Hillary Camp Hits Back At Obama On Iran

Comments (42)

stop the polls wrote on October 11, 2007 12:48 PM:

Hillary-Obama, Obama-Hilary. What gives you the right to ignore the other candidates, and so negate the power of the voters and limit ideas. The deabate in TPM has become between 2 who both say they won't get us out of Iraq before 2013. Does the will of the people mean nothing?
If TPM can prove the polls to be above the temptation of favoring the candidates with the most money, then they should do it. Otherwise, cover all them all, please.

Keith wrote on October 11, 2007 12:50 PM:

It's like they have a robo-response. Abandon politics of hope . . . Strength and experience to bring change.

So her defense is that she was the first to SAY he needed congressional authority. Problem is that the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment creates the opportunity for us to defend our troops, which doesn't require Congressional Authority.

She's also signed onto Webb's amendment. Problem here is that Webb himself doesn't think it will pass the 60 vote hurdle (see interview on Hardball, I don't have the date) and as I recall, she did this in the wake of the outrage of her vote--which many applauded her for. Also note, that she hasn't done anything to get the bill passed or anymore sponsors since she signed on.

Yet again, she straddles this issue.

See the pretty triangle she's made....

oleeb wrote on October 11, 2007 12:51 PM:

Didn't Senator Clinton make the same "escape clause" type CYA statement with respect to the authorization of the Iraq war? A lot of good that did other than protecting her political flank and allowing her to have it both ways.

The issue and the danger with Kyl-Lieberman was laid out very well by Josh on the front page of TPM days prior to the vote. The issue was whether or not the Democrats would provide another dangerous green light to Bush which might be used for justifying the attack we all know he wants to launch on Iran.

Additionally, we all know that attacking Iran would make the illegal, immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq seem like a cake walk. It is an extraordinarily bad idea. Doing anything that makes it easier for that madman to launch an attack in Iran is an extremely bad idea. Lieberman and the full-fledged warhawks wanted this passed precisely so that they and others could urge Bush to use the resolution as permission or cover for an attack.

This is an issue where Democrats in the Senate overall and Hillary in particular have failed the nation. Regardless of the politics, sometimes one must do what is right. Every Democrat who voted for this is either nuts and supports the insane idea of attacking Iran or they did it to cover their ass politically. The first reason is scary and the second repulsive. There was no gray area here and there was no question why the amendment was offered. It's sponsors want an attack on Iran and soon.

Supporting Kyl-Lieberman, regardless of what anyone said on the floor as rationale for the vote and what it means to them, was a vote for attacking Iran by naming their Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization and coupling that with the clear suggestion of using the United States military to deal with said terrorist organization. She should not have voted for that bill regardless of whoever else did and regardless of her statement about how her vote was not for an attack without him coming back for permission.

I'm not backing him, Obama is perfectly justified in calling her out on this, as a Presidential candidate.

Jeremy wrote on October 11, 2007 12:57 PM:

Hillary has used this line to avoid discussing issues before. It's really, really transparent. Obama has never said that he won't make distinctions between himself and other politicians. Hillary needs to grow up and stop using this silly Rovian dodge.

The stuff in K-L linking Iran and Iraq was "unnecessary saber rattling", as Obama said. It was not a pretense for invading Iran, as Durbin said.

Jeremy wrote on October 11, 2007 12:58 PM:

On Hillary's "strength and experience" I'm hoping that more voters and reporters will start asking for specifics. In particular, experience is valuable to the extent it informs good judgment and leads to concrete accomplishments. So far, Hillary has talked about experience in the abstract. I'd like her to get more specific about how it informs her judgment and whether it has yielded any concrete accomplishments.

Obama has provided those specifics in talking about his experience. In fact, those kinds of specifics are a strength of Obama's campaign. Unfortunately(from my perspective), the Rovian tactic of "attack the strengths" seems to have been effective for Hillary so far.

