76 ayes. On to Iran. fuck. damn them . omg.

[uppityperson]

[Eurobabe]

1. Yeah, we've got BIGGER things to break.

:eyes: :eyes:

[The Stranger]

2. Amazing, isn't it, that while DU is having Two Minutes hate, this passes in quiet?

[cali]

15. Really? Why are you repeating that

fallacious meme? Lots of interest in this. Lots of posts on the live thread and other threads with many responses, including this one.

[mhatrw]

82. Far more interest in demonizing Iran's figurehead!

Funny, that.

[cali]

94. not really, DU likes its flame wars, be it Andrew Meyer

Circuit City or Ahmadinejad. Nothing to fuss over.

[The Stranger]

91. Because it bears repeating. And repeating. Until we learn.

DU was engrossed in a Two Minutes Hate, meanwhile the Kyl-Leiberman amendment passed.

[renie408]

78. You know, I am not sure that is accurate.

It didn't 'pass in quiet', for one thing. For another, we need to figure out a better way to deal with countries who have cultural and political idologies that are threatening and/or inhumane. Ignoring that Iran is a problem doesn't help any more than that 'two minute hate' thing you keep harping about.

[mhatrw]

83. Nobody wants to ignore Iran, just to realize that the current villainization of Iran

for doing basically the same things that all or our Arab "friends" do has nothing to do with respect for human rights and everything to do with WAR.

[robinlynne]

3. same number as the moveon condemn, give or take a vote. and FISA too.

i.e. Half of our dems are consistently voting with the right. except on healthcare/education.

[rusty quoin]

4. Durbin

What does that mean? Does that mean we are supporting the invasion of Iran? That we are supporting military tactics against Iran?

[blondeatlast]

8. Not binding, just a "sense of the Senate," but in a nutshell, what you said.

I'm just sick.

[uppityperson]

9. It means whatever they want it to mean. And they passed that.

Not that mrbush "needed" official sanction, but they just said whatever. I was taught that you don't vote for a bad bill because part of it is what you think, but you change it to a right bill or vote no. I am ashamed of those who voted aye out of fear. Fear of being called names. Fear of being thought "weak". Fear playing politics. I am ashamed of those who voted aye to support The President In His Global War On Terror And Teach The Rest Of The World A Lesson.

[cascadiance]

43. This is what Lieberman beating Lamont has given us...

Fear that supporting the grass roots will still wind up in defeat, and for the incumbents a feeling of doing what you need to do to keep your corporate benefactors happy, since if you have to go the Lieberman route if you get voted out in the primary for going against your constituency for your corporate backers, that you still can do what he did and get elected!

It all f'in sucks! I think that those in Washington have to start realizing that unless they start listening to the constituents, at some point those constituents are going to get mad enough to want to *BREAK* things rather than try to still use the democratic process. That won't be a pretty day in AmeriKa!

[pscot]

18. It means the Senate just cut a blank check

for the lunatic in the Whitehouse.

[Individualist]

22. ... per courtesy of DLC

[TheWraith]

23. It means nothing of the sort. Just people around here being paranoid. NT

[Cha]

34. Do tell. What does, exactly, it

mean then. And if people are "paranoid" around here that have good reason to be.

[uppityperson]

35. Yup, like the attack Iraq thing just meant mrbush could threaten action.

I heard that from Ms.Cantwell way back. "I didn't vote to give him permission to attack Iraq but just to threaten." Glad to see she has learned.

[bvar22]

81. I am cursed with a memory.

I remember the IWR, and the twisted rationalizations used to support voting FOR it.

[Beelzebud]

5. Why do the Democrats have to fold like a cheap suit EVERY GOD DAMNED TIME?

Fuck this shit.

They can all kiss my motherfucking ass. Kudos to the FEW that aren't stupid enough to vote for this, but god damn... The rest of them can just rot in hell.

[Robbien]

14. They are not folding. They want this, or at least the "moderates" do.

Our wonderful moderate centrist Dems will always stand proudly along side the GOP, when they are not meeting in secret with the GOP behind closed doors plotting to rob from the poor to give to the rich.

[TwilightGardener]

19. When two Republicans had the guts to vote no, the "moderate" Dems have no cover or excuse.

[gateley]

6. What? It happened already? After the high (mine) from Biden's victory, i feel

like I've been kicked in the stomach. One moment of sanity, then, back to the grind.

[TwilightGardener]

7. My Senators--Ben Nelson,--aye, Chuck Hagel--no. I wish it was Nelson who was retiring.

[rateyes]

10. They were forced to take out the "objectionable" language...

but, still, I agree.

[Blackhatjack]

11. Sen Webb pointed out there had been no hearings and little debate on this before voting...

... and then it passes 76-22.

Something is seriously broken alright.... and it is in the Senate!

[cali]

12. Screw them. Fucking fools

or tools or both. Does anyone have a list of how they voted?

[uppityperson]

13. Support the troops everything changed after 911 why do you hate amerika?

Looking for a list. I have said that things aren't bad enough yet to force change here in the USA and I really am afraid I am right.

[cali]

I am too

I'm having trouble finding it. Anyone know the number?

[hedgehog]

16. What , what what?!?!?!?

When did this happen? What resolution? Which Democrats went along with it?

[helderheid]

21. exactly - I missed something and now I feel nauseated

[TheWraith]

33. Don't worry, it's nothing. Just the Kyl-Lieberman thing passed.

The amendment saying that any Iranian Revolutionary Guards operating in Iraq are "terrorists."

[mod mom]

17. REID & CLINTON AYE (Some but not all offending language was remover-TPM):

09.26.07 -- 12:57PM // link

VOTING ON NOW
The Kyl-Lieberman (aka, backdoor to war with Iran) amendment is currently being voted on in the Senate. We'll bring you the final results when we have them. So far, Sens. Reid and Clinton have both voted in the affirmative.

We're still also trying to find out what happened in the revision which took place yesterday and how offensive the bill now being voted on actually is.

Late Update: It appears that much but not all of the offending language was removed, particularly the part that more or less authorized war against Iran and all its proxies.

--Josh Marshall

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/054274.php

[TheWraith]

20. Calm down, people, this is absolutely NOT what it's billed as.

It's just about the ridiculous Kyl-Liberman amendment. It's absolutely not any kind of endorsement of war with Iran, despite what some people try to spin it as.

[TwilightGardener]

25. How is it billed? If some very reasonable people in the Senate find

cause for alarm about it, then I want to know why.

[TheWraith]

27. And the language they were concerned with was removed.

Also, even in its original form, it was far from the declaration of war with Iran that people here wanted it to be.

[TwilightGardener]

29. Didn't say it was a declaration of war. But sounds to me like laying the

legislative groundwork to make it very hard to say no to Chimpy/Crashcart when they DO plan to strike.

[TheWraith]

40. How so, exactly?

The Kyl-Lieberman amendment basically said that any Iranian Revolutionary Guards operating in Iraq were "terrorists." Since they've never actually found any IRG in Iraq, how does that work?

[TwilightGardener]

50. They passed a similar resolution in July, condemning acts by Iran against

Americans in Iraq. Why is today's amendment necessary? Does it take Lieberman's case against Iran one step further? I am betting it does.

[Virginia Dare]

57. Exactly, but I don't think it's broadening the war to Iran..

I think it's more designed to keep us in Iraq.

It's still a very bad deal, I don't know how or why they got so many Democrats to go along with it.

[TwilightGardener]

73. You may have a point, about it being intended to keep us in Iraq--ick.

[mod mom]

30. No read this from Josh Marshall:

Late Update: It appears that much but not all of the offending language was removed, particularly the part that more or less authorized war against Iran and all its proxies.

--Josh Marshall

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/054274.php

[mod mom]

39. DETAIL on language removed:

The bill's backers had tried to mollify its critics by taking out some of its most incendiary language, particularly the idea 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."

Also removed from the measure was a provision "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 above.

One leading critic, Jim Webb, however, still opposed the bill because it designates the Iran guard a terrorist organization. Nonetheless, it was able to pass overwhelmingly.

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/09/kyllieberman_iran_amendment_passes_by_huge_margin.php

[TheWraith]

44. It's in Marshall's interest to keep scaring people.

Note that he doesn't actually quote the relevant text from the amendment, because then it might be recognized that it's unimportant drivel rather than mortal threat. Hey, can't ruin a good hate-on.

[uppityperson]

59. Post the amendment info. Quote the actual text. Show us.

rather than insulting, how about showing us the actual text.

[mod mom]

62. Watch Marshall's video in post 55-He shows the actual text.

[Robbien]

36. DLC/BlueDogs

want more war against Muslims as much as Cheney does.

You see this as a good thing.

[mod mom]

47. DLC/PNAC Ties

Al From is founder and chief executive officer of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), a dynamic idea action center of the "Third Way" governing philosophy that is reshaping progressive politics in the United States and around the globe. He is also chairman of the Third Way Foundation and publisher of the DLC's flagship bi-monthly magazine, Blueprint: Ideas for a New Century.

As a founder of the DLC -- birthplace of the New Democrat movement and the Third Way in America -- and its companion think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), From leads a national movement that since the mid-1980s has provided both the action agenda and the ideas for New Democrats to successfully challenge the conventional political wisdom in America and, in the process, redefine the center of the Democratic Party.

-snip

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=191&contentid=1131



Will Marshall, the head of PPI signed PNAC letters.
(Called "Bill Clinton's idea mill," the Progressive Policy Institute was responsible for many of the Clinton administration's initiatives...)
Starting right after 9/11.
***************************
Along with such neocon stalwarts as Robert Kagan, Bruce Jackson, Joshua Muravchik, James Woolsey, and Eliot Cohen, a half-dozen Democrats were among the 23 individuals who signed PNAC's first letter on post-war Iraq. Among the Democrats were Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution and a member of Clinton's National Security Council staff; Martin Indyk, Clinton's ambassador to Israel; Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute and Democratic Leadership Council; Dennis Ross, Clinton's top adviser on the Israel-Palestinian negotiations; and James Steinberg, Clinton's deputy national security adviser and head of foreign policy studies at Brookings.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0522-10.htm

More about Will Marshall
Note the PNAC link to the left.
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1295

[Spazito]

42. Yep, and the IWR had it's most "offensive" language removed as well

and the weasel wording allowed all those who voted for it to say it didn't mean what it did, very little difference in this bill and it will do the same thing.

Appalling, absolutely appalling, imo.

[DancingBear]

64. But here is they key

Absolutely.Not.Surprising.

Get used to it, everyone.

It's a hard pill to swallow, but it is more true today than yesterday, and it will be even truer tomorrow.

They DO NOT represent you.

They never will.

Stop pretending.

[Spazito]

67. It seems to me, this quote from a movie fits here perfectly

re the vote "I was so busy trying to keep my job, I FORGOT to do my job". It's from the movie, "The American President".

That is the only rationale, unacceptable as it is, imo, that the Dems voted for it.

I am sitting here shaking my head asking how many times they need to be hit over the head with a sledgehammer before they "get it"?

[DancingBear]

80. It's not them, it's us

We must remember that they do not represent us, they fall in line for whomever greases the palms and fattens the wallets.

It truly is a ruse - "the lesser of two evils" - but that is what they expect us to fall for.

By now, it should be evident as to who their masters are. Even the influx of the new "progressive anti-war" Dems like Tester, Webb et al. is a ruse. You can surely see that they said what we wanted to hear, but now do as they are told by those who REALLY matter.

If we phrase it thusly - "We are sitting here shaking our heads asking how many times we need to be hit over the head with a sledgehammer before we "get it"? - then we can begin to identify where change needs to come from. Don't rely on "them" to be affected by a sledgehammer - if it comes from "us" they'll never even feel it.

[mark414]

58. the Iraq resolution wasn't "supposed" to be a declaration of war either

[mhatrw]

So why didn't it pass 100-0 then? n/t

[madfloridian]

93. It appears it was not removed.

See TPM link below.

[Pachamama]

26. Have you read it? I did...And guess what? Put this together with the War Powers Act for Bush and

you got yourself the groundwork for Bush to justify (with Congress's blessing) when he nukes Iran.

This isn't spinning...this is real.

[Beelzebud]

28. Yes and the IWR didn't give the green light for war in Iraq either.

How many times are they going to piss down your back, and tell you it's raining, before you get tired of being drenched in urine?

[uppityperson]

38. Exactly.

[Robbien]

31. Wrong. It is exactly what it is. A testing of the waters. Test of who wants more killing

Our moderate centrist Democratic DLC/Blue Dogs stand up proudly and say "Hoorah. Yeah. If there is going to be more killing of Muslims, we will support it."

