Iraq War that we are stuck in now, thanks to the current administration had to go through a good many steps to get even the troops on the ground. There was the attempts at getting the U.N. Security Council to impose more than little sanctions. And there was the continuous bombardment of false information from the administration on who had what and when in the arena of WMDs over there. It wasn't until there was enough, I will use the term "proof" loosely here, that a formal Declaration of War was put to Congress. And I am missing the years and years where Iraq tossed out the inspectors and then let them back in, moved a few things around, then kicked them out again. And the no-fly zone, etc. As you can see it ain't as easy as you seem to make it out!

The fact is that we have a country named Iran that has it's Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iraq and they are not there for a picnic. Their ordinance has been found in IEDs and their personnel have been picked up. Now going as far as complaining to Iran and labeling their guard forces as terrorists? I would say that it fits. But declaring a war? Congress has no intention of doing it and the country wouldn't stand for it.

Telling it like I see it,
Wynter

]]> By: JB Hull, Iowa http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91236 JB Hull, Iowa Tue, 09 Oct 2007 17:14:22 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91236 "So haters and Women bashers… keep hating.." This is what angers me most about Clinton supporters... those of us who do not support her have a variety of reasons, primarily based on her spotty record, authorization of the Iraq war, terrible environmental record, high negatives going into the general election, inability to find common ground and pass health care in the ninetees, etc etc. And yet people like you claim the reason we don't like her is that she's a woman. I think that's one of the most ignorant and sexist arguments you can put forward. I think it would be great to have a female president. But I could not in good conscience support Hillary Clinton. "So haters and Women bashers… keep hating.."

This is what angers me most about Clinton supporters... those of us who do not support her have a variety of reasons, primarily based on her spotty record, authorization of the Iraq war, terrible environmental record, high negatives going into the general election, inability to find common ground and pass health care in the ninetees, etc etc.

And yet people like you claim the reason we don't like her is that she's a woman. I think that's one of the most ignorant and sexist arguments you can put forward.

I think it would be great to have a female president. But I could not in good conscience support Hillary Clinton.

]]> By: dawn -- Gaithersburg, MD. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91229 dawn -- Gaithersburg, MD. Tue, 09 Oct 2007 17:12:40 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91229 Sen. Clinton answered Mr. Rolph's question and she answered it fully, accurately, and calmly. Mr. Rolph was simply incorrect when he insisted, repeatedly, that Kyl-Lieberman authorizes military action in Iran. First, Kyl-Lieberman doesn't contain a use of force authorization of any kind because it is a non-binding "Sense of the Senate" Resolution. Second, it REQUESTS that the president use military power against Quds Force operatives in IRAQ, not IRAN. (Newsflash: our forces will do that anyway.) Sen. Clinton was perfectly reasonable with an ill-informed and VERY persistent questioner who would not accept her ACCURATE answer. She wasn't "testy," or "sharp," or "irritable." Nor did she display a "short fuse. Can we be done with this silly "story" now? And JAMES (THE REAL ONE): Elementary international law point. It's not because Osama bin Ladin was a terrorist that President Clinton was able to go after him in Sudan (I believe it was) without Congressional approval. It's because Osama bin Ladin is an individual, NOT A STATE. States don't declare war against individuals (except metaphorically); they declare war AGAINST OTHER STATES. (Sudan is widely perceived as a failed state, meaning it has no sovereignty to violate, which is why attacking it without congressional approval was within the bounds of international and U.S. law. Afghanistan under the Taliban, likewise.) THINK ABOUT IT: does the President need Congressional approval before he arrests or uses deadly force against every criminal? No matter how many people the criminal has killed? By all means, be against Sen. Clinton, but PLEASE, use coherent arguments. Sen. Clinton answered Mr. Rolph's question and she answered it fully, accurately, and calmly. Mr. Rolph was simply incorrect when he insisted, repeatedly, that Kyl-Lieberman authorizes military action in Iran. First, Kyl-Lieberman doesn't contain a use of force authorization of any kind because it is a non-binding "Sense of the Senate" Resolution. Second, it REQUESTS that the president use military power against Quds Force operatives in IRAQ, not IRAN. (Newsflash: our forces will do that anyway.)
Sen. Clinton was perfectly reasonable with an ill-informed and VERY persistent questioner who would not accept her ACCURATE answer. She wasn't "testy," or "sharp," or "irritable." Nor did she display a "short fuse.
Can we be done with this silly "story" now?

