The Offended

Sentient beings have been subjected during the past few days to the latest calumny against Hillary.

The current attacks alleged that Hillary Clinton was ‘rude’ during a town hall meeting in Iowa while answering questions from the citizens of Iowa. The attacks further allege that Hillary was evasive and rude when asked a question about her recent vote on a non-binding resolution designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization (the Kyl-Lieberman non-binding resolution).

Hillary Clinton, the attacks alleged, did not want to answer questions about her policy nor her votes regarding Iran. Hillary Clinton, the attacks alleged, had a meltdown and attacked a questioner. Hillary Clinton, the attacks alleged, thought she was a ‘queen’ and was upset with questions from revolting peasants. Hillary Clinton, the attacks alleged, cannot handle ‘insightful’ questions. Hillary Clinton, the attacks alleged, was ‘patronizing’ and ‘disrespectful‘. Hillary Clinton, the attacks alleged, is too unstable to be trusted with diplomacy. Hillary Clinton, the attacks alleged, showed her true colors because she was exhausted. Hillary Clinton, the attacks alleged, called a tough and honest questioner a ‘plant’ from an opposition campaign. Hillary Clinton, the attacks alleged, was rude, imperious, thin-skinned, nasty. Hillary Clinton, the attacks alleged, had just issued a ‘Dean Scream’, and doomed her campaign. Hillary Clinton, the attacks alleged, had ‘lost touch’ with ‘real’ people.

Full out, undiluted outrage was the order of the day on the Big Blogs after the initial Big Media news reports arrived from Iowa. Instead of fighting the fake Big Media narratives of Hillary as ‘strident’ and ‘shrill’ and ‘calculating’ and ‘cackling’ – Big Blogs, contrary to their alleged principles, typically joined in the attack.

Big Media and Big Blogs just loved the crazed snippy woman narrative. The Head Kook himself pecked an anti-Hillary diatribe on his Chevron-paid-for-keyboard. Many Kookettes joined in the anti-Hillary clamor.

Here is the videotape (thanks to Big Pink commentor Kostner) of what actually happened in Iowa:

Hillary in the video is not ‘strident’ or ‘shrill’ or unpopular with Iowa voters, as the Big Blog and Big Media frenzy led many to believe. If anything, Hillary answered the question on Iran with grace and facts.

As to the substance of the question on Iran, Hillary explained she spoke out against an Iran attack in February of this year. Hillary further explained that there were earlier versions of the non-binding resolution on Iran that she would not have voted for and that the earlier version of the non-binding resolution was probably what the questioner objected to.

This is not the first time Hillary has answered questions about her non-binding Iran vote:

“I voted for this resolution in order to apply greater diplomatic pressure on Iran. This resolution in no way authorizes or sanctions military action against Iran and instead seeks to end the Bush Administration’s diplomatic inaction in the region.

“Iran has gained expanded influence in Iraq and the region as a result of the Bush Administration’s polices which have also rejected diplomacy as a tool for addressing Iranian ambitions. While the United States has spurned talks, Iran has enhanced its nuclear enrichment capabilities, armed Iraqi Shiite militias, funneled arms to Hezbollah and subsidized Hamas, even as the government continues to damage its own citizens by mismanaging the economy and increasing political and social repression.

“I continue to support and advocate for a policy of entering into talks with Iran, because robust diplomacy is a prerequisite to achieving our aims.

A few weeks ago, Jim Webb, the respected Senator from Virginia was the enemy on Big Blogs. Jim Webb, had used his best judgement and, among other votes, voted opposite Hillary on legislation regarding the FISA courts. On the non-binding Iran resolution Webb and Hillary again were on opposite sides. Now Jim Webb was the hero and Webb’s vote and judgment (previously scorned) were waved lagainst Hillary.

A formerly admired hero suffered a Webb-like reversal of fortune – for daring to support Hillary. General Wesley Clark, who runs a website called StopIranWar.com, wrote a defense of Hillary’s vote:

Fortunately, Hillary Clinton has been on the front lines in opposing any effort by the Bush administration to sidestep the Congress. Eight months ago, she took to the Senate floor to warn the President that he could not attack Iran without specific congressional authorization. She said then, long before other members of Congress stood up, “If the administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary the President must come to Congress to seek that authority.”

