How was the senate resolution yesterday different than the one Obama co-sponsered earlier this year?

[Clintonista2]

....(8) 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).

Links: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-970
(sponsor list) http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN00970:@@@P

[Lydia Leftcoast]

1. I didn't like that one, either, and it's a reason I can't support Obama

So there.

[sandnsea]

2. It's sanctions legislation with 68 senators supporting

nice try completely distorting what is happening in Congress. You're dealing with real lives, you might want to consider.

[Clintonista2]

3. What does the number of senators supporting have to do with it?

76 senators voted for the Iran resolution yesterday. Nice try deflecting, though.

[sandnsea]

12. Boxer, Dodd, Kerry

The Senators on the list matter.

[Clintonista2]

14. Dodd and Kerry for for the IWR, I geuss it's ok now?

[sandnsea]

16. Nov 2003, we need to "stay the course"

Thats your warmonger. Deal with it.

[Clintonista2]

18. It's 2007 now, and Obama is banging the war drums

[karynnj]

96. 3 of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

On this issue, the experts were the SFRC members. The five senior Democrats - Biden, Dodd, Kerry, Feingold and Boxer all voted against it - as did the top 2 Republicans. That should tell you how bad yesterday's bill is.

[wyldwolf]

4. oops.

[Lord Helmet]

5. that measure didn't have Lieberman as a cosponsor.

[Clintonista2]

6. Yes it did

Please read the co-sponsor link I provided in the OP

[Lord Helmet]

13. can you hear the drum beat for war on Iran?

Point taken on Lieberman, but that does not excuse Hillary for signing on to the drive for war on Iran.
The first bill was about sanctions and this one had way harsher language. A similar bill on Iraq that didn't turn out so well.

[AtomicKitten]

91. Hillary co-sponsored the same bill the hypocrites are kvetching about.

[Clintonista2]

92. Not denying that

We all know how Hillary voted yesterday. I just love how many Obama supporters claim his no-show was vote no. I'm curious to see how they rationalize his co-sponsering of a similar piece of legislation.

[rinsd]

7. For the record Hillary also co-sponsored that resolution which was not voted on (nt)

[Clintonista2]

8. Yes, and we already know her feelings on this matter

My point is, Obama supporters need to get off their high horse. And nice avatar image, when all you do is bash Hillary.

[rinsd]

9. "when all you do is bash Hillary"

I've been called many things on this board but a Hillary basher?

:rofl:

[Clintonista2]

11. Link to one positive thing you've ever said about Hillary please

[rinsd]

15. Tell you what. Use DU's search feature for General Discusssion - Politics

Put in the keywords rinsd and hillary and tell me what you find.

And if that's doesn't do it for your ask SaveElmer, Wyldwolf, Durrtylibby, William769, ElizabethDC, ronnykmarshall or basically any of the other prominent Clinton supporters here how I feel about Hillary.

Shit if you really want an answer ask some of the regular supporters of our opponents how I feel about Hillary.

I don't always agree with my candidate and after fighting for her on this board going back to her Senate reelection campaign I think I have the right to speak my mind when I don't.

[wyldwolf]

19. Lirwin2, rinsd is only guilty of trying to be fair

Unfortunately based on my experiences, trying to be fair only gets you chewed up on DU. Perhaps rinsd has had a better experience with it.

Me? I could post "It's raining outside," and get replies ranging from "no, it's only drizzling" to "do you get paid to shill for the weather channel?"

[rinsd]

28. Unfortunately true far too often.

"trying to be fair only gets you chewed up on DU"

But sometimes we must make the effort.

And I know you still do even when you get nothing but scorn for it from some quarters.

[Adelante]

59. Oh, for Christ's sake

rinsd is a devoted Clinton supporter. And a rational one.

[BootinUp]

76. Yeah, I'm the irrational one

Get it straight friend. ;)

[rinsd]

89. Thanks

:thumbsup:

[SaveElmer]

10. Nice find...

Wonder if Obama would have ducked out on voting for that one as well...

