If Kyl Lieberman Authorizes War With Iran . . .

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 10:32:18 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Frank Rich correctly rips Hillary Clinton for voting in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment. But he fudges the facts on the performance of the other Presidential contenders. In particular, he gives Barack Obama's failure to vote on K-L a pass. Rich writes:

This time around, with the exception of Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic candidates seem to be saying what they really believe rather than trying to play both sides against the middle. Only Mrs. Clinton voted for this fall’s nonbinding Kyl-Lieberman Senate resolution, designed by its hawk authors to validate Mr. Bush’s Iran policy. The House isn’t even going to bring up this malevolent bill because, as Nancy Pelosi has said, there has “never been a declaration by a Congress before in our history” that “declared a piece of a country’s army to be a terrorist organization.”

Senator Barack Obama, despite being informed that K-L would be brought up for a vote, left Washington for a trip to New Hampshire. IF K-L is all Mr. Rich is cracking it up to be, then Barack Obama has a similar problem.

By Mr. Rich's logic, discerning Democratic voters need to look beyond Clinton and Obama for the right candidate for 2008. Personally, I agree. I think Chris Dodd is clearly the superior cadidate of this race. One assumes, if Rich REALLY believes what he wrote (as opposed to just doing a Hillary hit piece) - he has to have reached a similar disqualification of BOTH Clinton and Obama. Maybe there was not enough space for the Obama section of his piece.

Maybe Rich is unfamiliar with the fact that Obama wrote this:

There is no doubt that Iran poses a threat. It has armed terrorists beyond its borders, maintains an illicit nuclear program, and its leaders have issued belligerent threats that are a concern to us all. . . . We do need to tighten sanctions on the Iranian regime, particularly on Iran's Revolutionary Guard, which sponsors terrorism far beyond Iran's borders.

Maybe . . .

< MoDo Substance Watch | CNN: Torture As The Punchline >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

If Kyl Lieberman Authorizes War With Iran . . . | 12 comments (12 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

And Left Blogs give Obama a pass too (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 10:39:48 AM EST

Booman.

Do they NOT know what Obama has said on Iran?

Not this Time (none / 0) (#2)
by koshembos on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 11:45:38 AM EST

Frank Rich's message in Sunday's Times is that Iran will be more important than Iraq in the upcoming presidential elections. I think that he is totally wrong. First and foremost, no one known what the political situations will be in October 2008. Many things may happen and leave to the Republican to do whatever possible to hang on to the White House. Even a terrorist attack in NY is not beyond them.

One point he makes, about HRC, makes sense. Any candidate with positions rather than vision is in danger of not making it. Depending on people such as Penn is a grave danger; after all, this is a Democrat whose company provides services to strike breakers and Black Water. It cannot get much worse. And am tired of calling every average operator, e.g. Shrum and Penn, briliant.

Kyl-Liebermann (none / 0) (#3)
by RalphB on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 11:54:14 AM EST

If you read the K-L resolution which got passed, it does not authorize any military action against Iran.

Proposed sections 3 and 4, which were military, were removed before the vote was taken.

I've had lots of respect for Dodd on this issue but today on CNN he said that the diplomacy sections were removed before the vote. Well, that's a lie and he knows it. I don't know what to make of that crap.

Clinton is unelectable ? (none / 0) (#4)
by RedHead on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 12:10:44 PM EST

This is more wide-open today than I think it was a month ago.
There is great concern about electability. You don't get to govern if you don't get elected. And there is deep concern about the ability of some of the leading candidates to get elected next November. And people are paying a lot more attention to that right now than they were even a month or two ago.

Dodd, 30 minutes ago on Late Edition.

He's right about IA and NH being fluid during the final weeks.

Can Clinton hold on?

: Was he talking about himself or Clinton? (none / 0) (#5)
by oculus on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 12:38:51 PM EST

echo chamber (none / 0) (#6)
by Jgarza on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 01:19:23 PM EST

Senator Barack Obama, despite being informed that K-L would be brought up for a vote

I have never seen any evidence that this is true, but if you keep repeating it maybe you can make it true.

I have y6ou seen evidence (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 01:46:39 PM EST

that its is not true?

You do not believe Senate sources that have gone UNCONTRADICTED by Obama.

I feel confident that you would NEVER believe it despite the evidence.


He explained himself (none / 0) (#8)
by Jgarza on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 02:23:40 PM EST

It was his explanation that he didn't know, he already contradicted them. I'm just not going to buy senate sources, this could be HRCs senate staff, it could be anything. "Senate sources" sorry after the lesson Judy Miller taught us about sources, this is kinda weak. It just takes one credulous run amok reporter to stick it in the echo chamber then it becomes fact.


: Wouldn't you except Obama, in this (none / 0) (#9)
by oculus on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 02:38:59 PM EST

climate of let no allegation co unchallenged, to say something after these statements were made?

: Since then (none / 0) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 05:00:25 PM EST

He has been called on it, and not denied what has been said.
Obama was caught in a lie it looks like to me.

What about Obama? (none / 0) (#10)
by AshleyA on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 03:42:14 PM EST

Frankly, Frank Rich needs to address Barack Obama as well as Hillary Clinton. Although Clinton decided to make a bold statement and vote for K-L isn't running away from the issue just as bad? Obama had the perfect opportunity to back all his talk but missed it. He needs to regain his supporters trust, will there be another opportunity?

: Do you really assess Clinton's (none / 0) (#11)
by oculus on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 03:47:21 PM EST

statement as "bold?" She and Dianne Feinstein parrot each other: the two war-authorization clauses were deleted before the vote and we favor diplomacy. I don't see that the resolution has anything to do with diplomacy.