More Obama vs. Clinton on Iran

Posted: Thursday, October 25, 2007 5:22 PM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: Security

From NBC's Mark Murray
Close watchers of the Democratic presidential contest probably knew this was coming in the wake of the Bush Administration's action today regarding Iran (and the new round of back-and-forth over the issue among the Dem contenders).

A campaign memo.

This one is from Obama foreign policy adviser Greg Craig, who compares Obama's position on Iran and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard with Clinton's. The gist: "The current debate about the wisdom of Senator Clinton's support for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment points up significant differences in Senator Obama's approach to the use of force in Iraq as compared with Senator Clinton's approach... Having seen what this Administration -- with its expansive view of its executive power -- has done in the past with congressional resolutions, it is naïve to support the Kyl-Lieberman amendment without simultaneously seeking explicit assurances that the president will never cite the amendment as a legal basis for deploying US troops to counter Iranian influence whether in Iraq or Iran."

Read below for the entire Obama campaign memo...

TO: Interested Parties
FR: Greg Craig, Foreign Policy Adviser to Senator Obama, former Director of Policy Planning at the Department of State, and former Assistant to the President and Special Counsel
RE: Obama vs. Clinton: Real Differences on Iraq and Iran
DA: October 25, 2007

The current debate about the wisdom of Senator Clinton's support for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment points up significant differences in Senator Obama's approach to the use of force in Iraq as compared with Senator Clinton's approach.

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.

The Kyl-Lieberman amendment contains language that sets forth an entirely new rationale for keeping US troops in Iraq and, if need be, for attacking Iranian forces. The problematic language in the resolution says that it is a "critical national interest of the United States" to counter Iran's influence among the Shia population of Iraq. Without a doubt, President Bush can cite that language as authorizing him to maintain and use US troops in Iraq for the purpose of containing Iran, cirtailing [sic] Iran's influence in Iraq, and, if need be, to expand our troops' activities beyond Iraq's borders to pursue and attack Iranian forces.

Having seen what this Administration – with its expansive view of its Executive Power – has done in the past with Congressional resolutions, it is naïve to support the Kyl-Lieberman amendment without simultaneously seeking explicit assurances that the President will never cite the amendment as a legal basis for deploying US troops to counter Iranian influence whether in Iraq or Iran. In fact, just weeks earlier, the Senate agreed unanimously to a similar Iran-related amendment. In that amendment, however, the Senate made clear that "Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of Armed Forces against Iran." To a person familiar with the practices and principles governing interpretation of statutory language, the absence of such language in the Kyl-Lieberman amendment is significant.

Senator Clinton voted to approve the new mission for our troops, and she blessed the new rationale for their continued presence in Iraq. Senator Obama did not. Senator Clinton was willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the Administration on this matter. Senator Obama was not. Her support for Kyl-Lieberman draws attention to a series of other important differences between Senators Obama and Clinton on Iraq and Iran.

It appears to be an open issue inside the administration whether the United States should attack Iran – to retaliate for Iran's support of Iraqi militias, to take action against Iran's nuclear program or both. Vice President Cheney in particular has been giving bellicose speeches and threatening Iran. Barack Obama thinks that, at this sensitive moment, Congress should be extremely careful. It should not do or say anything that might be used either to justify a US attack on Iran or to authorize prolonging the US military presence in Iraq. Hillary Clinton voted for an amendment that does just that.

Barack Obama supports vigorous diplomacy and additional pressure on Iran. He supports strengthening economic sanctions against Iran. But the Kyl-Lieberman amendment does much more than that. It builds a case for using US troops in Iraq to counter Iranian influence. This amendment:

-- Opens with 17 "findings" that highlight Iranian influence within Iraq;

-- Makes President Bush's case that the United States should structure "its military presence in Iraq" to counter the "capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region" (emphasis added)

-- States that it is "a critical national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran" from exerting influence within Iraq.

