Obama introduces Iran measure

[Colobo]

Sen. Hillary Clinton signed a letter to President George W. Bush on Thursday warning he has no authority from Congress for an attack on Iran, setting off a new round of fighting with Democratic presidential rival Barack Obama.

Clinton, battered in a debate earlier this week for backing a resolution labeling an Iranian military unit a terrorist group, joined 29 other senators in signing a letter expressing concern about "provocative statements and actions" toward Iran by the Bush administration.

Democratic presidential rival Chris Dodd of Connecticut signed the letter, but rivals Obama of Illinois and Joseph Biden of Delaware did not.

Obama instead introduced a binding Senate measure nullifying the earlier resolution. His campaign accused Clinton of using the letter to adjust her stance on Iran.

"While she's trying her best to change her position on yet another critical issue facing our country, Senator Obama knows that it takes legislation, not letters, to undo the vote that she cast," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said.

The vote by Clinton, who leads national opinion polls in the Democratic race ahead of the November 2008 election, has become a major focus of her Democratic rivals trying to close the gap in the presidential race.

They said the resolution would embolden Bush to wage war against Iran, but Clinton said she was simply supporting a more vigorous diplomacy to rein in Iran's nuclear program.

Clinton, of New York, was the only senator running for president to support the measure. Dodd and Biden voted against it, while Obama did not vote. Clinton's campaign questioned why Obama would not sign the letter.

Spokesman Phil Singer said if Obama "isn't just playing politics" and really believed the resolution gave Bush a blank check for war "he would have signed the letter today and would have fought to stop the resolution before it came up for a vote."

Burton, Obama's spokesman, said a binding resolution was a better solution than a letter. He said there were no co-sponsors yet for the resolution, which was introduced on Thursday.

Sen. Jim Webb, a Virginia Democrat and former secretary of the U.S. Navy, drafted the letter and signed it, then gathered the signatures of 28 other Democrats and one independent.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071102/ap_po/democrats_iran_8

[AtomicKitten]

1. Obama talked about undoing Kyl-Lieberman and he delivers.

[Colobo]

2. But the haters are focusing on more important issues like

beating a dead horse... :)

[Lucinda]

6. The horse is alive, well, and very gay Katz.

You're wanting Obamas fiasco to go away won't make it so.

[Colobo]

7. What gay horse are you talking about?

I care about Iran and not getting involved in WWIII. That's my concern right now.

[AtomicKitten]

8. Me too, Katz.

:scared:

[jefferson_dem]

18. But...but...but...

It's "fiascos" that really matter. :crazy:

[Lucinda]

9. And you should, it's very important.

But that doesn't give Obama a pass.

[Colobo]

12. I still think

that Obama has the same views on GLBT issues as the other 2 leading candidates and IS RIGHT ON THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE OF OUR TIMES: IRAN. This man is looking for peace, for diplomacy, for true change in our foreign policy.

His virtues are greater than his flaws. He should be commended for standing up to the War Machine our frontrunner has been pandering to.

[SaveElmer]

11. Now that he can use it as a camaign issue...

Which is all his Senate seat seems to afford him...

He could have opposed the first one...but nope...complete silence...

[Colobo]

13. Obama: Peace Through Diplomacy.

[SaveElmer]

14. Not a dimes worth of difference in their positions...

The only difference is Obama is using Kyl-Lieberman as a vehicle to make the absurd case that Hillary wants war with Iran...

Something so important it took him a whole month to show up to oppose it!

[Colobo]

15. I admire your passion for Hillary.

You do your best to make her look good, and that's true support.

[Colobo]

3. Kick.

[ClarkUSA]

4. Commendable.

I hope all Senate Democrats sign on as co-sponsors both as a matter of principle and as a way to send a strong
message to the country that Democrats will stand against Bush's push for another pre-emptive war with an
oil-rich country.

[Colobo]

5. I hope they do.

[SaveElmer]

10. Obama brings up the rear...

Again!!!

[geek tragedy]

21. What legislation has Senator Clinton introduced

on this matter?

Or are you talking about her trying to hide behind Jim Webb's bill when the fallout from Kyl-Lieberman began?

[SaveElmer]

50. She is an original co-sponsor with Senator Webb...

Of a bill restricting Bush's ability to attack Iran without explicit congressional approval...introduced a month ago...

Where was Obama when Kyl-Lieberman was being debated...

Nowhere, no sound from him at all, no objection, not attempt to kill or modify, no vote...he is not credible on an issue he didn't deem important until after he decided how it would affect his Presidential run...

[geek tragedy]

52. That is a lie. She signed on SEVEN MONTHS AFTER

the bill was introduced.

That's over half a year.

200 days.