Keith wrote on October 11, 2007 1:02 PM:

Just so we all didn't get to swayed by Hillary's co-sponsorship of the Webb Amendment, here's the transcript of Webb on Hardball I referred to above. The money quote:

MATTHEWS: Do you think Hillary Clinton is a changed candidate? She supported the war in Iraq and she supported that resolution last week targeting Iran. Do you think she‘s going to offer a change in policy of any dramatic manner from Bush?

WEBB: I hope so. She actually did go on the amendment that I had offered earlier this year to require a separate authorization to go into Iran. She went on, I think, as a corrective measure for the other vote that she took, so I‘m hoping that she understands now the danger of that particular amendment. And she‘s offering some (INAUDIBLE) some very good stuff in other areas.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21114452/

Coonsey wrote on October 11, 2007 1:23 PM:

My senator Durbin, is wrong on this one. This admendment allows for Bush to say - you are a terrorist, therefore I can and will attack you.

Hillary signed the Kyle amendment BEFORE signing anything telling Bush he had to ASK permission first.

The question is. If Bush asks - what will be her answer? YES of course. She has to look macho.

Jan wrote on October 11, 2007 1:46 PM:

GOP Talking Point repeated by a {clearing of throat here} "Democrat":
"The deabate (sic) in TPM has become between 2 who both say they won't get us out of Iraq before 2013."

They were both asked if they would PROMISE to get troops out of Iraq by 2013.
They both stated that their goal was to get them out by 2013.

That's quite different from implying that they both said, "I will not get us out of Iraq before 2013" --
which is the baloney what stopthepolls has brought to this discussion.

bob wrote on October 11, 2007 1:49 PM:

Who cares what Sen. Durbin thinks? He's not the issue here.

Aren't Maria Cantwell and Tom Harkin Clinton supporters? They voted against Kyl-Lieberman. So did two Republicans for goodness sake!

NAYs ---22
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Dodd (D-CT)
Feingold (D-WI)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)
Wyden (D-OR)

Also, what stops Bush from vetoing the Webb legislation requiring Congressional approval to attack Iran? That horse has already left the barn. Now Bush/Cheney can attack Iran on the pretense of some Iraq-related event.

Anonymous wrote on October 11, 2007 1:52 PM:

If I were criticized for voting "yes" on a given piece of legislation my response would include an explanation of why I voted "yes."

Keith wrote on October 11, 2007 1:53 PM:

Here's an interview Obama just did with Wolf Blitzer where he's asked about missing the Kyl-Lieberman vote.

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/ver/247.1/popup/index.php?cl=4486198

And for the record, what does it matter that Durbin doesn't think it gives the Bush Administration an opening? Isn't the question whether there is any way the Bush Administration could construe this vote as grounds/justification for going into Iran or attacking it?

stevo wrote on October 11, 2007 2:00 PM:

"Senator Obama clearly recognizes the serious threat posed by Iran. However, he does not agree with the President that the best way to counter that threat is to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq, and he does not think that now is the time for saber-rattling towards Iran. In fact, he thinks that our large troop presence in Iraq has served to strengthen Iran - not weaken it. He believes that diplomacy and economic pressure, such as the divestment bill that he has proposed, is the right way to pressure the Iranian regime. Accordingly, he would have opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment had he been able to vote today."

DTM wrote on October 11, 2007 2:05 PM:

As Anonymous implied, that isn't a "rebuttal" to criticisms of her vote in favor of K-L. A rebuttal would explain and defend her vote, which that statement does not actually do.

And I also agree with the other posters: what does Durbin have to do with any of this?

Anonymous wrote on October 11, 2007 2:07 PM:

Hillary was one of the first to say that Bush must get Congressional authority before attacking Iran. The sequence of events on this was quite sad. Bush was pushing the idea that the 2002 authorization gave Congressional authority to wage fights against terrorists outside of Iraq. The language was very broad. Hillary must have finally read it because she rushed to the Senate Floor and said forcefully that Bush must get Congressional authorization specifically on Iran before an attack. As I recall, Bush laughed about this for a couple of days.

