A Reality Check on Iran Policy and U.S. Campaign Politics
On November 1, 30 Democratic senators, led by Senator Jim Webb of Virginia, delivered a strong letter to President Bush in response to his increasingly bellicose language on Iran. The letter informs the president that he does not have the authority to take military action against Iran without prior, specific authorization from the Congress. This message follows up on the bill proposed by Senator Webb and co-sponsored by Senator Hillary Clinton requiring congressional authorization for the use of military force on Iran. Senator Clinton, in fact, first proposed that the administration could not act without a wholly new authorization in a floor speech on February 14.
The November 1 letter directly addresses the Kyl-Lieberman non-binding resolution, which declares a sense of the Senate that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, an autonomous force within the Iranian military structure, is a terrorist organization. The resolution also makes explicit that it is a diplomatic sanction, not in any way to be interpreted as a basis for military action. During the debate, Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois deleted reference to "military instrumentalities" and added: "Nothing in this Act should be construed as giving the president the authority to use military force against Iran."
Durbin explained, "I am opposed to military action in Iran. To say we need to pressure the Iranians to change their course in the Middle East and I want to do it by nonmilitary means, that's what my vote was all about.''
As those who voted for its final Durbin version, including Senator Clinton, have made clear, the resolution is an attempt to inject a diplomatic element into a situation fraught with potential danger. This measure is just one of the appropriate tools at our disposal, and there should be other diplomatic initiatives, as Senator Clinton has proposed: strengthening multilateral negotiations and opening direct bilateral relations with Iran. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has not adopted the comprehensive diplomatic approach proposed by Senator Clinton.
The November 1 letter reinforces the actual language of the Durbin amended version of Kyl-Lieberman, calls for broad diplomacy of the kind advocated by Senator Clinton and puts the Bush administration on notice that it has no authorization for the use of military force against Iran. The letter states that the Kyl-Lieberman resolution "should in no way be interpreted as a predicate for the use of military force in Iran. We stand ready to work with your administration to address the challenges presented by Iran in a manner that safeguards our security interests and promotes a regional diplomatic solution, but we wish to emphasize that offensive military action should not be taken against Iran without the express consent of Congress."
Given these facts, distorted criticism of those senators who voted for the Durbin version of Kyl-Lieberman, especially Senator Clinton, and refusal to sign the November 1 letter lacks merit on the substance.
Senator Barack Obama was absent when the vote on Kyl-Lieberman was taken, though that has not prevented him from criticizing colleagues who participated in the debate and voted for it. He has also opted not to sign the letter to the president. Since then, he has repeatedly argued for direct presidential talks with the Iranian leadership with no preconditions. Rather than reinforcing diplomatic options, his actions have the effect of eschewing diplomatic efforts to bring the Revolutionary Guard to heel, while placing all his bets for peaceful coexistence with Iran in the future on his own charisma and charm.
He has also made clear that for him the paramount enemy is George W. Bush, not an organization that has a history of involvement in terrorism and has been actively targeting American troops in Iraq.
As one who practiced diplomacy on behalf of our country for decades, including as the acting ambassador in Iraq during Desert Shield, where I personally confronted Saddam Hussein and his henchmen, Senator Obama's approach seems to me to misunderstand diplomacy. Needless to say, profound distrust of Bush and the administration is more than merited. I yield to nobody in my own efforts to bring their lies to public attention. But the Durbin version of Kyl-Lieberman and the November 1 letter are clear in drawing lines in not granting the Bush administration authority it does not have.
The administration has rightly been criticized for its refusal to use the broad array of tools at our disposal other than military action in the conduct of national security. War has been its first, second and final option -- its preferred option -- with disastrous results. Successful policy-making requires the use of complex diplomacy, carrots and sticks -- incentives, such as structured talks, and disincentives, such as sanctions against rogue elements. Coping with the Bush administration should not cause us to ignore at our peril very real adversaries that would do us harm. These clearly include Iran and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.