[wyldwolf]

17. notice not one Obama supporter has given a credible answer.

[Clintonista2]

21. I don't expect one, either

[sandnsea]

23. It's completely different and you guys are disgusting

S.970 It's so completely different that it's impossible to compare the two. Read the damn thing before you shoot your mouth off. You're making fools of yourselves.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
SEC. 5. CLARIFICATION AND EXPANSION OF DEFINITIONS.
SEC. 6. RUSSIA NUCLEAR COOPERATION.
SEC. 7. ECONOMIC SANCTIONS RELATING TO IRAN.
SEC. 8. LIABILITY OF PARENT COMPANIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF SANCTIONS BY FOREIGN ENTITIES.
SEC. 9. ELIMINATION OF CERTAIN TAX INCENTIVES FOR OIL COMPANIES INVESTING IN IRAN.
SEC. 10. WORLD BANK LOANS TO IRAN.
SEC. 11. INCREASED CAPACITY FOR EFFORTS TO COMBAT UNLAWFUL OR TERRORIST FINANCING.
SEC. 12. NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATE ON IRAN.
SEC. 13. EXCHANGE PROGRAMS WITH THE PEOPLE OF IRAN.
SEC. 14. RADIO BROADCASTING TO IRAN.
SEC. 15. INTERNATIONAL REGIME FOR THE ASSURED SUPPLY OF NUCLEAR FUEL FOR PEACEFUL MEANS.
SEC. 16. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

[Clintonista2]

25. SEC.3 Sense of congress- It does exactly what yesterdays bill does

Read the thing before you make uninformed statements please.

[sandnsea]

27. No it doesn't, it's completely different

Read it.

[Clintonista2]

29. The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist

Organization.

[SaveElmer]

32. Here are the relevent sections from the two proporsals...

S. 970: Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007

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).

Kyl-Lieberman Amendment

(5) that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign 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; and

(6) that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.

In fact, sections of the resolution that did refer to military action were removed due to objections from Democrats...

[Texas_Kat]

36. Well, in S.970

"Foreign Terrorist Organization" was capitalized.... I guess that make it different.

[BootinUp]

77. lol. n/t

[zulchzulu]

35. If you don't read the Amendment, then there is no reason to talk to you about it

SA 3017. Mr. KYL (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Coleman) proposed an amendment to amendment SA 2011 proposed by Mr. Nelson of Nebraska (for Mr. Levin) to the bill H.R. 1585, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; as follows:

At the end of subtitle C of title XV, add the following:

SEC. 1535. SENSE OF SENATE ON IRAN.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:

(1) General David Petraeus, commander of the Multi-National Force Iraq, stated in testimony before a joint session of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives on September 10, 2007, that ``t is increasingly apparent to both coalition and Iraqi leaders that Iran, through the use of the Iranian Republican Guard Corps Qods Force, seeks to turn the Shi'a militia extremists into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests and fight

a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq''.

(2) Ambassador Ryan Crocker, United States Ambassador to Iraq, stated in testimony before a joint session of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives on September 10, 2007, that ``Iran plays a harmful role in Iraq. While claiming to support Iraq in its transition, Iran has actively undermined it by providing lethal capabilities to the enemies of the Iraqi state''.

(3) The most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, published in August 2007, states that ``Iran has been intensifying aspects of its lethal support for select groups of Iraqi Shia militants, particularly the JAM , since at least the beginning of 2006. Explosively formed penetrator (EFP) attacks have risen dramatically''.

(4) The Report of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, released on September 6, 2007, states that ``he Commission concludes that the evidence of Iran's increasing activism in the southeastern part of the country, including Basra and Diyala provinces, is compelling. ..... It is an accepted fact that most of the sophisticated weapons being used to `defeat' our armor protection comes across the border from Iran with relative impunity''.

(5) General (Ret.) James Jones, chairman of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, stated in testimony before the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate on September 6, 2007, that ``e judge that the goings-on across the Iranian border in particular are of extreme severity and have the potential of at least delaying our efforts inside the country. Many of the arms and weapons that kill and maim our soldiers are coming from across the Iranian border''.

