Clinton’s Statement on Kyl-Lieberman

-

clinton lieberman.jpg
Tonight, I received Hillary Clinton‘s formal statement explaining her vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Iran Resolution — and her assertion that this did not amount to Congressional authorization for actions against Iran.
Clinton stated:

“Earlier today, I voted for a non-binding resolution that designates the Iranian Revolution Guard as a terrorist organization. The Revolutionary Guards are deeply involved in Iran’s nuclear program and have substantial links with Hezbollah.
“I voted for this resolution in order to apply greater diplomatic pressure on Iran. This resolution in no way authorizes or sanctions military action against Iran and instead seeks to end the Bush Administration’s diplomatic inaction in the region.
“Iran has gained expanded influence in Iraq and the region as a result of the Bush Administration’s polices which have also rejected diplomacy as a tool for addressing Iranian ambitions. While the United States has spurned talks, Iran has enhanced its nuclear enrichment capabilities, armed Iraqi Shiite militias, funneled arms to Hezbollah and subsidized Hamas, even as the government continues to damage its own citizens by mismanaging the economy and increasing political and social repression.
“I continue to support and advocate for a policy of entering into talks with Iran, because robust diplomacy is a prerequisite to achieving our aims.
“This legislation reaffirms my policy of engagement and refers specifically to the statement of Defense Secretary Gates who said that “diplomatic and economic means” are “by far the preferable approach” for dealing with the threat posed by Iran.
“In February, after troubling reports about the possibility of military action against Iran, I took to the Senate Floor to warn that President Bush needs Congressional Authorization before attacking Iran. Specifically, I said it would be a mistake of historical proportion if the Administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further and explicit Congressional authorization. Nor should the President think that the 2001 resolution authorizing force after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, in any way, authorizes force against Iran. If the Administration believes that any use of force against Iran is necessary, the President must come to Congress to seek that authority.
“Nothing in this resolution changes that.”

If all parties were above board, this statement could calm some nerves, but the problem with the current administration is the duplicity and overreach of the Executive Branch. Bush’s team concocted the anti-democratic notion of the “unitary executive” and has been disdainful of Congress’ constitutionally specified authorities and responsibilities.
This administration has stretched the authorizations Congress has given it in the past — and assembled rationalizations for action, like abandoning the Geneva Conventions, while Cheney staffers like David Addington stated “[Congress] doesn’t have a vote” in what the administration was doing.
So, even if one takes Hillary Clinton’s assertion at her word that she was not giving permission for the Kyl-Lieberman Resolution to be twisted into Congressional authorization for an Iran War, it doesn’t mean that other Senators saw it that way — and certainly doesn’t mean that the administration won’t spin the Resolution in that direction.
What is needed from Senator Clinton now is leadership in passing an explicit Senate resolution forbidding Bush from taking action against Iran without clear advise and consent from Congress — a Resolution that would move the President’s actions into the light instead of the murkiness where the possibility of an Iran action now rests.
That kind of resolution is needed. Some have been kicking around the Congress — but if Hillary Clinton, right now the front runner to be the next President of the United States — adopted this effort as her own, many would come to have greater trust in the kinds of rationales she provided in her statement above.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

36 comments on “Clinton’s Statement on Kyl-Lieberman

  1. Calvin says:

    Can anyone tell me where Virgil Cain is from?

