“I thought that was irresponsible and frankly naive,” Quad-City Times Hillary Clinton 7/24/07

“I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions, because we don’t really understand how Iran works. We think we do, from the outside, but I think that is misleading,” she said at an apple orchard. Hillary Clinton 10/11/07

Well you can’t say that New York’s Junior Senator Hillary Clinton isn’t open to other Ideas—after all she has probably had them all. In her latest flip-flop less than three months after bashing Barak Obama as naive for saying that he would negotiate with Iran, she decides that she too would engage the terrorist state:

take our poll - story continues below

Should Congress Remove Biden from Office?

  • Should Congress Remove Biden from Office?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Lid updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Clinton says she’d negotiate with Iran

By HOLLY RAMER, Associated Press

Hillary Rodham Clinton called Barack Obama naive when he said he’d meet with the leaders of Iran without precondition. Now she says she’d do the same thing, too. During a Democratic presidential debate in July, Obama said he would be willing to meet without precondition in the first year of his presidency with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. Standing with him on stage, Clinton said she would first send envoys to test the waters and called Obama’s position irresponsible and naive. But asked about it Thursday by a voter, the New York senator said twice that she, too, would negotiate with Iran “with no conditions.” “I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions, because we don’t really understand how Iran works. We think we do, from the outside, but I think that is misleading,” she said at an apple orchard. She characterized her recent vote to label Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization as a way to gain leverage for those negotiations. Obama and other rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination have been criticizing Clinton’s vote late last month in favor of the resolution, comparing it to her 2002 vote authorizing the war in Iraq.

Speaking about Iraq,below is an interesting article from Human Events detailing Hillary’s flip-flops on the Iraq war

