Good for Barack Obama who had the strength of character to take on one of the most contentious of today’s issues and offer some effective new thinking on Iran. As the NYT reported:
Mr. Obama said that Iran had been “acting irresponsibly” by supporting Shiite militant groups in Iraq. He also emphasized that Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program and its support for “terrorist activities” were serious concerns.
But he asserted that Iran’s support for militant groups in Iraq reflected its anxiety over the Bush administration’s policies in the region, including talk of a possible American military strike on Iranian nuclear installations.
Making clear that he planned to talk to Iran without preconditions, Mr. Obama emphasized further that “changes in behavior” by Iran could possibly be rewarded with membership in the World Trade Organization, other economic benefits and security guarantees.
I know this is part of Obama’s effort to distinguish himself from Iraq war-supporter Hillary Clinton (after all, let’s face it, she hasn’t repudiated her vote for the war, and she’s still waffling around on the way forward), and present himself as the voice of substantive change. I think this part is working. Is it possible to imagine Clinton advancing sensible foreign policy proposals like this that reflect an understanding of others, as much as of ourselves? Yes, it is possible to imagine, but I haven’t seen anything comparable from her of late.
Senator Webb, quite possibly Hillary’s VP nominee, is offering an amendment that would make clear that Congress doesn’t want another needless war. She has come out in support of it.
<
p>
A shame that this president is such that Congress continually feels a need to remind the President what the Constitution says (and charming that they think it cares).
<
p>
A shame also that we’re at the point that candidates feel compelled to state (as Obama is here) that they will conduct responsible, sensible diplomacy. It cracks me up that Republicans whine about Democrats not having positions on war with Iran — as if they should also have positions on poking one’s eye with something pointy.
Aren’t there 4 questions?
<
p>
1. In the end, if Iran insists on developing nuclear weapons after all carrots/sticks/negotiation, are you prepared to live with that, or militarily prevent it?
<
p>
Ie, maybe costs outweigh benefits, the x% chance of Iranian weapon passed to Hezbollah to use on Tel Aviv or NYC in next 20 years is less than the y% chance of all sorts of problems that come from a military strike.
<
p>
But maybe not.
<
p>
2. What is the process you’d use to make such a decision (ie, would you consult Congress?). Dems say: We’ll consult. I like that. Reign in Executive Presidency.
<
p>
3. What’s the best way to negotiate? With or without preconditions?
<
p>
Obama: Without.
<
p>
Fine. Personally, I’m more willing to negotiate without preconditions IF I know in the end I’m willing to strike militarily, per #1. My goal is to persuade them to NOT force my hand, because I’m not bluffing. Therefore I’d want to give them the maximum graceful exit.
<
p>
But if I AM bluffing, then it may actually be better to insist on preconditions.
<
p>
4. Should America want candidates to answer Question 1? A direct answer weakens their ability to negotiate.
…of hearing people call Hillary Clinton an “Iraq war-supporter” because she hasn’t “repudiated her vote for the war”.
<
p>
Yes, Hillary — unfortunately, in my opinion — voted for the Iraq war resolution, along with several other good Democrats, including John Edwards. (Obama, of course, didn’t vote for the resolution because he wasn’t in the Senate at that time…he says he would have voted against it, but he wasn’t there.)
<
p>
So, John Edwards says he’s sorry he voted for it, and apparently, all is forgiven.
<
p>
Hillary, on the other hand, says she cast her vote based on the information she had before her at that time. She has said on numerous occasions that if she knew then what she knows now, she would not have voted for the resolution. She’s basically saying the same thing as John Edwards has said except that she is not pandering to those folks like me who were opposed to the Iraq war from the start. She’s taking the heat for a bad vote.
<
p>
Don’t get me wrong…I wish Hillary had voted against the Iraq war resolution, too. But I really am tired of folks saying that she hasn’t apologized for or repudiated her vote…it is such a silly argument.
But I really am tired of folks saying that she hasn’t apologized for or repudiated her vote…it is such a silly argument.
<
p>
…Hillary has neither repudiated her vote (“apology” makes no sense in this context) for the American war on Iraq, nor has she explained it.
<
p>
As far as I’m concerned, American politicians’ inability to admit that they erred says quite a bit about them. Also, as far as I’m concerned, sHillary is nothing more than a snake oil salesperson, and that’s one reason that I don’t trust her.
…her vote time and time again. She said that she based her vote on the information she had before her at that time. A lot of otherwise bright and talented Democrats came to the same unfortunate conclusion. And she had said over and over that if she knew then what she knows today, she would have voted differently.
<
p>
I think it’s a lot easier to “apologize” than to take the heat for a bad vote.
<
p>
As far as Hillary being a “snake oil salesperson”, that’s your opinion, to which you are entitled. However, I don’t share it.
…she was basing her vote on the information she had at the time, as far as I’m concerned, she was an idiot. Hardly a good reason to vote for her as president.
<
p>
Heck I predicted what came to happen in the north of Iraq (and Turkey) long before the 2002 vote.
