Dem Candidates Blast Bush Over Iran

Clinton Draws Criticism From Rivals During Radio Debate In Wake Of Report On Iranian Nukes

(CBS/AP)  The Democratic presidential candidates stood together Tuesday in criticizing President Bush's assertion that "nothing's changed" despite a new intelligence report that says Iran has stopped its development of a nuclear bomb.

One month before Iowa's leadoff caucuses - in a debate broadcast only on radio - the presidential candidates stood together in welcoming the report's assessment and criticizing Mr. Bush's assertion that "nothing's changed" because of it.

They divided on the three-month-old Senate vote to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization - a resolution that only Hillary Rodham Clinton supported among the Democratic candidates. She said her vote was meant to encourage diplomacy, but several of her foes were having none of that and John Edwards said it sounded like war.

Broadcast on NPR, the debate was limited to three subjects: Iran, China and immigration. The Democrats, unlike the campaign's Republican contenders, proposed no drastic crackdown on illegal immigrants. On China, they said more should be done to put U.S. companies on equal footing with Chinese imports, but again they proposed no radical new remedies.

The candidates sat in front of large radio microphones at a V-shaped table at the Iowa State Historical Museum. With no audience to see them in person or via video, they dressed more casually than in previous debates. Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich was the only one to keep on his jacket and tie.

Their interaction with each other was relatively civil compared with the sniping between the campaigns of Clinton and rivals Barack Obama and Edwards in recent days.

Edwards did confront Clinton on her characterization of her September Iran vote.

"Declaring a military group sponsored by the state of Iran a terrorist organization, that's supposed to be diplomacy?" Edwards interjected. "This has to be considered in the context that Senator Clinton has said she agrees with George Bush terminology that we're in a global war on terror, then she voted to declare a military group in Iran a terrorist organization. What possible conclusion can you reach other than we are at war?"

Clinton objected. "You know I understand politics and I understand making outlandish political charges, but this really goes way too far," said the New York senator. She is locked in a tight three-way race with Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina, and Obama, a senator from Illinois, in this first-voting state.

"None of us is advocating a rush to war," Clinton said.

Joe Biden, a senator from Delaware who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, didn't let that pass, telling Clinton that "terminology matters."

"It's not about not advocating a rush to war," he said. "I'm advocating no war."

Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd said he and others voted against the resolution because they felt it "specifically eliminated any option except the military one."

"Those critical moments come periodically, but it demonstrates leadership on a critical issue such as this one," Dodd said. Obama missed the vote while campaigning in New Hampshire.

"Among the Democratic candidates," Edwards reminded listeners, "there's only one that voted for this resolution. And this is exactly what Bush and Cheney wanted."

Iowa is scheduled to hold the first presidential nominating contest during caucuses on Jan. 3. While Clinton is the clear front-runner in national polls, Iowa is a more heated contest and her Iranian vote has been an issue with the state's voters.

The seven candidates participating in the debate began by agreeing that the United States should shift its focus in dealing with Iran to diplomatic engagement.

"President Bush continues to not let facts get in the way of his ideology," said Obama. "They should have stopped the saber rattling, should have never started it. And they need, now, to aggressively move on the diplomatic front."

Clinton said it's clear that pressure on Iran has had an effect - a point disputed by Biden.

"With all due respect with anybody who thinks that pressure brought this about, let's get this straight. In 2003, they stopped their program," Biden said.

At a Tuesday morning press conference, Mr. Bush said the intelligence report supported his contention that Iran remains intent on developing a nuclear weapon at some point.

"I view this report as a warning signal that they had the program, they halted the program," Mr. Bush said. "The reason why it's a warning signal is they could restart it."

Fred Thompson, one of the Republicans running to succeed Mr. Bush, said Iran can easily shift back to working on a nuclear weapon, CBS News' John Bentley reports.

“One thing that crosses my mind is that this is information that the Iranians have put out," Thompson said. "They want us to relax a little bit. Nowadays, they can have a peaceful nuclear program, and it’s very, very easy to turn a screw or two and turn it into a weapons program.”

After moving away from Iran, the debate featured little disagreement between the presidential hopefuls. On China, none of the candidates was willing to raise import taxes to make higher-priced U.S. products more competitive with Chinese products. Edwards pledged that none of his children's Christmas toys would come from China.

"My toys are coming from Iowa," Dodd said, in an appeal to the race's first voters.

Edwards linked the concerns over China to overall U.S. trade policy, which he said has neglected American workers for over a decade - a subtle reference to former President Bill Clinton's support for the North American Free Trade Agreement.

