Obama and L-K, Part III

"People think that Lieberman-Kyl did just one thing," an Obama foreign policy adviser told me, "
"and that's to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization."

"But that's just one of the six clauses." Obama, this adviser said, worries about clause b1 -- where the structure -- read size and deployment nature -- of troops in Iraq would be structured with the threat of Iran in mind. "Couple that with the two people who drafted the amendment, both of whom are strongly supportive of the surge, both of whom who have raised significant concerns about Iranian influence in the region."

I asked the adviser how Obama's belief square with his acknowledgment in 2006 that it was in the national interest to keep an "active" through "reduced" force in the "Middle East" in response to the encroaching Iranian threat.

Obama, this adviser said, believes that the intent of clauses b1 and b2 are counterarguments to those who want to scale down forces in Iraq. Leiberman and Kyl oppose a drawdown because of the Iranian threat, this adviser said. "Barack has said from time immemorial that he opposes the Iraq War because he was afraid it was going to strengthen Iran's position in the region."

But here's the tricky part: Obama does not so much object to the language of the resolution, which he acknowledges can be interpreted in different ways, as he does to the context within which it was passed.

"Barack’s point is that this is the kind of justification that that administration could use" to launch an attack against Iran.

In other words: Obama argues that Clinton trusts the Bush Administration to not interpret this as giving them the authority to strike Iran.

A reader writes:

The November 2006 on Iran you use to pin Obama down, is his opinion, his judgment, and suggest how HE might act. The congressional resolution, however, is an apparatus for President Bush to act. It gives him the ball. that's why Obama's main point is that you can't give the administration any leeway, any argument to justify military action against Iran because they have shown such terrible judgment before. On the other hand, one might say you can give Senator Obama leeway because he has shown good judgment and understands we shouldn't rush to war. Indeed, Obama, Bush and Clinton all believed that Saddam had WMDs, but the difference was Obama didn't see this as an imminent threat to us because of the inspectors and because Saddam had no connection to al qaeda. That's a big difference. I suspect that at the time they all would agree with the idea that iraq was a problem but they disagreed on what that meant. See what I mean?

In short, I think it is important to recognize that presidents after meeting with their advisors will get similar advice and often will view a situation under similar concepts. What matters in the end is judgment, who after viewing the evidence and the options will make the right choice and who won't. Notably, this is very similar to Obama's argument that the differences between he, Clinton and Edwards over their policy proposals really doesn't matter, they're largely the same, what matters is who can get the plan implemented, who can get it passed.

And an Obama aide e-mails:

I continue to be amused at the Durbin references to the Kyl-Lieberman amendment - it seems that when it comes to war with Iran, Jim Webb is the one she looks too right? Is it disconcerting that he siad this about the resolution she supported: "Those who regret their vote five years ago to authorize military action in Iraq should think hard before supporting this approach. Because, in my view, it has the same potential to do harm where many are seeking to do good."blockquote>

Still -- Obama seems to have a solid argument here. But if the amendment was so dangerous... why is he opposing it in a television commercial and a speech... did not on the floor of the Senate?

Comments

Marc:

I suspect he missed the vote because of the timing. He was present in the Senate on September 25th when the measure was initially scheduled for a vote. Reid table's it, saying that there wouldn't be a vote in the near future. Barack goes to campaign in NH; Reid subsequently calls a vote, which occurs at 12:44 on September 26th.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/25/durbin-lieb-kyl-amdt/

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00349#position

I don't when he was notified of the vote (that's a question for the campaign), but it seems to me that it wasn't because he was reluctant to cast the vote.

Posted by Keith | October 12, 2007 1:20 PM

He did not oppose it on the floor of the Senate because as most people know Sen Reid, the night before the vote ( Obama was there) tabled it "INDEFINETLY" then the next day when Obama was already in NH called for a vote within 1 hour. When he heard about the vote he issued a statement disagreeing with it.

Posted by Lyn | October 12, 2007 1:22 PM

Interesting... I've been seeing a good deal of "outrage" over Obama skipping the vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. It seems similar to the "outrage" about his having skipped the Move-on/Betrayus vote.

It's worth noting a couple things:

On "Betrayus" -- which is barely worth mention -- I did a bit of informal polling of Move-on stalwarts at their S-Chip rally. None of them, not even the one Clinton supporter, saw Obama's missed vote as a significant issue, nor were they particularly grateful that Clinton had 'adopted' them (as a platform for attack on Obama?).

