Barack Obama and John Edwards have jumped on Hillary Clinton for voting for the Kyl-Lieberman non-binding resolution. That resolution declares the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. What is important to understand is the fact that no where in this resolution was there talk of military action. This was a purely diplomatic bill that put economic sanctions on Iran in an attempt to slow their development of nuclear weapons and the development of weapons that are used against our troops in Iraq. As Sen. Durbin, a prominent Democrat, said:
"Nothing in this Act should be construed as giving the president the authority to use military force against Iran...(The resolution was) To say we need to pressure the Iranians to change their course in the Middle East and I want to do it by nonmilitary means, that's what my vote was all about.''
And now all of sudden we have Barack Obama attacking Hillary for "giving the President the authority for war". I have no problem with Sen. Obama pointing out differences between him and Clinton, but there is no need to present the public with misleading information. If Obama felt so passionately that the resolution was wrong, he should have voted against it. Insead of being in the Senate to vote, however, Obama was "too busy" campaigning. Senators were informed well before that day when the vote on the resolution would take place. Obama has no excuse for not being there. It is a fact that Obama, although he has been in the Senate just a little over 3 years (far less than any other candidate), has missed far more time from the Senate than any other Presidential candidate. The candidate who has missed the least is indeed Sen. Clinton. While I completely understand the importance of campaigning, it is not a valid argument to say that campaigning is more important than voting on issues that are deeply important for the American people. If anyone has shown leadership by standing up for the American people, it has been Sen. Clinton; certainly not Obama.
Another thing that is important to note is that although Obama has been outspoken on not giving Bush the authority to go to war, he did not bother to sign a letter to the President that 30 other Democrats signed. This letter clearly states that the President does not have authority to go to war. So, if Obama is against going to war, why didn't he sign the letter? Also, why didn't he co-sponsor Jim Webb's bill that would require Congressional approval for war with another country? In case you're wondering who did co-sponsor it----it was Hillary Clinton.
It also might help if Obama and Edwards went and looked at Clinton's past speeches on the Senate floor. Back in February, Sen. Clinton was the 1st Senator to say that the Bush administration had no authority to go to war with Iran. You read right guys, she was the first Senator. So all this talk is baseless about it being Sen. Clinton who is "saber-rattling" war. Sen. Clinton, perhaps more than anyone, has been an outspoken advocate for not going to war with Iran. Sen. Clinton does, however, realize that it is important to put sanctions on Iran as part of diplomacy. It was sanctions that gave diplomacy the backbone to work with North Korea; Sen. Clinton is right in wanting to try to get sanctions to work with Iran as well.
My point is this: enough is enough. Obama and Edwards are trying to distort that facts and, may I suggest, trying to make up for their own lack of leadership on this very important issue. Hillary Clinton is ahead in the polls; she will likely be the nominee. And because of that, Obama and Edwards feel a need to go on the attack. I know and respect the fact that Obama and Edwards want to be President and need to take Clinton down to do so, but what I do not respect is lying to the American public on such a critical matter as Iran.
5 comments :
My problem with her vote is this. By declaring this Iranian group a terrorist network, it will make it impossible NOT to vote for a war resolution. Why? Next year is an election year. The president can call for a war resoltion against the terror network in Iran and ANY congressperson or Senator who votes against it can then easily be painted as soft on terrorism, especially if they're one of the ones who initially recognized them as a terrorist group. Having this election year strategy will almost assure that we'll be in war in Iran before the elections of 2008, and everyone knows that the electorate falls squarely in line with the president in the first stages of a foreign war. Hillary blew this one by not looking at the big picture.
Johnny if the President tries to sucker in any one in congress to go to war with Iran in 2008 before the election, especially if their is no solid reason to go to war, a back lash will occur this time around. Also in 2008 a lot of other truths about our involvement in Iraq will probable come out that will undercut and Presidential ambitions to go to war with Iran by this administration.
"johnny said...
My problem with her vote is this. By declaring this Iranian group a terrorist network, it will make it impossible NOT to vote for a war resolution. Why? Next year is an election year. The president can call for a war resoltion against the terror network in Iran and ANY congressperson or Senator who votes against it can then easily be painted as soft on terrorism, especially if they're one of the ones who initially recognized them as a terrorist group. Having this election year strategy will almost assure that we'll be in war in Iran before the elections of 2008, and everyone knows that the electorate falls squarely in line with the president in the first stages of a foreign war. Hillary blew this one by not looking at the big picture."
Ok Johnny, I respect your opinion although I still think that if you read the actual resolution, you would change your view....but anyway... I guess my question to you is do you think Obama has the right to criticize Clinton since his apparent lack of leadership on the issue?
"I guess my question to you is do you think Obama has the right to criticize Clinton since his apparent lack of leadership on the issue?"
Of course he has the right. We ALL have the right. It's called "freedom of speech" and if you think Obama is out of line with his criticism, just wait until she gets the nomination and it's the Republicans and their media outlets attacking her on a daily basis. If she and her supporters get upset about this mild criticism, I'm not sure she's ready to face the firestorm awaiting her in 2008.
I still stand by my original assertion that, considering the current clamor to attack Iran and the assumption by many in this country that Iran is somehow abetting the insurgency in Iraq, passing a resolution identifying them as such is nothing less than a precursor to an eventual attack on Iran. How can you vote affirmative on a resolution identifying Iranian groups as terrorists and then vote against protecting the American populace from the same said terrorists?
Bush is not going to attack Iran because he wants to salvage at least some of his woeful presidency. The bottom line on any resolution by congress concerning war is that if any resolution is passed it will not tell the President he has to go to war. The news media got it wrong in the first place early after Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq. That Iraq resolution did not tell Bush he had to go to war. That should have been pointed out long time ago. He went to war on his own. He is not going to try to play God again.
Post a Comment