What a bone head.
As eriposte noted in his post below about Hillary and Iran Obama co-sponsored legislation that included a Sense of the Senate item that is almost exactly the same as the item in the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment.
The text of Bill S.970 is here.
Obama's getting bad advise from someone about how to go after Clinton.
Posted by snark at October 11, 2007 10:26 AMThis is John Edwards level desperation. It doesn't help my view of Obama.
Posted by at October 11, 2007 10:45 AMNonetheless, if the Iranian Rev Guard is a terrorist organization, and if the IRanian Rev Guard can be Bush/Cheney-MSM manipulated into being seen as somehow culpable (actual facts not required with the credulous MSM lapdogs) in a direct attack on US forces in Iraq, then the bases(many of them) of the Iranian Rev Guard can be bombed pre-emptively by the President's order because this is not an act of war by a sovereign nation but rather a response to an act of terrorism by a now Senatorially recognized terrorist group and therefore the attack on same group is not an act of war against the Iranian state , but rather a protective strike against a terrorist group that happens to be in Iran. And most likely the usual suspects will be dragged out prior the attack....Gordon Brown, and the Polish and a few other ex Coalition of the Willing to agree that , yes, the Iran Rev Guard is a terrorist group....
Obama might not be ready for prime time, but don't kid yourself.. the door is definitely opened with this. The Unitary Executive commander in chief thence does what is necessary to "protect the troops." Which of course is akin to "supporting the troops", which is not what Defeatocrats do... and on and on and on... hornswaggled again.
Posted by leftymn at October 11, 2007 11:03 AMagree completely with your critique of obama... but not your defense of clinton. her vote was idiotic and dangerously irresponsible.
Posted by selise at October 11, 2007 11:18 AM...by a now Senatorially recognized terrorist group...
Did you read the amendment?
It says, "that the United States should declare Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization".
"that the United States should declare"
It doesn't say that the United States declares. It doesn't even say that the Senate declares it.
It says "should declare".
The Senators can express their "sense" all they want. But the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps has NOT been officially declared a foreign terrorist organization by the United States.
Posted by snark at October 11, 2007 11:20 AMA vote for Kyl/Lieberman is indefensible, given its realpolitic repercussions. It's the 5th anniversary of the Iraq vote, and we all know what happened after that. Enough parsing. This administration is dangerous, and consequently so is any official fig leaf that gives it any more power to wage war.
Posted by brooklyn at October 11, 2007 11:23 AMThanks for posting the link to the marked up amendment. When it was first voted on, I thought the military language had been left in (maybe from a post or comments here?). It wasn't until recently that I looked into it more and found out that language had been removed--interesting to see it crossed out.
I had heard the vote had been rescheduled at the last minute and Obama was in NH. True or not?
I'm not so sure about Obama anymore. He seems to have one line--Hillary voted for the war and I was against it; therefore I'm better. It's getting old. He needs some new material.
Posted by CG at October 11, 2007 11:43 AM"should declare"
well thanks a lot snark, like Dear Leader is going to stop from actually "declaring" when the likes of Hillary just gave him a green light!
totally agree with selise: "her vote was idiotic and dangerously irresponsible."
what idiot would have voted for this bill with even the remotest chance that Bush would use it to justify attacking the "terrorists" in Iraq?!?!?!?
odd how Hillary keeps on making the same mistake, eh
Posted by Gay Veteran at October 11, 2007 12:14 PMwhoops, make that "attacking the "terrorists" in IraN"
Posted by Gay Veteran at October 11, 2007 12:15 PMBush can and probably will attack Iran if Cheney convinces him he must, regardless of whether the Kyl-LIEberman bill was stripped of the offending "military" language or not. My problem is voting for any bill sponsored by Joe Lieberman, a morally corrupt tool of the Bush Administration. Will Dem's like Durbin ever stop "trusting" the Bush Admin and their facilitators to do the right thing?
Posted by T2 at October 11, 2007 12:18 PMDurbin said he also received assurances that the U.S. is not preparing to attack Iran from a source he respects, Defense Secretary Robert Gates: "He was as clear as could be that there are no plans for that to happen."
