What the hell is the "Iran War Vote" Edwards is blabbering about?

[calteacherguy]

The Kyl-Lieberman ammendment as written did not pass. The ammendment was revised. Very significantly revised.

I challenge Edwards supporters to post here from the revised ammendment the text that is an "Iran War Vote." I don't think such language is there having read the revised ammendment.

I think Edwards is just blowing more hot air.

Edit: See "update"
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/26/breaking-lieberman-kyls-iran-amendment-passes/

[Cameron27]

1. He must be thinking of the one he sponsored,

that one has the word WAR right there in the middle.

[BootinUp]

3. bada bing.

[BootinUp]

2. The netroots needs more hot air

apparently.

[w4rma]

44. Durbin: Lieberman-Kyl Amendment Is ‘Dangerous,’

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/25/durbin-lieb-kyl-amdt
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1905940&mesg_id=1905940

Webb: Liebermann - Kyle admendment is Cheney's Fondest Pipe Dream
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/25/webb-kyl-lieb-iran
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1905672

[BootinUp]

47. I'll take it under advisement

I trust Durbin actually.

[calteacherguy]

53. Was he reffering to what passed or the original ammendment? nt

[BootinUp]

60. good catch, answer:

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) spoke forcefully this afternoon on the Senate floor against the Lieberman-Kyl amendment. Durbin described the “sense of the Senate” legislation as a “dangerous effort to put us on the record for the use of military force in Iran.”

Noting that the language of the amendment suggests the use of “military instruments,” Durbin said:

What does that mean? Does that mean we are supporting the invasion of Iran? That we are supporting military tactics against Iran? Shouldn’t we be extra careful in the language of these resolutions when we find that the authorization for force for Iraq has dragged us into a war now in its fifth year, a war longer than World War II with bloody and deadly consequences for the United States and innocent Iraqis.

“I think it is dangerous language,” Durbin said, concluding his statement by saying he will oppose the amendment as it is currently written. Watch it:
--------------------------------------------------------------

He was commenting on the un-castrated version of the bill.

[HeraldSquare212]

4. Revised, but the hole the truck will be driven through is still there

Besides, doesn't Hillary's comment supporting Israel's right to bomb Syria tell you which way the wind is blowing?

[calteacherguy]

5. Show me the specific text that is the "hole." nt

[rodeodance]

6. You are right. the hole is big-----and Bushies are opportunist.

[calteacherguy]

7. Where's the hole? nt

[BootinUp]

8. The hole was there, has been there, always was there

Saw another post on a progressive board that Webb who objected so strenuously to this even as revised, as said that Bush has all the authority he needs to launch an attack on Iran, no resolutions required.

[calteacherguy]

9. Well, then what is all the fuss over this ammendment about?

And I'm curious as to why Webb objected.

[BootinUp]

12. Personally

I believe he is just doing what he thinks is right, he seems to be against designating the Iranian guard a terrorist operation. Says this means they can be dealt with differently. However, this was not up to the Senate as I understand it, the State Department has that responsibility I believe. If I am in error anywhere I apologize. I will post links on any of this as I find them.

[calteacherguy]

23. Yes, designating the Iranian guard as a terrorist organization was probably it.

However, if they are engaged in terrorist activities (and it is my understanding that there is indeed proof that they are) I find it hard to argue against designating them as such.

You also bring up a good point...isn't it the State Department that makes such designations? And, the resolution is non-binding.

I don't think this resoulution gives the administration any more power than it already has, but I'd be interested if someone can prove me wrong.

[robinlynne]

81. we are engaged in terrorist activities in iraq. not iran.

[ima_sinnic]

93. but it doesn't hurt * to be able to say the Senate is behind him, or agrees

with him, does it?\

HRC could have opposed him and his notion of worldwide "enemies"--but NOOOO.

[BootinUp]

102. Sure, I can understand

the no votes for that reason and I have no problem with it. On the other hand I don't agree entirely with the explanation. What I don't want to see is Hillary or Obama attacked next year by the repukes for not being in favor of economic sanctions against this Iranian effort to fuel the insurgency with weapons.

[bigdarryl]

13. because its the very FIRST step to beat the war drums on Iran. it

gives bush the authority to call the republican guard in Iran a TERRORIST GROUP remember with this idiot in the white house that means he can go after ANY body or group he chooses to preemptively and that means MORE WAR. That why i am upset with Hillary on this vote.

[Cameron27]

14. I thought it was a terrorist group.

[robinlynne]

71. The ammendment creates the ground for war by labeling the Iranian army enemy terrorists.

There is no other reason in the world to declare them terrorists, unless it is to justify military action against them.

[knight_of_the_star]

101. Aside from how diplomatically stupid it is

To call the military of another country a terrorist organization.

[jmp]

10. Here is ALL the authority Bush needs.

(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


War on "terror" remember? :eyes:

[Cameron27]

15. Good point

but it still isn't an Iran War Resolution, and doesn't give bush the same authority that the Iraq resolution did. Personally I don't like the yes votes, but I think the whole thing's being inflated to mean something much worse than is actually there.

[tekisui]

18. They're not looking for a war resolution.

They don't need one, for now. Labeling part of Iran's military as terrorists will allow for El Dipshit to *legally* wage a bombing campaign in Iran. No war declaration needed to bomb them, if based on terrorism charges.

Once bombs fall, retaliation in Israel, oil disruptions, and Congress WILL authorize a war resolution.

It is all done in steps. Watch.

[BootinUp]

19. They "the Senate" did not label them this way

its a Sense of the Senate Resolution, non-binding. The authority for labeling them as terrorists lies in the executive branch and I know there was a press story in the last month or so that this has already been done before the Resolution ever passed.

[tekisui]

29. Step by step. It will all be done *legally*.

And each step will be just a little worse than the last.

They have already been deemed terrorists. Now, 75 or so Senators have agreed with the assessment. So, when they are presented with *evidence* of terrorist acts, they will have no problem voting on a binding charge.

Where is the sense of the senate on Saudi Arabia's influence in Iraq. Or Blackwater's?

The Drumbeats start soft to get us all used to the idea. We've been talking about it long enough that most accept it as an inevitability. Soon, our leaders may be talking about the *right* or *best* way to do it.

Edwards and Webb are right on this one. Dipshit in chief cannot be trusted. And this small, harmless step, is simply the next one in a march to war.

[BootinUp]

32. The problem is we have no diplomatic

agenda at all. This resolution is an attempt to give Bush diplomatic (not military) leverage, cause he needs something to get the ball rolling.

[tekisui]

35. I sincerely do not believe that he nor Condi know the meaning of the word.

Diplomacy.

[RaleighNCDUer]

45. That's what they said about the IWR, too.

"Diplomatic pressure." From an administration that does not believe in diplomacy.

right.

[jmp]

33. And Bush is the dumb one?

This is depressing. :(

[jmp]

31. No "the Senate" just voted their approval of it (nm)

...

[BootinUp]

36. And the country will cheer too.

It really is calling a spade a spade. I do not believe in standing by while civilians are targeted by suicide bombs. And I already anticipate your response, and I will just say that two wrongs do not make a right.

[jmp]

37. You don't huh?

When are you shipping out?

[BootinUp]

41. Cheap shot pal

We all play a part don't we. My part I think is to support intelligent government leadership, besides I couldn't pass the physical anymore.

[jmp]

49. Oh please!

That is an excuse. I've never met anyone upright that isn't fit enough to be shot dead or blown to hell.

There are very few people that "don't believe in standing by" and allowing any level of atrocity from occurring. Atrocities happen all the time and I for one somehow manage to sleep just fine.

I'm tired of all the bullshit and all the bullshit reasons for perpetual war. This country has pretty much been at non-stop war since the end of WWII. And there's always a "just cause" or a "vital interest" or a "threat" to justify it.

It's all BULLSHIT!

If you or anyone else thinks that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard needs fighting, round up some mercs and scrounge up some private financing for it. :grr:

[BootinUp]

51. Ok, calm the F!@ down!

Politics is a complex fucking thing. You ain't right if you always think you're right friend.

[jmp]

52. I'd say that I didn't mean to bite your head off ...

But that would be a lie. I did.

I'm sorry. I'm high strung. :)

[RaleighNCDUer]

43. Exactly. The administration already declared the Revolutionary

Guard as being a terrorist organization, AND THE SENATE JUST AGREED.

Next stop, Tehran.

[killbotfactory]

86. You are forgetting the War Powers Act. Bush already has the power to attack Iran

If Bush initiates hostilities he has 60 days before he must get authorization from Congress to continue. All the attack plans proposed in the media so far have involved intense bombing over a short period of time, not a full-blown invasion. So this is consistent with setting up Iran for attack.

Bush also had the power to attack Iraq before the Iraq War Resolution, just like Clinton did. The problem was that Bush didn't just want to go for air strikes to target suspected WMD sites, he wanted a full-scale invasion and occupation.

[Clintonista2]

16. One problem

It was non-binding. It has no more power than a napkin.

[jmp]

20. And yet it will be far deadlier ...

Than a napkin.

[Clintonista2]

22. How so?

It has no binding power.

[jmp]

25. That's legalese ...

Bush can still point to it and they are on the record. Then all the Dems can try to explain to the American people that they voted for it but didn't really mean it.

[Clintonista2]

27. Bush could point to thin air and use that as justification to go into Iran

The bill does not have anything to do with military action against Iran.

[jmp]

39. That may be the case ...

But the Democratic Congress wouldn't be responsible for the air.

[Clintonista2]

57. They wouldn't be responsible for the war, either

[RaleighNCDUer]

46. Binding on who?

Just what the FUCK does that mean? Bush is going to say "the senate just said I should go to war, but it's not binding so I don't think I will. So there."

A binding resolution would STOP him from going to war or INSIST that he go to war. Biing non-binding, this just gives him an EXCUSE to bomb Iran.

[Clintonista2]

56. Bush doesn't need this resolution to go to war

[RaleighNCDUer]

62. No, he doesn't, but it DOES give him cover for when he decides

to enforce the resolution saying that Iran is a terrorist government.

Why do some dems never learn?

[Clintonista2]

66. I would be more concerned with a war with Iran, over how Bush looks

[calteacherguy]

24. Note that it says "should." I do not believe this power rests with the Senate.

And, are they not a terrorist organization?

[jmp]

26. No

...

[RaleighNCDUer]

48. Who? The senate?

Well, they have voted to attack countries that have not attacked us. They approved the murder of civilians in a distant land.

Yeah. I guess we could designate the senate to be a terrorist organization.

[robinlynne]

88. no. They are not.

[bigdarryl]

40. Good point thats all he needs

[liskddksil]

11. Is Jim Webb blowing hot air too?

I think the fact that a war veteran Jim Webb fought hard against this and two prominent republican also voted it down, Hagel and Lugar, who are quite knowledgable regarding foreign policy is a big warning sign. This amendments passage is a dangerous first step to war.

[Beaverhausen]

17. Or Biden and Dodd? Boxer?

please - this is weak.

[calteacherguy]

21. I would like to know specifically what language they objected to. nt

[2rth2pwr]

28. If B*sh wanted to bomb Iran, he wouldn't need this resolution

B*sh would do it anyway, so what's the big deal?

[jmp]

30. Right ... he'd do it anyway

So why not give him political cover to do it?

Why not give him an excuse?

:eyes:

[Clintonista2]

34. Exactly

This resolution has less power than a dirty napkin.

[PurityOfEssence]

42. Then it must be GIVING HIM EVEN MORE. Did you stop to think about that?

If he can do the so-called "surgical" airstrikes and all that with impunity--which he really can't, but who's going to stop him--then widening his "mandate" by calling them "terrorists" must give him even more lattitude for ugliness, right? By your own attempt to minimize this you show it to be a major deal.

This is sickening, and attempts by Hillary's acolytes to poo-poo the seriousness of it is just plain disgusting.

[2rth2pwr]

58. It's not minimizing, it's stating facts. The Revolutionary Guard are

terrorists and pretending they are not doesn't make the issue go away. It would be better if Dennis K could launch a Love Bomb and make everything all better but the fact of the matter is Iran is fighting a proxy war against us in Iraq, along with stating that they will ignore the new UN resolutions regarding their nuclear program.

That's why the top 3 all stated that they don't see us getting out anytime soon.

[robinlynne]

83. No they are not terrorists. that is ridiculous! They are the army of a sovereign nation.

You can't go around calling everyone terrorists and/or enemy combatents because you don't agree with them!
They can just as easily call you a terrorist if you keep supporting this type of thing. Don't think there is a line somewhere that protects you, as long as it is "them" they're after.

[2rth2pwr]

89. They are not "the" army of Iran, they are a special corps

that have been using Hezbollah in Lebanon to further unrest and killing our soldiers in Iraq. They meet the standards and definition of terrorism*, nobody has disputed that. The dispute rests on whether we keep our eyes closed or not.

Iran is already as a nation subject to an IEEPA emergency-


Current subjects of IEEPA emergencies

As of 2006, commerce with the following countries and people is restricted under the IEEPA.

States

* Belarus (since 2006 for undermining democratic institutions)
* Iran (since 1979 for the Iran hostage crisis and subsequent sponsorship of terrorism)
* Myanmar (since 1997 for repressing democratic opposition)
* Russia (since 2000 to prevent export of weapons-grade uranium)
* Sudan (since 1997 for human rights violations and sponsoring terrorism)
* Syria (since 2004 for sponsorship of terrorism and pursuit of weapons of mass destruction)
* Zimbabwe (since 2003 for undermining democratic institutions)

















*section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558dbe

International Emergency Economic Powers Act- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Emergency_Economic_Powers_Act

[robinlynne]

95. I dont care about economic sanctions. I do care about giving bush the power to start another war.

If you think this is anything other than that, you are mistaken. And no they are not "special forces", and no theya re not killing our soldiers in Iraq. That is pure bullshit.