Let me see. Hillary gets her pal Reid to table the Kyl vote so Obama could go off on his campaign; then the vote quickly is brought forward when there is no time for Obama to return. Slick. Is this what we want our Dem leaders wasting their time on--how to dupe a competitor and rival? Hillary votes on Kyl. Then she realizes folks are getting ticked about it so she then co-sponsors Webb's bill--and was in such a hurry that Webb didn't even know it had happened until he found out in a press interview.

That Hillary and her truthiness.

Anonymous wrote on October 11, 2007 2:22 PM:

If I were criticized for voting "yes" on a given piece of legislation my response would include an explanation of why I voted "yes."

-----------

September 26, 2007

Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment

Washington, DC – “Earlier today, I voted for a non-binding resolution that designates the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. The Revolutionary Guards are deeply involved in Iran's nuclear program and have substantial links with Hezbollah.

“I voted for this resolution in order to apply greater diplomatic pressure on Iran. This resolution in no way authorizes or sanctions military action against Iran and instead seeks to end the Bush Administration's diplomatic inaction in the region.

“Iran has gained expanded influence in Iraq and the region as a result of the Bush Administration's polices which have also rejected diplomacy as a tool for addressing Iranian ambitions. While the United States has spurned talks, Iran has enhanced its nuclear enrichment capabilities, armed Iraqi Shiite militias, funneled arms to Hezbollah and subsidized Hamas, even as the government continues to damage its own citizens by mismanaging the economy and increasing political and social repression.

“I continue to support and advocate for a policy of entering into talks with Iran, because robust diplomacy is a prerequisite to achieving our aims.

“This legislation reaffirms my policy of engagement and refers specifically to the statement of Defense Secretary Gates who said that "diplomatic and economic means" are "by far the preferable approach" for dealing with the threat posed by Iran.

“In February, after troubling reports about the possibility of military action against Iran, I took to the Senate Floor to warn that President Bush needs Congressional Authorization before attacking Iran. Specifically, I said it would be a mistake of historical proportion if the Administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further and explicit Congressional authorization. Nor should the President think that the 2001 resolution authorizing force after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, in any way, authorizes force against Iran. If the Administration believes that any use of force against Iran is necessary, the President must come to Congress to seek that authority.

“Nothing in this resolution changes that.”

Cinderella Ferret wrote on October 11, 2007 2:22 PM:

HRC will govern in very much the same ways as Bush tried to govern: 50% + 1 vote. She'll be equally corrupt and wrongheaded as the former Cheerleader and his band of merry neocons, just as devious, and she will be just competent enough to keep the ship of state on an even keel. Then in 2017, she can hand off the controls to the next half-bright disaster in waiting.

Time to make a real change! No more Clinton and no more Bush. We need a break. I don't think this country can take much more of this shit.

Keith wrote on October 11, 2007 2:36 PM:

Thanks for posting HRC's press release Anonymous. Now here's the $1,000 question, if, as she states "This resolution in no way authorizes or sanctions military action against Iran and instead seeks to end the Bush Administration's diplomatic inaction in the region", then why did she feel the need to suddenly co-sponsor Webb's Amendment stating specifically that Bush had to obtain congressional authority to attack Iran? And for the record, he introduced the measure on March 5, 2007. So she could have co-sponsored this when he introduced it since, as she says, she went to the floor of the Senate in February to warn President Bush that he need congressional authority.

Something doesn't jive with her statements....

Anonymous wrote on October 11, 2007 2:43 PM:

Sen. Clinton says she was merely voting for more diplomacy, not war with Iran. If this has a familiar ring, it should. Five years after the original vote for war in Iraq, Sen. Clinton has argued that her vote was not for war -- it was for diplomacy, or inspections. But all of us knew what the Senate was debating in 2002. John Edwards has renounced his own vote for the war, and he should be applauded for his candor. After all, we didn't need to authorize a war in order to have United Nations weapons inspections. No one thought Congress was debating diplomacy. No newspaper headlines ran on Oct. 12, 2002, reading, "Congress authorizes diplomacy." This was a vote to authorize war, and without that vote, there would have been no war.