Durbin said he also received assurances that the football will not be removed during kicking from a source he respects, Lucy Van Pelt: "She was as clear as could be that there are no plans for that to happen."
To quote Maj. Margaret Hoolihan, "UM-Day!"
Posted by bartcopfan at October 11, 2007 12:25 PMKyl/Lieberman? What a pair of losers! How does this amendment help the United States? This amendment was stupid and a complete waste of resources. If the Democrats had started this idiotic war, the republicans would have blocked this foolish amendment. Why allow a Senate vote on nonsense like this. The senate should be finding ways to end this Iraq nightmare. Clinton and other Democrats are allowing the republicans to continue running the Senate and driving the country into the ground. Why would anyone that supports real U.S. interest consider voting for this amendment. bush, cheney and the republicans were too stupid to understand that removing sadaam would empower Iran. Now these fools want to attack Iran because of their mistake and give us the bill.
This was one of the worst post that I've read on this site.
"Bush can and probably will attack Iran if Cheney convinces him he must, regardless of whether the Kyl-LIEberman bill was stripped of the offending "military" language or not."
yeah. but if you'd like to provide any generals with an out if, for example cheney says "nuke 'em", then it's not a good idea for congress to send this kind of message.
a better one would be that congress wants bushco to come to them before bombing iran... not that it would stop cheney, but because it would give the generals a reason to believe they'd recieved an illegal order.
just depends on whether you want our military to provide that last line of defense against what could be a catastrophically deadly and illegal war.
Posted by selise at October 11, 2007 01:41 PMJesus, you Hilliarites are gullible. If Hill votes FOR something, it has to be good, if she votes against anything, it has to be bad. If Cheney/Bush don't strike Iran, Hillary the Hun plans on using Kyle-Lieberman for herself when she's president, which is why she voted for it.
Posted by Julie at October 11, 2007 01:41 PMI've been listening to Obama on CNN right now. He couldn't even show up for the vote. Was in NH and says he couldn't get back to DC. Wow, that's presidential material there. What a joke he is.
Not ready for prime time, blew his chances ever of winning the WH with this haphazard campaign he's run. Ever since the Youtube debate this guy's been just another politician, nothing special. No JFK in this guy, none. No wonder he hasn't had much positive movement. He's a dud.
Posted by peter at October 11, 2007 01:59 PMSorry, snark, I don't buy the use of "should" or other parsing words as cover on this, Bush/Cheney et. al. tramples actual laws and treaty obligations with impunity, and there is ample precedent from Carter, to Reagan, to Bush the Elder, to Bill Clinton for striking terrorist organizations at their discretion and without a declaration of war... so even if this is just a slight turning of the door handle and not an actual opening of the door... it still points in the direction of setting up for a strike in Iran of some type. Hornswaggled again... Democratic leadership.... now there is an oxymoron.
Kyl and Lieberman...sheesh... what a pair to follow.
Posted by leftymn at October 11, 2007 02:35 PMAnti-war Hillaryites just don'g get it yet:
"....When a man in Anamosa, Iowa, asked her to describe her specific plan to bring troops home from Iraq, she said she would have to determine that when she takes office since she doesn't know what she would inherit....."
I have not been fully comfortable by Hillary's vote on this but the whole issue has been blurred so much. The real issue some folks are VERY uncomfortable with it is because it was sponsered by Lieberman...I wish a senate (Reid/durbin) had not brought it on the floor for a vote but since it was there, a senator should vote on its merit/underlying message? At least it was non binding...
Is IRG a terrorist organzation? if it is should it be classifed as a terrorist organization? Our troops and intelligence are saying that IRG has been involved ...
Leave out who is the VP, or the president etc....of course this is an emotional issue with bush/cheney sitting in that office!!!
So let us change the question to bigger context!
If Edwards or Obama were the president and such an amendment was voted by the senate, what would they do?....
Ignore that threat!!!!
In this issue, Obama as a senator lacked the judgement in not only voting one way or the other; he skipped the voted and now misunderstands the amendment...this is about 10 days after the issue...EXTREME poor judgement...definitely not somebody who can act as a commander in chief!
