Code Pink’s Nancy Krikorian has a blistering (and totally right on target) critique of Hillary Clinton’s vote for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment that labels the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.
Clinton, the only presidential candidate who voted for the amendment,
“claimed, “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.â€?
Does this sound familiar? It is an uncanny echo of statements Clinton had made about her 2002 Iraq War authorization vote. At the time she said, “So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him – use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein – this is your last chance – disarm or be disarmed.â€?”
As Krikorian notes,
“On October 1st, in a characteristic move of playing both sides of an issue, Hillary announced, “Given recent reports about Administration military planning toward Iran and to ensure that Congress plays a proper role in the authorization of any potential military force, today I have added myself as a co-sponsor of a bill introduced by Senator Jim Webb which prohibits the use of funds for military action in Iran without authorization by Congress.â€? Hillary is the first and only co-sponsor of Webb’s bill more than six months after its introduction, making its passage unlikely and her co-sponsorship a largely symbolic gesture designed to quiet criticism of her Kyl-Lieberman vote.
Indeed, if Clinton were determined to keep Bush from starting the next war with Iran, it would be simple for her, as one of the most powerful people in the Senate and the Democratic Party, to get the bill onto the Senate floor. But as she made clear as far back as January 2005 in a now-infamous speech at Princeton, “…we cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran.â€?”
Unfortunately, as Krikorian points out,
“Not since Lyndon Baines Johnson have the Democrats had an “anti-warâ€? presidential candidate so hell-bent on continuing-and perhaps catastrophically expanding-a disastrous war.”
Don’t know about you, but that is definitely not a path I’m looking forward to taking, even if she is a woman.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.