-Barack Obama- della Rovere wrote on October 11, 2007 2:44 PM:

Clinton 2000: Bush misused our vote on authorization of force on Iraq.
Clinton 2006: if Bush goes to war with Iran, he will misuse our vote on Kyl-Lieberman.
Obama: always above the fray. How nice for him.

vicissitude wrote on October 11, 2007 2:56 PM:

Hillary

Is lieing and equivocating once again. It seems to be a signature part of her character a basic unwillingness to answer the question. She does not deal with the substance of the issue she attacks the messenger instead. She did that with the questioner in IA and she is doing that with Obama when she constantly replies 'he is abadoning the politics of hope'

The issue is not the politics of hope Sen. Clinton the issue is the war and your poor judgment once again to vote to give GWBush a blank check to go to war with Iran.

Sen Clinton is deceitful beyond belief.

Let's see, she has asserted if she knew then what she knows now, she would not EVER have voted to give GWBush the authorization. Yet, last week when she DID know now what she claimed not to know then..she once again voted affirmative on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment to allow Bush to take us to war.

Worst of all she is once again claiming this was for 'robust dipolomacy' the same specious lie she told about the Iraq vote in 2003 and wants us to believe once again that she thinks her vote will bring out 'robust diplomacy'

It seems to be that Hillary is extremly naive and inexperienced when it comes to foreign policy. She has surrounded herself with all the foreign policy advisors who were wrong about going to war with Iraq and now once again all their 'experience' lacks informed judgment such that we are suppose to believe that Clinton has the necessary expeirence to lead this nation?

How stupid can Americans be.

Recall, Hillary voted to take this country to war without an exit strategy and she is now voting to take this country to war with Iran...and backpedaling with the Webb amendment. Does she ever learn?

We need someone as President who gets it right the FIRST time.

There are no 'do overs' for the 3K plus lives loss in Iraq nor the billions of dollars wasted in a war on the wrong battlefield.

Hillary Clinton is read to repeat the same mistake over again by taking us to yet another war on the wrong battlefield.

This has to stop. Hillary Clinton lacks the judgment to be President.

NCSteve wrote on October 11, 2007 2:59 PM:

Here's how I picture it.

A pnumatic tube drops a capsule containing the statement requiring rebuttal onto the desk of some nameless drone in Hillary's Cube. The staffer clicks the "Robo-Retort Generator 2008" icon, types in a few keywords ("iran" "iraq" "bush") and selects the one that's the best fit from from the four or five previously prepared and focus grouped statements that brings up. Finally, he or she selects "Obama" from the "Candidate Name" pulldown menu and then pastes the automatically generated result into an email to Politico.

Blue in IA wrote on October 11, 2007 3:03 PM:

what bob said -- this is a national issue and a national election -- trying to hide behind Obama's senior senator is just BS.

Hyper-technical aside: I don't think Harkin has endorsed yet. His wife is a Hillary supporter and experienced DLC sponger (Vilsack patronage appointments, etc etc), however.

Anonymous wrote on October 11, 2007 3:10 PM:

I received this in an e-mail from the Edwards campaign today:

Eight days ago, while visiting New Hampshire, John Edwards apologized again for his vote as a United States Senator in support of the president's request...

It takes a person of courage and strength to admit to making a mistake. I'm proud of John for being prepared to stand-up and apologize for his vote—and to present a clear plan for ending the war in Iraq.

At the same time, it's evident that Hillary Clinton has learned a very different lesson from the hoodwinking of the American people by George Bush and Dick Cheney.

John has learned that if you give George Bush even an inch of authority, he'll find a way to turn it into sanctioning a war. Hillary Clinton, however, has recently supported the Bush Administration by voting for a bill in Congress that calls the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization—a vote that takes America one step closer to war with Iran.

Hillary Clinton may try and argue all sides to justify her vote, but the truth is her vote has helped open the door for George Bush and Dick Cheney to go to war with Iran.

John has stated unequivocally that we cannot allow the president to use force against Iran when so many other diplomatic and economic options are still available.

