Obama Advisor Greg Craig: Clinton's Iran Stance "Naive"

[flpoljunkie]

Obama Adviser Craig: Clinton’s Iran Stance “Naïve”

TO: Interested Parties

FR: Greg Craig, Foreign Policy Adviser to Senator Obama, former Director of Policy Planning at the Department of State, and former Assistant to the President and Special Counsel

RE: Obama vs. Clinton: Real Differences on Iraq and Iran

October 25, 2007

The current debate about the wisdom of Senator Clinton’s support for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment points up significant differences in Senator Obama’s approach to the use of force in Iraq as compared with Senator Clinton’s approach.

On September 26, Senator Clinton voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. In defending her vote, Senator Clinton points to that provision in the resolution that calls for designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group, a provision incidentally that Senator Obama does not oppose. But the amendment does much more than that.

The Kyl-Lieberman amendment contains language that sets forth an entirely new rationale for keeping US troops in Iraq and, if need be, for attacking Iranian forces. The problematic language in the resolution says that it is a “critical national interest of the United States” to counter Iran’s influence among the Shia population of Iraq. Without a doubt, President Bush can cite that language as authorizing him to maintain and use US troops in Iraq for the purpose of containing Iran, curtailing Iran’s influence in Iraq, and, if need be, to expand our troops’ activities beyond Iraq’s borders to pursue and attack Iranian forces.

Having seen what this Administration – with its expansive view of its Executive Power – has done in the past with Congressional resolutions, it is naïve to support the Kyl-Lieberman amendment without simultaneously seeking explicit assurances that the President will never cite the amendment as a legal basis for deploying US troops to counter Iranian influence whether in Iraq or Iran. In fact, just weeks earlier, the Senate agreed unanimously to a similar Iran-related amendment. In that amendment, however, the Senate made clear that “Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of Armed Forces against Iran.” To a person familiar with the practices and principles governing interpretation of statutory language, the absence of such language in the Kyl-Lieberman amendment is significant.

Senator Clinton voted to approve the new mission for our troops, and she blessed the new rationale for their continued presence in Iraq. Senator Obama did not. Senator Clinton was willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the Administration on this matter. Senator Obama was not. Her support for Kyl-Lieberman draws attention to a series of other important differences between Senators Obama and Clinton on Iraq and Iran.

It appears to be an open issue inside the administration whether the United States should attack Iran – to retaliate for Iran’s support of Iraqi militias, to take action against Iran’s nuclear program or both. Vice President Cheney in particular has been giving bellicose speeches and threatening Iran. Barack Obama thinks that, at this sensitive moment, Congress should be extremely careful. It should not do or say anything that might be used either to justify a US attack on Iran or to authorize prolonging the US military presence in Iraq. Hillary Clinton voted for an amendment that does just that.

Barack Obama supports vigorous diplomacy and additional pressure on Iran. He supports strengthening economic sanctions against Iran. But the Kyl-Lieberman amendment does much more than that. It builds a case for using US troops in Iraq to counter Iranian influence. This amendment:

- Opens with 17 “findings” that highlight Iranian influence within Iraq;
- Makes President Bush’s case that the United States should structure “its military presence in Iraq” to counter the “capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region” (emphasis added)
- States that it is “a critical national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran” from exerting influence within Iraq.

These expressions have nothing to do with diplomacy, they do not deal with the Revolutionary Guard, and they do not address the issue of strengthening sanctions against Iran. They do, however, describe a new mission for American troops in Iraq, and they articulate a new rationale for our continued presence in Iraq – to contain Iran and curtail Iranian influence inside Iraq. The amendment also:

- Was co-sponsored by two of the most hawkish members of the Senate on Iran: John Kyl (R-AZ) and Joseph Lieberman (ID-CT);
- Was supported by all but two Republicans: Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Richard Lugar (R-IN)
- Was opposed by ten other Senators who, like Senator Obama, support sanctioning the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization: Barbara Boxer (D-CA); Sherrod Brown (D-OH); Maria Cantwell (D-WA); Christopher Dodd (D-CT); Daniel Inouye (D-HI); Edward Kennedy (D-MA); John Kerry (D-MA); Amy Klobuchar (D-MN); Blanche Lincoln (D-AR); John Tester (D-MT)

Importantly, Kyl-Lieberman does not include language that the Senate has deemed necessary to include in other provisions related to Iran, specifically a provision saying:

- “Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of Armed Forces against Iran.”

