Obama co-sponsored Iran bill almost exactly like Lieberman-Kyl in April.

from MSNBC:

http://www.FirstRead.MSNBC.com

edit: changed Nov to April, added "almost" to subject line.

but it's wrong when Hillary does it

the assumption seems to be that you can only agree with either candidate, or that they're mutually exclusive;
in fact, they can BOTH be wrong on the same issue.

but both being wrong does not excuse the other.

Obama criticized Hillary for voting to designate the IRG even though he co-sponsored a bill that does the same thing

its incendiary saber rattling that serves no purpose except to increase risk of unrest.

He's quite a hypocrite.

He's not critical of the IRG designation.

He's critical of the K-L language linking Iran to insurgent activity and US deaths in Iraq.

Glad I could educate you on this subject.

Clinton and others removed such language, so it lined up with the bill Obama co-sponsed.
And then they voted on it.
Perhaps had Obama stayed for the vote he would know more about what was in K/L?

Exactly where did Obama criticize Hilliary for voting to designate the IRG a terrorist organization?

Are you not paying attention or intentionally trying to mislead people?

The truth is that his criticisms of Lieberman-Kyl, and Hillary's support for it, are regarding sections 1 and 2, not section 3.

***

b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--

(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;

(2) that it is a critical national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;

(3) that the United States should designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224; and

...

but thinks that calling the IRG a terrorist organization could not possibly be used as a pretext for war

(see kos link below)

b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--

(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;

(2) that it is a critical national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;

...

How about you address my comments first?

Obama cosponsored a bill that would designate the IRG a terrorist org

So designating the IRG a terrorist org could not be used by * to start a war?

Insult me all you want; I'm not running. You'd be better off explalining Obama's hypocrisy

K/L could be used by * to start a war with Iran.

I'm sorry you feel insulted but facts are facts.

K/L (Hillary's baby) IS NOT the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007(Obama's baby).

You didn't answer this simple question. What are you afraid of?

You said he criticized the labeling of IRG as a terrorist oganization. Here it is again...if you forgot -- "Obama criticized Hillary for voting to designate the IRG even though he co-sponsored a bill that does the same thing."

Obama's position is clear and his problem is NOT with the IRG designation. If you do a bit of reading, in this thread even, you will see how K/L escalates things much further than the bill he co-sponsored.

Whatever the case, I wish Hillary's supporters would stop trying to convolute the issue and stop lying about Obama's position long enough to consider K/L on its own merits. I don't think i've seen any of her supporters condemn her vote...yet.

Please, show us where Obama was as economical with the truth as you claim he was.

Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1400

Obama's memo is very specific in its criticms of Kyl-Lieberman
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3646080&mesg_id=3646080

It would have been nice if you checked into this before buying Hillary's spin and promoting mistruths.

And have provided no Obama quotes to back up your claims at all.

Feel free to take a look at these two pieces of legislation...and see if they are the "exactly the same".

Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007 (Introduced in Senate)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.970:

Kyl-Lieberman Amendment
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/kyl-lieberman.pdf

***

Here's a passage from Obama's memo that speaks to his non-opposition to the IRG designation --

On September 26, Senator Clinton voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. In defending her vote, Senator Clinton points to that provision in the resolution that calls for designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group, a provision incidentally that Senator Obama does not oppose. But the amendment does much more than that.

And link one (to the bill you want to talk about but that isn't the one mentioned in the OP at all) doesn't work (no big deal, I know what that was too).

Sorry.

Hope the weekend treats you well.

It only shows what hypocrit Obama is

Obama claims that * can use K/L as a pretext for war. Obama thinks the IRG s/b designated a terrorist org.

So designating the IRG a terrorist org could not be used by * to start a war?

as you falsely claimed before.

Consider:

1. Obama's co-sponsored Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007

vs.

2. Hillary's support for Kyl-Lieberman

You tell me which is more likely to be used as a pretext.

Obama claims that it's wrong to give * a pretext for war, but supports designating IRG a terrorist org

So designating the IRG a terrorist org could not be used by * to start a war?

First, you make up some shit about how Obama criticized Hillary for something when he didn't.

Now you're pretending two vastly different pieces of legislation are the same.

It's a simple question.

Call me as many names as you wish. It only underlines the fact that Obama was willing to give * a "blank check"

It's obvious you're not interested in an honest discussion.

Here's a little keepsake --- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3649834&mesg_id=3649836

The fact is that six months ago there was what many believed to be a real threat of nuclear proliferation of weapons in
Iran. Having that debunked in the meantime by the final IAEA report, (months prior to Kyl-Lieberman in September) it
would reasonably account for those senators who endorsed the earlier resolution to find it nothing more than inflammatory
at this point, given the new Bush meme that the Iranian Guard is crossing the border to massacre our soldiers.

