The Obama campaign has undergone a schism in Iowa, with supporters being divided between the two new candidates emerging from this shake-up: Barack Obama-Then and Barack Obama-Now. Barack Obama-Now has distributed a new mailer to undecided Iowa Democrats and stated:
"Why is this (Kyl-Lieberman) amendment so dangerous? Because George Bush and Dick Cheney could use this language to justify keeping our troops in Iraq as long as they can point to a threat from Iran." |
Barack Obama-Then responded:
A reduced but active presence (in Iraq) will also send a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in this region...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..., they are badly mistaken. It is in our national interest to prevent this from happening. |
And then the gloves came off. Follow me...
Obama-Then followed up by co-sponsoring a Senate bill designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, a key provision of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment which Obama-Now is now sharply criticizing.
Obama-Then proceeded to miss the vote on Kyl-Lieberman, preferring to keep campaigning in New Hampshire, and maintained total silence about it for two weeks on the campaign trail. He stood there like a bump on a log during the Dartmouth debate while John Edwards criticized Hillary Clinton over Kyl-Lieberman. Obama-Now differed sharply from Obama-Then's indifference to Kyl-Lieberman, characterizing Kyl-Lieberman as a crucial Senate vote in his mailer released this week, "...because they (Bush and Cheney)could use this language to justify an attack on Iran as a part of the ongoing war in Iraq." Obama-Now didn't specifically name Obama-Then as one of the ones who sat idly by while this grave threat developed, but the implicit criticism of Obama-Then was clear to all observant listeners.
Obama-Now's mailer clearly claimed, "While others went along, Obama-Now opposed Bush's war plans". However, Obama-Then clearly had not ruled out military action against Iran, and even openly speculated to theChicago Tribune's editorial board in September 2004 about the need to attack Iran to deter their growing nuclear capability, saying:
Obama-Then said the United States must first address Iran's attempt to gain nuclear capabilities by going before the United Nations Security Council and lobbying the international community to apply more pressure on Iran to cease nuclear activities. That pressure should come in the form of economic sanctions, he said. But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran.
"The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?" Obama-Then asked.
Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said.
..."launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in," he said." On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. ... And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point." |
These developments were unsettling to Dick Durbin, Barack Obama-Now's fellow Illinois senator. "It's rare that Barack and I disagree on an issue of this magnitude," Durbin, the second-highest ranking Senate Democrat, said in an interview with Bloomberg Television's "Political Capital with Al Hunt," scheduled to air today. "I have the same concerns that Barack Obama does about this administration and what they might do with the power that they have. But I don't think this resolution gives them a green light to do anything." Left unsaid was Durbin's deep sense of loss for Obama-Then.
So there we have it- two candidates with clearly divergent views on foreign policy and the best way to address the threat Iran poses. Those who have been asking for strong contrasts from a variety of candidates in this primary season couldn't be happier.
Let's do an early poll to see which candidate has the inside track for the nomination.