Trying to Have it Both Ways: After Senator Clinton drew criticism for her vote in support of Kyl-Lieberman on September 26, she decided to support a bill that Senator Webb introduced in March that said that the President had to obtain congressional authorization before going to war in Iran. Webb told Howard Fineman that Clinton was in such a hurry to support his bill, “I found out after she announced it,” he said, laughing.’” But Kyl-Lieberman had already passed the Senate; Webb’s bill has not. Signing on with Webb does not undo her vote for Kyl-Lieberman.

http://thepage.time.com/obama-adviser-craig-clintons-iran-stance-naive/

[Clintonista2]

1. I think it's naive to cut class and then act as if you went

I wonder what Obama's attendance record in High School was like?

[Kagemusha]

4. ...Isn't he a Harvard graduate and constitutional scholar?

Since when is his education in doubt?

[Clintonista2]

6. Not his education, his poor attendance record

Obama has a habit of missing votes, and then attacking others for how they voted while he was absent. If Obama gave a fuck about the Iran vote, where was he?

[Kagemusha]

8. He was out campaigning because Reid told him the vote wouldn't be that day.

Reid turned around and held the vote anyway and Obama wasn't present. But it's still Obama's fault, isn't it? Of course it is.

[Clintonista2]

11. How come DUers knew the vote was scheduled that day?

Yet a senator didn't know? If he can't even figure out when he's supposed to vote, I don't think we want him looking after the country.

[Kagemusha]

13. I heard this from TalkingPointsMemo.com. If you think they're liars, great.

I wouldn't personally know.

[Clintonista2]

16. Hillary knew. Dodd knew. Biden knew.

Obama needs to do what he is paid to do. If he wants to spend his time campaigning rather than participating in his legislative duty, then he needs to vacate his senate seat.

[rinsd]

18. That has been repeated here & elsewhere by Obama supporters will ZERO evidence.

[Kagemusha]

22. Seems reply #21 below quotes from the official senate record.

But it's still Obama's fault. So who cares, right?

[rinsd]

35. The official Senate record creatively edited and taken out of context by Obama supporters

Reid is clearly referring to that evening. Debate started off first thing the next morning.

Sept 25th

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=110-s20070925-35

Sen. Harry Reid : Mr. Chairman, there will be no more votes tonight. We have tried to work something out on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment and the Biden amendment. We have been unable to do that.

We have been very close a few times, but we have just been informed that Senator Biden will not have a vote anytime in the near future. There will not be a vote on the other one anytime in the near future. We hope tonight will bring more clearness on the issue.

But right now, I think it is fair to say there will be no votes tonight.

Does the Senator from South Dakota have any comments?


Sen. John Thune : No, I do not. I would say to the leader, that is good for our Members to know. We have Members who have been inquiring whether they will be able to vote.


Sen. Harry Reid : Let me say this: One thing I have done is, anytime I know there is going to be no votes, Senator McConnell is the first to know. If there is a Monday we are not going to have votes, I let everybody know; nighttime vote. I think that has worked pretty well. There are no surprises.

Now, sometimes things just do not work out. But anytime we decide, on this side, the majority, there are not going to be votes, Senator McConnell knows. That is an arrangement I made with him. I have stuck to that for the last 8 months.

The next morning

Sen. Harry Reid : Mr. President, this morning the Senate will conduct morning business, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two sides, with the majority controlling the first half hour.

We are working hard to come up with an agreement on how we can dispose of the Biden and Kyl amendments. We were very close to being there several times yesterday, but we are still not there. Once we reach an agreement, Members will be notified of when the votes will occur.

So the claim of Obama supporters that he only had an hour when notified of the vote is disingenuous.

[Ethelk2044]

24. His attendance record and decision making ability beats her decision making skills any day

[Clintonista2]

27. Yup, because we know how well his decision to not drop McClurkin went over

:rofl:

[Kagemusha]

2. ....I'm in a bad mood, I want to find fault here, but actually this reads as wise words.

They match a lot of thinking that I've put together on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment totally separate from anything remotely related to the presidential campaign. In particular, pointing to the idea that it's critical for the US to fight Iranian influence among the Shiites... I mean come on. The average Iraqi Shiite may not be in Iran's pocket, but the post-Saddam Shiite leadership darn well is, for good reason - Saddam drove most of them abroad! And the only one he didn't, Sadr, was in the middle of a huge Shiite slum that a tank and helicopter force can't barge into with ease without creating a lot of civilian casualties and...

...You know, what the US Army is doing right now.

[MethuenProgressive]

3. Obama? Calling someone else "Naïve"?

That's beyond laughable. That's just sad...

[TwilightGardener]

5. Damn straight! Although I don't know if it's naivete, or maybe she's

just on board with the Iran plan. I do wish Obama had voted against it--makes it harder for him to point out the difference between him and her.