    Reply

  2. Kathleen says:

    Just found this piece… my sentiments exactly. If you scroll thru the comments, there’s a link to TWN.
    Fool Me Twice
    Posted by Patrick Foy on September 30, 2007
    Hillary Clinton’s unsatisfactory explanation why she voted for Wolfowitz’s War is worth revisiting. “Operation Iraqi Freedom” must be an embarrassment to her and to all the other establishment politicos who “authorized” the war. As it is, she blames Bush and Cheney for mismanagement. For the Democrats, Bush has become a wonderful punching bag and a gift from the gods. Like John Kerry in 2004, Hillary has complained for years about “the way” the war has been prosecuted, but not about the real issue, which is “What are we doing there in the first place?” She avoids that issue. She does not disavow her October 2002 vote authorizing the White House to go to war, even though no WMD turned up in Iraq afterwards and the U.S was in no conceivable danger. This blunder is ultimately going to cost the American taxpayers in the neighborhood of $2 trillion.
    Senator Clinton does not admit that she was fooled by Bush and Cheney and their “neocon” jackals. Hillary has come up with the novel idea to the effect that she was not actually voting for war at all. Rather, she was voting to send the UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq and to give Bush the authority to use force as leverage to get Saddam to do the right thing, that is, disarm and come clean. But guess what? Saddam had come clean and Iraq had disarmed. And then Bush went crazy and misused the Senate authorization. Hillary says that if she knew in October 2002 what she knows now, she would have voted differently. That is her story. That is how gullible she regards the vast majority of the American people. She is correct when it comes to gullibility. Her successful career in politics and her husband’s comeback from impeachment prove it beyond a doubt.
    It was known that Saddam had disarmed long before 9/11. The entire pretext for the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a gigantic, well-orchestrated, international fraud. Therefore, you might think that Hillary was fooled, along with so many others. You might think that she would not want to be fooled twice by the same duplicitous cast of characters in charge at the White House. And perhaps she may have learned from her mistake, even though she does not call it a mistake. But if so, then how does one explain her vote on a Senate resolution last Wednesday, which resolution provides Cheney and Bush with a short-cut to war against Iran? I am referring to the (John) Kyl-(Joe) Lieberman amendment, the original draft of which was prepared by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. It passed the Senate last Wednesday by a 76-22 vote, with both Hillary and Senate Leader Harry Reid voting in favor. Senator Jim Webb of Virginia, Secretary of the Navy under Reagan, called the AIPAC draft “Dick CheneyÂ’s fondest pipe dream…” which “could be read as tantamount to a declaration of war.”
    Does Hillary know what she is doing? Does Hillary want to bomb Iran? Does she buy the propaganda that Iran is engaged in a nuclear weapons program, as distinct from a nuclear energy program, just because Cheney and Bush say so? At this point, who could possibly take at face value what they say about anything? If Hillary actually believes their bunkum, then she does indeed want to start a new war. In fact, she has said so, as have most other presidential contenders. “All options on the table” is a code meaning that Bush can go to war against Iran without specific Congressional authorization. If Bush pulls the trigger on Iran, and it turns into another fiasco like Iraq, how is Hillary going to spin her vote on Kyl-Lieberman? Is she going to backpedal a second time? Frankly, I doubt that she cares about future explanations or has considered the adverse consequences of her vote as it relates to bringing more carnage to the Middle East. Why should she, if she can get what she wants in the near term? There is always an election around the corner here in America. Hillary is running for President. Every move she makes centers upon that goal.
    Not for a nanosecond do I accept the notion that Hillary Clinton has been fooled, either five years ago or just the other day. She knew in October 2002 that she was voting for Bush to invade Iraq. So did the Democratic Party leadership. They all went to war arm in arm. Hillary gave the impression at the time that she was proud to be part of the process. And she knows perfectly well what her vote for the AIPAC-inspired Kyl-Lieberman amendment means today. She and Senator Harry Reid have voted to allow Cheney and Bush to do whatever they please with respect to “preemptive” military operations against Iran. In October 2002 they voted the same way with respect to Iraq. You are watching a rerun.
    Why would the Democrat-controlled Senate vote to go down the same dead end street a second time? Ex-CIA analyst Kathy Christison and her husband Bill, who was a senior official at the Agency, may have the answer. They have studied the controversial book by Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, whereas I have only read the London Review of Books article, upon which the new book is based. The Christisons point out that M & W nail the Israel Lobby with a prime responsibility for the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. “The two authors devote more than 30 pages and a remarkable 175 footnotes to constructing an irrefutable case for an Israeli role in helping plan, and a large lobby role in pressing for, the war…. Israel and the lobby ‘played crucial roles in making that war happen.Â’ Without the lobby and particularly the core of neocon policy-makers inside government and neocon commentators and think-tank analysts on the sidelines, Mearsheimer and Walt conclude bluntly, ‘the war would almost certainly not have occurredÂ’ and ‘America would probably not be in Iraq today.’”
    In short, when it comes to the Middle East, domestic politics rule. Oil and “the spread of democracy” are secondary factors. This is one of the main contentions of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. It is all the explanation you need to understand Hillary’s vote to invade Iraq five years ago as well as her vote last week to enable a war against Iran. She was not fooled by Bush in 2002, any more than she is being fooled by Joe Lieberman today. There is no need for these politicians to fool one another, because they are perfectly aware what is going on and what they are doing. Hillary is a professional, Washington politician. She requires money, good will, and votes. Like her husband, Hillary’s actions are coldly calculated, often triangulated, and always self-serving. Everything is a career move. In their defense, one can only observe that Hillary and Bubba have plenty of company.
    Comments
    Israel isnÂ’t worth one drop of American blood or one American dollar.I saw evil old Podhoretz on C-SPAN today flogging more mass murder in Iran.Will this never end.AIPAC, ADL, the American Jewish Congress and other zionist organizations are the axis of evil.
    Posted by jack on Oct 01, 2007.
    A fine article. (It saddens me only to think what the Anti-Semites and Judeophobes will do to distort it for their own ends.)
    Finally someone on this website attacking the more deadly enemy, Nurse Ratched. Remember Waco. It was only a foretaste of Nurse RatchedÂ’s program.
    Posted by Sid Cundiff on Oct 01, 2007.
    Rudy would have never let Waco happen. I mean its not like he perp walked innocent business men or released the medical records of an innocent Haitian immigrant his cops shot 47 times for standing in a doorway while black. Sidlogic dictates that we must vote for Rudy to stop the “greater evil” of “Nurse Ratched.” HEll, Rudy basically told the Republican Party the same thing yesterday.
    And if you donÂ’t agree with that you are an antisemite or a”judeophobe or both. Prolly, a la Claude PepperÂ’s sister and maybe “Nurse Ratchet thespian
    Posted by Virgil Cain on Oct 01, 2007.
    Sid, is Rudy Giuliani a “Cultural Marxist” you claim to be dedicated to stopping. He does like to dress up like women and wears powdered wigs a whole lot. When his wife ran him out of Gracie Mansion for adulterous fornication under the same roof as his children he moved in with a homosexual “couple” and ashitzu. He is for unlimited abortion and gun control.