These expressions have nothing to do with diplomacy, they do not deal with the Revolutionary Guard, and they do not address the issue of strengthening sanctions against Iran They do, however, describe a new mission for American troops in Iraq, and they articulate a new rationale for our continued presence in Iraq – to contain Iran and curtail Iranian influence inside Iraq. The amendment also:

-- Was co-sponsored by two of the most hawkish members of the Senate on Iran: John Kyl (R-AZ) and Joseph Lieberman (ID-CT);

-- Was supported by all but two Republicans: Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Richard Lugar (R-IN)

-- Was opposed by ten other Senators who, like Senator Obama, support sanctioning the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization: Barbara Boxer (D-CA); Sherrod Brown (D-OH); Maria Cantwell (D-WA); Christopher Dodd (D-CT); Daniel Inouye (D-HI); Edward Kennedy (D-MA); John Kerry (D-MA); Amy Klobuchar (D-MN); Blanche Lincoln (D-AR); John Tester (D-MT)

Importantly, Kyl-Lieberman does not include language that the Senate has deemed necessary to include in other provisions related to Iran, specifically a provision saying:

-- "Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of Armed Forces against Iran."

Trying to Have it Both Ways: After Senator Clinton drew criticism for her vote in support of Kyl-Lieberman on September 26, she decided to support a bill that Senator Webb introduced in March that said that the President had to obtain congressional authorization before going to war in Iran. Webb told Howard Fineman that Clinton was in such a hurry to support his bill, "I found out after she announced it," he said, laughing.'" But Kyl-Lieberman had already passed the Senate; Webb's bill has not. Signing on with Webb does not undo her vote for Kyl-Lieberman.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

So is obama for or against the Revolutionary Guard this week?

And why is he against the Webb/Clinton amendment banning Bush From attacking?

simply because Clinton is for it?

K.Stevens,fires, california (Sent Thursday, October 25, 2007 5:40 PM)

I told you guys, Clinton blew it by voting for that amendement.

Bee (Sent Thursday, October 25, 2007 5:55 PM)

You cannot give George Bush a blank cheq and act suprise when he cash it. I don't see her experience in play here.

Bee (Sent Thursday, October 25, 2007 5:56 PM)

Bravo!!!!! Obama is right on the money. I like his explicit explanation on this vote. Clinton cannot be trusted.

Let us couple this explanation with the video below. Can Hillary supporter tell me what her rationale is for voting for this amendement?

She blew it again. Experience without judgement is not what we want in the white house.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0icVblxh2dI&NR=1

Bee (Sent Thursday, October 25, 2007 6:04 PM)

Mark Murray,

Thanks for posting this memo. You are the man!

Bee (Sent Thursday, October 25, 2007 6:05 PM)

Way to go Obama

change that can deliver, go obama

kyle (Sent Thursday, October 25, 2007 6:13 PM)

Obama supported announcing IRG a terrorist organization IF it's announced by the State Department of the US government. State deparment, being the foreign policy wing of the US government can assess foreign countries or organizations on issues like involvement in terrorism, human rights violation, corruption and so on. But such an announcement, while could be used to take measures such as sanctions could not be used as a congressional authorization to extend the war in Iran.
That's a major difference between how Obama supported the concept and how Clinton jumped into Bush's war band wagon the way she did in case of Iraq war. This woman is not about representing people or the country. She is pretending that she already won democratic nomination and she needs the impression of a gung ho politician on national defense to appeal voters in general election to get some support from Repubs or Independents. It's a voting calculation for her. Well if we need another war monger to keep this country getting screwed up, another Republican can do a better job than a Republican wanna be, Hillary Clinton.

Arshad, Newburgh, NY (Sent Thursday, October 25, 2007 6:25 PM)

What to expect next, if the past is precedent: a Clinton memo, probably pointing out that Obama didn't actually vote against the Kyl-Lieberman measure; that Obama -- like Clinton -- supports designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization; and that Obama even co-sponsored a measure doing that earlier this year.

No he didn't but she still did. Yes he does but it was not as open ended as the one she supported. Yes he did along with Dodd who also voted against this one.

Next...

Lyn, MD (Sent Thursday, October 25, 2007 6:34 PM)

Yea too bad Obama didn't show up and vote on this.. never spoke out against it until after it was voted on and already said prior to this he wouldn't rule out strikes and THE BEST OF IT ALL VOTED TO TAKE AWAY NUCLEAR POWER FROM IRAN

ANOTHER IRAQ SITUATION AGAIN...

