Obama, Clinton Battle Over Iran

TPM Election Central:

Barack Obama has now joined John Edwards in slamming Hillary for her vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which says Iran is responsible for problems in Iraq and designates the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization:

"Senator Clinton obviously in 2002 voted to authorize the war in Iraq," Obama told ABC News' Sunlen Miller. "And her willingness to once again extend to the president the benefit of the doubt I think indicates that she hasn't fully learned some of the lessons that we saw back in 2002."

"We have to be very cautious in how we approach these kinds of issues, because we've already seen enormous damage done to U.S.'s prestige around the world, the U.S.'s strategic interests in the world," he added. "Part of the reason Iran has been strengthened is because of that war that had been authorized in Iraq."

The Hillary campaign has just hit back in this statement sent over to us moments ago by Hillary spokesperson Phil Singer in which he says Obama's attack is motivated by dropping poll numbers and a "flagging" campaign

Read the whole story: TPM Election Central

Comments

[dawlishgal]

09:17 AM on 10/10/2007

OF COURSE, Obama's statement was (in part) motivated by falling poll numbers. Guess what: THAT IS A GOOD THING! He, like any other good American, doesn't want YET ANOTHER president who enables the neocon crackpots by whimsically giving them any and every power they might want to invade sovereign countries for no good reason. That the "name-recognition" supporters of HC haven't caught on yet is downright frightening. One would think that VOTERS would have also learned from "experience" to pay some bleeping attention to what candidates are doing as well as to what they are saying.

As Obama said, HC clearly hasn't learned from her experience in giving Bush authority to invade Iraq. What good is "experience" if one doesn't learn from it?

[Giordano Bruno]

07:54 PM on 10/09/2007

Good for Mr. Obama. I find it ironic that one of the arguments advanced by those who would support gender over policy, is that "women are less warlike." Mrs. Clinton is going to give Rudy G a run for his money in terms of who can talk tougher. The world is on the brink of a new crusade, thanks to the nincompoop incumbent.
It is time to start talking diplomacy. Lt. John "reporting for duty" Kerry already demonstrated the folly of trying to be more pro military than the Republicans. I am anxious to vote for a candidate from the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party. I can live with Obama, although I still prefer Mr. Edwards. Good on Obama. Giordano

[hugs4u]

02:06 AM on 10/10/2007

Clinton is a female version of gw bush and will not only have troops in Iraq but also Iran and God only knows where else. There is no difference between hillary and bush.

[otispfudpucker]

01:53 PM on 10/09/2007

THIS IS WHY KILLARY WANTS PEOPLE TO BE QUITE ON HER STUPID ASS VOTE. ONCE AGAIN SHE HELPS BEAT THE WAR DRUM WITH HER KYLE/LIEBERMAN VOTE FOR THE JEWISH LOBBYIST. FOLKS WE ARE GOING TO WAR WITH IRAN THANKS TO THE DEM. NUMNUTS THAT HAVE GIVEN BUSH/CHENEY THE GREEN LIGHT.
ALSO ASK YOURSELVES, WHERE DID THE MISSING NUCLEAR BOMBS END UP AND WHY?
THANK YOU KILLARY THE CORPORATE WHORE.
AND KUDOS TO ANYONE THAT EXPOSES AND RIDES HER ASS ABOUT HER DECIETFULLNESS.

The upcoming TOPOFF military drills taking place in America between October 15-20, are revealing a new level of danger as the Bush administration continues its escalation of tensions with Iran, according to recently published reports.
The US administration, in its continued surge forward to an Iranian war, apparently believes that one form of retaliation by that country could be the insertion of radiation-filled trucks into the U.S. According to the intelligence analysis group Debka (see related article) the US military's upcoming “TOPOFF 4 taking place between 15 and 20 October will set off fake radiological dispersal devices (RDD) or 'dirty bombs' in Oregon and Arizona as well as Guam. ...

"DEBKAfile’s US sources add that some critics of President George W. Bush’s Iraq and Iran policies are interpreting the two exercises as a dress rehearsal for possible retaliation against an American military strike against Iran. In other words, the US is preparing for Iran or Syria to respond by using radiological dispersal devices against American or allied targets, including Israel."

[SensibleAmerican]

02:07 PM on 10/09/2007

Screaming, cussing, name calling, ranting, raving ... see what the Nader-herd has been reduced to?! Ralph WAS a good man and a true activist. He marginalized himself starting 1992 and since then has created a herd of looneys whose only mantra is rant!

