Obama is right not vote for that Kyl-Liberman amendment. It is a disaster that is waiting to explode. I don't understand why politician in Washington will trust Bush with that amendment. I know Clinton campaign won't admit she made a terrible mistake with that vote.

Here is the logic behind that vote.

One of the reasons Obama disagreed with Kyl-Lieberman
was that it called on Congress to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

Here is the language that Obama support:

"The operative word is "Congress." The bill that Obama supported called on the State Department to designate the IRG a terrorist organization. He supported the bill — and opposed Kyl-Lieberman — in part because he understands, as Clinton apparently does not, that it is the role of State, not Congress, to make that designation"

I think Clinton failed to realized the caveat in the language which as Obama rightly observed:

"The amendment states that we have to "transition(s) and structure" our "military presence in Iraq" to counter the threat from Iran, and states that it is "a critical national interest of the United States" to prevent the Iranian government from exerting influence inside Iraq.

Why is this so dangerous? The Bush administration could use language like this to justify a continued troop presence in Iraq as long as it perceives a threat from Iran. Even worse, the Bush administration could use the language in Lieberman-Kyl to justify an attack on Iran as a part of the ongoing war in Iraq.

End of Post!

I wish you democrats would stop just flat out lying. this vote in no way gives Bush authorization to start a war with IRAn,,,you people are idiots

Obama has no confidence that's why he didn't vote. He has no right to talk about others because he is chicken, follower and a disqualified leader.

Both Obama (in his book) and Clinton have expressed a sort of trigger-happy mentality that can justify aggressiveness against other nations or political entities. The only candidate for president who has consistently touted commitment to peaceful diplomacy, even when he was the only one with the guts to do so, is Dennis Kucinich, but he's not "sexy" enough to appeal to an American public.

I am glad we finally have a person representing the majority of the people in the U.S. If Hillary does not see we are tired of the war and we don’t want her to be apart of the Washington good old boys then we should look at Bema. At least he is not bowing to every Bush agenda. Wake up Hillary we don’t want another four years of the same Bush ideas.

Obama did not even VOTE on this issue he was on the campaign trail and could not make it to DC…he should not be critizing anyone regardless of how they voted…having it this way no one really knows how he feels or how he would have voted…he needs to let it rest….

They are at it again….the liberals start by making up a fact "Bush and Bin Laden are allies" – then they feed off each other….its like a sick game of telephone….there have been some well written facts based pieces here…but the liberal bloggers were not among those. I hope that the anger they feel passes…and control of the Democratic National Cult is broken….then you feel played and foolish…not to say that you should want to vote for the ONLY moderate running….but Giuliani will accept your support..(as he will win in 2008)

Now that the Obama Camp has won that debate and continues its undefeated streak lets get to work on emancipating some more prisoners from hillaryland.

I recently won over my Father in law!
that gets my count to around 20 I think.

See you at the countdown to change in Newark.

There is Still hope to end the Bush-Clinton Tyranny.

It will really be Crazy if we can defeat the MSM and the Clinton machine.
I'M FIRED UP!…READY TO GO!

Obama 2008!

This from one of those "stupid" Hillary supporters:

For the record, Hillary never said during the debates that she would not negotiate with Iran without preconditions. What she said was as president she would not meet with its leader without preconditions.

I know it may be a little too nuanced for all you "smart" Obama supporters out there trotting this out falsely proclaiming this a Hillary flip-flop, but there is a difference and it is substantial.

jmaya, ihio;

No not really. First of all I don't know that in the world you are talking about. You don't spell very well. Are you even legal to vote? Do you live in the US?

I have one more thing to say. There are so many of you in this blog who say that Obama has not talked about policy. Wow!! Really?!?! I've heard him talk a lot about his policies. Just because you are picking and choosing the speeches you wish to hear from him doesn't mean he hasn't talked about his policies. Sure on CNN and other interviews he doesn't talk about them. That's because he's not ASKED about them. It's an interview! He answers the questions that are asked. He has outlined several of his policies in speeches and very throroughly and eloquently I might add. Barack Obama has a lot more experience than Hillary and people don't realize that. She has only been a politician since 2000. Her time as a First Lady does not count, especially since her policies were refused by congress. Barack served on Illinois State senate for eight years before being elected a US senator in 2004. He has been in smaller leadership roles prior to that. His work as a community organizer shows how much he truly cares about the american people. Hillary cares about one thing, POWER.
If you've missed the speeches where Barack talks about his policies, visit http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ where there is a very detailed outline of all his issues.

I don't think I've ever seen Obama this pouty, this desperate to cling to the one song he's been singing since the beginning of these primaries – that he would not have voted like Clinton to authorize the war..

…that's a tired, hypothetical argument Mr. Obama. The fact is, you weren't a U.S. Senator at the time, so coulda, woulda, shoulda, will buy you a piece or two of Bazooka chewing gum.

Obama is starting to look desperate. I think he should start showing a little more class and sticking to his pledge of NO ATTACKS campaign – he was doing better in the polls when he stuck to his message.

GO HILLARY!!

People are also forgetting that Reid's son works for Hillary's campaign in Nevada. That's convenient too huh? And that stupid MoveOn.org vote? Strong Senate leaders wouldn ever have allowed that vote to happen. You think an anti-Fox News vote would have ever seen the senate floor when Frist was in charge? Reid and Pelosi have to be the two worst examples of leaders I've ever seen and I'm a freaking Democrat! Of course their poll numbers are dismal! They have the congress voting on a toothless MoveOn.org issue and then back that up with a meaningless "sense of the senate" thing. When are they going to pass some legislation with some teeth in it…like impeachment proceedings? To the person who wrote Obama/Islam…do some research will ya? Obama has never been a Muslim. He's a Christian and his faith is very important to him. And to the other idiot who said he voted FOR partial-birth abortion. Man, no one votes FOR abortion. Obama voted for a woman's right to choose. That's a huge difference. Hillary is pro-choice too, unless they're an Obama supporter. Just kidding. And to the rest of you Hillary supporters…do you really think Bush is now required to listen to congress before attacking Iran? He's already got his war powers act working. He's already got the hardware in theater so funding isn't an issue. That vote offered him political cover. Hillary gave the worst president in history political cover. Since she already feels that she's going to be president, she must be planning on pardoning Bush and Cheney in 2009 just like Bill pardoned all those criminals in 2000. The Clinton's take care of their friends…and their enemies. Just ask the Foster family.

Posted By ProudLiberal, Sacramento, Ca. : October 12, 2007 4:27 am

You are absolutely right. They were just talking about this this morning on MSNBC. The Clintons did this with Al Gore after there was disagreement with Hillary and Al and after the mistakes in the Clinton administration that Gore blamed on Bill. So the Clintons did things like go to Gore's daughters wedding to suck up to him. The Clintons do this all the time. Mostly to get money out of someone or support buy sucking up, being overly gracious, and ,protaining to Hillary, not having an opinion of her own to fit to all crowd. That may be a good thing but you could never tell the truth from a lie. Even most republican I know support her for all the wrong reasons.

If you talk the talk you must walk the walk! Don’t attack those who fulfill their obligation as elected officials when you don’t even bother to vote.

MICHAEL JAMES — ILLINOIS:

It may interest you to know that Iran has ALREADY been declared a state sponsor of terrorism. If calling a country "terrorist" were enough legal justification to attack Iran in Iran, the president would already be entitled to use military power in that country.

Furthermore, if Quds Forces were attacking our soldiers near the border and then running back over to Iran, you may rest assured that there was ALREADY border skirmishing BEFORE Kyl-Lieberman.

Declaring a country part of the "axis of evil," does not entitle the State Department to enact sanctions against it because that term has no legal meaning. However, the State Department DOES need a legal basis for enacting sanctions, and labeling a country a "state sponsor of terror," or designating part of its government as a terrorist entity IS such a legal basis.

Would you want the President to have the power to enact sanctions willy-nilly against other states WITHOUT having to give a legal justification for such action? If the President could just point his finger and sanction another state without giving a reason, this would go a long way toward bringing us under the rule of a king, rather than the rule of law.