    Because Podhoretz’s boy is our last best hope to stop “Nurse Ratched” (come’on you know in your heart of hearts that’s what you’re leading up to come 2008), does it make me a “Brown” to point out the above?
    Posted by Virgil Cain on Oct 01, 2007.
    Ron PaulÂ’s my man.
    Posted by Sid Cundiff on Oct 01, 2007.
    Mine too! Gonna hold you to that.
    Posted by Virgil Cain on Oct 01, 2007.
    Hold me to it.
    Posted by Sid Cundiff on Oct 01, 2007.
    this looks interesting
    http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/
    There is breaking news via Taylor Marsh that Hillary Clinton will support Senator WebbÂ’s Resolution demanding that the President seek Congressional approval before any military action against Iran and prohibiting the use of funds for military operations in Iran.
    This is significant news because while Hillary Clinton did support the Kyl-Lieberman Resolution calling for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to be formally labeled a terrorist organization—and thus providing the President with a potential back door Congressional authorization for yet another war in the Middle East—her opposition to White House military action against Iran without Congress’s sign off cuts a different and healthy direction.
    Posted by samuel burke on Oct 01, 2007.
    check out this article by podhoretz….but we have to be nice to this arrogant crowd of demons…its called a conversation in hell by john podhoretz
    http://www.amfirstbooks.com/IntroPages/Book_Preview_Pages/piper-michael_collins/Final_Judgment/FJ-15-ConversationInHell.html
    Posted by samuel burke on Oct 01, 2007.
    The last I heard Obama, Biden, and Dodd, all three
    in the Senate, and all three voting *against* the Kyl-
    Liebermann resolution ganged up on her for that vote,
    so she must now think sheÂ’d better backtrack.
    Posted by Adriana on Oct 01, 2007.
    “Hillary is a professional, Washington politician. She requires money, good will, and votes. Like her husband, Hillary’s actions are coldly calculated, often triangulated, and always self-serving. Everything is a career move. In their defense, one can only observe that Hillary and Bubba have plenty of company”
    True enough, yet I wonder if we’re giving Nurse Ratched too much credit for being media savvy. There’s a new medium out there, and if you’re reading this you’re using it right now. The dynamics of this medium, it seems to me, are quite different than those of newspapers, radio, or TV. Has Hillary mastered those dynamics? Ron Paul would seem to have done so. He’s no great stump speaker, but so what? we’ve got no stumps now. He’s not much of a looker, as far as I can tell. So what in the age of Internet? I’ve watched him use with success the Net to get his troops there “firstus with the mostus”. The Great Satan (FDR) mastered radio, as Al Smith didn’t, and Kennedy TV, as Nixon didn’t. To what extent was the immigration sell out defeated this summer by TV, talk-radio, or by Internet organization?
    Is the world dividing into folk who watch TV, folk who listen to talk-radio, and folk who do neither and use instead the Internet? (forget newspapers) If so, is TV a passive, and ultimately unserious medium, and hot media such as radio and print get people moving?
    Another thought: Would your classic print and TV columnist (George Will or Sam Donaldson, or Mussolini and I. F. Stone) survive in the world of instant talk-back and write-back?—and be able to do something other than just sputter in red-faced rage and whine to block those who expose their logical fallacies and tiresome buncombe? It requires other skills than the stump speaker needed to deflate hecklers. And when the stump speaker got a microphone, he needed only to turn up the volume. Won’t do in cyberspace. In the TV age, pre-cable, Nurse Ratched and Duce Rudy would simple control the three networks. With internet, anyone can have a blog.
    I suppose will find out Nov 2008, if not sooner, which medium is still the key one.
    Night thoughts.
    Posted by Sid Cundiff on Oct 01, 2007.
    ThereÂ’s another reason Hillary is unafraid to vote for war with Iran – the fact that it will be a consequence-free vote. If and when the war/bombing campaign happens and the inevitable disastrous backlash occurs, people will simply rail against Bush, calling it “BushÂ’s War”. Of course, there is great truth in this – IÂ’m not trying to shield Bush/Cheney from responsibility here. But the danger in calling Iran – or Iraq and Afghanistan – “BushÂ’s wars” is that it misses the point that these are the ESTABLISHMENTÂ’S wars.
    Hillary and the Democrats could have stopped Iraq before it happened. They didnÂ’t. Hillary and the Democrats could end Iraq now. They arenÂ’t. Hillary and the Democrats could stop the war on Iran before it happens. They wonÂ’t. Hillary and the Democrats could end the war in Iraq after she takes office in 2009. They wonÂ’t do that either.
    The Democrats are in a prime position – one of being able to lambast Bush for the war while still not actualy promisig to end it. Any of the ambiguous, couched anti-war rhetoric coming out of any Democrat other than maybe Richardson or Gravel is, as Pat Moynihan once put it, “Boob bait for bubbas”.
    No one in the mainstream of the Establishment is serious about ending the empire or even curtailing its wars. DonÂ’t be a bubba.
    Posted by Nergol on Oct 02, 2007.
    @Samuel Burke,
    This is so disturbing. The sick thing is that this Podheretz thinks that Satan killed innocent Kennedy children because of Joe KennedyÂ’s views on Hitler, Which if the truth be told were also the opinions of many people throughout the world at that time. The man is sick beyond all comparison.
    I wonder who he imagines himself holding conversations with in the future, Pope John Paul II?
    Posted by M.Nucci on Oct 02, 2007.
    proffesor richard dawkins weighs in…if you love the united states of america and hate the influence and power of this lobby you have to be loving how all of these strings are coming undone at one moment in time.
    http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/104454.html
    A renowned atheist cited the “Jewish lobby” as a model for his campaign to promote atheism in the United States.
    Richard Dawkins said he wanted to gain the same kind of influence as the Jewish lobby, saying it “monopolizes” U.S. foreign policy.
    “When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told—religious Jews anyway—than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolize American foreign policy as far as many people can see,” Dawkins, a British evolutionary biologist who advocates atheism, told the Guardian newspaper. “So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place.”
    Posted by samuel burke on Oct 02, 2007.
    pudhoretz relishiing in joe kennedys misery is an expression and a reflection of this far right wing of his community, those who read this column and derive great pleasure from this poor familys misfortune.
    Posted by samuel burke on Oct 02, 2007.
    A good review of the W & M book can be found here:
    http://www.prospectsforpeace.com/2007/10/ok_here_we_go_the_israel_lobby.html
    Posted by FurGaia on Oct 06, 2007.
    AIPACÂ’s role in the Iraq War and its influence on American foreign policy in general is illustrative of the type of intriguing and corruption that afflicts body politic whenever a government forsakes constitutional government for the empire. The Israeli lobby was only one of many special interests beating the war drums in 2002.
    Posted by Tim Kelly on Oct 08, 2007.
    AIPACÂ’s role in the Iraq War and its influence on American foreign policy in general is illustrative of the type of intriguing and corruption that afflicts body politic whenever a government forsakes constitutional government for empire. The Israeli lobby was only one of many special interests beating the war drums in 2002.
    Posted by Tim Kelly on Oct 08, 2007.
    Her support for WebbÂ’s amendment is more triangulation–she knows the Congress will give Bush whatever he wants, in the name of “supporting the troops.” Once Petraeus argues that Iran is our biggest problem, the Congress will cave–and Hillary knows that.
    Posted by Donna Saggia on Oct 08, 2007.

