Clinton's line about Kyl-Lieberman being about diplomacy is patently dishonest, and she should be called on it.

The reason she and folks like Durbin voted for it is that they're afraid of being accused of being weak on national security issues. Well, that and she's the most hawkish of the Democratic candidates.

I disagree with Hillary's and agree with Barack's position on the issue, but like the first poster suggested, but I really wish Barack had been in the Senate to vote against it. Unlike with the Iraq war vote, he had an opportunity to officially record his position on the issue and missed out. I don't know if that's one of his staffer's fault or he just didn't think it was important enough to take time off the campaign trail, but we're looking for a leader and Barack just keeps missing key opportunities to do just that.

Obama has zero credibility on Kyl-Lieberman, he not only failed to vote but waited until hours after the vote to even issue any sort of public statement. During the debate that very night Obama stood by passively while Edwards took on Hillary over the vote.

"While others went along, Obama opposed Bush's war plans."

Senator, this is called hypocrisy.
Your purported early "opposition" to Bush's war plans no longer means much because you became part of those plans when (a) you voted repeatedly for funding to perpetuate the Iraq war, and (b) skipped the Kyl-Lieberman bill on Iran! This is chutzpah, arrogance, as well as politics as usual, and not "good judgment" or "profile in courage."

For some us, there is no longer a clear rationale for your candidacy, since the moral clarity that you'd claimed to have over the other candidates is not in evidence anywhere. You are forbidden from attacking anyone on K-L because you did not vote, remember? And, never forget that you voted repeatedly to perpetuate the Iraq war when you could have expressed your so-called "opposition" by voting to cut off funding.

You tried this tack before with your "blank checks" Hail Mary, but it got you nowhere. In fact, it seemed that right after that, Clinton's lead increased and you lost ground (see trends at pollster.com). If you wish to have a chance at winning this thing, you must make a case for your electability, and not why Clinton is not electable or has bad judgment: More than 50% of the country supported the Iraq invasion in 2002-2003, so that you are barking up the wrong tree: the war vote is NOT going to do much for you. You have been turned off on that front.

"While others went along, Obama opposed Bush's war plans."...yeah, right...

I may be mistaken, but I believe the vote on Iran was held the same day as the Schip vote. Obama was there to vote for Schip but ducked out before Iran came up so he could avoid being on the record. If he was so adament about this resolution he had many opportunities (on the campaign trail) before it came to a vote to speak out. He also could have used his position on the Senate floor to clearly state his opposition.I totally agree with the reasoning he is using against this resolution. I wrote both my Senator Durbin as well as Clinton to voice my objection to their vote. However, I find Obama's outrage totally phoney now after the affect. It doesn't show the leadershio quality that he tries to project.

Obama could have voted, but he didn't. Other candidates like Joe Biden headed back to DC to vote on this very important resolution.

oops--sorry for the double-posting. i didn't think my first one went through.

Seriously, what is it with you Hillaristas and this "he missed the vote thing?" Are you just so in the wrong that that's the best you can do? Are you so mindlessly obedient to your orders from the Cube that you are incapable of exercising independent reason on the issue? Or is it just the typical Hillaroid tendency to stick your fingers in your ears and go "la-la-la" whenever you're confronted by facts that are contrary to your Queen's approved narrative?

The chronology is clear and factually uncontested. Reid either deliberately screwed Obama or was forced by events beyond his control to accelerate a vote he had promised wouldn't happen for days. From a tactical perspective alone, there was no vote in the last six months that Obama was more interested in casting than this one. The idea that he ducked the vote because he wanted to have it both ways is so transparently stupid in light of how hard he's hammering on the issue that only a Bush die-hard would buy it.

And yet, every time the issue comes up, just like clockwork, the usual Hillaristas spew out the "he's got no credibility because he deliberately or negligently missed the vote." It's bullshit and they know it but if you call them on it, they either go mysteriously silent or else play the RNC invent-their-own-facts game.

So extra Victory bonus points for the Outer Party Members who reliably engage in this goodthinkful narrative. Big Sister will no doubt reward you with extra chocolate rations.

to D, and anyone else reminding us that Obama offered similar legislation: you're ignoring Obama's argument entirely, apparently hoping to make him look like a hypocrite. I'll admit his explanation hasn't been very clear (a persistent problem with Obama's statements) but a serious distinction and difference of opinion definitely exists.

