Obama Ducks Vote then Attacks Clinton
11 October 2007 9:40 am by Taylor Marsh
Finally, a direct attack from Obama on Clinton. First, on torture, Obama swallows the Washington Post line even though that was demolished yesterday. Next, her vote on Kyl-Lieberman, which is certainly fair game. Trouble is Mr. Obama has no standing to make it.
“I don’t think it disqualified her, but I think it speaks to her judgment,
and it speaks to my judgment,” Obama said. “It speaks to how we
will make decisions going forward.”“I think her judgment was flawed on this issue,” he said.
“This was a vote for war,” he added. “You can’t give this
president a blank check and be surprised when he cashes it.”
You don’t get to criticize a Senate vote when you couldn’t be bothered to show
up to vote yourself. It also doesn’t help that you didn’t mention the vote during the Dartmouth debate either, even after Edwards slammed her on it.
–End post–
Well, I can’t actually end it here because this is something I’ve been talking
about since the vote happened. However, after I saw Mr. Obama’s op-ed today
in the Union Leader coupled with the story on CNN.com, forgive me if my where
the hell were you? alarm went off.
The amendment, offered by Sens. Joe Lieberman and Jon Kyl, directly links
the ongoing war in Iraq — including our troop presence — to checking the
threat from Iran. The amendment opens with 17 findings that highlight Iranian
influence within Iraq. It then 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.Sen.
Barack Obama: Five years after Iraq war vote, we’re still foolishly rattling
our sabers
Now a little quiz. Who said this?
“”If I thought there was any way it could be used as a pretense
to launch an invasion of Iran I would have voted no. … .. I am opposed to
military action in Iran … ..To say we need to pressure the Iranians to change
their course in the Middle East and I want to do it by nonmilitary means,
that’s what my vote was all about. … .. (Defense Secretary Robert Gates)
was as clear as could be that there are no plans for that to happen.”
Senator
Dick Durbin who opposed the Iraq war, and is supporting Mr. Obama’s bid
for president, voted for the Kyl-Lieberman non-binding sense of the Senate.
To be clear, I don’t think any of these people should be voting for this type
of sense of the Senate or what Obama supported as long as we’ve
got cowboy George in office, but a little perspective is in order after Obama’s
harangue this morning. This is especially true when Obama couldn’t be bothered
to show up for the vote himself.
What was he doing?
Campaigning.
Why didn’t he vote?
Allegedly because the vote wasn’t to be called.
Note to Mr. Obama: If there is any possibiliy of a vote happening in D.C. that could truly
differentiate you from your main competitor be prepared to get your sanctimonious rear
end back to Washington or better yet, don’t leave until you’re absolutely sure
it won’t be called up. Biden, Dodd and Clinton voted, so your excuse is just lame. Besides, ever heard of
a plane, sir?
It also took
him all day to release a statement on the vote.
I truly do want Obama to challenge Clinton and take it to her. I want to see
him fight. But it seems a bit spineless to attack someone for a vote you skipped
out on and didn’t bother to comment on from New Hampshire, where you were campaigning
for president. Can you imagine the press moment if immediately upon hearing
the vote had taken place Obama had come out and made a statement immediately?
Why didn’t he? Couldn’t this
statement have been given on camera wherever he was immediately after the
Kyl-Lieberman vote? Why did it take all day to get his press secretary to release
it? Come on, cable news channels would have jumped on this moment and Obama
would have had a big issue in his pocket.
Senator Obama clearly recognizes the serious threat posed by Iran. However,
he does not agree with the president that the best way to counter that threat
is to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq, and he does not think that now
is the time for saber-rattling towards Iran. In fact, he thinks that our large
troop presence in Iraq has served to strengthen Iran – not weaken it. He believes
that diplomacy and economic pressure, such as the divestment bill that he
has proposed, is the right way to pressure the Iranian regime. Accordingly,
he would have opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment had he been able to vote
today.
Again, I’m against this stuff, but I’m equally against taking credit for “judgment”
when you didn’t show up to stand up.
As for Obama’s claim that the legislation linked Iran and Iraq together, why
is this so shocking? Is he really so naive as to not know that the Maliki government
is already linked to Iran? Besides, he warned
of the link in a speech of his own. I’ve cut a couple of sentences out of
it which clearly illustrate Mr. Obama is as worried as anyone.
“Such a reduced but active presence will also send a clear message to
hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player
in this region. … … (snip) … ..Make no mistake if the Iranians and Syrians
think they can use Iraq as another Afghanistan or a staging area from which
to attack Israel or other countries, they are badly mistaken. It is in our
national interest to prevent this from happening.”
Then there’s that other nagging detail about Mr. Obama’s Senate performances.
He’s voted the exact same way with Hillary Clinton on Iraq throughout his tenure.
Exactly. But he’s got a
new web ad talking about it anyway. Never mind, just like Clinton (even Edwards, I’m sorry to say), Barack Obama could not pledge he’d have our troops out by 2013 either! Seeing a pattern yet? It also wasn’t Barack Obama who fought tooth and
nail to get resolutions to the Senate floor to end the Iraq war. The person
with those creds is Senator Russ Feingold.
Obama brings up something important today, however.
This is not a debate about 2002; it’s about the future, and in that debate
I can run on, and not from, my record.Sen. Barack Obama:
I don’t agree with Senator Clinton on Kyl-Lieberman. But she showed up, put
her vote down and was prepared to catch hell for it, which she has. Not for
nothin’ that Wes Clark and Joseph Wilson, two people with strong anti war bona
fides, including that Clark has his face plastered on StopIranWar.com, both back her up. As much as I hate the Kyl-Lieberman vote of Clinton’s, it’s hard to argue with these two men, as well as Dick Durbin who was always against the Iraq war. You may not agree with Clinton all the time, because I sure
don’t. But when she’s asked to put her name on the line she shows up and does
so, then is willing to take the heat. That’s character. I’m not sure what ducking
a critical vote then slamming your opponent much later on it says about Obama.
You’ll have to decide if these things matter or not.
