A firestorm has developed over Hillary Clinton's vote to designate an element of Iran's Revolutionary Guards as "Terrorists". Pundits declared the decision as the beginning of the general election campaign. Critics claimed that the non binding resolution would provide a foundation for a military attack. Everybody seemed to have everything to ask except for one thing. Is it true?
The real measure of whether Hillary's vote was correct is whether it's an honest assessment of the situation. Because Bush lied about Iraq it can't be wrong to tell the truth about Iran. The simple fact is that the Iranian regime does sponsor terror.
She's made clear that she doesn't support a military strike at Tehran. It's equally clear that American soldiers in Iraq are getting killed and maimed by weapons sent from Iran to create chaos in that troubled nation.
I don't think that the burden is on Hillary to explain her vote. The burden is on those who opposed the resolution. It's fair to assume that someone opposing the resolution doesn't consider the Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization. Just exactly what are those road side bombs with Iranian markings? What were those Iranian missiles striking Israel last year?
The debate about this Senate resolution raises the prospect of one more casualty of the Bush Presidency. We so fear his misrepresenting facts and endangering our country that we engage in national denial. That can't be a formula for leadership. Hillary was right. The Iranian revolutionary Guards are terrorists and it can't ever be wrong for a leader to speak the truth.
I share the concern about how Bush interprets support for this resolution. I'm also concerned with how the Iranian Mullahs interpret a vote against it. Hillary was right.