(6) General Petraeus said of Iranian support for extremist activity in Iraq on April 26, 2007, that ``e know that it goes as high as Suleimani, who is the head of the Qods Force. ..... We believe that he works directly for the supreme leader of the country''.

(7) Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, the president of Iran, stated on August 28, 2007, with respect to the United States presence in Iraq, that ``he political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly. Soon we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course we are prepared to fill the gap''.

(8) Ambassador Crocker testified to Congress, with respect to President Ahmedinejad's statement, on September 11, 2007, that ``he Iranian involvement in Iraq--its support for extremist militias, training, connections to Lebanese Hezbollah, provision of munitions that are used against our force as well as the Iraqis--are all, in my view, a pretty clear demonstration that Ahmedinejad means what he says, and is already trying to implement it to the best of his ability''.

(9) General Petraeus stated on September 12, 2007, with respect to evidence of the complicity of Iran in the murder of members of the Armed Forces of the United States in Iraq, that ``e evidence is very, very clear. We captured it when we captured Qais Khazali, the Lebanese Hezbollah deputy commander, and others, and it's in black and white. ..... We interrogated these individuals. We have on tape. ..... Qais Khazali himself. When asked, could you have done what you have done without Iranian

support, he literally throws up his hands and laughs and says, of course not. ..... So they told us about the amounts of money that they have received. They told us about the training that they received. They told us about the ammunition and sophisticated weaponry and all of that that they received''.

(10) General Petraeus further stated on September 14, 2007, that ``hat we have got is evidence. This is not intelligence. This is evidence, off computers that we captured, documents and so forth. ..... In one case, a 22-page document that lays out the planning, reconnaissance, rehearsal, conduct, and aftermath of the operation conducted that resulted in the death of five of our soldiers in Karbala back in January''.

(11) The Department of Defense report to Congress entitled ``Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq'' and released on September 18, 2007, consistent with section 9010 of Public Law 109-289, states that ``here has been no decrease in Iranian training and funding of illegal Shi'a militias in Iraq that attack Iraqi and Coalition forces and civilians..... Tehran's support for these groups is one of the greatest impediments to progress on reconciliation''.

(12) The Department of Defense report further states, with respect to Iranian support for Shi'a extremist groups in Iraq, that ``ost of the explosives and ammunition used by these groups are provided by the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force..... For the period of June through the end of August, events are projected to rise by 39 percent over the period of March through May''.

(13) Since May 2007, Ambassador Crocker has held three rounds of talks in Baghdad on Iraq security with representatives of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

(14) Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress on September 10, 2007, with respect to these talks, stating that ``I laid out the concerns we had over Iranian activity that was damaging to Iraq's security, but found no readiness on Iranians' side at all to engage seriously on these issues. The impression I came with after a couple rounds is that the Iranians were interested simply in the appearance of discussions, of being seen to be at the table with the U.S. as an arbiter of Iraq's present

and future, rather than actually doing serious business ..... Right now, I haven't seen any sign of earnest or seriousness on the Iranian side''.

(15) Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress on September 11, 2007, stating that ``e have seen nothing on the ground that would suggest that the Iranians are altering what they're doing in support of extremist elements that are going after our forces as well as the Iraqis''.

(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--

(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;

(2) that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;

(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;

(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;

(5) that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign 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; and

(6) that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.

[Clintonista2]

44. You're quoting the original proposed amendment, not the modified version that was voted on yesterday

Don't let the facts get in your way, though~!

[zulchzulu]

101. The amendment text is from the Senate web site. Is there another Senate?

Point to me the "modified version"...

[goodgd_yall]

67. Wrong version. n/t

[Dawgs]

38. Notice how only Hillary supporters think this is the same thing.

[SaveElmer]

42. Notice how it is the same thing...nt

[goodgd_yall]

70. The major concern I heard expressed

about the Lieberman/Kyl amendment was that it designates the Iranian army as a terrorist organization. If it is a terrorst organization, it was argued, Congress has already given Bush authority to do whatever is in his power to stop it, including military force. They base this on the IWR (I think it was) which gave Bush authority to combat all terrorists.