[Texas_Kat]

54. So why didn't Obama co-sign Webb's amendment? S 759?

It's sitting been in the committee he's a member of since March 2007. I'll add that Biden chairs that committee and Dodd is on it as well.

If he was so concerned about denying Bush the ability to attack Iran, he'd have signed on months ago. But he still hasn't.

[SaveElmer]

56. And why didn't "GOBAMA" sign on?

Oh yeah, he didn't come up with the idea, so no good in the campaign!

[calteacherguy]

37. Explain. nt

[SaveElmer]

49. Kyl-Lieberman was passed a month ago...

Where was he then? Did not utter a word of protest against it until after it had passed...

ANd there have been several measures introduced to prevent any attack on Iran since then...

[Colobo]

16. Kick.

[Colobo]

17. Viva Obama.

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. Sorry but why must Webb's letter and Obama's resolution be pitted against each other?

I see no good reason why Obama could not have signed that letter and then begun asking other signers to co-sponsor the resolution he was introducing. Kyle - Lieberman of course was a non binding resolution, so it is not law and therefor it does not take another law to legally undo it. All of us are concerned about the message K/L sent and how it will be read in the White House. Webb's letter was an important immediate start in the direction of preventing the wrong message from sticking, and the two approachs, Webb's and Obama's, are not mutually exclusive.

I supect that with 76 Senators voting for Kyle - Lieberman the first time, including a solid majority of all of the Democratic Senators present, that Obama might have trouble getting a Senate majority to now reverse course on their recent vote. I wish him luck and appreciate the effort, but for the very reason that Obama finds Webb's letter lacking, it had the ability to gather signatures from Demorats like Clinton and Diane Feinstein who supported Lyle - Lieberman the first time. That is not a bad thing, it is a good thing. If Obama can get those signatures and more on his new resolution, that would be truly wonderful. It does go a step further. But I do not see why both Obama and Biden could not have signed Webb's letter now. Webb has been leading the fight in the Senate against Bush/Cheney's drive to war with Iran ever since he took office. The content of Webb's letter is very constructive and it deserved support, as does Obama's resolution.

[geek tragedy]

20. He should get at least 52 votes for that resolution.

The Webb bill would have to pass both houses--not likely.

This is not a replacement or competitor of Webb's bill, but rather a supplement to it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. I agree Obama's Bill would be a positive supplement

My concern is with both Barack Obama and Joes Biden refusing to sign Webb's Letter now. Here is what it says and who did choose to sign it:


November 1, 2007
President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Bush:

We are writing to express serious concerns with the provocative statements and actions stemming from your administration with respect to possible U.S. military action in Iran. These comments are counterproductive and undermine efforts to resolve tensions with Iran through diplomacy.

We wish to emphasize that no congressional authority exists for unilateral military action against Iran. This includes the Senate vote on September 26, 2007 on an amendment to the FY 2008 National Defense Authorization Act. This amendment, expressing the sense of the Senate on Iran, and the recent designation of the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist, should in no way be interpreted as a predicate for the use of military force in Iran.

We stand ready to work with your administration to address the challenges presented by Iran in a manner that safeguards our security interests and promotes a regional diplomatic solution, but we wish to emphasize that offensive military action should not be taken against Iran without the express consent of Congress.

Sincerely,


1. Webb

2. Akaka

3. Baucus

4. Boxer

5. Brown

6. Byrd

7. Cantwell

8. Carper

9. Casey

10. Clinton

11. Dodd

12. Dorgan

13. Durbin

14. Feinstein

15. Harkin

16. Johnson

17. Kerry

18. Klobuchar

19. Kohl

20. Leahy

21. McCaskill

22. Mikulski

23. Murray

24. Reed

25. Rockefeller

26. Sanders

27. Stabenow

28. Tester

29. Whitehouse

30. Wyden


A rough scan shows me 16 signers who also voted yes on Kyle - Lieberman. This is an important letter to establish that the intent of many Democrats who voted for that measure WAS NOT to give cover for George Bush to attack Iran without specific Congressional Authority. This letter could only have been made stronger if Senators like Biden and Obama joined with Senators like WEbb, Kerry, and Dodd - all of whom voted No on K/L, to send this statement to Bush now.

I'm sorry Obama, maybe you can get Senators like Whitehouse, Milulski, Durbin and Kohl to flat our reverse their earlier votes, but Baucus, Nelson, Nelson and Dorgan etc will be much harder sells, yet Webb got them to sign his letter. Obama and Biden should have signed Webb's letter also, and then contunued their further efforts to stop the next war.

[geek tragedy]

29. Problem with that letter--two loopholes:

1. We wish to emphasize that no congressional authority exists for unilateral military action against Iran.

Key word: UNILATERAL. Bush could have an Israeli or Pole flying along and it's not unilateral.

