O’bama O’bama O’bama Iran?: Why I prefer Hillary Clinton’s consistent commitment to diplomacy

How quickly Obama supporters forget his hawkish stances on Iran.

Obama said the United States must first address Iran’s attempt to gain nuclear capabilities by going before the United Nations Security Council and lobbying the international community to apply more pressure on Iran to cease nuclear activities. That pressure should come in the form of economic sanctions, he said.

But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear productionsites in Iran, Obama said.

“The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?” Obama asked.

Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said.

Oh but I’m sure , given the new information thats come out since 2004…the year he was running for office * cough * PANDER * cough *, that Senator Obama has reconsidered his stance on Iran. He did after all criticize Senator Clinton for her votes, though he didn’t show up to vote. But I’m curious why Obama co-sponsored an amendment naming Iran a terrorist organization? Read an excerpt of the bill here:

Specifically, Section 3, Subsection 8, of S. 970 reads that it is the sense of Congress that: “The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) and the Secretary of the Treasury should place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224 (66 Fed. Reg. 186; relating to blocking property and prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism).”

Seems kind of damning for Obama. Whatever happened to the Politics of hope?

** EDIT **: Responding to an argument one of my commentors has made. I’m not arguing that Obama is a right wing war monger. My point is that many of the critisms Obama, and his supporters, have leveled against Clinton regarding Iran, are equally true of himself. Namely, Obama is engaging in double speak again. He attacked Clinton for supporting the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, which sanctioned the Iranian Guard as a terrorist organization, despite the fact that he co-sponsored a bill that did the EXACT SAME THING just a few months prior. For example:

Barack Obama:

While others went along, Obama opposed Bush’s war plans.

Barack Obama is the ONLY major candidate for president to oppose both the Iraq War from the very start and the Senate amendment that raises the risk of war with Iran.

The amendment that Obama 1. didn’t show up to vote against and 2. was more or less identical to the bill he co-sponsored.

What’s Clinton’s stance Iran?

The Senator has long been concerned that President Bush may try to throw this country into a preemptive war with Iran and has been a leader in working to prevent it. Last February, before many others, Senator Clinton took to the Senate floor to warn the President not to take military action against Iran without going to Congress first. She said at the time, “No action can or should be taken without explicit congressional authorization.” Earlier this month, she co-sponsored legislation with Senator James Webb to prohibit the use of any federal money for an attack on Iran without specific congressional authorization. She sees nothing today that would justify Congressional approval for military action against Iran, or for the President to take any unauthorized action.