So if Obama also voted for a bill that would designate the Iranian army as terrorist organization, he has essentially given Bush the go ahead to stop it in whatever way possible.

If you argue the bill Obama voted for is no big deal, then neither is the Lieberman/Kyl amendment because it does nothing other than state it's a terrorist organization as well. Note that is was amended and the bellicose language was removed.

[Cameron27]

20. It doesn't look different to me.

Interesting, I hope you get more discussion.

[sandnsea]

22. the stated purpose is SANCTIONS

It's an economic sanctions bill, completely. It's totally different. S.970. Read the damn thing.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.970:

[Clintonista2]

24. If it's purpose is SANCTIONS then why does it classify Iran as terrorists?

That doesn't sound like sanctions to me.

[sandnsea]

26. Read the damn thing

Don't talk to me again until you do.

[Clintonista2]

30. The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist

Organization. How does that differ to yesterdays Iran insert?

[sandnsea]

46. military vs economic

Yesterday's allows the use of "military instruments" with "respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies".

[Clintonista2]

48. No, any mention of "military instruments" was removed from yesterday's bill

Please go out and READ the bill.

[sandnsea]

51. Good, but economic sanctions weren't added

It is not an economic sanctions bill. It is still a military bill to designate and pursue terrorists into Iran.

[SaveElmer]

54. The purpose for putting a country on the terrorist watch list is precisely that ...

That is what the exceutive order calls for

Here is a synopsis of the consequences of being placed on the terrorist watch list

Legal Consequences

1. With limited exceptions set forth in the Order, or as authorized by OFAC, all property and interests in property of designated individuals or entities that are in the United States or that come within the United States, or that come within the possession or control of U.S. persons are blocked.

2. With limited exceptions set forth in the Order, or as authorized by OFAC, any transaction or dealing by U.S. persons or within the United States in property or interests in property blocked pursuant to the Order is prohibited, including but not limited to the making or receiving of any contribution of funds, goods, or services to or for the benefit of individuals or entities designated under the Order.

3. Any transaction by any U.S. person or within the United States that evades or avoids, or has the purpose of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate, any of the prohibitions in the Order is prohibited. Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions is also prohibited.

4. Civil and criminal penalties may be assessed for violations.

Other Effects

1. Deters donations or contributions to designated individuals or entities.

2. Heightens public awareness and knowledge of individuals or entities linked to terrorism.

3. Alerts other governments to U.S. concerns about individuals or entities aiding terrorism, and promotes due diligence by such governments and private sector entities operating within their territories to avoid associations with terrorists.

4. Disrupts terrorist networks, thereby cutting off access to financial and other resources from sympathizers.

5. Encourages designated entities to get out of the terrorism business.

[Clintonista2]

55. No, it's non-binding, it isn't designed to pursue terrorists into Iran

If it WERE binding, however, it would do exactly the same thing Obama's bill would do, which would be to classify the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a foreign terrorist organization.

[SaveElmer]

49. No it doesn't...

That provision was struck from the final resolution...

[sandnsea]

52. One is still economic sanctions, the other isn't

It's still politically sick to compare the two. An unbelievable distortion that if it were tried at the campaign level would get the candidate permanently laughed out of the running.

[SaveElmer]

56. You are wrong...plain and simple...

All references to military consequences were struck from the resolution...and in fact probably would not have passed if they had not been...

[sandnsea]

57. It still refers to our military presence

and ratchets up the military rhetoric against Iran. It is NOT a sanctions bill like the first. They are not the same and it's disgusting that you'd say they are. The lowest thing you guys have stooped to yet.

[SaveElmer]

58. What's low...

Is that you continue to defend a position that has been thoroughly debunked...give it up

[sandnsea]

60. S. 970 is SANCTIONS

and I know you aren't stupid enough to not know it. So the reason you choose to pretend otherwise is clear.