2. No offensive action against Iran.

Key word: Offensive. Bush could say it was defensive

[Tom Rinaldo]

45. The letter is a big step forward from where we now find ourselves

There is nothing that says that a signee can't also move forward with other efforts that are more restrictive still. Webb himself is doing that with the Webb Amendment which is not the same as this letter. Undoubtably the wording on this letter had to be negotiated with some of the Demcorats who voted for Kyle -Lieberman in order to get them as signers. This only suggests that the tougher language Obama wants to introduce will have trouble winning some key Democratic support to pass. Meanwhile this letter now enters the public record. I still see no reason for someone worried that Kyle - Lieberman encouraged the war hawks to not sign this letter now - and then go to work on tougher measures to follow.

[Usrename]

47. I think you are missing the whole problem with this kind of analysis.

The Republicans kept any vote for a minimum wage increase off the Senate floor for 10 years.

How does a vote on something like Kyle-Lieberman ever get to the floor while we have control of the Congress?

I guess maybe we don't have control of crap.

The fifteen who signed the letter after voting FOR the bill:

Akaka
Baucus
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Dorgan
Durbin
Feinstein
Johnson
Kohl
Mikulski
Reed
Rockefeller
Stabenow
Whitehouse

and, the list of those whose voted for the bill and did not sign the letter:

Bayh (D-IN)
Cardin (D-MD)
Conrad (D-ND)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Schumer (D-NY)


You're right about them; none are going to change their vote (or do anything to weaken Kyle-Liberman).

So what/who is our problem, exactly?

Heads on pikes!!!

[PatSeg]

55. Biden's statement regarding the letter

Sen. Biden voted against the amendment urging the designation of the Iranian Rev. Guard as a terrorist group. He strongly opposed it because he believed it could be used by this President to justify military action against Iran. He has also made clear many times his view that the President lacks the authority to use force against Iran absent authorization from Congress. He didn't need to clarify that position - he's been clear from the start," said Biden spokesperson Elizabeth Alexander.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

40. I think he was reffering to the Webb letter from this week. (I was also confused)

The Webb letter from this week seems to be the basis of the Obama resolution. It's different from the Webb no-funding measure.

I was confused about this, because I didn't know about the Webb letter. There were probably posts about it that I didn't read because I assumed they were about the no-funding bill.

[calteacherguy]

22. I'm disappointed in Obama. He should sign the letter.

He's putting politics before principle. He should promote his resolution and sign Webb's letter.

I don't know who I will vote for now. I'm really disappointed by this.

I wonder why Biden didn't sign it. Puzzling.

[Colobo]

23. cal, take it easy and don't decide yet.

There is time, my friend. I'm confident Obama will win your vote.

[calteacherguy]

25. I don't like this putting politics before working together.

Webb wrote the letter, and Obama shoud sign it and promote his resolution.

[geek tragedy]

30. The letter has a couple of loopholes.

It talks about there being no authorization for 'offensive' or 'unilateral' action. Pretty big loopholes.

[calteacherguy]

34. Is there a text of the letter somewhere. I'm surprised Webb would have those kinds of loopholes. nt

[geek tragedy]

24. Feingold and Kennedy didn't sign it either.

Can't read too much into who signed that letter.

I don't think his resolution is competing with Webb's legislation.

[calteacherguy]

26. I'd be curious to know why. That is puzzling. nt

[geek tragedy]

28. Probably didn't think the wording was

tough enough on Bush, or something.

[TwilightGardener]

31. The older hands in the Senate may have agreed with Biden that

such a letter is unnecessary, that it's very clear already that Chimpy cannot strike Iran without Congressional approval. Biden, Kennedy, Feingold--they know how it all works. You're right--you really can't read too much into it. There are various ways to go about things, they're not all going to think the letter is a good idea.

[Tom Rinaldo]

39. Byrd is the oldest hand in the Senate. He signed Webb's letter.

Hartkin and Kerry and Leahy aren't exactly babes in the woods either. If it already is so clear that Bush needs Congressional authority to attack Iran, than why are we so worried about K/L? Obviously because we fear that Bush will attack without Congressional Authority.

Look, either Bush is completely immune to public opinion, in which case all that talk from Biden and Obamba about Hillary Clinton giving Bush the political cover he needs to attack Iran is complete hogwash, or he isn't completely immune to public pressure. If it is the latter than there is a political as well as legal dimension to this struggle. Actions like the Webb leter help establish that the U.S. Senate sees no justification for Bush attacking Iran without going to Congress first for that authority.