    Reply

  3. Kathleen says:

    Dennis… indeed!!!!
    Thanxxx for the exact wording.

    Reply

  4. Dennis says:

    FYI,
    Here is what the public copy of the Resolution, which can be found by searching Congressional Bills for H.R. 1585 says in Section 1583: (b) Sense of Senate.–It is the sense of the Senate–
    (1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;
    (2) that it is a critical national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi’a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;
    (3) that the United States should designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224; and
    (4) that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.
    An earlier version of the resolution contained the follwoing paragraph: “to support the prudent and calculated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence and miltary instruments in support of the policy decalred in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;” Paragraph 3 said that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;”
    So, it seems the resolution was toned down. Ironic though that a U.S. Senator should criticize the destabilization of Iraq when the U.S played a larger role in its destabilization than Iran ever hoped to play.

    Reply

  5. Sandy says:

    The War on Iraq (and, soon, Iran) is Bush/Cheney’s legacy.
    The deliberate failure to impeach these war criminals will be the Dems’.
    The cynicism that says war(s) will be good for the Dems’ come election time….fails to take seriously Bush/Cheney’s eager, easy willingness to call off the election and declare martial law. Thanks to the Dems’ (passing the May legislation)…that’s now easily done.
    The U.S. is already — well before the attack on Iran — right on track to becoming a third world country. And, responsible for a whole lot of (more) horror, suffering, pain and misery.
    There are no leaders. Just a few timid statesmen who now and then say what sounds like the right thing. Kucinich and Ron Paul come closest to walking their own talk.
    I think because it is all so completely corrupt….this may be what is supposed to happen.
    Taking the long view, it’s out of our hands now. We’ve had our chance…and forfeited it. Failed.
    My only hope is that I genuinely believe Einstein was right and, like him, I have decided that the universe is a friendly place. (And, I think, loving.)
    “… the story when Albert Einstein was approached by a reporter during an interview and asked something to the effect of, ‘Dr. Einstein, you are recognized around the world as one of the most bone fide geniuses of our century, maybe of human history. Your scope of thinking has covered the workings of the universe from the tiny atom to the cosmos. You have seen your discoveries both evolve and enrich, and also mutilate and destroy the human life you so highly value. What, in your opinion is the most important question facing humanity today?’
    Characteristically, Einstein stared off into space for a moment, and then looked down at the ground in front of him. Finally he looked back at the reporter and replied,
    ‘I think the most important question facing humanity is, ‘Is the universe a friendly place?’
    This is the first and most basic question all people must answer for themselves.
    ‘For if we decide that the universe is an unfriendly place, then we will use our technology, our scientific discoveries and our natural resources to achieve safety and power by creating bigger walls to keep out the unfriendliness and bigger weapons to destroy all that which is unfriendly—and I believe that we are getting to a place where technology is powerful enough that we may either completely isolate or destroy ourselves as well in this process.
    ‘If we decide that the universe is neither friendly nor unfriendly and that God is essentially ‘playing dice with the universe’, then we are simply victims to the random toss of the dice and our lives have no real purpose or meaning.
    ‘But if we decide that the universe is a friendly place, then we will use our technology, our scientific discoveries and our natural resources to create tools and models for understanding that universe. Because power and safety will come through understanding its workings and its motives.'”
    http://www.nlpu.com/Articles/Sept_11.html

    Reply

  6. BushYouth says:

    This is the same statement she made about the Iraq authorization. Someone just did a search and replace using ‘n’ for ‘q’.

    Reply

  7. JonU says:

    Declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization opens them up to airstrikes without congressional approval. No declaration of war will be needed. They will simply claim imminent threat and national security, citing past cases such as Bill Clinton’s airstrikes against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, back in the 90’s.
    This is a blindingly stupid move by anyone who voted for it and genuinely wants to stop Bush and the neocons from expanding the conflict and furthering their disasterous agenda.

    Reply

  8. Glenn Becker says:

    Wasn’t the House about to take up a resolution like that you propose, Steve, last winter, until pressure from AIPAC et al. caused Pelosi to drop it? If so, what’s changed?

    Reply

  9. Kathleen says:

    Oh God, someone, put us out of our misery.
    Enough with the hairsplitting.
    Impeachment is the short-cut, cure-all for all of our GD problems.
    Go, already.
    It takes a Villge to impeach an idiot, idiot!!!
    Or, It’s the IDIOT, stupid.

    Reply

  10. downtown says:

    HRC and her despicable husband are neo-cons par excellence. If this woman ever gets into a position of commander in chief, we’ll be spending blood and treasure to further the colonial pursuits of a certain ME country. Ad infinitum!!

    Reply

  11. downtown says:

    Obama has already been co-opted by AIPAC. There’s nothing this man wouldn’t do for a few bucks from New York investment bankers.
    http://www.nndb.com/people/426/000048282/

    Reply

  12. Sandy says:

    http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/01/podhoretz-bush-iran-attack/
    Podhoretz: ‘I BELIEVE BUSH IS GOING TO ORDER AIRSTRIKES ON IRAN BEFORE HE LEAVES OFFICE’
    Norman Podhoretz, widely reputed as the “godfather” of neoconservatism, has released a new book entitled World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofacism, a strident call for continuing the Bush strategy of preemptive wars.
    Podhoretz, who was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Bush in 2004, met privately with the President for 45 minutes recently. During the course of the meeting, Bush listened diligently as Podhoretz laid out the “the case for bombing Iran.” Podhoretz seems to have come away convinced that he made the case.
    In a C-Span interview that aired this weekend, Podhoretz states his fervent belief that Bush will attack Iran before he leaves office:
    I believe President Bush is going to order airstrikes [on Iran] before he leaves office. Because he has several times said — at least twice to my knowledge — that if we allow Iranians to acquire nuclear capabilities, 50 years from now, people will look back at us the way we look back at Munich and say ‘how could they have let this happen?’
    Watch it:
    Podhoretz is echoing a view that has been sounded by many conservative voices close to President Bush:
    Richard Perle: “Would this president do it? I think that until the day he leaves office, this is a president that, if he is told, ‘Mr. President, you are at the point of no return,’ I have very little doubt that this president would order the necessary military action.” [Link]
    A well-placed source in Washington said: “Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo.” [Link]
    Bill Kristol: “We could be in a military confrontation with Iran much sooner than people expect.” [Link]
    Podhoretz has said HE “PRAYS” WE WILL BOMB IRAN, despite also acknowledging that it could “unleash a wave of anti-Americanism all over the world that will make the anti-Americanism we’ve experienced so far look like a lovefest.”
    —————————————————–
    “The nation’s highest civilian award, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, is framed in his living room. Bush bestowed it in 2004, at the very time that Democrats were attacking him for a war that was not going as advertised.”
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/5964.html
    Gee, I guess “P”resident Bush considered it his MORAL responsibility to award this warmonger THE NATION’S HIGHEST CIVILIAN AWARD, THE PRESIDENTIAL MEDAL OF (choke) FREEDOM, eh Steve? Along with Tenent, Rumsfeld….and every other crony with the blood of millions on their hands. No doubt Chertoff, too.
    I remember how MORAL Bush was when he went to New Orleans and flooded himself with light to assure all the hurricane and flood victims he’d take care of them.