[Clintonista2]

61. Why are you still posting? You've been thoroughly debunked

[sandnsea]

62. anybody who reads it can see the clear difference

Just because you're willing to lie about completely different legislation doesn't make you right.

[Clintonista2]

63. Yes, there is a clear difference between

What you've been posting (the ORIGINAL amendment), and what was actually voted on (yesterday's vote). Apology accepted.

[sandnsea]

65. Kyl Lieberman was NOT about SANCTIONS

In any form, original or otherwise. Kyl Lieberman was about our "military presence" and Iran's threat to the "prospects for democracy for the people of the region" and the "critical national interest of the US" and terra terra terra - which in conjunction with the 9/11 resolution gives Bush the authority to militarily pursue Iranian terrorists. It was not, is not, never was intended to be - a SANCTIONS resolution.

They are completely different.

[SaveElmer]

64. I have provided you the actual consequences of putting a country on a terrorist list...

The primary consequence of which are sanctions...and of which military options are not even implied...

Those are the facts...

That you want to live in a state of perpetual outrage over slights real and imagined is your problem...

[sandnsea]

66. Kyl Lieberman is not about sanctions

It is about ratcheting up the rhetoric so Bush can claim he's chasing terrorists in accordance with the 9/11 terrorist resolution. It was not limited to sanctions the way S970 is. You guys are just pathetic.

[Clintonista2]

68. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true

Even the hardcore Obama fans know to avoid this topic, for some reason you haven't picked up on that, though.

[sandnsea]

72. They didn't read the two bills

and frankly, some of them are quite naive in politics and too easily intimidated by the Hillary onslaught. I'm not so you can waste your time trying it. These are two different bills and anybody who reads them can see it.

[Clintonista2]

74. They are two separate bills that do the same thing. nt.

[sandnsea]

78. Specifying Economic Sanctions as the purpose

of a bill is completely different than concocting open-ended military threats. Totally different. I've got better things to do than teach you how to read legislation.

[Clintonista2]

80. Please read SaveElmers post about what classifying a state as "terrorist" does. nt.

[sandnsea]

81. Impose Sanctions on Iran and on other countries

for assisting Iran in developing a nuclear program, and for other purposes.

Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007

TWO DIFFERENT BILLS.

[BootinUp]

83. ...that both contained the same terrorist designation language n/t

[sandnsea]

84. You know what, when we're at war with Iran

you can all come back and tell me how it was all the same. fucking idiots. every goddamn one of you Hillary supporters.

[BootinUp]

85. I assure you

I won't accept your lame argument in that unfortunate event either.

[BootinUp]

79. I think we should call it the castrated Kyle Lieberman bill n/t

[SaveElmer]

31. Exactly the same thing...

The above noted bill is more comprehensive than what passed yesterday...but both recommended the EXACT same thing...putting Iran on the terrorist watch list...which automatically subjects Iran to economic sanctions...nowhere does it advocate an attack on Iran...

[William769]

33. There you go with those silly old facts again.

Haven't you learned it does not matter if it doesn't look bad for Hillary.

[goodgd_yall]

75. Right!

Some people may still think the Lieberman/Kyl amendment is worded the way it was originally. I'm trying to educate people on that. I posted an OP yesterday about it. This might be part of the reason they see a difference. Or maybe they are just close-minded to any criticism of their favorite candidate.

[Cameron27]

43. I did read it for chrissakes,

I don't think it's totally different, but I'm willing to read other points of view.

[sandnsea]

47. Read it again

They are so completely different that this discussion is embarrassing to the entirety of DU.

[Cameron27]

50. Are you reading the bill in the final form?

[sandnsea]

53. One is sanctions, one is military

with or without paragraph 4.

[goodgd_yall]

73. It isn't different---both resolutions name the Iranian army a terrorist organization

According to many DUers, that in itself is an invitation to war since Bush is given authority to fight terrorist using all the authority given him by Congress in the IWR.