[TheWraith]

37. I swear, the people here enjoy hating Democrats as much as the Republicans do.

If you bothered to get actual information instead of relying on third-hand reports and sites to whose benefit it is to cultivate this attitude, you might realize how minimal and pointless this resolution was.

[uppityperson]

41. Same with the thing they passed that gave mrbush permission to invade Iraq.

Pointless indeed. OK, give us the actual information, the text of the bill.

[TwilightGardener]

45. Look at the vote--some of the most thoughtful and principled Senators, including

the top two Republicans on the Foreign Relations Committee, voted no. That should really raise a red flag, that they were willing to go against their party on a "safe, pointless" vote, as you say.

[atreides1]

46. Okay Then

Provide us with your highly credible first hand sources and sites so that we can make an informed decision!

[Robbien]

49. Only certain so called phoney baloney Dems. You know the weasel ones I mean

The weasel DLC/BlueDog so-called "moderate" "centrists" who are as so far right they don't qualify for the GOP party so they hide behind Dem masks and push for death and destruction and war on the middle class for the have mores.

You sir are not a Dem and yes I do not support you.

If I were a GOPer, I would support you because you are the best thing that could happen for the GOP party.

[atreides1]

56. Here's what it says

(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;

(2) that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;

(3) 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;

(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;
(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

(6) that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.


Sections 2,3,and 4 are pretty clear in it's concept:...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."

Supposedly the words in paragraph 3 were taken out, waiting for confirmation.

[uppityperson]

68. I found this text, was this the first draft or the passed one?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:1:./temp/~r110vOhZdQ:e531061
SA 3017. Mr. KYL (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Coleman) proposed an amendment to amendment SA 2011 proposed by Mr. Nelson of Nebraska (for Mr. Levin) to the bill H.R. 1585, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; as follows:

At the end of subtitle C of title XV, add the following:

SEC. 1535. SENSE OF SENATE ON IRAN.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:

(1) General David Petraeus, commander of the Multi-National Force Iraq, stated in testimony before a joint session of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives on September 10, 2007, that ``t is increasingly apparent to both coalition and Iraqi leaders that Iran, through the use of the Iranian Republican Guard Corps Qods Force, seeks to turn the Shi'a militia extremists into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests and fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq''.

(2) Ambassador Ryan Crocker, United States Ambassador to Iraq, stated in testimony before a joint session of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives on September 10, 2007, that ``Iran plays a harmful role in Iraq. While claiming to support Iraq in its transition, Iran has actively undermined it by providing lethal capabilities to the enemies of the Iraqi state''.

(3) The most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, published in August 2007, states that ``Iran has been intensifying aspects of its lethal support for select groups of Iraqi Shia militants, particularly the JAM , since at least the beginning of 2006. Explosively formed penetrator (EFP) attacks have risen dramatically''.

(4) The Report of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, released on September 6, 2007, states that ``he Commission concludes that the evidence of Iran's increasing activism in the southeastern part of the country, including Basra and Diyala provinces, is compelling. ..... It is an accepted fact that most of the sophisticated weapons being used to `defeat' our armor protection comes across the border from Iran with relative impunity''.

(5) General (Ret.) James Jones, chairman of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, stated in testimony before the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate on September 6, 2007, that ``e judge that the goings-on across the Iranian border in particular are of extreme severity and have the potential of at least delaying our efforts inside the country. Many of the arms and weapons that kill and maim our soldiers are coming from across the Iranian border''.

(6) General Petraeus said of Iranian support for extremist activity in Iraq on April 26, 2007, that ``e know that it goes as high as Suleimani, who is the head of the Qods Force. ..... We believe that he works directly for the supreme leader of the country''.

(7) Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, the president of Iran, stated on August 28, 2007, with respect to the United States presence in Iraq, that ``he political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly. Soon we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course we are prepared to fill the gap''.

(8) Ambassador Crocker testified to Congress, with respect to President Ahmedinejad's statement, on September 11, 2007, that ``he Iranian involvement in Iraq--its support for extremist militias, training, connections to Lebanese Hezbollah, provision of munitions that are used against our force as well as the Iraqis--are all, in my view, a pretty clear demonstration that Ahmedinejad means what he says, and is already trying to implement it to the best of his ability''.

(9) General Petraeus stated on September 12, 2007, with respect to evidence of the complicity of Iran in the murder of members of the Armed Forces of the United States in Iraq, that ``e evidence is very, very clear. We captured it when we captured Qais Khazali, the Lebanese Hezbollah deputy commander, and others, and it's in black and white. ..... We interrogated these individuals. We have on tape. ..... Qais Khazali himself. When asked, could you have done what you have done without Iranian support, he literally throws up his hands and laughs and says, of course not. ..... So they told us about the amounts of money that they have received. They told us about the training that they received. They told us about the ammunition and sophisticated weaponry and all of that that they received''.

(10) General Petraeus further stated on September 14, 2007, that ``hat we have got is evidence. This is not intelligence. This is evidence, off computers that we captured, documents and so forth. ..... In one case, a 22-page document that lays out the planning, reconnaissance, rehearsal, conduct, and aftermath of the operation conducted that resulted in the death of five of our soldiers in Karbala back in January''.

(11) The Department of Defense report to Congress entitled ``Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq'' and released on September 18, 2007, consistent with section 9010 of Public Law 109-289, states that ``here has been no decrease in Iranian training and funding of illegal Shi'a militias in Iraq that attack Iraqi and Coalition forces and civilians..... Tehran's support for these groups is one of the greatest impediments to progress on reconciliation''.

(12) The Department of Defense report further states, with respect to Iranian support for Shi'a extremist groups in Iraq, that ``ost of the explosives and ammunition used by these groups are provided by the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force..... For the period of June through the end of August, events are projected to rise by 39 percent over the period of March through May''.

(13) Since May 2007, Ambassador Crocker has held three rounds of talks in Baghdad on Iraq security with representatives of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

(14) Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress on September 10, 2007, with respect to these talks, stating that ``I laid out the concerns we had over Iranian activity that was damaging to Iraq's security, but found no readiness on Iranians' side at all to engage seriously on these issues. The impression I came with after a couple rounds is that the Iranians were interested simply in the appearance of discussions, of being seen to be at the table with the U.S. as an arbiter of Iraq's present and future, rather than actually doing serious business ..... Right now, I haven't seen any sign of earnest or seriousness on the Iranian side''.

(15) Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress on September 11, 2007, stating that ``e have seen nothing on the ground that would suggest that the Iranians are altering what they're doing in support of extremist elements that are going after our forces as well as the Iraqis''.

(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--

(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;

(2) that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;

(3) 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;

(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;

(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

(6) that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.

[Beelzebud]

60. Maybe they should stop voting with Republicans then?

Or are we supposed to be excited when we start war in Iran?

Are we supposed to be happy when they officially condemn one of their biggest contributors (moveon)?

[mark414]

71. i hate warmongers, no matter what the party is

[mhatrw]

85. Two Republicans & 95% of the decent Dems voted against it.

Why are you in favor of more Repuke war mongering? Haven't you had enough?

[Individualist]

32. Everyone is wrong but you?

:rofl:

[roguevalley]

72. you know something? That's what the fuckers said about the Iraq

resolution thing. THIS IS FUCKED AND SO ARE THOSE WHO VOTED FOR IT! I am running out of cousins to send to this fucking war fetish the pinhead has.

[Pachamama]

24. Stop the current bleeding? Hell no - lets just cut off another limb and start another damn bloody

war....

Grrr.... :grr:

That's just fucking great....our Congress can't get its shit together to stop this awful illegal war on Iraq that never should have gotten started, but they can condemn free speech about a General getting political and lying and then start another war, this one that will make the Iraq War look like child's play...

Unfucking believable....

Note: Sorry Mods for the 4 letter language, but sometimes those words are the only ones that can apply.

[bdamomma]

48. hey guys, check out the Kyl/Lieberman amendment

it's here

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_sections_with_teasers/votes.htm

and this

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

[uppityperson]

53. I hate working my way through that, get lost. help please.

[bdamomma]

74. I am trying to help to provide information

http://thinkprogress.org/

[uppityperson]

76. Thanks. Tahitinut had to walk me through it last wk, just can't figure out that website.

I did find this thing on the revised amendment...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1911619&mesg_id=1912037
http://irannuclearwatch.blogspot.com/2007/09/revised-lieberman-kyl-amendment.html
(b) Sense of Senate. —It is the sense of the Senate—

Original Amendment
(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;

Revised Amendment
SAME

Original Amendment
(2) that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;

Revised Amendment
SAME

Original Amendment
(3) 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;

Revised Amendment
Different:
(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to stop inside Iraq the violent activities and destabilizing influence of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies.

Original Amendment
(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;

Revised Amendment
Different:
(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States National power inside Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments in support of the policy with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies.

Original Amendment
(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

Revised Amendment
SAME

Original Amendment
(6) that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.

Revised Amendment

[mod mom]

55. Josh Marshall explains it (video):

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2007/09/tpmtv_liebermans_bomb_iran_bil.php

[mikelgb]

51. really close to giving up here...

[ananda]

52. You know what this means!

The total destruction of America as we once
knew it.

We are so fucked. Utterly and absolutely
fucked, even beyond FUBAR.

[loudsue]

54. You know what?? People ALL ACROSS AMERICA are sick of war.

Americans, in general, don't want war. But our congress, ALMOST ALL OF THEM, are in bed with the oil & war machine companies, and we HAVE TO GET RID OF THEM.

We need to find ANTI-WAR candidates to run in every primary against every war candidate. This congress needs a HUGE house-cleaning.

:kick:

[ananda]

61. November 2008 will be too late to stop THIS!

nt

[Marr]

63. The Democrats just lost me.

I see no point in supporting people like these. They've thoroughly proven to me that they haven't got an ounce of wisdom or honesty.

Remember this day, people-- because the apologists are going to be saying 'no one thought Bush would use it as an excuse for taking military action' in a few years' time. Everyone knows it.

[Marr]

66. Oh hey- Hillary voted for this, btw.

She just voted for her second IWR, more or less. She's either got a learning curve that's flat as Kansas, or she's part of it.

[Gregorian]

65. You don't have a war president without a war congress.

I woke with an ominous feeling today.

The Canadian dollar exchange rate is 1.0005. We cross over shortly.

I predict riots.

[graywarrior]

69. Ain't it about time for some more drastic than signing petitions and having anti war marches?

[mod mom]

70. WEBB & LIEberman FLOOR SPEECHES:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2007/09/lieberman_and_webb_speak_about.php

[Spazito]

86. Webb spells it out very clearly...

Declaring the Islamic Revolutionary Guard a 'terrorist organization' "has the danger of becoming a defacto authorization for military force against Iran."

Couldn't be much clearer than that, imo.

Thanks for posting the link to the video clip.

[DancingBear]

89. Bought and paid for

I don't know about you, but I lie in fear every night that The Islamic Revolutionary Guard will use their superior military force and destroy me.

:sarcasm:

"Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?"
-Johnny Rotten-

[LSK]

75. when is the resolution condemning Saudi Arabia?

[Mnemosyne]

88. You so funny LSK! You don't condemn

FAMILY!

Sickening, isn't it.

I see that, once again, our wonderful Bob 'Save Us From Scumtorum' Casey, voted with the traitors.

All but a few are totally complicit in every war crime that has occurred. No wonder they fear stopping this occupation.

War Criminals.

[candymarl]

77. Well, the amendment is non-binding

That said, if the real deal is introduced later and Democrats vote against it won't they start the flip-flopper thing again, maybe? That Democrats were "for it before they were against it"? That's my major concern. Perhaps that's what Senator Webb was concerned about.

[bdamomma]

79. if we are so pissed about this wouldn't we call our Senators and

find out what the hell is going on? just a suggestion, please do not shoot the poster.

[uppityperson]

90. I did and am waiting to hear back since they are busy. Assumed others had also.

Perhaps my assumption was wrong, but I assumed that others had also contacted their Senators asking why.

[Little Star]

84. Hagel & Luger voted against it...

If it's so innocent why would they?

[OneBlueSky]

87. we've really become a war-loving country, haven't we? . . .

used to be that war was always the last resort . . . since Bush/Cheney took office, it seems to be nearer the first resort -- and Congress agrees with them . . .

this is NOT the country I grew up in . . .

[Danger Mouse]

92. Yes, damn them all.

:cry:
that being, those that voted 'aye'

[ButterflyBlood]

95. Calm the fuck down. This is nothing like the Iraq War Resolution

It's just another meaningless non-binding deal designed to be the equivalent of giving Ahmadinejad the middle finger. Not worthy any of our time.

[bridgit]

96. is the world a dangerous place?

whether we make it thus (and we do), or others contribute...this world is a dangerous place