Wes Clark is a man of few words. In exactly 611 of them, he spells out the fallacies in recent attempts by various groups within the Democratic party to recharacterize the Kyl-Lieberman amendment as something it is not for political purposes. Wes did this in the Manchester Union-Leader op-ed piece he wrote for Sunday's paper. Basically, his premise is that:
• Hillary's strong support for congressional leverage and a strong national posture is what is needed to engage Iran.
• Leveraged diplomacy is what the situation calls for, not the Bush administration's failure to engage.
• Nothing in Kyl-Lieberman could be construed as authorization for military action by a reasonable observer, and Hillary has consistently spoken out on the need for explicit authorization by Congress prior to any military action.
• The situation calls for action now, and the right thing to do is put pressure on the Bush Administration to engage Iran diplomatically. |
Here are Wes' words:
Last month, Senator Clinton voted for a non-binding resolution that urges the administration to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization in order to strengthen our diplomatic hand. And earlier this month, she joined Sen. Jim Webb in co-sponsoring a bill that would prohibit the use of funds for military action in Iran without specific authorization by Congress. Her strong support for congressional leverage and a strong national posture is what is needed to engage Iran.
I have supported Senator Clinton in both these votes. She is committed to ending the unilateralism of the Bush-Cheney administration. She is a strong supporter of direct nuclear talks with Iran because she believes that direct dialogue with our adversaries is a sign of strength and confidence, and a prerequisite to achieving America's goals and objectives. |
Wes gets right to it: the position of strength is active pursuit of diplomatic engagement, not sulking. as George Bush has done since his "Axis of Evil" speech. Strong nations don't pout, and the situation only gets worse while you do. North Korea spiraled out of control after Bush disengaged, and only resumed talks brought the recent improvement. The same applies to Iran, Wes says.
Then Wes gets to the heart of the matter:
In supporting legislation that seeks to exert diplomatic pressure on Iran, Senator Clinton is standing up to the Bush administration, which has recklessly refused to talk to Iran about its clandestine nuclear program. In voting for a non-binding resolution that urges the administration to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, she is forcing the Bush administration to apply diplomatic pressure. This is the best way to call attention to the problem, empower US diplomacy, and warn Iran that it must cooperate. |
To Wes, Kyl-Lieberman isn't the blank check for war that some here at Kos have claimed. Rather, it is a method of placing the onus of responsibility on George W. Bush to quit pouting, engage the Iranians diplomatically, and open the door to a continuing dialogue with this powerful and alienated country without whose assistance Middle East stability is an illusion.
There is nothing in the non-binding Kyl-Lieberman bill that would give President Bush any authority whatsoever to go to war. Sen. Richard Durbin joined Senator Clinton in supporting this legislation 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." Sen. Carl Levin, who, like Senator Durbin, did not vote for the 2002 Iraq resolution, also joined Senator Clinton in supporting this bill.
In fact, Senator Clinton has spoken out early and forcefully, warning in February that President Bush does not have the authority to take military action against Iran without congressional authorization. |
Near the end of the op-ed piece, Wes laid out his assessment:
This is not the time to rush to war, nor is it the time to do nothing. Rather, this is the time to work resolutely to avert the need to use force at some point in the future.
Senator Clinton's approach represents the consistent strength combined with the kind of diplomacy that has been missing from this administration. As President she will reject the Bush administration's ideologically blinkered flights of fantasy. But she will be a strong leader... |
Wes Clark has dedicated his life to the defense of this country, and recently to avoiding war with Iran. To Wes Clark, the only way out is diplomatic engagement, and Hillary's approach of diplomatic initiatives, combined with economic incentives and pressure from the international community, is the best approach to avoid war.