The Truth about Sen. Clinton and Her Iran Vote

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.