ust because Bush might falsely claim that this toothless resolution gives him the legal authority to invade Iran, doesn't mean that progressives should be claiming that it gives him that authority.
Of course they shouldn't, however, I think the point they are trying to get across which you touched on is that Bush will interpret this as tacit support for his "policies" towards Iran.
I think we have more than ample evidence that Bush's foreign policies are a dangerous and a failure. I oppose anything that gives Bush the slightest hint that he is pursuing the correct paths in foreign policy. He has failed and failed badly, and its time to take the keys away permanently.
It was these little steps which, individually, didn't look all that overreaching which slowly ratched up the Iraq rhetoric until it was a frenzy.
voting in favor of Kyl-Lieberman may have the effect of aiding Bush's belligerence against Iran
Yes, but the larger point is that it will have a larger effect with congress and the general public to start accepting insane policies dealing with Iran.
Aside from Obama's and Edwards past foreign policy visions, I think there is bit too much parsing of the statements here. So what that it is toothless, and non-binding.
kyl-Lieberman is a step in the wrong direction down a very dangerous path.
Posted by Simp at November 3, 2007 08:55 AMVery nice ERi, well said, except for the illegal references supposedly comitted by our president. Any president can attack any country without Congressional approval. They can maintain a presence for about 60 days without approval. It's when we cross that threshold that Congress gets into the act. That's where funding becomes the issue. I'm referencing Grenada and Panama activities here and maybe even Yugoslavia and the Air Force activities there. But anyhow, very well expressed.
Posted by peter at November 3, 2007 08:59 AMSimp,
I don't think we disagree that these kinds of votes help Bush. But my point is there are ways to communicate that without going overboard. As I will discuss in my next post, Obama has made statements in the past to the effect that lobbing missiles "surgically" into Iran could be an option to prevent them from building nuclear capability. He supported the designation of Iran's revolutionary guard as a terrorist organization, and so on. So, he and Edwards have made statements that Bush can use as well. We need to be careful not to go overboard with this stuff.
Posted by eriposte at November 3, 2007 09:10 AMThe difference between now and the recent past is that the 1998 non-binding vote on Saddam was trotted out by the neo-cons as evidence that many Democrats agreed with their notions of Saddam being an immenent threat because they'd already gone on record saying as much.
This is the same thing Liebermann/Kyl does and don't think for a second that the White House wasn't behind bringing it to a vote so that they could use it for supporting upcoming military action against Iran.
Your argument so far is based on an irrational premise: Neither Clinton nor Obama are proponents of the Unitary Executive theory (Clinton to a point is, of course) and neither is likely to use the military as a first strike instrument. Bush has already done this and appears to be itching for more.
Posted by tonyroma at November 3, 2007 10:45 AMObama's flailing. I expect Hillary's campaign to take about his latest series of lies with surgical precision.
Posted by at November 3, 2007 10:50 AMNeither Clinton nor Obama are proponents of the Unitary Executive theory (Clinton to a point is, of course) and neither is likely to use the military as a first strike instrument.
Neither one of them have done anything that make me believe that.
Posted by eRobin at November 3, 2007 11:24 AMWRONG, Obama and Edwards are saying that the President WILL (not "can") use resolutions without binding or legal authority as a justification or “blank check” to invade other countries
What the hell do you think was the entire point of Kyle/Liebermann?!?!?!? You think this resolution was just for the hell of it? No, it was to get Congress on the record, and then Bush WILL (not "can") use the resolution to support an attack on Iran.
Posted by gay veteran at November 3, 2007 12:10 PMHe doesn't need Kyl/Lieberman to order an attack on Iran. He doesn't need Congress either. Presidential authority as used by Reagan, Bush, and Clinton proves it isn't needed. Once you do, if it's a sustained presence, then Congress gets envolved. Of course a call to the leadership informing them as what action he's ordering is always appropriate.
The 'can' or 'will' doesn't matter at all.
Posted by peter at November 3, 2007 12:18 PMThe memes spread by Kyl-Lieberman are more dangerous than its status as a "toothless resolution". I'm speaking of the unsustantiated charges that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, the charges that Iran is responsible for American combat deaths in Iraq, the whole mystification in which Iran is presented as an imminent threat to the USA or Israel. Who can think otherwise when the resolution says with an overwhelming vote, that Iran's Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organization?
I think we ought to wonder whether the senators are guilty of misconduct with this measure, as well as bad judgement. They are preparing the ground of deception here. And how are they not suspect for doing this?
Bush won't have to say, "Look, the Senate gave me authority to bomb Iran",...but rather he can point to the resolution and say, "The sense of the Senate is that Iran is guilty of these things. This danger has forced my hand."
Posted by Copeland at November 3, 2007 03:34 PMOh Copeland, what rubish you post. Should our president see the need to do something in Iran, he will not be siting Kyl-Lieberman's Sense of the Senate.
Posted by peter at November 3, 2007 09:07 PMof course pants-pissing peter, safe in mommy's basement, lusts for another war just like the rest of the neo-con psychopaths
btw, Frank Rich has a great column in Sundays' New York Times about Hillary and Iran
Posted by gay veteran at November 4, 2007 06:51 AMeriposte, thanks for articulating exactly what I was feeling during the debate, and have been arguing here for quite a while now.
Posted by iamcoyote at November 4, 2007 07:08 AMConsider this: Israel wants the U.S. to attack Iran, Hillary is in bed with the Israel Lobby. What other reason can you name for her vote in favor of Kyle-Lieberman?
I agree with Gravel who recently said "Hillary is propaganda, she's the most dangerous candidate among Democrats," and I will add that she is equally as dangerous as Bush. The myth of the "lesser evil" is pure bunk. It's time Democrats stop being hoodwinked by it. Hilary's obsession with proving a woman can be as tough on terrorism as any man is an ominous sign that she will follow the neocon agenda on foreign policy issues.
How any progressive-minded person can support Hillary is beyond me, given her record, her triangulation, etc. Like the many blue dog Democrats who have infiltrated the party, she may have a "D" next to her name, but her votes are pure Republican. No wonder military contractors are donating to the Hillary campaign. For them as for Republicans Hillary v. Guiliani or Hillary v. Romny is a win-win situation.
Stop thinking like a party loyalist and start thinking like a citizen. We can stop Hillary in the primary. Let's not lose this opportunity to put a "real" Democrat in the White House.
Posted by Diana at November 5, 2007 02:15 PM