Once Quiet, Obama Now Charges Iran Bill 'Opened Door' To War

Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL, went on the attack today in a sharply worded editorial on the Lieberman-Kyl Iran Amendment that graced the pages of the New Hampshire Union-Leader. There were two targets of the Senator's ire: the first was the amendment itself, which accuses Iran of fighting "a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq" and designates the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. The second was Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, for her vote in favor of the measure.

Obama charges that the amendment has "opened the door" to military action with Iran, and calls out Clinton as "the only Democratic presidential candidate to support this reckless amendment." He continues: "We do need to tighten sanctions on the Iranian regime... But this must be done separately from any unnecessary saber-rattling... Above all, it must be done through tough and direct diplomacy with Iran, which I have supported, and which Sen. Clinton has called 'naive and irresponsible.'"

Despite his condemnation for Lieberman-Kyl, Obama didn't vote against it. He didn't vote at all. Both he and Sen. John McCain, R-AZ, were on the campaign trail when Majority Leader Harry Reid allowed the amendment to hit the Senate floor (on relatively short notice).

But even prior to the amendment's passage, the Huffington Post has learned, Obama didn't weigh in. According to a high-ranking Hill staffer, "he wasn't there at all," neither during debate over the measure nor when the Democratic caucus purged two provisions that, among other things, would have declared prudent the "use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq... with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran."

Obama also didn't mention the amendment during the most recent Democratic presidential debate despite being asked two questions specifically about Iran. The debate was on Sept 26, the day the measure was approved.

Obama's camp dismissed the significance of this "late-to-the-party" critique.

"[The Senator] strongly differs with Senator Clinton and others supporting the amendment on Iran and he will continue to speak out because he believes the way to achieve diplomacy is to actually pursue it--which is what he would do as president," his spokesperson Jen Psaki, told the Huffington Post.

But at least one critic of the Lieberman-Kyl amendment said that the Senator's silence during the lead up to the vote and when the vote took place hurts his credibility on the issue.

"In theory I would agree with what Obama says [in the Union Leader]," John Isaacs, Executive Director of Council for a Livable World, told the Huffington Post. "But he has the same problem with this vote as with his criticism of his 2002 vote authorizing Bush to use force in Iraq: it would have been easier for him to lob this criticism if he had been there to vote against the amendment."

Comments

[NegSpin]

Seriously, Mr. Obama, you needed to be there to vote against it if you were against it. Since you didn't even vote, your best option at this point would be to simply shut up.

[scooperss]

Agreed. He didn't put up, ergo, he should shut up.

[mongus]

But, SHE voted for it. That's what this is all about. No amount of spin by the Clinton Machine is going to CHANGE that. Get over it.

[Menemshasunset]

Obama- all talk and no walk-too bad -he might have had a place in the future of the Democratic party- but his ego jumped ahead of his experience.

[TurnThePageGA]

I get it. Be a good Boy, and stay in your place. Hmmmm.....

[Zhonni]

WHY OBAMA HAS MISSED MORE VOTES THAN HILLARY

1) Obama is not a spouse of a former President. Which makes him less known.

2) Clinton is a household name and is leading by double digits which allows her some leisure time. Poor Obama has to run from state to state to get more name recognition.

A friend of mine thought he was Harold Ford. She couldn't even remember Harold Ford. The conversation went like this, "em, em, is that Haro, Harod", you mean Harold Ford? I interjected. "Ya that is Harold Ford" No, he isn't, that is Barrack Obama and he is running for President. "Oh! I never heard of him."

The above conversation took place during the ABC sponsored debate.


If Obama was a household name and is up by double digits, believe me, he would spend more time in Washington than in other states trying to introduce himself to American voters.

[Bleedingroseca]

I could believe that it was all about becoming well known but Hillary was not the only candidate who was able to get there to vote. Kind of blows your whole theory.

[Zhonni]

Who are Clintons main rivals who are running to win and not be some secretary of state?

Barrack and Edwards are the only ones at this time with a credible shot.

[klondiker]

I disagree on several counts:

1. Since the campaign, Obama has received just as much - if not more - attention than Hillary. This is reflected in his fundraising, as well as his campaign appearances.

2. There is a downside to Clinton being a household name and the spouse of a former president (aka, the extra scrutiny that comes with the it), and it's all part and parcel of the whole. You can't wish for the good without all the bad.

