Joe Wilson has penned an interesting essay at Huffington Post defending Hillary Clinton's complex stand on Iran and challenging Obama with some soft gloves.
In one section of the piece, Wilson writes:
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.
I have a few reactions.
First and foremost, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Richard Durbin, James Webb, and the rest would do the country a great favor by actually 'passing' the Webb-introduced legislation barring monies spent on military action against Iran without explicit Senate consent. A resolution that languishes in the Senate that has Hillary's co-sponsorship but that has not benefited from her ascending political weight does not change the political facts as they are now.
Joe Wilson is correct to note that Hillary Clinton, Durbin, and others have made statements that their support of Kyl-Lieberman do not, in their parochial view, authorize the Bush administration to take military action against Iran.
However, that's not the point. The problem is that the Bush administration exploits opportunities that the Congress gives. The administration manipulates, obfuscates, distorts, seduces, and deceives when it comes to rationalizing controversial actions it wants to take. If the Bush adminstration does bomb Iran, it won't be much help that Durbin and Clinton will hit the airwaves then to accuse the administration of foul play.
Thirty signatories on a letter to Bush are not enough. The Dems control the Senate and the House. It is time that they won something big in the national security sphere. Senator Hagel is a good trade-off with the war-hugging Joe Lieberman. Make a statement of Senate intent with a majority.
Lastly, I think Hillary Clinton is sincere in her view that designating the IRGC a terrorist entity helps diplomacy. I disagree -- but I get her point. She needs to know that the IRGC, however, is not a small entity within the Iranian military. It essentially is Iran's military -- the former veneer of which is inconsequential today in military or security matters as the IRGC has hollowed Iran's army out.
But while I can agree to disagree with Clinton's intent on the IRGC, I'm surprised that she doesn't see the imbalance in her actions. She tends to always tilt towards the military edge of diplomacy, the get-tough edge.
Why not draft a resolution that suggests the outline of what the Iranians suggested to us in 2003 -- which was recently profiled in Esquire Magazine's profile of Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann? Why not draft a resolution promising an end to regime change policies if Iran took some some kind of constructive steps. Why not draft letters and resolutions that show the Iranian people some constructive face and an outreached hand if they move their government forward -- rather than relying on tactics that primarily bully and humiliate?
Hillary Clinton is looking more and more like the Democratic nominee -- and it is important that she think this imbalance through. It's not enough to rest on either a Kyl-Lieberman vote or a withering Webb resolution. She has a huge Senate staff and campaign staff that should be drafting the legislative outlines for a bigger picture approach -- if in fact it is the full spectrum of diplomacy with that she really supports.
I hope (and sort of think) she does.
-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note
You say that the dems have control of the Senate...we all know and have seen where that control has got us. So, do you really believe there is a legitimate control to get what you ask?
C'mon!
The world has changed since the 80s. We can't have these neanderthals, who think US bullying is the answer to every diplomatic challenge, leading us into yet another fiasco like Iraq.
The government of Iran has never attacked us. Yes, way back, decades ago, when we were interfering in Iran's affairs, some members of the IRGC attacked Americans. That was the lame excuse that Joe Wilson gave recently for HIllary's vote. I jumped out of my seat when I heard him say that - that kind of backward-looking thinking is exactly the problem!
The fact is that the Iranians have as much right to be in Iraq as we do - none. Labelling them terrorists as a "sanction against a rogue element" is ineffective at best and provacative at worst.
Can these people not see that the Middle East does not belong to us? And that it is not our job to police an unwilling world? Ron Paul is right.
We need a new approach to foreign policy, and we sure as hell won't be getting it from "Clinton's people."
Exactly why does Hillary Clinton think it is her place to tell Iran what to do? Iran has a history of over 4000 years? Hillary Clinton has been a business and real estate lawyer, and a political wife, for most of her adult life, and has spent 7 years in the Senate? That's her expertise?
The U.S. and its ally Britain have stolen from Iran, attacked, invaded, occupied Iran, fomented coups in Iran, armed and financed Iraq in a ten year war against Iran which killed 1.0 million Iranians. So who's the terrorist? It sounds like we're the terrorists, we're the ones who keep attacking Iran, stealing their oil, killing their people.
Where does this come from? Who decided, and when, that the U.S. needs to nuke Iran, or attack them, or change them? Isn't this just part of the PNAC plan? Of Israel's A Clean Break? The whole thing is created, manufactured, promoted by a small group of neocons. So why should any Democrat, or any honest person or decent person support having our country start even more wars? Leave Iran alone.
And why don't the politicians use their platform to educate people about the truth? Why don't they speak honestly about the west's ongoing assault against Iran, the lies, the real reason Iran's religious groups took over? Talk about the Shah, our puppet, and his private police force Savak that imprisoned, tortured and murdered the Iranian people, the Savak that was trained in these techniques by the CIA and by Mossad. Let's get a little truthful and stop beating the drums for war.
(1) be truthful and say "I was wrong (again) on a crucial matter of war and peace", and lose the election.
(2) be nonsensical and say "these people are terrorists but we shouldn't touch them anyway", and lose the election.
(3) be a neocon and say "hurray, another war!", and lose the election.
In short, thanks to Kyl-Lieberman, Bush can dissuade Democrats from voting while rallying the Republican base, simply by attacking Iran which he wants to do anyway.
Never have I seen a candidate walk so openeyed into such an obvious trap set by such obviously evil people.
You know, the kind that shows a candidate staking out one position for the benefit of primary voters, only to be contrasted by the same candidate staking out a contradictory position designed to appeal to the general electorate...
It's really a damned if you do or if you don't proposition and sadly, it's what substitutes for serious discussion about serious issues, but here's the truth - it works.
Perhaps Hillary is running a risk by looking forward a bit too far into the general election and alienating some primary voters now...
but wouldn't be an interesting change for a Democratic nominee to arrive at that point in the general election and NOT be smeared with gotcha flip-flop ads which easily could have been avoided?
There is much we think we already know about "the Clintons", but Hillary is a new kind of candidate...and she is VERY smart. While she isn't my first choice, from a political standpoint, her campaign is the most interesting to watch.