"America, to be competitive over the long term, needs a trade policy that works, that looks out for the interests of the middle class, but it also needs to be the most creative, best educated, most innovative workforce on the planet," he said. "Those two things are not mutually exclusive."

Clinton and others used the China discussion to again criticize Mr. Bush, accusing the president of having a directionless policy.

"We've gotten neither the kind of smart enforcement nor the kind of cooperation that might lead to changes in behavior," she said. "Instead we have this erratic, incoherent policy. So I think it's important that as the next president, I would make it very clear what we expect from China and use every tool at our disposal to try to change its behavior."

The discussion of immigration was in sharp contrast to the Republican debate last week in which the GOP candidates tried to outmaneuver each other on who would be tougher on illegal immigrants. The Democratic candidates said they were not willing to encourage Americans to arrest illegal citizens - instead, they promoted border security and cracking down on employers who hire undocumented workers.

"The point is that we're not going to deputize a whole bunch of American citizens to start grabbing people or turning them in, in part because the ordinary American citizen may not know if this person is illegal or not," Obama said. "Now we should be holding employers accountable because they have a mechanism whereby they can actually enforce."

Kucinich agreed, saying, "We don't encourage vigilantism in this country."

Clinton said immigrants are part of the U.S. community and probably made the hotel beds that some of the candidates stayed in and attributed the tone of the immigration debate to a stagnating economy - while highlighting job growth during her husband's administration.

"I traveled this country extensively during the 1990s," she said. "I did not hear this kind of contentious debate. Why? Because we had 22.7 million new jobs. Peoples' incomes were rising. They felt like there was plenty of opportunity to go around. Now, Americans feel like they're standing on a trap."

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson missed the debate to attend a memorial service for a Korean War soldier whose remains he brought home from North Korea in April.

[samsel3]

Nothing has changed on Iran. The administrations interest in Iran & nukes is a smoke screen for their real agenda. Their true interests are Cheney''s energy policy.Condi rice is a former board member of chevron oil and mouthpiece for the administrations energy policy. Part of that policy is the The Caspian Sea pipeline which will go through Turkmenistan, Afghanistan,Pakistan,India & Nepal.It will be cheaper to construct if they can go through part of Iran, but regime change is necessary first. The Caspian sea area holds one third of the world''s oil and south asian oil markets are their target market. This pipeline was also the reason for the Afghanistan invasion. Cheney''s energy policy is the root of all these middle east wars, a federal court judge sealed all documents associated with it for the administration, and the national media are not allowed to discuss or comment on it. More troops are needed in Afghasnistan to protect the contractors building the pipeline. Iran stands in the way of total control of global oil with direct sales of oil to china and is now in the crosshairs. China said there would be dire consequences if the US interfered with there direct oil contracts with Iran. Both parties in the Congress should be very concerned with China''s growing war machine and need for oil. They are the real threat & the administration doesn''t care they are in control!!! All that matters to them is BIG OIL and their corporate stock portfolios

[neoconrcrazy]

Clinton voted on iran with Bushit - she voted with him in 2002 -

she''ll do anything to get elected.

she''s not kosher.

Vote for anyone but her.

[undermyboot]

Claiming the their won NIE is "wrong" is just typical neoofascist distortion. Like all of the other lies they tell, they cover up the truth of Iran''s dead "program" with more lies. They want WAR with IRAN and no truth will get in their way. These people are not "conservative". Far from it. They want a revolution in this country that puts them in perpetual power, and they are not above lying their way to it.

Like the NAZIs they emulate:

%u201CThat propaganda is good which leads to success, and that is bad which fails to achieve the desired result. It is not propaganda%u2019s task to be intelligent, its task is to lead to success.%u201D- Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister

The truth of their failures and lies about Iraq and Iran is inconvenient, and they need to cover up their ever-present mistakes. So whatever these fascists say and what ever their mimicking parrots on this board say, it is all a lie.

"...the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering, Nazi leader

[taotxzen]

CONNECT THE DOTS

From the Dem Debate yesterday:

SEN. BIDEN: No, I wanted to talk about this issue. (Iran)

As chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, I''m the only one at this table for the last four years who''ve been laying out concrete alternatives to the Bush administration''s policy. The vote %u2014 what everybody misunderstands, in my humble opinion, is the vote to declare the Qods Force and the (Iranian) Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization was not a view that could be established without question, number one.