And JAMES (THE REAL ONE):

Elementary international law point. It's not because Osama bin Ladin was a terrorist that President Clinton was able to go after him in Sudan (I believe it was) without Congressional approval. It's because Osama bin Ladin is an individual, NOT A STATE. States don't declare war against individuals (except metaphorically); they declare war AGAINST OTHER STATES. (Sudan is widely perceived as a failed state, meaning it has no sovereignty to violate, which is why attacking it without congressional approval was within the bounds of international and U.S. law. Afghanistan under the Taliban, likewise.)
THINK ABOUT IT: does the President need Congressional approval before he arrests or uses deadly force against every criminal? No matter how many people the criminal has killed?
By all means, be against Sen. Clinton, but PLEASE, use coherent arguments.

]]> By: A. Owens, North San Juan, CA http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91227 A. Owens, North San Juan, CA Tue, 09 Oct 2007 17:12:02 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91227 Face it people, Hillary Clinton is taking big corporate money by the bushel and she's joined at the hip with Israel. Just like Bill, who was the best republican president we ever had, she will continue pushing the corporate "free trade" agenda that rapes developing countries and is ruining the American middle class. Sure, she'll throw out a few crumbs like health care and maybe a tax on the wealthy in her first term, but the republicrats in both houses will make sure that none of it ever turns into anything meaningful. By the way, Hillary has no intention of ever pulling all U.S. troops out of Iraq. In the global domination play book that her and Bill read to each other every night, that's the next middle east outpost that the dems will inherit, gratis, from George W.. Sure, she'll pull out a lot of troops, but she has no illusions about giving up that beautiful embassy and all those brand new permanent military bases. Don't forget that she voted to let Bush invade Iraq, and continues to vote funding for it at every opportunity. If Bush attacks Iran, no doubt she'll find some very good reasons to fund that too, no matter what she says in town hall meetings. She voted to let Bush suspend habeas corpus in the name of "fighting terror", and she'll continue to use the terrorist bogeyman to accumulate every ounce of power for the executive that she can in her presidency (god forbid). Meanwhile, the neo cons are giddy and drooling over the prospect of having another shot at her and Bill. Fox news and CNN are no doubt already digging through their archives for footage of Monica, the hearings, and the whole mess. A Clinton nomination for '08 would mean one thing; can you spell "Guliani"? Face it people, Hillary Clinton is taking big corporate money by the bushel and she's joined at the hip with Israel. Just like Bill, who was the best republican president we ever had, she will continue pushing the corporate "free trade" agenda that rapes developing countries and is ruining the American middle class. Sure, she'll throw out a few crumbs like health care and maybe a tax on the wealthy in her first term, but the republicrats in both houses will make sure that none of it ever turns into anything meaningful. By the way, Hillary has no intention of ever pulling all U.S. troops out of Iraq. In the global domination play book that her and Bill read to each other every night, that's the next middle east outpost that the dems will inherit, gratis, from George W.. Sure, she'll pull out a lot of troops, but she has no illusions about giving up that beautiful embassy and all those brand new permanent military bases. Don't forget that she voted to let Bush invade Iraq, and continues to vote funding for it at every opportunity. If Bush attacks Iran, no doubt she'll find some very good reasons to fund that too, no matter what she says in town hall meetings. She voted to let Bush suspend habeas corpus in the name of "fighting terror", and she'll
continue to use the terrorist bogeyman to accumulate every ounce of power for the executive that she can in her presidency (god forbid). Meanwhile, the neo cons are giddy and drooling over the prospect of having another shot at her and Bill. Fox news and CNN are no doubt already digging through their archives for footage of Monica, the hearings, and the whole mess. A Clinton nomination for '08 would mean one thing; can you spell "Guliani"?