UGH TO MY FELLOW AMERICANS, I BEG YOU FOR THE FUTURE OF THIS COUNTRY TO VOTE FOR ANYONE OTHER THEN OBAMA, HILLARY, GIULIANI OR ROMNEY...

FEDUP (Sent Thursday, October 25, 2007 6:40 PM)

Obama has the right approach but seems to be skirting the ideology (or lack thereof) of Bush. His ratings are in the toilet and will be when he leaves office WHETHER OR NOT he attacks Iran. We need someone like Obama to talk to these people and see if we can't find some mutual reasons to stay alive on this planet. Don't push Bush. His mind doesn't work correctly and that "push" in the direction of peace might push him over the edge of "if I don't do it, no one will have the guts." Get him back on his ranch cleaning brush, then let's deal with Iran. Sanely.

Ron Ulreck (Sent Thursday, October 25, 2007 6:44 PM)

The difference between Obama and Hillary is that Obama does not trust this administration to use the Lieberman/Kyl amendment judiciously. Obama's resolution to approve the State Department's declaration of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization is different from the following Congressional resolution which can be used by this administration as a defacto authorization to use force.

Jonathan Schwartz posts (9/21/07)'A
Tiny Revolution - Threatening Lieberman/Kyl Amendment on Iran..."here are the most important paragraphs (of the amendment)
3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;
4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq including diplomatic economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (2) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies.

Hillary again says (naively?) that she did not intend her support of this amendment to give the president authorization to use force; she only wanted this to be used a diplomatic tool.

So today sanctions (without diplomacy) are announced and Condoleeza states that some in Iran might interpret these sanctions as footsteps on a path toward war. Duh?

Why does this seem like deja vu all over again? Hillary why don't you seem to learn? Where is the judgment that you have gained from all of those years of experience? Have you already shifted to the general election mode as your staff suggests? Does that mean we are already in full triangulation mode?

To Hillary supporters who are against the war in Iraq and who feel that we engaged in this war under false pretenses, that we were manipulated, I say WAKE UP!
It's happening all over again and your Hillary is part of it. Think hard about your blind devotion to this admittedly accomplished woman who has lost her principles along the way. She is not the agent of change. She is more of the same...think about it, she is more of the same. Vote for change.
Obama '08 come on Iowa, the nation is depending on you.

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY (Sent Thursday, October 25, 2007 6:52 PM)

I don't understand the OBaa camp strategy. First overplaying the 2002 "against Iraq War" speech when Obama wasn't even in the Sentate (sorry, Obama, we've moved on and we like to know what your plans are for the future) and now the Iran vote in which Obama didn't even show up for. If it was so important , why wasn't he there. This strategy makes him look desperate, as if he's reacting instead of acting and LEADING. How disappointing.

Former Obama Fan, Philadelphia, PA (Sent Thursday, October 25, 2007 7:03 PM)

Of course Clinton will leave out the fact that Harry Reid lied to Obama and said the measure would not be coming to the floor at all. Once Obama left for campaigning Reid brought it to the floor for an instant vote to comply with Clinton's little plans.
The fact that it blew back at her with her just having to show she still has the bad judgment she's always shown will also be left off.
Or the fact that everything this woman has achieved was not due to hard work or talent but, pure nepotism.
funny how the fact that Clinton is so much like Bush doesn't seem to bother so many people.
Only koolaid drinkers and the press believe this woman deserves the presidency. Everyone else, democrat or republican, feels she has never done anything to prove she can do the job as she never did anything without nepotism.
All our other democratic candidates got where they are by hard work and without some family member paving the way.

diane (Sent Thursday, October 25, 2007 7:26 PM)

Thanks for waiting for the end of the day to post this story.
Nobody can discuss it.
Why not post this story, first thing tommorrow morning ?

It's an important issue
It's an issue that Dodd and Edwards and Obama are discussing.

Why not re-post his on Friday ?

Sierra, SF (Sent Thursday, October 25, 2007 7:44 PM)

Obama REALLY needs to make an announcement explaining WHY he missed that iran vote. I've heard it's because Reid told Obama the iran vote wasn't going to happen and then rescheduled it right after Obama left for NH.

If that's true, Obama needs to explain that.

Otherwise, he just draws attention to the fact that he missed an important vote.

War-monger Hillary should NOT have voted for it, however.
She's a fool to trust Bush again.