On the Kyl-Lieberman amdendment

A) the 'outrage' is delayed by two weeks -- there was very little comment at the time. (September 26, the day before the New York City Rally) It is a (relatively) fair parry to Obama's escalating attacks on the Senate establishment (at 76-22, the blame is not all on Hillary) for agreeing the amendment.

B) except both the K-L and the "Betrayus" resolutions were non-binding -- not only would Obama's vote have done little, but the resolutions themselves were simply venues to speechify (bloviate?).

C) On a non-binding resolution, does a Senator need to vote in order to go on record? It seems to me that Obama's views on both issue were clear and clearly expressed. Frankly, they were better expressed outside the Senate echo-chamber. For a running presidential candidate Washington Square Park provides a better 'bully pulpit' than Washington D.C.

To be certain, I will be begin to be concerned when Obama misses binding, substantive (and contested) votes in order to campaign. But I doubt we should allow faux (fox?) outrage over these missed votes to distract from the point he is making.

Frankly, the legislature has been compiling a pretty miserable record for living up to its responsibilities. (Vis the most recent toothless growling against Turkey about the Armenian genocide). I wish a brilliant young senator could have more effect in the those hallowed chambers... Sadly, I'm pessimistic.

Posted by Carrington Ward | October 12, 2007 1:31 PM

Let me get this straight:

Obama's rationale for being President is based on how he claims he would have voted two times had he actually voted -- once when he was still a part-time state legislator back in Illinois and once because he just skipped the vote? And, that when he actually did cast votes in between, they were mostly for giving Bush a "blank check" to cash?

Posted by hwc | October 12, 2007 2:15 PM

"Obama's rationale for being President is based on how he claims he would have voted two times had he actually voted -- once when he was still a part-time state legislator back in Illinois and once because he just skipped the vote? And, that when he actually did cast votes in between, they were mostly for giving Bush a "blank check" to cash?"

No. His rationale for being President is that Washington needs change, and that people in Washington seem to be a little slow to see that.

So far, that message has resonated strongly, so strongly that Hillary has started arguing that she has the Washington experience to bring about change.

And, of course Hillary's argument is plausible. It just raises the question whether she has the _integrity_ to do so.

I respect those who question Obama's qualifications. As with Bill Clinton in '91-'92, he is not a 'known quantity' in national politics.

That said, I have very little respect for focus-grouped talking points that misrepresent his substantive arguments or positions.

Posted by Carrington Ward | October 12, 2007 2:35 PM

Hopefully all legislators by now know to always document reasons for missing particular votes.

A vote for Kyl-Lieberman deserves criticism. Non-binding does not mean unimportant. Every Senator knew that President Bush would take the legislation as a granting of permission to attack Iran should he so choose, and as encouragement to do so. And they all knew that Bush knew that they knew. A Senator's parsing and hiding behind specific language in Kyl-Lieberman for purposes of political self-protection, as Hillary Clinton and some others have done, is unbecoming and inexcusable.

Posted by Teaeopy | October 13, 2007 12:13 AM

If the Iran vote is as important as the Iraq war vote as claimed by Obama, then missing the vote should immediately disqualify Obama from the white house.

Posted by see | October 13, 2007 2:43 AM

Neither Obama's missed vote, nor Clinton's yes vote made a difference in the result, given the certainty of passage. So Obama should not be disqualified from the white house, and Clinton should not be "blamed" for its passage*.

So the only use this vote/non-vote is, is in differentiating the candidates' positions. And it's clear Obama would have voted on it if he'd had proper notice and hadn't been in NH. He didn't, in other words, miss the vote in order to cover his ass later on, after he saw how the wind blew. The statement he made ensured that.

*She shouldn't be blamed for its passage simply because she voted for it, but it's possible that she did work on revising the bill to make it more palatable to Democrats, and that this revision is what made the difference in its passage. In which case she would be largely responsible.

Posted by Phoebe | October 13, 2007 12:54 PM

I don't disagree that the Iran vote is not a terribly important vote. But Obama has elevated it to a vote that should disqualify Clinton. In that case, Obama should be disqualified instead.

Posted by see | October 13, 2007 5:46 PM