Obama Takes Iran Amendment to Iowa Mailboxes
EmailABC News’ Sunlen Miller Reports: Via direct mail piece, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama delivered the debate over the Kyl-Lieberman Iran amendment from the halls of Congress to the mail boxes of Iowa.
Sent today, Obama strongly criticizes the resolution and the other presidential candidates who voted for it.
“While other Democrats voted for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, Barack Obama opposed another Bush foreign policy fiasco,” the mailer says.
Calling the amendment “dangerous” the mailer goes on to state Obama’s opposition because, “George Bush and Dick Cheney could use this language to justify keeping our troops in Iraq as long as they can point to a threat from Iran. And because they could use this language to justify an attack on Iran as a part of the ongoing war in Iraq."
The Obama mailer also reminded Iowa voters and caucus-goers that Obama was the “Only major candidate for president to oppose both the Iraq War from the very start.”
Obama was not present for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment vote in Congress; rather he was in New Hampshire on the campaign trail. When asked why he was not present for the vote, the Senator said he knew it was not going to be close and, “As a presidential candidate, you’re going to miss votes, that is the nature of this race.”
Obama has used his intended vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment to contrast against Democratic rival frontrunner Senator Hillary Clinton who voted for the amendment.
“Senator Clinton obviously in 2002 voted to authorize the war in Iraq. And her willingness to once again extend to the president the benefit of the doubt I think indicates that she hasn’t fully learned some of the lessons that we saw back in 2002,” Obama said in New Hampshire earlier this month.
For her part, Senator Clinton has sent out her own direct mailer which highlights the split between Senator Dick Durbin and Obama on this amendment. Durbin, one of Obama’s backers and fellow Illinois Senator, voted for the amendment.
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
What better example of exercising political leadership wisely than opposing the invasion of Iraq when it was popular not to. Go down the list of candidates and see where they fell on the issue when it was presented to them in October 2002. See who authorized a war that would cost us thousands of irreplaceable brave, young American lives. See who authorized a war that would rob our financial foundation of hundreds of millions of dollars a day, every day. See who favored an invasion that would undermine America’s standing in the world as a beacon of righteousness and freedom. See who got it wrong. Some have since admitted as much. Some, even today, refuse to admit to an error in judgement and shoulder the responsibility for their actions. They lay the blame on faulty information. They try to mitigate their responsibility with phrases like, “If I only knew then, what I know now”. Funny thing is, if they did know then what they know now, most would (and some have) make the same choice if the political winds told them that it was the popular thing to do. Barack opposed the war from the start. As the saying goes, those that do not learn from history, are doomed to repeat it. Choose wisely.
Posted by: Aris-D | October 23, 2007, 10:19 am 10:19 am
It’s great that Barack did not support the Iraq war, but one really wonders if he was a freshman in congress how he would have voted. The majority of the Senate voted for the resolution. Why was he conveniently campaigning in another state when the Iran resolution was passed lately? Seems to me that he didn’t know how to vote so he stayed away. Barack is too inexperienced right now to be President of the United States of America.
Posted by: Charly R | October 23, 2007, 10:35 am 10:35 am
Charly,
You can easily find the congressinal record of the conversation on the floor the day before, the day the vote was originally scheduled. Harry Reid (who also works for the Clinton campaign) clearly said that due to disagreements in the amendments there would be no vote that day or anytime in the near future. The next day Obama flies off to campaign and while he is gone Reid calls for the Vote in one hour. How convenient. So Obama issues a statement on his position and stays on the campaign trail. It was not a close enough of a vote to make his a deciding factor either way. Hope that clears it up for you. Don’t hate the players…hate the Washington games
Posted by: Aris-D | October 23, 2007, 11:13 am 11:13 am
Thank you Aris for the fill-in here on why Obama wasn’t there, I try to keep up but miss things –
Ole Harry Reid is the worst Majority Leader the Dems could ask for — because of all his money deals in Nevada, the GOP has a lot to hold over his head.
I was bothered more by Hillary’s vote than the fact that Obama missed it — we really need to change the game in Washington and with Hillary there will be no change.
Posted by: Paulet | October 23, 2007, 11:38 am 11:38 am
Mr. OBAMA is showing his differences with CLINTONS, basically with them you will have another war in Iran, with Obama it will be the current policy(no war just barking)
Great!
Posted by: LateMan | October 23, 2007, 11:40 am 11:40 am
Thanks for clarifying O’s absence.
This is more of the have-it-both
ways chicanery of HRC. She
got cute with the Iran vote and
tried to cover herself by backing
the the Webb offering. I think
it goes like this…”I was for it
before I voted against it.” Democrats,
Independents and Republicans, please
stop another headlong hurdle into chaos.
Obama is our only hope.
Smokey
Posted by: Smokey from Mt. Pleasant, S.C. | October 23, 2007, 12:02 pm 12:02 pm
It amazes me how people can buy into political buzz and believe it to be meaningful. Charly, why would you say Barack is too inexperienced? He has more national experience than any first time president elected in the past 30 years other than George Bush senior (who only served 1 term because he was mediocre at best). Barack has experience in the state legislature as well. He has a proven track record of forging consenses on difficult issues in the state legislature. He is the only viable candidate to speak out against invading iraq before it was popular to do so, and best suited to making the difficult decisions as we move forward there. What I think is more important though, and not getting enough attention yet, is domestic policy. We need to invest in education and infrastructure again so our country can compete in the global marketplace. I think only Barack is willing to do the hard work of making meaningful changes that will take time to see the success of the actions rather than changes that sound good, make good television fodder, and pay lip service to change. If you want to get beyond 30 second sound bites of the political arena, read Barack’s book…or listen to the book on tape version on your drive to work. If you decide he is not the candidate for you, fine, but THINK about it first. Saying he is too inexperienced is untrue, and even worse, it is repeating a soundbite. It is the response of someone who is too lazy to think for themselves.
Posted by: Amccoy | October 23, 2007, 12:04 pm 12:04 pm
Dennis Kucinich has also been against the war from the begining
Posted by: gordon early | October 24, 2007, 11:15 am 11:15 am