Designating the iran army as a terrorist organization gives bush authority to act against them. He already has the authority to act on terrorist organizatons.

jds, slc (Sent Thursday, October 25, 2007 8:00 PM)

I don't understand the Obama camp strategy. First overplaying the 2002 "against Iraq War" speech when Obama wasn't even in the Sentate (sorry, Obama, we've moved on and we like to know what your plans are for the future are) and now Hillary's Iran vote in which Obama didn't even show up for (sorry Obama, this vote was so important , why wasn't you there). This strategy makes him look desperate, as if he's reacting instead of acting and LEADING. How disappointing.

Former Obama Fan, Philadelphia, PA (Sent Thursday, October 25, 2007 8:04 PM)

I hope Hillary includes the memo she gave to Harry Reid to tell Obama there would be no vote and then schedule the vote with an hour notice when they knew Obama was away. It was nice of her to give his son a job, after all.

RKA, IL (Sent Thursday, October 25, 2007 8:14 PM)

go obama

andre laporte (Sent Thursday, October 25, 2007 8:34 PM)

Let's put something to rest about Senator Obama and the Lieberman-Kyl vote. I can't believe that I have to post this here and that it is not being reported accurately.

Please read the following story for all of the details related to the vote, as well as for documented evidence of Senator Obama's record on the issue for the months leading up to the vote.

The press may not be willing to say this, but something is amiss with the way Senator Reid called for the vote after it was postponed indefinitely less than 24 hours prior. The vote was then taken 30 minutes after he called for it.

Read the facts. Be informed. Make your own decision.

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

SB (Sent Thursday, October 25, 2007 8:36 PM)

There are no regimes in the entire world at the moment more of a threat to the world order than the Islamic regime of Iran. Whilst Saddam Hussein was a regional menace as he proved so when he invaded two of his neighboring countries, Iran and Kuwait, the Islamic regime's invasion of the world is the ambition of the Mullahs of Tehran. The Islamic invasion, however, will not be in the classical form of physical invasion of the lands by military means. The Mullahs of Tehran are well aware of their shortcomings in that front. Basically a military invasion of any country by the Mullahs is a suicide and the Mullahs will never commit suicide. The Mullahs have time and again reiterated that they have never and will never invade another country and of course they are referring to the classical manner of invasion. Their method of invasion is by ideological means from within backed up by terrorism. The destruction of Israel will not be physical and by use of nuclear bombs. Such method would simply make the region uninhabitable for decades. The destruction of Israel will be by means of sustained terrorism. The Mullahs army, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) are expert terrorists and the recent American move to label it as such is deft. The mullahs will invade and take control of Islamic countries one by one through their proxy armies of homemade brainwashed terrorists who will be trained and supplied by the IRGC. The international community would sit by of course and do nothing because the international community's politicians are unable to convince their public that the Mullahs have to be stopped. As the Mullahs take control of more Islamic countries, the more powerful they become. Sanctions would then be like sticking pins into an elephant. The only way to deal with the Mullahs will be by use of force, military force, and the regime knows it and is preparing itself for it when it comes.

This is the reason why the Islamic regime is so insistently and defiantly pursuing their nuclear activities. They are pursuing nuclear bombs only and only for self defense. Once the regime makes its first batch of nuclear arsenal, it will become absolutely untouchable. The world would have to sit by totally hopeless and watch the Mullahs wage their jihad through their proxies around the globe and take control of more Islamic states.

That would probably take many years to come but hey as a responsible politician you owe your future generations a duty to protect their liberties and freedoms against inhumane and backward ideologies that want to take them away.

Ardeshir, Tehran, Iran (Sent Thursday, October 25, 2007 8:37 PM)

I am in full support of Obama`s point of view.
The Congress Should be held responsible for Any outcome.

Mahmoud Shaalan,MD (Sent Thursday, October 25, 2007 9:45 PM)

Clinton and Obama - the only responsibility these two have is that they occasionally vote on something (in Obama's case that's even fairly sketchy), then babble on and on and spin stories about their vote. Leadership from either of these two? Nothing, nada, zilch. Either of these two would be a complete failure in an executive position. This is why Senators never get elected to be President, since Kennedy at least. These two do-nothings are all talk.