]]> By: Rocco, Wellington,Fl. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91211 Rocco, Wellington,Fl. Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:59:08 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91211 We all enjoy the fun of catching a candidate without the answer we feel is correct. Let's not forget some of this is serious stuff. If a vote is necessary to legally name Iran a terrior state that is a more important issue. As much as I hate Bush let us not forget this is serious business. We all enjoy the fun of catching a candidate without the answer we feel is correct. Let's not forget some of this is serious stuff. If a vote is necessary to legally name Iran a terrior state that is a more important issue. As much as I hate Bush let us not forget this is serious business.

]]> By: Ryan, New York, NY http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91210 Ryan, New York, NY Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:59:05 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91210 I'm voting for the Democratic candidate in this election, unless it's Hillary. She was one of the few Dems that I didn't vote for in 2006 when she won a 2nd term as my state's senator. Incidents like this one and her $5K baby bond are a prime reason why. I don't understand how so many Democrats flock to this woman and ignore Obama and Edwards, when in all reality, she's the closest of their candidates to being Republican. I'm voting for the Democratic candidate in this election, unless it's Hillary. She was one of the few Dems that I didn't vote for in 2006 when she won a 2nd term as my state's senator. Incidents like this one and her $5K baby bond are a prime reason why. I don't understand how so many Democrats flock to this woman and ignore Obama and Edwards, when in all reality, she's the closest of their candidates to being Republican.

]]> By: Bubba, Swainsboro GA http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91198 Bubba, Swainsboro GA Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:49:09 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91198 Bryan, Rolph was the dog on Muppet Show. Since being cancelled he's gone really right-wing, insisting that Jim Henson was killed by the Clintons and spending a lot of his own money on right-wing candidates. This isn't the first political rally where he's been spotted barking questions at the audience. Bryan, Rolph was the dog on Muppet Show. Since being cancelled he's gone really right-wing, insisting that Jim Henson was killed by the Clintons and spending a lot of his own money on right-wing candidates. This isn't the first political rally where he's been spotted barking questions at the audience.

]]> By: Mike http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91195 Mike Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:46:35 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91195 For whatever reason Hillary does not field tough questions and prefers to operate in a controlled bubble. It's a shame, because she is certainly capable, but obviously has an agenda she needs to hide from those of us who are anti-war. For whatever reason Hillary does not field tough questions and prefers to operate in a controlled bubble. It's a shame, because she is certainly capable, but obviously has an agenda she needs to hide from those of us who are anti-war.

]]> By: libavenger http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91189 libavenger Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:41:43 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91189 This country has become the Lying States of America. None of the politicians ever tell the truth,either on the left or right. They are just like the Lawyers in the judicial system. Truth has nothing to do with the outcome of a trial, it's only which lawyer can B.S. the jury the best. And the more money you have the better B.S.er you get. Bush has B.S.'d this country into believing he is a christian, but christians aren't supposed to lie in order to start a war. Christians aren't supposed to kill. And christians are supposed to give to the poor not millionaires. Wake up and smell the coffee folks, the god of America is money, not Jesus. The military industrial complex loves this war, they are making hundreds of billions of dollars. And that is why it will go on for the next fifty years. And that is why Hillary refuses to have the troops out by the end of 2013. She said they might not be out by the end of her second term. This country has become the Lying States of America. None of the politicians ever tell the truth,either on the left or right. They are just like the Lawyers in the judicial system. Truth has nothing to do with the outcome of a trial, it's only which lawyer can B.S. the jury the best. And the more money you have the better B.S.er you get. Bush has B.S.'d this country into believing he is a christian, but christians aren't supposed to lie in order to start a war. Christians aren't supposed to kill. And christians are supposed to give to the poor not millionaires. Wake up and smell the coffee folks, the god of America is money, not Jesus. The military industrial complex loves this war, they are making hundreds of billions of dollars. And that is why it will go on for the next fifty years. And that is why Hillary refuses to have the troops out by the end of 2013. She said they might not be out by the end of her second term.

