I'm asking for some clarification on your stance with diplomatic talks with Iran. You need to clarify what you mean by the statements you made in last nights debate, that don't wash with what you've said in the past. You know, the comment you made concerning Obama's willingness to talk with the leaders of rouge nations...remember...you called him naive and irresponsible?
You have not explained with an ounce of adequancy about how your planned "diplomatic efforts" with Iranian leaders would develop results.
It appears you're talking out of both sides of your mouth and I'd like for you to have the opportunity to square this way.
Over the bridge...
Clinton said in the last night's debate:"I will also begin an intensive diplomatic effort, both within the region and internationally, to begin to try to get other countries to understand the stakes that we all face when it comes to the future of Iraq."
My question: Intensive diplomatic efforts but not direct talks with Iran's leaders? WOW, I can't wait to hear how you're going to accomplish THAT!
She goes on to explain her stance on dealing with Iran specifically:
SENATOR CLINTON: Well, in fact, George, I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course, I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.
My question: How will you make this so emphatically clear if you refuse to dicuss it with Iran's leaders? Dropping leaflets from the sky?
You know, we are at a very dangerous point with Iran. The Bush policy has failed. Iran has not been deterred. They continue to try to not only obtain the fissile material for nuclear weapons but they are intent upon and using their efforts to intimidate the region and to have their way when it comes to the support of terrorism in Lebanon and elsewhere. And I think that this is an opportunity, with skillful diplomacy, for the United States to go to the region and enlist the region in a security agreement vis-a-vis Iran. It would give us three tools we don't now have.
My questions: How do you enlist Iran without talking directly to the leaders? How skillful will you need to be to not talk with Iranian leaders and yet still communicate this important point?
Number one, we've got to begin diplomatic engagement with Iran, and we want the region and the world to understand how serious we are about it. And I would begin those discussions at a low level. I certainly would not meet with Ahmadinejad, because even again today he made light of 9/11 and said he's not even sure it happened and that people actually died. He's not someone who would have an opportunity to meet with me in the White House. But I would have a diplomatic process that would engage him.
My questions: How do you engage Ahmadinejad in diplomatic talks without talking to him? You suggest you would BEGIN those talks at a low-level...where will the talks end...at a higher level? Ahmadinejad perhaps? If you wouldn't be willing to meet him at the White House, how about a steakhouse up the street? How far do you plan on getting with Iran when you start off with low-level officials who do not have the power to help you? Could you clarify for us where your diplomatic talks would end?