Anne Trenton, Tulsa OK (Sent Thursday, October 25, 2007 10:40 PM)

Here is what you call real difference that voters SHOULD know! CLinton is naive to vote for Liberman-Kyl legislation.

Way to go OBAMA! Se. Barack Obama, may be because of his lawyer training and deliberative mind, knows well ahead of Hillary that the language used in the legislation can be utilized AGAIN to launch a military strike, this time on IRAN. Sounds familiar???

CLINTON AGAIN made a mistake and she does not want to addmit the mistake.

GO OBAMA...enough is enough with CLintons.....that was the last straw!

daniel DEsmoines IOWA (Sent Thursday, October 25, 2007 10:51 PM)

FACT: It was and is the Washington self serving paper hanger who started these WAR'S. Be it right or wrong the facts remain FACT.

Now the democrats are running around looking for scape goats on the GOP side of the fence ""Like always""! They are our mis-representives, in saying nothing has ever right on their side of the fence! Democrats have and are a pact of corrupt liar's. Their voting has only flip and flopped to be self serving.

In the case of world terrorist's their backstabbing and challenge has only supported and aided the enemy propaganda. The residing democrats have belittled our Troops, Command staff generals, Undermined our field commanding Generals! The democrat's continually countermand military policy and have misjudged how their flatting mouth's degrade closure of these two battle fronts.

The Media has and continues to undermine military tactics on the ground. The enemy knows our tactics and uses our media releases to incite hatred and confusion in the battle areas. People who would have given their support are and have been degraded and insulted by remarks of the congress and the Media has emboldened the insults.

No more is one scandal resolved the democrat's open another. But a fact, these Washington paper hangers are no friend to our troops or representing their Miss guided judgements!!

If facts are to be the scape goat then impeach the whole damned Congress as they have voted to continued funding supporting what they demand as fault.. Put the blame as to fact instead of finger pointing..

Wouldn't send these representatives to Washington to bicker and argue over their self serving agenda's. Hell they can't even read """ 12 million plus illegals roaming our streets""" .. The laws state ""illegals caught entering this country with out due process shall be deported""" NO the Paper Hangers Want to hang more paper to cover their failing a@@es!!!!

GET RIGHT ""FACT""" FACT """""FACT""""

GENERAL PATTON WAS RIGHT """"WASHINGTON IS NOTHING BUT A BUNCH OF PAPER HANGING SON'S OF B!TCHES"""!!!!!!

FACT""FACT''""FACT /////AZ (Sent Thursday, October 25, 2007 11:12 PM)

It is odd how the mainstream media doesn't expose Hillary and her flip flopping. Even Obama gave her a free pass on the "sit down with enemies" gaffe:

http://rattube.com/blog1/2007/10/14/daily-kos-bashing-hillary/

Bill Clintocks, zuma, wash (Sent Thursday, October 25, 2007 11:24 PM)

Lest we all forget, one of the main reasons that the Republicans and George Bush were originally voted into office was because of the never ending scandals, sexual escapades, dishonesty, impeachment proceedings and general untrustworthiness of the Clintons and their administration. The country was fed up with continually being duped, lied to and led down the path of dishonesty and corruption.....Notwithstanding her husband's inability to keep his penus in his pants, much less to utter the truth under oath, or directly to the American people... Hillary, was more than just an inside party to all of the deceit and scandal. She was much more than a “First Lady”, she played a prominent roll in the back room machinations of that administration

Unfortunately, the ONLY reason that Hillary is re-surfacing is that the Bush/Republican alternative hasn’t been much better, albeit there haven’t been any Clintonesque sexual exploits or lingering Bush scandals emanating from the past. Those issues aside, the people still feel lied to and duped over the WMD’s and pursuit of Saddam and an ill conceived war….and Bush’s distortion of his executive powers.

Any delineation between Hillary and the truth is mere coincidence, she covets blind partisan politics as her greatest ally… If ever really put to task she’s seriously vulnerable on her lack of resume and abilities to get the job, any job done. Nonetheless, she’s the darling of the party insiders, Lobbyists, Political Interest Groups that are backing her to the hilt, lining up for their piece of the pie. So much for the transparent government, that she continues to mention, again and again, with no stated plan of any sort to back up the rhetoric.