Clinton Says She'd Negotiate With Iran
By HOLLY RAMER – 7 hours ago

CANTERBURY, N.H. (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton called Barack Obama naive when he said he'd meet with the leaders of Iran without precondition. Now she says she'd do the same thing, too.

During a Democratic presidential debate in July, Obama said he would be willing to meet without precondition in the first year of his presidency with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.

Standing with him on stage, Clinton said she would first send envoys to test the waters and called Obama's position irresponsible and naive.

But asked about it Thursday by a voter, the New York senator said twice that she, too, would negotiate with Iran "with no conditions."

"I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions, because we don't really understand how Iran works. We think we do, from the outside, but I think that is misleading," she said at an apple orchard.

She characterized her recent vote to label Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization as a way to gain leverage for those negotiations.

Obama and other rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination have been criticizing Clinton's vote late last month in favor of the resolution, comparing it to her 2002 vote authorizing the war in Iraq.

They have suggested that the Iran vote was the first step toward a military invasion there.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5izJr4wFXhrXfr8mlCBthgtCZvMcwD8S7D9280

That's right Hillary follow the leader Barack. MAybe he will allow you to become the VP

CLAUDE, MESA AZ.:

Negotiating without preconditions with Iran is NOT the same as the President agreeing to meet with Ahmadinejad without having an idea in the world what he wants to talk about.

Negotiations without preconditions means that Sen. Clinton wouldn't require that Iran take any steps, such as agreeing to give up nuclear enrichment, or dismantling their nuclear programs BEFORE talking to the United States. That's what they're going to talk about. It probably also means that the U.S. won't unilaterally dictate what the agenda for negotiations will be.

But they're still going to HAVE an agenda LONG BEFORE the president sits down with anybody. The agenda related issues as well as most of the substantive issues will be pre-negotiated in long, detailed discussions at a SUB-PRINCIPAL level before there's a principal's meeting between the President of the United States and whomever the Supreme Cultural Revolution Council (?) empowers to negotiate on Iran's behalf.

The President of the United States does not promise to jawbone with world leaders without first having State Department diplomats thorougly work out, at the very least, broad areas of agreement and disagreement with those foreign leaders as well as steps to be taken in resolving any thorny issues.

Sen. Obama probably recognized the distinction between negotiating without preconditions on the one hand, and the U.S. President promising to conduct personal negotiations without doing any diplomatic spadework on the other, a little too late. Now, he's hoping that the rest of us will never figure it out.

The belief that labeling a foreign military organization or other governmental force a terrorist organization so we can more easily pursue sanctions in the hopes that this action will make Iran hold diplomatic talks, stop building nukes and be our friend? Very sound logical judgement Hil. Why, exactly, are we in Iraq? Afgahnastan? It is in our national interest. So…Iran labels the U.S. Army and CIA terrorist organizations. Our government believes that comment laughable. Why? Iran's forces getting involved in Iraq in the interest of their country constitutes terrorism, but not us We can get involved where ever we want. Now Turkey's forces are moving into northern Iraq for campaigns against the Kurds in the interest of their country, but they're not terrorists either. Now Turkey is upset and Bush disappointed that the Congress has actually done the right thing for once in passing a bill calling the Turk's slaughter of Armenians during World War I genocide. Cause now Turkey won't allow Bush to use their country to carry out his war. Wow. When was the last time Iran invaded anyone? Started a war? Who is really our frieind?

Now maybe we can see Mr. Obama has the sound judgement we need. Maybe it is time to accet his idea that these same measures have not worked and it is time we try something different. MAybe we now realize that it isn't naieve to suggest we should just meet with these leaders face to face, president to president. Just because we meet with them does not mean we give in or are weak. It shows that we are not afraid, we are strong, we can make up our minds and move along.

No one in this race is experienced enough to be the president–no of them have ever been. Exeperience means nothing,, look at Georgie. We need good judgement and leadership. We need a new direction and ideas. That is Barack Obama.

People are also forgetting that Reid's son works for Hillary's campaign in Nevada. That's convenient too huh? And that stupid MoveOn.org vote? Strong Senate leaders wouldn ever have allowed that vote to happen. You think an anti-Fox News vote would have ever seen the senate floor when Frist was in charge? Reid and Pelosi have to be the two worst examples of leaders I've ever seen and I'm a freaking Democrat! Of course their poll numbers are dismal! They have the congress voting on a toothless MoveOn.org issue and then back that up with a meaningless "sense of the senate" thing. When are they going to pass some legislation with some teeth in it…like impeachment proceedings? To the person who wrote Obama/Islam…do some research will ya? Obama has never been a Muslim. He's a Christian and his faith is very important to him. And to the other idiot who said he voted FOR partial-birth abortion. Man, no one votes FOR abortion. Obama voted for a woman's right to choose. That's a huge difference. Hillary is pro-choice too, unless they're an Obama supporter. Just kidding. And to the rest of you Hillary supporters…do you really think Bush is now required to listen to congress before attacking Iran? He's already got his war powers act working. He's already got the hardware in theater so funding isn't an issue. That vote offered him political cover. Hillary gave the worst president in history political cover. Since she already feels that she's going to be president, she must be planning on pardoning Bush and Cheney in 2009 just like Bill pardoned all those criminals in 2000. The Clinton's take care of their friends…and their enemies. Just ask the Foster family.

Hey, this is to all you stupid ignorant Hillary Clinton supporters out there…now she says she will negogiate with Iran without any pre-conditions (see CBS news website under politics). She called Obama naive over a month ago at the debate for this position. You guys need to do your research on this chick. She will be devastating for this country because she is clearly lacking judgement. She is inconsistent, a crook, and can't be trusted and she lives in a web of deception!

All this vote did was serve as an opportunity to grandstand and look tough, but with no actual benefit to the interests of the United States.

If you want to ratchet up the diplomatic pressure, how about engaging in some actual diplomacy? I don't think any reasonable people disagree that the Iranians are causing trouble and supporting terror in Iraq and elsewhere, but the name-calling is not very helpful in putting a stop to it.

All the Iranians did in response is pass their own resolution declaring the CIA a terrorist organization. Okay, what's our next move? Say "I know you are, but what am I" and "na na-na na-na na" while we stick our tongues out at them?

You don't need to declare an organization to be part of an axis of evil or a terrorist organization to enact sanctions.

While it may be a stretch to interpret it as full authorization to use force and invade Iran, no one should put it past Bush to provoke an incident that would give him cover to send at least some forces into Iran. After all, don't we currently have a policy to attack terrorists?

So, if we always try to attack terrorists where we find them and we see some Iranians that we just declared to be terrorists, wouldn't it be okay for the military to start shooting at them and to follow them into their base, even if it meant crossing Iran's border?

If that were to happen, do you think the Iranians might respond in some way? Do you really want to take this chance given Bush's judgment and history?

Hillary Clinton — wrong judgment in 2002, wrong judgment in 2007. She does not have what it takes to effectively lead this nation.

Vote Obama!!!

It's funny how people say that they were misled into believing the Iraq lies before invasion. Everyone else in the world seemed to now the truths except us in America.
People from around the world protested and tried to form human shields to no avail.
If you were fooled then, it means you could be fooled now. We don't think for ourselves. Look at the gun violence that's happening in schools. Soon enough we will be our own terrorists making car bombs.

No wonder why we are becoming Fatter and Dumber

You are right TC, they are all idiot liberals who always keep blaming the President without knowing the facts first.