[hugs4u]

02:08 AM on 10/10/2007

If Hillary is the nominee I hope Ralph runs again. I havent voted for him before but I would this time, if hillary is the democrat nominee

[Zhonni]

05:29 PM on 10/13/2007

You are not in a position to accuse any one of raves and rants. That is 95% of your post.

You are ofcourse KING RANT.

[Dandy12]

01:33 PM on 10/09/2007

My opinion on the Iran question lies with Bieden and Obama. I wrote Joe Bieden among others months ago re the quantum leap a war with Iran would be. Yet, I understand Hillary's position (which in her words does in no way give the Pres. authority). Hillary is a political beast, and perhaps the brightest of the entire bunch. Her "to the right stances" are an intelligent way to counter Rudy. Without the ammunition of "cut and run", "9/11 this that and the other thing", Rudy is an empty shell. Gee, let's see... He's ripping the Republican Party apart, is a curse to family values, his respect for the institution of marriage and his trashing of ex-wives is abyssmal... So, in the words of Hitler, "divide and conquer".

So, don't think for a minute that Hillary doesn't believe or know that a war with Iran spells "CATASTROPHE". In the meantime, she's much too bright to fall into traps. She has to appear "tough" and turn these issues to non-issues in order to win. Remember some of Bush's stances re nation building and bringing people together?

[rcampbell]

01:06 PM on 10/09/2007

If, as her campaign stated, she is opposed to any action by this admin. against Iran, she should have voted against the Lieberman/Kyl amendment. Anything else is waffling, period!

[SensibleAmerican]

01:32 PM on 10/09/2007

I see this "Bus" thing on this Board. Is it a Barack Hussein shadow campaign?! They appear when his banners appear. All their articles are gushy-mushy over BHO???!!!

If you make a critical remark on BHO, they don't approve the comment! I thought Barack Hussein's campaign was just fluff, now it's turning into a farce as well!!!

[SeanGardner]

02:14 PM on 10/09/2007

you are such a loser with your incessant, hateful and xenophobic "Barack Hussein" references...

You should change your logon name to "EmperialWizard" because you know you wear the white sheets :)

[naijaman]

11:54 PM on 10/09/2007

This moron and his imbecilic "Barack Hussein" rants....what a loser.

[Canaan]

04:34 PM on 10/12/2007

So why didn't Obama vote against it?

Obama's logic: Well, if I vote against Kyl-Lieberman, Giuliani will run ads targeting Jewish voters in NY, NJ and Florida. If I vote for it, I miss a chance to suck up to the ultra-left wing. So I'll miss the vote and make up an excuse. Later on I'll pander to Israel. I won't need the ultra-left in the general election, I'm just playing them in the primary.

If he didn't make the vote, he should have the decency to shut up and stop making these embarrassing 'schedule' excuses. Or he could go on record that he is taking the military option off the table against Iran. Anything else is waffling.

[Independent voter]

12:48 PM on 10/09/2007

Go ahead Cattle - nominate Cliton. It's the fastest, most direct way to Rudy in the White House.

[SensibleAmerican]

02:05 PM on 10/09/2007

The Nader-herd calling someone else "cattle"?! It's like the cattle, er kettle calling the pot black!

[Independent voter]

06:00 PM on 10/09/2007

There is no Nader-herd - just your self inspired conspiracy of one. I have seen this same banal remark from you in quite a few places on Huffington today. If someone doesn't suck up Clinton's every word like nectar from the gods they are part of your Nader herd. Ridiculuous. You discredit yourself.

As for me,I have never donated or voted for Nader.

You'll be crying your ass off two years from now when Hillary gets Rudy elected. And we can all look up to you and your marvelous insight when Rudy bombs Iran.

[hugs4u]

02:09 AM on 10/10/2007

Democrats deserve Rudy if hillary is the nominee.

[average joe]

10:18 AM on 10/09/2007

Hillary has enlisted the aid of sandy burgular as a unpaid adviseror. Caught stealing clinton terrorist documents. So you can't find the truth about his blunders. You may remenber his daddy ham from the early 70 late 60's always trying to steal burgers from MCDONALDS without much success. like father like son.

[MetalCanuck]

11:11 AM on 10/09/2007

She is just as corrupt as Bush, I MEAN FOR GOD SAKE FOLKS, the Bush's and Clintons are good friends and Fellow CFR members. I sometimes think Americans are fools for voting for this Warmonger. Of course my country was foolish to for Voting who we have there now.