Number two, it is self-defeating. The moment that declaration was made, oil prices jumped over $18 a barrel. The moment that declaration was made, every one of our friends, from Iraq to Pakistan, felt they had to distance themselves from us because it appears to be a war on Islam.

cont

[taotxzen]

Cont

Today%u2019s Headline:
OIL BREAKS $95 BARRIER FOR YET ANOTHER RECORD. Crude oil closed at another record price today, $95.24 per barrel. The latest move upward came on continuing insecurity around events in Iraq, Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan, as well as a decline in US inventories.

[infidel_us]

''Dem Candidates Blast Bush Over Iran''

Is Bush running in ''08? I thought his two terms were over. Do these losers have no policy or platform with which to run?

[realpatriot1]

userverify/mudrose,

I thought George & Bill weren''t on the ballot? Exactly what do you think should''ve been done to prevent Pakastan from developing a nuclear deterrent to match that of their Indian neighbors?

In case you haven''t noticed, Bush hasn''t stopped anyone from developing nukes either. We aren''t the dictator of the world who can tell other countries-"We have 2,500 nuclear weapons, we can''t promise not to attack you first, but we order you not to get any."

Clinton''s nuclear dealing with North Korea and lack of resolve with them would be a legitimate issue if Bubba we''re running again, and if his wife is the nominee it would be legitimate to ask her about it since she keeps touting her experience as a reason to vote for her. But she isn''t the nominee yet and George Bush is the President.

I have no problem giving Bush credit for Libya because they''ve allowed inspectors in and we know they''ve complied. We still don''t really know what''s going on in Iran or why and you make some dubious logical leaps between the capture of Sadaam & Libya and the invasion of Iraq and the apparent and yet undetermined timing of Iranian suspension.

[citizenusa-2009]

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history

[citizenusa-2009]

If anyone is still obtuse enough to still support Baby Bush, why read a brilliant iformative article written by Rolling Stone last year. (They also warned us in 1999..I listened, most did not). http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history

[mudrose-2009]

This is an election year positive for conservatives.

Iran froze its nuclear weapons program after the invasion of Iraq. Libya opened up to UN inspectors right after Sadam was captured. Bush got UN inspectors into North Korea.

On the other hand, Clinton gave free nucelar technology to North Korea who then re-sold it to Pakistan, and sat on his hands while Pakistan joined the nuclear club.

Vote for a Liberal in 2008 and watch Iran and Libya and North Korea resume their WMD programs.
Posted by userverify

Righteous!

[mudrose-2009]

IF BUSH PLANTED A TREE, THE DEMOCRATS WOULD BLAST HIM FOR ABUSING THE DIRT.

Posted by bizzzz

And it better be secular dirt, too. We don''t want any God fearing dirt. Not in our country.

[realpatriot1]

mudrose,

Last Wednesday? The White House is sending out mixed signals on that. They''re essentially saying that he comprehended the info last Wednesday but was briefed well prior to that.

The White House said he was waiting for confirmation. If they we''re given info that the program had stopped, shouldn''t they have cooled the rhetoric while "confirming"? And what did he know last Wednesday that was different than an initial report that they may have suspended the program in 2003?

He was willin gto go to war without confirming curveball but needed to somehow confirm this intel in order to silence the war drumbeats?

The most manaical part is that he''s still beating the drums. We should be working with other members of the international community to maintain an inspection program to monitor Iran but ther''s no justification for setting off WW3 over faulty flimsy intel. This is why preemptive war is nuts and why it isn''t the left that''s looney on this issue, it''s the right whose looney.

[bizzzz-2009]

WHY ARE THE DEM''S, AND ANYBODY ELSE FOR THAT MATTER, BLASTING BUSH OVER IRAN? BUSH HAS ADDRESSED SOLELY DIPLOMATICALLY, WE HAVEN"T CONFRONTED THEM MILITARILY. THEIR LEADER HAS REPEATEDLY SAID HE WANTS TO WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE MAP. IRAN DOES HAVE A COVERT NUCLEAR PROGRAM AND THEY ARE ENRICHING URANIUM.
THE REPORT STATES IRAN STOPPED THEIR WEAPONS PROGRAM AFTER WE INVADED IRAQ. WHAT HAS BUSH DONE WRONG REGARDING IRAN?

IF BUSH PLANTED A TREE, THE DEMOCRATS WOULD BLAST HIM FOR ABUSING THE DIRT.