Senator Obama's criticism of the vote and refusal to join with his Democratic colleagues on the letter to the president appear to be based more on the politics than the substance. The entire Senate was notified a day beforehand about the vote on the Kyl-Lieberman resolution. If he truly had a sense of urgency on the issue he should have made a point of participating in the debate and voting, when he would have had the opportunity at the time to air his substantive disagreement with his home state colleague Senator Durbin, rather than waiting to raise the issue afterwards in a purely political context and using it as a campaign tactic.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"He has also made clear that for him the paramount enemy is George W. Bush, not an organization that has a history of involvement in terrorism and has been actively targeting American troops in Iraq."
WHAT?! This from Joe Wilson, whom I've held as a hero?? Let me ask you this, Ambassador: WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT IRAN IS "TARGETING AMERICAN TROOPS IN IRAQ"?? This sounds like Bush-shit to me. I have seen NO evidence this is occurring, and have heard from no other reliable source that it in fact has.
C'mon, Joe. If you have any evidence of this, point it out. Otherwise DON'T feed the right-wing lie machine. We are in deep shit as it is, and to quote Neil Young: "DON'T NEED NO MORE LIES"...
Folks, have you heard of the house resolution that expresses concern over Iran's activities in Latin America? Hmmm...ano
Here is the title:
Expressing concern relating to the threatening behavior of the Iranian regime and its leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the activities of terrorist organizations sponsored by that regime in Latin America.
Here is the link:
http://tho
Kiddy, Edwards is a populist phony, a slick operator. Obama is basically the real deal(brilliant, charming, likeable to electable, fresh and understands the world) but not enough experience. If Biden had gotten more traction I would be looking his way.
Hillary is playing the game. Sad to say no Democrat is going to win over all the idiots who will be voting if they speak plainly. Triangulating is how Bill won. Accept the terrible truth that Bush was elected twice and got the country behind him to invade Iraq and that Hillary needs a great many of those same voters.
Don't you really know where she stands on important issues? Don't you know she is a champion of smart diplomacy and restoring American credibility, shoring up the damaged UN ? That she truly wants health care reform?
That the environment and energy independence are critical to her?
We all know where she stands....
When are the Democrats going to learn that they and America will be better off once they decide to unify in a battle to challenge bush on everything, just for the sake of challenging bush. Every time Democrats break away and support the administration's crazy policies, they terribly weaken the Democratic Party, indeed the USA.
Thank you Amb. Wilson.
This is like the "gotcha question by " Dim Russert. I didn't know what she was talking about until I watched The McLaughlin Report on PBS Fri eve. Her " support" for Gov. Spitzer's NY licenses was taken from a transcript of an NH newspaper editorial bd meeting Sen Clinton had a few days earlier. Mclaughlin read the entire transcript. It was in the context of the larger issue of comprehensive immigration reform. She said it was very difficult and although it was not neccessarily the best solution, [a federal comprehensive immigration law was a better solution] she would support it.Eight other states did it. That's realy gotcha stuff. HRC is a strong person and will be a great president.
The depressingly stupid, counterproductive, and inane attacks on Hillary continue unabated.
I can't believe you fault a candidate because she's indecisive. I want a president that can think, not more of what we have now, which is another blockhead that's "sure of himself," and never gives us indecisive answers to questions because he's incapable of intelligent thought. Should we have gone to war in Afganistan or Iraq? What about immigration? Should a candidate be "sure" where he stands on important issues? Is that what you admire? I'm impressed when a candidate doesn't know, or doesn't know exactly, what to do. I want Hillary to have the opportunity to think over such developing issues as immigration, or an invasion of a sovreign nation, or unsettled tax issues, etc. If she has the time to do it, she ought to give more of what you, blindly, call "evasive" thought to these matters, not less. Concentrate on those numerous issues upon which Hillary has established answers, as a result of a lifetime of insight and experience. Instead you concentrate on those matters media and repubilcans can use against Hillary, when, in truth, a seeminlgy indescisive candidate offers us, ultimatley, the best options. Hillary will have the answers you want, on these difficult issues, after she's given them the thoughtful consideration they deserve.
Hillary is attacked on the grounds that she's using the "gender" card. She's not using the gender card, but she's extremely vulnerable to the charge that she's using it, so a Hillary-hating media use the anti-gender media card against her, and you fall into the trap. Isn't Giuliani using the 9/11 card? In fact, gender "is" an issue in this campaign. Haven't any of you snobs been paying attention to polls asking if this country is ready for a female president? Why is this question being asked? Aren't you aware that millions of Americans have been responding that they don't think we're ready for a woman president? Every candidate is playing a political "card," but Hillary is the one attacked for doing so.