Obama is too honorable to be a politician, he tells the truth and he doesn't pull the little back door deals like was obviously done for Hillary by Harry Reid! I mean, the night before this vote, plus the important Joe Biden amendment which Obama had ALREADY stated he'd vote for, Reid cunningly said it had been postponed and wouldn't be scheduled. Then bam…Obama goes way to New Hampshire, where voters were waiting and Reid schedules it anyway!!! I saw him pull that in the beginning right after Obama announced but I can't remember the vote. And,…look how Hillary cynically waited until Obama voted against funding for the first time and then she voted NO too. And people defend this kind of backstabbing!!! That's why I hate politics. Now this man was obviously against the war, no denying it and he has EVERY RIGHT to compare his judgment against hers. Esp since she's got the bigwigs on tv, like and EX PRES, Charlie Rangel, saying Obama is NOT EXPERIENCED ENOUGH. ASnd then Ms Clinton in a statement which was vaguely racist, or like saying you boy…said Obama was NAIVE AND IRRESPONSIBLE for saying he'd meet without preconditions with leaders of Iran, etc (another short way of saying he would pursue a different policy than Bush, and Clinton knew what he meant). She is sooo slick and she tagged him with the very aspect which black men get knocked down with all the time, that's why it took off so well, The so called Democrats will soak up black votes like mad, but they have NO problem going crazy over a white woman who calls the FIRST VIABLE BLACK PRES CANDIDATE NAIVE AND IRRESPONSIBLE. And who's one of the biggest demos of her supporters??? Black women, go figure.
But guess who said "I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions, because we don't really understand how Iran works. We think we do, from the outside, but I think that is misleading,"
Yep…you got it. Ms. I am too smart to talk to anybody in my first year Clinton. She said that today. Will the media call her out for a week like they did Obama on it, and ridicule her???
Don't hold your breath.

So many seem to be calling HRC's vote re: Iran "brave" and "strong" or whatever. The mere action of voting warrants such accolades? She was brave to make a decision? I don't get it, but I'm gonna give it a try. Every time I opt to do something dumb, I am going to remind everyone impacted by that decision how brave and ballsy I was to make the dumb decision in the first place. Please. I would rather do nothing. People need to think about these things a little harder and more thoroughly or we're not going to make any headway in the upcoming election. Don't be afraid to look outside the box a little bit more.

Oh he can attack Hillary,he has nothing else to do,no policy not on how to run the country,but how to attack hillary I have to go with hillary,by the wayside,She is way more qualified than him,or edwards.yeah i like Bill,i lived well ,you cant deny that any of you.Hillary is running her own ways not bills but i bet with them in the white house are American Country will have respect again global wise.and fiscal responsbility.and living well I can't wait until 2008,The possibilitys remain Clinton Obama,Rg,mittr,I will have a better oppertunity with clinton 100%.

People are so gullable,in believing this man,you watch keith oberman,and if you listen to hillary,she explains it one more time listen to it.you people mislead her words and or turn them into nonsense. shes got the plans she got everything we need and that is her judgement in for the American people she is fighting for us.you people dont see that,this obama man he scares the hell out of me he has not brought forth anything to the Anerican people only following the isnsteps of Mrs Hillary Clinton.Keep fighting Hillary i wanna be alive for my granchildren.

I agree Hillary's vote was flawed Judgement. But, I also agree with Patrick, New York, NY:
If Obama was so much against this resolution (I oppose it as well) HE SOULD HAVE HAD THE BALLS TO VOTE AGAINST IT..instead he didnt SHOW UP FOR THE VOTE..WHAT A HYPOCRITE!!!

He knew the vote was going to take place…and if he felt it was that important he would have found time to vote! We all find time somehow for what we feel is Important.

go Hillary GO!!!

W, Worcester, MA

Yes, there is a Hillary Supporter who supported the attack on Iraq. ME! The President LIED to everyone. She gave permission right along with the majority of the other politicians because they had "knowledge" from the president. She has said many times since that she regrets that vote because they were all mislead. I supported Hillary then and I support her now with her vote on calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Listen very closely, this bill DID NOT give Bush the authority to invade Iran as so many people think. Where did this idea come from anyway?

Posted By Rodney Dallas TX : October 11, 2007 1:54 pm

and this person is correct,above in his statement

OBAMA ISLAM/John Edwards are as crooked as the bush white house,liar's politician..and Senior Rep. Sen Durbin of Illinois his mentor voted for it,obama just wants to cry and whine,i dont trust him at all dirty politics gets ya in trouble.

Hilary Clinton now says as president she will negotiate with Iran WITH NO CONDITIONS! Didn't she call Obama "naive" when he said he would do the same thing? Looks like the real Hillary is starting to show herself.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20071011/clinton-iran/

Providence in Rhode Island:

Before you criticize Barack Obama on his position, perhaps you should research your own candidates views to make sure that they are not the same as his. I am attaching the following article for you, so that you can become aware of your own candidates views on so-called "partial birth abortion":

National Right to Life applauds
U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act

WASHINGTON (April 18, 2007) — The U.S. Supreme Court today rejected a legal challenge to the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, allowing the law to go into effect for the first time since it was signed by President George W. Bush in 2003.

"Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and their allies blocked this law for 12 years — but finally, it is illegal in America to mostly deliver a premature infant before puncturing her skull and removing her brain, which is what a partial-birth abortion is," commented Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC).

Coach Haughton:

You may not have seen my response to your "Declaration of War v. Authorization Of Use of Force" comment.

In substance, here it is again:

There is no functional difference between the two. In requesting either, the President is tacitly acknowledging that he doesn't have "authority" to attack another state without Congress' permission. Hence the use of the word, "authorization," to denote that Congress is conferring authority to attack another country where it didn't exist before. You understand what I mean by "no functional difference," right? Regardless of whether you call it a "Declaration" or "Authorization," it does the same thing: namely, it gives the president permission to attack another state. If that weren't true, Sen. Clinton's vote would not have been a vote to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq, and isn't that one of the biggest reasons that you're angry with her?

You have asserted that once a state is declared "terrorist," the president will not need to seek Congress' permission to attack that country. You know who doesn't agree with you? The president. Saddham Hussein's Iraq had, I believe, been declared a state sponsor of terrorism prior to 9/11. President Bush asserted that Hussein was harboring at least one terrorist, which Bush had explicitly equated with Hussein committing terrorist acts or being a terrorist himself. President Bush and others in his administration even asserted an actual connection between Al Qaeda and Saddham Hussein. President Bush's popularity was at stratospheric heights. And STILL he came to Congress and asked permission to attack Iraq.

Like Iraq, Iran has already been declared a state sponsor of terror. It has been training, supporting, and harboring Hezbollah for years. So, if you believe that the president is morally justified in attacking terrorist countries because they are terrorist or you believe that President Bush believes this, then, by your "logic," either he is ALREADY justified in attacking Iran or he ALREADY believes himself justified in attacking Iran. In either case Kyl-Lieberman will have no effect.

Nor will the President have any luck "selling the war" to the American people simply because Congress has requested that the Quds Force be labeled a terrorist entity. First of all, the President's unpopularity, which you note, will hinder his ability to foist a war on Americans because the public generally finds an unpopular person unpersuasive. Second, unlike you, most Americans probably ALREADY know that Iran has been designated a state sponsor of terrorism and yet 92% of us are AGAINST a war with Iran. Calling the Quds Force terrorist is unlikely to change the minds of 92% of the American people.

I am not angry with you and certainly NOT because I cannot answer your claims. I am incredulous that you don't seem to know and/or understand the facts and logic behind your own passionately held beliefs.

I'm a DEM, but silly little inexperienced Barry Obama is at it again…Clinton voted to justify what every American already believes–she did not vote to go to war with IraN. Give it up, Barry.

He didn't vote "no". He could have voted "no". He always skips the hard votes. But he wants to be our commander-in-chief.

He's an opportunistic wuss, pure and simple. And I've lost any respect I had for this guy.

The arrogance of him, now stepping forward to criticize someone who at least had the courage to take a stand is astounding and insulting. How dare this guy? This guy really doesn't think we're as bright as he and he can feed any stupid sh%t to us he wants and get away with it.

Obama, go away, please!

Posted comment on the New Hampshire Union Leader website:

"The reason Obama did not vote is not because he didn't show up. He did show up for the scheduled vote. Harry Reid canceled it. When he rescheduled it for the next morning, Reid (whose son works for Clinton campaign) let Obama know only 1 hour in advance. Obama was in New Hampshire at the time and it was impossible to make it back to Washington. Obama did, however issue out a statement that same day on how he would have voted if he had the opportunity."
Even if you don't support Obama, any reasoned person would not have anything to criticize Obama for on this. If I were Obama I'd wonder if that was deliberate!!

