Taylor Marsh – TaylorMarsh.com – News, Opinion and Weblog on Progressive Politics

(A lot happened while I was at the vet taking care of my sick cat, Rasha. So let’s get to it…)

The AP headline
goes like this: Clinton Says She’d Negotiate With Iran.

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” … ..

Now Obama
and Edwards are accusing Clinton of flip flopping. So did
Hillary Clinton flip flop on Iran last night? Here’s
the video, via Ben
Smith.

You have to backtrack to the CNN YouTube debate to get the full story. The candidates were asked the following question, which you can see in
the video above: “… would you be willing to meet separately, without
precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or
anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea,
in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?”

Obama
answered it like this:

I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous. Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.

Clinton
answered it like this:

Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are. I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don’t want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration. And I will purse very vigorous diplomacy.

Edwards answered it
like this:

Yes, and I think actually Senator Clinton’s right though. Before that meeting takes place, we need to do the work, the diplomacy, to make sure that that meeting’s not going to be used for propaganda purposes, will not be used to just beat down the United States of America in the world community.

Clinton’s statement last night has her opponents in full attack mode. Greg
Sargent has a classic take down illustrating that not even Fox “News”
is buying the analysis the AP is reporting. In fact, in an update Sargent
points to a new version of the AP story, with Howard Wolfson offering the crux and the context.

“Senator Clinton has repeatedly and consistently called for negotiations between the United States and Iran aimed at ensuring that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons. Senator Clinton repeated that point at an event in New Hampshire. “Senator Clinton did not say that the U.S. President should pre-commit to meetings with the leaders of Iran or other rogue states during the first year of her presidency. Rather, Senator Clinton was clearly referring to diplomacy between nations as she has repeatedly and consistently done for months. “When Senator Clinton used the term ‘no conditions,’ she was referring to meetings between the United States government and Iran, not personal meetings with the President. She was striking a contrast with President Bush who has refused to allow the U.S. government to talk to Iran about its nuclear weapons program. Senator Clinton has repeatedly said throughout this campaign that she would re-engage the world diplomatically and end the cowboy approach to diplomacy that has been used by the Bush administration.”

So when Clinton talked about negotiating with Iran with “no conditions”
last night, is that a flip flop from what she said earlier? Not being willing
to sit down with Ahmadinejad in your first year as president, while saying you’d
definitely negotiate with Iran without conditions seem like perfectly reasonable
statements that go together and don’t conflict.

Obama
thinks it’s a flip flop.

“A couple of months ago, Sen. Clinton called me ‘naive and irresponsible’ for taking this position, and said that we could lose propaganda battles if we met with leaders we didn’t like,” Obama said in Des Moines. … .. “Just yesterday, though, she called for diplomacy with Iran without preconditions,” he said. “So I’m not sure if any of us knows exactly where she stands on this.”

Edwards
does too.

“Senator Clinton needs to be honest with the American people about her plans – but on everything from Iran to Iraq to Social Security, it seems she’s trying to have it both ways. In July, she criticized those who said they would meet with the leaders of Iran for negotiations without preconditions, calling them ‘irresponsible’ and ‘naïve.’ But yesterday, she told New Hampshire voters she’d do just that – negotiate with Iran ‘with no conditions.’ Now, her spokesman suggests that’s not what she meant. But you can’t have it both ways – on this or any other issue. “It is very disappointing that Senator Clinton seems determined to hedge her responses on the issues that matter most to the American people. After six years of the Bush Administration’s disastrous foreign policy, the stakes in this election are too high. The American people deserve a president who will tell them the truth and offer straight answers, not flip-flops and political double-speak.”

One thing is clear. Obama and Edwards have unleashed the dogs of rhetorical
war. It would help if they were right.

No tags for this post.