If anyone tells you Kyl-Lieberman authorized war with Iran, that person is a Liar

[tritsofme]

Whether they lie knowingly is not as clear.

A non-binding sense of the Senate resolution does not authorize or bestow new war powers upon the President.

In fact, this internal non-binding resolution is so meaningless that Senator Obama didn't even bother to show up for it.

Making something up doesn't make of fact.

[Lerkfish]

1. Sorry, you are irretrievably naive.

the Kyl-Lieberman is absolutely an authorization to attack Iran (in this administration) vis a vis the "war on terror" by labeling the country's own military as "terrorists".

just because you aren't paying attention does not make others who are, liars.

[TexasObserver]

2. Amen. Don't drop cluster bombs down my back ...

and tell me its raining.

If you vote to authorize, you vote to act.

[tritsofme]

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

It was a non-binding resolution with no force of law.

It is no different than the resolution the Senate probably passed today congratulating the Giants on their Super Bowl win.

[Lerkfish]

11. I agree, YOU saying it over and over again doesn't make it true that it is not

going to be used as justification to attack Iran.

and yes, I'll repeat that you're being naive, here.

[tritsofme]

21. If Bush were to attack Iran without explicit congressional authorization.

This resolution would do absolutely nothing to bolster his case regarding the legality of the invasion, especially since it has no effect on any law or is binding in any way shape or form.

[Lerkfish]

24. apparently, you haven't read my first post at all

about labeling Iranian military as a terrorist organization.

and, you continue in your naivete.

[tritsofme]

25. It is a label has no effect on how the State Department conducts its business

or how the administration is obliged to act.

It is a meaningless label that is basically a glorified press release.

[Lerkfish]

28. as I said, naive.

if you wish to bury your head in the sand and believe the administration would hesitate for one milisecond to use this as tacit permission, then the last 8 years have passed you by.

I"m not trying to be mean, I'm stating the bald reality.

[tritsofme]

30. I don't think permission is the right term, it might be one of their dozens of excuses

If they were to launch an illegal war against Iran.

Bush more than anyone is capable of lying straight faced about anything, including the value of this resolution.

However I still maintain that the resolution has no practical legal value. If people want to join the Bush administration in attaching an inordinate amount of significance to the resolution, that is their own problem.

[tritsofme]

38. delete

replied to wrong thread

[Jai4WKC08]

26. If you REALLY believe K/L authorizes war, HOW DARE Obama not show up to vote against it?

You can't have it both ways.

In fact, Obama proposed a similar resolution just a few months earlier. No one in the Senate thinks K/L authorizes war. In fact, it specifically forbids war based on K/L.

The simple fact is, if Bush can figure out a way to go to war with Iran that won't get every Republican up for re-election on his back, he'll do it. K/L doesn't mean a thing.

[Lerkfish]

29. I"ve said absolutely nothing about Obama

so there's no "two ways" involved at all.

My preferred candidate is no longer running, which is still beside the point.

as to whether they'd use Kyl-lieberman, how often was UN resolution used ad nauseum when we invaded Iraq?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. K-L is crazy, jingoistic bullshit.

Anybody who'd defend that piece of nonsense is truly fucked in the head.

[harun]

4. If a war with Iran is started it will be used as part of the legal frame work

to make it legal. Sure more legal work would probably be attempted if action was imminent. This will absolutely be cited in those subsequent bills if they come to be, you can be certain of that.

Ask yourself a simple question, what WAS the purpose of this bill? It was not meaningless.

[uppityperson]

5. Very true. Or else the person is manipulating their way around the truth.

Ms.Cantwell (WA) said she voted yes because it authorized ONLY the ability to threaten action, not actually go to war. I wrote her back a firm letter.

[tritsofme]

12. It actually authorized nothing.

It was non-binding and had no force of law.

[uppityperson]

15. yup. Been used for a whole lot of stuff, and will in the future.

MsCantwell and I have issues about this.

[tritsofme]

20. What exactly can a non-binding Senate resolution be used for?

In the past, present, or future?

[uppityperson]

22. Invading Iraq, Iran, etc. Whatever they can get by with.

I don't understand it either, seems like it shouldn't be this way.

[tritsofme]

23. It isn't that way.

The 2002 AUMF gave Bush explicit authority to attack Iraq.

It was passed by both houses of Congress and is a public law.

Kyl-Liberman is non-binding resolution that has the practical effect of a press release.

[uppityperson]

27. You are right, I am wrong. I misread K/L for AUMf, sorry.

red faced here on pain meds. Sorry. Thanks for hanging in there with me.

[LittleClarkie]

6. That's how alot of people here interpreted it

You calling all them liars?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. Will you concede that Obama supports (present tense) precisely the measure most here

object to?

It was put well upthread:

"Kyl-Lieberman is absolutely an authorization to attack Iran (in this administration) vis a vis the "war on terror" by labeling the country's own military as "terrorists"."

That may or may not be correct, but it is a flat matter of fact that Obama supports (present tense) the IRG designation, and has Always supported it.

Google his comments when Condi Rice formalized the IRG terror designation.

This isn't a "gotcha" or a matter of interpretation. Supporting the IRG terror designation is his official policy.

[tritsofme]

10. The best of them are ignorant of the truth.

The rest are liars.

[Maat]

7. It may not EXPLICITLY authorized war or invasion; HOWEVER ...

the Supreme Court gives the pResident a great deal of latitude when it comes to being Commander-in-Chief, particularly when Congress has given a de facto rubber stamp (it is supposed to subsequently authorize the continued action; however, we generally need Congress to make a stink about the lack of that). * has a history of using such a resolution to justify invasion and occupation, on the basis of his latitude as Commander-in-Chief. Hillary knew that when she voted for it. She was also fully aware, as a lawyer, that (a) preemptive and preventative invasions/bombings are illegal; and (b) that she had weakened the separation of powers protections.

Voting for it was INEXCUSABLE, given the history of the * Administration.

That is one of the reasons I will not be voting for her in the primary.

[elizm]

13. Senator Webb, for one, disagrees with you...But maybe you know more than he does?

Webb: Lieberman And Kyl’s Hawkish Iran Amendment Is ‘Cheney’s Fondest Pipe Dream’
On the Senate floor today, Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) made an impassioned appeal to his fellow senators, declaring that the Lieberman-Kyl amendment on Iran should be “withdrawn” because the “proposal is Dick Cheney’s fondest pipe dream.” Webb cautioned that the “cleverly-worded sense of the Congress” could be “interpreted” to “declare war” on Iran. He continued:

Those who regret their vote five years ago to authorize military action in Iraq should think hard before supporting this approach. Because, in my view, it has the same potential to do harm where many are seeking to do good.

“At best, it’s a deliberate attempt to divert attention from a failed diplomatic policy,” said Webb. “At worst, it could be read as a backdoor method of gaining Congressional validation for military action, without one hearing and without serious debate.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/25/webb-kyl-lieb-iran/

[IndieLeft]

14. Are You Kidding Me?

That authorization declared a branch of the Iran military (I forget which) a terrorist organization.

You combine that with the patriot act, and that gives the president authority to attack them.

That is why there was the scramble to repeal it.

[tritsofme]

17. The Senate has no power to make unilateral declarations

That are binding or have any effect on the law.

It has no more effect on law than the Senate congratulating the Giants for winning the Super Bowl.

[frylock]

18. your comparison of kyle-lieberman to congress congratulating a sports team..

tells me you really don't know jack about shit. fool me...can't get fooled again.

[tritsofme]

19. It has the exact same practical effect on law.

Which is nothing.

Whether or not you acknowledge that is not my problem.

[mod mom]

16. SEN WEBB:" would, for all practical purposes, “mandate” the military option against Iran"

Webb: Lieberman And Kyl’s Hawkish Iran Amendment Is ‘Cheney’s Fondest Pipe Dream’
On the Senate floor today, Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) made an impassioned appeal to his fellow senators, declaring that the Lieberman-Kyl amendment on Iran should be “withdrawn” because the “proposal is Dick Cheney’s fondest pipe dream.” Webb cautioned that the “cleverly-worded sense of the Congress” could be “interpreted” to “declare war” on Iran. He continued:

Those who regret their vote five years ago to authorize military action in Iraq should think hard before supporting this approach. Because, in my view, it has the same potential to do harm where many are seeking to do good.

“At best, it’s a deliberate attempt to divert attention from a failed diplomatic policy,” said Webb. “At worst, it could be read as a backdoor method of gaining Congressional validation for military action, without one hearing and without serious debate.” Watch it:


Webb said that amendment’s attempt to categorize the Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp as “a foreign terrorist organization” would, for all practical purposes, “mandate” the military option against Iran. “It could be read as tantamount to a declaration of war. What do we do with terrorist organizations? If they are involved against us, we attack them.

-snip

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/25/webb-kyl-lieb-iran/

[Alexander]

31. Wow. You're calling Senator Webb a liar. Nice touch, Shillbot.

Which Democrat is next on your insult list? Kerry? Or Kennedy?

[tritsofme]

33. He's wrong if he thinks that the resolution as passed has any legal weight.

I don't know the background on his comments, but it is very possible he was speaking about an earlier and much harsher version of the resolution.

[ErnestoG]

32. Bullshit. It is a VIRTUAL authorization of war. Read the damn thing.

It labels the Iranian military basically a terrorist organization and that, by previous US laws, puts them squarely in the sites of the military.

Anyone who tells you Kyle/Lieberman is not an enablement of future mlitary action against Iran is definitely a liar.

[tritsofme]

34. The Senate has no power to unilaterally label anything.

Its a glorified press release.

Not a law.

Neither the House of Representatives or the President had any say in the matter.

[ErnestoG]

36. It's a step to war, and once again your candidate is leading the charge.

I swear to god she NEVER learns.

[tritsofme]

37. Its a step away from the toilet roll.

It has no legal significance and was so unimportant that Obama couldn't even be bothered to show up and vote for it.

It doesn't mean anything.

[still_one]

35. but anyone who votes for it must believe in its principle

which state that among other things we will remain in Iraq indefintely as long as Iran is considered a threat

would someone vote for something they didn't agree with in principle?