As written, the Kyl/Lieberman amendment is a back door for the Bush administration to attack Iran at will. Senator Webb voted against the amendment because, as he stated, the amendment opens that door. Here are the facts: the U.S. is at war against all terrorist organizations (Congress gave that power to Bush) and the Bush administration can therefore attack any designated terrorist or terrorist organization anywhere, anytime. The amendment states:
16... the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224..
The paragraph above is what opens the door for attacking Iran. The Bush administration can attack any time, any where the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp. by designating that force which operates in Iran as a terrorist organization.
The amendment was geared to give Bush that opening. The Senate has again given a blank check to Bush. If the House of Representatives goes along with the Senate, it will be a sad day for all who do not believe the propaganda being waged against Iran.
Clinton is being disingenuous about when she explains her vote.
Posted by Prabhata at October 12, 2007 10:17 PMJeff,
First, Jeff, your blogs and eriposte's are just phenomenal. They are always must reads for me.
Prabhata, that's bull. Just plain bull. I don't know what is happening to the left. We are allowing our hatred and our suspicion of Bush to take over any rationality we have. We attack everyone -- including those in our own party -- who even attempts to deal with Iran. We can not handicap our Democratic leaders. Foreign policy still needs to be conducted.
There are justifiable paranoia, but to think that Bush can just use Kyl/Lieberman to attack Iran is preposterous.
Don't you forget Prabhata, that Obama co-sponsored a bill this past spring to label the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization.
Where's your outrage? Where's the outrage from the left-blogosphere?
This resolution is not "opening doors."
Posted by Jamie at October 12, 2007 11:20 PMHe's lying to the American people about what the vote means, and engaging in some Republican-style fear-mongering.
Good job changing the subject to Obama's games instead of swallowing the true significance of this vote. Yeah, Obama should have taken time off from campaigning to vote against the thing. But for you to characterize Obama's fairly mild criticism of the bill as "Republican-style fear-mongering" I cannot comprehend. Jeff, in your zeal to defend Sen. Clinton have not offered a substantive reason as to why Obama's wrong.
Yes we can agree that Obama's "politics of hope" is a bunch of fluffed up rhetoric, falling by the wayside in the heat of the campaign. In spite of his writings and Americans' reputed distaste for attack ads, etc., such tactics have been shown to work, which is why politicians running for office will continue to attack, even when they have some "bipartisan" "new politics" shtick. So it figures that Obama's adversaries will throw his words from his book back in his face. Fair enough.
Now can we talk about what's wrong with the Kyl/Lieberman? We HAVE 20 minutes to explain the wisdom or lack thereof of this amendment.
Prabhata summarized the situation better than I could. Senator Clinton's got some 'splaining to do. Why would anyone in their right mind give THIS president any more power to do ANYthing? If it takes Obama hypocritically attacking her for her vote then, well, GOOD. I'm glad Senator Obama brought up this vote with Blitzer.
You seem to want to focus on the messenger (Obama) instead of dealing with the merits of the message. Since you see fit to characterize Obama's comments as "Republican style fear mongering," I feel it's fare to express my sense of deja vu, like listening to Karl Rove's minions attack a political opponent's character instead of addressing the meat of a given issue.
Or perhaps you've already written about why it's good Hillary voted for this thing(?)
Posted by TrainWreck at October 12, 2007 11:57 PMPrabhata, that's bull. Just plain bull.
Jamie, just because Obama's been inconsistent doesn't mean this amendment is right. And by the way look at the names on this amendment. Are either of the sponsoring Senators Democrats? NO.
There are justifiable paranoia, but to think that Bush can just use Kyl/Lieberman to attack Iran is preposterous.
Well if it's justifiable it's not paranoia and it's not preposterous. I truly hope I'm wrong and your right and Bush won't be able to use Kyl/Lieberman to attack Iran. But I wouldn't be surprised. And to characterize such a fear as "preposterous" after all we've seen in the past 6 years... ?
This isn't "bull." The most RATIONALE course of action is to NOT GIVE BUSH ANY MORE POWER. Are you really so afraid that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is going to attack America that you would give Bush more power? You dismiss Prabhata's logic and call it paranoid. So explain how this DOESN'T give Bush a chance for more WARS of CHOICE, instead of just handwaving. Where's the bull?
