Do you in fact have policies that will benefit women, children, and people who feel invisible and left out in this country? That’s the important question here. Has your fight been all for naught? And what is this “Start with Fiscal Responsibility.” That’s not a plan. That’s an idiom. An idiom is not policy. I cannot log on and find a bill called the “Social Security Start with Fiscal Responsibility” bill. I can find the H.R. 676 bill which you should be championing but you lost to the special interest fighting for a plan for health care a long time ago. So, while you do take on special interests, you tend to cave. And what is it with blaming the Republican Congress? For seven months the Senate and House have had the opportunity to expose these irresponsible spending policies under a Democratic-controlled Congress, but I haven’t seen a backlash carried out by Congress. I have not seen you or Obama who believe in working with those across the aisle ask Republicans to construct a fiscally responsible policy in response to the disastrous policies Bush has instituted in this country. And so, you certainly haven’t done enough to start reinstituting fiscal responsibility and rather propose to let us go through one more year of misery until you “win” in 2008 instead of using your power as a senator to propel change now.
Hillary Clinton was next asked about the Lieberman-Kyl Amendment vote, because she was the only person up there who voted for what some deem to be a “military declaration”. (Barack Obama did but he didn’t by “not voting” or being a coward.)
Clinton: First of all, I am against a rush to war. I was the first person on this stage and one of the very first in the Congress to go to the floor of the Senate back in February and say George Bush had no authority to take any military action in Iran. Secondly, I am not in favor of this rush for war but I am also not in favor of doing nothing. Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. And the IRG is in the forefront of that as they are in the sponsorship of terrorism. So, some may want a false choice between rushing to war, which is the way Republicans sound---It’s not even a question of whether, it’s a question of when and what weapons to use---and doing nothing. I prefer vigorous diplomacy. And I happen to think economic sanctions are part of vigorous diplomacy. We used them with respect to N. Korea. We used them with respect to Libya. And many of us who voted for that resolution said that this is not anything other than an expression of support for using economic sanctions with respect to diplomacy. Several people who were adamantly opposed to the war in Iraq like Sen. Durbin voted the same way I did and said that if he though there was even the pretense that could be used from the language in that nonbinding resolution to give George Bush any support to go to war wouldn’t have voted for it. Neither would I. So, we can argue about what is a nonbinding sense of the Senate and I think we are missing the point which is we’ve got to do everything we can to prevent George Bush and the Republicans from doing something on their own to take offensive military action against Iran. I’m prepared to pass legislation that with my colleagues who are here in Congress---to try and get some Republicans to join us to make it abundantly clear that sanctions and diplomacy are the way to go. We reject and believe that George Bush does not have any authority to do anything else.
You were not the first to speak out against Bush’s push for war with Iran. Dennis Kucinich beat you if February is indeed the first time you spoke out against Bush’s position on Iran by five to six months as on Sept 15th, 2006, Dennis Kucinich, “Ranking Member of the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations” called on Chairman Christopher Shays to “hold hearings on a false and misleading report approved by the Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, on Iran’s nuclear weapon capabilities.”
Economic sanctions are not part of diplomacy and should not be ever. If diplomacy is to be effective, one must come to the table having not made up one’s mind prior to discussing matters. If sanctions are in place, than a leader must expect the person we are to have diplomatic relations with will be upset or inflamed by our crippling of their economy. If we do not have a good reason to have placed strangleholds on that leader’s nation, what is the use of diplomacy?
I do not think you want to practice diplomacy. You want to practice ultimatums. You wish as a leader to say to governments like Iran, "Do as we say or else." "Either you’re with us or you’re against us." And that’s how we got into the situation we are in right now.
Nonbinding or binding, the bill is evidence that you support taking aggressive action on Iran when there is no proof to take aggressive action yet at all. You must force Bush to make a concrete case for war before supporting measures to antagonize Iran. Otherwise, you are leading a rush to war, a rush similar to the rush to war with Iraq.
MORE TO COME
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