The US should have reopened its embassy in Tehran many years ago. I applaud Hillary Clinton if that is what she is calling for at this time. We should remember that Iran offered to help the US to deal with Saddam Hussein without an invasion, if possible. This offer was foolishly spurned by the Bush administration, just as it is now spurning Iranian offers of help bringing stability to Iraq to facilitate withdrawal of American military forces without undue difficulty.
I am an admirer of Joseph Wilson's courage to stand up to the Bush administration, but his effort to give Senator Clinton a "free pass" falls short. Failing to mention the Edwards difference is pure politics on his part.
John Edwards is the only major candidate who will withdraw all combat troops from Iraq within ten months. He opposes the Congressional action that Hillary Clinton recently voted for that could be the first step toward military action against Iran. John Edwards believes there is no military solution to the chaos in Iraq. Instead, the Iraqi people must solve the problem politically by taking responsibility for their country. See for yourself: http://joh
John Edwards believes that the U.S. must show the Iraqis that we are serious about leaving by actually starting to leave. American intention must be demonstrated by immediately drawing down approximately 50,000 troops. A withdrawal of all combat troops within ten months would follow. John Edwards strongly supports the supplemental spending bill passed by both Houses of Congress and vetoed by President Bush that funds the troops with a timetable for withdrawal. He continues to call for Congress to respond to the President’s veto by sending back the same bill – and doing this as many times as it takes for the President to end the war. John Edwards believes it is of the utmost importance that we prevent Iran from possessing nuclear weapons. However, he opposes the designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a “terrorist organization,” which Hillary Clinton supported. As President, John Edwards would take aggressive steps to resolve this situation and to protect the United States and our allies. http://joh
no matter what is said, mr wilson, you and your wife are american heros - you stood up to an evil dictator (saddam hussein), and your stood up to an even more evil dictator (geo bush).
we are a lost and broken country now and it is sad that so many "americans" have followed the bush admin as they destroy all that we had until 7yrs ago!
Thank you both for exposing the lies to us - i read your opED when it was written and knew then that this admin was lying about WMDs and saddam! He surely didnt look like a threat when he was pulled from the spider-hole, and if he was so powerful he would have NEVER ended up there!
SIDEBAR(HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CURRENT TOPIC,BUT I'VE GOT SAY IT NOW.): UNTIL THE CHILDREN'S HEALTH CARE PROGRAM IS INSTITUTED, NO MEMBER OF CONGRESS SHOULD HAVE FREE MEDICAL CARE!! I MEAN IT!! LET'S ALL TELL THEM THAT!!!
HELL, THEY HAVE MONEY; THE KIDS BEING ADDRESSED AND THEIR FAMILIES DON'T. PLEASE, DON'T GIVE ME THAT BULL ABOUT COST WHEN BULLSHIT IRAQ IS COSTING US MANY TIMES MORE!!!!!
For some who for so long enjoyed the sympathy and support of the freedom loving Americans, and the illegal outing of his wife, Joe Wilson is truly a disappointment. I can appreciate his right to support whomever he chooses, and maybe even to publicly endorse one candidate over the other. But to become a hitman for HRC? Seems opportunistic and arrogant to me.
Stop funding the carry over into 2009. Bush wants us to be tied into another ten years of watchdog service in Iraq. Be a Patriot. Get our troops home as soon as possible, at least by this time next year. Let the Iraqi people have
their country without an occupying invader.
Ask them. They wil tell you "thanks and come back again someday as our guests ".
A president who blatently breaks the laws of our country without a care, will pay no attention to a letter; no matter how strongly it's worded.
When Joe Wilson writes, I read.
Unless congress and the courts challenge the unconstitutional presidential Directive NSPD/51
President Bush for the vaguest of reasons can seize control of all government from federal on down to city and tribal,suspend elections,go to war with anybody he wants to and will be a law unto himself like his friend and ally in Pakistan. Take a good look at what's happening over there it could very well be a sneak preveiw of what to come in this country.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