Lets take a look at the actual text of each proposal (something critics, oddly enough, haven't provided). Obama's version of the bill does include a measure that would classify the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization:

(a) Determinations and Report- Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall--

(1) determine whether the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (in this section referred to as `IRGC') should be--

(A) designated as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189);

(B) placed on the list of specially designated global terrorists; and

(C) placed on the list of weapons of mass destruction proliferators and their supporters; and

(2) report the determinations under paragraph (1) to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, including, if the President determines that such Corps should not be so designated or placed on either such list, the justification for the President's determination.

(b) Extension of Authority- The President may block all property and interests in property of the following persons, to the same extent as property and interests in property of a foreign person determined to have committed acts of terrorism for purposes of Executive Order No. 13224 of September 21, 2001 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note) may be blocked:

(1) Persons who assist or provide financial, material, or technological support for, or financial or other services to or in support of, the IRGC or entities owned or effectively controlled by the IRGC.

(2) Persons otherwise associated with the IRGC or entities referred to in paragraph (1).
The main function of Obama's bill was to tighten economic pressures on Iran. The classification of Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, in Obama's bill, would only authorize the President to extend economic sanctions to those cooperating with the Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). There's no mention in Obama's bill of the IRGC's role in Iraq or violent attacks against American interests. There's no mention of force, attacks, war, or violence whatsoever. In fact, the word Iraq doesn't even appear in Senator Obama's bill, titled 'Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007'; To enhance United States diplomatic efforts with respect to Iran by imposing additional economic sanctions against Iran, and for other purposes. Most of the language of the bill refers to United Nations resolutions, attempting to strengthen international sanctions through the UN and broaden international sanctions, especially in the energy sector. It would authorize economic sanctions to be levied against those cooperating with Iran's enrichment of fissionable material, and establish tough standards for the international community. Again, no mention of Iraq, the war, violent attacks, support of Iraq insurgents or anything relating to the War in Iraq authorized by Congress.

Now, lets compare this to the text of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment (as passed):

(1) General David Petraeus, commander of the Multi-National Force Iraq, stated in testimony before a joint session of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives on September 10, 2007, that ``[i]t is increasingly apparent to both coalition and Iraqi leaders that Iran, through the use of the Iranian Republican Guard Corps Qods Force, seeks to turn the Shi'a militia extremists into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests and fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq''.

(2) Ambassador Ryan Crocker, United States Ambassador to Iraq, stated in testimony before a joint session of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives on September 10, 2007, that ``Iran plays a harmful role in Iraq. While claiming to support Iraq in its transition, Iran has actively undermined it by providing lethal capabilities to the enemies of the Iraqi state''.

(3) The most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, published in August 2007, states that ``Iran has been intensifying aspects of its lethal support for select groups of Iraqi Shia militants, particularly the JAM [Jaysh al-Mahdi], since at least the beginning of 2006. Explosively formed penetrator (EFP) attacks have risen dramatically''.

(4) The Report of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, released on September 6, 2007, states that ``[t]he Commission concludes that the evidence of Iran's increasing activism in the southeastern part of the country, including Basra and Diyala provinces, is compelling ..... It is an accepted fact that most of the sophisticated weapons being used to `defeat' our armor protection comes across the border from Iran with relative impunity''.
...
(9) General Petraeus stated on September 12, 2007, with respect to evidence of the complicity of Iran in the murder of members of the Armed Forces of the United States in Iraq, that ``[t]e evidence is very, very clear. We captured it when we captured Qais Khazali, the Lebanese Hezbollah deputy commander, and others, and it's in black and white ..... We interrogated these individuals. We have on tape ..... Qais Khazali himself. When asked, could you have done what you have done without Iranian support, he literally throws up his hands and laughs and says, of course not ..... So they told us about the amounts of money that they have received. They told us about the training that they received. They told us about the ammunition and sophisticated weaponry and all of that that they received''.

(10) General Petraeus further stated on September 14, 2007, that ``[w]hat we have got is evidence. This is not intelligence. This is evidence, off computers that we captured, documents and so forth ..... In one case, a 22-page document that lays out the planning, reconnaissance, rehearsal, conduct, and aftermath of the operation conducted that resulted in the death of five of our soldiers in Karbala back in January''.
...
(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--

(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;

(2) that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;

(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 (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;

(5) that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224...The bill goes on and on and on about Iran, the Revolutionary Guard and their support of Iraqi insurgents, importation of munitions, and even "evidence of the complicity of Iran in the murder of members of the Armed Forces of the United States in Iraq".

The difference between the two bills should be obvious from the selections above. I encourage you to look over the text of each, then come back again and tell me if you still honestly believe that "that Obama cosponsored the same amendment in April".

Even as an Obama supporter, I didn't quite understand the intricacies of his objection until examining the bill and amendment side by side. Now the distinction is clear. Anyone who reads the K-L amendment can see quite clearly it's a step in the wrong direction, even if it doesn't explicitly or indirectly authorize the use of force in Iran. Again, I'm disappointed he missed the vote, but his continued vocal opposition to the measure makes it clear he's not going to let the administration move any closer to war with Iran.

'The difference between the two bills should be obvious from the selections above.'

Dude, this bill, and the Kyl-Lieberman amendment are essentially the SAME THING.

LOL.

1.) a collection of dubious 'facts' regarding Iran's supposed actions in Iraq.

2.) the designation of the IRG as a terrorist group.

The most dangerous language of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment (language similar to that found in the AUMF) was stripped out before the vote.

BOTH of our Ivy League elitists have declared Iran a terrorist organization.

Above, all the text from the last blockquote is part of the article.

dcshungu, you're completely ignoring the substance of each bill, relying on a bumper sticker argument. We know both bills contained language classifying the IRGC as a terrorist organization. Despite this similarity, the bills are very different. Obama's legislation defines clear boundaries of authorization extended to the President in response to the classification, including economic sanctions, diplomatic efforts and authority to operate through the UN to extend economic sanctions on Iran. The bill even includes language that EXPLICITLY scuttles attempts to interpret the new classification as a veiled authorization of force.

K-L contains no such language. It contains no clear standards or guidance for the administration to clarify the sense of the Senate. In addition, it includes language that literally accuses Iran and the IRGC with "murder of members of the Armed Forces of the United States in Iraq" (based on interrogation evidence -- I wonder if they used enhanced interrogation?). The amendment promotes Iran as a major destabilizing force in Iraq, and major part of the continuing insurgency in Iraq. Obama's bill contains nothing anywhere near these types of claims.

Reading the text of the amendment and bill, I honestly can't believe people still aren't willing to acknowledge there's a clear distinction between the two bills.

I really don't understand how anyone could honestly be happy with a "Yea" vote for this legislation, or completely miss what appears to be a significant difference between the two resolutions. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I still think Obama has a stronger position here. I guess you don't believe that he wasn't able to make the vote for the reasons others have already outlined above. That doesn't explain his continued vocal opposition to the bill, but I guess that's a mostly insignificant disagreement. You obviously just don't trust Obama's statements; I have no reason to believe he's intentionally misleading us in this particular case. Still, the language of the K-L amendment is abhorrent, and damn near disgusting and absurd. Even Gen. Petraeus, in his testimony in September, dismissed the Lieberman interpretation of events contained in this bill. We're obviously never going to see eye to eye on this issue. I do think you're overly optimistic thinking Hillary can flatten Obama when she starts crying "hypocrite." Considering the dangerously bombastic language in the K-L bill, lack of clear guidance, and the more reasoned precautions in Obama's version, he's got plenty of places to hit back.

SeanH
Thanks for detailing the clear differences between the bills. One is a lot more forceful about economic sanctions while the K-L bill is very forceful about the use of force and the specificity of what can trigger the use of our troops tied to Iran conflicts.

This is a Key POINT:

NO MENTION of Iraq, NO MENTION of attacks on American soldiers by Iranians, NO MENTION of Iranian arms importation in Iraq. In other words, there's no attempt to stitch the authorized use of American military force in Iraq with the Iranian military

And nothing could be more explicit than this:

Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the use of force or the use of the United States Armed Forces against Iran.

I should clarify, looks like I may have made a sizable mistake. I believe the LOC version of the bill I was quoting here contained portions of the bill that were eventually removed.

My October 23, 2007 11:40 AM post included paragraphs (3) and (4), which were eventually removed from the amendment. While they are certainly offensive, I don't think removing those specific statements fundamentally alters my reading of the bill. I didn't even highlight those statements for focus. The elements in question that were eventually removed (I think I have it right this time) are the following:

(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 (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies