Clinton Says Kyl-Lieberman Vote Deterred Iran

Earlier in the day I speculated about whether Iran, in the wake of the latest National Intelligence Estimate, would decrease in significance as an issue in the presidential election, particularly among Democrats.

A few hours later, the answer is thus far: no. At an NPR debate in Iowa, Iran was one of three featured topics, along with China and immigration (the absence of healthcare, increasingly a contentious issue in the primary, was somewhat confounding.)

On the Iran question, it was Hillary Clinton versus everyone else. When the candidates were asked for their views on the NIE, the debate soon turned to the Senate's Kyl-Lieberman resolution, which labeled the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. John Edwards disputed Clinton's earlier claim that the bill "was clearly a vote for stepped-up diplomacy, not military action." Responded Edwards: "Declaring a military group sponsored by the state of Iran a terrorist organization, that"s supposed to be diplomacy?"(Here's the partial transcript.)

Clinton then defended her vote for Kyl-Lieberman: "In fact, having designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, we've actually seen some changes in their behavior." She didn't say where she had obtained that information. Presumably it wasn't from the latest NIE. "The Iranians were supplying weapons that killed Americans. They were supplying technical assistance from the Qods Force, which is their special operations element. So I think we've actually seen the positive effects of having labeled them a terrorist organization because it did change their behavior."

Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, quickly took exception to her claim. "There's no evidence -- none, zero -- that this declaration caused any change in action on the part of the Iranian government," Biden said.

Under fire, Clinton tried to argue that her position was now the same as everyone else's. "None of us is advocating a rush to war," she said. "Our goals are the same: diplomatic engagement with Iran."

Edwards begged to differ. "Among the Democratic candidates, there's only one that voted for this resolution. And this is exactly what Bush and Cheney wanted."

In a few weeks, if the prospect of another war dims in light of the NIE's strong rebuke of the Bush Administration, Iran may not be such a salient issue in the presidential election. But at least this afternoon, it was.

Comments (37)

1. Of course it's impossible to prove whether or not a hard diplomatic stance helps to resolve a crisis. International affairs are not laboratory experiments where all of the inputs and outputs are known.

   What is clear from this whole debate - which is still infuriatingly overlooked by the media - is that Obama is completely two-faced.

   As I've posted here before, he supported labelling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization in S.970.

   To those who claim that S.970 wasn't like KLA because it didn't mention troops in Iraq - duh, it was a sanction bill, KLA was an amendment to a defense funding bill.

   Today what Obama said was that he objected to KLA because it talked about using troops we currently had in Iraq to deter Iran; he insisted that doing so has the opposite effect, encouraging Iran. Brilliant!

   Only one problem: these are Obama's own words from a statement on his website that's been up there for a year:

   "A reduced but active presence [in Iraq] will also send a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in this region…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."

   If Biden were leading in the national polls right now, I have no doubt that Barack would be saying how he supported KLA (even though he couldn't show up to vote) and that Biden was dangerously soft on Iran. Why would he do this? Hmm - perhaps because he's a phony.

   Please, blogmongers - blast Hillary all you want, but support ANYONE but Obama. This guy is not worthy to lead this nation.

   Posted by ccorbell at 12/04/2007 @ 6:57pm

2. Mr. BERMAN,

   Shouldn't your article's headline be something more like.....

   "Clinton helps the troops in Iraq and takes full credit for FACING DOWN Iran"....more in line with your "Bites the Dust" headline for Sen. Lott's voluntary retirement???

   Posted by Happy at 12/04/2007 @ 7:10pm

3. Hillary has hit a new low! Kyl-Lieberman was voted on in 2007, but the NIE shows that Iran halted their nuclear program in 2003!

   What a sorry sap Hillay has become who thinks she can fool anybody with spin no matter how illogical the spin or no matter how counter to common sense.

   Posted by Metteyya at 12/04/2007 @ 7:36pm

4. CCcorbel, answer the question: If we already had Gordon-Smith (SB 970), why did we need Kyl-Lieberman?

   You know you can't answer because Kyl-Lieberman was all about AIPAC's desire to get us into another ill-advised war with Iran, whereas Gordon-Smith was all about diplomacy with Iran.

   Posted by Metteyya at 12/04/2007 @ 7:39pm

5. One other thing, CCorbel...

   Deterring Iran from stepping into the vacuum in Iraq with a "small but active" presence is quite a different animal than leaving "lots" of troops there and scaring Iran into developing a nuke!

