In last Wednesday’s Democratic presidential debate, candidate John Edwards characterized a vote Hillary Clinton made earlier that day as “giving George Bush the authority to take the first step on a road to war with Iran.” Edwards reiterated that claim in a speech in Columbus, Ohio two days later on Friday, September 28:
I have to tell you that on some of these issues, there are differences. There are obvious choices that have to be made by Democratic voters. Because there was an important vote that took place in the Senate last Thursday. And that vote was a resolution to call the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, a military organization in Iran, a terrorist group. That was the resolution. Now, I’m against it, I was against it, I’m against it, because I do not want to give George Bush the authority or the first step in moving toward the authority to go into Iran. Others, you know who I mean, have felt differently. And there are real — take a wild guess who I mean. My view is you cannot give George Bush that kind of authority. Have we not learned our lesson? I learned mine. And I do not want to see this happen again.
John Edwards is referring to Hillary Clinton, who cast a yes vote on the resolution. Edwards is trying very hard to set up a parallel with the vote that authorized Bush’s military intervention in Iraq. The point he’s trying to make is that Hillary Clinton’s made the same mistake she made in 2002 — the mistake of trusting George W. Bush and giving him warmaking authority that he doesn’t deserve.
But the actual legislation doesn’t match Edwards’ telling. It’s an amendment (read it yourself) that makes no declarations with any force of law. It doesn’t actually change the designation of any groups. The bill gives no authority to George W. Bush whatsoever. The only thing the legislation does is to describe the opinions of the Senators who voted for it. Those opinions are interesting, but they are neither binding nor enabling of George W. Bush.
I understand that John Edwards may be increasingly desperate to chip away at the legitimacy of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. But when a candidate repeatedly mischaracterizes a piece of legislation in order to make a point, it makes me less confident in him, not more confident. I don’t like presidential candidates who say they love me to my face while acting as if I’m too stupid to read.
I’m a die-hard Democrat and a Betsy Markey supporter. I’ve supported Betsy since she announced her candidacy earlier this year.
I agree that we need to get Musgrave out, and Betsy is the candidate to do exactly that.
Her record and commitment to the Democratic Party speaks for itself – Betsy’s been an active Democrat for 30 years.
Yes, she worked for Ken Salazar but this gave her the great opportunity to get to know the people of the 4th district and understand our issues.
I highly encourage everyone to get to know Betsy by going to her Web site (you provided above) and listening to what she has to say.
Edwards “repeatedly mischaracterizes a piece of legislation in order to make a point” about Iran?
Yes, it sounded a bit wild at the time, but the latest issue of New Yorker has Seymour Hersh using the same vote as one more piece in his case for a behind-the-scenes ramping up of the U.S. capability for attacking Iran along with a policy change on the part of the Bush administration. Read Hersh’s piece, and Edwards’ statements start to sound like he’s either a visionary or an insider or maybe Paul Revere–and like Hillary’s the one offering Bush a fig leaf.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/08/071008fa_fact_hersh
Yes, Seymour Hersh is good at making you feel like that. Sometimes Hersh is right, and sometimes he’s not. But that doesn’t change that the legislation doesn’t DO a thing. Actually, if you think about it it’s not surprising that the legislation’s talk matches Hersh’s reporting, because Hersh is writing about Washington talk too, just in another domain. Are people in Washington talking about Iran? Yes. Is that the same as authorizing military action or engaging in military action? No.
They’re talking about Iran in the Middle East too, oddly enough. The Sunni press doesn’t seem to be too excited about the possibility of an invasion, although there have been several articles referring to Iran’s increasing militarism and what is seen as an unbalanced influence in the region. Apparently U.S. officials have been giving out so many assurances of no invasion that the value of apartments in Kuwait is expected to increase.