[sandnsea]

82. See #81

They are two completely different bills for completely different purposes. Does this look like Kyl Lieberman to you?

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
SEC. 5. CLARIFICATION AND EXPANSION OF DEFINITIONS.
SEC. 6. RUSSIA NUCLEAR COOPERATION.
SEC. 7. ECONOMIC SANCTIONS RELATING TO IRAN.
SEC. 8. LIABILITY OF PARENT COMPANIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF SANCTIONS BY FOREIGN ENTITIES.
SEC. 9. ELIMINATION OF CERTAIN TAX INCENTIVES FOR OIL COMPANIES INVESTING IN IRAN.
SEC. 10. WORLD BANK LOANS TO IRAN.
SEC. 11. INCREASED CAPACITY FOR EFFORTS TO COMBAT UNLAWFUL OR TERRORIST FINANCING.
SEC. 12. NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATE ON IRAN.
SEC. 13. EXCHANGE PROGRAMS WITH THE PEOPLE OF IRAN.
SEC. 14. RADIO BROADCASTING TO IRAN.
SEC. 15. INTERNATIONAL REGIME FOR THE ASSURED SUPPLY OF NUCLEAR FUEL FOR PEACEFUL MEANS.
SEC. 16. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

[goodgd_yall]

88. The problem with Obama's bill is that very excerpt quoted in the OP

Though the bill is about "terrorist financing," proclaiming the Iranian Revolutionary Guards sets a precedent. It is calling a portion of a sovereign nation's military a terrorist organization. I don't think it was wise for Obama to support this resolution. When a country's army is designated a terrorist organization, it sets the stage for aggressive and pre-emptive military action by the U.S. as part of its "War on Terror."

[zulchzulu]

34. "To impose sanctions on Iran..." VS Declaring war on Iran through the back door

"To impose sanctions on Iran and on other countries for assisting Iran in developing a nuclear program, and for other purposes."
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-970

You missed copying that part.

Now, notice the difference in the Lieberman-Kyl Amendment 3017 (below). It essentially gives Bush an open door to invade Iran due to the "mounting evidence":

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/amendment.xpd?session=110&amdt=s3017

SA 3017. Mr. KYL (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Coleman) proposed an amendment to amendment SA 2011 proposed by Mr. Nelson of Nebraska (for Mr. Levin) to the bill H.R. 1585, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; as follows:

At the end of subtitle C of title XV, add the following:

SEC. 1535. SENSE OF SENATE ON IRAN.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:

(1) General David Petraeus, commander of the Multi-National Force Iraq, stated in testimony before a joint session of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives on September 10, 2007, that ``t is increasingly apparent to both coalition and Iraqi leaders that Iran, through the use of the Iranian Republican Guard Corps Qods Force, seeks to turn the Shi'a militia extremists into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests and fight

a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq''.

(2) Ambassador Ryan Crocker, United States Ambassador to Iraq, stated in testimony before a joint session of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives on September 10, 2007, that ``Iran plays a harmful role in Iraq. While claiming to support Iraq in its transition, Iran has actively undermined it by providing lethal capabilities to the enemies of the Iraqi state''.

(3) The most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, published in August 2007, states that ``Iran has been intensifying aspects of its lethal support for select groups of Iraqi Shia militants, particularly the JAM , since at least the beginning of 2006. Explosively formed penetrator (EFP) attacks have risen dramatically''.

(4) The Report of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, released on September 6, 2007, states that ``he Commission concludes that the evidence of Iran's increasing activism in the southeastern part of the country, including Basra and Diyala provinces, is compelling. ..... It is an accepted fact that most of the sophisticated weapons being used to `defeat' our armor protection comes across the border from Iran with relative impunity''.

(5) General (Ret.) James Jones, chairman of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, stated in testimony before the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate on September 6, 2007, that ``e judge that the goings-on across the Iranian border in particular are of extreme severity and have the potential of at least delaying our efforts inside the country. Many of the arms and weapons that kill and maim our soldiers are coming from across the Iranian border''.