[TwilightGardener]

46. If a letter is required to clarify the Senate's position on what Kyl-Lieberman

meant, then Jon Kyl and Joe Lieberman ought to have signed the letter, right? Or no one should have voted for it. It was a piece of crap amendment, and the letter is just a CYA for weak and spineless Dems who can't stand up and say "fuck no" to the Neocon Bush-Dick-Sucking Senate members who pushed it. Thus they (especially Hillary) get to have it every which way--if Chimpy ultimately requests Congressional approval for striking Iran (using what is stated in the Kyl Lieberman resolution as a partial justification--hey it IS a terror organization--the Senate said so!), they can say, "well, the upcoming war didn't have anything to do with Kyl-Lieberman, we clarified that with the letter"--and then, of course, they'll be terrified of looking weak and pro-terror and give Chimpy what he wants. If he strikes without approval (highly unlikely), the letter was ineffective, but they will point to the letter. And if he doesn't act at all, then they can pretend that their K/L vote AND their stupid letter helped prevent war. Jim Webb seems to be giving up on his own legislation, and maybe this letter seems a safe way to get many Dems heard on the matter, but the fact that not all Dems are on it--and a few Repubs who don't want war either--tells you that there are differences in opinion on its value. I'm pretty sure Kennedy and Feingold aren't itching to bomb Iran, but probably thought the letter was kinda dumb. Harmless, which is why so many signed it, but an empty gesture.

[ClarkUSA]

33. This might help clear it up: Biden and Obama campaigns re: Webb's letter (link)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3673518

[calteacherguy]

35. O.K., so they are saying since they already voted against Kyl-Lieberman their position is clear.

I get it. Makes sense.

Alright, guess I can stay on the Obama train.

[Colobo]

38. Good!

Feel free to join the blogs at www.barackobama.com

[Tom Rinaldo]

41. I still don't get it.

It's not as if Webb voted for Kyle - Lieberman. Or Dodd. Or Boxer Sanders or Kerry. They all voted against Kyle - Lieberman. What is their argument for Obama and Biden NOT signing onto Webb to help make that letter carry as much weight as possible? The fact that they "didn't have to"?

[calteacherguy]

42. Apparently, they just can't all get their act together.

Disappointing, but it's not just Obama. Some who voted against Kyl-Lieberman seem to think letter would do something, and some seem to think they already made position known.

I wish Dems would work more effectively together. Perhaps they can all get behind Obama resolution.

[Tom Rinaldo]

43. I support Obama's resolution, but seriously...

...like I said above it will be like pulling Tusks to get some of the Democrats who voted for Kyle - Lieberman to completely repudiate their earlier vote now. There were like 30 of them! Such a feat is virtually unheard of in politics. While Obama is working on pulling that one off Webb found wording that most of the Democrats who supported Kyle - Lieberman could sign onto. A Byrd in the hand and all of that...

[calteacherguy]

44. Understood, but they can say Bush isn't living up the "spirit of the amendment"

Diplomacy and all that, you know.

That's a way out...

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. Kerry, Dodd, Boxer and Sanders did sign though.

The point is we managed to get 16 Democrats who supported Kyle - Lieberman to sign onto this letter. If we could have gotten all those who opposed Kyle - Lieberman to sign also, we would start approaching a majority and could concentrate on targetting the hold outs. Here is a list of those who voted against Kyle - Lieberman (Obama was a non voter):

NAYs ---22
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Dodd (D-CT)
Feingold (D-WI)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)
Wyden (D-OR)

Here again are the Webb signers (30):

Webb
Akaka
Baucus
Boxer
Brown
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feinstein
Harkin
Johnson
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Leahy
McCaskill
Mikulski
Murray
Reed
Rockefeller
Sanders
Stabenow
Tester
Whitehouse
Wyden

[calteacherguy]

36. Puzzling. Feingold, Biden, Kennedy must have had their reasons. nt

[elizm]

48. Kick

[Evergreen Emerald]

51. he is just playing politics--is he trying to make up for the lack of voting?

[geek tragedy]

53. Would you be saying this if Clinton introduced it?

Of course you wouldn't.

[Tellurian]

57. Clinton votes on principle... not political theater..

Obama is all show... NO GO!

[IndianaGreen]

60. And Hillary's principles include giving Bush authority to go to war against (fill-in the blank)

Hillary was not misled in 2002. She believed in attacking Iraq just as much as Bush did!

[Evergreen Emerald]

58. Wow...getting personal are we?

Dang it is ugly on DU.

[IndianaGreen]

59. Hillary writing a memo to Bush reminds me of Neville Chamberlain

holding that worthless piece of paper with Herr Hitler's signature promising peace in our time.

Hillary is peddling sugar coated neocon candy!