    Reply

  13. Sandy says:

    WHY BUSH WON’T ATTACK IRAN by Steve Clemons
    Sept. 19, 2007
    “…This President is the kind of president who believes it is his moral responsibility….”
    http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/09/19/iran/index1.html
    Gee, surely “P”resident Bush is the kind of president who believes it is MORAL RESPONSIBILITY…NOT to start another unnecessary war, right?

    Reply

  14. Altan Ozcandarli says:

    This is called “having your cake and eat it too”.

    Reply

  15. Carroll says:

    WASHINGTON –
    Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson said Sunday it would be “enormously unwise” for the Bush administration to take military action against Iran before it gets out of Iraq.
    “I believe it would be enormously unwise for the Bush administration to start another war before ending this tragic war we’re in today and it does sound like the administration is ramping up. You can just see it,” he said.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    “Before”…”before”?.. getting out of Iraq ? A sip of the lip or does it indicate the foregone conclusion of all the candidates that we will have to take out Iran?
    The army could resign en masses, the navy could resign en masses and these son of a bitches would still use the AF to hit Iran. Count on it.
    They also know that Iran even with nukes is not a threat to the US. This will be a war for Israel by congress and this or the next president. Regardless of how it comes about. Richardson did say after all at the debate that “Israel’s security is the “cornerstone” of our foreign policy”.
    God help the US. All our enemies are from within our own government.

    Reply

  16. Carroll says:

    I am having curious thoughts about what will happen if we do start a war with Iran. Not about what will happen to us from the outside, we have already been told that sceniro. But about what will happen inside the US if we become embroiled in more war that will last for decades and decades and drain off US resources completely.
    There are bound to be some sociologist thinking about and writting about how the populace will behave if Isr’merica assumes basically the same position as the nazi Germany war machine.
    Will we have any viiolent resistance from the citizens? Covert or overt, because it is plain non violence is useless since there is no representation of the American public in this adm and congress.
    As we would keep losing more and more treasure and resources with everyone and everything in the nation dedicated to the war machine what would people do? Grin and bear it? Would there be any coups against the neo’s, the US Israelis, the adm?
    Could we have a civil war with americans against the zionist and christian zionst and neos? The blue liberals against the red right wing? A general meltdown of our entire society? Sounds farfetched doesn’t it…but non democracies have civil wars all the time…and since we are in fact a democracy in name only and with only media created cartoon characters to lead us…well, our government has already gone beyond far fetched as it is now.
    It would be interesting to see how behaviorist
    who studied the German society’s compliance during WWII see the US population as acting under similar circumstances.

    Reply

  17. Matthew says:

    Hillary spoke out against it after she voted for it. Politics, Kerry-style. Great. We know how successful this move will be…..

    Reply

  18. Dave Huntsman says:

    I concur with the (sometimes overly-energetic) posts of those who think Steve missed out by not naming the other pole pushing for an attack on Iran: besides the Cheney team, it’s the Israeli lobby. But that doesn’t just include “Jewish Zionists”. My email inbox is currently receiving a couple of forwarded emails a week from friends of mine who are self-described “Christian Zionists”; i.e, what most of us would consider the right-wing evangelical political movement that put Bush over the top here in Ohio in 2004.
    The exact same machine – both foreign, and domestic – that was spun-up to attack Iraq no matter what, is now spinning up to do the same with Iran.
    No matter what.

    Reply

  19. Dave Huntsman says:

    I concur with the (sometimes overly-energetic) posts of those who think Steve missed out by not naming the other pole pushing for an attack on Iran: besides the Cheney team, it’s the Israeli lobby. But that doesn’t just include “Jewish Zionists”. My email inbox is currently receiving a couple of forwarded emails a week from friends of mine who are self-described “Christian Zionists”; i.e, what most of us would consider the right-wing evangelical political movement that put Bush over the top here in Ohio in 2004.
    The exact same machine – both foreign, and domestic – that was spun-up to attack Iraq no matter what, is now spinning up to do the same with Iran.
    No matter what.

    Reply

  20. ... says:

    steve, thanks for posting this.. and thanks dan kervick for commenting on it..
    as someone else pointed out, the cia is a terrorist organization but it is okay because it is americans terrorist organization… when does the hypocrisy get unbearable for the majority of americans? it will no doubt be at a later time for the politicians…

    Reply

  21. lina says:

    I’ve yet to hear an explanation of how name calling and labeling advances diplomacy.
    Steve? Hillary? Anyone?

    Reply

  22. memekiller says:

    Exactly. Kerry’s vote for authorization, we must all remember, was a “vote for peace” to give Bush leverage to avert war by using threat of force to get inspectors in. The fact that it was sold as an authorization Bush would never use, except as a last resort, didn’t keep him from using Kerry’s vote to claim cast him as for the war before he was against it. Watch Kerry’s explanation of his vote for authorization, and his misgivings, and then compare it to Hillary’s explanation above, and explain to me how it differs.
    Bush doesn’t need authorization. He needs cover. And now if (when) he strikes, Hillary will be on the defensive, parsing how her vote was not really what it looks like. Good luck. As unbelievable as it is, an Iranian strike now has a bipartisan blessing.
    Time to bring back Webb’s effort to forbid a strike on Iran. Explain that we just can’t trust this President not to screw it up, and that any nuclear program is years away and ought to be dealt with by the next President, who almost assuredly will be more competent than this one.
    Instead, Iran’s military is now a “terrorist” organization, and Bush now has the rhetorical upperhand to wage war — or should I say, strike “terrorist camps” as Clinton did in Afghanistan?
    Can Hillary call this an attack on Iran, after she declared the army “terrorists”? She’s commited herself to a lot of backpeddling that could have been used to put on the brakes.
    Can’t blame the media this time.