I am Joshua, I am Lincoln, I am God, I am …, well, you are all wrong and I am right!

Get the facts straight he didn't ignore the vote. He was there…the vote was put on indefinate hold…knowing he already had the votes secured senator reid had the absent senators notified and voted an hour later.

This stupid spin about him somehow "escaping" or "hiding" from the vote is absurd.

The point here is…no matter what the fine points of Kyl-liberman are…Calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a "TERRORIST" oraganization would make war with Iran much easier to sell for George Bush. That's why the vote was irresponsible.
The Idea behind the bill is good to protect our troops but we need to understand what George Bush has proven that he will do.

And this notion of putting a prohibition of going to war with Iran without congressional approval is absurd and hillary knows it.

1)60 votes for THAT yea right.

2)George bush would have the veto pen ready.

3)Read what the constitution says about authority over the armed forces.
That would get shot down in a heartbeat.

So in the end…another bad vote. And another attempt at decieving the american people.

Congress banning the PRESIDENT…from attacking a country!

LMAO what America does she live in?

Oh yea Hillaryland!

Bring on the hate.

"really want to know why hillary voted for that resolution?its not a matter of flawed judgment but a matter of corruption.hillary gets the most money from the jewish lobbying group aipac. dont wonder why she votes for all resolutions favoring israel. it is not a US agenda to block iran but an israeli one.lieberman who is jewish is the co-sponsor of the resolution. the US needs someone working for the american people and not the aipac lobby group."

Posted By david,montreal, canada : October 11, 2007 3:59 pm

David in Montreal:

Glad to see someone speak the truth. This is why I cannot vote for Hillary. She is in the pocket of the Israeli government..a government that uses us to do their dirty work land grabs and to veto UN resolutions against their violations of human rights and int'l law. This is why we are hated…we should be ashamed.

We need a leader that will look after OUR interests and not harm us by supporting rogue states clothed in "democracy" such as Israel.

If the people of this country studied the history of the middle east conflict (not just the jewish version), they would understand the huge amount of damage done to us as a nation by our blind support of Israel.

Hillary is in the pocket of AIPAC and will not get my vote. AIPAC could care less about America….we are a stupid people sometimes…so sad and scary.

Nobody authorized anybody to go to war. The bill called a terrorist group a terrorist group (a spade is a spade after all). This allows the US to impose sanctions and will give us leverage when they abduct our troops in the disputed waters as they did with the Brits a few months ago. It is a good thing for the country. Hillary is wise to also seek explicit authorization from the President to go to war with Iran, lest he misinterpret it.

Regardless of the real issues, Hillary is undoubtedly looking ahead to the general election where her vote will help her. Assuming her nomination is inevitable, appearing strong on national security – not to mention being criticized by MoveOn.org – could help her take lots of votes away from any of the likely republican challengers. I don’t think anybody is realistically worried that Hillary Clinton is another W warmonger.

Barack Obama never looks good criticizing the other candidates. The reason he was popular early on is because nobody had any negative associations for him yet (sort of like Fred Thompson for republicans) because nobody knew him except for his speech at the ‘04 convention. The problem is that now we see him lashing out, and he doesn’t make us feel warm and fuzzy any more. He is also in no position to criticize Hillary’s vote, having missed the vote altogether himself. If I lived in Illinois, I would write him a letter asking him to find a way to campaign without missing important votes, or to resign from either the Senate or the race.

You are a nice guy, and might be a good vp, but your comments about a lady who has a hell of a lot more brainpower than you pint only to your inexperienced junvenile responses.
Thank God you weren't interested in running sooner, when you had total inexperience. Don't you agree?

Thank you for your honest comments. Specially thanks to Pa and Laurinda from NY. Obama has no any political view, that's why he sticks to Hillary's war vote. Obama has no right to mention about vote which he wasn't eligable in 2002. He has no idea about vote so didn't show up(excuse is not acceptable) because he is clueless. He couldn't answer about Social Security and Health Care at AARP Debate, so he skipped debate. I don't respect him at all, he is playing dirty games, said black people will vote him, attacks Hillary. Obama is not charming, not handsome, his eyes are cruel to me. Obama is naive, inexperienced and immatured in Politics. I feel sorry for Oprah, she picked up wrong one, wasted money. Obama is not even qualified for VP too. I want Hillary close her eyes to Obama.

The only country that wants Iran attacked is Israel. Obama seems to be the only candidate whom has not fully sold himself to AIPAC, Yet. Hillary might as well be running for Presidency of Israel. She'll say, and do anytihng to get Jewish votes.

Folks,

Wake up! Read the papers conservative or liberal or listen to CNN or Fox and they all report the same thing. Believe what you want but American Military members are coming home in body bags, while others are being mangled and wounded by Iranian made and supplied weapons to Iraq! Be mad at the adminstration all you want, but it still doesn't change the fact that Americans and innocent Iraqis are being hurt and killed by Iran as it continues to fight a proxy war against the United States by arming insurgents/terrorists in Iraq, while they sit behind their secure border.

You are so right Coach! I agree with most everything you say. To Providence, PLEASE I also would love to see a woman President. What a wonderful thing it would be to tell my granduaghter! But, NOT this wonman…NEVER this woman. Shrillary is a lying, cheating sell out.
Anyone by HRC 08

Fellow bloggers please get your facts straight, senator reid's son works for the hillary campaign, and he senator reid knew fully well that, telling obama about the vote an hour before it is voted wont give obama enough time to get back to washington, he knew obama had to go to "N.H AND THE DAY BEFORE HE SAID THE VOTE WAS POSTPONED INDEFINITELY" the clintons have senator reid in their pocket and all we see here is political meandering, this sends a clear message to me, that with hillary it will only be more of the same crap, and that the hillary camp will go to any lenght to try to make obama seem like he only cares about campaigning and not senate issues,Americans listen once more, we were warned not to vote bush back into power, but most Americans still did, if hillary is president America will be worse off, because with hillary all i see is the same old political gamesmanship that has helped divide and send this country, economically and politically on a downward spiral, God save America!!! Obama 08!!!

For all of you who insist on (FALSELY) stating that Obama does not articulate policy….

Obama tax plan: $80 billion in cuts, five-minute filings
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Sen. Barack Obama on Tuesday proposed overhauling the tax code to lower taxes for the poor and middle class, increase them for the rich and make it so most Americans can file their taxes in five minutes.
The tax relief plan he envisions for the middle class alone would mean $80 billion or more in tax cuts, he said.
Obama, an Illinois Democrat who is a front-runner for his party's 2008 presidential nomination, said during a speech at the Tax Policy Center that the present tax code reflects the wrong priorities because it rewards wealth instead of work.

> http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/18/obama.taxplan/index.html#cnnSTCText

GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ENDS AND EDUCATE YOURSELVES!!!!! STOP RELYING ON THE MEDIA TO SPOON FEED YOU! (although you could have EASILY found this in the media)

It's very sad that Mr. Obama seems to not understand that Senator Clinton is a democrat and that trying to draw lines in the party will only help the Republican nominee, not himself. Maybe someone should clue him in….

Yeah Barack, and you didn't even care enough to show up to vote.

You're not much different from Hillary, and you're both not much different from Bush.

KUCINICH: ~Strength through Peace~

It is my understanding that Senator Obama did not vote for or against this resolution.

If the gentleman is so sure this was a blank check for the President to invade Iran, why didn't he make his stand and vote against it?

What complete nonsense. I cannot believe that Senator Obama believes the crap he just laid on us, and more, I cannot believe that he expects us to believe it. Once again his youth and inexperience are glaringly apparent.

In spite of this Obama-blog, I wouldn't consider voting for him at all.

Dan in TX.:

"Calling part of the Iranian military a terrorist organization, when we are in a war on terror is significant. We should be able to strike terrorists whereever they are. If Iran is harboring terrorists, we should attack."

