Williams: Same question to Senator Clinton. What would be your red line?
Clinton: Well, first of all, we have to try diplomacy, and I see economic sanctions as part of diplomacy. We have used it with other very difficult situations -- like Libya, like North Korea. I think that what we're trying to do here is put pressure on the Bush administration. Joe is absolutely right. George Bush can do all of this without anybody. You know, that is the great tragedy and that's why we've got to rein him in, and that's why we need Republican support in the Congress to help us do so.
I invite all of our colleagues to pass something immediately that makes it very clear: He has no authority and we will not permit him to go take offensive action against Iran. But what we're trying to do is push forward on vigorous diplomacy. That has been lacking. I believe we should be engaged in diplomacy right now with the Iranians.
Everything should be on the table, not just their nuclear program. I've been advocating this for several years. I believe it strongly.
But I also think when you go to the table to negotiate with an adversarial regime, you need both carrots and sticks. The Revolutionary Guard is deeply involved in the commercial activities of Iran. Having those economic sanctions hanging over their heads gives our negotiators one of the set of sticks that we need to try to make progress in dealing with a very complicated situation.
Everybody agrees up here that President Bush has made a total mess out of the situation with Iran. What we're trying to do is to sort our way through to try to put diplomacy, with some carrots and some sticks, into the mix and get the president to begin to do that.
Here Hillary Clinton just stated why impeachment of Cheney and Bush should be pursued by saying, “he can do all this without anybody.” And why waste time passing any piece of legislation to show he has no authority to take action on Iran when members of Congress could just debate H.R. 333 and pursue impeachment? Successfully impeaching the president and vice president would or could successfully erase the idea of war with Iran occurring before the next president is elected.
As for economic sanctions, Hillary has supported a way for America to threaten Iran. We have told them we will run your economy into the ground, Iran, if you don’t do as we say. We have, instead of going into diplomatic relations having not antagonized or inflamed them yet, set up a situation where they will already resent our involvement in their decisions to have nuclear power or not. Giving that they have a reason to keep us from talking to them, how can we expect to prevent the rise of nuclear weapons if we have alienated Iran and continue to alienate Iran?
Williams: Respectfully, Senator, same question though: Do you have a threshold, a red line beyond which...
She doesn't do "hypotheticals" either! Quit wasting time!
Clinton: I want to start diplomacy. I -- you know, I am not going to speculate about when or if they get nuclear weapons.
We're trying to prevent them from getting so. We're not, in my view, rushing to war. We should not be doing that, but we shouldn't be doing nothing, and that means we should not let them acquire nuclear weapons. And the best way to prevent that is a full court press on the diplomatic front.
So, let me get this straight. We are “trying to prevent them” from getting nuclear weapons. We are not “rushing to war.” And in order to not rush to war, it is important to engage in diplomacy. That’s all fine, but what I have a tough time handling is the idea of letting over a year pass before we get into diplomatic relations with Iran. And, Hillary, you have not laid out a good measure to take to ensure that this “rush to war” does not occur.
Williams: I've noted all of our candidates want in on this.
Hmm...you weren’t going to ask everyone about how they would handle Iran?
Senator Edwards, you next.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