    Reply

  23. John Shreffler says:

    Negotiations? What negotiations? “Put down your six gun first and then Mr. Valance will talk to you, Dude!” “You tell Cochise he’s an ignorant savage…” The Iranians tried diplomacy back in 2003 and for their efforts were included in the Axis of Evil by return post. You don’t conduct diplomacy by insisting that your interlocutor concede the object of negotiation before sitting down to talks. We’ve consistently told Iran to cease enrichment before talks. Given that last bit released regarding the talks between Aznar and Bush, where Bush said that the diplomacy concerning Iraq in 2003 was a deception, why should his dilpomacy regarding Iran be any different? For that matter, why should Clinton believe that her vote for Kyl-Lieberman is any different from her vote for the 2002 AUMF? Plus ça change…

    Reply

  24. rich says:

    Steve,
    The opening graph you cite openly contradicts the purported message in Hillary’s email:
    “Iranian Revolution Guard as a terrorist organization. The Revolutionary Guards are deeply involved in Iran’s nuclear program and have substantial links with Hezbollah.”
    Revolutionary Guard–terrorist–nuclear program–Hezbollah. What an egregiously dishonest equation. Hillary’s a happy, though irresponsible fearmonger.
    What Hillary says about Iran is equally true about American foreign policy. Iran scored huge political points on the world stage by declaring the CIA and the U.S. Army a terrorist organization. The CIA’s links to al-Quaeda, El Salvadoran death squads, etc., etc., has been well-documented. Current policy just puts that into the open.
    Since everyone knows Bush is waging a covert war against Iran, on Iranian soil–the world will likely see Hillary’s demagoguing Iran as more BushCoPolicy.
    It’s disturbing that Hillary-Lieberman don’t know they’ve just lost enormously in the global arena, whether politically, in the court of public opinion, or the marketplace of ideas.
    There’s no evidence Iran’s nuclear program is for military purpose; evidence shows they’re not on the verge of anything.
    Yet even Charlie Rose and Gwen Ifill are repeating Bush’s disproven claim that Iran’s arms are used against U.S. troops. How did that become the refrain? Given the run-up to Iraq, it’s extremely disturbing that supposedly responsible, nominally thoughtful folks are repeating a canard/rationale that has no basis in fact.
    The NYTs reported nearly all munitions used to attack U.S. soldiers are flooding across the border from Saudi Arabia. Not Iran. Bush has presented NO evidence.
    Scapegoating Iran distracts from our occupation, from Saudi Arabia’s dual/contradictary role, and from our reponsibility to withdraw from Iraq. Worse, it endangers our national security when our own hard and soft power is at low ebb.