<
p>
I think it’s a lot easier to “apologize” than to take the heat for a bad vote.
<
p>
It wasn’t a bad vote. It was a stupid vote.
<
p>
As far as Hillary being a “snake oil salesperson”, that’s your opinion, to which you are entitled. However, I don’t share it.
<
p>
I seriously don’t care whether or not you share it. It appears to be that you aren’t from the South. She’s as much as snake oil salesman as Bill was, but she can’t pull it off as well as he did. And Bill didn’t pull it off very well.
that raj:all politicans (except Barney Frank who once called his house)::Mikey:all food (except Life cereal).
<
p>
Just an “observation.” đŸ˜‰
…we have never voted for Barney Frank. We haven’t voted against him, either.
Look, there were literally hundreds of thousands of protesters from across the country who came to New York, Clinton’s home state, to protest the war. They believed that this was a bad idea from the beginning. They were right. We all understood that this wasn’t a necessary war; that it was rammed down the country’s throat using scare tactics; that even if we could win against Saddam it would be a quagmire; that the rest of the world wasn’t with us. They got it, why couldn’t Senator Clinton?
<
p>
Don’t give us the whole “information that we had at the time,” lecture. Even Dick Cheney in 1994 it turns out got it exactly right. When VP Cheney sold this war knew what the consequences were and still went ahead with war plans. And it now turns out Cheney in 1994 was right about parts of Iraq flying off to Turkey, too. So we knew exactly what we were getting into.
<
p>
Literally millions of people around the world understood why this war was a bad idea, and believed we shouldn’t be fighting a war for increased oil supplies, but were brushed aside because they were out of the mainstream, or their tactics didn’t jibe, or whatever.
<
p>
I’m not asking for an apology. But don’t pretend that she voted for the war a naive politician fooled by the Administration. If millions of people around the world could get it, why couldn’t she?
…the hundreds of thousands of protesters (including me) were not members of the Senate and did not have access to the same volume of information that Congress had.
Look, I was one of those protesters, too. And I wasn't happy with Hillary's vote on Iraq . But this “why hasn't she apologized” thing just sticks in my craw. It's such a foolish argument.
Bottom line for me is that I want a Democrat in the White House in 2009. And given the current field, I think that Hillary is the one candidate who is qualified and ready to be President from day one and the one who can beat the Republicans. She's not perfect, but for me, she is the best choice we have.
Didn’t 23 Senators vote against the resolution, our own Senator Kennedy included? Did they not have access to information that Clinton had?
<
p>
It was a political vote, pure and simple. Those Democrats who had the political breathing room in addition to their inclination to do so could to vote against authorizing the war. Feingold did. Kennedy did. And they voted against it knowing that it wouldn’t hurt our national security to vote that way.
<
p>
The vote was not about how much information they had. Cheney knew what would happen after we won the war. There was significant doubt about claims of WMDs. And even if you did believe the WMDs to be there, we didn’t have real support from the UN or enough major allies, in part because we didn’t give the UN inspectors enough time.
<
p>
Again, I’m not asking for an apology. But you make a false claim when you say that based on the information she had at the time, she had to vote for the war.
my problem is that Hillary Clinton today says that she still would have voted that way then given the information at the time, at that the mistake was not that she missed the weakness of the argument, but that she somehow didn’t have access to information that would show it was a bad decision. that was out there and evident. she also says that she believes that President’s should have that kind of authority, which I fundamentally disagree with: it’s an abdication of Congress’s constitutional duties and increases the disbalance of power toward the executive branch. it reflects her view that the President should be above the other branches in some ways, though far more moderately than the current administration, I don’t think she would be inclined to support increasing checks on her own power. it’s indicative of the general vision on foreign policy and constitutional balance of power, which are issues to me much more important than what specifically to do next in Iraq, as it reflects on what will be done next on new global events that come up.
Like many other Senators, Hillary Clinton did not bother to read the classified National Intelligence Estimate that was a primary justification for the war in Iraq.
<
p>
This is not a situation where staff can review the information and brief their bosses. The intelligence is available only to be reviewed in person by Senators and Representatives.
<
p>
Edwards, at least, accepts responsibility for his vote and acknowledges having read the report as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
<
p>
I don’t really care about an “apology” from Hillary but it is disingenuous for her to claim she was misinformed when in fact she was uninformed. It makes me shudder to think how this attitude would translate into a presidency.
Do not shower rewards on a nation whose president denies the Holocaust.
<
p>
That’s a no-go.
…since when is not bombing a country back to the stone age a reward?
We will leave it at that.
the Democrat line. No one suggests there need to be pre-conditions. Hillary said that diplomacy starts wih lower level talks. It does. Obama’s slip up was procedural, that’s all, and he’s tried to make lemonade out of lemons by suggesting Hillary’s admin would not conduct diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. I fail to see how an oil rich country cares too much about the WTO. It’s fine longterm to offer inclusion in the WTO, though I don’t find it “new thinking”.