Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

WaPo: Clinton's Iran Vote Prompts A Harsh Back-and-Forth

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-07-07 05:18 PM
Original message
WaPo: Clinton's Iran Vote Prompts A Harsh Back-and-Forth
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/10/07/clintons_iran_vote_prompts_a_h.html

Randall Rolph said he came to New Hampton, Iowa, on Sunday to see Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) with an open mind about whether to support her candidacy. After a tough exchange over Iran, he left saying he had ruled her out.

Rolph was one of several hundred people who turned out in this small town in northern Iowa for Clinton's appearance. When she called on him for a question, he pulled out a piece of paper and read a question about Iran.

Rolph asked Clinton to explain her Senate vote Wednesday for a resolution urging the Bush administration to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. Rolph interpreted that measure as giving Bush authority to use military action against the Iranians.

"Well, let me thank you for the question, but let me tell you that the premise of the question is wrong and I'll be happy to explain that to you," Clinton began.

She offered a detailed description of the resolution, which she said stressed robust diplomacy that could lead to imposing sanctions against Iran, and then pointedly said to Rolph that her view wasn't in "what you read to me, that somebody obviously sent to you."

"I take exception," Rolph interjected. "This is my own research."

more...

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/10/07/clintons_iran_vote_prompts_a_h.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
angstlessk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-07-07 05:21 PM
Response to Original message
1. 'Flawless' cannot describe her campign any longer,..that was a mistake
it raised the spector of her vote .. which some may not have paid attention to, which now will become a center stage issue for her!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-07-07 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
29. But Hillary was correct - the voter was incorrect - text of Resolution below
TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED:

SEC. 1535. SENSE OF SENATE ON IRAN.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:

(1) General David Petraeus, commander of the Multi-National Force Iraq, stated in testimony before a joint session of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives on September 10, 2007, that ``t is increasingly apparent to both coalition and Iraqi leaders that Iran, through the use of the Iranian Republican Guard Corps Qods Force, seeks to turn the Shi'a militia extremists into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests and fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq''.

(2) Ambassador Ryan Crocker, United States Ambassador to Iraq, stated in testimony before a joint session of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives on September 10, 2007, that ``Iran plays a harmful role in Iraq. While claiming to support Iraq in its transition, Iran has actively undermined it by providing lethal capabilities to the enemies of the Iraqi state''.

(3) The most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, published in August 2007, states that ``Iran has been intensifying aspects of its lethal support for select groups of Iraqi Shia militants, particularly the JAM , since at least the beginning of 2006. Explosively formed penetrator (EFP) attacks have risen dramatically''.

(4) The Report of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, released on September 6, 2007, states that ``he Commission concludes that the evidence of Iran's increasing activism in the southeastern part of the country, including Basra and Diyala provinces, is compelling. ..... It is an accepted fact that most of the sophisticated weapons being used to `defeat' our armor protection comes across the border from Iran with relative impunity''.

(5) General (Ret.) James Jones, chairman of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, stated in testimony before the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate on September 6, 2007, that ``e judge that the goings-on across the Iranian border in particular are of extreme severity and have the potential of at least delaying our efforts inside the country. Many of the arms and weapons that kill and maim our soldiers are coming from across the Iranian border''.

(6) General Petraeus said of Iranian support for extremist activity in Iraq on April 26, 2007, that ``e know that it goes as high as Suleimani, who is the head of the Qods Force. ..... We believe that he works directly for the supreme leader of the country''.

(7) Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, the president of Iran, stated on August 28, 2007, with respect to the United States presence in Iraq, that ``he political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly. Soon we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course we are prepared to fill the gap''.

(8) Ambassador Crocker testified to Congress, with respect to President Ahmedinejad's statement, on September 11, 2007, that ``he Iranian involvement in Iraq--its support for extremist militias, training, connections to Lebanese Hezbollah, provision of munitions that are used against our force as well as the Iraqis--are all, in my view, a pretty clear demonstration that Ahmedinejad means what he says, and is already trying to implement it to the best of his ability''.

