The Caucus is reporting that “it is on in Iowa between Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton.” Obama is arguing that Clinton’s vote in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which “called for Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps to be declared a foreign, terrorist organization,” gives President Bush Congressional authorization to “justify an attack on Iran as a part of the ongoing war in Iraq.” From the Obama mailing:

Why is this amendment so dangerous? Because George Bush and Dick Cheney could use this language to justify keeping our troops in Iraq as long as they can point to a threat from Iran. And because they could use this language to justify an attack on Iran as a part of the ongoing war in Iraq.

Clinton has responded in kind:

Let me be clear – I am opposed to letting President Bush take any military action against that country without full Congressional approval. And I see nothing today that would justify giving that approval.

Ironically, Clinton has used similar language to justify her 2002 vote granting the President authorization to go to war with Iraq. In a speech on the Senate floor, here is how Clinton explained her vote:

Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a U.N. resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

But a day before casting the vote, Clinton “voted against the Levin amendment, which would have required UN approval for the use of force against Iraq; and, failing that, another Congressional vote authorizing the President to use American military force…Clinton’s other notable Senate action on that day was drawing a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, saying Saddam had given “aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members.”

Since then, Clinton has argued that she was duped by the President.

I voted for [the resolution] on the basis of the evidence presented by the administration, assurances they gave that they would first seek to resolve the issue of weapons of mass destruction peacefully through United Nations sponsored inspections, and the argument that the resolution was needed because Saddam Hussein never did anything to comply with his obligations that he was not forced to do,” Clinton writes. “Their assurances turned out to be empty ones, as the administration refused repeated requests from the UN inspectors to finish their work. And the ‘evidence’ of weapons of mass destruction and links to al-Qaida turned out to be false.

But President Bush has made similar diplomatic assurances in his approach towards Iran. According to the New York Times, “the United States has said it is pursuing a diplomatic approach to Iran, including the threat of a new round of United Nations sanctions, but it has refused to rule out military action to halt Iran’s nuclear program.” Has Clinton been duped again?

In recent days, the President and the Vice President have both stepped-up their war rhetoric against Iran. President Bush warned of the risk of ‘World War III’ if Iran acquires “the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon,” and Vice President Cheney warned Iran of “serious consequences” should it continue to develop a nuclear weapon.

Thus, the question remains: if Clinton believes that the President misled her in the lead-up to war with Iraq, why does she still trust the administration’s “diplomatic assurances” on Iran?

This entry was is filed under Incompetence, Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.