Obama campaign accuses Clinton of changing her position on Iran

She's saying the resolution gave Bush no authorization to attack Iran. Isn't that what she said when she voted? I'm not sure I see the change in position. I hope Obama's not doing a Russert on a fellow Democrat.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7043346,00.html

<edit>

Obama missed the vote on the amendment because he was campaigning. Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said if Obama was so concerned about the amendment, he should have been there to vote against it. Singer said Obama also should have signed Webb's letter and co-sponsored two other pieces of legislation that reaffirm the president cannot use force against Iran without congressional approval.

``It's unfortunate that (Senator) Obama is abandoning the politics of hope in favor of the kind of political games he is so critical of in his book,'' Singer said. He pointed to a passage in ``The Audacity of Hope'' where Obama is critical of the tendency to ``exaggerate or demonize, oversimplify or overstate our case.''

Said Obama spokesman Bill Burton: ``With her vote for the war in Iraq and her vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, Hillary Clinton has now given George Bush the benefit of the doubt not once, but twice. While she's trying her best to change her position on yet another critical issue facing our country, Senator Obama knows that it takes legislation, not letters, to undo the vote that she cast.''

more...

... that the Webb letter was intended to "undo" the damage of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment.

the authority? I don't think Hillary (and the others who voted for it, as far as I know) thought that. I guess I still don't see where there's any change in Hillary's position.

One only need to observe that Wes Clark was against the IWR and for Kyl-Lieberman to see that they are not the same thing...

But it has become dogma in the blogosphere, so facts mean little!

I honestly don't understand the bill, what it does, what it enables that wouldn't otherwise be enabled, what it prevents that wouldn't otherwise be prevented, etc. I understand the argument about sanctions, but don't understand whether that couldn't have happened anyway.

I don't think Kyl-Lieberman and the Webb letter are contradictory or a change in position, though. I agree there. The Democrats who signed the former say it's not authorization for an attack, and tried to reinforce that with the letter.

It is a Sense of the Senate resolution. Didn't have to pass the House, and wasn't signed by the President. Does not have the force of law, and had any mention of possible military action stripped from it at Democratic insistence...

Obama and Edwards are trying to use it to make the absurd case that Hillary wants to go to war with Iran...

Not only did he not bother to vote on Kyl-Lieberman, he did not express his opposition to the measure in committee or on the senate floor, didn't try to amend or kill it, in fact played no role whatsoever, and didn't even bother to comment until 9 hours after the vote when he sensed he might be able to use it as a campaign issue...

On top of that he co-sponsored a resolution that would have recommended adding the Iraqi Guard to the terrorist list 6 months before...

And he is mis-characterizing not only the resolution, but the reasons Democrats including Obama mentor Dick Durbin, voted for it...

But I believe Obama was talking about her premise that the IWR was for diplomacy and she is saying the same damn thing now. I think many Democrats are flabbergasted that she didn't learn the last go.

And only in nutroots land is a Senator who doesn't think his job is important enough to like...show up to..considered qualified for higher office...

Talk about Spin....

He does not and never has had a problem with the Iranian Republican Guard designation and he has stated that clearly with respect to Kyl-Lieberman.

We can argue about why he wasn't around to vote against the amendment, but his reason for opposing it is as follows:

=="Why is this amendment so dangerous? Because George Bush and Dick Cheney could use this language to justify keeping our troops in Iraq as long as they can point to a threat from Iran. And because they could use this language to justify an attack on Iran as a part of the ongoing war in Iraq."==

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/23/obama-aims-fire-at-clinton-over-iran-vote/

If they can use this they can use anything anyone says...this does not have the force of law, and implication of military use was removed...as Dick Durbin clearly said when he voted for it..


Why didn't Obama bother to oppose the first one? Like I said, not only did he not vote which was bad enough, he didn't even talk about it, didn't try to kill or amend it...

Now that he can use it as a campaign issue...well all of a sudden he decides maybe he will show up on the Senate floor after all...

so there is absolutely no point in discussing it.

Your main problem seems to be that Hillary blundered on voting for this amendment and handed everyone (not just Obama) a campaign issue. Can't help you there.

Obama is not alone in drawing a distinction between the IRG designation (which could apply to any activities it supports in the region) and Kyl-Lieberman's linkage of Iran to Iraq:

==The "Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007," which Obama cosponsored on April 24, 2007, states clearly that:

"The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) and the Secretary of the Treasury should place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224 (66 Fed. Reg. 186; relating to blocking property and prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism)."

But Obama (and other Democrats) say they are not objecting, necessarily, to the labeling of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. They're looking at a different section of the amendment they say creates disconcerting linkage between Iran and Iraq.==

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/10/the-obama-disse.html

a failed effort to pretend?

linked in your catche..

Why is Obama making the case NOW the K-L Amendment is giving Bush a blank check for War with Iran? When he could have voted "NO" on it.

On the face of Obama's superlative sound bite accusing Hillary of giving Bush a "blank check" to attack Iran, it appears there isn't a case framing this issue as debate worthy. Seemingly, all Obama is doing is using "fear" and "doubt" as the basis for hurling accusations at Sen Clinton.

Obama's sudden familiarity with the trumped up ramifications of the K-L Amendment is all smoke and mirrors. Merely because he is banking on the majority of people not taking the time, as some of us have, to rout out the germane language referred to by Obama as "creates disconcerting linkage between Iran and Iraq." contained in the K-L Amendment in the context Obama purports will be the "smoking gun" he intends using as the nexus for framing his debate against Sen Clinton..

As I said in my original caption! "All Obama is doing is fueling the fire (for Bush) to attack Iran."
And I would add, this tactic is Rovian all day long. Obama using his campaign's bully pulpit making the case for Bush's War with Iran.

here are the latest Rass polls:

11/01/07

Clinton...43%...Obama 20%....Edwards...12%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/daily_presidential_tracking_polling_history

every other candidate agrees with his interpretation of this amendment. Hillary the Hawk stands alone on this one.

All the others did their job. Obama was off raising money.. Just as he was for his Gospel Tour. Constituencies and supporters suffer at the expense of Obama's predisposition of MONEY over people.

Supporting one minute, against it the next...

Hillary was totally correct in her Kyl-Lieberman vote....

The only blunder was Obama not viewing as important enough to weigh in on until after he gauged how it would affect his Presidential run...

He's trying to make a campaign issue of something he really shouldn't be drawing attention to. It's the weirdest "strategy" I've seen in a loooooong time.

There is not a dimes difference between Clinton and Obama on these policies, so it's tedious listening to anyone on either side try to elucidate their differences.

go on guy...I like the Hillary bashing the more you bash the further behind you get. By the way where was he when the vote was taken...he sure didn't vote on it..again the flippy flopper..he hides when it comes to voting, slams other who do and don't come up with a decision he thinks MIGHT be the correct one.

Swifty Boaty

Thanks.

if he's never there to vote.

changed her position on this?

nt