3. As Bleedingroseca points out, candidates like Biden and Dodd were able to get there too (and they are the ones who are really suffering from lack of attention and recognition. Clinton and Obama are the real rock stars in this game).

[Zhonni]

You did not finish reading my post. I have a friend who did not know who he was even as she joined me in watching the debate sponsored by ABC.

He was present for the first time the vote was scheduled but it was suspended indefinately. The sooner he went to New Hamshire it was brought back on a short notice.

The last I checked you can't be in two places at the same time.

[Galvestonians for Dr. Ron Paul]

TO LITTLE TOO LATE BARRACK>>>>>

Listen to a real statesmen from 1.5 yrs ago.

Please listen.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12640.htm

[WigWamWag]

That is a great truthful speech from Dr. Paul.

How can we get all others to see the light?

If Gore enters the mixe things could be much better race. A Dream ticket would be either Paul/Gore or Gore/Paul. Either way the US wins.

[MetalCanuck]

Ron Paul is the man, too bad dems believe their party is an actual opposition.

[itmaybetoolate]

Too little, too late.

[phoenix1964]

Compare his bill on Iran to what was pass. Obama is correct dont give Cheny and the neocons any wiggle room. American law is that we can go after any terrorist group- by calling the Iranian guard a terrorist group-gives Bush the latittude needed. It's dangerous to start calling government groups terrorist. We didn't call the KGB or China's Red army terrorist and they committed a number of sins against us. Let's watch the onslaught of CIA, FBI, State diplomats being assasinated because Iran responded tick for tack too. Stop the rush to pull the trigger and try other things in our aresnal to keep Iran down. We are the country that brought down the Soviet Union and basically made Libya a non entity with out a signal shot. We can do better, we are Americans.

[MPeter]

He had the brains to fore-see the futility of attacking Iraq long before the crackpots in the Bush administration and their Democratic enablers like HRC and Edwards did. He has been the only presidential candidate that opposes pre-emptive wars and torture while HRC and the Repugs seek to redefine it. So yes, Senator Obama has the credentials to speak to tese issues.

[Bleedingroseca]

Oh please...getting Obama out of the way? Come one...Obama himself thinks the IRG are terrorists. He is just trying desperately to gain some footing...and failing.

[mongus]

You are missing the point. YOUR candidate voted YES. She could have voted against it, but with her 'experience' and judgment, Hillary decided to vote FOR the amendment. A 'Yes' vote means she was supporting THAT bill. If Barack had voted for it, you would have something to complain about.

Hillary voted FOR the amendment. Do you agree with that vote? If you do, that's fine. Don't complain about Barack because SHE voted FOR it.
Hillary was wrong for voting YES. Get over it.

[s4watson]

THERE IS NO DENYING HILLARY CLINTON WANTS TO KEEP US IN WAR. SHE VOTED FOR IT TWICE!! SO PLEASE STOP TRYING TO DEFEND HER.SHE IS LIL BUSH!

[BUSHsurvivor]

That's getting so old!

[mongus]

Do you agree with Hillary's vote? Should she have voted YES?

[TommyT]

Failing to use an appropriate combination of upper and lower case letters will result in others viewing your comment as, well...dumb as shit.

[lafrance]

I would not put too much into Obama not saying alot about it before now. concidering that the candidates are usually tied up the day of a debate and all, I doubt he had all the info including why it suddenly came up without notice.
I feel that candidates should be quick on things but, they also sometimes need more info on things before making any statements and with bills like this one, many candidates are going to want to read the final bill before commenting one way or another.

[freespeach]

Obama's finest spin merchants duke it out with Hillary's finest. Impressive.

Since I'm not for either one I'll just piss in the water here and remind you that Dennis Kucinch is far better than Hillary or Obama in terms of integrity, courage, honesty, and true patriotism.

The need for impeachment of Bush and Cheney.
Bold action to stop funding the immoral illegal occupation of Iraq.

Kucinich wants all of the right things unlike the two DLC all-stars.

What about the very current and important deals being done on the FISA law?

Protection for Telco's who violated the law?
Oversight, the status of current legal cases, and a host of issues which relate to American citizens.
The ACLU has been at loggerheads with the Democratic party leadership, while a group of (wonderful) progressive Democrats are pushing more protection for citizens.