And this whole business of branding groups as terrorist or not is a whole other subject. Lots of groups the U.S. supports could just as easily be defined as "terrorist." It's a political label for "our" enemies. It's not equally applied in an objective manner to all paramilitary groups according to the official U.S. govt. definition - see Chomsky's discussion.
Posted by TrainWreck at October 13, 2007 12:13 AMobama is a hypocrite an should have voted no - but that does nothing to take away from clinton's stupid and irresponsible vote in favor of kyl/lieberman.
here's what senator webb had to say about kyl/lieberman from the senate floor, as he was asking his fellow senators to vote against it:
"We are about to vote on something that may fundamentally change the way that the United States views the Iranian military, and we haven’t had one hearing. This is not the way to make foreign policy. It’s not the way to declare war, although this cleverly worded sense of the Congress could be interpreted that way.
"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. The constant turmoil that these sorts of proposals and actions are bringing to the region is counterproductive. They are regrettable substitute for a failure of diplomacy by this Administration.
"I do not believe that any serious student of foreign policy could support this amendment as it now exists.
"This proposal is Dick Cheney’s fondest pipe dream. It’s not a prescription for success. At best, it’s a deliberate attempt to divert attention from a failed diplomatic policy. At worst, it could be read as a back door method of gaining congressional validation for action with one hearing or without serious debate."
listen to webb here
Posted by selise at October 13, 2007 03:37 AMGreat post. Dead on, too!
Posted by Joseph Palla at October 13, 2007 05:09 AMEvery post here, sans Jamie, has been directly on point. I'd only like to add a few more facts to the pile. The evening before the vote on Lieberman/Kyl, Harry Reid told the Senate that no vote was forthcoming and likely wouldn't happen until days, maybe weeks later. Senators Obama and McCain left DC and headed out on the campaign trail. At noon the next day, Reid scheduled the vote for 12.45pm. It was impossible for either Obama or McCain to "beam into" DC in time for the vote. Why Reid did this, only he knows, but Reid's son is one of Hillary's campaign workers in Nevada, although this might be nothing more than a coincidence.
Obama clarified his position on the resolution in his op-ed in New Hampshire. He doesn't doubt Hillary's sincerity on the matter, he just refuses to give Bush ANYTHING that he can construe into a rationale for attacking Iran, as Prabhata made the case for above. While watching a historical perspective of the CIA last night, these facts became evident: The US has used the CIA to arm and train fighters in Afghanistan and in Nicaragua that fought against the governments of each. Neither the Soviets nor Cubans claimed that the CIA was a terrorist organization, though this is what they were if you were on the other side. Its reckless and dangerous to act as though proxy-wars haven't been fought for centuries for any number of reasons. This is just another reason the resolution was ill-considered and outright dangerous.
Posted by tonyroma at October 13, 2007 07:36 AMfor those who think clinton was right to vote "yes" on kyl/lieberman - could you please explain why you think this? i'd especially apreciate consideration of the issues/problems with the amendment raised here. thanks.
Posted by selise at October 13, 2007 08:30 AMObama missed the vote because it was cancelled, and then while he was in N.H. they gave him an hours notice that it was up for vote again. Seems like somebodys messing with him to me. Of course he is going to start pointing out his opponents flaws, but I believe he can do so without the kind of "attack" that all you crazy media types get hyped up about, although I can see you will still present it that way. What a bunch of crap. Obama is amazing and will be one of the best presidents this country has ever had.
Posted by Amy at October 13, 2007 08:50 AMI find it interesting that only one comment even tries to defend Hillary. Chris Matthews called out the MSM last night on Hardball for eagerly relaying Hillary's spokesperson's replies when the candidates say something in contrast to her, and then treating both responses as equal. The media is foisting the inevitability of Hillary as its daily narrative, and if anyone thinks Fox News is a sympathetic outlet for "defining what she really meant," they've been drinking the kool-aide far too long.
