The second installment (reposted with technical difficulties fixed). Thank you for your patience. Now how about those Democratic candidates America?

::::::::

Continuing on from this previous article

Part 2: The Second Ten Minutes

The second ten minutes allowed for Chris Dodd and Joe Biden to enter into the debate and have their views heard but excluded Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich from the debate making it at least twenty minutes that both had to wait to be heard. Had the focus not been on Hillary and more so on how each candidate would lead and run our nation and had favorites not been played, the debate would have ran smoother. Nonetheless, this section delved deeper into the issue of Iran and gave Chris Dodd the opportunity to make the solid point that Democrats will be to blame if we go to war with Iran.

Russert: Senator Dodd, you said that bill was a justification for war in Iran.

Chris Dodd: Well, Tim, I believe that this issue is going to come back to haunt us. We all learned, some of here painfully, back in 2002, that by voting for an authorization regarding Iraq, that despite the language of that resolution which called for diplomacy at the time, this administration used that resolution, obviously, to pursue a very aggressive action in Iraq.

I'm in a view here, what you didn't learn back in '02, you should've learned by now. And you don't just have to listen to this resolution. There's been a series of drumbeats by this administration, by Dick Cheney, by the president, by others, clearly pointing in a direction that would call for military action in Iran.

It is a dangerous view, in my view. And therefore, I thought it was incumbent upon us. It was interesting that people like Dick Lugar, the former Republican chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska -- Republicans who also had serious reservations and voted against that resolution the other day on September 26th.

I'm very concerned that we're going to see those 76 votes come back, being waved in front of us here as a justification when the Bush administration decides to take military action in Iran.

So it was a moment -- it's a critical moment, when I think leadership is called for here. If you're going to seek the leadership of our country, this is the most serious time in a generation. You have an ascending China. You have an Iranian that's ambitious to acquire nuclear weapons. You have, obviously, a $4 trillion economy that's in trouble, a health care crisis in this country, energy and other issues that are going to confront the next president.

Good judgment and leadership at critical moments must be a part of this debate and discussion. That was a critical moment and the wrong decision was made, in my view.

As highlighted in an article by Scott Ritter, indeed, the issue of Iran will come back to haunt Democrats if they do not do something about it now and it will haunt them worse than the issue of Iraq because now that they control Congress, Democrats will not be able to blame Republicans for their failures. In fact, one could easily make the case that America should not elect a president who was fooled in 2002 and who did not do his or her homework. After all, an October 2002 analysis detailing how weak President Bush’s case for war was existed in the House and to anyone in Congress really. So not voting “no” to the Iraq war authorization and against funding of this Iraq war raises the question: Will you be fooled again? And in fact, some people are already trying to justify actions they have taken as a result of being fooled by Iran (Hillary Clinton).

Russert: Senator Biden, do you agree with Senator Webb: It was, de facto, a declaration of war?

Joe Biden: Well, I think it can be used as declaration. Look, we have a problem in the Senate -- and I'm not just directing this at Hillary; there were 75 other people who voted with her; we are in the minority -- that there are consequences for what we do.

And it's not even about going to war. Let's look at what happened from the moment that vote took place. Oil prices went up to $90 a barrel.

Who benefits from that? All this talk of war, all this talk of declaring people to be terrorists droves up the price of oil.

Secondly, we have emboldened Bush, at a minimum, his talk of world war III -- totally irresponsible talk. We've emboldened him, Tim, to be able to move, if he chooses to move.

They're terrorists. The fact that they're terrorists on one side of the border or the other, we just declare them terrorists. That gives him the color of right to move against them.

Thirdly, this has incredible consequences for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Nobody talks about this. The 75 of our colleagues don't understand. We have now driven, underground, every moderate in Pakistan and in Afghanistan.

This literally -- literally puts Karzai, as well as Musharraf in jeopardy. The notion is it plays into this whole urban legend that America's on a crusade against Islam.

This was bad -- if nothing else happens; not another single thing -- this was bad policy. The president had the ability to do everything that that amendment -- that resolution called for without us talking to it.