]]> By: Megan, Atlanta, GA http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91181 Megan, Atlanta, GA Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:39:05 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91181 that's the problem with being the front runner...it opens you up to scrutiny...she is trying desperately to play the centrist role, but she (nor any other candidate) can be all things to all people. I say she ultimately will shoot herself in the foot...the Dems have become very good at this lately that's the problem with being the front runner...it opens you up to scrutiny...she is trying desperately to play the centrist role, but she (nor any other candidate) can be all things to all people. I say she ultimately will shoot herself in the foot...the Dems have become very good at this lately

]]> By: J.Crobuzon http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91180 J.Crobuzon Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:38:07 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91180 Ron, if the guy flew thousands of miles to be there just to ask her that question, then he was what I would call a plant. That is, he wasn't a local voter with a concern but an outsider playing reporter. Ron, if the guy flew thousands of miles to be there just to ask her that question, then he was what I would call a plant. That is, he wasn't a local voter with a concern but an outsider playing reporter.

]]> By: Aaron, Lynnwood, WA http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91177 Aaron, Lynnwood, WA Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:36:14 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91177 She has a short fuse and she's playing into this whole "we can attack anybody as long as we call them terrorists" idea. I'm affraid of Hillary. And what's up with calling "hillary haters" "women haters"? I would support a female president if she supported the constitution and didn't want to bury us in taxes. It has nothing to do with her gender, she's just a bad choice for president. Ron Paul has my vote. I wish the media would give him some attention. ...Don't tase me, bro! She has a short fuse and she's playing into this whole "we can attack anybody as long as we call them terrorists" idea. I'm affraid of Hillary. And what's up with calling "hillary haters" "women haters"? I would support a female president if she supported the constitution and didn't want to bury us in taxes. It has nothing to do with her gender, she's just a bad choice for president. Ron Paul has my vote. I wish the media would give him some attention.

...Don't tase me, bro!

]]> By: James (the real one), Phoenix AZ http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91153 James (the real one), Phoenix AZ Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:25:01 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91153 Wynter - You wrote, "But to answer some people's questions on this bill labeling Iran's "Revolutionary Guard Corp's" a terrorist organization. First off, it isn't an authorization to go to war. You need a clear "declaration of war" passed by congress for this to occur as stated by the War Powers Resolution(1973). All of the recent wars including the Iraq war has followed this resolution." It's amusing to watch Clinton Apologists like you, Wynter, attempting to explain away Hillary's vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Resolution. Your emphatic attempt to assure "it's not authorization to start a war". You're so desperate to support Hillary you can't see the TRUTH: President Bush was hanging by a thread on the current issues (Afghanistan/Iraq) and had NO support doing anything about Iran. This resolution - calling Iran's elite guard a "terrorist organization" GIVES President Bush the support he needed to take action. Of COURSE he's not going to start a "war" - but he will authorize strikes and engage this "terrorist organization". It's all semantics and you can't see it?? Bill Clinton didn't need congressional approval to command air strikes in an attempt to hit Bin Laden (a "terrorist"). Classifying someone or a group as "terrorist" gives the President and the military permission to attack. Let me end by saying "thank you" to Hillary and you supporters. As a conservative I hope the President continues pursuing our enemies regardless where they hide (including in Iran). When this gets "ugly" - we conservatives can point back to Hillary's vote and say it had bi-partisan support. Wynter –

You wrote, "But to answer some people's questions on this bill labeling Iran's "Revolutionary Guard Corp's" a terrorist organization. First off, it isn't an authorization to go to war. You need a clear "declaration of war" passed by congress for this to occur as stated by the War Powers Resolution(1973). All of the recent wars including the Iraq war has followed this resolution."

It's amusing to watch Clinton Apologists like you, Wynter, attempting to explain away Hillary's vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Resolution. Your emphatic attempt to assure "it's not authorization to start a war".

You're so desperate to support Hillary you can't see the TRUTH: President Bush was hanging by a thread on the current issues (Afghanistan/Iraq) and had NO support doing anything about Iran. This resolution – calling Iran's elite guard a "terrorist organization" GIVES President Bush the support he needed to take action. Of COURSE he's not going to start a "war" – but he will authorize strikes and engage this "terrorist organization". It's all semantics and you can't see it??