Now, more than ever, John Edwards needs your support. He is the leading candidate for president who believes we should no longer support George Bush and Dick Cheney and their shoot-from-the-hip approach to foreign policy.

shungu wrote on October 11, 2007 3:21 PM:

I'm not backing him, Obama is perfectly justified in calling her out on this, as a Presidential candidate.

Incredible stuff...really. Let me get this straight. Obama is justified to call another US Senator on vote that he, Obama, did not bother to show up for, regardless of whichever phony excuse he might offer to evade yet another vote?

Incredibly dim and gullible, me thinks,,,

Geek, Esq. wrote on October 11, 2007 3:31 PM:

That Senator Clinton would rather talk about Dick Durbin's vote than her own speaks volumes.

She is the one running the Seinfeld Campaign.

dajafi wrote on October 11, 2007 3:32 PM:

Hillary spokesperson is to "strength and experience" as flesh-eating zombie is to "BRAINNNS"... as if her authoritarian personality and endless triangulation weren't enough reason to oppose her, there's the endless insult to the collective intelligence of the electorate.

NCSteve wrote on October 11, 2007 3:34 PM:

Yes, DSC, a totally lame excuse. How dare he believe the Senate Majority Leader of the Senate when he said on the record the bill wasn't coming up for a vote that day? I'm sure it's all big plot on his part to enable lame-ass Hillaroids like yourself to take cheap shots in fora all over the Net.

I was going to say that one of these days, Ms. Perfection was going to miss a vote while's she's campaigning too, and this crap would come back on your side. Then I realised that the Hillsoc Outer Party member's capacity for doublethink ensures that when it does, you'll all no doubt be explaining to us what a brilliantly shrewd political masterstroke it was for her to arrange to miss it.

Akira wrote on October 11, 2007 3:40 PM:

Evidentally this needs to be hammered into heads.

Obama states he would be voting against it.

Reid announces there will be no vote and it will be reworked (9/25)

Obama stays in NH campaigning.

Reid brings vote back within hours of session the next day.

Obama lacks teleporting capabilities (for now) and misses vote.

Keith wrote on October 11, 2007 3:42 PM:

shungu:

Tell me this, is the TRIANGLE made out of marijuana or are you just naturally prone to making illogical statements regularly??

So he missed the vote. Now he can't criticize the amendment or her for voting for it. I seem to recall HRC missed the vote on the Bankruptcy Bill that she's criticized. Does that make her criticisms invalid? (I would say no, but I suspect for purposes of supporting your inane logical you'll say yes)

Don't the American people deserve to know that while she doesn't believe that the KL Amendment gives Bush the authority to attack Iran, she hastily co-sponsored an amendment that spells this out but fails to tell us the amendment was introduced SEVEN months earlier.

Or that the amendment had been introduced just a month after she took to the floor to remind Bush he needed congress' authority, but she didn't see fit to go on record then, but now seems more appropriate?

I mean you have to admit, that's one big ass TRIANGLE....

dcshungu wrote on October 11, 2007 3:51 PM:

Keith wrote on October 11, 2007 2:36 PM:

Thanks for posting HRC's press release Anonymous. Now here's the $1,000 question, if, as she states "This resolution in no way authorizes or sanctions military action against Iran and instead seeks to end the Bush Administration's diplomatic inaction in the region", then why did she feel the need to suddenly co-sponsor Webb's Amendment stating specifically that Bush had to obtain congressional authority to attack Iran? And for the record, he introduced the measure on March 5, 2007. So she could have co-sponsored this when he introduced it since, as she says, she went to the floor of the Senate in February to warn President Bush that he need congressional authority.

Something doesn't jive with her statements....

What doesn't jive? It is all written in 2nd grader English. LOL. This guy shows up here with no clue about what K-L was about, hyperventilates about how HRC would not justify her vote, someone does the homework him and finds him HRC's justification, he suddenly realizes that he's ranting without knowing the facts, and concludes: "Something doesn't jive with her statements."