Saddham Hussein was, I believe, labeled a "state sponsor of terrorism." President Bush accused him of harboring and training terrorists, as well as having links to Al Qaeda itself. AND YET, he had to go to Congress and get an authorization to use force against Iraq. And that was when his popularity was sky-high.

In addition, in case you didn't know: Iran is ALREADY labeled a state sponsor of terrorists. They've "harbored" Hezbollah for years. So, by your logic, President Bush is ALREADY entitled to strike Iran as a place where "terrorists are."

Sen. Clinton has previously warned President Bush that he does not have authority to attack Iraq. In February, I believe. She's co-sponsored a resolution to that effect.

Whenever anybody tries to explain why Kyl-Lieberman is a "blank check," they always have to fall back on vague, lame claims of "moral authority," that completely ignores the language in Kyl-Lieberman, the legal basis for authority to wage war, as well as relevant recent history. The reason it's so difficult to explain why Kyl-Lieberman is a "blank check" is because it isn't.

Mr. Obama,

Your assertion is at best a severe misrepresentation of the facts and at worst a lie. Unfortunately for you, most will simply view it as the latter; a lie to help your collapsing campaign. What was left of your dwindling credibility has just evaporated. I urge all voters to investigate this matter for themselves and not take your desperate ranting as the truth.

Do your homework people.. Obama did not vote on the resolution because it was taken off of the schedule indefinitely the day before the vote. So Obama went to New Hampshire and that morning, Harry Reid (who coincidentally has ties to Hillary)brought the resolution back to vote that day. Obama did not have a chance to get back in time.. People, display the facts and don't just say he did not vote because he did not want to or whatever else the Hillary Kool-Aid tells you to say and think… This was the spin the Clintonites were hoping for.. They can say well at least she voted for something, which ignores the fact of what she did vote for and ignores the circumstances surrounding why Obama could not vote..
Vote for Change America and see that Hillary is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Oh for God's sake, give this a break already. Clinton voted on the same bogus information we were ALL fed by that war-monger-idiot Bush.
Obama, give it up, you've already lost, stop wasting your time, the media's time and the country's time…go back home and claim you lost because of discrimination.

Obama is trying to give this country a history lesson to avoid this country from sending our young men and women into unnecessary wars. This current administration has ignored the American peoples request to end the war and are looking forward to starting other wars without the help of Hillary.

I don't know why my last post was deleted but I guess I will try again. Not being present for a vote does not inspire thoughts of leadership in my mind, it inspires cowardice. Intentionally not being present for a vote that may appear as divisive is a reprehensible thing for Barack Obama to have done. What I find even more pathetic is the fact that he had the NERVE to criticize Senator Clinton for voting for the resoluting saying she had flawed judgement.

I wish all of Obama's supporters would realize that he is not qualified to be President. The only thing that he tries to use as his qualification for him to be President is the fact that he didn't vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq. What he doesn't say is that during that time period he was a State Senator in Illinois and could not have voted one way or the other on that particular issue. As I read some of these postings some people actually don't know that Barack was not in the Senate at the time of the war authorization. He does an excellent job of blurring this fact.

This latest vote should prove to Obama supporters that he can't stand up to the heat of this political arena. It takes real leadership to make decisions and stand by them no matter if they are popular or not. This is why I applaud Senator Clinton. The Iraq vote has been a drag on her campaign but she has not fallen to public pressure and apologized for it or call it a mistake. This is the kind of leadership we need. Not someone who ducks and hides when the call to duty arises.

Hillary 2008

Barack Obama is saying his campaign will be moving into a new phase. It isn't quite new to be reiterating that Clinton supported the 2002 resolution in a louder voice. When will Obama challenge Clinton where it hurts?

http://wecouldbefamous.blogspot.com/2007/10/obama-ready-for-next-phase.html

Frankly, WHO REALLY CARES what this guy has to say about Senator Clinton. We all know he doesn't stand a chance on getting elected. If we just continue to stay focused looking toward the future then we will vote the right way, for the Honorable Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

Would you rather vote for someone who was -misled- by Republicans, as Hillary claims, or someone who can see past the Republican charades and make the correct decision.

Everyone needs to remember what Barack Obama said in a speech on Oct 26, *2002*:
"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars."

Would you rather have someone who went along with the Republicans, or someone who got it ONE HUNDRED PERCENT correct?

Would you rather vote for someone who was -misled- by Republicans, as Hillary claims, or someone who can see past the Republican charades and make the correct decision.

Everyone needs to remember what Barack Obama said in a speech on Oct 26, 2006:
"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars."

Would you rather have someone who went along with the Republicans, or someone who got it ONE HUNDRED PERCENT correct?

This guy is always working against U.S interest in the Islamic world. Check this out.
First, he said that he will attack Pakistan which is the only U.S. ally in the Islamic world fighting terrorism.
Second, he stopped wearing the U.S. flag lapel pin.
Now he is criticizing Hillary for voting to call Iran's revolutionary guard a terrorist group. What is wrong with this guy? He is always protecting U.S. enemies or he is afraid of them and doing things that make them happy. What is wrong with him?

I am asking the same question with Ken, NYC, NY. Does he have to keep all the left over campaign money after he looses the election? I hope not.

Dear Obama supporters;
I am a die-heart Hillary supporter. I did my research to support her; you treat Hillary supporters are as dumb. I admire Bill Clinton but i am not supporting Hillary because she is his wife.

Whoever thinks that Hillary supporters are supporting Hillary due to Bill factor is insane. Mr/Mrs you do research about Hillary's policy on different issue. She is the most experience, intelligent and knowledgeable presidential candidate we have.
I hope this helps the person who is curious about Hillary supporters!
Hillaryto win, president, '08!

It's funny you say Obama missed the vote. Every other candidate made it. Obama was elected to be a Senator from Illinois. He should be doing his job in Washington first and running for president second. He has obligations that he clearly isn't taking care of. What makes you think he's gonna do a good job as president? He can't even do it current job!

Ha! My comment got removed because I said that those of you who think George Bush wants to go to IRAN are idiots and not well read. The United Nations is more behind going after Iran than G.W. Bush. Quit blaming him for everything.

I support Hillary's judgment any time and any day than Obama's. Obama harldy has any policy. He is the one of most flaw candidast so far we have. Barack is not Brad pitt and George colony so people has to vote for his look and suite. Mr bring your policy how you are going to run country.
Americans do you forget that these Revolutionary Guard captured American diplomats and killed some of them in '70s. Obama work on senate, go to vote and feel guilty just taking people tax money dude. Not voting doesn't make you perfect; it makes you clueless politician and thats what you are.
FORHilalry, '08

Yes, there was no way Obama could have gotten there in time to vote on the amendment, since Reid had said that it was tabled "indefinitely" the day before when he was there. Hillary supporters think that the fact that Obama wasn't there that day gives her a pass for her vote. It doesn't. It wasn't Obama's fault he couldn't be there to vote. It was entirely Hillary's decision to cast that vote.

Mr Obama you ignore senate vote and you don't vote most of the time that doesn't make you perfect sir.
Hillary's vote is not a flaw that is strength in her side. She knows she is doing.
FYI, it is not a bill to invade Iran; don't think that voters are stupid. we do research about each candidate; you have enough dirt in your plate in your short time of political life.
Hillaryforpresident,'08.

I wish someone would tell Edwards and Obama to stop distorting the truth on this.

- It's not an Authorization to go to war with Iran.
- Webb and Clinton have a Resolution (s. 759) already in the system that states the Bush can't use "any" funds to go to War against Iran without a vote authorizing it from Congress.

So how can this be authorizing it in a resolution thyat denounces the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps
While at the same time, you have a resolution saying "No War in IRAN!" to Bush in another?

Seems Obama and Edwards are not telling us the truth.

Telling it like I see it,
Wynter

Obama by avoiding to cast the vote thought he can have bothways. Very smart tactics! For the primaries, he can argue that the 'yes' vote is a blank check to Bush and I did not vote, but Hillary did. That will clear him on democratic mind that he is against attacking a country, but not for Hillary. If he wins the primary, he can get support from democrats for sure, but to republicans he can argue that his 'absent' vote is really not 'firm' vote, as Hillary's. But, Hillary can argue that her 'yes' vote is not a blank check to Bush. But at the same time she is tough and determined to attack Iran if the situation arises. Its mind bogling how these politicians play the tricks. Obama is certainly wrong in this and will loose his chances as VP if Hillary wins primaries.

