Iran Takes Center Stage In Democratic Race

Washington Post: Clinton Moves to Counter Rivals' Criticism Of Vote On Revolutionary Guard

(Washingtonpost.com)  This story was written by Dan Balz.

---

In the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination, Iran has become the new Iraq.

Iran is now the front line in a foreign policy debate that has found Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) defending a vote that her rivals said could embolden President Bush to once again launch unilateral military action against a Middle Eastern nation.

The discussion is almost identical to one that took place earlier in the campaign over Clinton's 2002 vote for the resolution authorizing Bush to go to war in Iraq, except that, in this case, she finds herself on the opposite side of all her leading rivals for the nomination.

The focus on Iran highlights the extent to which national security remains the key fault line in the Democratic race as Clinton's opponents seek to slow her momentum. With the administration now preparing to designate a branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization and to impose sanctions on Iran, the debate is only likely to intensify.

Clinton has moved aggressively to contain any possible damage. Over the weekend, her campaign flooded Iowa -- the most competitive state in the Democratic contest -- with a mailer that included a lengthy letter from the candidate explaining why she supported a Senate measure urging the administration to label the IRGC a terrorist organization.

The flier, which came two weeks after a testy public exchange over the issue between Clinton and an Iowa voter, also contained a rebuttal of statements by critics of the amendment. That rebuttal came from Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), who voted the same way Clinton did on the measure and who also happens to be one of the leading supporters of a rival, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.).

Obama, who opposed the measure but was absent on the day of the vote, has been among Clinton's harshest critics. He followed her foray into the mailboxes of Iowa Democrats with a flier of his own challenging her judgment and telling voters that he is the only leading candidate who opposed both the Iraq war and the Iran amendment.

But Obama's critics, including some of his rivals, contend that the Illinois senator is on shaky ground because, earlier, he joined Clinton in support of a pending measure that would also label the IRGC a terrorist organization.

Former senator John Edwards (N.C.) has been even more relentless. He attacked Clinton hours after the vote and has not let up on his criticism since. Sens. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) and Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.), who voted against the measure, and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson have eagerly joined in the attacks.

Edwards, who, like Clinton, supprted the 2002 Iraq war resolution, said she failed to learn a lesson from that episode. "I think it's an enormous mistake to give George Bush the first step in the authority to move militarily on Iran," Edwards said in a telephone interview from Iowa yesterday. "My view is that the resolution on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard did that."

Biden, in a session with Washington Post editors and reporters yesterday, said labeling the IRGC as a terrorist group was a "serious, serious mistake" because it could force the United States to back up the designation with action. "Big nations can't bluff," he said.

Clinton has been steadfast in her contention that the amendment to the defense authorization bill was not a vote for war but, instead, a call for robust diplomatic action to deal with Iran. "I oppose any rush to war but also believe doing nothing is not acceptable -- diplomacy is the right path," she said in her campaign mailer.

Iran sprang up as a campaign issue on Sept. 26, when the Senate voted 76 to 22 for a defense authorization bill amendment sponsored by Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.). The amendment not only urged the administration to label the IRGC a terrorist organization but also said that the U.S. military presence in Iraq could have a critical impact on Iran's ability to pose a threat to the entire Middle East.

Twenty-eight other Democrats supported the amendment, including eight who voted against the 2002 Iraq resolution and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), a fervent critic of Bush's Iraq policies. Only two Republicans opposed it, Sens. Richard G. Lugar (Ind.), the ranking minority member on the Foreign Relations Committee, and Chuck Hagel (Neb.), a frequent foreign policy critic of the White House.

In her defense, Clinton has made several points. First, that she has long been on the record opposing the use of military force against Iran and has been a co-sponsor of legislation, with Sen. James Webb (D-Va.), explicitly saying that Bush lacks the authority to use force against Iran.

Webb, however, voted against the Iran amendment, saying that it was enough to allow the administration to use force against Iran. "I think everybody knew what that vote was about," Webb said on MSNBC's "Hardball With Chris Matthews."

Durbin, who opposed the Iraq war resolution in 2002, took the opposite view in explaining why he supported the measure. "I don't think this resolution gives them a green light to do anything," he told Bloomberg Television, referring to the administration.

Clinton also said that she supported the measure only after she and other Democrats had persuaded Republicans to remove more belligerent language toward Iran.

Obama's opposition is nique among the Democratic candidates because he is on record supporting the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization. His opposition, said an adviser, is based on other sections of the measure that use Iran to justify the continued U.S. military presence in Iraq and that say it is in the national interest for the U.S. military to counter Iran in Iraq. The adviser said the amendment is worrisome because there is no stipulation noting that nothing in it authorizes military action.

One Clinton adviser called Obama's position "contrived." Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said: "There is nothing in the bill that gives George Bush any additional authority to wage war in Iran; and if Senator Obama believed that it did, he should have spoken out against it, fought against it and voted against it."

But it is Clinton who remains on the defensive. Her advisers said they have not seen erosion in her support in Iowa but moved preemptively with the mailer nonetheless. Her Democratic rivals think she took action because the issue was already causing her problems.

Whichever view is correct, Clinton's actions have elevated Iran even more as an issue in the Democratic campaign and demonstrated anew her possible vulnerabilities among dovish Democrats on national security issues.

Research editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.

[forthepeopl1]

The committee''''s endorsement of the immunity plan is needed for the broader legislation to move forward. Some senators refuse to consider the matter without seeing the classified documents.

"Immunity suggests that there''''s been a violation of the law and they want to be absolved from any liability," Sen. *** Durbin, D-Ill., told reporters. "I would like to know what happened before I absolve anyone from liability."

The documents have so far not been made available to congressional counterparts on the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees.

The Senate bill would direct courts to dismiss lawsuits against telecommunications companies if the attorney general certified that a company gave assistance between Sept. 11, 2001, and Jan. 17, 2007, in response to a written request authorized by the president, in trying to detect or prevent an attack on the United States.

Suits also would be dismissed if the attorney general certified that a company named in a case provided no assistance to the government. The public record would not reflect which certification was given to the court.

so our laws mean NOTHING to anyone that works in the GOVERNEMNT. if they dont have to follow laws then NO AMERICANS HAS TO...THIS WILL BE A BIG MISTAKE TO HAPPEN IF CONGRESS LETS THIS GET INTO LAW....

[realpatriot1]

terrorislam,

There''s a difference between wanting to stop Sadaam from using WMD and:1)invading without U.N. support and the completion of U.N. inspections, and 2)getting out of the country after toppling Sadaam.

The democrats would''ve gone in if necessary and the IAEA inspections would''ve determined if it was necessary. The dems wouldn''t have gone in with a phony coalition of the willing and without an exit plan.

We now know that the IAEA would''ve discovered that the WMD was gone and there was no need for an invasion. Sadaam was a bad guy but he was contained from attacking his neighbors again(the reason we went in the first time).

The world is full of bad guys but we can''t invade those who pose no significant threat to our own security..should we invade North Korea? Sudan? Zimbabwe? Burma? Belarus? Turkmenistan? Laos? China? Bangla Desh? Cuba? Congo? Venezuela? Somalia? Ecuador? Nicaragua?

Sadaam was contained, had no WMD,had no ties to terror, and posed no threat to U.S. interests or the global oil supply.

[speakinup]

Prinzowhales - long time no hear...

"Stop voting for animals, America! Posted by Prinzowhales

Well at least NOW you aren''t trying to pass yourself off as a US citizen via your sentence structure. That''s a step in the right direction.

[prinzowhales]

If you vote for Clinton, you are going to get Bush with a dress on. If you vote for Guiliani, you are just as likely to get Bush in a dress.

These two candidates represent everything that is wrong with America today--the merchants of death, the usurers in and around the FED, the AIPAC traitors, organized and institutionalized crime...Stop voting for animals, America!

[dgwooster]

To: rerrorislam3

So I can take it from your post that you are alright with cherry picking "intelligence" from Iraqi defectors with drinking problems and then presenting them to the UN as fact? That''s what THE DIVIDER and his crew did...

[rerrorislam3]

liberalme

the Iraqi war is legal, demonic-rat hero oscar, emmy, nobel prize winning al bore says so,,,
it actually never ended since it only stopped by the signing of a ceasefire,,, just like the korean war,,,

the resumption of hostilities was only a matter of time since iraq broke the ceasefire agreement,,,

blame saddam for iraq,,, Even clintoon and the dems wanted the resumption of hostilities back in 1998,,,

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq''s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Moreover, no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq. Indeed, should we decide to proceed, that action can be justified within the framework of international law rather than outside it. In fact, though a new UN resolution may be helpful in building international consensus, the existing resolutions from 1991 are sufficient from a legal standpoint. - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html

[j0hnwi11iams]

You would think by now that she would have learned that Bush lies when he explains how he will use a law. Diplomacy my foot. More like taunting them into making a mistake.

[speakinup]

"Iran Takes Center Stage In Democratic Race"

Someone needs to tell Dan Baltz from the Washington post, that inspite of her AZZ being fat, that is Hillary, not Iran.

[katg21]

;)

[liberalme]

lol