    Reply

  25. Carroll says:

    Juan Cole comments on this with this paragraph at Informed Comment linking to an article by Jim Lobe:
    “The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is driving the US toward a war against Iran, and authored the draft for the Kyl-Lieberman resolution passed overwhelmingly by the US senate”
    The article…..
    Anti-Iran hawks win partial victory
    By Jim Lobe
    WASHINGTON – Amid growing speculation about prospects for US military action against Iran, neo-conservatives and other hawks won a significant – if somewhat incomplete – victory in rallying the Democratic-led Congress to its side.
    In a 76-22 vote on Wednesday, senators approved a non-binding amendment to the 2008 defense authorization bill that called for the administration of President George W Bush to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) “a foreign terrorist organization”.
    Among those voting for the measure was the Democratic front-runner for the 2008 presidential election, Senator Hillary Clinton.
    At the same time, the House of Representatives voted nearly unanimously – 408-6 – for another measure, the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, which would force Bush to impose sweeping sanctions against foreign companies that invest more than US$20 million in Iran’s energy sector.
    That bill, which is opposed by the Bush administration itself because of strong pressure from Washington’s European and Asian allies and key US multinational companies, is considered likely to stall in the Senate through the remainder of this year.
    But its huge margin of approval, which some observers said was boosted by this week’s controversial visit to New York by Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, helped demonstrate once again how responsive members of both major parties are to the so-called “Israel lobby”, which has made the sanctions bill its top legislative priority this year.
    Both votes took place amid an intensifying struggle within the administration over control of Iran policy, with hawks, led by Vice President Dick Cheney and his neo-conservative advisers, pitted against the State Department and Pentagon chief Robert Gates and his top military brass.
    The State Department, while never ruling out military action, has consistently argued for continuing diplomatic efforts to address both alleged Iranian backing for anti-US Shi’ite militias in Iraq and Iran’s rejection of United Nations Security Council demands that it freeze its uranium-enrichment program.
    For the past two months – since the last time the US and Iranian ambassadors met in Baghdad – the struggle appears to have reached an impasse.
    In late July, Bush agreed in principle to a proposal by Cheney for cross-border military strikes against IRGC targets that have allegedly been involved in training and supplying Iraqi Shi’ite militias, according to Philip Giraldi, a former military intelligence and Central Intelligence Agency officer, writing recently in The American Conservative.
    But the Pentagon brass, which has become increasingly outspoken about the overextension of US ground forces in Iraq and the uncertainty about how Iran would react, countered with a more cautious strategy of building a new military base and extending patrolling along suspected smuggling routes, according to knowledgeable sources.
    Similarly, the diplomatic dialogue between the US and Iranian ambassadors in Baghdad over stabilizing Iraq – originally launched last May – has not resumed since their second meeting in late July when Ambassador Ryan Crocker publicly complained about Tehran’s alleged increase in support, via the IRGC, for Shi’ite militias that were attacking US troops.
    In testimony here two weeks ago, Crocker said he “found no readiness on the Iranians’ side at all to engage seriously on these issues”, while General David Petraeus, Washington’s top military commander in Iraq, charged that Tehran was engaged in a “proxy war” against the US in Iraq.
    Last month, the Washington Post reported that the Bush administration had decided in principle to designate the IRGC, which, in addition to its military role, controls a number of large businesses that could be subject to sanctions, a terrorist group, but had yet to determine whether it would name the entire organization or only its elite unit, the Quds Force. That no announcement has yet been made is indicative of the continuing infighting around Bush.
    That paralysis, however, appears to have favored the hawks, who have pressed their campaign for cross-border military action against Iran in the opinion pages of such neo-conservative publications as The Weekly Standard, The National Review, and the Wall Street Journal.
    Their calls for action became so intense that the commander of the US Central Command and Petraeus’s superior, Admiral William Fallon, who has been trying to get authorization to negotiate an “incidents at sea” agreement with Iran, complained publicly that “this constant drumbeat of conflict is … not helpful and not useful. It is not a good idea to be in a state of war. We ought to try to do our utmost to create different conditions,” he told Al-Jazeera.
    In fact, the first call for cross-border attacks on Iranian targets was made by the Senate’s “independent” Democrat, Joseph Lieberman, who is regarded as particularly close to the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
    Indeed, it was Lieberman and Republican Senator John Kyl – an honorary co-chair of the pro-Likud Committee on the Present Danger – who co-sponsored the Senate amendment naming the IRGC as a terrorist group in an effort clearly designed to help tilt the internal balance within the administration.
    As introduced, the amendment, which according to several Capitol Hill sources was drafted by AIPAC, actually went considerably further, deploying language that some senators argued could be interpreted as authorizing war against Iran.
    Among other provisions, it called for the US to “combat, contain and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran … and its indigenous Iraqi proxies” and “the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including … military instruments, in support of [that] policy”.
    But those paragraphs were deleted after Democratic Senator Jim Webb delivered a passionate speech in which he charged that the amendment “is Dick Cheney’s fondest pipe dream” and “could be read as tantamount to a declaration of war”.
    In a further softening, the drafters changed one policy statement that claimed it was a vital US national interest to prevent Iran from turning Shi’ite militias in Iraq into its proxies to a “critical national interest”. The previous wording generally connotes an interest over which the US would be prepared to go to war.
    Still, the fact that the amendment was approved by a significant margin – and with the support of key Democrats, including Clinton and Majority Leader Harry Reid – is certain to be used by hawks within the administration as an indication of bipartisan support for a more aggressive policy toward Iran.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    Interesting points in this.
    That Bush is against the Iran Sanctions bill because it would obviously harm the economic interest of our European allies. And that congress doesn’t give a shit about our damaged relations with our allies or the economic damage it will do them or to the US economic interest. This btw is not the first common sense approach Bush has shown that congress has worked against to the detriment of US interest. Watch congress, that is where an Iran war will come from.
    That John Kyl is an honorary co-chair of the pro-Likud Committee on the Present Danger. What is with these Senators who go out outside their senate office and assume positions with ideological groups? Seems like a conflict of interest and impartiality. Same with Ackerman and his position with the very political International Jewish Congress. Same with DeLay’s position with JINSA while he was a senator. These outside special interest alliences should not be allowed while in office.
    And AIPAC allegedly wrote the resolution designating Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps “a foreign terrorist organization. No surprise there.
    Every day brings a new reason to burn this congress to the ground. It should be obvious by now that the “U.S.” prefix should be removed from any reference to this congress. It’s not representing America.

    Reply

  26. rich says:

    “What is needed from Senator Clinton now is leadership in passing an explicit Senate resolution forbidding Bush from taking action against Iran without clear advise and consent from Congress”
    “[W]ithout clear advise and consent,” nothin.
    Let’s correct that: without a Congressional Declaration of War. That’s hardly being a stickler for details, as the Legislature is not a focus group.
    You rightly identify the error of Congress and the Dems, though. The assumption that Bush will act in good faith or act lawfully was always the fatal mistake. One so obvious that it confers no points on the falsely helpless Dems; the passivity defaults to capitulation, not political advantage for Dems riding to the rescue of the nation, the treasury, and the Constitution.

    Reply

  27. PissedOffAmerican says:

    I see absolutely no reason to attach credibility to any rationales Hillary may offer. She is also presenting the dubious intelligence claims of the Israeli’s as a rationale for her support of the Israeli air raid into Syria.
    As Carroll points out, these cowards in the Dem leadership have had their opportunity to require Bush to go to Congress before initiating military action against Iran, and they chose to cater to Israel’s interests above that of the United States. Pelosi seems to get the brunt of the blame for this, but I don’t recall any dissent in the ranks. It appears that the Dems are whoring for Israel on a level surpassing par for the Republicans, if such a thing is possible. One can only draw the conclusion from the actions of the current Dem leadership, and the obvious dual loyalties of a vast majority of the Bush gang, that Israel has completely infiltrated the highest levels of the government of the United States, of BOTH parties. If this is true, as I believe it is, we can expect an escalating level of military agression directed against the Muslim states, on a level that can only be called attempted genocide. This mantra of “it can’t happen here” must be discarded immediately, for our nation, in league with Israel, is about to embark on a campaign of military agression that can only result in the deaths of millions, and may well spark an inferno that the world community will find itself unable to extinguish.
    As I have opined here on numerous occassions, we are dealing with MONSTERS here, on a par with Adolph Hitler. And we have aspiring Hitlers on ALL sides of the equation this time around, on the Israeli side, on the American side, and on the Muslim side. How in God’s name can we expect sanity to prevail when we are being marched to the brink by megalomaniacs and religious zealots?

    Reply

  28. Carroll says:

    Congress won’t pass a bill requiring Bush to go to congress for premission to attack Iran. Pelosi tried that remember? The Hill reported that Ackerman and Hoyer’s gang and AIPAC scuttled it. So that is ridiculous statement number 10 by Hillary. Same rationale she used about her vote on Iraq.
    Think about it. Bush is being held back on Iran by the military. Yet every step like this that congress takes brings a war with Iran closer.
    Congress has laid the ground work and is waiting for that “accident” so they can push Bush.

