Well me either and I’ll tell you my main reason. The U.S. Senate could vote to gather up every loose saber littering that chamber’s floor to lock safely in the attic and what this White House would hear are sabers being rattled while they were carted off. But I’ll tell you something I don’t like almost if not equally as much as Clinton’s Kyle – Lieberman vote. By and large I am upset by how anti-war grassroots have seized on Clinton’s vote to use as a primary season football at the expense of trying to lesson the risk of war with Iran.
Essentially the primary reaction of most anti-war grassroots activists to the passage of Kyle –Lieberman by the U. S. Senate has been to blast Clinton for her vote and use that vote to argue against her Presidential candidacy. I know I am over simplifying, but the most common line of attack seems to be that by voting for Kyle- Lieberman, Clinton gave political cover to Bush/Cheney that will make it easier for them to attack Iran while they still are in office. Let’s step back and look at that for a second. Maybe several LONG seconds.
If it is a valid concern that Bush/Cheney might attack Iran (and I think it is), and if them attacking Iran would be a horrific error (and I think it would be), then we all need to be doing something RIGHT NOW to try to prevent that attack. And I would ordinarily expect those who are most concerned about the negative aftermath of Kyle – Lieberman to take the lead now in trying to reverse, or at least contain, the damage that they believe that vote has caused. After all, stopping a war is at stake. But many seem to think that stopping Hillary is a higher priority, or at least they seem to act that way. Stopping Hillary from winning the Democratic Nomination would not prevent George W. Bush from attacking Iran. Nor would getting whoever one wants nominated instead of Clinton. Democrats could nominate and elect Dennis Kucinich President and he still wouldn’t occupy the oval office until Bush’s term in office is over. I see people playing politics over War and Peace, and unfortunately I see it from both the Right AND the Left.
Let’s stop and take another look at that Kyle - Lieberman vote. First let’s look at the obvious. It passed and the margin was not small. Hillary Clinton cast her vote with the majority, but what would have happened had she not? Instead of passing by a vote of 76 to 22 with 2 not voting, had Clinton joined the opponents Kyle – Lieberman would have lost by 75 to 23 instead. From either a policy or political perspective the result would have been the same – overwhelming Senate approval. Clinton’s vote made no critical difference, neither did Obama’s non vote. For those of us who are unhappy about Kyle – Lieberman our problem is much bigger than the votes or non votes of Presidential candidates. Minimally we have a bone to pick with the entire Democratic Caucus in the Senate, almost 30 of whom supported Kyle - Lieberman; far more than voted against it.
So no it wasn’t just the same small handful of blue dog Democratic defectors of the sort we are so used to fretting over. It was our Senate leadership, and not just Harry Reid but Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer too. It wasn’t just the Nelsons, Pryor, Salizar and Laundrieu voting “Aye”; they were joined by Levin, Mikulski, Martinez, Stabenow and Whitehouse , among other “unlikely suspects”. But for some reason I have been reading very little wholesale criticism of Senate Democrats over Kyle – Lieberman, only of Senator Hillary Clinton. I call foul. Is Clinton’s vote on Kyle – Lieberman a valid test for potential support of a candidate? Absolutely, as is every vote taken by every politician who now or previously held an elected office. But the selective political outrage focused on Clinton and virtually Clinton only masks as concern for stopping an attack on Iran, not merely on stopping a presidential candidate, and it doesn’t pass the smell test.
Does anyone wonder what might have happened if the Senate Democratic leadership and a majority of the Senate Democratic caucus had not struck a deal to gut the original language found in Kyle – Lieberman? You know, the original language that actually explicitly DID approve of the use of military force against Iran? Does anyone think that Joe Lieberman agreed to take that language out as a friendly gesture just to be nice? I wonder. I can’t prove it but I suspect the original version of Kyle – Lieberman could have passed intact except by a closer margin. I think enough hawkish Democrats would have provided the votes needed for a winning majority (and for the record Clinton says she would have voted “No” herself on the original version). Then the Senate would now be on record telling Bush “sure, attack Iran in self defense if that is what needs to happen”. That would really have been swell.