[Clintonista2]

7. I just wish Obama had VOTED

What the fuck are Americans paying him to do?

[jefferson_dem]

9. You seem to be having trouble sticking to the point.

Do you agree with Hillary's vote on the Bush-Kyl-Lieberman Amendment?

[Clintonista2]

10. Yup

Sanctions not military action. I also agree with the identical bill Obama co-wrote 6 months earlier, which also encouraged sanctions.

[cali]

14. Why should we sanction them?

We've got a fuck of a lot of nerve. All this bullshit just aids bushco in his goal of bombing Iran before he leaves office.

[Clintonista2]

19. Would you rather we take military action?

This amendment had a portion regarding military action against Iran, of which Hillary and others fought to have removed.

[cali]

20. I'd rather we did neither. Which is obvious from my

first post on this subject.

[BootinUp]

48. this makes me sad.

Clearly there is a standoff in negotiations and both Iran and the US need to make more sincere efforts. If you read the final resolution and also consider the original version was changed significantly to pass, its clear that neither the Bush Admin nor Iran heard what they wanted to hear from the US Senate.

[rinsd]

12. Obama felt so strongly about this he didn't bother to vote or say anything about it. .

In fact the only statement Obama issued on Kyl-Lieberman was after its passage when he saw Clinton voted for it.

Oh and has Obama decided to cosponsor Webb's bill?

[Kagemusha]

15. Good excuse not to actually read the original post.

I bothered to read it and found some worthwhile words. It feels like I'm the only one who bothered to read it though.

[polichick]

17. I almost wish it WAS about naivete...

In any case, I don't know where Obama gets off complaining about a vote he didn't bother to take part in.

[flpoljunkie]

21. You might want to read this from DUer Obamian...

Quote from Senate Transcript

This is what Reid said the night before the bill

Mr. REID. Mr. Chairman, there will be no more votes tonight. We have tried to work something out on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment and the Biden amendment. We have been unable to do that.

We have been very close a few times, but we have just been informed that Senator Biden will not have a vote anytime in the near future. There will not be a vote on the other one anytime in the near future. We hope tonight will bring more clearness on the issue.”

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r110:S25SE7-0035 (temporary link)

Obama publicly announced at the time of the vote that he was opposed to the bill. All the presidential candidates in congress have been missing votes. Obama can't be blamed for missing a vote that he was told wouldn't occur.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3592288&mesg_id=3594044

[polichick]

23. But hasn't he missed quite a few controversial votes??

To avoid going on the record seems like covering one's ass to me ~ it's easy to talk about what you WOULD have done after the fact, when you know which way the wind is blowing. Just one opinion...

[flpoljunkie]

25. Obama said he would have voted no before the actual vote, as I understand, altho he was on the

campaign trail and unable to get back when Reid unexpectedly call Kyl-Lieberman up for a vote.

[polichick]

29. I guess we could make a case that members of Congress...

...should have to give up their seats before running for prez ~ I've often wondered who's doing their jobs while they're out campaigning.

Add this new rule to term limits and public financing for elections! (I won't hold my breath.)

[Cameron27]

26. And if it was so crucial that he can beat up Clinton about

the vote, he should have hopped back on his private jet in NH, and cast his vote in DC.

[flpoljunkie]

28. There wasn't time. Obama is not the only Dem attacking Clinton on her vote today.

[polichick]

30. She definitely should be questioned about her vote...

There's no excuse!

[Cameron27]

33. I'm not arguing against questioning her vote.

I thought it was stupid to vote yes FWIW.

[Cameron27]

32. It doesn't take long to fly back from NH

especially on a private plane. Sorry, if he said he'd made the slightest effort to get back, then it would be more credible.

[rinsd]

31. I love how Obama supporters cut out key elements.

This is how the quote finished.

"But right now, I think it is fair to say there will be no votes tonight."

IOW, they were calling it a night.

Obama made a choice to go to NH early for the debate. It took him a full day to to issue a statement on this bill that was so very important.

[Cameron27]

34. Ah, they were calling it a night.

At the very least, he should have asked Reid when the vote was going back to the floor.

[rinsd]

36. And Reid as 1st order of business next day annouced they were getting back into it

Sen. Harry Reid : Mr. President, this morning the Senate will conduct morning business, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two sides, with the majority controlling the first half hour.

We are working hard to come up with an agreement on how we can dispose of the Biden and Kyl amendments. We were very close to being there several times yesterday, but we are still not there. Once we reach an agreement, Members will be notified of when the votes will occur.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=110-s20070926-4

[polichick]

38. It looks like Obama doesn't like to go on the record about some things...

Not very impressive. In this case, neither Clinton nor Obama are admirable.