A war with Iran is unavoidable, Mr Obama–with or without your vote.

"Is there a single Hillary supporter out there who believes invading Iraq was a good idea?
No?"

Is there anyone out there who doubts that Cheney, specifically, lied his ass off about WMDs and especially nuclear weapons? Does anyone out there ever blame BUSH for what HE did?

Pull your head out. Nearly EVERYONE was misled, including approximately 90% of Americans in 2001.

hillary got paid to vote for this resolution, u want to know by whom?guess who gets the most money fron the jewish lobbying group aipac?hillary gets by far the most money.who cosponsored the resolution?lieberman(jewish).who benefits the most form the resolution?israel does and not the US.america needs someone who will work for them and not be a lobbying group surrogate

really want to know why hillary voted for that resolution?its not a matter of flawed judgment but a matter of corruption.hillary gets the most money from the jewish lobbying group aipac. dont wonder why she votes for all resolutions favoring israel. it is not a US agenda to block iran but an israeli one.lieberman who is jewish is the co-sponsor of the resolution. the US needs someone working for the american people and not the aipac lobby group.

What was Obama's vote on this? Absent!

Oh someone said his campaign schedules were pre-planned earlier so he could not make an emergency stop for the vote.

Is our country more important or Obama's campaign schedule?

Someone said on C SPAN it showed the voting was on hold for 24 hrs and Obama had left by then. I thought Obama has great judgement and this Iran discussion was crucial for America but Obama still had to sneak out before voting?

Again someone said Do not forget that the margin for this bill passing was a wide one, so it would of not mattered if Obama voted. Well that means majority of Democratic Senators voted along with Hillary in the same way as she did. But why not influence and change all senators mind as a President on the Senate floor? If Obama can not rally his fellow senators then what charisma he has?

Hypocrisy, double standards, superflous speeches dont go long way when reality and substance hits the country!

If you watched Cspan you would see how things played out with that ammendment. Reid did pull the ammendment off the floor the day Obama was present saying that it was on idenfinate hold. 24 hours later Reid put the ammend on the floor for the vote, he clearly told staff to inform senators who were not present. An hour later the vote happen. Obama was already gone after the senate session the day before. Obama released his position as soon as he was informed on that a vote would happen. So, the Obama bashers get your facts straight. It makes no sense for Obama to not vote against the ammendment.

Those of you who are complaining that Obama didn't vote need to realize something. When you schedule appointments on a campaign trail, you do so well in advance. These are scheduled well before the agenda of any one senate meeting is planned. At that point, the candidate has to decide whether it's worth cancelling his scheduled appearance for the vote.

The person who said he voted for partial birth abortion. You need to get your facts straight. He didn't vote for partial birth abortion, he voted against a ban on partial birth abortion. Was there a reason for this? Of course there was!!! He didn't vote for the ban because there was no clause stating an exception to protect the health of the mother.

It is a shame that Obama criticized Clinton for vote on Iranian’s revolution guards. Where was he? HE PURPOSELY ESCAPED THE VOTE (SAME AS THE VOTE TO CONDEM THE AD BY MOVEON.ORG TO CRITICISE GENERAL PATRIAS). No matter how one voted, he/she will be criticized by others. If one voted yes, he/she will be criticized by some as helping Bush; if voted "No", will be criticized by some as helping terrorists.

So, Obama escaped the vote, which is what he was elected to do, so he can watched the wind and say whatever he wanted to say depend which direction the wind blows. What a dirty politician. Who gave him right to criticize anyone while he is a biggest coward? He should not be elected to the Senate in the first place, let alone to run for president!

And what exactly was your vote Mr. Obama? Oh that's right you weren't there to vote. What was more important than doing your job? Oh that's right campaigning. So we only have your word on what your vote supposedly was going to be.

Dear Obama Fans: I respectfully dissent with you. Obama is inexperienced,and does not have the Presidential materials in him. He is too liberal, unlike Hillary. When Obama was a IL State Senator, he voted for partial birth abortion (Crushing the skull of full, grown baby; murder). Hillary is a centrist, unlike Obama. Bush banned it, and he did the right thing. I have a great respect and love for Obama, but I do NOT believe with conviction that Obama can be competative in moderate states, like Minnesota, Ohio in the general election. Please visit http://www.hillaryclinton.com, and help her to make a history by electing first female President in American history, and end the cycle of sexism and patriarchy.

Posted By Providence, RI : October 11, 2007 12:58 pm

Partial birth abortion is a non-medical term coined by the extreme right. The procedure you refer to is an Intact dilation and extraction. This procedure is sometimes a medical necessity for the life of the mother.

Leave the baby killer scare talk to the republicans because most democrats including hillary are pro-choice. If you want to end the cycle of sexism you should applaud Barack for voting agaist putting laws on a woman's body.

Calling hillary a moderate is a bit laughable when she is the person you see on TV bashing republicans constantly. Blaming the opposite side is the divisive game of political ping pong that Independants in moderate states don't like.

Implying that voting against hillary is sexist is the same as implying that voting against jesse jackson or al sharpton is racist. C'mon man.

I like Clinton. I believe she would make a decent president. But making Clinton the Democratic nominee was be a catastrophe. Her polarizing effect will cause the Democrats to lose both the Senate and the HOR. No bills will be passed. The Iraq war will continue, forget about universal health insurance, not to mention any education or economic legislation. That's why I'll be voting for either Obama or Edwards. This country needs to unite and stop fighting internally if we are to ever make any progress and be respected by the rest of the world.

Obama is great at criticizing everything said and done by others.
Yet has has not taken one diffinitive stand on any issue, and what he would do about it.
He is the cheapest candidate in the race. He only reads the headlines, not the article

W, Worcester, MA

Yes, there is a Hillary Supporter who supported the attack on Iraq. ME! The President LIED to everyone. She gave permission right along with the majority of the other politicians because they had "knowledge" from the president. She has said many times since that she regrets that vote because they were all mislead. I supported Hillary then and I support her now with her vote on calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Listen very closely, this bill DID NOT give Bush the authority to invade Iran as so many people think. Where did this idea come from anyway?

Why does CNN always promote Obama? Everbody knows Obama chicked out the vote for being afraid of the consequence of the vote. Why did CNN interview someone who does not even have the courage to vote to give opinion about someone else who does have the courage and does fullfil her Senator's responsibility, in contrast to Obama who escape the vote!!

Yes, many of you pointed out that Obama has no right to criticize Hillary. He keeps reminding us his "judgement on Irak" like Giuliani using 9/11 to manipulate voters.

If the vote on the Iranian Rev Guard was so important, and Obama also had this premonition about 'not giving Bush a blank check', it means that going to the Senate to vote was supposed to be more important than campaigning. Why didn't he reschedule his trips and go there? I admire Hillary, at least she doesn't hide when she has to make decisions.

There is no question as to who has the best judgement and leadership foresight between Clinton and Obama. This vote by Clinton should clear the doubts of those who still think that Clinton would make a better president. Obama for 08!

To the person who said that the Shiites in Iraq are causing the trouble, the majority of terrorists in Iraq are Sunni, not Shia. This is evident from the fact that the Sunni's have a strict construction of the Koran while the Shiites have a looser construction.

I have a question, if Mr.Obama lose the primary,does he keep all those left-over campaign contribution ?

I don't understand, does he not have any idea of the system he works for?

In order to "go to war" with Iran, the white house would have to get some sort of approval from congress, it's by no means giving the president a blank check.

I am sick of hearing congress whine about this rampant presidency. They have the power to constiutionally check the white house they just haven't used it.