(9) General Petraeus stated on September 12, 2007, with respect to evidence of the complicity of Iran in the murder of members of the Armed Forces of the United States in Iraq, that ``e evidence is very, very clear. We captured it when we captured Qais Khazali, the Lebanese Hezbollah deputy commander, and others, and it's in black and white. ..... We interrogated these individuals. We have on tape. ..... Qais Khazali himself. When asked, could you have done what you have done without Iranian support, he literally throws up his hands and laughs and says, of course not. ..... So they told us about the amounts of money that they have received. They told us about the training that they received. They told us about the ammunition and sophisticated weaponry and all of that that they received''.

(10) General Petraeus further stated on September 14, 2007, that ``hat we have got is evidence. This is not intelligence. This is evidence, off computers that we captured, documents and so forth. ..... In one case, a 22-page document that lays out the planning, reconnaissance, rehearsal, conduct, and aftermath of the operation conducted that resulted in the death of five of our soldiers in Karbala back in January''.

(11) The Department of Defense report to Congress entitled ``Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq'' and released on September 18, 2007, consistent with section 9010 of Public Law 109-289, states that ``here has been no decrease in Iranian training and funding of illegal Shi'a militias in Iraq that attack Iraqi and Coalition forces and civilians..... Tehran's support for these groups is one of the greatest impediments to progress on reconciliation''.

(12) The Department of Defense report further states, with respect to Iranian support for Shi'a extremist groups in Iraq, that ``ost of the explosives and ammunition used by these groups are provided by the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force..... For the period of June through the end of August, events are projected to rise by 39 percent over the period of March through May''.

(13) Since May 2007, Ambassador Crocker has held three rounds of talks in Baghdad on Iraq security with representatives of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

(14) Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress on September 10, 2007, with respect to these talks, stating that ``I laid out the concerns we had over Iranian activity that was damaging to Iraq's security, but found no readiness on Iranians' side at all to engage seriously on these issues. The impression I came with after a couple rounds is that the Iranians were interested simply in the appearance of discussions, of being seen to be at the table with the U.S. as an arbiter of Iraq's present and future, rather than actually doing serious business ..... Right now, I haven't seen any sign of earnest or seriousness on the Iranian side''.

(15) Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress on September 11, 2007, stating that ``e have seen nothing on the ground that would suggest that the Iranians are altering what they're doing in support of extremist elements that are going after our forces as well as the Iraqis''.

(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--

(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;

(2) that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;

(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 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

(6) that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-07-07 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #29
41. Correct ot incorrrect....the REAL WORLD Results:
Hillary joined sides with the Bush Republicans to increase hostility toward Iran and move us one step closer toward WAR!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #41
45. now that point is very true n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carrieyazel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-07-07 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #1
33. And she's still dealing with the spector of her Iraq vote.
Dumb move there, Hillary. This is the last thing you need. But keep on doing it. Its a good way for Democrats to realize what an awful nominee you'd be. The future of the Democratic Party is at stake. If we entrust it to her, we will pay a terrible price.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Benhurst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-07-07 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
2. Both Hillary's yea vote and Obama's failure to vote were disgraceful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daninthemoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-07-07 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Absolutely. Somehow they just don't get it. It's the war first, last, and
always. Why do our only "viable" choices not reject these wars with all their being? Why can't Kucinich be electable? Or is he electable, but we're being led to believe we don't have that choice? I wish these primaries would get started.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emilyg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-07-07 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #4
38. Not for me. Not one issue voter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daninthemoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-07-07 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #38
42. Is there something /anything more urgent?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-07-07 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #2
13. regarding comparative outrage -
Edited on Sun Oct-07-07 06:28 PM by AtomicKitten
I'm having a hard time squaring your assertion that Hillary's YES vote was on par with a nonvote. The measure passed 76-22; Obama's vote would have made ZERO difference and his campaign released this statement regarding the amendment:

"Senator Obama clearly recognizes the serious threat posed by Iran. However, he does not agree with the President that the best way to counter that threat is to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq, and he does not think that now is the time for saber-rattling towards Iran. In fact, he thinks that our large troop presence in Iraq has served to strengthen Iran - not weaken it. He believes that diplomacy and economic pressure, such as the divestment bill that he has proposed, is the right way to pressure the Iranian regime. Accordingly, he would have opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment had he been able to vote today."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-07-07 05:24 PM
Response to Original message
3. She just lost some Iowan voters because she just had to accuse him of being a plant.
She would've been fine otherwise, and it wouldn't be a news story now, but she went ahead and did it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emilyg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-07-07 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #3
35. Christ. She did not say that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inuca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-07-07 05:42 PM
Response to Original message
5. The story seems to have legs
there is a link to a NYT article that mentions it, also on the MSNBC site. Sorry, no links handy. But the WP is the only one so far to give an exact quote of what she said. I wonder whether she explained how labeling part of another country's army a terrorist organization helps diplomatic efforts with said country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-07-07 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. I'm glad it has legs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-07-07 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. The Des Moines Register also has a blog on it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-07-07 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Nice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-07-07 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #7
23. Here's the link
http://blogs.dmregister.com/?cat=56

However, if you read the post right below his 'story' (which really is just a repeat of the First Read and WaPo articles) he is not a fan of Clinton, so may be reveling in this slip of hers a little too much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-07-07 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
9. Anyone who disagrees with Queen Hillary in the future will be labeled a plant and dismissed.
Edited on Sun Oct-07-07 05:55 PM by Major Hogwash
She can't stand to deal with real people who can read the frickin' newspapers for themselves and come to their own conclusions, disagreeing with her royal highness!

She might as well discard the crown now, because it's coming off in the next few months anyway.

This must be butter?

Parkay!

She's not "the real deal", she's a margarine queen.

LoL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daninthemoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-07-07 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Careful, you'll call down the wrath of the du "gotta love hilary or your
just a sexist" police. I'm surprised they haven't jumped into this thread yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-07-07 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. I think they're busy in other threads.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-07-07 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #10
17. That's because they'd have a rough time questioning
the source, unlike some other threads I've seen on this very topic today. ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daninthemoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-07-07 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #17
26. Scared em off didja?
:toast: :headbang: :woohoo: :applause: :spray: :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carrieyazel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-07-07 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #9
39. All the more reason why this awful nominee will bring the Democratic Party down
next year. She's unlikable. She panders left and right. And she'll never win a national election. She's unelectable, and she cannot fix it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lostnotforgotten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-07-07 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
12. Just One More Reason To Never Support This War Monger And Bush Enabler
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Froward69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-07-07 06:09 PM
Response to Original message
14. eventually she will
have to answer some questions. over and over. calling someone out/gop does nothing but alienate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-07-07 06:11 PM
Response to Original message
15. Fianlly, the MSM is catching on about the Democratic grassroots don't want another WAR
Far, far too late. As usual.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-07-07 06:12 PM
Response to Original message
16. This is the third thread on the same topic
I don't think she helped herself with her attitude toward Mr. Rolph (certainly not with Mr. Rolph), but Iowans get testy when candidates get testy (just ask Howard Dean).

The scrutiny will be 20x - 50x more if Senator Cliniton is the nominee. I don't think sit down and shut up is going to work in the general election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-07-07 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. We need a candidate that is open with voters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-07-07 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. Do you have a link to that story about Dean? eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-07-07 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. Aw man, I knew somebody was going to ask for it...I'll go hunting around for it
Edited on Sun Oct-07-07 06:52 PM by Debi
I was at the event, that's why I knew it happened, the guy was a republican from Hawkeye, Iowa and had driven to Strawberry Point to see Dean. I'll be back with something, I swear! :hi:

On edit:

Here's a couple of links

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9403EFDD1530F931A25752C0A9629C8B63

<snip>

Later, Dr. Dean flashed his much-talked-about temper at a town-hall-style forum here in a sharp exchange with a 67-year-old retiree, Dale Ungerer. Mr. Ungerer, who said he was a registered Republican but had sometimes voted for Democrats, challenged Dr. Dean to ''please tone down the garbage, the mean-mouthing of tearing down your neighbor and being so pompous,'' questioning why the candidate spent so much time bashing President Bush.