[BootinUp]

37. I'll defend it with 1 hyphenated word: NON-BINDING n/t

[flpoljunkie]

39. And you actually think that will stop Bush from using it to help justify bombing Iran?

Now that's "naive."

Wasn't the Tonkin Gulf Resolution "non-binding?"

[BootinUp]

40. It certainly eliminates all the theorizing in the OP.

Lets ask some constitutional scholars instead of an Obama employee.

[flpoljunkie]

42. I have yet to hear a rational explanation as to why someone would sign onto Kyl-Lieberman.

I am neither a Constitutional scholar or an Obama employee, but I did stay last night at a Holiday Inn.

I did just read that a jointly passed resolution signed by the president has the force of law--evidently as the Gulf of Tonkin resolution did.

Here is the link: http://media-newswire.com/release_1056267.html

[BootinUp]

43. I've posted plenty of rational explanations

you ignore them all.

It includes testimony that has not been refuted by anyone.

It includes statements about the strategic importance of preventing interference in Iraq. I don't hear any arguments against that.

It includes a recommendation for more severe economic sanctions against Iran and foreign companies as pressure to negotiate.

It includes statements from Bush Administration that diplomacy is the route our government wishes to pursue.

During negotiation in the Senate language about military instruments was stricken by Democrats. This is a clear indication of the current opposition to the use of any military force against Iran.

And all of it is written in English.

As to yours and Obamas legal argument, Its laughable since it doesn't legally do anything except what I said above.

[flpoljunkie]

47. I see no need for Kyl-Lieberman other than to gin up a case for war with Iran. None.

[BootinUp]

49. #48 n/t

[flpoljunkie]

50. Bush got exactly what he wanted from K-L and today Kyl and Lieberman praised Condi's move.

Signing off for sports now.

[dogman]

51. The same Condi Obama voted to confirm?

I wish he had missed that vote, but he felt she was qualified.

[flpoljunkie]

53. Yes, the same Condi that Hillary voted to confirm. See roll call link below.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00002

[dogman]

54. Hillary is neither my candidate of choice nor my Senator.

You keep citing Hillary. That is my point in response to the OP. We have a group of candidates ignoring their own records while attacking the other candidates. I hold my Senator accountable to me. He has to show me he is qualified to be President. I wrote him on his vote for Condi but received no response because he was new to the job and not set up for canned responses yet. I am not looking for Hillary's equal, I want something better.

[flpoljunkie]

55. Do you have a candidate?

[dogman]

56. No.

As usual, I will support the candidate that is picked for us by the early voting states and the media. I'm troubled by the "top tier" and don't see a chance for the underdogs. I wish we had public financing of elections with spending limits, so the establishment did not give us their choices. I would prefer to see an honest discussion of the real issues. I also am not convinced by promises, so an open record is important.

[desi]

44. What's said in this piece is not as damaging

as much as to who authored it. It saddens me to see him do this.

http://www.davidmixner.com/2007/03/novak_shocker_g.html

[BootinUp]

45. interesting comment

below that article in your link.

I was not familiar with him, appreciate the info.

[desi]

46. Greg is still one of the GOOD Guys

Hopefully soon he will be back on the *winning* team. Baseball beckons, have a good one...

[DemFemme]

41. Hillary's good at handing out blank checks for war.

I am sure Kyl-Lieberman are on our side. :puke:

I trust Senator Jim Webb more than Hillary anyday.

[superkia]

52. Clinton is no different than Bush on war, she speaks just like him.

She made unsupported statements in 2002 with regards to Iraq that helped propel us into an unjust war that has killed thousands and she did it again with regards to Syria in the debate on September 26th.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/907662.html
New York Senator Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday evening that she supports what she said was the Israel Air Force's "apparent" action against a nuclear facility in Syria.

"We don't have as much information as we wish we did. But what we think we know is that with North Korean help, both financial and technical and material, the Syrians apparently were putting together, and perhaps over some period of years, a nuclear facility, and the Israelis took it out. I strongly support that."

"There was evidence of a North Korea freighter coming in with supplies. There was intelligence and other kinds of verification," Clinton said.

And now we see that once again she was making dangerous statements without any good intelligence, she will definitely have us in another war if we choose her to run the country.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/US_Intelligence_does_not_show_Syrian_1018.html
US intelligence does not show Syrian nuclear weapons program, officials say

According to current and former intelligence sources, the US intelligence community has seen no evidence of a nuclear facility being hit.

US intelligence “found no radiation signatures after the bombing, so there was no uranium or plutonium present,” said one official, wishing to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the subject.