A devastating war of memoranda (not the memoranda! for God’s sake, take the children upstairs!) has broken out between the Clinton and Obama campaigns. Subject: Iran. From my inbox a couple of hours ago:
TO: Interested Parties
FR: Greg Craig, Foreign Policy Adviser to Senator Obama, former Director of Policy Planning at the Department of State, and former Assistant to the President and Special Counsel
RE: Obama vs. Clinton: Real Differences on Iraq and Iran
DA: October 25, 2007
The current debate about the wisdom of Senator Clinton’s support for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment points up significant differences in Senator Obama’s approach to the use of force in Iraq as compared with Senator Clinton’s approach.
On September 26, Senator Clinton voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment…. Having seen what this Administration – with its expansive view of its Executive Power – has done in the past with Congressional resolutions, it is naïve to support the Kyl-Lieberman amendment without simultaneously seeking explicit assurances that the President will never cite the amendment as a legal basis for deploying US troops to counter Iranian influence whether in Iraq or Iran….
Senator Clinton voted to approve the new mission for our troops, and she blessed the new rationale for their continued presence in Iraq. Senator Obama did not. Senator Clinton was willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the Administration on this matter. Senator Obama was not. Her support for Kyl-Lieberman draws attention to a series of other important differences between Senators Obama and Clinton on Iraq and Iran….
Trying to Have it Both Ways: After Senator Clinton drew criticism for her vote in support of Kyl-Lieberman on September 26, she decided to support a bill that Senator Webb introduced in March that said that the President had to obtain congressional authorization before going to war in Iran. Webb told Howard Fineman that Clinton was in such a hurry to support his bill, “I found out after she announced it,” he said, laughing.'” But Kyl-Lieberman had already passed the Senate; Webb’s bill has not. Signing on with Webb does not undo her vote for Kyl-Lieberman.
And this showed up an hour later:
To: Interested Parties
From: The Clinton Campaign
RE: Obama vs. Obama: The Real Differences on Iran
Who said this?
“Such a reduced but active presence will also send a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in this region.” Later in the same speech, he said: “Make no mistake, if the Iranians and Syrians think they can use Iraq as another Afghanistan or a staging area from which to attack Israel or other countries, they are badly mistaken. It is in our national interest to prevent this from happening.”
George Bush? Nope.
The latest from Dick Cheney? Guess again.
Language from Kyl-Lieberman? Sorry.
That was Senator Obama in late 2006 making the case for why maintaining a military force in Iraq is necessary to constrain Iran’s ambitions. But that was then.
This is now: Stagnant in the polls and struggling to revive his once-buoyant campaign, Senator Obama has abandoned the politics of hope and embarked on a journey in search of a campaign issue to use against Senator Clinton. Nevermind that he made the very argument he is now criticizing back in November 2006. Nevermind that he co-sponsored a bill designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a global terrorist group back in April. Nevermind that his colleague from Illinois – Dick Durbin – voted the same way as Senator Clinton on Kyl-Lieberman and said “If I thought there was any way it could be used as a pretense to launch an invasion of Iran I would have voted no.”
Today, in order to justify his opposition to Kyl-Lieberman, Senator Obama says that such language is bellicose and gives the President a blank check to take the country to war.
But if Senator Obama really believed this measure gave the President a blank check for war, shouldn’t he have been in the Senate on the day of the vote, speaking out, and fighting against it? Instead he did nothing, remained totally silent, skipped the vote and spoke out only after the vote to engage in false attacks against Senator Clinton….
Seems to me Obama’s coming on a bit strong here. This is the core of his argument:
The problematic language in the resolution says that it is a “critical national interest of the United States” to counter Iran’s influence among the Shia population of Iraq. Without a doubt, President Bush can cite that language as authorizing him to maintain and use US troops in Iraq for the purpose of containing Iran, cirtailing [sic] Iran’s influence in Iraq, and, if need be, to expand our troops’ activities beyond Iraq’s borders to pursue and attack Iranian forces.
“Without a doubt”? I don’t think so — as the Hillary memo points out, Dick Durbin is no neocon on this stuff, yet he voted for the resolution, saying “If I thought there was any way it could be used as a pretense to launch an invasion of Iran I would have voted no.” Plus, if it was that clear to Obama that this was a de facto authorization to attack Iran, shouldn’t he have been there to vote against it?
Obama needs to find a way to cut into Clinton’s ever-burgeoning lead, and fast. But I’m not sure this one’s going to do it for him.
By the way, I was on Jim Braude tonight with David Bernstein of the Phoenix and Jennifer Donahue of St. Anselm’s College in NH. We talked about the Obama campaign’s apparent stagnation, how Rudy Giuliani can do as well as he seems to be doing without completely repudiating his centrist-ish views on social issues, and the California fires. Watch it here (part 1, part 2, part 3).
It should be a plus but I dont know as it will be. It just baffles me how an affirmed HAWK like Clinton gets a free pass at pretending to be anything but what she is. She should be nailed to the original IWR resolution and left out to dry but the charge just seems to slip off leaving her free to babble in platitudes and generalities. Who knows what turns the crusades will take in the coming months, hopefully it doesnt get worse.
