General Clark writes:
Fortunately, Hillary Clinton has been on the front lines in opposing any effort by the Bush administration to sidestep the Congress. Eight months ago, she took to the Senate floor to warn the President that he could not attack Iran without specific congressional authorization. She said then, long before other members of Congress stood up, "If the administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary the President must come to Congress to seek that authority."
Last week, Hillary voted for a non-binding resolution that designates the odious Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization in order to strengthen our diplomatic hand. On Monday, she joined Senator Jim Webb in co-sponsoring a bill that would prohibit the use of funds for military action in Iran without specific authorization by Congress.
I support Hillary 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.
(bolding is mine.)
Now, it may be impossible to separate what Clark says here from the Democratic primary dust-ups raging daily on this site. But I'd like to try.
Let me stipulate that this is not an anti-Hillary diary, at least in intent. I'm undecided about who I support. All of the candidates have some appealing features, and some I'm not as crazy about. And I think that ALL of the candidates with half a chance to win the nomination have been less than stellar regarding the Iraq occupation, and events leading up to it.
I know that Clark endorses Clinton, but that's not my focus. It's Lieberman-Kyl, and the unfortunate tendency of too many well-meaning Democrats to pretend that the Bush Administration is something other than it is.
The Kyl-Lieberman amendment is terrible in just about every way, even as a non-binding resolution. It represents some very feeble thinking at best, and a nefarious creep towards war with Iran at worst. It's the same garbage we heard about Iraq in the months leading up to the U.S. invasion of that country, and I can't imagine why in the world Clark thinks this will "strengthen our diplomatic hand." Can someone explain this logic? Since when has declaring someone a terrorist made them more amenable to effective diplomacy?
But even if you buy this "strenghten our diplomatic hand" logic on its face, what do we mean by "our" diplomatic hand? Have we forgotten who is in the White House right now? Dick Cheney and his sociopathic little wind-up doll, George W. Bush. They take any opportunity presented -- and many not even presented -- to push further towards more war in the Middle East.
Good Lord, isn't this crystal clear by now?
And look at the authors of the bill: Joe Lieberman and John Kyl. Lieberman lost his mind a while back, and has -- with his best buds Dick Cheney and Sean Hannnity -- been agitating for military action with Iran for a long time now. (You can Google Lieberman's op-eds on the matter.) Kyl is a longtime Bushie stooge.
The very intention of their amendment was to push the U.S. towards miltary action wih Iran. Does anyone seriously dispute that? I know that some of the harsher language was stripped out, and Lieberman made a big deal of harrumphing that this was NOT, in fact, a step towards war. But please -- look at the man's track record. Look at what he said during his race against Lamont, and what he's done since. The man literally has no shame, and can't be taken at his word about anything.
The last sentence goes hundredfold for the psychopaths occupying the White House right now.
WHY would anyone give these people cover for more military disaster?
Clark has been out front in trying to stop military action in Iran, so his support of Kyl-Lieberman is all the more shocking to me. It seems to undo a great deal of his work in the area, in one fell swoop. He -- and all Democrats who voted for this -- have given Bush and Cheney something that they WILL cherrypick as "bipartisan support" when they invade Iran. Just like Lieberman and Kyl intended.
I know that the Webb bill which prohibits using funds for military action in Iran without authorization by Congress came up soon after Kyl-Lieberman, and Clark also supports that. But now that they've labled Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, the Bushies have yet another license to ignore any restriction they want. We all know that's what they do anyway, and that's the starting point of any decision while Cheney / Bush are in office.
How can Wesley Clark pretend otherwise?
Iran is no more an enormous, imminent threat than Iraq was in 2002. It's the same rhetoric we heard back then, almost word-for-word at times, and the same sucker's game that too many Democrats have let themselves be drawn into.
Democrats who voted for Kyl-Lieberman -- and those who support their votes, like Wes Clark -- are showing either a dangerous disconnect from reality, or a solid contempt for it.
I've long admired General Clark, and was a "Clarkie" (doesn't quite roll off the tongue, eh?) back in 2004. So this isn't about my personal animus towards the man. It's about the dangerous bubble our political class operates inside -- and that includes some of our strongest, most reliable allies. Even our heroes.
No one should be under any delusions about the Cheney-Bush administration by now. They must be treated as bad-faith actors in each and every matter, if we have any respect at all for recent history.
And rhetorical swipes at the Bushies are not enough -- you simply can't give them any quarter, especially in matters of war. They're all too eager to make you an accomplice to their crimes.
Comments are closed on this story.