U.S. Military reports July and Aug 07 confirm that to date it has not apprehended a single Iranian guard who can be linked to any
such movement, yet Bush continues to reiterate it time and time again.

Who's buying?

Some of the other co-sponsors of which later voted against Kyl-Lieberman.

But yeah, other than that, it's exactly the same.

but criticizes Hillary because she agrees

He's buffaloed his befuddled and bedazzled brethren.

Trying to keep his dwindling support scared of Clinton - it's the only thing he has left.l

And Obama continues to support the IRG terrorist designation when Condi Rice made it formal this week. It's his official statement on the matter.

The point is that Obama and Dodd and anyone else can criticize Hillary for voting for Kyl?Lieberman, but cannot criticize her on the specific part of it about the IRG designation because they supported it, even co-sponsored it, and in Obama's case he still supports it. (I don't know about Dodd)

terrorist designation issue then.

Logical inconsistency and confusion amongst candidate supporters is nothing new.

when he cosponsored it? I don't know how the fact that it didn't get to the floor matters.

And, perhaps, how to find out when votes are scheduled.

includes many of the top SFRC who all voted against Kyl/Leiberman

They had one thing in common--the designation of the IRG as a terrorist org.

S.970 dealt with non-proliferation, K-L dealt with Iran meddling in Iraq.

Apples and oranges.

and then he turns around and criticizes HRC for believing that the IRG is a terrorist org

He did not criticize her for believing that the IRG is a terrorist org.

He criticized her for voting for K-L, which endorses Petraeus's claims about Iran killing US soldiers in Iraq and destabilizing Iraq.

stance by not voting.

He's sly, that's for sure.

==He was absent, yes. He missed it, yes. But did he “skip” it?

1. The dictionary defines “skip” as “to avoid attendance at.”

This is a question of motives. Just because he was absent, it doesn’t mean that he avoided attending it. Liberal bloggers need to come up with some proof that he avoided voting if they are going to throw around this argument.

The congressional record clearly states that senators were informed that the Kyl-Lieberman amendment would not be coming up for a vote in the near future.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. REID. Mr. Chairman, there will be no more votes tonight. We have tried to work something out on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment and the Biden amendment. We have been unable to do that.

We have been very close a few times, but we have just been informed that Senator Biden will not have a vote anytime in the near future. There will not be a vote on the other one anytime in the near future. We hope tonight will bring more clearness on the issue.

But right now, I think it is fair to say there will be no votes tonight.

Does the Senator from South Dakota have any comments?

Mr. THUNE. No, I do not. I would say to the leader, that is good for our Members to know. We have Members who have been inquiring whether they will be able to vote.==

http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/10/11/did-obama-skip-the-iran-vote/

He fled town on purpose. All the Senators who stayed and voted weren't "suprised" as Barack claims he was as his excuse.

"Mr New Jersey"? wtf does that mean?

and the link debunks your argument. Stop with the bullshit that he fled town on purpose unless you have evidence. He only made plans to go ahead and campaign in NH when it was strongly suggested that there wouldn't be a vote the next day.

That he, alone of all those who stayed to do their duty and vote, was told there'd be no vote?
He alone was told this?
Any source, other than Obama himself, to prove that story true?

:rofl:
Get a map.

Problem for you is, that's the only thing you've been correct on in this thread.

Nonetheless, I salute your achievement.

your candidate.

That's... interesting.

The basis of Obama's complaint is that K/L could be used as a pretext for war. Does Obama think that S970's designation of IRG as a terrorist org is something bush* couldn't use as a pretext for war

and said so in his statement yesterday. Here's his issue with Kyl-Lieberman:

"We know that there was embodied in this legislation, or this resolution sent to the Senate, language that would say our Iraqi troop structures should in part be determined by our desire to deal with Iran," Obama said. "Now if you know that in the past the president has taken a blank check and cashed it, we don't want to repeat that mistake."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/11/obama.clinton/

It's *her turn* anyway...

:sarcasm:

Last try. Link or slink.

So anyone who wants to bitch about designating the IRG as a terrorist organization needs to drop Hillary, Obama and Dodd.

But it's silly for Obama supporters to bitch about the IRG designation because when Condi Rice made it official this week Obama put out a statement that the IRG is a supporter of terrorism, and that stiff sanctions are in order.

With experience, someday Barack will learn not to pull gaffs like this so often.

Obama co-sponsored bill designating IRG as a terrorist organization

point well taken about Biden not endorsing either.

Though if one asked him whether he considererd IRG a terrorist organnization, he might end up saying yes.

To a certain extent, they are. Though having Congress decide to paste that label on them doesn't help the cause of peace.

Condi was going to do it anyway.

Congress just applauded in advance.