If we so are concerned that Kyle – Lieberman, even the somewhat gutted version that ultimately passed, sent the wrong message to Bush about possibly attacking Iran, then shouldn’t we now be concerned about having the full Senate, or at least as many Senators who supported Kyle – Lieberman as possible, correct that wrong message? If all the fears expressed are valid, than organizing to get the Democrat elected in 2008 who has the sanest position on Iran is merely closing the barn door after the horses have fled. A lot of good that will do us after Bush starts a new war in his remaining months in office. But I see almost no outrage expressed about the actions taken by a majority of Democrats in the Senate; I just see Democratic primaries political points being scored at the expense of one, Hillary Clinton. So where is the missing effort to now set the record straight in the Senate?
The only Democratic Senator who voted in favor of Kyle – Lieberman now going out of her way to clarify to Bush what that vote did and did not actually support is, of course, Hillary Clinton. Many chalk that up to politics and her need for political cover, and that is certainly the in vogue cynical view point. Sure Clinton has a need to explain to those whose votes she now seeks that she is not gung ho for attacking Iran but rather prefers robust diplomacy, but few activists seem willing to even entertain the possibility that she is also saying what she really believes. We live in a cynical time only deepened by the fact that cynics too often are correct – but not always. Still for the sake of argument let’s take a look through a cynic’s eyes. First conclusion; support someone other than Clinton in the primaries. OK, I get that part. If you really believe Clinton wants war with Iran any more than other viable Democratic candidates, and presuming that you don’t, no doubt she won’t get your first vote. Fine, but what about actually preventing that war with Iran from starting while Bush remains in office?
Seems to me that Hillary Clinton, since her vote for Kyle – Lieberman, has said and done many of the things needed to minimize unintended Bush Administration consequences from that measure having passed. Whether or not that also minimizes unintended Democratic primary voter consequences for her is a different matter completely. Meanwhile I am continually reading anti-war activists pushing the case that Lieberman himself wants to see pushed. Namely we throw cold water on any possible alternative to a drums of war interpretation of what the majority of Democratic Senators intended when they backed Kyle Lieberman, and for the life of me I fail to see how that helps. Or let me be more precise; I fail to see how blasting Kyle – Lieberman as enabling war helps if virtually no one has any interest in getting the Senate Democratic majority to reframe and clarify their intent now to dampen further drums for war.
We have Hillary Clinton currently out there in public asserting that nothing in Kyle – Lieberman says the U.S. Senate supports anything except diplomacy with Iran, and anti-war activists are shouting back “Wrong! Yes it does!” Am I the only one who sees something a little odd, and even counter productive to the point of dangerous, with this picture?
Stopping a pending war with Iran should trump primaries politics, especially if war needs to be prevented before a new President gets to take office. What of the 28 or so other Democratic Senators who like Hillary Clinton voted for Kyle – Lieberman? Wouldn’t it make sense to get more of them on record now clearing up any doubt by opposing military actions against Iran while Bush remains in office, at least without direct Congressional approval? I can’t for the life of me see why they would though, not when they reap political advantage by keeping their mouth shut and their heads out of the line of fire. Why not let Hillary take the flak? She gets all of it now regardless of what she says or does; she can co-sponsor the Webb Amendment, she can back no preconditions to diplomacy with Iran, she can argue time is not running out for diplomacy, all it does is expose her to further attacks.
Meanwhile for the rest of our Senate Democrats not running for President, most of whom supported Kyle – Lieberman also, it remains out of sight out of mind. We are giving them every incentive in the world to let their Kyle – Lieberman votes represent their final word on the matter. Politically, they would be fools to open their mouths now and divert any criticism that they legitimately could share in away from Hillary. Don’t expect to see any of them stepping forward to set the record straight that they did not support another rush to war with Kyle - Lieberman. After being left off the hook, and watching what happened to Hillary when she rose to clarify her intent, they would be suicidal to not stay hunkered down. Folks, this is not the way to prevent a looming war.