(6) General Petraeus said of Iranian support for extremist activity in Iraq on April 26, 2007, that ``e know that it goes as high as Suleimani, who is the head of the Qods Force. ..... We believe that he works directly for the supreme leader of the country''.

(7) Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, the president of Iran, stated on August 28, 2007, with respect to the United States presence in Iraq, that ``he political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly. Soon we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course we are prepared to fill the gap''.

(8) Ambassador Crocker testified to Congress, with respect to President Ahmedinejad's statement, on September 11, 2007, that ``he Iranian involvement in Iraq--its support for extremist militias, training, connections to Lebanese Hezbollah, provision of munitions that are used against our force as well as the Iraqis--are all, in my view, a pretty clear demonstration that Ahmedinejad means what he says, and is already trying to implement it to the best of his ability''.

(9) General Petraeus stated on September 12, 2007, with respect to evidence of the complicity of Iran in the murder of members of the Armed Forces of the United States in Iraq, that ``e evidence is very, very clear. We captured it when we captured Qais Khazali, the Lebanese Hezbollah deputy commander, and others, and it's in black and white. ..... We interrogated these individuals. We have on tape. ..... Qais Khazali himself. When asked, could you have done what you have done without Iranian

support, he literally throws up his hands and laughs and says, of course not. ..... So they told us about the amounts of money that they have received. They told us about the training that they received. They told us about the ammunition and sophisticated weaponry and all of that that they received''.

(10) General Petraeus further stated on September 14, 2007, that ``hat we have got is evidence. This is not intelligence. This is evidence, off computers that we captured, documents and so forth. ..... In one case, a 22-page document that lays out the planning, reconnaissance, rehearsal, conduct, and aftermath of the operation conducted that resulted in the death of five of our soldiers in Karbala back in January''.

(11) The Department of Defense report to Congress entitled ``Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq'' and released on September 18, 2007, consistent with section 9010 of Public Law 109-289, states that ``here has been no decrease in Iranian training and funding of illegal Shi'a militias in Iraq that attack Iraqi and Coalition forces and civilians..... Tehran's support for these groups is one of the greatest impediments to progress on reconciliation''.

(12) The Department of Defense report further states, with respect to Iranian support for Shi'a extremist groups in Iraq, that ``ost of the explosives and ammunition used by these groups are provided by the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force..... For the period of June through the end of August, events are projected to rise by 39 percent over the period of March through May''.

(13) Since May 2007, Ambassador Crocker has held three rounds of talks in Baghdad on Iraq security with representatives of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

(14) Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress on September 10, 2007, with respect to these talks, stating that ``I laid out the concerns we had over Iranian activity that was damaging to Iraq's security, but found no readiness on Iranians' side at all to engage seriously on these issues. The impression I came with after a couple rounds is that the Iranians were interested simply in the appearance of discussions, of being seen to be at the table with the U.S. as an arbiter of Iraq's present

and future, rather than actually doing serious business ..... Right now, I haven't seen any sign of earnest or seriousness on the Iranian side''.

(15) Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress on September 11, 2007, stating that ``e have seen nothing on the ground that would suggest that the Iranians are altering what they're doing in support of extremist elements that are going after our forces as well as the Iraqis''.

(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--

(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;

(2) that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;

(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;

(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;

(5) that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign 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; and

(6) that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.

[Dawgs]

37. There you go with the silly old facts thing again.

[SaveElmer]

40. Except he has his facts wrong...

He is not quoting the final resolution...but as it was submitted...

Sections calling for a possible military response were removed at the behest of Democrats

[William769]

71. In order to use my line, you have to be correct.

:rofl:

[SaveElmer]

39. Wrong...you are not quoting the final resolution...

But how it was originally submitted...

References to military solutions were omitted from the final resolution


Sections 3 and 4 were removed...