Bill Clinton didn't need congressional approval to command air strikes in an attempt to hit Bin Laden (a "terrorist"). Classifying someone or a group as "terrorist" gives the President and the military permission to attack.

Let me end by saying "thank you" to Hillary and you supporters. As a conservative I hope the President continues pursuing our enemies regardless where they hide (including in Iran). When this gets "ugly" – we conservatives can point back to Hillary's vote and say it had bi-partisan support.

]]> By: pam Eugene, OR http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91142 pam Eugene, OR Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:17:27 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91142 Who cares if the person was a "plant". There should be a plant at all these events. None of the candidates like to answer the tough questions but they MUST. She is a master of the non answer. And she was not all presidential with her temper. Keep asking the tough questions of ALL those who would be our leader.To Jim in Cleveland...are you daef and blind? You said "good for her...tell it like it is". Where did you hear her tell it at all? All she did was loose her temper and duck the question. Who cares if the person was a "plant". There should be a plant at all these events. None of the candidates like to answer the tough questions but they MUST.
She is a master of the non answer. And she was not all presidential with her temper. Keep asking the tough questions of ALL those who would be our leader.To Jim in Cleveland...are you daef and blind? You said "good for her...tell it like it is". Where did you hear her tell it at all? All she did was loose her temper and duck the question.

]]> By: James (the real one), Phoenix AZ http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91141 James (the real one), Phoenix AZ Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:15:11 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91141 Jo in Atlanta - You said, The good people of this great country will give you these by voting for Hillary… - An end to this war as we know it. - Health care for your kids. - Affordable health care for you - Reduced health care payments by the companies you work for - The Good old days of high paying jobs ------ LOL... thank you for the belly laugh this morning! I feel much better. Sadly, though, I suspect you REALLY believe those things your wrote: - End to the War (Hillary is going to continue the war and can't promise troops will be home by 2013!) - Healthcare for your kids (this one is true - Hillary believes in socialism so anyone that believes personal responsibility is dead and is looking for a government handout should be happy) - Good old days of high paying jobs (maybe you forgot it was Bill Clinton that signed NAFTA into law - which exported thousands of jobs. Or maybe you don't realize the impact of 15+ million illegal immigrants has by effectively lowering wages in our country...and Hillary wants to give them amnesty) But don't let truth or facts get in the way of your enthusiam. YOU GO GIRL!! Jo in Atlanta –

You said,

The good people of this great country will give you these by voting for Hillary…

- An end to this war as we know it.
- Health care for your kids.
- Affordable health care for you
- Reduced health care payments by the companies you work for
- The Good old days of high paying jobs

--

LOL... thank you for the belly laugh this morning! I feel much better. Sadly, though, I suspect you REALLY believe those things your wrote:

- End to the War (Hillary is going to continue the war and can't promise troops will be home by 2013!)

- Healthcare for your kids (this one is true – Hillary believes in socialism so anyone that believes personal responsibility is dead and is looking for a government handout should be happy)

- Good old days of high paying jobs (maybe you forgot it was Bill Clinton that signed NAFTA into law – which exported thousands of jobs. Or maybe you don't realize the impact of 15+ million illegal immigrants has by effectively lowering wages in our country...and Hillary wants to give them amnesty)

But don't let truth or facts get in the way of your enthusiam. YOU GO GIRL!!

]]> By: Bambi, NYC http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91134 Bambi, NYC Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:09:47 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91134 I would have asked her the same question. In fact, I sent a letter to both her and Senator Charles Schumer's offices expressing my disappointment with their yea votes on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. I wonder what her response to this letter will be? Furthermore, if I were at a town hall meeting with Barack Obama, I would have asked HIM why he himself abstained from voting on this particular piece of legislation (along with John McCain). Then again, I wouldn't even bother to attend a town hall with Hillary because I decided I wasn't voting for her way back when she supported the attack on Iraq. I figured that she knew what she was doing, she was a warmonger, and if she didn't know, she was quite dumb. I think it's a foregone conclusion that she will win the presidency whether she "deserves" to win or not because Bush-Clinton has got it all wrapped up. At least she can construct a coherent sentence, unlike that other "plant," the Bush currently occupying the White House. I would have asked her the same question. In fact, I sent a letter to both her and Senator Charles Schumer's offices expressing my disappointment with their yea votes on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. I wonder what her response to this letter will be?