   Posted by Metteyya at 12/04/2007 @ 7:42pm

6. Of course it's impossible to prove whether or not a hard diplomatic stance helps to resolve a crisis. International affairs are not laboratory experiments where all of the inputs and outputs are known.----Posted by CCORBELL 12/04/2007 @ 6:57pm

   So Hillary's claim is disputable?

   Posted by Mask at 12/04/2007 @ 8:30pm

7. I believe a fair --and far more entertaining than absurdly silly caucuses and primaries-- determination of the winner between Hillary and Obama would be an insult smackdown between Hillary's plant, "C Corbel", and Obama's personal shoe-shiner and corner-man, "Metteyya".

   Honestly speaking, I would be pulling for Metteyya because I cannot help but "hear" his posts in the accent of Apu from the Qwikimart. Please take no offense Metteyya, I really do like you, dude!

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/04/2007 @ 9:06pm

8. Posted by METTEYYA 12/04/2007 @ 7:42pm

   Hello, pay attention, watch the ball! Clinton nowhere claimed that the NIE findings were related to KLA. The is an overlay of topics, but even Berman says of Hillary's source "Presumably it wasn't from the latest NIE." One sure way to look like a moron is to respond to headlines as if they're the whole story, without actually reading the whole story.

   As for your smug question on S.970 (which you probably intended to be rhetorical), I already answered it. S.970 was a standalone sanctions measure, not an amendment to a defense appropriation. It is still sitting in committee. (Did you even know that, or am I doing all your homework for you? You seem to imply that you think it's law. You might want to stop screaming your teenage Obamania long enough to do some actual research.) As I stated before of course KLA going to contain additional language relevant to Iraq defense, that's the bill it was attached to. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard terrorist declaration language was identical to the Obama-sponsored S.970. And as his own words show above, Obama clearly does intend and has argued for using an ongoing US military presense in Iraq as a strategic deterrent to Iran.

   I'm not saying KLA is right or wrong here, or that Hillary's consistent support of this approach is write or wrong. I'm just observing that Obama is totally duplicitous by pretending it's an issue that distinguishes him from Clinton. The only distinction is that he's flipped positions for political reasons, to one-up her and win points with gullible people who are (rightly) opposed to more war. But the position he claims on Iran isn't the position he's put his name to on the Senate floor or even on his own website. Obama clearly and vocally supported the two things in KLA which he claims he opposes.

   You can deflect the question of Obama's two-faced flip all day long but it doesn't change the fact that he's a poser riding (like so many before him) on the gullibility of sentimental pop-culture addicts who just want "hope", but will ultimately settle for handsome deceit.

   Barack Hussein Obama is in no way qualified to hold the office of President of the United States of America.

   Posted by ccorbell at 12/04/2007 @ 9:15pm

9. "Barack Hussein Obama...."

   ~CCorbel

   Ouch!!!! The first punch is thrown!!!

   Come on, kick 'em in the cubes, Metteyya!!!

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/04/2007 @ 9:21pm

10. Barack Hussein Obama is in no way qualified to hold the office of President of the United States of America.

    Posted by CCORBELL 12/04/2007 @ 9:15pm

    that is sooooooooooooooo cheeeeeeeeeesy.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/04/2007 @ 9:27pm

11. Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/04/2007 @ 9:06pm

    Glad to amuse you, but you know it's B.S. The second you give me a better electable alternative in this year's race I'm on your bandwagon. Seriously. I would be pleased as punch if Biden somehow pulls out a dark-horse sprint to a first-place finish. I think it would take a miraculous transformation of the public mind to make Kucinich viable as the nominee, but if that happened, sure, beam me up!

    Unlike the official line which an hired campaigner would have to maintain, I can clearly see Hillary losing the nomination, but then the last two Presidential elections have left me pretty cynical about what it takes for anyone to win in our hateful political climate. One of my rationales for supporting Hillary is I know she can take it; Kerry couldn't.

    I guess a difference I might have from younger or more die-hard leftist Nation readers is that my ambitions for progress are tempered by political realities; I think those who smugly assume an anti-Bush backlash is going to make a Democratic White House inevitable regardless of who we nominate are in for a rude suprise come the general election. We should be nominating a tested veteran warhorse, not some egomaniac who's willing to fracture the party for his own ambition.

    Posted by ccorbell at 12/04/2007 @ 9:37pm

12. kick 'em in the cubes

    LOL

    Posted by ccorbell at 12/04/2007 @ 9:38pm

13. Posted by CCORBELL 12/04/2007 @ 9:15pm

    Gee, who was it that was throwing around that "Barack HUSSEIN Obama" thing a while back....

    what were their names?!!!?!?....hmmmm......oh yeah...

    Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, and Savage, I think.

    Posted by Mask at 12/04/2007 @ 10:25pm

14. One more gift for METTEYA:

    Obama's fundraisers include big fish

    Posted by ccorbell at 12/04/2007 @ 10:33pm

15. uh oh cumbuckets, Hillary is starting to make shit up like you do.

    Posted by Will C. at 12/04/2007 @ 10:46pm

16. Molly Ivins said this about HRC :

    "I'd like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president.

    Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone. This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges."

    HRC's triangulation is showing again ... I'm against Bush , but I'll vote to inflame His case for war against Iran !

    "Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone. " Mollly has Hillary nailed.

    Posted by mmckinl at 12/04/2007 @ 11:56pm

17. I hate to admit it... but I think Hillary is right on this one. Judging from the media coverage available to commoners like myself, it does appear to me that the fighting in Iraq has subsided somewhat since the US's 'stance' towards Iran became more aggressive. Though this calming is undoubtedly due to many factors, it was becoming increasingly clear that Iran was somewhat involved under the cloak of 'the insurgency'... and subsequently has backed down. This form of diplomacy, though it is hard for me to understand... may have been suitable under the strained circumstances of the Iraq occupation.

    Should we have used this form of 'diplomacy' on Iraq in 2003? ...Perhaps the reason so many of us 'signed on' to the rush up to war, was that we believed that it was in actuality a tough form of diplomacy...

    Posted by ttr at 12/05/2007 @ 12:26am

18. To C Corruptball,

    You may have the political ideas you wish to but don't dare call Mr. Obama, Hussein. that is the way of you corrupt reps putting on names on everyone hiding your racism and xenofobia. Get out of this blog.

    Posted by Frank42 at 12/05/2007 @ 01:05am

19. Posted by TTR 12/05/2007 @ 12:26am | ignore this person

    A link on Iraq, Iran, on manipulation in regards war in particular, and disaster in general. Naomi Klein also gives a in-depth, beautiful, and eloquent dissertation on regression, check it out. In my humble opinion, it very much relates to subliming ones concepts to perceptions based not on clear seeing, but mere appearance, as well.

    Shock [squidoo.com]

    Posted by V at 12/05/2007 @ 01:59am

20. Posted by MMCKINL 12/04/2007 @ 11:56pm | ignore this person

    I think it worth a link ...

    Full Text [freepress.org]

    Posted by V at 12/05/2007 @ 02:02am

21. Posted by FRANK42 12/05/2007 @ 01:05am

    Haha I love it, I use a candidate's full name in a straight assertion, and you freak out, and that makes me the xenophobe? Can anyone say PC Nazi?

    I have nothing against his name, but like Barack I won't shy away from a good rhetorical rhythm. At least I'm honest in my cadences, I don't attribute a different middle name than he has, or say his middle name's all wrong when I had the same middle name six months ago.

    I hear every kind of disgusting epithet you can imagine hurled at Hillary (half the people who post on these things are on my ignore list now because of obscenities), and besides the hateful exaggerations of every sort of Billary and Queen Mean and every other ridiculous epithet, and yet I spell out this mock-progressive's full legal name and FRANK42 thinks he's got the right to banish me to blogberia. How many times have you taken obscene or sexist Hillary-bashers to task, FRANK42?

    But to the point that brought me back: I have some more homework for METTEYA since he's so worked up about AIPAC: you might want to ponder why Obama, with all his star-quality kingmaker skills, and all of his political purity on your favorite topics, went to Connecticut to actively campaign for and endorse Lieberman against Ned Lamont the last go-round:

    http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060626/sirota/2 [thenation.com]

    Posted by ccorbell at 12/05/2007 @ 02:54am

22. P.S. FRANK42, you might want to call the internet and tell them to take wikipedia down, it's obviously xenophobic:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama [en.wikipedia.org]

    Posted by ccorbell at 12/05/2007 @ 02:58am

23. Haha I love it, I use a candidate's full name in a straight assertion, and you freak out, and that makes me the xenophobe? Can anyone say PC Nazi?

    I have nothing against his name, but like Barack I won't shy away from a good rhetorical rhythm.

    ~C Corbell

    One of my favorite bands, The Clash, once put out a later release called "Cut the Crap" which is a rather ironic title for what was, in fact, a rather crappy release.

    Clearly, CC, you've rendered your own cut of crap here.

