 |
Scrutiny sucks.
With the release of the latest NIE
on Iran, we’ve now found out some important facts about their nuclear weapons
ambitions. It’s caused an outbreak of subject conflating.
“The new National Intelligence Estimate shows that George Bush and Dick Cheney’s rush to war with Iran is, in fact, a rush to war. The new NIE finds that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that Iran can be dissuaded from pursuing a nuclear weapon through diplomacy. This is exactly the reason that we must avoid radical steps like the Kyl-Lieberman bill declaring Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, which needlessly took us closer to war. And it’s why I have proposed that we pursue a comprehensive diplomatic approach instead.” – John Edwards
Using the NIE to go after Clinton’s Kyl-Lieberman vote, John Edwards misses by a mile, because when you analyze the NIE one obvious point screams out. It’s clear that the Administration has had this information for at least a year and so they knew Iran didn’t have nuclear capabilities since 2003. We learned this conclusively today. It’s why the Administration’s rhetoric has started to include the word “ambitions” as cover, except for Cheney, of course. So there is no way we were “needlessly” brought “closer to war” by Kyl-Lieberman, even as much as I hated that legislation, which passed by a mile in the Senate. Edwards is relying on voter ignorance, as well as their gullibility to freak whenever Iran comes up. It’s a reaction woven into the American psyche on which Edwards is obviously trying to cash in, with a bonus of hoping to hit Hillary too. A two-fer! Who can resist?
But the Iran
NIE is still being morphed to include the Iranian Revolutionary Guards issue,
which is a totally different subject, all because of politics. Obama supporters have once again decided
to hoist Clinton on her Kyl-Lieberman vote. As informed readers know, not to
be confused with drive-by Obamamaniacs, I railed
against Clinton for that vote. Former Ambassador
Wilson did a guest post here to explain why it wasn’t an issue, with Larry
Johnson, a guest on my radio show, seeing the vote as a silly side show. For
one thing, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment was a Sense of the Senate and non-binding.
If people scream about non-binding resolution on Iraq being ineffectual and
feckless, what’s so different about Kyl-Lieberman? Oh right, Clinton voted for
it. But talking about the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in the same sentence
as what the NIE is reporting on Iran’s nuclear weaponry is conflating issues
and confusing the facts. What the Obamamaniacs refuse to accept is that like
so many other times, Obama simply chose to duck the vote. This is a habit with
him, which Clinton is now raising across Iowa. It’s not been covered much in
the national press, but it goes to Mr. Obama’s aversion to taking stands on
issues that could rile people he’d rather not confront.
“Now, there’s been a lot of talk about yes or no answers to complex
questions. But most people don’t know that for legislators who don’t
want to take a stand, there’s a third way to vote. Not yes, not no,
but ‘present’ – which is kind of like voting ‘maybe.’ Well, in the Illinois
State Senate, on issue after issue, my opponent voted ‘present,’ instead of
yes or no. Seven of those votes were on a woman’s right to choose. Two
of those votes were on measures to protect families from gun violence – one
of which was a measure about firing guns on or near school grounds.”
– Hillary Clinton
This has been pointed out before, as reader rakk12 also tags in Hot Topics.
For example, in 1997, Obama voted “present” on two bills (HB 382 and SB 230) that would have prohibited a procedure often referred to as partial birth abortion. He also voted “present” on SB 71, which lowered the first offense of carrying a concealed weapon from a felony to a misdemeanor and raised the penalty of subsequent offenses.
In 1999, Obama voted “present” on SB 759, a bill that required mandatory adult prosecution for firing a gun on or near school grounds. The bill passed the state Senate 52-1. Also in 1999, Obama voted “present” on HB 854 that protected the privacy of sex-abuse victims by allowing petitions to have the trial records sealed. He was the only member to not support the bill.
In 2001, Obama voted “present” on two parental notification abortion bills (HB 1900 and SB 562), and he voted “present” on a series of bills (SB 1093, 1094, 1095) that sought to protect a child if it survived a failed abortion. In his book, the Audacity of Hope, on page 132, Obama explained his problems with the “born alive” bills, specifically arguing that they would overturn Roe v. Wade. But he failed to mention that he only felt strongly enough to vote “present” on the bills instead of “no.”
Frankly, Obama’s Illinois constituents should be grateful he at least showed up. He didn’t for Kyl-Lieberman he rants was so important, then finally apologized for missing. I guess he wants a do-over. But voting “present” on a woman’s right to choose, while making friends with a man like Sen. Tom Coburn is worrying. This is a guy who wants to deny rape victims access to abortion. So much for civil rights. As for the gun issue, I’m a gun owner, but nobody wants guns around kids. It’s a no-brainer. Not for Obama. He simply voted “present.” Not exactly an act of courage.
But getting back to the conflating of Kyl-Lieberman with today’s Iran news, as regulars around here know because I’ve written about it before, there’s a
very inconvenient fact that Mr. Obama and his fans ignore. Obama
supported a similar designation for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards earlier
in the year in the Iran
Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007.
(14) the United States should designate the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary
Guards Corps, which purveys terrorism throughout the Middle East and plays
an important role in the Iranian economy, as a foreign terrorist organization
under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, place the Iranian
Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of specially designated global
terrorists, and place the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the
list of weapons of mass destruction proliferators and their supporters;
Eriposte of the
Left Coaster has done extensive documentation of the
hypocrisy of Mr. Obama on Iran, as well as Iraq,
which shows Obama’s
Iraq votes are identical to Clinton’s, with no major leadership to end the
war to be seen at any juncture, beyond rhetoric.
As for Kyl-Lieberman, since morphing the
new Iran NIE with Kyl-Lieberman seems to be the rage today, here it is again.
Lieberman’s militant language was taken out of the amendment:
“(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain,
and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq
of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators
such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;
“(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of
United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence,
and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph
(3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its
proxies;”
Mr. Obama has been sliding by without this stuff getting noticed. But
once you pull back the cotton candy facade what you see looks quite different.
No shows for big votes, which he then uses to pillory his opponent, even when
he supported similar legislation months earlier; all the while the hack pack
press ignores the facts. Voting “present” on issues of great importance to women, when taking a stand would be just too much?
On Iraq, Clinton and Obama are virtually the same.
On Iran, Obama
supported designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as terrorists: “…
designate the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which purveys terrorism
throughout the Middle East and plays an important role in the Iranian economy,
as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, place the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the
list of specially designated global terrorists, and place the Iranian Islamic
Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of weapons of mass destruction proliferators
and their supporters.”
However, on Kyl-Lieberman he decided to duck the vote, then pivot and pillory
Hillary.
There’s not a dime’s worth of difference on Iran or Iraq between the two leading
Democrats. It’s just another inconvenient fact that Obama and his supporters
want primary voters to ignore.
Oh, sorry, there is one big difference. Hillary Clinton shows up and casts a vote so you know where she stands. You may not agree with her, which I certainly don’t on Kyl-Lieberman, but she isn’t afraid to take a stand.
“Present” is for pussies.
Comments are closed.