Furthermore, if I were at a town hall meeting with Barack Obama, I would have asked HIM why he himself abstained from voting on this particular piece of legislation (along with John McCain).

Then again, I wouldn't even bother to attend a town hall with Hillary because I decided I wasn't voting for her way back when she supported the attack on Iraq. I figured that she knew what she was doing, she was a warmonger, and if she didn't know, she was quite dumb.

I think it's a foregone conclusion that she will win the presidency whether she "deserves" to win or not because Bush-Clinton has got it all wrapped up. At least she can construct a coherent sentence, unlike that other "plant," the Bush currently occupying the White House.

]]> By: Bob, New York, NY http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91106 Bob, New York, NY Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:52:19 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91106 Poor Hillary is just so sure that anyone that doesn't agree with her had to have had the question given to them. If she was half as smart as she claims she would realize that the independent portion of the electorate was on the rise and that they don't kneel at either parties alter. Poor Hillary is just so sure that anyone that doesn't agree with her had to have had the question given to them. If she was half as smart as she claims she would realize that the independent portion of the electorate was on the rise and that they don't kneel at either parties alter.

]]> By: amw http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91092 amw Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:45:09 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91092 IT would be nice if we could get answers for questions asked..but I guess if they don't like a question they are a plant. Nice going MS Clinton ;) IT would be nice if we could get answers for questions asked..but I guess if they don't like a question they are a plant. Nice going MS Clinton ;)

]]> By: Rurik, St. Paul, MN http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91068 Rurik, St. Paul, MN Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:29:15 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91068 This guy was obviously a plant if she's been asked the same question three separate places. But then Romney also had a tough time answering a guy with Muscular Dystrophy who asked, "Are you going to send me to jail for using medical marijuana?" Bottom line: All politicians are born slimy. This guy was obviously a plant if she's been asked the same question three separate places. But then Romney also had a tough time answering a guy with Muscular Dystrophy who asked, "Are you going to send me to jail for using medical marijuana?" Bottom line: All politicians are born slimy.

]]> By: Matt from al Anbar, Iraq http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91067 Matt from al Anbar, Iraq Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:28:00 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91067 So there's Hillary, thinking that people can't think for themselves. So there's Hillary, thinking that people can't think for themselves.

]]> By: michelle, atlanta ga http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91063 michelle, atlanta ga Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:24:41 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91063 i am "kind of" a fan of hillary clinton, but i will not vote for her. the question is completely valid whether or not she'd heard it 3x before in other places, because chances are....people aren't following her around to each and every town hall meeting and therefore are not hearing her answers to these repeated questions. it would be different if things were televised and then she was hearing repeated questions. i am "kind of" a fan of hillary clinton, but i will not vote for her.

the question is completely valid whether or not she'd heard it 3x before in other places, because chances are....people aren't following her around to each and every town hall meeting and therefore are not hearing her answers to these repeated questions. it would be different if things were televised and then she was hearing repeated questions.

]]> By: Bea, Hoboken, NJ http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91062 Bea, Hoboken, NJ Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:23:39 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91062 Let's see if I got this straight: - Guy asks question about Iran. - Hillary responds. - Guy doesn't like her response. - Hillary explains to the man that there were two versions proposed and that the one she voted on did not give Bush the authority to attack Iran. - Man still insists that she learned nothing from her previous vote on Iraq. - She offers to have her staff give him the text of the resolution. _ Man is still not satisfied with her response. Frankly, I too would have lost my patience with this man. It apears that no answer that she gave him would have satisfied him. I don't know if you can call him a plant, but he does blog regularly at KOS. Let's see if I got this straight:

- Guy asks question about Iran.
- Hillary responds.
- Guy doesn't like her response.
- Hillary explains to the man that there were two versions proposed and that the one she voted on did not give Bush the authority to attack Iran.
- Man still insists that she learned nothing from her previous vote on Iraq.
- She offers to have her staff give him the text of the resolution.
_ Man is still not satisfied with her response.

