Bush administration has rolled out some new sanction measures against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its Quds Brigades. Hillary Clinton comes out in favor of these harsh sanctions. I strongly applaud her principled standing on this matter. Here's Clinton's statement:
"We must use all the tools at our disposal to address the serious challenge posed by Iran, including diplomacy, economic pressure and sanctions.
"I believe that a policy of diplomacy backed by economic pressure is the best way to check Iran's efforts to acquire a nuclear weapons program and stop its support of terrorism, and the best way to avert a war. That's why I took to the Senate floor last February and warned the president not to take military action against Iran without going to Congress first and why I've co-sponsored Sen. Webb's legislation to make that the law of the land. I've been concerned for a long time over George Bush's saber rattling and belligerence toward Iran.
"We must work to check Iran's nuclear ambitions and its support of terrorism, and the sanctions announced today strengthen America's diplomatic hand in that regard. The Bush administration should use this opportunity to finally engage in robust diplomacy to achieve our objective of ending Iran's nuclear weapons program, while also averting military action. ..."
Iran's nuclear program has posed a serious threat to international security. It's no surprise that wimps inside the democratic party such as Edwards who believes 'fighting terrorism' is just a 'bumper sticker' will come out against such sensible measures. Anybody not taking fighting terrorism, national security seriously does not deserve to get even closer to the white house. After he loses this nomination battle, Edwards will have plenty of time to invite holocaust denier Ahmadinejad to his big mansion in NC for a cup of tea.
For now, Edwards is hit hard by Roger Simon in a latest article published in a NH newspaper.
Roger Simon: Is John Edwards subtly appealing to racism and sexism?
Could be. But John Edwards' real problem is that he wants to project a down-home, rural, good-old-boy image, while people instead see him as a super-rich lawyer, living in a huge mansion and getting expensive haircuts.
Being born in rural America doesn't guarantee that you can win in rural America. As Jesse Jackson once said, "My cat had her kittens in the oven, but that didn't make them biscuits."
Indeed, being a fake southern wimp certainly is not going to help the democratic party win any red state. Remember 2004?
Let's take a look at who's actually winning the tough guys.
Hillary doing well with 'really macho' unions
Vince Panvini has been the political director of the Sheet Metal Workers International Association for 14 years, and he has seen a lot of Democratic and Republican candidates come and go.
In 2004, he was hoping Dick Gephardt, the congressman from Missouri, would win the Democratic nomination, but Panvini's union was split: some members supported former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean; others liked Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry. So they didn't endorse until Gephardt pulled out after the Iowa caucuses, choosing to unite behind Kerry.
This time there is no split, and likely before the end of the year, they will formally endorse Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.). The members were polled about the candidates, and Clinton was the favorite, 2-1, Panvini said. "Our guys are really macho, but it's amazing how they flock to her. They love her."
These 'macho' metal workers are certainly not impressed with a faked Southern male wimp who's more interested in expensive haircuts and kowtowing to a holocaust denier who vowed to wipe Israel off the Middle East map. Voters are not stupid, they value a politican with inner strength who can stand on her ground.
By the way, Clinton campaign also comes out mocking another flip-flopper in this farce.
To: Interested Parties
From: The Clinton Campaign
RE: Obama vs. Obama: The Real Differences on Iran
Who said this?
"Such a reduced but active presence will also send a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in this region." Later in the same speech, he said: "Make no mistake, if the Iranians and Syrians think they can use Iraq as another Afghanistan or a staging area from which to attack Israel or other countries, they are badly mistaken. It is in our national interest to prevent this from happening."
George Bush? Nope.
The latest from Dick Cheney? Guess again.
Language from Kyl-Lieberman? Sorry.
That was Senator Obama in late 2006 making the case for why maintaining a military force in Iraq is necessary to constrain Iran's ambitions. But that was then.
This is now: Stagnant in the polls and struggling to revive his once-buoyant campaign, Senator Obama has abandoned the politics of hope and embarked on a journey in search of a campaign issue to use against Senator Clinton. Nevermind that he made the very argument he is now criticizing back in November 2006. Nevermind that he co-sponsored a bill designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a global terrorist group back in April. Nevermind that his colleague from Illinois - Dick Durbin - voted the same way as Senator Clinton on Kyl-Lieberman and said "If I thought there was any way it could be used as a pretense to launch an invasion of Iran I would have voted no."
Today, in order to justify his opposition to Kyl-Lieberman, Senator Obama says that such language is bellicose and gives the President a blank check to take the country to war.
But if Senator Obama really believed this measure gave the President a blank check for war, shouldn't he have been in the Senate on the day of the vote, speaking out, and fighting against it? Instead he did nothing, remained totally silent, skipped the vote and spoke out only after the vote to engage in false attacks against Senator Clinton. A Washington Post editorial summed it up best: "Now, trailing in the polls and sensing a political opportunity, Mr. Obama is trying to portray Ms. Clinton as a reckless saber-rattler. That is irresponsible and -- given the ease with which the charge can be rebutted -- probably naive, as well."
That's not the kind of and strength and leadership Americans are looking for in their next President.
Hillary has been clear and consistent in saying that diplomacy backed by economic pressure is the best way to check Iran's efforts to acquire a nuclear weapons program and stop its support of terrorism, and the best way to avert a war. That's why she took to the Senate floor last February and warned the President not to take military action against Iran without going to Congress first and it's why she's co-sponsored Senator Webb's legislation to make that the law of the land.
That's the kind of strength and experience that will lead to the changes Americans want in our nation's foreign policy.
All democratic candidates were saying sanctions were necessary part in keeping Iran's nuclear ambition at Bay, but when rubber hits the road, only Hillary is standing on her ground. Sanctions and diplomacy are certainly starting to work in persuading North Korea to give up its nuclear program. This is a dangerous world, any candidate who does not measure up to their promise on matter of national security certainly does not deserve to lead the free world.
On the record, Edwards and Dodd do not support these sanctions. They have a lot of explanations to do. Their actions certainly do not measure up to their past rhetoric on this issue. They have failed this 'commander in chief' test miserably.