Last week, Hillary voted for a non-binding resolution that designates the odious Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization in order to strengthen our diplomatic hand. On Monday, she joined Senator Jim Webb in co-sponsoring a bill that would prohibit the use of funds for military action in Iran without specific authorization by Congress.

I support Hillary in both these votes. She is committed to ending the unilateralism of the Bush-Cheney administration. She is a strong supporter of direct nuclear talks with Iran, because she believes that direct dialogue with our adversaries is a sign of strength and confidence, and a prerequisite to achieving America’s goals and objectives.

Joseph Wilson, like Wes Clark a strong foe of an attack on Iran, also also suffered a Webb-like reversal of fortune for daring to support Hillary. Wilson wrote in defense of Hillary’s Iran vote on the non-binding resolution:

I was pleased to see that last Monday Hillary joined Senator Jim Webb in co-sponsoring a bill that would prohibit the use of funds for military action in Iran without specific authorization from Congress. Last week, Hillary voted to support a non-binding resolution that designates the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. As a former diplomat, I have had considerable experience in the use of such resolutions to bring pressure – diplomatic pressure – to bear on a regime to rein in rogue elements. And make no mistake about it, the Guards are not only in operational control of Iran’s policy toward Iraq and Afghanistan, where Iranian supplied munitions are costing American lives; they are agents of reaction and repression inside Iran. While it is a fact that the Bush administration’s duplicity should give all Americans pause, we cannot afford to lose sight of the fact that we have real enemies in the world, and that we must be prepared to exercise the appropriate levers of power in support of our interests. [snip]

In February, at the first sign that the Bush-Cheney White House was laying the groundwork for an unauthorized war against Tehran, Hillary drew a bright red line in a speech on the Senate floor when she warned the President that he lacked the authority to take the nation to war against Iran.

Hillary has been right in her strong criticism of the Bush administration’s refusal to talk directly to Iran about its nuclear program. She has deplored the refusal of the President to heed the counsel of senior statesmen like Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton to pursue diplomatic solutions. As President she will end the “shoot first, ask questions later” approach of this administration, aggressively support bilateral diplomacy and rebuild our alliances. I am confident that she will restore presidential leadership to the conduct of American foreign policy and exercise prudent statesmanship rather than instigate reckless wars.

It did not take long for Barack Obama (D-Rezko) fresh from his latest hypocrisy to join in the attack on Hillary – with a fresh new arugula garnished hypocrisy:

In an interview with ABC News’ Sunlen Miller today, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, criticized Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, for voting for an amendment offered by Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., that states that Iran is causing a problem in Iraq and would designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

Obama said he “oppose(s) that amendment because I think it potentially provides a slippery slope in how the president can use that language to engage in additional authority to engage in the war in Iran. And I think we should have learned our lesson in 2002. You can’t give this president a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it.”

Obama, of course, did not even bother to vote on the non-binding resolution. Obama, typically, was AWOL on the vote that he now criticizes. A greater Obama hypocrisy however is that Obama co-sponsored a BINDING bill that (surprise!):

Some political observers pointed out that Obama in April of this year cosponsored a bill that would have designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

The “Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007,” which Obama cosponsored on April 24, 2007, states clearly that:

“The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) and the Secretary of the Treasury should place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224 (66 Fed. Reg. 186; relating to blocking property and prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism).”

Obama now says his objection to the Non-Binding resolution is due to another section of an amendment in the bill. But, as we have asked before about Waldo Obama – Where were you Senator Barack Obama? Why didn’t you stand up in the Senate and state your objections there and engage in debate in the Senate and VOTE?

Why did Senator Obama co-sponsor an actual bill (not a non-binding resolution) designating Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a “terrorist organization” (the ” “Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007” if he did not think that the Revolutionary Guard were engaged in “terrorist” activity; and further, where were the Revolutionary Guards engaging in the “terrorist” activity Obama wished to stop? 

Wouldn’t Obama’s binding bill give Bush a greater rationalization to attack Iran as Obama claims the non-binding resolution provides?

Is that why Obama was AWOL? Because he did not want to vote against a resolution whose main provision he has previously co-sponsored?

When it came time to vote in the Senate – when it came time to either VOTE or fundraise – where was Obama’s judgment?

Share