There are those that defend her role in her husband’s administration as that of being the first lady and that Bill was responsible for the negative issues….really? If this woman is as opinionated and tough on the issues as they say, positioning herself as a Presidential Candidate, do you think that just magically became that way after her husband left office? No, this woman was a prime figure in one of the darkest, most deceitful periods in our recent political history,…..All of that aside, evidently, we’re all supposed to conveniently forget those dubious days, and concentrate on her more recent political moves, and statements, that show her true political positioning(s), such as,” Lobbyists are real people too”, or a her pork barrel attempt to have the taxpayers foot the bill for a “Museum to Woodstock”???…To which she doesn’t even offer an explanation, because, if asked, she’ll side step the issue(s), much in the same fashion that she’s choosing which questions she’s going to respond to in the debates…if she finds disfavor with a question, she just says, “I’m not going to answer that”…..is anyone fearful, this is just a taste of the future, or more is it more likely , a throw-back to those days when were told face to face, by her husband,…”I did not have sexual relations with that woman”……again, the truth does not have a place in the Clinton gene pool.

I say it’s time to move on, to a newer less tarnished commodity, one that hasn’t already caved in to the leeches and lobbyists, someone who hasn’t already betrayed the publics trust….To that end, I lean towards Obama, he has taken an A-political approach on a number of occasions, only to be initially attacked by Clinton, as naïve, or uneducated, only to flip-flopped to his view point(s) when its realized that he was gaining popular approval from the voters….He’s the only one to admit his errors, and try new approaches…..truthful approaches.

TJB, Scottsdale (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 1:23 AM)

What I don't understand with regard to the typical coverage of the brewing conflict with Iran is why the history or timeline of the the US-Iranian relationship is completely omitted. The history of Iran's democratically elected government being dismantled by both the British and US in the 1950s is something very important for the public to know and think about. In addition, the nationalization of oil was a serious issue in the 1950s for the UK and US. As a result the democratically elected prime minister of Iran had to be taken out so to speak. The Shah came to power and basically acted like Saddam with his legions of secret police. This created an environment ripe for religious extremist to take over the country in the 1970s. We likely had some hand in creating the Iran of today. Further intervention may or may not be appropriate, but this type of background is important to make an educated decision. Why does the press patronize the public by not providing the complete package of information.

Infinite Loop, Mountain View, CA (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 2:20 AM)

Regarding Senator Clinton's "yes" vote:

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. `They've a temper, some of them -- particularly verbs: they're the proudest -- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs -- however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'

`Would you tell me please,' said Alice, `what that means?'

`Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. `I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'

`That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

`When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, `I always pay it extra.'

`Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.

-- from "Alice in Wonderland"

* * * * *

Welcome to the wonderful new era of Senatorial Signing Statements! Where "yes" doesn't necessarily mean "yes" and "no" doesn't always mean "no"; and where one's personal (and highly theoretical) good intentions are more important than any trifling practical, real-world uses to which that "yes" or "no" is liable to be put.

I haven't had this much fun since the hogs et mah brother! Cain't wait 'til the day when, with Hillary as our President, none of us is required to mean anything we say because we're all just trying to get somewhere, just like Our Leader; and, consequently, none of us can believe a single word we hear from anyone else's yap.

Oh, Happy Day! Oh, Brave New World!! Oh, what a load of steaming horse-shit!!!

Rick Lapin, Albuquerque, NM (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 8:10 AM)

Why did Obama not vote against the bill to abstain sounds like tacit approval.

Rufus Gibbons, DC (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 8:10 AM)

Once again, Hillary shows more depth of knowledge than Obama. He's good, but he ain't ready for the big job yet...

Dectra, Arlington VA (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 8:27 AM)

Please clarify which of Obama's faces is speaking about the IRG and the Quds forces. He could use both of them to kiss deeply each of these terrorist groups. Or is this just his Halloween act as a Fool of Fools?

No More Osama Obamas, Atlanta, GA (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 8:28 AM)

Obamaniacs must be desperate. Now there was a conspiracy plot out there by Reid to thwart Obama's vote?? Is he that important? Didn't raise the issue until after Hillary voted for it.
Wake up Obamaniacs. Conpiratorial politics won't get you anywhere. Your man should have been there.