The nuanced verbiage is sophistry.
When has Obama ever said "my bill to designate the IRG as a terrorist organization was better than the bill to designate the IRG as a terrorist organization that I didn't vote on"?

Unfortunately, the exageration gives Obama supporters an out to ignore the more substansial issue you're raising

was posted on You-Tube, some of these same people would still attack the person who posted the video as being unfair to Barack...

Funny the Obamas are pretending this is the first they've heard of this.
From over a week ago, at kos:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/13/1451/0111

Read the *whole* thing, Obama apologists.

Good read, that bit on kos.

There are vast differences between the two on Iran. This commentary does a great job explaining the very important differences:

Convenient.

to "expand our troops' activities beyond Iraq's borders to pursue and attack Iranian forces."?

Nicely done giving it a facade of objective analysis and commentary

:eyes:

And yes I know you linked to it but not everyone clicks the links. Something you are surely aware of since you've been at DU for quite soem time.

Nice try, Z! :rofl:

Oh snap!!

Huge difference if your eyes are open.

It's these rubber-meets-the-road kind of YES votes that resonate. Not woulda, shoulda, coulda.

Regardless of the efforts at bait and switch to try to distract voters, the fact remains that Hillary is the only Democratic candidate that voted "yes" on that POS bill.

Yes, Clinton voted yes. After the language was changed to more match the Obama bill.
This business of celebrating Obama's lack of being there to vote as something "noble" is odd.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/13/1451/0111
edit: added the link from above to help AK learn more.

Once they reported no imminent threat, that should have been that, but the BushCo has been banging the war drums loud and louder.

Obama had the good sense to read the situation correctly and could see the rush to war all over again. That is why he, Edwards, Dodd and Biden all opposed Kyl-Lieberman.

And the fact remains that Hillary is the only Democratic candidate to vote yes on it. That sets her apart, and not in a good way.

Snaps to the HRC supporters for acknowledging this sticky wicket and working overtime on damage control.

Obama supported the designation of the IRG as a terrorist org. He even co-sponsored the legislation.

So designating the IRG a terrorist org could not be used by * to start a war?

I'm sort of in the not enthusiastic about anyone camp at the moment. For the record here is my answer on another thread to the question; Who are your top three candidates?:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3647222&mesg_id=3648266

But what is increasingly starting to disturb me is how the Kyle - Lieberman Amendment vote, and all of the reactions to it, is becoming more and more a political football instead of a real effort to head off another war. Face it, of the current candidates only Dennis Kucinich ever made it a priority to warn against the threat of the U.S. attacking Iran. The rest spent most of their time on the subject sending warnings to Iran. That only changed very very recently - so recently in fact that is seems some of our Presidential candidates only found it worthy of talking about AFTER the smoke cleared from that vote and they found Clinton standing isolated and exposed among those running.

I've said this here before, I have no problem with folks giving Clinton heat over that vote. But I am becoming more and more pissed that very few seem to have much interest in this issue EXCEPT when it is being used as a club to beat up on Clinton. Over twenty other Democrats voted with her on K/L, is anyone here talking about any of them? What is the follow up strategy for us now that K/L is in the history books?

What it looks like to me is that for most of those expressing outrage the follow up strategy is to take Clinton down as a Presidential candidate in favor of one or more of the others running. OK, I understand politics, I get that part, but is that all there is? Supposedly folks are so upset because K/L sends a message to Bush that makes it more likely he will feel empowered to attack Iran while he is still in office. Supposedly THAT is what we are so upset over, right? Well the way time flows whoever we nominate for President doesn't get a shot at the job until AFTER Bush leaves it. So preventing Clinton from becoming President, in and of itself, does diddly squat for preventing war with Iran while Bush is President.

If the K/L vote was so terrible for putting the Senate on record in a way that could be misconstured as a reason for Bush to attack Iran, than shouldn't we want the Senate to correct that stupid blundered message ASAP? Shouldn't that be at least as important as talking about K/L and Iran exclusively through the lens of a Democratic Primary campaign?

Shouldn't we be asking all those Democrats who voted the "wrong way" to let Bush know that their intent was not to support military action against Iran without new and specific congressional approval for launching that war? I sure as hell think so, and as much blame as we now give Clinton for her vote, she deserves at least some credit for trying to correct that miscommunication by signing on as a co-sponser of the Webb Amendment. People can now forgive her or not for her K/L vote, at this point I don't give a damn. But I do give a damn that we acknowledge Democratic Senators when they do send a correct and important message to Bush. The Webb amendment does exactly that. Are people on DU afraid to get behind it because doing so now afer Clinton has, somehow might benefit Clinton? I sure as hell hope that is not the case because that would be the worst type of politics, playing politics with war, no better when you get down to it, than Bush trying to use the threat of "A War On Terror" to score political points in 2004.

