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 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!

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.

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?

...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!!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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!!!

No wonder why we are becoming Fatter and Dumber

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.

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.

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

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).

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.

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!

"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!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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

KUCINICH: ~Strength through Peace~

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.

"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.