Myth #2: A vote for Kyl-Lieberman was a vote for diplomacy.
Status: FALSE.
Here is what Kyl-Lieberman has to say about diplomacy:
(14) Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress on September 10, 2007, with respect to these talks, stating that ``I laid out the concerns we had over Iranian activity that was damaging to Iraq's security, but found no readiness on Iranians' side at all to engage seriously on these issues. The impression I came with after a couple rounds is that the Iranians were interested simply in the appearance of discussions, of being seen to be at the table with the U.S. as an arbiter of Iraq's present and future, rather than actually doing serious business . . . Right now, I haven't seen any sign of earnest or seriousness on the Iranian side''.
(15) Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress on September 11, 2007, stating that ``[w]e have seen nothing on the ground that would suggest that the Iranians are altering what they're doing in support of extremist elements that are going after our forces as well as the Iraqis''.
(16) Ambassador Crocker further testified before Congress on September 11, 2007, with respect to talks with Iran, that ``I think that it's an option that we want to preserve. Our first couple of rounds did not produce anything. I don't think that we should either, therefore, be in a big hurry to have another round, nor do I think we should say we're not going to talk anymore . . . I do believe it's important to keep the option for further discussion on the table.''
(17) Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated on September 16, 2007 that ``I think that the administration believes at this point that continuing to try and deal with the Iranian threat, the Iranian challenge, through diplomatic and economic means is by far the preferable approach. That's the one we are using . . . we always say all options are on the table, but clearly, the diplomatic and economic approach is the one that we are pursuing.''
To sum up these four paragraphs:
- Diplomacy isn't working
- Diplomacy isn't working
- Diplomacy isn't working, and negotiations aren't a priority
- The Bush administration wants to settle this peacefully
Okay, those findings aren't great. Two pooh-pooh diplomacy, one wants to keep diplomacy on the table, and one claims that Bush/Cheney believe in diplomacy.
Does this sound familiar to anyone?
Diplomacy isn't working.
Diplomacy isn't working.
The UN is becoming irrelevant.
We hope to disarm Saddam peacefully.
Okay, you say. Its findings don't suggest that diplomacy is a good avenue to pursue. But, what does the bill urge us to do?
We've dealt with the designation of the IRG as a terrorist organization for OFAC purposes before, so let's turn to the other two recommendations:
(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;
(2) that it is a critical national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;
Gee, what a shock! The bill doesn't even urge, recommend, or even suggest that diplomacy be used. It does recommend that the United States solve the "Iranian threat" through a military strategy. If you are like me, you can hardly believe that John Kyl and Joe Lieberman would push something with this agenda. (perfunctory sarcasm notation)
So, to recap, Kyl-Lieberman rattles off a laundry list of casi belli, finds that diplomacy isn't working, downplays any possible benefit of diplomacy, and doesn't suggest diplomacy as a solution, but does suggest a military solution.
That's Senator Clinton calls a vote for diplomacy.
Now, Senator Clinton would argue that technically, Kyl-Lieberman is a vote for what she considers diplomacy.
But, this is because she uses an Orwellian idea of diplomacy.
A couple of examples of the doublespeak:
From the Clinton campaign blog:
"General Wesley Clark has strongly supported Senator Clinton's approach to dealing with the serious danger
posed by Iran. Senator Clinton "is committed to ending the unilateralism of the Bush-Cheney administration," he said, adding, "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."
This is truly extraordinary. Voting for a warmed-over version of the Bush administration's script for the Iraq war is not only a vote for diplomacy, it's standing up to Bush! Hillary joins Joe Lieberman in defying Bush! How heroic!
Not too long ago, I diaried Senator Clinton's words on diplomacy and the Iranian challenge:
>And what do I mean by engagement or some kind of a process? Well I'm not sure anything positive would come out of it, I have no expectations whatsoever. But there are a number of factors that I think argue for some attempt to do what I am suggesting: number one I don't think we know enough about how Iranian society and their government really functions. I was struck by the rejection of the President's party in those recent elections. If we are having to pursue potential action against Iran beyond enforcing the toughest sanctions that we can and bringing the world community along as hard as it is, to recognize the danger to them as well as to us and to Israel then I want to know more about the adversary we face. I want to understand better what the leverage we can bring to bear on them will actually produce. I want to get a better sense of what the real power centers and influentials are. And I also want to send a message if we ever do have to take war, drastic action to the rest of the world that we exhausted all possibilities because we need friends and allies to stand with us as we stand with Israel in this long war against terrorism and extremism .
Diplomacy, in this view, is not the alternative to war, but rather war's precursor. (Unless she was lying to AIPAC, but I'll assume honesty on her part).
On October 25, the distinguished Senator from Virginia, Jim Webb, and Chris Matthews poured cold water all over this nonsense. First, they point out the obvious--that this bill was the love child of Jon Kyl and Joe Lieberman.
MATTHEWS: Well, are Lieberman and Kyl carrying water for the administration, for the hawks inside the administration? Why are they passing bills like this?
WEBB: I don‘t think there‘s any doubt about that.
