Hillary Clinton last week blasted the Bush White House for downplaying the threat in Iran and for wasting time by outsourcing the negotiations to the E.U.-3.
Last year, Art Moore of WorldNetDaily.com investigated a Hillary Clinton fund-raiser that was scheduled for March 13, 2005, at the home of Gita Kashani. Moore reported that Kashani was a former member of the board of the controversial Iranian American Political Action Committee, a group that sponsored a technology conference in Iran with the cooperation of the Iranian regime. Iranian pro-democracy Iranians charged at the time that Kashani was considered a member of the Iranian American community in California who had collaborated with the mullah-led regime in Tehran.
When Moore questioned Ms. Kashani, she claimed: “I have no clue what her [Hillary's] policy toward Iran is,” Ms. Kashani told WND.com. Still, when WND.com began investigating, Hillary’s election committee cancelled the fund-raiser without providing an explanation why.
In “Atomic Iran,” I documented the extent to which President Bill Clinton, and Sen. John Kerry in his 2004 presidential campaign, had accepted funding from New York financier Hassan Nemazee and had worked with the American Iranian Council – a group that many in the pro-democracy in Iran movement in the United States considered to be dedicated to legitimizing the mullahs and pushing to obtain normalized relations with the United States, ending all sanctions.
Federal Election Commission records show that Hillary Clinton took a $2,000 contribution on July 28, 1999, from Sheila Nemazee on behalf of the Nemazee Corporation. On Saint Patrick’s Day in 2000, Secretary of State Madeline Albright addressed an AIC conference in Washington, D.C., apologizing for Eisenhower’s role in the 1953 overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. As Madame Albright framed the issue:
As President Clinton has said, the United States must bear its fair share of responsibility for the problems that have arisen in U.S.-Iranian relations.
Albright pushed for the United States to ease restrictions on importing carpets and food products, including dried fruits, pistachios and caviar from Iran. Despite sanctions being in place, these trade restrictions remain eased, even today.
Yet, when pressed, those who are accused of supporting the mullahs tend to run for cover. Mr. Nemazee had sued Aryo Pirouznia, a pro-democracy Iranian-American freedom fighter who runs the Student Movement Coordinating Committee for Democracy in Iran, charging that Mr. Pirouznia had defamed him by charging that Nemazee was an agent for the mullahs. In sworn testimony given as a deposition in the lawsuit, Mr. Nemazee took a strong position against the mullahs, stating that he “would not trust this regime on the nuclear issue to have any intentions other than a weaponized program.”
In the 2004 presidential campaign, Hassan Nemazee was one of John Kerry’s top fund raisers, one of 60 people credited with raising more than $100,000 for Kerry’s presidential run. In the first presidential debate in the 2004 election, held at the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Fla., on Sept. 30, 2004, John Kerry took the position that we should give nuclear fuel to Iran – the same failed policy the Clinton administration had used against North Korea. Here’s what Kerry said about Iran:
I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, to test them, see whether or not they were actually working for peaceful purposes.
Still, Mr. Nemazee never called candidate Kerry to tell him that giving nuclear fuel to Iran would be dangerous and irresponsible. In his deposition, Mr. Nemazee pleaded that he would have no credibility on the issue with the Kerry campaign. “I have no knowledge on nuclear policy,” he said under oath.
Last week, John Kerry too “flip-flopped,” now saying that “Iran has made a dangerous and silly decision of confronting not just the U.S. government, but the entire international community.” Kerry now evidently thinks we should bring Iran to the Security Council: “If all diplomatic channels fail, we have no choice but to take the issue before the international body.”
John Spencer, a Republican who is running against Hillary Clinton for the Senate in 2006, has put out a press release charging that “Senator Clinton accepts money from supporters of Iranian mullahs.” In the press release, Spencer cites $4,000 in contributions to Hillary’s ’06 Senate campaign from Hassan Nemazee. FEC records also show another $4,000 from Nemazee Capital Corporation, made in the name of Sheila Nemazee.
Spencer’s press release also cites a Friday, June 3, 2005, fund-raising event that evidently was held for Sen. Clinton at the California home of Gita and Behzad Kashani. Spencer directly challenged that Sen. Clinton had been “accepting money from the supporters of the mullahs,” concluding that “Sen. Clinton lacks the credibility to keep New York safe and she should return this tainted money.”
We shouldn’t hold our breath expecting either Sens. Clinton or Kerry to admit they have reversed their Iran policies, or to give back any money critics charge was raised from “pro-mullah” supporters.
Still, the American public should demand that these liberal Democratic senators quit trying to have the issue of Iran both ways. President Bush was soundly criticized by Democratic senators throughout 2005 for not building an overwhelming international coalition before the 2003 Iraq war. Now, when President Bush has worked with the E.U.-3 and the IAEA, agreeing to follow their lead in the negotiations with Iran, these same liberal Democratic senators accuse the administration of going too slow and “outsourcing” the talks. Isn’t this a contradiction?
If President Bush had pressed forward unilaterally on the issue of Iran, Sens. Clinton and Kerry could be expected to show up in the well of the Senate arguing that his Iran intelligence information was likely as flawed as the intelligence had been on Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.
Sens. Kerry and Clinton have been supporters of the Iranian regime, especially when working with the U.S. supporters of the mullahs suited their campaign fund-raising purposes. Yet, when Iran defies the world by resuming uranium enrichment “research and development” at Natanz, Sens. Clinton and Kerry jump to the right, trying to “out hawk” even the Bush administration.
This hypocrisy has to stop. President Bush is moving toward Security Council action, while keeping the military option on the table. Democratic senators like Clinton and Kerry ought to be ashamed when they suddenly decide to talk tough on Iran. If Clinton and Kerry know no shame, they should be concerned that those of us who have researched for years their support of this corrupt Iranian regime will continue to speak out and expose their duplicity.