Frankly, I too would have lost my patience with this man. It apears that no answer that she gave him would have satisfied him. I don't know if you can call him a plant, but he does blog regularly at KOS.

]]> By: Bryan, Indianapolis, IN http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91057 Bryan, Indianapolis, IN Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:21:31 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91057 To the writer of the article: The first paragraphs refers to "a questioner". The second paragraph refers to "a questioner". The third paragraph refers to "the questioner". The fourth paragraph refers to "the questioner". The fifth paragraph refers to "the question" and "somebody obviously sent it to you". Then the first word in the sixth paragraph is "Rolph". Who the hell is Rolph? From the context, I assume he is the questioner. If "the questioner" had a name, why not tell me that in the first or second paragraph? I don't know how many articles I have read on cnn.com where I think I'm crazy because the article starts talking about someone who hasn't been mentioned before. Then I have to go back and read it again to figure out if I'm losing it or if you all are just bad writers. Also, does "Rolph" have a first/last name or is he a one name wonder like Madonna? To the writer of the article: The first paragraphs refers to "a questioner". The second paragraph refers to "a questioner". The third paragraph refers to "the questioner". The fourth paragraph refers to "the questioner". The fifth paragraph refers to "the question" and "somebody obviously sent it to you". Then the first word in the sixth paragraph is "Rolph". Who the hell is Rolph? From the context, I assume he is the questioner. If "the questioner" had a name, why not tell me that in the first or second paragraph? I don't know how many articles I have read on cnn.com where I think I'm crazy because the article starts talking about someone who hasn't been mentioned before. Then I have to go back and read it again to figure out if I'm losing it or if you all are just bad writers. Also, does "Rolph" have a first/last name or is he a one name wonder like Madonna?

]]> By: Jo, Atlanta GA http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91055 Jo, Atlanta GA Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:19:43 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91055 Go on Hillary haters... Thank God you are part of the percentile that hates her and will never vote for her. The good news is there are people that like her... So haters and Women bashers... keep hating.. The good people of this great country will give you these by voting for Hillary... - An end to this war as we know it. - Health care for your kids. - Affordable health care for you - Reduced health care payments by the companies you work for - The Good old days of high paying jobs and much more. GOP knows there is no stopping her if she wins the primaries. That's why they plant this guys in there. The guy that asked the question does not live in Iowa...so tell me; he travelled that far from Florida to ask her that question?????? Go on Hillary haters...

Thank God you are part of the percentile that hates her and will never vote for her. The good news is there are people that like her...

So haters and Women bashers... keep hating..

The good people of this great country will give you these by voting for Hillary...

- An end to this war as we know it.
- Health care for your kids.
- Affordable health care for you
- Reduced health care payments by the companies you work for
- The Good old days of high paying jobs

and much more.

GOP knows there is no stopping her if she wins the primaries. That's why they plant this guys in there.

The guy that asked the question does not live in Iowa...so tell me; he travelled that far from Florida to ask her that question??????

]]> By: Les M. Tpa, FL. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91054 Les M. Tpa, FL. Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:19:41 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91054 Well now; If the Dems lost again in 08 it won't be because of Hillary, it will be because they couldn't see pass the reason why they hated her more than George "da decider" Bush & Dick "shoot a friend in da face" Cheney. My guess is because she sticks by her man and show strenght in the face of adversity instead of weakness and, definately, because of her gender. Or, Properbly, no matter what a lot of people think they know about her, they can't bring themself to agreed that it's what the right wing and the phamarceutical industries spend 50 million to ingrain in their mind -- notwithstanding that the 8 yrs of Bill & Hillary is the best in the last 28 yrs counting the Reagan yrs. And, bytheway, she did answered the question that was asked!. Well now; If the Dems lost again in 08 it won't be because of Hillary, it will be because they couldn't see pass the reason why they hated her more than George "da decider" Bush & Dick "shoot a friend in da face" Cheney. My guess is because she sticks by her man and show strenght in the face of adversity instead of weakness and, definately, because of her gender. Or, Properbly, no matter what a lot of people think they know about her, they can't bring themself to agreed that it's what the right wing and the phamarceutical industries spend 50 million to ingrain in their mind - notwithstanding that the 8 yrs of Bill & Hillary is the best in the last 28 yrs counting the Reagan yrs.
And, bytheway, she did answered the question that was asked!.