Senate Democrats appear to be willing to give Bush more of what he wants than Congressional Dems.
So what's going on?
Why the Hell are Obama and Clinton silent on this.

Now you hostile DLC loyalists can tell me this is not the topic on the thread...and to piss off. Fair enough.
Any moderates out there care to explain why these big two are AVOIDING this FISA legislation like it was the plaque?

[freespeach]

plague?

[peaceandfreedom]

O-tay freespeach--

I'll reply.

Kucinich, Gravel, Biden on a good day, hell even Ron Paul if he swore of racism, woman hating, and his penchant for just being bat lightning nuts.

No one want to talk about the issues here, because they are not ready to make the leap into the future this country needs.

Every one of your points is critical! But rather than demand candidates who will challenge the status quo, too many folks prefer to argue about lapel pins, haircuts, and bathrooms.

Why won't Hillary or Obama take strong stands on spying, torture, impeachment,and our loss of freedoms?

Good questions, but you won't get them answered here.

[dr4Will]

send obama to alabama--he's a loser who won't accept the fact he is a 22% candidate--quit running down other democrats because he is a loser without hope!!!

[WigWamWag]

dr4Will Well, you get it too. It seems very clear. It does not take much of an IQ to realize that the pieces of the puzzle are easy put together.

He is a loser without hope! Any ticket with O-Bomb-a is a loser.

[Zhonni]

A loser at 22%?

The last I checked that puts him second among the candidates. If Obama is a "loser", then every body in third place down are losers as well.

I think he is a intelligent "loser", a visionary "loser"(to a point of being Prophetic), a "loser" with jugdement, and a "loser" with integrity.

I will choose this "loser", anyday, over the other "losers". And this "loser" will win.

[Zhonni]

... an intelligent...

[detwob]

To not vote, then sit back, see which way the wind is blowing... that ain't courage or principled.

Obama/Clinton 2008
because symbolic change is all we get

[GreatFutureForAll]

If they keep changing the time and date of the vote, when can anyone know when the vote is going to be held? And knowing how much Obama is an outsider in Washington and how many old political friends and DC lobbyists Hillary has, they probably waited until Obama boarded the plane before even having the vote.

My point is if you are going to have a vote on the bill, you can't get everyone to participate if you keep moving the time around.

The man is running for president and has a wife and two kids to take care of. I know he's supposed to stay in Washhington and wait like a statue for every bill that comes forth. But, I believe him when he said that if he had the opportunity to vote on the Kyl foolishness, he would have voted NO.

But, I can tell you firsthand from living in DC for two years: As someone that grew up in very fast paced New York, things in Washington are so very screwed up that the only thing that moves faster than a snail or remotely on time is the Metro.

And all of DC has been this screwed up since at least the 1980s. The slowest part of DC is anything government related.

[vicissitude]

I agree greatFutureForAll

Not to mention the fact that Rory Reid the son of Harry Reid, who controls when votes come to the Senate floor, works for HRC's campaign!

So, she has an inside track when it comes to whether some issue/policy will be voted on. Obama has no way of knowing when the votes will hit the Senate floor.

Biden and Dodd are not trying to run a Presidential campaign so they will seldom be caught out on the trail.

[klondiker]

And yet the other canidates like Biden and Dodd (who has a wife and two kids) were able to make the vote...

Besides, that's the excuse? "I couldn't make the vote because I am a very busy person, what with running for president and having a wife and two kids."

You have got to be kidding me! If you can't stand the heat, then stay out of the kitchen!

As for the laughable insinuation that somehow there was a conspiracy to deny Obama the chance to vote.....well, I won't even go there.

[ipv4]

What's funny is that the presidential race is here and now between the democratic front runners...because I don't think the republicans have any shot whatsover at competing against the winnig democratic nominee especially when the competing repbulican candidate either 1. Supports the on going War in Iraq 2. Believes that the second coming of the messiah came 200 hundreds years ago and forgot to tell the rest of the U.S. or for that matter the entire world about it. Can't wait till election time come when the real juice comes out on these candidates cause we already have heard everything about the Clintons.

[fourex]

Obama is correct, Hillary has twice given GW Bush license to kill innocent civilians.