Ron Paul is the solution to this problem, like all what he says or not he will fix the corruption issue, he is in the business for you AND he is a reasonable person. WAKE UP!

[Ilvfredum]

12:19 PM on 10/09/2007

What we need is to is elect a muslim. That will fix the problem then everybody stick your heads between your legs and kiss your asses goodbye.

[AcitizenNJ]

10:11 AM on 10/09/2007

I'm sorry but I don't hear anybody thats running for comander-in-chief on either side of this conser/lib bullshit fighting for the American people. As this dog and pony show goes, so America goes and that is there all fighting for special interests. The last I checked America was a special interest other than to all Americans.

[MadMadWorld]

09:23 AM on 10/09/2007

I am not a Hillary fan, far from it, but this Hillary bashing is climbing to new heights. I disagree with her vote on Kyl-Lieberman, but Obama has no position, no ground here. HE DID NOT VOTE. HE TOOK NO STAND. Leadership starts with his current job, whether or not he had a rally planned he is being paid to be a SENATOR. DO YOUR JOB. This blind faith in candidates because they talk a good talk is what got this country BUSH.
Let us try thinking to the general election please. While I don't think Hillary can win, I don't think Obama can either. Not because she is a woman or because he is black, but because their votes or non-votes will be used against them. Neither are any different from what is currently there.

[genmalia]

01:13 PM on 10/09/2007

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/01/4246/

Reid made the vote earlier. Obama did plan on attending and had spoken against the amendment prior to the vote.

I agree that this race is keeping our Senators out a little too often. Unfotunatley, Americans don't take the time to research candidates themselves, it depends on how much face-time a candidate has (ask any Iowan).

[Hooray]

05:07 PM on 10/09/2007

I agree. The Hillary bashing is totally out of control. Each time one of the other candidates bash Hillary, her poll numbers rise. LOL.

Obama is nothing more than an empty suit with not an original thought in his head, and a lot of folks are starting to realize it. Even Edwards has accused Obama is stealing his speeches and his issues.

So you Nader-ites need to calm down and get on board because the Hillary freight train is leaving the station. Or, you could be a spoiler again...

[hugs4u]

02:11 AM on 10/10/2007

Pray to God that if Hillary is the nominee that Nader will be a spoiler again.

[VermontMom]

09:14 AM on 10/09/2007

Obama DID NOT VOTE ON KYL-LIEBERMAN, he skipped it. I called the campaign and asked them why he would skip a vote that is leading us to war with Iran. They said he had a 24,000 person rally in NYC that day. Problem is, the Kyl-Lieberman vote was on Sept. 26. The NYC rally was on Sept. 27. Obama wants it both ways and is being unbelievably dishonest.

[genmalia]

01:13 PM on 10/09/2007

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/01/4246/

Reid made the vote earlier. Obama did plan on attending and had spoken against the amendment prior to the vote.

I agree that this race is keeping our Senators out a little too often. Unfotunatley, Americans don't take the time to research candidates themselves, it depends on how much face-time a candidate has (ask any Iowan).

[Zhonni]

09:27 PM on 10/09/2007

That was my understanding as well that Sen Reid told him the vote would not hold the day it did.

Kind of makes me wonder who Reid is backing.

[naijaman]

12:01 AM on 10/10/2007

VermontMom...stop making shit up.

[getoffmedz]

09:06 AM on 10/09/2007

If you like George W. Bush then you'll LOVE Hillery Clinton.

Anyone else tired of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton?

[s4watson]

09:14 AM on 10/09/2007

THE ONLY WAY THAT FEMALE SNAKE MAKES IT INTO OFFICE IS IF WE ELECT HER. AND IF IM NOT MISTAKING THE ELECTION IS STILL A FEW MONTHS AWAY, NO ONE HAS CAST A VOTE, SO PLEASE DONT BELIEVE THE HYPE! THATS WHAT THEY WANT US TO DO. SHE HAS THE MEDIA UNDER HER CONTROL, THATS WHY THEY CONTINUE TO SHOVE POLL NUMBERS DOWN OUR THROATS. PLEASE AMERICA DONT DRINK THE CLINTON KOOLAID!

[SensibleAmerican]

02:57 PM on 10/09/2007

Barack Hussein got this magic wand from Indonesia. Once he waves it and says "abracadabra":
poverty will disappear in America, New Orleans will be restored, everyone will have health coverage, cars will drive on rain water, Israel and Palestine will become one, there will be peace in the middle east, the terrorists will sing "God Bless America" and all nuclear weapons will vanish off the face of this earth

Poof! Magic!