    If, hypothetically, I had a Russian acquaintance with the last name Satan --pronounced Sha 'tan-- and wished, for nefarious reasons, to smear him by emphasizing that his name was Satan --of the common pronunciation-- that would be analogous to the not so sleight of hand you've attempted.

    I suggest you pick up your blackened ball and play somewhere more receptive to your snake-oil sales --a rightwing nut-job site perhaps since the Hildebeast is, in fact, a surreptitious ally of the Flush Dumbo AM radio crowd.

    You'll find few who hew to your views here. In honor of another icon of punk rock, I say bollocks to ya.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/05/2007 @ 04:20am

24. My Daddy was a bankrobber

    But he never hurt nobody

    He just loved to live that way

    And he loved to steal your money

    Some is rich, and some is poor

    That's the way the world is

    But I don't believe in lying back

    ~The immortal Clash

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/05/2007 @ 04:38am

25. Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/05/2007 @ 04:38am

    You've really lost me, dude. What are you talking about with all that Satan crap? I spelled his full name exactly as it's spelled: Barack Hussein Obama. That's his name. I post evidence after evidence of this guy's duplicity and all you can focus on in response is that I used his full name in a sentence. Ever think of applying for a job in the Bush Press Corps, special changing-the-subject division?

    A real anthem for Obamania:

    Anything I want,

    He gives it to me,

    Anything I want

    He gives it but not for free,

    it's hateful

    and it's paid for

    and I'm so grateful

    to be nowhere

    You ain't got a monopoly on the Clash, but it's a little telling that you quote them to make some vague association with a middle-of-the-road, GOP-leaning, war-funding-voting mainstream-pop politician. Ah, the echoes of the ever-coopted musical counter-culture formula; just sing a song and transcend it all. You won't win the election and the artists will self-destruct, but CBS, EMI, and Geffen (Obama supporter) will sell a hell of a lot of records. The truest punks never got signed and sure as hell never obsessed about PC. Joe Strummer's ghost undoubtedly doesn't give a shit about America at this point, but if he did you think he'd give anyone but Kucinich the time of day?

    Obama's not Clash-worthy; he is the political model of every bland rock-star sell-out, which probably explains why he also took money from the RIAA.

    Posted by ccorbell at 12/05/2007 @ 04:58am

26. Lest anyone assume that Obama is, by some default, a reasonable alternative to Her Highness think again:

    America 's "most popular politician" Barack Obama has hitched his campaign on a munificent pledge to save the Republic by overcoming the terrible divisions between "red state" (white-patriarchal and more rural and evangelical and militarist) Republicans and "blue state" (more multi-colored, feminist, gay-friendly and urban-cosmopolitan) Democrats. He's going to lead us into a glorious future of countrywide cohesion by transcending the frightening and bitter "partisan" discord inherited (he claims to think) from those awful (late) Nineteen Sixties. That's when the angry, countercultural and doctrinaire New Left cleared the way for its supposed moral equivalent (Obama thinks) the New Right. Yes, the nasty (late) Sixties nearly scared nice America to death. According to the good book of Obama, we've been crippled by horrific "culture wars" and related "partisan" conflict ever since we lost our moral and political center in the Age of Aquarius (Obama 2006).

    The "HOPE" promised by the BaRockStar is that he will be the first "post-baby-boom" leader to bring us all back together. He is the generational redeemer to guide us on the path to the rediscovery of our shared and glorious "American values." He is going to restore the Camelot of noble national unity and meaning beyond (supposedly) petty and dysfunctional squabbles over abortion, drugs, race, guns, gender, gay rights, imperialism/militarism, and the like.

    Specially chosen for this great mission (on a global scale as well) by his distinctive multi-cultural background (he is the son of a white women from Kansas and a black man from Kenya and was raised by white grandparents in Hawaii and spent four years growing up in Indonesia - hooray!), he is going to un-part the Red State/Blue State sea and restore the nation's "common ground." He is the affirmative, non-threatening but all-knowing answer to Rodney King's question: "can't well all just get along?" He is going to heal us, binding rich and poor, black and white, "oppressed" and "oppressor" (Obama 2006, p. 68) together in ties of shared "empathy" and agreement.

    In other words, he's a narcissistic and reactionary pain in the ass – and a tool of the business class.

    ~Veteran radical historian Paul L. Street is a writer, speaker and activist based in Iowa City , IA and Chicago , IL

    For the rest click here

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/05/2007 @ 05:00am

27. Timely reply, CC!

    I give you some credit.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/05/2007 @ 05:02am

28. Joe Strummer's ghost undoubtedly doesn't give a shit about America at this point, but if he did you think he'd give anyone but Kucinich the time of day?