Dr. Dean declared, ''George Bush is not my neighbor.'' As Mr. Ungerer, stood up, Dr. Dean said, ''You sit down. You've had your say, and now I'm going to have my say.''

''I love my neighbor, but I want that neighbor back in Crawford, Tex., where he belongs,'' Dr. Dean said. ''The president is always my president but the president is not my neighbor if he takes 500,000 kids off their health care benefits.''

<snip>

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/1/12/83739/7681

<snip>

Howard Dean rejected a voter's request to be more neighborly and stop "mean mouthing" President Bush, saying Sunday someone needs to stand up to the president.
Dale Ungerer, a retiree from Hawkeye, Iowa, lectured Dean for nearly three minutes near the end of a forum aimed at winning voters for Iowa's Jan. 19 caucuses.

<snip>


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-07-07 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. Thanks.
She's becoming more and more like Dean--just substitute the cackle for the scream.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-07-07 06:14 PM
Response to Original message
19. Why don't people like her? eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-07-07 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. But, but, but Hillarites over here say everyone loves her and
she is leading Obama by 90%!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-07-07 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love
Hillary and the Bomb.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emilyg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-07-07 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #19
36. I love her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gregorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-07-07 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
25. Now I want to hear why Wes Clark is giving her his support.
Edited on Sun Oct-07-07 06:25 PM by Gregorian
I voted for him. I trust him. Do we have to read the entire Iran vote wording? If I recall, it was nonbinding. But that was a message they sent. And it was far from resistive.

It's all going over my head. I don't want to read the Iran bill. I just know that war is the last place we want to go.


Edit- That's right. I now remember what nonbinding means. It was a vote. A real vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-07-07 07:20 PM
Response to Original message
28. "The New Hampton audience gave Clinton a round of applause.
Some said later that she was right to stand her ground."

The guy was completely misinformed about what that legislation was, and Clinton did a good job of pointing out his misconceptions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-07-07 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. Gotta hand it to you - nice try. But how do we know they weren't
applauding the man for asking the tough questions? 'Some said...' :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-07-07 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #28
32. Maybe the guy was an independent Dem in the middle of a hostile pro-Hillary crowd?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-07-07 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. Hostile? Say it ain't so!
:yoiks:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emilyg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-07-07 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #28
37. Thank you. Most of Du is misinformed, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carrieyazel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-07-07 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #28
40. Most of her audiences are already supporters or strongly leaning to her.
I wonder how this gentleman managed to get through the stringent pro-Hillary requirement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carrieyazel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-07-07 07:38 PM
Response to Original message
31. Hillary's detestable arrogance is coming to the fore, "what you read to me
that somebody obviously sent to you?" Words can't describe the insidiousness of that comment.
So, Senator Clinton, How about the constant pandering, and dodging of questions at each forum, that you OBVIOUSLY do because some clown consultant in Hillaryland suggests that you do it?

If we nominate Clinton, we do so at our own peril. She must be stopped, before we're stuck with her.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 07:41 AM
Response to Original message
43. Anti-Clinton WaPo/sters grasping at straws over this invented 'incident'
Edited on Mon Oct-08-07 07:43 AM by MethuenProgressive
Imaginary straws, at that. In all the other threads about this the usu sal people are crying that she called the guy a "plant".
In this thread we see:

She offered a detailed description of the resolution, which she said stressed robust diplomacy that could lead to imposing sanctions against Iran, and then pointedly said to Rolph that her view wasn't in "what you read to me, that somebody obviously sent to you."


Here we see that all those other starters of all those other threads were obviously sent misinformation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 07:58 AM
Response to Reply #43
44. Invented "incident"? Sounds like somebody is in denial.
Yesterday was NOT a good day for Hillary Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #44
46. She didn't say what 33 DU threads said she did.
And just because some posters on a website that never liked her continued to dislike her over a trumped up intentional misinterpretation doesn't mean 'she had a bad day,' :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC