Mario Cuomo on HARDBALL now bashing the Senators who voted for Kyl-Lieberman.

[flpoljunkie]

Cuomo says Congress should not give away the authority to declare war to any president.

[LSparkle]

1. Thank God for an elder statesman talking sense to the "youngsters"

Hey Dems - listen up! Grow a spine for Pete's sake!

[Auggie]

2. He's great -- kicking real ass

[lyonn]

3. Great viewing for a change. Wow nt

[rodeodance]

4. thanks

[AtomicKitten]

5. Yahtzee.

[lyonn]

6. Giving bush any authority to even get close to dropping

a bomb on another country is totally insane. He is saying, wake up Congress, do your job for a change.

Congress has become part of the sheeple society.

[slipslidingaway]

7. That was so refreshing n/t

[BootinUp]

8. Someone hand Mario the final version of the bill

he must be confused about this one.

[flpoljunkie]

10. Jim4Wes, this is what Senator Jim Webb said after the Kyl-Lieberman vote.

As foreign-affairs resolutions go, this was pretty strong language, and would set a dangerous precedent. As Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) said, “At best, it’s a deliberate attempt to divert attention from a failed diplomatic policy. At worst, it could be read as a backdoor method of gaining congressional validation for military action, without one hearing and without serious debate.” He added that Lieberman-Kyl “is Dick Cheney’s fondest pipe dream.”

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13015.html

[BootinUp]

11. No... THAT statement was before the bill was castrated.

After it was castrated (sections 3 and 4 removed), Webb still objected to the section 5 which summarizes to: the US "should" designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.

Please feel free to check the record but I am sure you find the facts as I described.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/kyl-lieberman-amendment/?resultpage=1&

I also recommend you read section 17 on the last page.

[flpoljunkie]

14. Thanks, but important that Webb still objected about designating Iranian guard terrorist orgization.

Webb opposed the revised version, too, noting that it designates the Iranian guard a terrorist organization. The measure specifically says:

“the United States should designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization…and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists.”

(I think there are others who feel this Sectin 5 would be enough for Bush to hand his hat on to start bombing Iran. I am very concerned about the Senate passing even this, aren't you?)

[BootinUp]

21. I totally disagree heres why

1) its a Sense of the Senate non-binding resolution
2) It was significantly altered it to remove any reference possible to military action
3) It includes only information, testimony, that has not been refuted and which is about Iranian activity that has been in the news for years and not controversial.
4) It includes testimony from Sec. Gates that the administration is not pursuing use of military but only diplomacy and economic sanctions
5) The terrorist designation was already done by the Bush admin not the Senate, and this is to allow expanded control of sanctions and assets of foreign individuals

This measure confirms that economic sanctions are the preferred method and confirms that the Senate was against military action.

Its exactly the opposite of what so many netroots activists think it is. And Sen. Webb is just incorrect this time.

This is being debated on Hardball right now.

[flpoljunkie]

23. Yes, it is and they disagree with you, except for the broad from the "Independent" Women's Forum.

She called herself a "centrist." Ha!

[BootinUp]

24. Not really

At the end the guy on the left Chuck Todd? pointed out the truth. Its a political statement is going to be used against our nominee in the GE if they vote Nay. There is nothing in the resolution that I see that justifies a Nay vote.

[flpoljunkie]

25. We disagree.

[BootinUp]

30. It happens. n/t

[karynnj]

49. How do you explain that 5 most senior Democrats and the top 2 Republicans on the SFRC

were against this. Between them they have an incredible amount of foreign policy knowledge.

[BootinUp]

52. politics.

This whole thing is nothing but a position statement. And those Dems who want to show any kind of resistance they can to Bush for political reasons, will not pay much of a price in voting nay. In Hillary's case and Obama's who was conveniently absent a nay vote would have been used against them should they become the nominee. Then they would have to explain why they do not agree with putting this economic sanction on the Iran military unit that is fueling the insurgency in Iraq and sending missiles to Lebanon etc etc.

Those that did vote nay are not wrong to do so, I just think the explanation they are using for it is less than accurate or misreading the political situation. If the admin was really want to stoke the fires in a run-up to bombing them, I would expect a lot more fireworks than this castrated bill.

[karynnj]

55. Politics? How could that expalin Lugar and Hagel

They are Republicans from Indiana and Nebraska respectively. Biden and Dodd are also candidates for President. Feingold and Boxer are not up for office.

[BootinUp]

56. Starting from the premise

that the bill will have no ramifications on actual foreign policy it is merely a strong showing of opposition to Bush on his foreign policy. I can see where they would want to convey that for their own reasons.

Very often Senators vote one way or another for personal reasons especially when their vote cannot affect the final passage one way or another.

[karynnj]

60. What could they possibly have been wanting to show in doing this?

My best guess is they were saying - you want to slow this war talk down and avoiding inflaming posturing in a very delicate situation internationally. We do not want to trigger Iran to respond. Even if it doesn't change our foreign policy, anything done or said by parts of the US government can impact the international situation.

Obama said publicly at the time of the vote that he would have voted "NO". this puts him on record - even though politically he likely should have canceled his NH event and flown back to vote - possibly cancelling out of the debate because he was sick. (Not being there because he was sick and went back to vote would likely have been better than the unusually weak performance.)

Only Hillary, of all the Presidential candidates voted for it. What signal is she sending? Conventional Wisdom says she is trying to appear strong. I would hope after the last 6 years, that people would not confuse being more militant with being strong - it is not the same thing. Arguing that it was ok because it is non-binding and does nothing begs the question - if this is so, why do it. What would you be saying if Hillary had voted the other way?

[BootinUp]

61. militarily strong? (edited)

There was nothing in the bill about using military force.

If you had said, she was showing she wanted to bargain with Iran from a position of strength and use the new Executive order to apply severe sanctions on them, then I would have agreed.

It is only a figment of the imagination that this vote expresses anything to do with military action.

As for Hagel and Lugar, it was a shot across the bow, hey bud we are going to fight you for the 18 months. And as I said, I appreciate all the Democrats who did that, but we are talking about political positioning only.

Last comment, Hillary clearly wasn't positioning for the primary, and clearly Obama didn't think this vote was too important.

[calimary]

57. It doesn't matter what's actually in it, or what the words say.

bush will grab it and distort it and misquote it to tell the masses it does indeed give him the authority for war, and he'll forge ahead regardless. This just gives him a "fig leaf" he can embellish - that sounds good to the non-thinking and non-critical.

After all, look how he's bastardized any other directives to suit his purposes. It's nothing but a sick, selfish, arrogant, twisted, perverted origami exercise to him when this paperwork comes across his desk. Or one of those fold-and-cut-paper-doll exercises. When did he ever agree to be bound by something that came out of Congress? WHEN? When did he ever regard any Congressional bill or authorization or "sense of the Senate" or whatever the fuck it is as anything but a nuisance to get around? When did he ever see anything in the Constitution as material to be honored and obeyed, rather than something to be completely ignored? If nothing else, he'll use the "signing statement" approach to go ahead with whatever he feels like doing, no matter what.

I do NOT understand how Congress can still overlook this. Haven't they seen enough evidence that this bastard has NO intention of playing straight with them???

That they keep falling for it, keep giving him the benefit of the doubt, keep enabling him, keep rewarding his bad behavior - I just do NOT understand it. Comes down to plain ol' shitty parenting, if you ask me. And most of them are parents and grandparents on Capitol Hill. You'd think they'd have learned this by now.

[BootinUp]

58. He'll need a lot more than this particular fig leaf

He's going to need a tree of them. And there are pretty clear signals that he is not going to bomb them actually.

[calimary]

59. Really? How so?

I would hope TO GOD you're correct. Are you basing that on how broken some of the truthtellers among the military brass say our military really is?

[calteacherguy]

27. Was he commenting on the intial or final version of the ammendment? nt

[karynnj]

32. When the top 5 Dems and top 2 Republicans - all vote against it

It says something. Even if Hillary voted for it

[lumberjack_jeff]

38. The one which declared the Iran army "a terrorist organization"? That one? n/t

[zulchzulu]

44. Do us a favor and find the "final version"

I posted the version ON THE SENATE WEB SITE a couple days ago and heard the nonsense about how this or that was taken out. The final version is on the Senate web site NOW.

Let's see you find the link.

[BootinUp]

45. ok sure, I just love googling. brb

[BootinUp]

47. Only the as submitted version of S.AMD.3017 from 9-20-2007

Is currently up on the thomas library, see for yourself.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SP03017:

The modifications have been reported by several news organizations of course. The modified version has been posted at TPM in there document archives.

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/09/kyllieberman_iran_amendment_passes_by_huge_margin.php
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/kyl-lieberman-amendment/

[BootinUp]

48. Found it.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S12093&dbname=2007_record

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S12094&dbname=2007_record

[sandnsea]

9. Byrd 'mentioned' the Constitution and war powers

I guess tweets doesn't see him at parties and consequently hasn't got a clue what the man said before the IWR vote. :eyes:

I appreciate Mr. Cuomo's voice, but I hate when Matthews pretends nobody spoke out against the IWR or that the majority of Dems didn't actually vote against it.

[BeyondGeography]

12. That's great...Draft Mario Cuomo!

A little Inside DU humor there...

[Cameron27]

15. Please, just the name gives me a headache...

he was the only person I ever had to put on ignore, and I waited way too long to do it :P

[RufusEarl]

13. Can someone explain to me,

why Sen. Clinton voted yea for this insanity? I've been away and had no idea that she voted yea, imho that was her second dumbest vote since she took her seat in the senate. I just don't get it, i'm i missing something? it makes my decision to support another candidate easier.

Peace Please!

[flpoljunkie]

22. Chuck Todd, NBC political director, just said on HARDBALL that Kyl-Lieberman about Jewish votes.

I was frankly surprised. He said she needed to vote yes if she was going to up against Giuliani in New York New Jersey, and Florida.

Ahhhhhhhrrggg!

[karynnj]

36. She might be surprised

Some of the Jewish leadership back this, but among Jews at large, that is not the case. Kerry got nearly the same % of the Jewish vote as Gore did with the first Jew on the ticket and a higher % than Clinton got - even though GHWB was thoroughly disliked. I am an NJ Jew.

[flpoljunkie]

43. Yes, it is the hard right leadership who are the problem and they are very politically influential

[bklyncowgirl]

41. One pisses off the Jewish vote in those states at one's peril.

I was very disappointed in my usually very good Senators but voting against something that Israel wants in New Jersey or New York or Florida is like proclaiming your admiration for Fidel Castro in Miami--political suicide.

[BootinUp]

29. You can read my post #21

[rateyes]

16. I saw that...and, I thought FINALLY, a Democrat who

is holding the candidates feet, as well as the Democratic leadership's feet to the fire. He chastised Congress for not standing up and demanding that the constitution be followed when it comes to declaring war, basically abdicating their responsibility.

Good for Cuomo. He's right on target. And, why isn't HE running?

[rateyes]

17. BTW, K & R....

we need one more. :kick:

[Carrieyazel]

18. Please say that he bashed Hillary specifically. Her vote was absolutely unforgivable

[rateyes]

19. He called names...

especially Reid and Pelosi, for not standing up to Bush on the coming Iran war, saying they need to push back and reclaim the authority that is solely theirs, and not give it away to Der Fuhrer Bush.

[polichick]

20. Very pleased to recommend...

It was wonderful to hear a Democrat speak the truth about our Constitution!

[calteacherguy]

26. This makes no sense. It didn't give the President authority to declare war. Bizzare. nt

[BootinUp]

28. question for you

Has Cuomo endorsed anyone in the race?

[calteacherguy]

33. I was just thinking that. Maybe it's a play to try and help a candidate. nt

[karynnj]

37. Maybe he'll run - we waited long enough for him to enter

in (I think) 1992. His convention keynote speech was incredible.

[lumberjack_jeff]

40. Bush has already been given authority to attack terror organizations.

The Lieberman Kyl bill now declares the Iranian army a terrorist organization.

[Clintonista2]

46. Don't you mean if it were binding, it would?

A non binding bill has no legal authority to declare the Iranian army a terrorist organization.

[lumberjack_jeff]

51. Y'know.... I'm fuzzy about this whole "not binding" thing...

... if the us congress says something, then they vote on it... I was always taught that words mean things.

Bush doesn't need no stinkin' permission, he just needs the smallest excuse.

[Clintonista2]

53. Well, its basically a symbol

The point of the bill is to "express the view of congress", it doesnt actually legally classify them as a terrorist organization. There are actual legal implications involved with calling them a terrorist organization. If Bush were to attack Iran, he wouldn't need this bill to do it. If Bush has it in his head that he is going to attack Iran, he would attack Iran regardless of whether this bill had passed or not.

[saracat]

31. Thank God for Mario.He makes me proud to be a New Yorker, and I still am though I

no longer live there.Mario was my Governor. Go Mario, tell it! Unlike Hillary, he is a "real" New Yorker!

[Exultant Democracy]

34. The Quaeda and Iran don't get along, wrong religious group and wrong ethnic group.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. Al Qaeda=Sunni

Iran=Shia

[Exultant Democracy]

50. Iranians aren't Arabs either.

The Quaeda is an Arab group.

[bigdarryl]

35. Listening to him talk about this Kyle/Lieberman bill that Saint Hillary voted for proves to me....

how unexperienced she is on the Constitution and the founding fathers on war.

[Donna Zen]

42. Smoke gets in your eyes

Sometimes what you see is exactly what is happening. If you agree that we should be priming the pump for a war in Iran, I can understand that position; however, to try and blow smoke into the eyes of others, is not acceptable.

There are a steady stream of voices trying to convince us that this resolution means nothing. One of my web-stops that I make daily is Steve Clemens' site The Washington Note. There are many serious foreign policy people who reside outside the CFR where they party with Max Boot, who are alarmed by what just happened.

I don't always agree with Clemens who only considers foreign policy issues and thus, often touts politicians who I find unacceptable on social policy. Nevertheless, he is a serious foreign policy wonk, and often has the inside track. In the following snip, he was talking about the final form of the resolution, not the original wording:

But I hope someone in Nevada will ask Joe Wilson how he squares Hillary's vote in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman Iran resolution yesterday. Hagel and Lugar voted against the resolution. Jim Web did too. But Hillary helped give the White House (which she may very well occupy) implicit authority to trip into war with Iran.

The Joe Wilson I know wouldn't be too pleased with Hillary's vote -- but I imagine he's forgiving the vote on the grounds that if that is what she has to do to get into the White House, do it -- and then change course later.

But we really need to see some evidence that Hillary Clinton is not going to tilt at conflicts and rapidly deploy hard military force the first chance she gets as a way to define her presidency.

Unlike Clemens, I disagree that politicians should play politics with war and peace, life and death. Actually among the comments Steve was clear that he doesn't agree with this vote either.

[MetalCanuck]

54. Duh!

The Dems also recently voted for the Bush spy bill, the enablers have to be flushed out. I hope people run against them and they get support from Move on.