A great case study on why it is a waste of time to try to have a facts-based exchange with the lefties on this board: Their thinking is so one-dimensional that no matter how much factual evidence you offer them, nothing gets through because your facts just do not "jive" with their preconceived one-dimensional linear equation that 'Hillary = bad'

keith wrote on October 11, 2007 4:00 PM:

DCD:

Nice. You've got the TRIANGLE playbook down to a 'T'. If you can't answer the substantive charge, attack the person.

You forgot the part how I abandoned the politics of hope and how HRC's strength and experience will change America.

Which side of the TRIANGLE do you form?

dcshungu wrote on October 11, 2007 4:14 PM:

How dare he believe the Senate Majority Leader of the Senate when he said on the record the bill wasn't coming up for a vote that day? I'm sure it's all big plot on his part to enable lame-ass Hillaroids like yourself to take cheap shots in fora all over the Net.

Just like I said: Whichever excuse he will offer to evade yet another vote....

Have you noticed that the only votes war-related issues that Obama has actually cast were those for more "blank checks" for Bush to continue funding his war, which he, Obama, proudly tells people he had "opposed"? He was in no position to vote for or against AUMF, so that claims that he would have voted "no" are immaterial; he could have voted for K-L if it mattered that much to him, but it apparently didn't because he skipped it; likewise, he conveniently evaded the vote on the condemnation of Moveon.org's "General Betray Us" ad; and the big chutzpah of all of his is that this guy has had the arrogance to feel justified to criticize the Senators who actually cast their vote!

Anonymous wrote on October 11, 2007 4:24 PM:

Obama Campaign:

Obviously, they find it irritating to answer tough questions on important issues like Iran...

Amen.

loki wrote on October 11, 2007 4:35 PM:

Well stated, dcshungu!

I've been saying for months to those who are so in love with Obama (I like him to by the way, probably would be a fine president) that basing your love of him upon his opposition to the war resolution while he continues to vote to fund it is a mistake. Look at the votes that he has taken the time to cast, they are not dissimilar to Clinton's.

And yes, someone please explain his harsh comments regarding these recent votes that he himself couldn't be bothered to show up for!

Keith wrote on October 11, 2007 4:54 PM:

Loki:

The Senator can explain it you himself:

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/ver/247.1/popup/index.php?cl=4486198

And by way of background:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/25/reid-lieberman-kyl-amendment-being-revised/

oleeb wrote on October 11, 2007 5:03 PM:

How's the kookaid, I mean koolaid, tasting today hsungu?

Why don't you read the whole post instead of just a part of it? And maybe, if you forego the koolaid for a while you will start to see that it isn't out of bounds to legitimately criticize her majesty when she votes on a bill in the senate and her opponent is on the other side of the issue.

Hillary is wrong on this issue and no amount of diversionary tactics or screaming of your mantra will make it otherwise.

stlounick wrote on October 11, 2007 5:10 PM:

I share Obama's goal: Obama as the Dem nominee and Senator Clinton as the Senator from New York. heheh.

pacc wrote on October 11, 2007 5:18 PM:

I see cheap-shot O-Bomb-A is flailing about again, this time trying to stave off the increasing chatter that he just doesn't have what it takes to run a successful Presidential campaign.

loki wrote on October 11, 2007 5:19 PM:

Couldn't get back from New Hampshire...sheesh. That entire discussion with Blitzer he sounded very much like the consummate politician. Not at all unlike Hillary. Tough votes require tough decisions...he's passed on a few too many if you ask me.

Anonymous wrote on October 11, 2007 5:37 PM:

Clinton and Obama are both pro war. If that's what you want, go for it. Kucinich will stop the war and keep us out of others. That's why our pro-war big media ignore or ridicule him. It has always been so with peace candidates.

Liberal Larry wrote on October 11, 2007 8:31 PM:

This triangulation contest between Hussein Osama and Bush-Lite is getting very old.

www.votenic.com wrote on October 12, 2007 4:24 PM:

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

www.votenic.com

Results Posted Tuesday Evening At Midnight.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)