MATTHEWS: But Kyl and Lieberman are not diplomats. They‘re hawks.
WEBB: Well, the Cheney element of the administration is well represented in the United States Senate.
Carrying water for this administration is NOT voting for diplomacy, Senator Clinton.
Siding with the "Dick Cheney element" in the United States Senate is NOT standing up to Bush.
Matthews and Webb go on more to show how the claim that voting for Kyl-Lieberman was for diplomacy is either an act of extraordinary cynicism or astonishing naivete:
MATTHEWS: Well, you know, the people who pushed for war with Iraq had a wonderful method, which was to get people to agree in principle, when it didn‘t matter, in terms of operations, that we needed to go to war, and then get us to follow up on our agreement in principle.
MATTHEWS: So they had something called the Iraqi Liberation Act, which had no real military component to it, no actionable part. And now they keep going back after that and saying, oh, you signed on to that; you must be for war. Bill Clinton signed that. He must be for war.
WEBB: Exactly.
MATTHEWS: And here they are again trying to get the resolutions through. It looks to me like they love these promissory notes. They get people to sign in principle, and then they come back and say, where‘s the war? You promised me a war.
WEBB: Well, it‘s actually—it‘s called getting people on the record. I think that people over here got maneuvered an issue at a time, just as you mentioned, before the war in Iraq, so that, by the time the actual vote came, they were boxed in so that they had to vote for it.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
WEBB: And a lot of that is going on right now. The Kyl/Lieberman amendment‘s a classic example. If you look at the vote on that, even though more than 70 senators voted in favor of it, the top six senators on the Foreign Relations Committee, the two ranking Republicans and the four ranking Democrats, all voted against it.
So, the people who have long experience in foreign policy can see this sort of thing coming, and the others kind of go along with the motion of the moment. And they need to take a lot closer at the language of what‘s coming this way.
So, Senator Clinton, are you cynical or just naive? Either way, your vote was incredibly irresponsible. As was that of every other fool who voted for this.
Myth debunked.
Now, while we have Senator Webb with us, let's turn to:
Myth #3: Senator Clinton's co-sponsorship of the Webb Amendment balances out any harm from the Kyl-Lieberman vote.
Status: FALSE.
From that same interview:
SEN. JIM WEBB (D), VIRGINIA: Well, I think the problem is that we have so many balls in the air, in terms of the rhetoric that‘s flying back and forth, that we need some protection against unintended consequences or, perhaps, intended consequences from some people in the administration.
And that‘s why I introduced a bill last March that would say that the administration cannot take unilateral action against Iran, absent a couple of very specific circumstances, unless it comes to the Congress again.
MATTHEWS: But the president hasn‘t—you haven‘t passed that in both houses...
WEBB: No.
MATTHEWS: ... and the president hasn‘t signed it. So, can‘t he say, "Nice try, Senator Webb; I still have the power"?
WEBB: Well, here we are. And, you know, I‘m saying that because we‘re going to make another push on this starting very soon, because where you are right now is, we have—they didn‘t go quite as far in this declaration today that they did in this Kyl/Lieberman amendment that passed the Senate, which called the Iranian Guards an actual foreign terrorist organization, but they came very close.
Yes. The Webb Amendment has not passed. It will not draw a 2/3 majority to override a veto. It will not draw the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. It may not draw 51 votes.
It has ZERO chance of taking effect.
What we do have is Kyl-Lieberman "Carrying Dick Cheney's Water" Act of 2007. And Senator Clinton endorsed it.
But doesn't her co-sponsorship of this amendment show that she's serious about restricting that administration? Isn't it perfectly and logically consistent with her vote for 'diplomacy' on Kyl-Lieberman.
Jim Webb had an opinion on this, too, which he expressed on Hardball on October,2 2007.
MATTHEWS: Do you think Hillary Clinton is a changed candidate? She supported the war in Iraq and she supported that resolution last week targeting Iran. Do you think she‘s going to offer a change in policy of any dramatic manner from Bush?
WEBB: I hope so. She actually did go on the amendment that I had offered earlier this year to require a separate authorization to go into Iran. She went on, I think, as a corrective measure for the other vote that she took, so I‘m hoping that she understands now the danger of that particular amendment. And she‘s offering some (INAUDIBLE) some very good stuff in other areas.
In other words, she was playing some political CYA.
Jim Webb is no one's fool. He introduced his amendment on March 5, 2007. Senator Clinton waited to co-sponsor it almost seven months later, but it just happens that she did so immediately after after catching political criticism for voting for Kyl-Lieberman.
No, Senator Clinton. You did not co-sponsor Webb's amendment as part of a cohesive approach to Iran and diplomacy that included your Kyl-Lieberman vote.
You cast an utterly foolish vote on a bill that did pass, and once you saw it was politically damaging you ran to co-sponsor a bill that has no chance of passage.
Myth, and narrative, debunked.
Note: If you're looking to debate Barack Obama's statements on this, I'm not really interested in debating them. Until his campaign responds appropriately to last weekend's fiasco, I am not going to advocate on his behalf.
Comments are closed on this story.