[2rth2pwr]

96. Bullshit? Which Senator agrees with you?

Hillary- My understanding of the Revolutionary Guard in Iran is that it is
promoting terrorism. It is manufacturing weapons that are used
against our troops in Iraq. It is certainly the main agent of support
for Hezbollah, Hamas and others.

And in what we voted for today, we will have an opportunity to
designate it as a terrorist organization which gives us the options to
be able to impose sanctions on the primary leaders to try to begin to
put some teeth into all this talk about dealing with Iran.

[robinlynne]

97. As you well know, the "manufacturing weapons used in Iran" has been laughed at

ervery time they come up with those photos saying "made in iran' in english! or did you believe petraus when he showed the diagrams of mobile weapons labs in iraq too? geesh. Those allegations are not even slightly credible. not even a tiny bit. Didn't you learn that the first time around? the mushroom cloud? the mobile labs filled with biological weapons? theyw ere created by the same people who now bring you "iranian made weapons". The insurgents are using AMERICAN made weapons. Thousands of them have "disappeared" and thousands more were sold by American soldiers, and now we are giving them away to the sunni insurgents. all paid for with your very own taxes.

[2rth2pwr]

98. You haven't answered. By implication you are saying that 76 Senators are lying to us.

More than that if you heard the remarks of others saying that they believed the threat but did not like the idea of a resolution.

[robinlynne]

100. yes 76 senators are lying. you got it right. Just like they did when they authorized

the Iraq war. They acted based on lies. The senators may not be lying, but they are legitimizing lies, which does the same damage.

[robinlynne]

72. bullshit. You don't legalize Bush's illegal acts, then say he would do it anyway.

That is like justifying the FISA ruling. yes Bush was spying anyway, but it was ilegal. Now it is legal. Big difference!

[BootinUp]

76. Read the resolution and

tell us what part you have a problem with.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/kyl-lieberman-amendment/

[robinlynne]

79. the part which names the Iranian army terrorist enemy combatents.

[robinlynne]

80. it is number 5 in the document.

[RaleighNCDUer]

38. The bill lists all the things that Iran is supposedly doing to support

terror.

The bill to engage in war against nations that support terror has already been passed.

Bushco can use this, as it stands, as an excuse to attack Iran. Whether or not congress agrees. Just as he used the IWR to invade Iraq, though that was NOT the intent of most the Dems that voted for it.

Hillary got fooled again. Edwards is pointing that out.

[jmp]

50. And no actual evidence required ... again.

Amazing isn't it?

[BootinUp]

54. Bush gave up on needing excuses to do shit

about 3 years ago.

[RaleighNCDUer]

55. True,

so why, then, do our pols continue to give him cover?

What we needed was a resolution, even a non-binding one, saying that Iran is NOT a threat to America, and we need to aggressively pursue a diplomatic solution to our 28 year feud with them.

THAT I could get behind.

[BootinUp]

59. Because

there is something to having leverage in negotiations. And thats what this is about for the Dems. And explaining to the American people that they are for putting more leverage on Iran to negotiate.

[RaleighNCDUer]

61. That's what the dems THOUGHT they were getting with the IWR vote.

Giving 'diplomatic pressure' to an administration that does not believe in diplomacy is worse than misguided. It starts wars.

[BootinUp]

63. Agree with the first part

put the second assertion is empty since Bush's decisions regarding war with Iran are not affected by this resolution in any way whatsoever.

[RaleighNCDUer]

64. Then why do it?

Why give them something to point to 5 years down the road, the way they do with IWR now?

If he is going to be a warmonger, let it be all on HIS head - make it obvious he is going against the will of the people. All this does is give him cover.

[BootinUp]

65. No its not cover for war,

its cover for negotiations. He may take advantage of it and he may not. My personal opinion from following various news sources is that the current admin has no intention of actually bombing or invading Iran. We couldn't carry it off and hold off the retaliation in a sufficient way at this point (talking conventional war of course).

I hope they (the Bush admin) do take advantage of this resolution at the negotiating table. They need all the help they can get.

[RaleighNCDUer]

67. Again, this administration do not do diplomacy.

You know the story of the scorpion and the frog? They are the scorpions. They only know how to do one thing, and they WILL do it unless they are stopped cold.

Have you been living in Antarctica for the last 6 years?

[BootinUp]

68. I'll try to make my opinion clearer

sometimes I think when I write several posts that people see them all. Here it is in one short sentence:

Voting no on that resolution does nothing to stop Bush from war with Iran.

[RaleighNCDUer]

77. And to make mine clearer -

He WILL use it if it is available. So don't make it available. Don't give him anything that lets him point a finger at congress. When he decides to bomb Iran there should be nobody to take the heat but him.

Voting no doesn't stop him, but voting yes does help him.

[Hydra]

70. You posted a lot regarding this, but here's my take:

This was a trial balloon, much as that disgusting performance at Columbia U. This was a test to see how many would get on the bandwagon for attacking Iran. So what that they culled some of the language? They still let it pass, and I seem to recall some of the language certified Patraeus' report as being accurate...which is quite a stretch, seeing as Bush wrote it with one of his favorite crayons.

This, along with Liberman's previous schlock that passed 97-0(and which was also highly inaccurate) will be used as propaganda by Bush's team, much like the WMD s*** they keep bringing up("The Dems thought Saddam had the bomb! The whole world thought Saddam had the bomb!") to show that "solid" evidence was presented and that it had "bipartisan support."

This cannot be overlooked, for any reason. They basically told Little Boots, "Go ahead, have your little war. We don't mind."

[BootinUp]

73. The testimony in the bill

being about Iran and not the surge, has not been refuted. By anyone. Its hard to object to a bill which contains material on National Security issues and that material is uncontested. The party opens itself up to severe attack in the GE for one thing. And for another its just dishonest. There is nothing in that bill that is very controversial, nor is there anything giving Bush a pass, as this Iran involvement is old old old news.

[RaleighNCDUer]

82. And why has it not been refuted?

Because Iraq is a fucking war zone. Americans who wander around the countryside get themselves killed. The government controls all the information. When the government claims that Iran is funding militias in Iraq, how can we prove otherwise? When the government says IEDs are being manufactured in Iran, how can we prove otherwise? The the government says "They have weapons of mass destruction, and this much (hold up a little vial) anthrax can kill 10,000 people", we have to believe it because they are, after all, our government which would never fucking lie to us.

[robinlynne]

84. supposedly is key. It is a lie. We are the terrorists in Iraq! We are. The USA.

Not Iran!

[2rth2pwr]

90. See if you can get your Senator to introduce an amendment

designating the USA as terrorists and lobby for it's passage.

[robinlynne]

69. lieberman ammendment brands the Itanian army as terrorist enemies. In Bush's hands

this can be used to start a war.

[johnnydrama]

74. like Maher said

In his question to Hillary in the Yahoo online debate.

How can we vote for somebody who was fooled by George Bush?

Around 8 or 9 of the 10 points in the original Iraq War AUMF were bogus.

It certainly didn't stop Bush from using it as an approval to invade Iraq, and to refer to it time and time again.

[robinlynne]

78. what are you talking about? I'm agreeing with edwards about the kyl-lieberman amendment....

[ihelpu2see]

75. My question is why would Hillary even consider it. I think she is counting

her chickens before they hatch.... Edwards still won the debate Hillary had to many " I'm not going to answer that" moment...

[robinlynne]

85. Would it be hot air if Bush designated you, calteacher, an enemy terrorist combatent

or might that be a problem for you. It would give him the right to kill you, no questions asked. no lawyer. with congressional approval. Would you still call it hot air?

[calteacherguy]

92. What the hell are you talking about? This is a thread about a specific ammendment.

You are blowing more hot air than Edwards!

[robinlynne]

94. which labels the Iranian guard as terrorist enemy combatents.

[IndianaGreen]

87. Your "girl" voted for the Lieberman Iran War resolution

a resolution that was described as the path to a new war in the region by Jim Webb, Chris Dodd, and Joe Biden.

The measure’s opponents, which include Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., said the language is too open-ended, and could be construed as Senate authorization to use force against Iran.

One portion of the amendment reads: “It is the Sense of the Senate … 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.”

“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 without one hearing or without serious debate,” Webb said Tuesday.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/26/4128/

Only a complete moron would give Bush authority to do anything. Hillary just did!

[calteacherguy]

91. The text you highlighted was not in the ammendment!

Paragrapsh 3 and 4 were removed. To wit:

(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and 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.

Again, THESE PARAGRAPHS WERE NOT IN THE AMMENDMENT THAT PASSED!

Also, the following language was added:

“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 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.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/26/breaking-lieberman-kyls-iran-amendment-passes/

And she's not "my girl."

[Clark2008]

99. Just think - it's not only his stylist who's blowing hot air.

:)