It's beginning to look like Kyle-Lieberman is going to pass. .

[annabanana]

today

Giving B*sh and Cheney the authority to invade Iran...

[fenriswolf]

1. wtf cant be

[robinlynne]

2. fuck.

[yardwork]

3. According to a recent thread, that would put Congress opposite to unanimous DU opinion.

I would think that would put Congress opposite to near-unanimous U.S. opinion, discounting the 22% who still support shrimp.

[tom_paine]

8. Well, it's not like Imperial Amerika is a Free Nation.

Why should a totalitarian tyranny give a shit what it's Subjects think?

If Amerika was still America (1776-2000. RIP.) then it would worry me.

But this is just, an Iran, a Saudi Arabia, a Haiti, an Amerika doing what it wants when it wants and fuck the Filthy Little Nobodies.

[Tom Joad]

35. America never really was America of people's ideals.

perhaps you heard of slavery, invasion of Philippines, Mexico, Vietnam (it was in all the papers).... shhesh

[tom_paine]

48. For the millionth time, I am well aware of that. What I am saying is..

...that the old American Republic, the USA or whatever you want to call it was far from idealized, but even still for all of it's faults and flaws...

I have indeed heard of those of which you speak, and also of the near-genocide of Native Americans, and Jim Crow/Bushevism - which perists today in a kinder and gentler form that the 20s-early 70s, and more and more and more, all of which I am aware.

...is still one excellent -perhaps the greatest - large nation, compared to most in the area of the cold calculation which weighs the "good" done by a nation with the atrocities and their severity.

So I will stand by what I said, knowing that the Old Republic was never ideal and very far from perfect. But it was within a framework which was evolving some level of greater justice and inclusion before the Busheviks seized and raped and destroyed the good and magified the bad to the poitn where that's what our main face is now.

For all the faults and flaws, for all the imperfections, it was what it was. The FIRST in modern history to postulate freedom for the Common People. The FIRST to throw of the chains of aristocracy, even to the relatively smallish degree that we did, and on and on and on.

[me b zola]

4. WTF?

What are you hearing that make you think this?

[sandnsea]

5. sense of the senate - not authority

It will only be an authority if we let them spin it in to one - the way it was done with the IWR.

[annabanana]

well . . .YEAH

THAT is why it may pass.. No one is taking for the "authority" except the people who want to. (and who have the ability to)

[formercia]

10. Junior likes to leverage and push the envelope

if it passes he will argue it is authority.

[sandnsea]

33. So why help them

Why help them turn it into an authority that it isn't. Why make it easier for them to go to war.

[atreides1]

14. "....if we let them spin it in to one.."

And all that spinning worked didn't it? Let's just admit that this is just the first step towards war with Iran, and just like the IWR the congress will likely go along to get along, especially if this subject is brought up again closer to election time.

Remember, no one running for office wants to be portrayed as a wuss!!!!


It won't take much to turn this "sense of the senate" crud into congressional authority to use military force against Iran, just like the requirements for the IWR were BS as well.

[sandnsea]

28. Who helped?

Who called it a 'vote for war', no matter how many times others tried to make Bush stand by his words that the resolution was just to pressure the UN to put inspections in. Go ahead, help them turn this into permission to go to war too. Worked so well last time, didn't it?

[goodgd_yall]

6. Who will be the sell-outs this time?

[fenriswolf]

12. well they have to rotate

clinton of course will vote no as that would ostrisize her from her "base" i expect that the majority of representatives that are getting flak for voting to keep this war running will not vote for this bill while just enough votes pass for the bill to go through.

kucinich of course will vote no as well
as will obama
and edwards

[goodgd_yall]

15. That makes sense

at the very least because it's smart politically.

[lateo]

20. While I agree with you.

I don't think Edwards is a Senator anymore.

[Virginia Dare]

24. and Kucinich never was...n/t

[fenriswolf]

29. eh sorry

got confused.

[goodgd_yall]

49. Me too n/t

[gateley]

53. But I'm sure Dodd and Biden will be voting...nt

[ShortnFiery]

25. It's a f**king waltz to placate the peasants - The Senatorial Sell-Outs masquerading as Democrats.

:grr: :nuke: :grr:

[Individualist]

38. ...orchestrated by DLC

[pscot]

7. It's not up for a vote now

n/t

[blondeatlast]

9. Shit no. I'd watch C-span, but I'm already sick to my stomach. Say it isn't so.

nd, DU, my most sincere apologies for John Kyl--he's worse than McCain and I did my level best to stop him.

[Tom Joad]

11. that's because the Senate is run by dumbasses.

[ShortnFiery]

13. If this horrid circumstance is NOT an rock solid argument for Congressional *TERM LIMITS*

I don't know what is?!? :grr:

We must wash the War Profiteering enablers in Congress OUT OF OFFICE!