It is a shame that Obama criticized Clinton for vote on Iranian’s revolution guards. Where was he? HE PURPOSELY ESCAPED THE VOTE (SAME AS THE VOTE TO CONDEM THE AD BY MOVEON.ORG TO CRITICISE GENERAL PATRIAUS). No matter how one voted, he/she will be criticized by others. If one voted yes, he/she will be criticized by some as helping Bush; if voted "No", will be criticized by some as helping terrorists. So what Obama did? He escaped the vote, which is what he was elected to do, so he can watched the wind and say whatever he wanted to say depend which direction the wind blows. What a dirty politician. Who gave him right to criticize anyone while he is a biggest coward? He should not be elected to the Senate in the first place, let alone to run for president!

Am not sure which is worse for Clinton – that she authorized Bush to go war in Iraq on the one hand – or that she did not believe her vote was an authorization to go to war? I think believing that she did not authorize Bush to go to war in Iraq, and she does not realize that she just authorized Iran invasion is more than poor judgment, bordering more on gullibility.

The interesting point I find in all this is that he claims it "speaks to his judgement". It does because he didn't vote on it! Each candidate knows when the votes are going to be called by the Majority Whip of the Senate. At least Edwards had the right to comment because he did vote against it. Obama has no such right.

Again, the resolution does NOT give Bush any authority, moral or legal, to act against Iran in any way other than more sanctions. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps are a mercenary organization that isn't under the control of the Iranian government. It's sole purpose is to support the islamic revolution that started in 1979 in Iran. And continues to work extraterritorily to push this same agenda. It has been known to support palestinian organizations such as Hamas and currently is beleived to be behind some of the more technically sophisticated IEDs that are blowing up troops in Iraq. Calling them what they are isn't authorizing a war. It's simply labeling them a threat.

Someone earlier claimed that the congressmen that voted "for" the war with Iraq were "gullible" to go along with the authorization. I have to say that is a pretty easy thing at this date. But when the War Powers Resolution was used to authorize the war in Iraq was brought to the floor, it wasn't that easy of a decision to make. We had been given at the time solid proof of Iraq's WMD program in the form of the attempt to buy Yellow Cake from Niger, which later proved to be wrong. We were told by the CIA that by their assessment Iraq could mount a nuclear or chemical attack on another country in the middle east, maybe even as far as Israel. Were these facts true? No. But Congress was only given false intelligence to judge whether to go to war or not. I do not blame them. I do blame Bush and his administration for pushing the authorization and drumming up the facts to make it possible to go to war.

Clinton did her duty as a U.S. Senator, and she did so again when the Resolution against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps came up. But Edwards and Obama are playing politics with the reality of the situation. We need decision makers in Washington, not more political grandstanding and namecalling.

I do not agree with any course that takes us to war with Iran, but I also don't think we should back away when they send mercenaries to kill our men and women in Iraq.

Telling it like I see it,
Wynter

"It's impossible to know when votes in the Senate are schedule." What Senate is Obama working for? All of the other presidential candidates seem to make it back to DC in time to vote, what do they know that Obama doesnt? It's funny how he just happens to be unaware of a vote that is controversial, and it's more interesting that He waited to see primary voters' reaction to Hillary's vote before he spoke publicly about it. Obama is a follower, and he could never win the general election.

Obama is talking crap. If he thinks the resolution is wrong, why didn't he vote against it?

Obama has taken a stand against the Iraq war and this recent resolution by not taking a vote. Wow! What a leader!

Dear Obama Fans: I respectfully dissent with you. Obama is inexperienced,and does not have the Presidential materials in him. He is too liberal, unlike Hillary. When Obama was a IL State Senator, he voted for partial birth abortion (Crushing the skull of full, grown baby; murder). Hillary is a centrist, unlike Obama. Bush banned it, and he did the right thing. I have a great respect and love for Obama, but I do NOT believe with conviction that Obama can be competative in moderate states, like Minnesota, Ohio in the general election. Please visit http://www.hillaryclinton.com, and help her to make a history by electing first female President in American history, and end the cycle of sexism and patriarchy.

Posted By Providence, RI : October 11, 2007 12:58 pm

Is there a single Hillary supporter out there who believes invading Iraq was a good idea?
No?
Good, then vote for someone with real judgment. Stop making excuses for Hillary because you all like Bill.
Obama is the best choice, with the best judgment. Obama '08

If Obama ran – he might have a good shot of winning the whole thing. If he runs with Hillary…its like mixing ice cream with vomit….first bite you will know theres something wrong….as will the American people….Hillary is unelectable (well…except in NY and in MA)

he didnt vote so he wouldnt have to face critisism on the camp trial…loser…now he is attacking Clinton – it just goes to show he is playing the "old" politics he runs against…He needs to step up his game and put his words into action..SORRY OBAMA…..ID RATHER VOTE FOR YOUR MAMA!

The original Lieberman amendment DID allow Bush to declare war on Iran, but thanks to a lot of dedicated emailers and others, that amendment was significantly changed, and THAT's what Congress approved. If you want to be angry, direct it at Bush and Cheney, who have in place an executive order allowing them to declare martial law in the event of a "national emergency" (anyone see 9-11 2 coming?) and then suspend elections! These power-hungry maniacs must be stopped before they destroy the world as we know it. They have already totally trashed the Constitution in the name of "keeping Americans safe." Sorry, but right now, I feel more terror coming from the WH than from abroad.

Jayson, Beale AFB, CA:

Obama is a member of the Senate, not the House of Representatives.

Furthermore, why is a country trying to defend its actions from 90+ years ago. Most Historians readily agree that Turkey was wrong for the genocide. Its takes a big man to admit when you are wrong, and it is time for Turkey to be a big man.

Though I am a Clinton supporter I do think Obama is correct in his criticism of Hillary on this vote. Knowing what she know now about the mental judgement of the pathological moronic President Bush, she was wrong to give him any leverage toward conflict with Iran.
This vote could prove to be Hillary's sword of damocles.

Obama's flawed judgment rhetoric holds no water on resolutions for which he conveniently stayed away from the Senate and did not vote on. His' convenient absence when such issues are being voted on shows his lack of leadership, courage and judgment. At least Hillary had the courage to register a vote on the resolution.

TO ALL OBAMA SUPPORTERS: Isnt this the same exact line that EDWARDS brought up in the last debate and has been saying for the past 2 weeks!! If Obama was so much against this resolution (I oppose it as well) HE SOULD HAVE HAD THE BALLS TO VOTE AGAINST IT..instead he didnt SHOW UP FOR THE VOTE..WHAT A HYPOCRITE!!!

Their are some shennigans going on in Congress. Obama was at the Senate the day before the Iranian vote. At that session, Reid tabled the Iranian ammendment vote "indefinately". Then the next day, while Obama was enroute to NH, Reid called the ammendment to the floor for a vote. Only giving Obama a hour notice. By the way, Reid's son works for Clinton.

@ PAT

Maybe apples and oranges, but its still all fruit.

And just in case you didn't realize what you said…

"doesn't mean she handed Bush the same authority to rage war in Iran as she did with respect to Iraq."

SHE DID GIVE BUSH THE AUTHORITY TO RAGE WAR IN IRAQ? INTERESTING.

What absolute nonsense. Even with Saddham Hussein, the President clearly asked for authority to attack Iraq and clearly received it, albeit after misleading Congress and the American people. He didn't use flimsy excuses to justify his authority to attack Iraq: he used flimsy evidence to obtain the authorization from Congress.
As for Kyl-Lieberman, it doesn't contain ANYTHING LIKE permission to attack Iran in Iran much less a "blank check" to do so. Nor could it: a declaration of war or authorization to use force or anything of that kind requires an affirmative vote on a binding resolution by BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS.
Should President Bush attempt to use Kyl-Lieberman to go to war against Iran, the least that will happen is that all the Republicans in danger of losing in the '08 cycle will finally desert him. Worst case: he will be impeached.
Let's turn to the Kyl-Lieberman vote: I didn't hear Sen. Obama speak out against the second Kyl-Lieberman Resolution. And as for "flimsy excuses," his own reasons for ducking the Kyl-Lieberman vote will not bear scrutiny. Every other senator knew that there was a vote scheduled and ALL THE OTHER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES MANAGED TO BE THERE.
Is telling many lies when you're behind part of the "politics of hope"? Because that would explain a lot.

Posted By laurinda.ny : October 11, 2007 11:00 am

Hi Laurinda, nice to hear from you, I hope you are well:

Check out all these tidbits, other countries, other Democrats and your beloved Hillary as well, on record, saying the same thing Bush did, (pay particular atention to Mr Chirac and William Cohen (Bill's defense secretary):

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983″ — National Security Adviser Sandy Berger.

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." — Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." — Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001… He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." — Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." — Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." — Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

I commend Obama for voting against the war in Iraq, I wish more of our representatives would have also. But to not even vote on this issue and criticize someone else that did? He is beginning to sound like a traffic cop on valium thinking that just saying stop will work. Sometimes just saying stop doesn't work and it absolutely will not work with Iran. I want peace just as much as the next person but this guy seems as soft as milk toast.

Easy there Mr. Vice-president. Don't want to mess-up a good thing. Just play your cards right and you'll get your turn.

Tres from Iowa said "We know you were against the war from the beginning, I get it! But when is he going to begin to be a canidate who articulates policies and not just hope for change"

It's important to note that Barack is articulating Hillary's misjudgment on Iran here. Her misjudgment on Iraq is simply a parallel mistake from which she didn't learn anything. People say the Republicans "misled" everybody, but they didn't. The vote in 2002 was for diplomacy first, and then whatever is necessary next. They tried diplomacy for 5 months. They then moved to war, exactly as the Iraq bill Hillary voted for stated. Now, Hillary is claiming diplomacy again, but the bill clearly states that the troop levels in Iraq are dependent on Iran.

Maybe CNN will start covering some of his actual policy ideas. He outlined the -most- comprehensive and fleshed out energy plan to date, of any candidate, the other day and CNN only gave it a three paragraph blip.

I agree with you, speedracer.

I support Obama over Hillary any day. She'll say anything and do anything as long as it is politically expedient.

If people have liked where this country has been going over the past 25 years, Hillary is their woman for more of the same.

If Mr. Obama wants to talk about flawed judgement he can talk about the current push to condemn the Turkish for a genocide that happened 90+ years ago. The passage of such a bill would be comparable to the logic that makes a child think it is a good idea to throw a rock at a hornets nest that has been knocked to the ground.

The Turkish are on the brink of attacking the Kurds in Northern Iraq due to Kurdish attacks in Turkey. We have asked them to show restraint and yet now the Democrats would turn around and stir the hornets nest up further. Democrats may think they have such a better way of handling foreign policy but they are showing themselves to be much more incompetent then the Republicans.

So what does Mr. Obama do exactly. He couldnt vote for or against the Iraq war, he choose not to vote on this does he have an opinion or does he just not vote and then reflect what the bloggers think about the resolutions. If you dont vote, dont complain. Even though I think it is a waste of time voting on resolutions that provide terms for people, they're killing our soldiers we should go after them. I know, Im a war monger, sorry for having an opinion.

I think he's right. Calling part of the Iranian military a terrorist organization, when we are in a war on terror is significant. We should be able to strike terrorists whereever they are. If Iran is harboring terrorists, we should attack.

Clinton has told Bush that part the Iranian military is a terrorist organization. Bush is well within his rights to use military force in Iran – thanks to that vote.

This is where things stand.
- One month ago Mr Obama shocked the nation by declarig that as President he would not ask the government of Pakistan permission to take the war on terror into Pakistan without Pakistan's consent.
What's wrong with that plan was reviewed on this blog then.
- Now, for one week, Ms Rodham Clinton has been declaring that Iran is becoming a bigger problem. She has followed that up by voting in the Senate in favor of a resolution that might lead to some kind of war against Iran on the grounds that it harbours terrorists.
Ms Rodham Clinton is being realistic and was there to vote.
- Mr Obama went on hiding in New Hamsphire to avoid the vote.
- Sir you cannot have both ways.

I love the idea of Barack Obama, and I plan to vote for him in the Iowa primary, but he needs to stop beating this dead horse. We know you were against the war from the beginning, I get it! But when is he going to begin to be a canidate who articulates policies and not just hope for change?

The great warrior Eagle has been given the authority to attack the desert's facilities just before the next dawn. Another Eagle will then raise to help form a new desert kingdom for/by the desert's people. This is already the agreed upon path to the future.

Everyone had flawed judgement because the Republicans lied. That's why everyone should be careful and not believe everything someone tells you. Obama is just not going to win. No Way. It's impossible. It doesn't matter who did what. It's over and done with. Move on and end this ridiculous war that the Republicans started.

Do not forget to mention that the margin for this bill passing was a wide one, so it would of not mattered if Obama voted, but he spoke out early on opposition to it.

Obama doesn't know what he's talking about. How is it flawed judgment to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, in order to impose more sanctions against Iran, the latter being a condition precedent to effectuate the former? And sorry charlie, just because she voted for it, doesn't mean she handed Bush the same authority to rage war in Iran as she did with respect to Iraq. The resolutions are apples and oranges. This whole flawed judgment nonsense is exactly that…nonsense!

Despite the fact that Obama has served in public office longer and won more elections than Clinton, she somehow tries to work this experience quotient. Her argument is moot when with all her supposed experience she constantly demonstrates poor judgment. When Biden, the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations committee who isn't exactly a "lefty" or "liberal" on foreign policy, opposses a resolution against Iran, people like Clinton should take a moment to re-evaluate her position. If any thing, expect to hear, "If I knew then, what I know" from Clinton. From Obama, expect judgment over politics and honesty over expediency.

I'm glad he's finally starting to directly address this issue. The "politics of hope" doesn't mean you can't criticize someone for ignorant policy mistakes. The politics of hope is supposed to mean real change in Washington, being able to really get things done, to change Old-School Washington Politics to serve the American People. You can have hope for America, and still criticize people that want to drive America into the ground.

And here, he is exactly right. The bill EXPLICITLY says that troop levels in Iraq are -dependent- on Iran. If that's not a connection to extend the war to a war against Iran, I don't know what is.

I also think it's important to point out something else: In 2002, Hillary Clinton now claims she was voting for "diplomacy, not war in Iraq." Now, she claims she was voting for "diplomacy, not war" with Iran. And everyone remember she criticized Obama for saying he would MEET with foreign dictators like Ahmadinejad? Well now Hillary is saying she wants -diplomacy- with Iran?! Stop being sheep, American people. Start to think for yourselves! We can't let this continue. Stop letting Hillary play games!

This vote gave Bush the "Moral" authority to attack Iran if sanctions do not work…, and we all know sanctions are not going to work against the mullas.

I don't see how Obama, and others, can claim that this resolution is a blank check to take military action against Iran, because that's not what it says. The resolution identifies the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization does not explicitly authorize President Bush to use force against it within Iran. If he were to do so, he would still need to seek Congress' approval, in the form of an authorizing resolution (similar to the one passed in October 2002 for Iraq). Even if here were to use covert action against select elements of the Guard, such as the Qud's Force, in Iran, he would still be required, by law, to notify the Congressional leadership. The Revolutionary Guard, through the Qud's Force, are arming and supporting Shiite militias in Iraq, which in turn are undermining the Iraqi government's attempts to stabilize the country as well as targeting U.S. troops. That makes them a terrorist organziation, so, again, I don't see how anyone can argue otherwise. Be that as it may, it seems like the only reason Congress felt the need to do this was to score some easy political points, because it's usually the State Department that makes these designations. You can read into that however you'd like, but, again, even if Bush really does want to invade Iran and somehow use this as a justification for doing so, there's no way we'd be able to do so now or in the near future due to our troop commitments to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obama by far is the candidate with the best judgement in this race.

He predicted the problems of Iraq and spoke out against the war before it even started.

He has the same good judgement here.

Obama '08!

I usually do not agree with Obama but in this case he is 100% correct. Bush is looking to invade another country before leaving office and Hilary was one of the gullible ones who gave him authority to invade Iraq and we all know how well that has gone. You would think she would have learned to question President Bush's motives and learn from the disaster of Iraq but again she blindly gives him authority to yet again screw up.