And all it has done is hurt us. Even if not another single action is taken, actions have consequences. Big nations can't bluff.

Well said, Joe. I know of no other way to say what you said, which is that even if we presume that this is as far as actions on Iran will go this is still overreaching and gratuitous. America should have held back but now has no choice but to go down a road of confrontation because 76 people failed America when they voted for the Lieberman-Kyl amendment.

Williams: Senator Obama, let's get at this another way. "Red line" is the current expression of the moment where Iran is concerned in Washington. What would your red line be concerning when to, if to attack Iran? What would make it crystal-clear in your mind that the United States should attack Iran?

Wait...Brian...Barack Obama doesn’t do "hypotheticals."

Obama: I don't think we should be talking about attacking Iran at this point for some of the reasons that Chris and Joe just talked about. Look, we have been seeing, during the Republican debates, the drum beat of war. The president has been talking about World War III.

That is a continuation of the kinds of foreign policy that rejects diplomacy and sees military action as the only tool available to us to influence the region.

And what we should be doing is reaching out aggressively to our allies, but also talking to our enemies and focusing on those areas where we do not accept their actions, whether it be terrorism or developing nuclear weapons, but also talking to Iran directly about the potential carrots that we can provide in terms of them being involved in the World Trade Organization, or beginning to look at the possibilities of diplomatic relations being normalized.

We have not made those serious attempts. This kind of resolution does not send the right signal to the region. It doesn't send the right signal to our allies or our enemies.

And, as a consequence, I think over the long term, it weakens our capacity to influence Iran.

Now, there may come a point where those measures have been exhausted and Iran is on the verge of obtaining a nuclear weapon, where we have to consider other options. But we shouldn't talk about those options now, when we haven't even tried what would be a much more effective approach.

Nice dodge, Barack. Isn’t it great that Brian Williams and Tim Russert let you off scot-free on your decision to register a “no vote” on the Lieberman-Kyl amendment? Doesn’t it feel great to be able to hold a foreign policy that would involve amendments such as the Lieberman-Kyl amendment and not have to answer for it in a forum where one should have to justify his or her actions in politics?

By the way, I would not “reach out aggressively” to any allies. In order to get any allies to work with us on the issue of Iran, we have to engage them “peacefully.” Policies of coercion or aggression would be a continuation of current American foreign policy where we reject diplomacy and see military action as a vital tool. And as stated, you do not seek to continue the same foreign policy, right?

Williams: Same question to Senator Clinton. What would be your red line?

Clinton: Well, first of all, we have to try diplomacy, and I see economic sanctions as part of diplomacy. We have used it with other very difficult situations -- like Libya, like North Korea. I think that what we're trying to do here is put pressure on the Bush administration. Joe is absolutely right. George Bush can do all of this without anybody. You know, that is the great tragedy and that's why we've got to rein him in, and that's why we need Republican support in the Congress to help us do so.

I invite all of our colleagues to pass something immediately that makes it very clear: He has no authority and we will not permit him to go take offensive action against Iran. But what we're trying to do is push forward on vigorous diplomacy. That has been lacking. I believe we should be engaged in diplomacy right now with the Iranians.

Everything should be on the table, not just their nuclear program. I've been advocating this for several years. I believe it strongly.

But I also think when you go to the table to negotiate with an adversarial regime, you need both carrots and sticks. The Revolutionary Guard is deeply involved in the commercial activities of Iran. Having those economic sanctions hanging over their heads gives our negotiators one of the set of sticks that we need to try to make progress in dealing with a very complicated situation.

Everybody agrees up here that President Bush has made a total mess out of the situation with Iran. What we're trying to do is to sort our way through to try to put diplomacy, with some carrots and some sticks, into the mix and get the president to begin to do that.

Here Hillary Clinton just stated why impeachment of Cheney and Bush should be pursued by saying, “he can do all this without anybody.” And why waste time passing any piece of legislation to show he has no authority to take action on Iran when members of Congress could just debate H.R. 333 and pursue impeachment? Successfully impeaching the president and vice president would or could successfully erase the idea of war with Iran occurring before the next president is elected.