It is ABSOLUTELY without a doubt that the neo-con Bush adminstration could “cite that language” as authorization to maintain and expand combat troop forces in Iraq. Has anyone on Clinton’s staff been watching the news? Do they not see that expansion of Presidential power has been a top priority of this adminstration and they seek to make the argument, whenever possible? Would the argument hold, legally? Does anyone think this President cares?
<
p>
As for Dick Durbin’s statement, is that her defense for her vote? Pardon me, but maybe it comes from working with children, I just don’t buy the “Well, he did it!” argument. If Hillary genuinely believes that the Kyl-Lieberman vote cannot be used to expand the war in Iraq, why did she then (after being questioned publically) decide to support the Webb Bill? It is an interesting situation. She has never apologized for her Iraq War vote. Instead there is the “If I knew then what I know now…” statement. IMHO, if you know now, what you couldn’t see then, you should have been supporting the Webb Bill when it was first introduced and should never have supported Kyl-Lieberman. Simply put, experience only counts if you learn from it. Both of these decisions make it clear, she has not.
<
p>
Final thought, the “politics of hope”. I can’t help wonder, when did the Clinton campaign formally declare itself the authority to define this approach to governing? Supporting a governing style, political vision, or policy perspective, which seeks to include, inspire and encourage us to live up to our best intentions and ideals… does not mean you allow a political opponent to define you or your positions. It doesn’t mean that you don’t draw distinctions between yourself and your opponent, on policy, actions and/or vision.
<
p>
As much as it irks them… the campaign does not end, because you’ve declared yourself the winner months before a single vote is cast.
<
p>
IMHO, Obama should definitely be drawing this distintion.
It is ABSOLUTELY without a doubt that the neo-con Bush adminstration could “cite that language” as authorization to maintain and expand combat troop forces in Iraq.
<
p>
…maintaining and expanding troop forces in Iraq. Bush has for years used the 2002 AUMF (Authorization to Use Military Force) resolution and subsequent Congressional funding for the war on Iraq for that purpose. The issue is whether Bush can reasonably (or unreasonably) suggest that Kyl-Lieberman provides authorization to use US military force against Iran.
<
p>
Earlier, Bush had used the purported Iran atomic energy program as an excuse to attack Iran on the assertion that it may lead to Iran having weapons of mass destruction–atomic bombs. Subsequently, we heard Bush justify an attack on Iran as an effort to “democratize” it. Now we hear the purported justification–which is addressed by the Kyl-Lieberman resolution–that Iran is supplying the Shias in Iraq in their resistance against the American occupation.
<
p>
If you note, this shift of justifications for an American attack on Iran pretty much parallels the shift of justifications for the American attack on Iraq in 2002-2003.
I just wrote the following in a new diary:
<
p>
In my blog today I stated that Iran is a sovereign country and any attack upon it would be a violation of International Law according to the Charter of the United Nations
The Bush administration wants a dialogue to begin about attacking Iran. It has thrown out several reasons, none of which are justified under International Law, for an attack.
<
p>
There should be no dialogue about violating International Law.
<
p>
Ed O’Reilly
Democratic Candidate for the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts
I do not disagree with you regarding international law.
<
p>
However, the point should be obvious that the Bush malAdministration is willing to ignore international law. And it is willing to put forward a public relations stunt (which is the point of my earlier comment) in order to gear the American people up for doing so.
<
p>
They did it with Iraq, and now they’re doing precisely the same thing with Iran. And that was my point.
<
p>
They learned well from Hermann Goering
Any backup for that one? We’ve been over this before. Sure, she’s trying to create that aura — every frontrunner does — but it’s the punditocracy that’s declaring the race over. I’ve never heard her say it, and I don’t think anyone has either (at least, not in public).
Should either drop out or run to the left and stand up for core issues. He’s trying to have it both ways – positioning for a general, yet look like the anti-Hillary – and it just isn’t working. It’s great that he’s against the war on Iraq, but unless he’s going to go there with civil rights, health care and a number of other issues, this race isn’t going to change one iota. The same thing can be said of Edwards.
<
p>
If politics really were games, I’d be quite happy to see Hillary win – she’s proven to be a much better and more competent candidate. Yet, she’s not going to bring this country where it needs to be. She’s not going to be the daring politician, a la FDR, who’ll be able to get us universal health care, protect the country (getting us out of Iraq), and take daring positions that will push this country ahead in ways that would otherwise take decades. She’ll be like a #3 starter in baseball: competent, may have a few good seasons, but when it all comes down to it, isn’t bringing anything to the table that dozens of other people couldn’t do. Bill Clinton isn’t highly respected because he was a particularly excellent president – the only reason why people remember him fondly is because he was the only half-decent one in my entire lifetime.
We’ve got it: Clinton is relatively pro-Iraq war. Obama is relatively anti-Iraq war. That’s probably the decisive issue for some minority the electorate, but not for most voters. Obama should get his campaign to start highlighting some of the other substantive differences between the Senator from New York and him. I for one, can’t even tell you what the top three are, and I’ve heard them both make their pitches in person relatively recently.