As for edwards, the fact that he keeps on saying it was a mistake, and goes back to the iraq war vote issue 5 yrs ago, shows that he cannot confidently judge this issue on its merit....if I were a psychologist, I think EDwards would be so overcome with his iraq war vote issue with every decision he has to make that it could actually handicap his overall decision making as a commander in chief...
.....
THE KEY QUESTION to them is WHAT would they do if they were the PRESIDENT today and how would they react...
"President H. Clinton" would go for tougher sanctions and concerted diplomatic solution with some carrots and sticks given to her by the Senate!!!
She would take notice of the senate and work with them!
I like Hillary but she was absolutely wrong about her vote on the so called non-binding resolution about Iran. I do not understand how she did not see the perception of her action. She claims that her Iraq vote was misused by Bush. Then why does she think that her Iran vote will not be misused?
She just alienated Democratic left that was begining to come around to her.
Posted by suresh at October 11, 2007 03:49 PMIf one actually reads the 2002 Authorization to use force against Iraq, one will see that the two conditions set forth in the legislation were not met. There was no direct link between Iraq and the 911 atrocity and there was never a threat to the national security of the US (no WMD). Therefore there was no legal authorization to wage war on Iraq.
Did that stop them? Uh, no. These people don't need a genuine authorization, only the appearence of one. That is why the Lieberman/Kyl amendment is so dangerous. It can be argued by this administration that by bombing Iran, it is continuing it's Global War on Terror, wherever it leads.
Posted by brisa at October 11, 2007 04:26 PMShe just alienated Democratic left that was begining to come around to her.
Posted by suresh at October 11, 2007 03:40PM
She does not want the "lefts" help. When will you folks understand that? SHE CANNOT WIN WITH YOUR HELP.
Christ! This has become the official "Hillary" cheerleader site. Never mind that there's practically nothing different between the DLC dogma whether it is branded "Obama" or "Hillary".
Really, I mean, where was all this superficiality and inattention to policies two years ago? Wait a minute...is this another football thread? Are the NY Hillary's playing the Chicago Obama's? Everyone pick a team!
Posted by Tampa Student at October 11, 2007 06:32 PMsuresh is right:
"She claims that her Iraq vote was misused by Bush. Then why does she think that her Iran vote will not be misused?"
she can go home now.
it's scary to think that she still trusts this administration.
it's also scary to think that the election, come November,
may be between a republican hawk and a democratic hawk.
maybe one day in this country we will have an opposition party.
Posted by joe in oklahoma at October 11, 2007 07:00 PM"....When a man in Anamosa, Iowa, asked her to describe her specific plan to bring troops home from Iraq, she said she would have to determine that when she takes office since she doesn't know what she would inherit....."
Posted by Julie at October 11, 2007 08:16 PM"The United States should declare the Fourth Reich is not the same thing as the United States declares the Fourth Reich." That's one sweet non-binding resolution. What a difference a should makes in the Senate.
Posted by Copeland at October 11, 2007 11:03 PMnice smear job on Obama and Edwards, mp
The FACT remains that Hillary voted for Kyle-Lieberman.
Posted by Gay Veteran at October 12, 2007 04:45 AMSaw Hillary last night on Keith Obermann, very impressive. BUT her response about Kyle-Liebermann was pathetic, basically: "Yeah, I voted to give the green light to King George, but now I'm joining Sen. Webb on a bill trying to reverse the damage I've already done." Jebus, can you say "triangulate"?
Posted by Gay Veteran at October 12, 2007 04:51 AMSo we call the Revolutionary Guard terrorists.
We've been running around the world over-stating our intention to hunt down ALL terrorists and kill them.
2 + 2 still equals 4, right?
Everything else is just an argument of semantics.
Actually, Israel created Hezbollah with their illegal and murderous invasion of Lebanon in 1982.
Bottom line is the US has zero moral standing to label any other group or state any goddamned thing. How many Iraqis has our military murdered in this illegal invasion and occupation of Irag in order to set up permanent bases and steal their oil? How is destroying a country based on a pack of lies not terrorism and not a despicable war crime?