Hillary Clinton’s Top 10 Positions on the Iraq War

1. Supported Resolution for the Use of Force in Iraq“I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20,000 people. . . .“Intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. . . .“It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East which, as we know all too well, affects American security. This much is undisputed. . . .“This is a difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make. Any vote that may lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction. Perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our Nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to ensure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and support for the President’s efforts to wage America’s war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. Thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them. . . . So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our Nation.”– Congressional Record, pp. S10288-10290, Oct. 10, 2002
2. Takes Responsibility for Vote on Use of Force Resolution, Says Vote Was Not a MistakeQUESTION: You’ve been critical of President Bush’s handling of the war. But you have not apologized for your vote to authorize that action.CLINTON: I regret the way the President used the authority that Congress gave him. I thought it made sense to get inspector back into Iraq, and backing it up with coercive diplomacy. I was worried that there were residual WMD and that Saddam could have done something quite irrational. . . . I take responsibility for my vote. I regret that we’ve had strategic blunders and misjudgments. . . .QUESION: Do you regret voting that way at the time?CLINTON: I regret the way he used it. I don’t believe in do-overs in life. I made the best judgment at the time. — 2006 New York Senate campaign debate, Oct. 22, 2006
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: But let’s begin with Iraq. It is the No. 1 issue in this campaign. . . . . Why wasn’t your vote a mistake? And why are you against the proposals … to bring the U.S. troops home right now by cutting off funding and only fund a small strategic force in Northern Iraq?CLINTON: You know, George, my vote was a sincere vote based on the facts and assurances that I had at the time. And I have taken responsibility for my vote, and I believe that none of us should get a free pass. It is up to the voters to judge what each of us has said and done. But I think the most important thing now is to focus on what we have to do together, particularly as Democrats, to try to force this President to change direction. And it will not be easy. But as you know, I have introduced legislation to stop the escalation, to protect our troops. . . . — AFSCME/ABC News Democratic primary debate, Feb. 21, 2007
3. Takes Responsibility for Vote on Use of Force Resolution, Says Vote Was a Mistake“I have said repeatedly that if I had known then what I know now I never would have voted to give the President authority. And in the last debate, I said that, you know, it was a mistake to trust George Bush that he would do what he told all of us he would do.” — Democratic CNN/New Hampshire Union Leader debate, June 3, 2007 4. This Is President Bush’s War, Not Hers (Even Though She Voted for It)“I think it’s important particularly to point out this is George Bush’s war. He is responsible for this war. He started the war. He mismanaged the war. He escalated the war. And he refuses to end the war.”
— Democratic CNN/New Hampshire Union Leader debate, June 3, 2007
5. Voted to Confirm Gen. David Petraeus, Architect of the Troop Surge in IraqSen. Clinton voted to confirm Gen. David Petraeus as commander of multinational forces in Iraq. The vote was unanimous. — Senate Roll Call Vote #33, Jan. 26, 2007
6. Wanted to Prohibit Use of More Troops for Surge“I introduced legislation called ‘Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act.’ Under it, we would begin re-deployment of our troops out of Iraq in 90 days. I have been pushing this plan for almost two years. The bill would fight the President’s escalation by capping the number of troops in Iraq. It would also prohibit sending more troops to escalate a failed strategy.” — MoveOn.org virtual town hall, April 10, 2007
“I want to go further. I propose capping the troop levels. I want to make it very clear that we need to threaten the Iraqi government; that we’re going to take money away from their troops, not our troops who still lack body armor and armored vehicles; that we’re going to send a clear message that we are finished with their empty promises and with this President’s blank check.” — Speech at Democratic National Committee winter meeting, Feb. 2, 2007
7. Rejected Idea of a Timetable for Withdrawing TroopsTIM RUSSERT: Then you would disagree with any call for immediate withdrawal of some troops or a specific timetable?CLINTON: Well, Tim, I understand the feelings behind that call. . . . But at this point in time, I think that would be a mistake. I don’t believe we should tie our hands or the hands of the new Iraqi government. Now obviously, as this government is stood up and takes responsibility, there may come a time when it decides for its own internal reasons that we should set such a deadline and withdrawal agenda. But right now I think it would be a mistake. We don’t want to send a signal to the insurgents, to the terrorists that we are going to be out of here at some, you know, date certain. I think that would be like a green light to go ahead and just bide your time. We want to send a message of solidarity. — NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Feb. 20, 2005
“I reject a rigid timetable that the terrorists can exploit.” — Kentucky Democratic Party fundraiser, Dec. 2, 2005
“I’ve taken a lot of heat from my friends who have said, ‘Please, just, you know, throw in the towel and say let’s get out by a date certain.’ I don’t think that’s responsible.” — ABC’s “Nightline,” Sept. 7, 2006
Voted “No” on Kerry amendment (SA 4442) “to require the redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq in order to further a political solution in Iraq” and would have required such redeployment to “[commence] in 2006” with the deadline of having “United States forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007.” — Senate Roll Call Vote #181, June 22, 2006
8. Advocated Immediate Troop Phase OutQUESTION: Give us a timetable for that phasing out.CLINTON: When we originally proposed it, we said that 2006 should be a year of transition. We’re running out of time in 2006. I think this needs to be done immediately. — 2006 New York Senate campaign debate, Oct. 20, 2006YOUTUBE QUESTION: The 2006 election gave the Democrats in office a mandate to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq. . . . I would like to know if the perception is true that the Democrats are putting politics before conscience. . . . Is the reason that we are still in Iraq … due to the Democrats’ fear that blame for the loss of the war will be placed on them by the Republican spin machine?CLINTON: Since the election of 2006, the Democrats have tried repeatedly to win Republican support for the simple proposition that we need to set a timeline to begin bringing our troops home now. — Democratic YouTube/CNN debate, July 23, 2007Voted “Yes” on S.J. Res. 9 to “direct the President to begin the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq within 120 days of enactment of this joint resolution with the goal of redeploying by March 31, 2008, all U.S. combat forces from Iraq, except for a limited number essential for protecting U.S. and coalition personnel and infrastructure, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations.” — Senate Roll Call Vote #75, March 15, 2007
“Hillary will begin immediate phased withdrawal with a definite timetable to bring our troops home.” — Campaign brochure passed out in New Hampshire, NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Sept. 23, 2007
9. Promises to End War if Bush Won’t “The 2006 election sent a strong message that we do not want our young men and women in uniform to be in the middle of a sectarian civil war where they don’t know who is shooting at them and they can’t figure out whose side they’re supposed to be on. . . . I hope that the President will extricate us from Iraq before he leaves office. But let me assure you, if he doesn’t, when I’m President, I will.”
— International Association of Fire Fighters bipartisan presidential forum, March 14, 2007
“I understand the frustration and the outrage. . . . If we in Congress don’t end this war before January 2009, as President, I will!” — Speech at Democratic National Committee winter meeting, Feb. 2, 2007
10. Will Not Commit to Having Troops out of Iraq by End of First TermGEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You have said that we are going to need a continuing presence in Iraq to do several – to complete several missions. So that does mean that there will be thousands of U.S. troops throughout your presidency if you win, isn’t that correct?CLINTON: Clearly withdrawing is dangerous. It has to be done responsibly, prudently, carefully, but we have said that there will be a likely continuing mission against al Qaeda in Iraq. We have to protect our civilian employees, our embassy that will be there. We also, if there is a continuing opportunity to really train and help stand up as they say the Iraqi army as Gen. Jones reported in his commission report, that may be a continuing commitment and I have long said we need to make sure we protect the Kurds, both from problems from the Arabs in Iraq and protect them from themselves when it comes to ending terrorism that might emanate from their territory, so I think that there are some limited missions but the numbers we’re talking about are very much smaller than what we have there.STEPHANOPOULOS: The estimates I’ve seen of those missions even those limited missions, you’re still talking about anywhere from 40,000 to 75,000 troops for many years.CLINTON: Well, I don’t think that’s accurate. I’m not going to be speculating about troop strength. I have said that the day I’m elected President I will be asking my secretary of defense, my national security advisers, the joint chiefs to brief me about what actually the state of planning is because we’re having some difficulty really understanding what they’re doing over in the Pentagon under the White House’s direction, and then we will begin to withdraw our troops. But it has to be done, as I said, in a responsible, careful manner. We don’t know what we’re going to inherit. STEPHANOPOULOS: Can you pledge that all U.S. troops will be home over the course of your first term as President? CLINTON: You know, I’m not going to get into hypotheticals and make pledges because I don’t know what I’m going to inherit. . . . Will we have pushed al Qaeda in Iraq out of their strongholds with our new partnership with some of the tribal sheikhs, or will they have regrouped and retrenched, I don’t know. And I think it’s, you know, not appropriate to be speculating. — ABC’s “This Week,” Sept. 23, 2007