    ~Si Corbell

    Yes. But Shillary aint an acceptable answer, dude.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/05/2007 @ 05:19am

29. Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/05/2007 @ 05:19am

    I know you won't support Hillary, but at least her rhetoric matches her record. She doesn't hide her connections - she talks to and accepts money from lobbyists, and she says she talks to and takes money from lobbyists. She supports the use of military-backed diplomatic stances and doesn't flip-flop on that. She seems to be a centrist and she is a centrist. I will say that she is slightly to the left of Bill, not just based on her word but on her Senate voting record. If going from Bush/Cheney to slightly left of Bill Clinton is the worst we do this year, it's progress, but I get it; people see this as a big opportunity year and want more. But Obama is less.

    A deal: I'll make donations to and cheerlead for both Edwards and Kucinich if you'll help let everyone on these boards know what a phony Obama is on progressivism, on Iran, on corporate policy, on war. As Street says, Obama's quite possibly to the right of Hillary, but you wouldn't know that from his spin or his parrots around here. Dangerous.

    I like to know what I'm getting and Obama's obfuscations and contortions offend me even more than his actual (GOP-friendly) positions. No wonder Rove's giving him free campaign advice.

    Posted by ccorbell at 12/05/2007 @ 06:48am

30. A deal: I'll make donations to and cheerlead for both Edwards and Kucinich if you'll help let everyone on these boards know what a phony Obama is ...----Posted by CCORBELL 12/05/2007 @ 06:48am

    Interesting, huh? CCORBELL wants us to go after the ONE guy posing the biggest threat to Her Nibs...with the "promise" that CC will "donate" and "cheerlead" for Edwards and Kucinich.

    Anybody naive enough to take that deal?

    Posted by Mask at 12/05/2007 @ 09:34am

31. Give it a rest Hillary.

    You are humilating yourself claiming signing on to the Zionist declaration of war was a pitch for diplomacy.

    Go away.

    Posted by Lil at 12/05/2007 @ 09:38am

32. and note when defending herself she uses the royal "we" to insulate herself from her singular act.

    Posted by Lil at 12/05/2007 @ 09:39am

33. CCorbel,

    You didn't answer the question: If we already have Gordon-Smith (S.970), why did we need Kyl-Lieberman?

    Why did Hillary support Kyl-Lieberman if the language you claim in Gordon-Smith was "identical"?

    I think you know that "some" of the language was identical, but the key language concerning NOT authorizing war with Iran was removed in Kyl-Lieberman but retained in Gordon-Smith, but Hillary still supported Kyl-Lieberman. The reason why she supported it is because she has been BOUGHT by the defense contractors and AIPAC who want another Middle East war. Period.

    The Village Voice exposed this in their article entitled "Mama Warbucks", in which Hillary inserted more "secret" pork-barrel earmarks in a defense bill than ANY Democrat in history and more than ANY Republican, save one. Google: Mama Warbucks and read the article yourself, and then explain why Hillary is OPPOSED to disclosing the source and recipient of pork-barrel earmarks and explain WHY she is doling out so much cash to defense contractors?

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/05/2007 @ 10:41am

34. Metteyya broodingly enters the Coliseum with his net and trident, and the crowd roars!

    BLOOD......BLOOD.......BLOOD........BLOOD.........

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/05/2007 @ 11:14am

35. The Iranians do not care about Kyl-Lieberman in the slightest.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 12/05/2007 @ 11:59am

36. Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/05/2007 @ 11:14am

    Then who's Maximus Decimus Meridius?!?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 12/05/2007 @ 12:16pm

37. Posted by METTEYYA 12/05/2007 @ 10:41am

    Sure I answered, you just don't read that well. S.970 has not been passed, that's why they attached KLA. But in both cases we're talking about Sense of the Senate statement which grants NO authority for war.

    I said at the outset I'm not posting here to defend Hillary on defense or KLA; if you oppose her position more power to ya. What I'm here to expose is Obama's absolute hypocrisy on this issue and what a fool you are for buying his bait-and-switch. If you think Obama's an alternative to Hillary you're sniffing Barack-brand glue. Read the article B_KOOL_66 posted. WAKE UP!

    BTW I just made a donation to Kucinich and will be getting an autographed little red constitution in the mail soon! As soon as Edwards shows the balls to take on Obama I'll donate to him too.

    Posted by ccorbell at 12/05/2007 @ 2:48pm