Better to rid the Congressional corporate shills lock, stock and barrel than for the USA to face endless wars all in the FALSE premise of "our blessed security." :thumbsdown:

[Greeby]

19. Term limits won't make a difference

You'll just have a new bunch of DCCC and DSCC shills put up to run. What you need is more progressives in the primaries

[ShortnFiery]

31. It's a fucking START! At least they won't be privy to all the smarmy tactics and we can more easily

uncover the corrupt underbelly of clueless newbies rather than entrenched criminals. :grr:

It must START somewhere and that "somewhere" is TERM LIMITS! :thumbsup:

On Edit: I don't know if you've been paying attention but we have WAR-PROFITEERING enablers on both sides of the aisle. Both Parties have their criminal elements running the show. We must stop the graft and corruption before all our tax dollars are pissed away and the USA is just one big fucking corporation.

[rusty quoin]

16. I called my senator to vote no

Why don't 40 democrats filibuster if it passes?

[C_U_L8R]

17. We begin bombing in 5 minutes

what a bunch of sellouts.

[Tom Joad]

26. I'm old enough to remember that "quip"

[C_U_L8R]

64. same jokers

[MannyGoldstein]

18. Don't Worry - Congressional Democrats Would Never Allow This

And they have a majority.

[ThomCat]

61. You forgot your sarcasm tag.

[robinlynne]

21. on cspan 2 they are debating a hate crimes bill. so where are you seeing this?

[Emit]

22. Remember, Kyl and Lieberman serve as The Committee on the Present Danger (CPD) honorary cochairmen

~snip~

Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Democratic Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut serve as CPD's honorary cochairmen, giving the CPD the appearance of a bipartisan initiative. Like the second CPD, the current CPD is largely a grouping of national security militarists and neoconservatives. Since its founding in mid-2004, the CPD has substantially increased its membership and now includes an international wing.

The committee is a not-for-profit (501(c)(4)) organization. Its website says that its “membership is limited to those in private life and does not include elected or appointed full-time federal or state officials or candidates for public office … As a committee, we have no ties or obligations to any administration or political party.” 1

When asked about CPD's membership, Jeane Kirkpatrick, who is a member herself, said the committee's members are largely of “friends of mine,” and that “a number of the people involved in it are also members of Freedom House,” a neoconservative-led human-rights organization on whose board of trustees Kirkpatrick sits. 2

Nominally nonpartisan, the third CPD includes several liberal hawks, including Stephen Solarz, Dave McCurdy, and Lieberman, but the committee is overwhelmingly comprised of neoconservatives, former Republican officials, wealthy business executives, and people involved in the military-industrial complex. In keeping with the tradition of its forerunners, the CPD is neither a policy institute nor a think tank. Rather, it functions as a pressure group that, through occasional statements, conferences, and reports, attempts to bolster support for increased military spending and a more aggressive global war against Islamic militants, particularly in the Middle East. The committee hosts occasional forums in Washington, DC, with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD). The CPD lists no physical location and only one employee.

~snip~

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/3301

[txaslftist]

23. Of course it's going to pass.

Attacking Iran is part of the Project for a New American Century. Iran's sitting on an oil patch that the petrochemical companies want access to, and they are not giving them access. Naturally we have to kill them until they do.

Why do you think the "petroleum agreement" (giving access and the lion's share of profits to multinational oil companies to Iraq's oil patch) is a "benchmark". Hell, it's the only benchmark that counts.

[goodgd_yall]

50. Not to mention, the warmongers

want to send Ahmadinejad a message while he's here. They think this is opportune timing.

[txaslftist]

52. Actually they're using his visit as a justification for war.

I read one editorial calling his visit a "propaganda assault" on America; likening it to military aggression.

He could sit in a field and pick flowers and they'd call him an agitator.

It's about them nationalizing the oil. The rest is bull.

[Ninga]

27. Well, maybe we need to thank the people of Connecticut who just love their Liberman.

[Tom Joad]

32. as repulsive as Lieberman is, why are you attacking just CT voters.

and not the voters in AZ, or the dozens of other states that elect dumbasses?

and if it does pass, probably a strong majority will have elected at least one dumbass.

[Ninga]

39. Oh, believe me, Ohio has plenty of those....i was just thinking Lamont that's all.

Connecticut voters just had a chance to right a wrong and somehow it didn't get done....that's all.

[Tom Joad]

41. Lamont would have been a welcome change.

[Ninga]

43. Ok, let's you and me engage in a little bit of "what if".....and especially let's also engage

in hindsight.

I dont' know what happened in CT, but one guess might be the voters got scared and got cold feet, and some fled Lamont back to Liberman.

So

What if the CT voters knew today, what the past few years of Liberman would bring, would they vote him in again?

Which presidential primary candidate today, is the Liberman and which is the Lamont???

[Tom Joad]

30. where do you get this info, anna?

They are not voting now.
what have you heard specifically?