]]> By: Ron, TX http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91049 Ron, TX Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:16:43 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91049 I can't believe anyone is actually buying that he was a "plant"! Stop eating every word that comes out of Hillary Clinton's mouth. Start to think for yourself! The same guy asks hard questions of ALL the democratic candidates... as EVERYONE should! These people may be our next President. They NEED to be asked the HARD questions. And each candidate needs to ANSWER the hard questions! I can't believe anyone is actually buying that he was a "plant"! Stop eating every word that comes out of Hillary Clinton's mouth. Start to think for yourself! The same guy asks hard questions of ALL the democratic candidates... as EVERYONE should! These people may be our next President. They NEED to be asked the HARD questions. And each candidate needs to ANSWER the hard questions!

]]> By: Chris, Middletown, CT http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91044 Chris, Middletown, CT Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:07:36 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91044 The thing is....Hillary voting to see the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization in not really wrong - her response to a potential constituent speaks volumes of how she will "work" with those whos opinions differ... The thing is....Hillary voting to see the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization in not really wrong – her response to a potential constituent speaks volumes of how she will "work" with those whos opinions differ...

]]> By: Ethan, Los Angeles, CA http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91043 Ethan, Los Angeles, CA Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:07:22 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91043 What I wan to know is - where does she plan on getting the five grand she says she wants to give to every newborn child for college education? Is she going to tax us to death to get it? On top of that she believes in amnesty for illegals! So illegals come here and use social services and now our taxes are paying for their college education!?!?!? You must be out of your mind lady! Go Dr. Paul! You are the champion of the Constitution! God bless you sir! www.ronpaul2008.com What I wan to know is – where does she plan on getting the five grand she says she wants to give to every newborn child for college education? Is she going to tax us to death to get it? On top of that she believes in amnesty for illegals! So illegals come here and use social services and now our taxes are paying for their college education!?!?!? You must be out of your mind lady!

Go Dr. Paul! You are the champion of the Constitution! God bless you sir!
http://www.ronpaul2008.com

]]> By: Patrick, Tampa, FL http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91039 Patrick, Tampa, FL Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:05:56 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91039 I've never been a Hillary hater, but...open mouth, insert foot. <i>"Hi, I'm Hillary Clinton. I'm paranoid, and I think the American public is too uninformed to pose an intelligent question."</i> Nice one Hillary. I've never been a Hillary hater, but...open mouth, insert foot.

"Hi, I'm Hillary Clinton. I'm paranoid, and I think the American public is too uninformed to pose an intelligent question."

Nice one Hillary.

]]> By: Colony 14 author, Mount Prospect, Illinois http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/09/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91036 Colony 14 author, Mount Prospect, Illinois Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:05:38 +0000 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/clinton-spars-with-questioner-over-iran/#comment-91036 I don't care if the questioner was a "plant" or not - candidates should still be expected to answer questions and not hide behind handlers and stump speeches. As time passes, Hillary will eventually be asked tough questions, and Obama will eventually consent to interviews that aren't "Oprah puff pieces." I just want a questioner to ask, "How will you keep Iran from getting nukes, bombing Tel Aviv, and blocking the Strait of Hormuz to jack up the price of oil to $300 per barrel?" I don't care if the questioner was a "plant" or not – candidates should still be expected to answer questions and not hide behind handlers and stump speeches. As time passes, Hillary will eventually be asked tough questions, and Obama will eventually consent to interviews that aren't "Oprah puff pieces." I just want a questioner to ask, "How will you keep Iran from getting nukes, bombing Tel Aviv, and blocking the Strait of Hormuz to jack up the price of oil to $300 per barrel?"

]]>