Is this not ANOTHER back track for Clinton? Didn't she understand KYL-LIEBERMAN left it to the Bush administration to apply diplomatic pressure? Not exactly their strong suit. Read more:

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2007/11/02/obama-clinton-and-iran/

Stop the presses. I agree with you dc. Now I am going to go have a stiff one, being the left wing, wacko, pinko, commie, one issue, ocd, "hillary-hater," incompetent moron that I am.

Michael wrote on November 2, 2007 9:42 AM:

Stop the presses. I agree with you dc. Now I am going to go have a stiff one, being the left wing, wacko, pinko, commie, one issue, ocd, "hillary-hater," incompetent moron that I am

Stop the presses, indeed.... I agree with all of the above.... When you're right, you're right :-)

dc, somehow I knew you would. I thought you'd throw in somemore names. I couldn't remember all the things that you have called me.

(and please, drop this crap about it being called Webb/Clinton. She didn't acknowledge its existence for the first seven months after it had been introduced).

Sorry for the flip response to that comment but here's what Clinton's press release had said back on October 1, 2007 [click on link in my first post]:

Senator Clinton Announces Co-Sponsorship of Webb Legislation Prohibiting the Use of Funds for Military Operations In Iran

Reiterates that President Bush Needs Congressional Authorization Before Attacking Iran

It pretty much sounds to me like a bona fide co-sponsorship of S. 759 by Clinton. Are you going to change the rules just because this irritates you?

Nice try, dc.

She ignored the Webb bill for 7 months, and signed on a few days after voting for KLA and being criticized for it.

I will not waste any time with this. No matter how you read this one, it comes out the same way: Politics as usual in the worst way. Really.

Gotta go to another forum. The poll numbers out of PA and SC look great from HRC, while it seems that Sen Obama is trailing Rudy nationally in the latest Rasmussen.

BTW: Have you ever heard of "Rasmussen Syndrome"? It seems that the only cure for it at the moment is a hemispherectomy...Some folks here could use it :-)

Cheers!

I agree with your points texasdem. My point of reference in agreeing with dc, is three fold (which obviously I never do and probably won't do again):

1. We have had this problem with the loons in the whitehouse beating the war drums about Iran for over a year. Webb introduced his bill around 7 months ago concerning appropriations, why didn't obama just go with that and sign the stupid letter. Why didn't obama sign on to the webb amendment last freaking year? Start taking a lead and try to push the bill through. I agree wholeheartedly on your points about her majesty signing onto the bill only after all the heat she received on the KLA vote. She is a political chameleon by design.

2. I just think another amendment addressing the same thing is just "politics as usual." If the Webb amendment won't make it through, neither will the obama amendment.

3. I really think it hurts obama's standing to be arguing about this when he didn't vote on the KLA. If I were him, I would have gotten on a gd plane, cancelled everything and took the floor with an eloquent speech opposing the amendment, like webb did. What better political theater and how to score some big points. That would have been alot better than the stuff he is doing now.

And, to close, I like obama, I just think he needs to get rid of his advisors and just be himself. It's almost like he has completely changed after he started running for president and that can only be attributable to his handlers.

for reference, here are both bills:

S. 759: A bill to prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran

S. J. Res. 23: A joint resolution clarifying that the use of force against Iran is not authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, any resolution previously adopted, or any other provision of law. (full text not yet available)

Information on the Kyl-Lieberman vote (09/26/07).

Hillary's sponsorship of Webb's S.759 did come shortly after the K-L vote, and ensuing controversy:

Sponsor: Sen Webb, Jim [VA] (introduced 3/5/2007)
COSPONSORS(2), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] - 10/1/2007
Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [RI] - 10/24/2007

here's the full text of the Webb resolution, if anyone wants to comb it over for supposed "loopholes"

To prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR MILITARY OPERATIONS IN IRAN.
(a) Prohibition- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds appropriated or otherwise made available by any Act, including any Act enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act, may be obligated or expended for military operations or activities within or above the territory of Iran, or within the territorial waters of Iran, except pursuant to a specific authorization of Congress enacted in a statute enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Exceptions- The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to military operations or activities as follows:
(1) Military operations or activities to directly repel an attack launched from within the territory of Iran.
(2) Military operations or activities to directly thwart an imminent attack to be launched from within the territory of Iran.
(3) Military operations or activities in hot pursuit of forces engaged outside the territory of Iran who thereafter enter into Iran.
(4) Military operations or activities connected with the intelligence or intelligence-related activities of the United States Government.
(c) Report- Not later than 24 hours after determining to utilize funds referred to in subsection (a) for purposes of a military operation described in subsection (b), the President shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on the determination, including a justification for the determination.
(d) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined- In this section, the term `appropriate committees of Congress' means--
(1) the Committees on Armed Services and Foreign Relations and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and
(2) the Committees on Armed Services and Foreign Affairs and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.

Interesting. I guess the next questions are 1) how many of the 30 letter signatories will join Obama? and 2) if this doesn't pass or ends up with less support than the letter, will it damage Obama's new claim to leadership on the issue?

While we do seem to be dealing with three levels of ineffectual (letter, resolution explicating another resolution, and a bill which is unlikely to become law), it's certainly good to see a consensus emerging that there will be vigorous opposition to any action by the administration.

dcshungu - You can call it what you like, but Obama's proposed resolution is the same thing as this letter, only legally binding rather than a stern suggestion to the President. If the letter was necessary (and not "political artifice") then so is this resolution; it's a different tactic for the same strategy.

The Webb bill is pretty good, though it looks like it won't be able to get out of committee (it deals with withholding funds for military operations, a tactic which so far hasn't gained traction in the Senate). I'm going to give Sen. Clinton the benefit of the doubt and assume that her decision to sign onto the bill last month (after controversy arose following her vote on Lieberman-Kyl) was genuine in nature and not "political artifice."

As the signers of the Webb letter have argued, the Senate needs to make clear that President Bush has not yet been given authority to conduct military strikes in Iran. Some wrote a letter to the President, clarifying previous legislation, Obama has proposed making that clarification law. I don't see why we need one without the other, both seem like part of a sound strategy.

Too funny dc, I'm actually sorry I agreed with your original post. The reason why I did was it wasn't as outrageous as your typical posts. Well that last one was a laugher. Did you write that entry on the huffington post? She shows up and puts her name on something????? Hah, Hah, Hah. After its been triple polled and bill signs off on it, then maybe and she still screws up and waffles all over the place. See AUMF and KLA. Too funny.

Keith, I know he was blind sided and it sounds really suspicious, but I just think he should have done what I said. Also, he could have made a bunch of hay with reid to delay the vote so that he could vote and make his case. It's just my opinion.

Keith, I know he was blind sided and it sounds really suspicious, but I just think he should have done what I said. Also, he could have made a bunch of hay with reid to delay the vote so that he could vote and make his case. It's just my opinion.

Michael:

Even if he cancelled EVERYTHING the moment he was notified, he would have NEVER made it to DC (he was in NH). The vote was 76-22; he and McCain (a co-sponsor) both missed it.

As for giving Reid crap, remember the vote wasn't scheduled until 12:14 and according to Reid, it wasn't coming up for the near future (not sure what Obama could have done). Biden's partition amendment was linked to KLA (there was a UC Agreement), and he was driving the process of when and if it was brought to the floor. And methinks Biden couldn't have been more delighted to score some cheap political points on this one.

But that's just my opinion.

If you have questions why Obama missed the vote, I suggest you check the Congressional Record and familiarize yourself with who has control over the scheduling of bills. The vote was announced and held within 30 minutes. Again, congressional record has the details.

I have heard this canard before and it is irrelevant to the fact that this move is just politics as usual in the worst way. Even if I granted you the "excuse" that somehow he was blind-sided by Reid, it won't change the fact that Obama did not take to the Senate floor to even register is "opposition" to K-L. He went AWOL. Therefore, this Johnny-Come-Lately maneuver is exactly what it looks like: A desperate attempt to get political traction on an issue that he has no moral authority appropriating. This is blatant political opportunism and you know it. I am not sure what they are smoking over there at CampObama but to go from the "politics of hope" to "dope head politics" is NOT the way they can shake up this race in favor of their man...

dcshungu:

No canards, no excuses, just facts. I pointed you to the Congressional Record. Yeah, he didn't take to the floor and make a speech like the Inevitable One. He drafted legislation. I'll take legislation over a speech (or a sternly worded letter) any day.

I'd suggest you stop trying to spin this, because they only person you are making dizzy is yourself. I'm sure there will be a poll confirming her commanded lead next Monday or Tuesday, and then the world will be right in Hillaryland.