“Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize...the use of Armed Forces against Iran"

[babylonsister]

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/07/senate-democrats-vote-for-war-with-iran/

Senate Democrats Vote for War With Iran

by Pham Binh / July 14th, 2007

That’s right. Senate - Democrats - Voted - For - War - With - Iran!

On Wednesday, the Senate voted 97-0 for an amendment written by Joe Bomb Iran Lieberman, whose position on Iran is identical to Dick Cheney’s.

The amendment repeats the flimsy charges made by the Cheney administration earlier this year that the Iranian government is arming Iraq’s Shia militias with explosively-formed projectile explosives that have killed almost 200 American troops and that Shia Iran is giving a safe haven to Sunni extremist Al-Qaeda (even though AQ is blowing up Iraqi Shias left and right). These are the same charges that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Statt, Peter Pace, distanced himself from, claiming that the evidence did not support the contention that Iran’s government either supplied or was complicit in the supply of these weapons to militias in Iraq. (Pace’s will not be renominated for the position, by the way.)

The amendment states that “the murder of members of the United States Armed Forces by a foreign government or its agents is an intolerable act against the United States,” and demands the government of Iran “take immediate action” to end all forms of support it is providing to Iraqi militias. It also mandates a regular report on Iran’s anti-US activity in Iraq .

Senior Democrat Carl Levin successfully inserted a small change to Lieberman’s text stating that, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of Armed Forces against Iran.” If you’re thinking, “phew! That’ll stop a war on Iran!” think again. The Iraq Liberation Act passed by Congress in 1998 and signed by Bill Clinton had the same text. And we all know the story of how that text stopped the invasion of Iraq .

Charging Iran with killing US troops has nothing to do with the facts. It’s about beating the war drums and trying to convince Americans that in order to “protect our troops” the US must bomb Iran.

more...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. Flag waving "toughness" is always a popular stance for politicians.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H.L. Mencken

[rodeodance]

2. you do recal Congress voted SINCE 1998 (on IraQ)?

...........
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/07/senate-democrats-... /

Senate Democrats Vote for War With Iran

by Pham Binh / July 14th, 2007
..............

Senior Democrat Carl Levin successfully inserted a small change to Lieberman’s text stating that, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of Armed Forces against Iran.” If you’re thinking, “phew! That’ll stop a war on Iran!” think again. The Iraq Liberation Act passed by Congress in 1998 and signed by Bill Clinton had the same text. And we all know the story of how that text stopped the invasion of Iraq .

[wtmusic]

5. Let's hope Senate Democrat Carl Levin doesn't vote for another IWR

an Iranian War Resolution.

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

7. Levin did not vote for the Iraq War Resolution.

He voted against it.

[wtmusic]

9. Thank you -- my mistake. nt

[Kagemusha]

3. So not voting against war with Iran = voting FOR war with Iran.

And the assault on reason continues.

[sakabatou]

6. The hell?

[Kagemusha]

10. I'm saying that argument makes no sense.

Bush didn't go to war with Iraq on the basis of the act Clinton signed. Turning the act Clinton signed into an Iraq war resolution is a rhetorical game with no basis in reality. Turning this vote on Iran - which I do not care for at all - into an Iran war resolution is equally nonsense and part of the continuing assault on logic and reason - just in this case, from the left.

[BlackHawk706867]

4. If the US strikes Iran, it's game over.... That will no doubt bring in..

Russia, China, Venezuela, Syria and a host of other countries that will form against the US. Should this happen, we will see a full scale world war with no clear winners.

ww

[kestrel91316]

12. If we attack Iran, WW III starts, and we get our oil supplies cut off and lose BIGTIME, PDQ.

[truedelphi]

15. Maybe that World War III is the very bad thing that Chertoff's gut is telling him about

I know my gut goes into paroxysms whenever I think of Iran and this country's
government's reaction to it.

[Dhalgren]

8. No one has explained to me why the Democrats would do this.

Is there ever going to be a political party that represents us?

[kestrel91316]

13. The Democratic party is seeming more and more to me to be packed with

a bunch of Ivans - Republicans gone deep undercover to undermine true Democratic principles. That's why so many Dem higher-ups get such big corporate funding. The corps know they are not really Dems.

I know. Tinfoilhattish. But I really have to wonder at times if it's true.

[old guy]

14. Is this throwing Lieberman a bone?

It seems that he is looking for an excuse to jump to the repubs. So he sets up this ridiculous ploy hoping the Democrats stop it. Only they don't. This thing will not permit or stop * from starting a war with Iran. IMO it is all Lieberman trying to look relevant. Just a thought.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

17. I hope not. why the hell should he get a bone?

I mean, AIPAC already owns the souls and the votes 1/3 of the democrats, and at least 50% of the GOP.

[TheBaldyMan]

11. the IWR was passed before the 2003 invasion

doesn't make the Iraq war legal but kind of scuppers the claim the the 1998 ILA gives carte-blanche to Bush with Iran.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

16. that only applies to Armed Forces.

you know - with arms.

Says nothing about smart bombs, robot planes, air launched cruise missiles, sea based cruise missiles, land based cruise missiles, bunker buster bombs, ballistic missile strike, artillery attacks from the north, tank incursions as a "defensive" move, a nuke or three for color and impact, hell, the list is almost endless.

[progressoid]

18. Huh? What? WTF does our current invasion/occupation have to do with the Iraq Lib Act of 98?

Bush did that because of a completely different resolution. No?