[jazzman]

08:59 AM on 10/09/2007

What are Democrats really getting with Clinton? More and extended war, perhaps with Iran. A delayed pull out of Iraq. A privatized health insurance system that may extend health insurance but sure won't solve the deep issues of cost and bankruptcy or insure health CARE for the citizens. Extended free trade agreements that will keep impoverishing the American people. Expanded Executive powers and the stripping away of civil liberties in the name of fighting that nebulous shadow and endless war; the so called "War on Terrorism" (whatever that means) and finally piddling around the edges of environmental issues.

In other words, Clinton is a Republican in the Bush mode. She's Lieberman in drag.

If the Democrats want any real progress on issues that concern them they better start looking seriously at the alternative candidates like Obama, Edwards, Biden, or Dodd.

Finally, way to go Obama. Sure took you long enough to step up to the plate. Now start swinging your bat and forget your 'new politics, come let us reason together, kum bah yah' candidacy. Start fighting for what you believe in.

[Gabrielle]

08:53 AM on 10/09/2007

EVERYTHING IS COOKED AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN...HILLARY(UNFORTUNATELY) WILL BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT AND WE'LL HAVE A WAR IN IRAN AND WE'LL KILL LOTS MORE PEOPLE AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL KEEP BEING SHEEP AND LET THE COUNTRY GO DOWN....

ALL EMPIRE HAVE A PEEK AND GO DOWN

THE AMERICAN EMPIRE IS ON IT'S WAY DOWN....

[lentinelia]

08:48 AM on 10/09/2007

Obama is out of his mind.
Sure, Hillary Clinton's vote for Kyl-Lieberman is a disgrace - but if Obama felt so strongly about it he should have shown up and voted against it and argued forcefully on the Senate floor. It's real easy for him to sit on the sidelines and then choose sides after he finds out which way the wind is blowing.

Add to that the fact Obama CO-SPONSORED a bill designating the Iran Revolutionary Guard a "terrorist organization". That's all Bush needs to justify an attack inside Iran.

Obama has no moral high ground here.
We should look elsewhere for candidates with courage.

[Zhonni]

09:32 PM on 10/09/2007

That is NONSENSE!!!

You have no proof of that. He is good at standing his ground. Why would he say he is against something and yet Co-sponsor it.

A link PLEASE?

And by the way, the vote came on a day he was told it wouldn't so you can't blame him entirely there.

[naijaman]

12:03 AM on 10/10/2007

Obama did not co-sponsor that bill designating Iran's Revolutionary guard a "terrorist organization". Why do people keep making shit up? It's pathetic.

[aepelbaum]

08:04 AM on 10/09/2007

What has the leadership of this country accomplished within fifteen years after the VOLUNTARILY collapse of the USSR? Oklahoma bombing, which was so obviously made with the participation of federal government, and, probably, with our "front runner", in particular? 9/11? Killing of millons if innocent foreign civilians during fully unprovoked by these civilians' governments wars? WILL (I mean local PBS station) advirtised before, like the rest of the world, WW II as the last "good" war. Now they advertised it, as "unnecessary war". Sure, the war against fascism was unnecessary, if this country is willing to elect such obvious fascist leader, as Mrs. Clinton, as its new president.

[PollM]

08:32 AM on 10/09/2007

To say the least I'm perplexed with the results of polls and the money trail. I thought people are looking for a President who is adamantly against the war and the engagement of Iran. So are polls wrong or are people throwing their vote towards the most likely candidate. Why would you support a candidate that is not truly against the war and potentially expanding the war into Iran? Do you support Hillary Clinton's position regarding the War and Iran?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=658
.

[avergejoe]

09:15 AM on 10/09/2007

You have to look at THE poll by the isreali newspaper Haaretz of leading isreali policymakers.

They asked "How good is the candidate for israel (0-10)?"
results for week of 9/16/07 -

giuliani - 8.75
bloomberg- 7.75
mccain - 7.5
clinton - 7.35
thompson - 7.25
richardson-6.875
romney - 6.75.
edwards - 5.875.
obama - 5.625.

Dont you find it 'fascinating' that in US national 'polls', the American voters perform like isreali 'intellectuals'.
(That doesnt say much for the voters)

"Perception is reality"

Or in the words of Iraq Study Group (remember them?) -
"Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals..."