The Democrats’ Iran Dilemma

November 19, 2007

BY ROBERT D. NOVAK

Sen. Barack Obama, desperate to cut down front-running Sen. Hillary Clinton, did not take advantage of one opening during Thursday night's Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas. Obama pulled his punches regarding Clinton's September vote for a resolution that he had earlier said could be used to go to war against Iran. His reticence can be traced to his co-sponsorship of a similarly hawkish amendment in March.

Obama was softer toward Clinton than he was last month when he called her "reckless" for voting to name the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization, claiming such a vote would give President Bush a pretext to attack Iran. For her part, Clinton did not raise Obama's inconsistency and was uncharacteristically silent about Iran. The two leading candidates for the Democratic nomination were muzzled by mutually assured destruction, reflecting a Democratic dilemma.

Democrats want to assume a strong anti-terrorist position while deploring U.S. military action against Iran as it develops nuclear weapons. While the prospect of such an attack before Bush leaves office is reviled on the left, no Democrat can be seen as soft on an Islamist Iranian regime whose president denies the Holocaust and calls for the destruction of Israel. The trick is to condemn both Dick Cheney and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

This balancing act was upset on Oct. 11, when the Manchester (N.H.) Union Leader published an op-ed by Obama assailing Clinton's vote for the resolution sponsored by Republican Sen. Jon Kyl and independent Democratic Sen. Joseph Lieberman. By designating the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, wrote Obama, "we're still foolishly rattling our sabers" in passing "this reckless amendment." Obama contended that "the Bush Administration could use the language in Lieberman-Kyl to justify an attack on Iran as part of the ongoing war in Iraq." Obama missed the vote.

Obama energized Washington lawyer Lanny J. Davis, a longtime supporter of the Clintons. In an Oct. 16 letter to the New York Times, Davis noted that Obama was one of 68 senators — including Clinton — who on March 22 co-sponsored Senate Resolution 970, using language similar to Lieberman-Kyl in branding the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. On his Web site, Davis wrote on Oct. 24: "It is a complete mystery why Sen. Obama or his campaign managers thought he could get away with criticizing Sen. Clinton on the Kyl-Lieberman resolution and calling it reckless while knowing about his own co-sponsorship of S. 970."

The response to Davis came a day later from another Washington lawyer: Gregory Craig, Davis's past comrade in defending President Bill Clinton and now Obama's foreign policy adviser. In an e-mail to supporters, Craig did not address S. 970 but indicated that the Kyl-Lieberman resolution went beyond a terrorist designation. Calling the co-sponsors "two of the most hawkish members of the Senate on Iran," Craig suggested their resolution "can be used to justify a U.S. attack on Iran."

This dispute was not raised by Obama in Las Vegas as part of his many-sided attack on Clinton. Not until the floor was opened to "undecided" voters did an Iraq war veteran's mother ask about Iran. Sen. Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said of Kyl-Lieberman: "It's a serious, serious mistake. . . . [I]t convinced the rest of the Muslim world this is really a war against Islam . . . . If [Bush] takes the country to war in [Iran] without a vote of Congress . . . then he should be impeached."

CNN's Wolf Blitzer, the moderator, turned to Clinton as "the only one on the stage who did vote for that resolution." Biden, perhaps remembering Bill Clinton's complaint that "the boys" were ganging up on his wife, interjected: "I wasn't attacking Senator Clinton." Obama next called the resolution "a mistake," but of Clinton he said only this: "I agree with Hillary that we've got to initiate bold diplomacy." Clinton said not a word about Iran and kept away from Obama's past desire to brand the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

So, Iran got only a few minutes at Las Vegas, with important questions unanswered. Could Clinton or Obama co-exist with a nuclear Iran? Do they forswear the military option? Would they join Biden in moving to impeach Bush if he attacked Iran? They cannot want to face those difficult queries.

Source: Washington Post

Posted by Hillary · Filed Under Commentary, Editorials/Opinion, Hillary Clinton

Comments

One Response to “The Democrats’ Iran Dilemma”

WonkoBlog » Blog Archive » Do conservative bloggers even care who’s running? on November 20th, 2007 7:32 am

[…] The Democrats’ Iran Dilemma Against Hillary (11/19) […]

Got something to say?

Against Hillary Clinton Where the facts are - Hillary Clinton News

The Democrats’ Iran Dilemma

Comments

Angry Clinton Supporter Declares McCain Will Be Next President

Advertisement

Never Forget

Latest Headlines

Categories

Archives

Related Sites

Referrers

Admin