With her outright breech of promise to remove herself from the Michigan ballot if it preceded the historic early states, yet again we see someone unable to stay true to her word for the seeming sake of political calculus. I wonder if the people will wake up to the fact that Hillary only sees us as the avenue for her own ambition by stating whatever suits her purposes at that particular moment?
Posted by tonyroma at October 13, 2007 09:32 AMAmy and Tonyroma (Romo?), it is an hour and a half flight from NH to DC, if this vote was as important to him as he's making it out to be now, he could've gotten back. His mentor, Dick Durbin, surely was advising him as to when the vote was to be held.
It also took him 9 hours to make a statement on the amendment after the vote. I know the Politico repeatedly tried to get a comment from him throughout the day, to no avail. He finally made his statement at 10pm that night, seemingly because he was forced into it. Now, of course, he's very eager to talk about it.
And Selise, maybe my earlier post on this matter, with some pretty good links, will be of some help to you. Just scroll down to Thursday's writings and you'll find it.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at October 13, 2007 10:15 AMI await Jeff and Jamie's defense of this amendment. So far I've heard invective thrown at Sen. Obama and "the left." I would like to hear some facts from them supporting their viewpoint. AND PLEASE DON'T RESPOND BY SAYING "THAT'S BULL" IF YOU'RE NOT GONNA BACK UP YOUR ASSERTIONS WITH SOME DATA.
I'm not so keen on either Obama or Clinton but I would vote for either one in a general election. Neither would have gotten us into this mess and any of the Dem candidates running would be better than any Repub. Like I said before voting for a flawed candidate to keep out a monster is OKAY.
Really the more interesting discussion is what does this amendment really mean and what do we do about it now. And I'm really disatisfied with the Clinton team's response to this issue. Instead of explaining the vote they have decided to focus on impugning the other candidate who called Clinton out on this. This "attack the messenger" strategy seems more "Republican-style" than anything Obama said.
I don't know what is happening to the left. We are allowing our hatred and our suspicion of Bush to take over any rationality we have.
NO WE ARE NOT. Seeing as Bush IS the commander in chief (illegitimately IMO), making it easier for him to attack Iran is NOT rational. Do you believe the propaganda that Iran is an imminent threat? Remember, "we" are over there. "They" are not over here. And as far as Iran's current president goes, Bush's policies are strengthening his hand, domestically, i.e. reducing the chances of having a more moderate leadership in Iran.
Posted by TrainWreck at October 13, 2007 10:19 AMThe media is foisting the inevitability of Hillary as its daily narrative
And so are the Republican candidates. Did you see the debate the other night?
I await Jeff and Jamie's defense of this amendment.
Man's got a point, Dinelli. I seem to recall you were as outraged as Soto when it hit. What changed? Perhaps you could enlighten us, because apparently we're still pissed off about it. Except Jamie, who has a much brighter outlook.
No offense, Jamie. You've taught me a new oxymoron today. "Justifiable Paranoia". I love it!!
So what do you say, Jeff? Wanna get into it? Start a new thread -- that's a conversation I'd like to get in on.
Posted by MaskedVigilante at October 13, 2007 11:28 AMJeff - thanks, but your post on thursday doesn't do anything to explain why voting "yes" on kyl/lieberman was a good idea. and none of the several issues/problems/dangers brought up in this thread have been addressed. i don't get it.
Posted by selise at October 13, 2007 11:55 AMI'm not an Obama supporter. I restricted my comment to the amendment and why I agree with Senator Webb. I disapprove Clinton's vote for what it is. Before the vote, I wrote to my two senators in California and asked them to vote against the amendment. Do I think that Bush will use the amendment to attack Iran? Not yet, both houses in congress would have to vote on the amendment. Bottom line is that the amendment send the wrong message to Bush, and Clinton is playing a game. She wants those who want war against Iran happy while telling those who don't want another unprovoked war that her vote is being misunderstood.
Posted by Prabhata at October 13, 2007 12:43 PMsome of you people are incredibly naive
why would anyone vote for a bill that had the slightest chance of giving King George a green light to attack Iran?!?!?!?
and IF the Kyle/Liberman bill is so safe then why is Hillary now supporting Webb's new bill regarding Iran?