[annabanana]

34. a gal from TPM was talking to Tom Hartman

AAR. . (They do some good backroom work)

[Tom Joad]

37. okay. Let's all hope their prediction comes out wrong.

pass or not, everyone who votes for this needs to be held accountable.
Not saying vote them out. too nice.

A people's eviction.

[0rganism]

36. what are the chances of getting 40 senators to filibuster?

Perhaps Sen. Webb can distribute that case of vertebrae the Dems keep in the basement, you know, the one that just sits around gathering dust.

[gateley]

56. Yeah, he was speaking out against it on the Senate floor this morning. nt

[Me.]

40. 2 Ways It Could Be Stopped

Reid doesn't allow it to come to the floor or a dem senator puts a hold on it. Will either these happen? Not giving odds.

[Tom Joad]

42. it is going to the floor, it will probably pass by a wide margin.

as terrible as the bill is, it does not mean the war with Iran starts this week or this month, or even starts at all.

There will probably be a series of these bills and such, and we need to make sure that everyone who voted for this hears from us, and we must demand that they very vocally tell bush this is not an authorization for war (make them spin!) .

[gateley]

Everyone who will be voting on this HAS heard from us -- they know how we

want them to vote.

Telling Bush that is not an authorization wouldn't stop him for a moment. The rules don't apply to him, don't forget.

[mhatrw]

44. Praise Allah that we all enabled this by joining the corporate media's Two Minutes Hate!

Wouldn't want to point out how we are getting royally played once AGAIN or anything!

http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html

Wirthlin's job, Alsop explained, was "to identify the messages that really resonate emotionally with the American people." The theme that struck the deepest emotional chord, they discovered, was "the fact that Saddam Hussein was a madman who had committed atrocities even against his own people, and had tremendous power to do further damage, and he needed to be stopped."

[Marr]

47. You got that right. n/t

[nashville_brook]

65. word.

[Marr]

45. That is no more an authorization to invade than the MoveOn.org condemnation was an

authorization to deport all MoveOn.org members.

It's repulsive and cowardly, but it is not permission to invade. Unless we allow them to sell it as such, of course.

[MiniMe]

54. It may not be an authorization, but it dosn't mean that Chimpy won't use

it as one. He already thinks he has it with the AUMF

[0rganism]

62. neither are legally binding, but they do form the basis of an excuse

Given that Cheneybush will do whatever the fuck it wants wrt bombing and/or invading Iran anyway,
Given that Cheneybush can declare MoveOn a terrorist organization and indefinitely detain all members as it sees fit,
All that remains to be resolved in either case is the justification he uses in his half-assed apologetics, which will be repeated ad nauseum by the GOP's pet talking heads.

That is what the senate is giving to Cheneybush with these "nonbinding" resolutions.

[Marr]

63. You may be right.

A resolution like this allows the hawks to frame anyone in Congress who disagrees with military action against Iran as a coward. Once you've agreed that the Iranians are evil or out to get us, any argument against taking action is going to be portrayed as cowardice or collusion.

I hadn't thought of it in relation to the IWR.

[ringtailtooter]

46. Sen. Reid just said it's going into rewrite

according to a 3:41 post on Think Progress.

[spanone]

51. it should be going into the toilet

[gateley]

55. The Senate is recessed until 5:00 pm, and I believe the first vote at that time

will be the Biden-Brownback-Boxer amendment. Not sure where on the schedule Lieberman's nightmare is.

What makes you thing it's looking like it's going to pass, annabanana? Enlighten us before we whip ourselves into a frenzy!

[AtomicKitten]

57. &*%$#*^#@!!!

[Nothing Without Hope]

58. Crooks & Liars has a video of Senator Webb condemning this terrible amendment:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/25/sen-webb-blasts-liebermankyl-amendment-this-proposal-is-dick-cheneys-fondest-pipe-dream/

An excerpt:

Webb: We are about to vote on something that may fundamentally change the way that the United States views the Iranian military, and we haven’t had one hearing. This is not the way to make foreign policy. It’s not the way to declare war, although this cleverly worded sense of the Congress could be interpreted that way.

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. The constant turmoil that these sorts of proposals and actions are bringing to the region is counterproductive. They are regrettable substitute for a failure of diplomacy by this Administration.

I do not believe that any serious student of foreign policy could support this amendment as it now exists.

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 with one hearing or without serious debate.

It's not like even the Dems fail to see what this means. It is thoroughly corrupt and extremely dangerous to support this amendment.

[mmonk]

59. I thought in matters of war,

both Houses of Congress needed to agree.

[gateley]

60. Oh, my poor dear,

you actually thought that? :spray:

That was pre Bush.

[annabanana]

67. "9/11 changed everything"

remember?

[Initech]

66. Great, instead of ending one war, we're starting another. Just fucking great.

:argh: :argh: :banghead: :banghead: :nuke: :nuke: