October 25th, 2007
12:00 PM ET
7 years ago

Dodd, Edwards blast Iran sanctions, criticize Clinton

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Democratic presidential candidates expressed concern Thursday over the Bush administration’s extensive sanctions against Iran, arguing the measures were likely precursors to war with that country.

“Today, George Bush and Dick Cheney again rattled the sabers in their march toward military action against Iran,” John Edwards said in a statement. “The Bush Administration has been making plans to attack Iran for many months. At this critical moment, we need strong leadership against George Bush’s dangerous ‘preventive war’ policy, which makes force the first option, not the last.”

Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd echoed the sentiment. “Unfortunately, the action taken by the Administration today comes in the context of escalating rhetoric and drumbeat to military action against Iran,” he said in a statement. “I am deeply concerned that once again the President is opting for military action as a first resort.”

Dodd again highlighted his vote against the Kyl-Lieberman amendment last month which in part called for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps to be designated a terrorist organization. Sen. Hillary Clinton’s, D-New York, vote in favor of the measure is now a major topic on the campaign trail.

On Thursday, both Dodd and Edwards said the amendment’s language could be used by the Bush administration to justify military action against Iran.

“I learned a clear lesson from the lead up to the Iraq War in 2002: if you give this president an inch, he will take a mile – and launch a war,” Edwards said. “Sen. Clinton apparently learned a different lesson. Instead of blocking George Bush’s new march to war, Senator Clinton and others are enabling him once again.

– CNN Sr. Political Producer Sasha Johnson


Filed under: Chris Dodd • Hillary Clinton • John Edwards
soundoff (34 Responses)
  1. bprossersme

    These two couldn't lead someone to the bathroom. How could they lead a country.

    October 25, 2007 06:54 pm at 6:54 pm |
  2. T. Tim, Lodi, WI

    "Democrats are a bunch of whiny weaklings. Thank God the grown ups occupy the White House. Hey Dems maybe we should have Iran to the white house and just give them our Nuclear bombs?" If this represents the level of political sophistication, maturity and anaylsis in the US, then we are in deep do-do. It sounds more like grade-school playground talk than objective appraisal of serious, real-world issues. Sad situation indeed.

    October 25, 2007 07:08 pm at 7:08 pm |
  3. Earl, Ohio

    2) Republican leaders – seeking to stop nuclear proliferation especially nations that openly support terrorists and threaten peace-seeking democratic allies.

    Posted By James, Phoenix AZ : October 25, 2007 2:44 pm
    -

    Really guy – get a life. We've seen what happens when "Republican leaders" are put in charge of things. Just look at Iran's neighbors, Iraq and Afghanistan. One is a breeding ground for terrorists who are now allying with Iran, and the other is becoming a global-leader in narco-trafficking that is on its way back to being controlled by the Taliban.

    No thanks, James from Phoenix. I've seen of enough Republican BS to last me a lifetime. I will take my chances with the Democrats controlling the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives, thank you very much.

    October 25, 2007 07:48 pm at 7:48 pm |
  4. Paul C. Palmetto Bay, FL

    Ryan Indianapolis.
    If we had a do-nothing in the White House we would not be in the Iraq disaster.
    Even the living room commandos have to admit that Iraq is a disaster...right?
    Are you going to sign up? Your Rambo buddies need you in Iraq.

    October 25, 2007 08:13 pm at 8:13 pm |
  5. Lynn Ensley McCaysville, Ga.

    Chris, John set down and be quiet, or get with Charley Rangel and figure up some more tax hikes. Fight Democrats, among yourselves, and hand another election to these idiots. They won't need Kathryn or the big court either if you continue.

    October 25, 2007 10:12 pm at 10:12 pm |
  6. William Courtland, Waterford, Ontario

    Iran is a ratified member of the Nuclear Proliferation treaty held under the United Nations.

    Could some nation attempt to gain contract to sell the required uranium isolinear rods to Iran and so give them a reason to suspend enrichment. Or, is it not permitted due to the 2003 violation of 'secret enrichment'.

    In 2003 was the uranium exchanged between two nations but purchased in secret? Is another nation not suspect in that trade?

    Israel holds a policy of opacity concerning nuclear weapons, never ratifying the Nuclear proliferation treaty. (Thou shall not kill to gain the lands of Can, gain those land by marriage and for the right of true religion.) Yet by the sword Joshawa? Only a zone of war is gained.

    October 26, 2007 12:38 am at 12:38 am |
  7. Lance, Beaverton, OR

    Edwards whining about a clear as day bill to authorize war is ridiculous. The man can't read

    October 26, 2007 03:07 am at 3:07 am |
  8. dawn -- Gaithersburg, MD.

    Dan, TX.:

    (1) Where's the "elsewhere" language in Kyl-Lieberman?

    (2) You misuse the word "therefore," if by it you mean to signify the words, "it follows."

    (3) Have you noticed Sen. Obama's big climb down from Kyl-Lieberman as a "blank check," to an amendment that raises the "risk of war"?

    (4) Have you also noticed that his apparent change of heart came after Sen. Clinton pointed out that in March he co-sponsored an amendment with Sen. Gordon Smith also calling for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to be designated a terrorist organization? Furthermore, he supports the sanctions that the Bush administration levied. Now what Sen. Obama is saying is that the real basis for his opposition was language in Kyl-Lieberman discussing Iraq in terms of affecting Iran. However, Sen. Clinton has cited parallel comments Sen. Obama made in a speech last year on the Iranian threat.

    (5) Sen. Obama could have voted: he simply chose to leave town to campaign instead. In the quote you have chosen to support your position, Sen. Reid himself indicates that he hoped the issues that were preventing a vote would be cleared up that night. And they were: the vote was the next day. And if Sen. Reid was involved in some secret plan to exclude Sen. Obama, how foolish of him to make his statement before the entire Senate where all the Senators running for President could hear it and show up to vote. Except Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain.

    October 26, 2007 10:04 am at 10:04 am |
  9. James, Phoenix AZ

    Earl – OH,

    You wrote, "Really guy – get a life. We've seen what happens when "Republican leaders" are put in charge of things. Just look at Iran's neighbors, Iraq and Afghanistan. One is a breeding ground for terrorists who are now allying with Iran, and the other is becoming a global-leader in narco-trafficking that is on its way back to being controlled by the Taliban."

    --

    Interesting you look at Iraq and Afghanistan through you dark glasses. Funny, I seem to recall both countries holding HISTORIC elections – for the first time. People defying terrorists threats of death and destruction, walking through the streets with ink-stained fingers in the air showing they voted.

    I seem to recall little girls, banned at one time by the Taliban, NOW attending school in Afghanistan.

    I seem to recall a brutal dictator who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people – found in a hole, tried, and hung.

    Try with all your might, Earl, to paint your ugly pessimistic picture. The light of truth will always outshine your lifeless propoganda. Certainly I am not suggesting it has been a perfect military plan – but the future these people have in Iraq and Afghanistan has never been brighter.

    PS – I have a good life. And I much enjoying knowing my family has been far SAFER the last 8 years under President Bush than any of your weak-kneed democratic leaders.

    October 26, 2007 03:53 pm at 3:53 pm |
1 2

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.