Also available in orange: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/21/151045/52
Well, I’m sure most of you know now that Clinton is trying to mislead Iowans about her vote for Kyl-Lieberman that sought to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. She sent out a mass mailing to Iowans making the rather unconvincing argument that her vote was a vote for diplomancy:
After the problematic language was removed, it was clearly a vote for stepped-up diplomacy, not military action.
The full letter is here: Clinton Letter
David Bonior has a statement regarding her letter:
Particularly on the critical challenge on Iran, where the administration appears to be readying the guns of war, Democrats deserve a nominee who only has one mode – and that’s `telling the truth’ mode
Let’s talk Kyl-Lieberman, Clinton, and Iran after the fold.
John Edwards for President Campaign Manager, David Bonior, today released the following statement in response to Senator Clinton’s mailer to Iowa voters defending her Iran vote:
“This morning we see that Senator Clinton is defending her vote to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. She was entitled to her vote just like she’s entitled to defend it. The problem is her explanation to Iowa voters is different than her explanation to the New York Times. Her backers told the New York Times that her vote was about shifting from primary election mode to general election mode. Now she’s telling Iowans something different. Apparently she has an Iowa mode and a Washington mode too.
“ We have already seen the devastating consequences of triangulation and manipulation in Iraq. Particularly on the critical challenge on Iran, where the administration appears to be readying the guns of war, Democrats deserve a nominee who only has one mode – and that’s `telling the truth’ mode.”
Edwards Campaign Statement on Clinton’s Iowa Mailer Defending Iran Vote
She is scrambling to try to hide the impact of that vote and what it reveals about her. But there is no such thing as an “anti-war hawk,” and the truth of her vote is coming out.
In trying to appeal both to the Democrats’ liberal base and to a more centrist general-election audience, Mrs. Clinton, like her husband before her, risks feeding into the assessment of critics that she is more about political calculation than about conviction. The point has been driven home these past few days in her efforts to present herself as the antiwar hawk: vowing to an audience of Democrats to end the war in Iraq while voting in Congress for a harder line against Iran, a move that some Democrats argue could lead to another war.
NY Times: The Perils of Playing Front-Runner
The big problem with Clinton’s vote is that the Kyl-Lieberman resolution declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which is part of the armed forces of Iran, a terrorist organization. You know the Bush illogic: GWOT, call them a terrorist, invade. We’ve seen it all before.
Senator James Webb sees all the implications of this designation quite clearly.
Webb said that amendment’s attempt to categorize the Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp as “a foreign terrorist organization” would, for all practical purposes, “mandate” the military option against Iran. “It could be read as tantamount to a declaration of war. What do we do with terrorist organizations? If they are involved against us, we attack them.”
A declaration that Iran’s Guard is a terrorist group would mark the first time that the United States has added the armed forces of any sovereign government to its list of terrorist organizations.
“The Revolutionary Guards are part of the Iranian government,” Webb said. “If they are attacking us, they’re not a terrorist organization. They’re an attacking army.”
Webb Urges Caution on Use of the “terrorist” label
So does Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and she will not bring it to the House. She is standing tall on this one:
Asked by host George Stephanopoulos whether she agrees with a recent Senate decree that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, a branch of the Iranian military, is a terrorist organization, Mrs. Pelosi replied that, “Whatever Iran’s impact is on our troops in Iraq should be dealt with in Iraq.”
Asked by Mr. Stephanopoulos to elaborate, she said: “It means deal with them militarily in the country that you’re engaged in. There’s never been a declaration by a Congress before in our history, before the Senate acted, that declared a piece of a country’s army to be a terrorist organization.”
John Edwards opposes Kyl-Lieberman’s designation of the Iranian Revoloutionary Guards as a terrorist organization:
“As the New Yorker recently reported, the administration is actively preparing plans to attack Iran. Despite this clear evidence, Congress recently passed a bill to declare Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, a bill Senator Clinton supported and that takes this nation one step closer to war. While Senator Clinton tries to argue both sides of the issue, the truth is her vote opens the door for the president to attack Iran. I believe we must not allow the president to use force against Iran when so many other diplomatic and economic options are still available.”
Barack Obama, however, disagrees with Pelosi, Webb, and Edwards on labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organziation:
Obama missed the vote, and explained his position — that he favors declaring the Revolutionary Guard terrorists, but opposes other portions of the bill — later that night, a fact Clinton appears to highlight in her letter.
This is not surprising since Obama cosponsored a bill to do that very thing on April 24, 2007.
Co-sponsors include Barack Obama.
Sen Obama, Barack [IL] – 4/24/2007
Section 3: Sense of Congress:
(8) The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) and the Secretary of the Treasury should place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224 (66 Fed. Reg. 186; relating to blocking property and prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism).
This is a wrong road, designating a state entity a “terrorist organization.” As Speaker Pelosi notes, it is unprecedented. And as Jim Webb realizes, it could be a mandate for war.
I know the Dems have been very disappointing. Capitulated on Iraq, too many, including Clinton support the strategy of designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, and still support Buhs’s sledgehammer slogan of the GWOT, but Nancy Pelosi stood tall here.
Mrs. Pelosi vowed not to pursue in the House any legislation similar to similar to Kyl-Lieberman.
I think she deserves thanks: Official Site for Nancy Pelosi
And Senator Clinton, Iowans don’t think lunching with Monsanto lobbyists is a rural policy and they sure as hell are not going to buy the load of bs in your letter. As Bonior said:
Apparently she has an Iowa mode and a Washington mode too.