Can most of us agree that most of us don't have to agree on Clinton, but still most of us do need to be doing more NOW to stop a war with Iran? Yes it is presidential politics season, so in addition to blasting Clinton over this, why not ask Biden, Dodd, and Obama to start working hard to build support for the Webb Amendment also? They still sit in the Senate. I am not willing to let K/L be the last chapter the Senate writes on this, are you?

P.S. I also don't want to continually rake Obama or Dodd over the hot coals for their earlier support for a controversial amendment either. I want leadership now, and I want their support for the Webb Amendment now. I can forgive all of our candidates for being in my opinion asleep at the wheel (other than Kucinich) over the threat of Bush/Cheney starting a new war if they wake wide up now and start acting as alarmed as they should be.

P.P.S. I ommitted the name of the poster I am replying to from the title of this post, becaue it makes more sense as a stand alone Journal entry if I do so, lol

Obama wanted to designate the IRG a terrorist org.
So designating the IRG a terrorist org could not be used by * to start a war?

And Obama, Edwards, Dodd, and Biden had the good sense to not be fooled again by an administration crying wolf. Hillary, not so much.

Please answer the question. I didn't ask why Obama didn't support K/L. I asked "So designating the IRG a terrorist org could not be used by * to start a war?"

I asked you this three times so far

And anyone that has been paying attention could detect a trend of events from this administration.

Kyl-Lieberman was tantamount to the 1990s Iraq Liberation Act which was a neocon foot in the door in the push to war. In fact, this administration is arguing behind the scenes that they don't need congressional approval to invade Iran because of the IWR - which Hillary also voted yes on - since Congress in a 76-22 (Kyl-Lieberman) vote so obligingly labeled the Iran Guard a terrorist organization - contrary to IAEA findings - and they feel they can refer back to the IWR and attack Iran for intervening in Iraq.

This theory isn't just being hatched. Jimmy Carter and Jim Webb were vociferously against Kyl-Lieberman, Webb correctly calling it "Cheney's fondest pipe dream."

Again, snaps for your willingness to defend the indefensible, but it is what it is.

You didnt answer it.

If one buys the notion Obama's selling: That Bush would need an excuse at all...

I'm sorry you don't like my answer and that you really want to continue to belabor the point to continue this bait and switch tactic for the purposes of damage control for your candidate, but your repartee has now become silly and just plain tiresome. I understand your frustration in your efforts at subterfuge, but that's really not my problem.

"It seemed necessary at the time but the IAEA put the kibosh on the urgency.
And Obama, Edwards, Dodd, and Biden had the good sense to not be fooled again by an administration crying wolf. Hillary, not so much. "

All you do is explain why Obama didn't support K/L

Nothing about whether * could use the designation to start a war

He added that the bill Obama co-sponsored with 68 other Senators back in March was
when the world was unsure as to the extent of Iranian nuclear progress prior to the
final IAEA report.

Different times call for different responses but we can't expect Hillarians to acknowledge
the facts, only to report the distraction/spin. :eyes:

one of the besotted and befuddled by Barack bunch.

"A terrorism expert was asked..."
And he rode down from the rainbow on his unicorn with candy and sunshine and kittens for everyone!!

I just don't get why people think they need to get so goddamn personal because of political disagreements.

Note if you will that evey single post by that person has attacked the poster and ignored the issues.
I slipped down into the muck with her/him just this once. Human, I am, after all.

edit: I just reviewd this person's recent "contributions" to DU. Ignore!

More lies from a DU Billary BS artist. AK knows better because she's been in many of the same threads I have.

You're Hillaryous to talk about ignoring the issues when your "contributions" to DU are confined to proping up the
Billary & Co.'s dynastic plans and using the word "bigot" at every opportunity.

The issue I am addressing before I was so rudely interrupted:

S970 was before the final IAEA report. The Kyl-Lieberman report was unnecessary on 9/25.

The fact is that six months ago there was what many believed to be a real threat of nuclear proliferation of weapons in
Iran. Having that debunked in the meantime by the final IAEA report, (months prior to Kyl-Lieberman in September) it
would reasonably account for those senators who endorsed the earlier resolution to find it nothing more than inflammatory
at this point, given the new Bush meme that the Iranian Guard is crossing the border to massacre our soldiers.

U.S. Military reports July and Aug 07 confirm that to date it has not apprehended a single Iranian guard who can be linked to any
such movement, yet Bush continues to reiterate it time and time again.

Who's buying? Hillary.

...just like people that want to hide from the truth...and in this case, where Senator Clinton is flailing at shadows...

A terrorism expert on Hardball said it. I'm reporting it. I could mention President Jimmy Carter, Gov. Mario Cuomo,
Senator Jim Webb, and John Dean but I know you and yours aren't interested in facts. :hi:

..the inevitable crash.