Clinton, Edwards differ on the NIE

[marmar]

from The American Prospect's TAPPED blog:


CLINTON, EDWARDS ON IRAN.

Unlike Edwards, Clinton did not see fit to directly respond to today's National Intelligence Estimate questioning the existence of the much-hyped Iranian nuclear program. Instead, her campaign sent out a release from their "national security director":

Statement from Lee Feinstein,

Clinton Campaign National Security Director

“The new declassified key judgments of the Iran NIE expose the latest effort by the Bush administration to distort intelligence to pursue its ideological ends. The assessment of the NIE vindicates the policy Senator Clinton will pursue as President: vigorous American-led diplomacy, close international cooperation, and effective economic pressure, with the prospect of carefully calibrated incentives if Iran addresses our concerns. Neither saber rattling nor unconditional meetings with Ahmadinejad will stop Iran's nuclear ambitions. Senator Clinton has the strength and experience to conduct the kind of vigorous diplomacy needed to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.”

Now compare that with John Edwards' statement:

“The new National Intelligence Estimate shows that George Bush and Dick Cheney's rush to war with Iran is, in fact, a rush to war. The new NIE finds that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that Iran can be dissuaded from pursuing a nuclear weapon through diplomacy. This is exactly the reason that we must avoid radical steps like the Kyl-Lieberman bill declaring Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, which needlessly took us closer to war. And it’s why I have proposed that we pursue a comprehensive diplomatic approach instead.”

One of these statements communicates the primary conclusions of the NIE, which is that the Iranian nuclear program has been dormant since 2003. The other doesn't say anything of the kind, and instead emphasizes the "vigorous diplomacy needed to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons" and "Iran's nuclear ambitions." One, in other words, uses the report to ratchet down tensions on Iran, the other uses it as an excuse to look tough. This is, to say the very least, a disappointing performance from the Clinton campaign. This country does not need a Democratic candidate dedicated to hyping threats to in order to score political points or imply their ceaseless willingness to take the country to war.

--Ezra Klein

Posted by Ezra Klein on December 4, 2007 1:00 AM

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=12&year=2007&base_name=clinton_edwards_on_iran

[surfermaw]

1. Run John Run

[Tejanocrat]

2. I think he's already running!

[Clintonista2]

3. from his senate record?

[Tellurian]

4. Didn't he bury it under his new ceeement pool with his Hedge Fund fees?

[Beaverhausen]

5. no comment about what your candidate said? Why are you a hater?

care to defend your candidate?

[creeksneakers2]

6. A typical slimy response by Edwards

Edwards hides from the truth that he earlier believed as much as the rest of them that Iran might build nukes. Edwards was asked repeatedly at the debate today about statements he made before an Israeli audience about the threat of Iranian nukes. Rather than answering the question or contributing anything positive to the debate, Edwards used the opportunity to bash Hillary with already debunked smears.

George Bush did not use Kyl-Lieberman to take us to war and he's never going to. Edwards was wrong about that just like everything else. I hope he sees reality soon and drops out before he does any further damage to himself and the Democratic Party.

[Cameron27]

7. Here ya go:

“Since September, and as White House hints of military action against Iran intensify, the Edwards campaign has changed a key passage in its website's discussion of Iran.

As of September 7, the passage read:

Iran’s Revolutionary Guard will soon be deemed a terrorist organization by the U.S. As president, Edwards will ensure that such steps are not just more rhetoric, but actually lead to results.

The passage now reads:

Congress recently passed a bill to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. We saw in Iraq where such steps by Congress can lead President Bush. Edwards has announced his opposition to this bill.

"The rest of the text of the 2,000-word foreign policy page is unchanged. And while this is obviously an update to keep pace with the news, the first version lacks any condemnation of the planned terrorist designation."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1107/A_change_on_Iran.html

[tom_paine]

10. "George Bush did not use Kyl-Lieberman to take us to war and he's never going to."

:wtf: :wtf:

Did I hear correctly?!? Did you really just say that?

The NIE Report maybe...MAYBE derailed Iran attack plans (somehow I don't think so, Bushies don't usually let themselves be stopped...if one avenue is closed, they try another), and you can say that in the face of the last three months of overhyped Iran rhetoric that nearly identically matched the Iraq rhetoric in late 2002/early 2003.

Wow.

:rofl:

Hey, I was just thinking, since Dubya would NEVER rush us to war based on lies...I have a bridge to sell you.

It's a lovely bridge, hardly been driven on, connecting two sleepy municipalities, so that your maintenance costs would be very low.

Here's a photo of my bridge, which I am willing to sell you for bargain basement prices.



Please contact my realtor so we can arrange sale details and verify your aibility to pay the loan.

:rofl: :rofl:

[creeksneakers2]

11. I'll buy your bridge

the day George Bush invades Iran.

[Life Long Dem]

8. "vigorous diplomacy"?

Before 2003?

[Cha]

9. That's right..I forgot it

was the vile kyl-lieman bill.

THis is business as fooking usual for the h campaign..

" One of these statements communicates the primary conclusions of the NIE, which is that the Iranian nuclear program has been dormant since 2003. The other doesn't say anything of the kind, and instead emphasizes the "vigorous diplomacy needed to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons" and "Iran's nuclear ambitions." One, in other words, uses the report to ratchet down tensions on Iran, the other uses it as an excuse to look tough. This is, to say the very least, a disappointing performance from the Clinton campaign. This country does not need a Democratic candidate dedicated to hyping threats to in order to score political points or imply their ceaseless willingness to take the country to war."

--Ezra Klein