Lily (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 8:50 AM)

I would appreciate if the people who write these updates would try a little harder to understand what they are writing about before posting. Your "what to expect next" list which would be better termed "my proxy response from the Clinton campaign", contains mostly questions that are already addressed in the full content of Obama's memo. Perhaps you could highlight the paragraphs that actually make the distinctions that you wonder about instead of the one that allows you to do the work of the Clinton campaign and blur the distinctions. I suggest that you look again at the second statement in the memo and the three statements before the closing remarks in which Obama's support(along with that of the other democratic senators that voted against this resolution)of designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization is clearly stated. This memo also addresses (in the fourth paragraph) the earlier amendment that Obama supported which designated the IRG as a terrorist organization but also included the language that he felt necessary to keep the amendment from being interpreted by the Administration to authorize expansion of military activities from Iraq to Iran.

The only item that you lay out for Clinton's campaign that is not addressed by this memo directly is why Obama missed the vote which can be found in the Congressional Record and is detailed here: http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/10/11/did-obama-skip-the-iran-vote/. The vote was tabled indefinitely the night before Obama left to attend campaign events and the debate in NH. He had no reason to believe that it would come back up the next day. When it did come back up it was introduced and voted on within 40 minutes - not nearly enough time for Obama to return.

In the future, could you please try to highlight the main points of memos released from all campaigns and not just those that you support? Or at the very least let the Clinton campaign do their own spinning of the Obama campaign's releases?

Susan, IN (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 9:08 AM)

Obama has had it, he is slowing going down the drain.
Clinton has this thing all sewed up. She is the clear winner, a new light is shinning for America.
Obama has faded into the shadow of defeat. He should have been a better leader, cannot seem to lead his people to excellence. Lacks experience in the delivery of hope.

Faith and Charity (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 10:07 AM)

Every foreign policy expert will tell you that Clinton blew it on that vote. I don't know who her advisers are but she blew it big time.

People are already tired of war now she want tot take us to another war. Please, stop this stupidity on why his colleague(Obama) didn't vote for it. She doesn't have to follow Obama on everything but to lead.

Clinton is supposed to be experience but experience without judgement is bogus.

Based on what i have seen in the last 5 years, indeed, clinton doesn't have any judgement whatsoever. She just lost my vote.

Mallory, NH (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 10:18 AM)

For Hillary supporters that are ready to follow her into Iran. Here is a good video that explain how dangerous her actions is.

That vote is a disaster.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/etc/synopsis.html

This video alone should educate the people that are clueless about our foreign policy.

Clinton have already blew it once in Iraq and she blew it again in Iran

Bee (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 10:21 AM)

We have a new flipper flopper in Obama land. Obama!
First he voted for it,then he didnt vote, would have voted for it if he had written it, voted for some will vote again.

yada yada yada (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 10:23 AM)

OH Mallory, ye of little faith, you were never going to vote for the next president, Senator Clinton.
Were you?

experience/judgement (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 10:29 AM)

Bee baby it is Bush's foreign policy. He has all the eggs in his basket. Keeps breaking them one basket at a time. Why? b/c he is a basket case. Insane, inept, and in charge.

IMPEACH (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 10:33 AM)

Action - speaks volumes!!! It was OBAMA'S RESPONSIBILITY as a senator to make certain he was present to vote on the Lieberman/Kyl issue and, once again, he neglected to do so. Trying to make excuses and blaming others for Obama's inadequacies seems to be the norm for his supporters. He has missed several votes - what are his excuses for those missed votes. Judging from Obama's lack of diligence to perform his senate duties gives a pretty clear picture of the type of performance you could expect, were he ever elected to the presidency. All talk - no substance!!!

lc (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 10:48 AM)

You people that obviously hate obama ,could yall at least make some sence or have a coherent point based on fact . all this rambiling about nothing ,my goodness.

ki houston (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 11:08 AM)

experience/judgement,

You can call me name all you want. I am dissapointed in Senator clinton's vote. I need to start shoping again. I don't want another War, i have heard enough with Iraq.