[Clintonista2]

41. That's pretty dishonest, don't you think?

Why wouldn't that poster mention that part? Doesn't he want the truth? :rofl:

[Texas_Kat]

45. Yeah, paragraphs 3 and 4 were struck

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/kyl-lieberman-amendment/?resultpage=8&

and this from Gates was added:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/kyl-lieberman-amendment/?resultpage=9&

“Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated on September 16, 2007 that “I think that the administration believes at this point that continuing to try and deal with the Iranian threat, the Iranian challenge, through diplomatic and economic means is by the preferable approach. That is the one we are using. We always say all options are on the table, but clearly, the diplomatic and economic approach is the one that we are pursuing.”

[William769]

69. I guess you will never learn, will you?

[Clintonista2]

86. No, they won't

Meh, it doesn't matter. They won't be around for long once Hillary is nominated.

[killbotfactory]

87. Obama was one of 68 co-sponsors, along with warmongers Dodd and Kerry

The text of the bill is NOT final. It was only introduced to go to committee, never voted on, and if it ever makes it out of committee the text of the bill could be changed entirely.

[AtomicKitten]

90. Hillary also co-sponsored the very bill they are complaining about.

Gotta wear hip boots around here sometimes.

[BootinUp]

93. We weren't complaining about the bill

we are complaining that Obama supporters attack her for a position that Obama cosponsored back in March. Do I need to get my boots back on?

[AtomicKitten]

94. to be precise, Obama supporters are defending him from attacks

from HRC supporters slamming him for a no-show on an egregious bill that HILLARY VOTED YES ON and slamming Obama for cosponsoring another bill that is the SAME DAMN BILL she cosponsored.

If you can't understand that epic hypocrisy of that, perhaps someone can draw you a map.

[BootinUp]

95. I have not slammed him

for a no show, but why is the bill she voted for egregious if Obama co-sponsored a similar position statement?

[AtomicKitten]

97. that is true

The older bill went nowhere, had some 68 +/- sponsors including Hillary ( :eyes:), and really is moot other than the fact that some HRC supporters were using it as a cudgel to slam Obama, hypocrisy abounded, and fisticuffs ensued.

The current version is tantamount to the Iraq Liberation Act that was the precursor to the Iraq War. And Hillary voted yes on it, but again HRC supporters slammed Obama for the no-show even though, again, Hillary voted yes on this nasty bit of legislation.

Worse yet, it passed. And that is depressing and frightening and really, really, scary. I don't have a lot of patience for the primary nonsense that goes on when this country is imploding, but it would be helpful to the process if people stopped acting like this primary is Thunderdome.

[BootinUp]

98. I do see the similarities to the Iraq Liberation Act

but that is not why we are there. History, post that act, could easily have been much different. There is one man who was commander in chief, who spread hate to get elected and consolidate his power, that is responsible. And I don't care about the statements from many here that "I KNEW! I KNEW he would do it! These are probably the same people who knew he bombed the WTC. Or they just KNOW, that Poppy was in on the JFK assassination. Their statements are nothing to judge history on.

I DIDN'T know Bush was such a stupid FUCK as to get us trapped in the ME. I knew he was stupid, but THAT stupid? No.

And the people like Kerry and Hillary and Edwards and Biden and the rest of them that voted for the IWR didn't know the asshole was that stupid either!!!!!!!!





(Take a breath) :)

[AtomicKitten]

99. No doubt historians will have to invent new superlatives to

describe this administration's epic bordering on surreal incompetence and catastrophic stewardship. We are most definitely on the same page there. I just feel that it would be inappropriate for me to reward those that made the wrong decision on a pivotal vote if I can cast my vote for someone whose hands are relatively clean (Obama didn't support the war, didn't vote for it, did fund it until recently and has made a pledge he will not fund it further without a firm pull-out timetable - that's my case!), I will. I have to. But that's me and I don't begrudge people choosing other candidates. In fact, I'll have to push reset here if Gore jumps in because then all bets are off!

I'm taking the dog to the beach. Have a wonderful day.

[BootinUp]

100. ditto.

The beach? I remember those. :)