Perhaps Tommy Thompson should spend more time and money on this Tammy Baldwin vote than on the one against honoring 9/11 victims in 2006. Because as lame as her answer is on the 9/11 vote, it's non-existent on this vote. She agreed with the sentinment of the vote, but voted present because she was afraid then-President George W. Bush would use it as cover to go to war with Iran?  Try to decipher this for yourself: 

"This (resolution) came up at the same time that we had a president who was saber-rattling about yet another conflict," Baldwin said. "It was of great concern to me that he could at some point in the future - as he did in Iraq - point back at that and say, 'This is Congress supporting regime change (in Iran); let's use military means to do that."

The only two House members to oppose the legislation were fringe lawmakers Dennis Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat, and Ron Paul, a Texas Republican. Kucinich came under fire from Jewish leaders for insisting Ahmadinejad merely wanted a new regime in Israel, not the death of its citizens and backers.

Baldwin said she decided to vote "present" because she agreed with the sentiments in the resolution. She said she vigorously opposed the statements from Iran's anti-Zionist leader dismissing the Holocaust and declaring that supporters of the state of Israel will "burn in the fire of the Islamic nations' fury."

"It's a tough decision," Baldwin said. As for her position, she said, "It's hard to explain."

Yes. Apparently it's very hard to explain because Baldwin did a miserable job explaining it. I'll tell you why she voted present. She didn't have a lot of foresight on many of her votes, but apparently she understood the damage a "no" vote here could have in the future. So, she tried to pull an "Obama" and vote present. If you agree with the sentinments, then vote yes. If you think it's a mechanism to start a war, say so and vote no. This muddled answer shows she's got nothing on this. Thompson should smell the blood in the water and go after this.