Mallory, NH (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 11:23 AM)

Mallory I called you names??? I did not call you names!
Senator Clinton is not in charge of the WAR..the killer in chief is and has been from the beginning.
And we do not have any foreign policy experts! THAT is a glaring fact. So why do you say they would all agree with you.
She has the best advisers on the planet that is why she is so far ahead of floundering Obama.

experience/judgement (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 12:16 PM)

The discussion on this post is all rant and rave.

Fact:
1) Obama was told that the Lieberman/Kyl amendment had been tabled indefinitely and after indicating his disapproval of this Congressional authorization of force against Iran, he left to campaign.

Speculation:
2) Hillary forces under the auspices of the father (Harry Reid) of one of her campaign staffers had the measure brought up for a quick vote, while Obama was gone, so that they could accuse the Illinois senator of missing an important vote (which they did).

Fact:
3) Obama's vote against this amendment would have made no difference in the outcome and since he declared his opposition beforehand; he is not having it both ways.

Fact:
4) Obama's position against this amendment before the vote is consistant with his previous position against giving the Bush administration any authorization (real of perceived) to use force in the Middle East. It would have served no purpose for him to have missed this vote.

Speculation:
5) This is another example of the cynical (Bush-like or Bush-lite) Hillary campaign to obscure the support she showed for another resolution to authorize this administration to use force in yet another conflict in the Middle East.

Speculation:
6) Team Hillary knew that this vote would be a problem with the Democratic base and the Obama-not-voting-issue was a planned distraction (obviously the media and the Hillarophiles are feeding on it).

Speculation:
6) Hillary is smart and this was a well crafted decision. My question is her motivation for voting for this resolution. Either she is a true Republican hawk on the war or this is another disingenious attempt at triangulation for the general election. I suspect a combination of the two but her staff alluded to the fact that she is already in her 'mission accomplished' general election mode - more politics at play here.

The bottom line is that no matter how you interpret all of this, it is more Bush/Rove type of politics. Can we honestly stand any more of this? I feel like the poor guy in the Munch painting 'The Scream'. The nomination and election of HRC would be the manifestation of a never ending nightmare.

Fact:
BTW Obama's April resolution to have the State Department label The Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization made no mention of the use of force and could not have been used by this wily and criminal administration as a Congressional authorization to use force. It could however be used as a tool for diplomacy and negotiation.

Hope:
The smart people of Iowa (who are taking this election very seriously) will see past the Hillary ploys and scams and will vote of Obama as the true agent of change.
Obama '08

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 1:11 PM)

Experience and Judgment: How could anyone who is against the war be for Hillary Clinton? It is simply an oxymoron. And BTW, where the polls count, Iowa and NH, the race is wide open. Just ask Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt about polls in Nov. 2003. Obama is anything but floundering.

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 1:20 PM)

The best campaign, the most money, the best politician, and the winner is..............

Senator Clinton!
OBAMA is floundering.

Experience/judgement (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 2:04 PM)

"Kyl-Lieberman had already passed the Senate; Webb's bill has not. Signing on with Webb does not undo her vote for Kyl-Lieberman."

If barack Obama were present for that vote, Hillary Clinton would've voted to see which we he would vote before casting her own vote. This time, she was all by herself and she did the dumb thing she's known to do when she's not getting help from anyone.

Hillary Clinton has made a fool of herself again.

Diamond (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 2:26 PM)

Main Stream Media is failing America again as it did prior to war in Iraq, even though the reasons given for the war could easily be disproved by any rookie journalist who had interest in investigative journalism.

The MSM should insist that Senator Clinton defends her vote for Kyl-Lieberman amendment on Iran. Senator Clinton’s reason for voting for the amendment has nothing to do with Senator Obama’s absence from casting his vote. It would be a separate issue if MSM were to ask Senator Obama to defend his reason for not being present to vote. MSM has allowed itself to be used by Clinton’s machine to muddle the substantive issue why Senator Clinton voted for Kyle-Lieberman amendment.

Joanesky, Sacramento, CA (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 2:27 PM)

experience/judgement,

She is not in charge of iraq, that is a fact, but she voted for it. First, i was going to look beyond the Iraq war but Clinton's answer on Iran vote is baffling to me.

She seems to be wishy washy. I am not sure she is the right person for this job.

I am a woman and i love to see a woman President; however, i don't think Clinton is right one. Her integrity is on the line regarding this issue.

Mallory, NH (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 2:48 PM)

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=431792