[robertkjjj]

Let there be no mistake: this is a weak group of Democrats, and they are fighting among themselves so much that they will become even weaker. I have correctly predicted the nominees and the winners of the last 10 Presidential elections, and although predicting for 2008 is tough, I''m going to now predict the race for next year. For Republicans, I see Mitt Romney getting the nomination. He''s the best speaker, best debater, and most intelligent of the bunch. Rudy will burn out. Rudy has too many skeletons and a temper. Huckabee has too little name recognition and his last name is killing him; sounds too much like a hillbilly. Thompson is lazy and too slow. Ron Paul: you got to be kidding. For the Democrats, it''s more a process of elimination: Obama? Sorry, but there is simply no way mostly-conservative America will nominate a black man named Barack Obama; not seeing this happen at all. Edwards? Too wimpy and whiny; he looks and talks weak. All the others are not well known and have incredibly small numbers. Clinton looks like the one who will stay on top. For the 11/08 general election, it will be Romney vs. Clinton. Look for a brutal summer and fall next year of Hillary vs. Mitt. Because Hillary is a polarizing figure, and there are over 20 million Americans who have said they will not vote for her no matter what, I see Romney winning a very close one in the general election, with about 5-to-10 more electoral votes than Hillary. The next President will be Mitt Romney.

[mudrose-2009]

It''s deja vu all over again. The Bush Derangement Syndrome lefties are all out in full force. See, when Bush believed the Intel on Iraq he was lying. Now he disputes the Intel on Iran and well, surprise, surprise, he''''s lying. The new Intel now gave Iran the ability to start up its program with impunity. Suspension does not mean cessation. But the lefties have it all figured out. Wish you people would stop kissing George Soros''''s azz.

[mudrose-2009]

I think it''''s important for the public to know "what the President knew and when he knew it" for the sake of understanding what went on here.

realpatriot 1

Bush knew it last Wednesday. Not one minute before that. And again, suspension is not cessation. The Intel community renderes its "opinion" not any proof. So once burned twice shy on the Bush side and the dimnowits still stone him.

[realpatriot1]

muddie,

PART 2- One clarifying point. My concern about escalation isn''t just because Russia & China have interests in Iran.

I''ve read several speculative reports that if we we''re going to attack what we expected to be hardened bunkers or heavily fortified installations, we would need to use tactical nukes of our own. In other words, a nuclear preemptive strike based upon what''s now been admitted to be false intel. China would''ve gotten involved because their population would''ve been affected by the radiation being carried in the windstream.

These reports were hypothetical and Bush/Cheney didn''t follow through on the rhetoric, but there was and still is a concern that they still will, based upon past behavior and their public statements.

[realpatriot1]

muddie,

I agree with your point that suspension doesn''t mean cessation. The very nature of intelligence is that it''s almost always incomplete and inconclusive to some degree.

I think it''s important for the public to know "what the President knew and when he knew it" for the sake of understanding what went on here. The fact is that Bush has a consistent track record of being less than truthful and the old Reagan addage of "trust but verify" is appropriate here. Just substitute Clinton for Bush in your mind and you''ll see what I''m getting at, it doesn''t pay to put blind trust in any politician.

That''s not the primary issue for me though. Assuming that he has been truthful, his statements on Iraq & Iran and his actions with Iraq show a dangerous penchant for acting preemptively on unreliable intelligence.

In this case, a preemptive strike would''ve led to, at the very least, a Clinton Milk factory situation(only on a exponentially larger scale) and, at worst, an escalation with Russian & Chinese involvement. We would''ve been responsible for WW3 as much as Iran.

[pepperp1]

What the candidates and Speaker Pelosi needs to do is demand Reid and McConnell get over the bickering and correct this law before it hits an already struggling class of people, the loop hole of the hedge funds where they are only paying 15 percent should also be closed, these are errors is how the bill was crafted and not the intent of the code changes when written. The American People are not going to accept the finger pointing on this vote and step up and be Accountable stop the posturing put the people first over campaigning,

And Obama show up to vote this time.

%u2026%u2026%u2026%u2026Senate Democratic and Republican leaders, while agreeing that Congress must act immediately to stop the alternative minimum tax from hitting some 25 million taxpayers in 2007, up from 4 million in 2006, mutually rejected plans from the other side on how to proceed.
"We all know this is a pernicious tax, a stealth tax," Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont.,

[jowand]

Dont you get it already?
Repug, Southern Baaptaist types need a second coming,
to prove to everyone theive been right all along,
it doesnt matter that the space ship wont show up.
all they need is Armageddon at any price.
Posted by rokero0666 at 09:17 AM : Dec 05, 2007

You''re confused that''s the Iranians.