As for economic sanctions, Hillary has supported a way for America to threaten Iran. We have told them we will run your economy into the ground, Iran, if you don’t do as we say. We have, instead of going into diplomatic relations having not antagonized or inflamed them yet, set up a situation where they will already resent our involvement in their decisions to have nuclear power or not. Giving that they have a reason to keep us from talking to them, how can we expect to prevent the rise of nuclear weapons if we have alienated Iran and continue to alienate Iran?

Williams: Respectfully, Senator, same question though: Do you have a threshold, a red line beyond which...

She doesn't do "hypotheticals" either! Quit wasting time!

Clinton: I want to start diplomacy. I -- you know, I am not going to speculate about when or if they get nuclear weapons.

We're trying to prevent them from getting so. We're not, in my view, rushing to war. We should not be doing that, but we shouldn't be doing nothing, and that means we should not let them acquire nuclear weapons. And the best way to prevent that is a full court press on the diplomatic front.

So, let me get this straight. We are “trying to prevent them” from getting nuclear weapons. We are not “rushing to war.” And in order to not rush to war, it is important to engage in diplomacy. That’s all fine, but what I have a tough time handling is the idea of letting over a year pass before we get into diplomatic relations with Iran. And, Hillary, you have not laid out a good measure to take to ensure that this “rush to war” does not occur.

Williams: I've noted all of our candidates want in on this.

Hmm...you weren’t going to ask everyone about how they would handle Iran?

Senator Edwards, you next.

Edwards: Thank you very much.

Well, I just listened to what Senator Clinton said and she said she wanted to maximize pressure on the Bush administration. So the way to do that is to vote yes on a resolution that looks like it was written, literally, by the neo-cons.

I mean, has anyone read this thing? I mean, it literally gave Bush and Cheney exactly what they wanted. It didn't just give them what they wanted. They acted on it.

A few weeks later, they declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, and -- this is going to sound very familiar -- remember from Iraq? The prelude to Iraq? -- proliferators of weapons of mass destruction.

The way you put pressure on this administration is you stand up to them; you say no.

A lot of us on this stage have learned our lessons the hard way, that you give this president an inch and he will take a mile. And this is about such an important issue, and we have to stand up to this president. We need to make it absolutely clear that we have no intention of letting Bush, Cheney or this administration invade Iran because they have been rattling the saber over and over and over.

And what this resolution did, written literally in the language of the neo-cons, is it enables this president to do exactly what he wants to do. He continues to march forward. He continues to say this is a terrorist organization. He continues to say these are proliferators of weapons of mass destruction.

How in the world is that -- Democrats -- we're not talking about Republicans now, Chris and Joe -- Democrats standing up to this president and saying, "No, we are not going to allow this, we are not going to allow this march to war in Iran"?

Thank you, John. But I have to steal your thunder or rather highlight the fact that you are not alone in this matter and in fact Dennis Kucinich’s press release on September 25th titled, “Iran Counter-Proliferation Act Unintentionally Undermines Diplomatic Efforts.” It would be interesting to go back to the previous debate where Gravel was allowed to attend and ridicule Hillary for her vote on the Lieberman-Kyl amendment and see exactly what you said and then see how you have shifted or toughened your stance against the amendment. Anyways, funny how after all this talk about diplomacy by Hillary Clinton there exists this press release that shows how flawed she is for voting for an act that hinders diplomacy.

You failed to mention that the U.S. has never asserted another nation’s military to be a terrorist organization as Dennis notes in the mentioned press release. You also failed to talk about impeachment, which could greatly hinder a march to war with Iran. And you failed to ask Congress to hold hearings to examine the current existing case for war with Iran.

MORE TO COME

Authors Bio:
Kevin Gosztola is managing editor of Shadowproof Press. He also produces and co-hosts the weekly podcast, "Unauthorized Disclosure." He was an editor for OpEdNews.com