    Reply

  29. DonS says:

    As long as we’re having a speculative bite of reality sandwich this morning, I’ll go further.
    Given Hillary’s mandatory genuflecting to the gods of AIPAC, particulary as a senator from NY with Presidential aspirations, I would posit that she is best served IF there is an attack on Iran — and we can all see the inferential route by which naming the revolutionary guard as a terroist organ helps prepare the scenario.
    IF Hillary is elected she would STILL be beholden to those who clamor for attack, perhaps even moreso. Contrary to those, possibly of the Joe Wilson sort mentined on a thread below, who think she would govern contrary to her current posture, I think the pressure to make the ME safe for Israel would only increase on her.
    How much better for her to have junior do the deed; at least then she wouldn’t have that particular decision to make. And I don’t think junior needs much encouraging, wink wink.
    Oh, as an aside, can anyone envision Hillary voting against a specific war resolution if it were to be presented in oh so compelling terms?

    Reply

  30. Dan Kervick says:

    Thanks for posting this Steve. It’s a nice example of the complacent fraudulence of Clinton and her campaign. They don’t even feel the need to bother to make their lies sound credible.
    It’s interesting to note that in the present context, “diplomatic approaches” has come to mean not “approaches incorporating diplomacy”, but rather any kind of pressure exerted by one country on another that falls short of of an actual military assault. So threatening war, in the new newspeak, is presented as a kind of diplomacy.
    I suppose we’re supposed to infer from Clinton’s gibberish that declaring the IRG a terrorist group, and act which clearly eases the way for the administration to use military force against Iran, and thereby increasing the military threat against Iran, will help bring Iran to the bargaining table.
    This would make sense if we were in a situation in which it was the United States that had been pursuing diplomacy and the Iranians who been resiting it. But in fact, the opposite is the case. The Iranians have been eagerly suggesting direct diplomacy with the US, and the US has been resisting such diplomacy. The Iranians do not need any additional incentive to come to the bargaining table.

    Reply

  31. DonS says:

    Hillary can spin all she wants, but the preparations for attack on Iran proceed.
    http://tinyurl.com/ywvb7f
    Gates stateent that diplomacy is “by far the preferable approach” can and will be taken as so much hot air, when the excigencies for attack are laid out post hoc by the admin . . . probably by Gates himself.
    Hillary’s assertion that “further and explicipt Congressional autorization” would be needed for attack sounds bold but is likewise meaningless. And I wouldn’t hold my breath for her to offer specific legisation against attack. That would be, um, weak on terra, doncha think?
    We also note the despicable Bolton wants not just attack but regime change.
    http://tinyurl.com/22s9xo
    Sounds plausible to me.

    Reply

  32. arthurdecco says:

    Donna Z said,”Besides, why would anyone desiring diplomacy vote for a measure proposed by Joe LIeberman?”
    Well, Donna Z, I suppose you’d have to find out where Hillary’s campaign funds are coming from before you could answer that question with any confidence. (And remember, she’s only claiming she desires diplomacy. Who knows how true that is?)
    My suspicion is that the majority of her campaign funds are coming from the groups that have been screaming hysterically for WAR WITH IRAN!!!WAR WITH IRAN!!!WAR WITH IRAN!!! for years now. You know what groups those are – xenophobic, destruction-worshipping American Jewish Zionists, and the psychotic Military/Industrial Complex.
    Did you notice that I didn’t add average, well-adjusted American citizens to my hypothetical list of Hilary’s financial contributors?
    Kind of leaves me all warm and fuzzy, thinking that. How about you?

    Reply

  33. Donna Z says:

    Since the e-mail states that Senator Clinton is in favor of a diplomatic effort, why vote for this measure at all? Labeling the IRG a terrorist organization will do nothing to advance a positive atmosphere. And since the US policy is to not negotiate with terrorists, that’s the end of the that. The IRG is much more than a military wing, they hold seats in the parliament and are essentially a party.
    I find this statement totally without logic. Besides, why would anyone desiring diplomacy vote for a measure proposed by Joe LIeberman?

    Reply

  34. Linda says:

    It’s worth noting listing the 22 Senators who
    voted against the Kyl-Lieberman amendment as well as the two Senators who did not vote on it.
    NAYs —22
    Biden (D-DE)
    Bingaman (D-NM)
    Boxer (D-CA)
    Brown (D-OH)
    Byrd (D-WV)
    Cantwell (D-WA)
    Dodd (D-CT)
    Feingold (D-WI)
    Hagel (R-NE)
    Harkin (D-IA)
    Inouye (D-HI)
    Kennedy (D-MA)
    Kerry (D-MA)
    Klobuchar (D-MN)
    Leahy (D-VT)
    Lincoln (D-AR)
    Lugar (R-IN)
    McCaskill (D-MO)
    Sanders (I-VT)
    Tester (D-MT)
    Webb (D-VA)
    Wyden (D-OR)
    Not Voting – 2
    McCain (R-AZ)
    Obama (D-IL
    I don’t have much sympathy or interest in hearing anyone who voted for it give his/her reason to justify voting for it. I’d suggest that they all take 15 hours to watch Ken Burns’ “The War.”

    Reply

  35. kotzabasis says:

    Clemons shows to be a tired less tyro in war strategy. This is not a declaration of war against Iran needing the authorization of Congress. This is a strategic FORCE DE FRAPPE on the part of the US against Iran and the elements of SECRECY and SURPRISE are pivotal and decisive factors in the success of such an attack.
    His call therefore to Senator Clinton to exercise “leadership in passing an explicit Senate resolution forbidding Bush from taking action against Iran without CLEAR ADVISE AND CONSENT FROM CONGRESS”, is strategically oxymoronic.

    Reply

  36. Chuck Dupree says:

    Exactly right, Steve. Clinton is currently claiming leadership by slinking to the front of the parade. If what people who like her say is true, she’s capable of winning by being herself, though the anti-any-Clinton movement is non-trivial.
    If Senator Clinton were actually to help Congress shoulder its Constitutional responsibilities and prevent a war in Iran while winding down our involvement in Iraq, she would be able rightly to claim to be a leader. But when she shows up late for votes so her vote doesn’t matter, adopts other candidates’ health-care proposals wholesale, and generally gives the impression that the most important task is avoiding controversy, she comes across like a high-budget low-concept Hollywood movie.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *