Home > Politics > Political Punch
Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Previous | Main | Next »

The Persian Conundrum

October 08, 2007 3:08 PM

For the remainder of this week, I'll be trying to title the blog postings in tribute to Robert Ludlum. Feel free to suggest your own titles as well, a la The Janson Directive or The Prometheus Deception.

This posting comes not from the "Bomb Iran" song Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., yukked about on the campaign trail, channeling Brian Wilson.

Abc_tapper_hillarynew_070713_mn But rather Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, who seemed to grow a touch annoyed (WATCH FOR YOURSELF HERE) when an Iowa voter asked her about a resolution she voted for asking the State Department to declare Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard a "terrorist group."

After the voter read her some materials, she said that "what wasn't in what you read to me that somebody obviously sent to you is that -- "

"No ma'am, I take exception to that, this is my own research," said the voter. "No one sent that -- and I'm offended that you would suggest that."

Clinton apologized, with a touch of skepticism, saying she'd "been asked the very same question in three other places."

She pointed out that an earlier version of the legislation, offered by Sen. Joe Lieberman, Ind-Conn., had included language that seemed to open the door to military action. But those paragraphs were taken out.

"Because some of our colleagues thought paragraphs three and four of the Sense of the Senate may have opened the door to some kind of military action against Iran, Senator (Jon) Kyl (R-Ariz) and I have struck them from the amendment," Lieberman said at the time. "That is not our intention. In fact, our intention is to increase the economic pressure on Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps so that we will never have to consider the use of the military to stop them from what they are doing to kill our soldiers."

But still, some Democrats saw the resolution as paving the way for the Bush administration to got to war.

Sen. Jim Webb, D-Virginia, called the proposal "Dick Cheney's fondest pipe dream … At worst, it could be read as a back door method of gaining congressional validation for military action with one hearing or without serious debate."

The resolution passed 76 to 22.

And whether or not the bill provides an opening for the White House to attack Iran, today on the Ed Schultz Radio Show, former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, saw an opening to attack Clinton.

"You've got George Bush out there rattling his saber about going to war in Iran," Edwards said. "The last thing we need to do is give that guy any authority on the first step to move forward."

Already on the defense for her vote to authorize use of force against Iraq, the Democratic presidential frontrunner now has another vote to defend among the anti-war liberal democratic base.

What do you think?

-- jake

October 8, 2007 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (6)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

From Sen. Clinton's perspective, this could be called "The Conservative Conspiracy." From the anti-war perspective, "The Vituperative Vote." From the viewpoint of those supporting war with Iran, "The Lieberman Letdown." From most others' perspective, "Let's watch 'Dancing with the Stars.'"

Posted by: chuck | Oct 17, 2007 9:24:54 AM

GordonsGirl - Pres. Bush does not take dissent, name one instance where he had arrested or investigated some one who did not agree with him? See you libs think your attacks should go unanswered, so when someone tries to debate you shout at the top of your lungs that you are being hushed, that are impeding your freedom of speech. So only Libs can have freedom of speech and whatever they say can not be questioned?

We have Congressman Waxman trying to attack the first amendment and using tax payers money to campaign against a private citizen and using Stalinist tactics at that.

Waxman needs to be removed!

Posted by: spock | Oct 9, 2007 11:13:16 AM

Am I the only one struck by Sen. Clinton's snap assumption that the gentle Iowan was part of a cabal? Is she so unused to informed questions that, when asked the same question in several places, she immediately thinks: "Conspiracy!"

Come on, folks! THIS is the person the media, for starters, has unofficially named the Democratic candidate? This woman takes dissent no better than George W. Bush.

I can only assume that this rumored wellspring of support for HRC is ill-informed as the question I'm continually asked by folks in Chicago, San Antonio and San Francisco is: "Do you anyone who support Hillary Clinton because I don't?" Well, I know exactly five people, all but one men, all who support her because they want Bill Clinton back in the White House. The vast majority of people I know are adamantly opposed to her candidacy. Those most viscerally against her: WOMEN!!!

Posted by: GordonsGirl | Oct 9, 2007 10:36:54 AM

FYI - President Bush does not need Congressional approval to use military action in Iran, due to there already is! Also the fact that this terrorist state is already attacking Americans is an act of war against the US.

The funniest thing here is the inept of the past two Democrat Presidents caused what we have today.

I gave up on the anti-war / pro-war, no one is pro-war, it is more anti-america / pro-american defense!

Posted by: spock | Oct 9, 2007 9:36:42 AM

by the way, why the caricature of Howard Jones accompanying this story? Are you implying, somehow, that things can only get better?

Posted by: DKNY | Oct 8, 2007 4:18:23 PM

If Clinton has not learned by now that you cannot give these thugs an inch on issues such as this one, then she's never going to learn it. That is a significant failing on her part.

Posted by: DKNY | Oct 8, 2007 4:14:32 PM

Post a comment





 

POLITICAL VIDEOS