YO FOLKS: according to TPM, that crazy "combat, contain, and roll back" got dropped from the bill.

[WilliamPitt]

Um...yay?

But.

Kyl-Lieberman Iran Amendment Passes By Huge Margin
By Greg Sargent - September 26, 2007, 1:15PM
The Kyl-Lieberman Iran amendment -- which ratchets up the confrontation with Iran by designating its armed forces a terrorist organization responsible for killing U.S. troops -- just passed overwhelmingly, 76-22.

Of the Dem Presidential candidates, Hillary voted for the measure, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd opposed it, and Barack Obama missed the vote. On the GOP side, John McCain missed the vote.

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.

We'll bring you the exact language of the amendment when it's available.

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

[sakkatta]

1. yeah everyone calm down

its not like Bush would start an illegal war.

[Cha]

28. Yo, right!

:(

[AllyCat]

48. Welcome to DU, Sakkatta!

:hi:

[Mnemosyne]

79. Newbie TS'd already. n/t

[TwilightGardener]

81. Why'd the noob get TS'd? I'm baffled.

[uppityperson]

82. posted several suspicious threads

Hard to tell if was a cynical person who didn't know how to use sarcasm icon or a troll. Skinner chose troll. Edited to point out which mod locked and probably ts'd.

[tblue37]

84. ?? His comment seemed to be perfectly fine sarcasm. n/t

[Mnemosyne]

92. Sure didn't take long. n/t

[AllyCat]

83. Wow. I didn't see any other posts. Just this one. Seemed okay from that

Oh well, that's the way it goes here.

[Robbien]

2. Which means the GOP/DLC/BlueDogs got their wish. More war

More dead Muslims.

Hey and it isn't even Christmas.

[TheWraith]

3. You're not making any sense, boy!

Everybody knows that the amendment called for the complete nuking of Iran and then for the entire US army to piss on the ashes!

:sarcasm:

Seriously, though, just wait for the people to start swarming. Can't let the facts get in the way of a good Iran paranoia session.

[uppityperson]

10. it is bush paranoia, just to get your facts straight.

Since you enjoy bashing us for being afraid of wtf they will pull next.

[backscatter712]

73. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

Call it justified paranoia, coming from hard experience.

[leveymg]

15. I'd call it dread, might even be deceived, but it's not paranoia.

Look, I agree that sane people think going to war with Iran is a very, VERY bad idea. And, one should not forget, there an ongoing psywar operation against Iran. Several -- ours and others. But, are sane people really in charge, or is the appearance of insanity on the part of some in this Administration just part of the deception?

Dreadful, indeed, but not paranoid.

[blondeatlast]

43. Precisely. Thank you. nt

[mod mom]

68. Are there sane people in charge? The neocons are NOT sane. Who in their right

minds would go into a unjustified war w Iraq, knowing what Brent Scrowcroft, Colin Powell and others warned said. They were delusional in their thoughts of a "cakewalk".

It appears to be full steam ahead with their evil PNAC plans-with thanks to their buddies at the DLC. :mad:

[JackRiddler]

25. So is this amendment meaningless?

Toothless? Irrelevant?

Do you support it, by the way?

[TheWraith]

86. "Meaningless" would about sum it up, I think.

It's just another effort by the Bushlings (and Joementum) to distract from the clusterfuck that is Iraq by trying to shift blame onto the Iranians. They weren't screwing up every step of the way, it's those damn Iranians!

On Countdown the other night, I think it was Richard Wolfe who said that from his private conversations with White House officials, they have no real interest in a military solution to things with Iran, or even a belief that it could happen. But publicly, they keep up stuff like this to try and rally the base, and pretend like there's a reason for the Iraq disaster other than themselves.

[Cha]

33. bushits don't need no stinking

approval from the senate, congress, or anywhere else..they've got god on their side and their sticking it.

[goodgd_yall]

4. True, I don't think DUers are aware of this

It got pretty watered down.

[berni_mccoy]

5. DU Seems to be On Dem Attack Mode

People's patience levels are breached.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

11. We've been on attack mode since November 2006.

Except we've been attacking our own party far more vigorously than we ever attacked the GOP.

[Mojorabbit]

75. That is because

we expect more from our party perhaps?

[bvar22]

90. And rightly so.

The Democrats are supposed to represent us.
I am not shocked when the Republican Party engages in warmongering, profiteering, consolidating POWER and MONEY into the few rich hands. They are Republicans. It is what Republicans DO.
When Democrats engage in the same behavior, or refuse to actively OPPOSE those behaviors, I AM justifiably ANGERED, and WILL let them hear about my disappointment.

I would never criticize a dog for being a dog.
I WILL criticize a Man who behaves like a dog.
I WILL criticize a Democrat for acting like a republican.
It is MY right to do so.
I AM a Democrat.


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[kenny blankenship]

6. Oh well. That should work

just about as well as the IWR's requirements that Bush wait for UN inspections to complete then return to Congress and show them that the inspections proved that Iraq had proscribed weapons.
...Or whatever that bullshit that IWR apologists always say constrained Bush thereby excusing the IWR as NOT a blank check for war, exactly the way Bush cashed it.

[goodgd_yall]

32. This is nothing like the blank check of the IWR

And it was the fear of doing that again that got the amendment changed to what it is now. I'd have to say we need to give some of the senators some credit for learning their lesson.

[kenny blankenship]

89. Yeah, except that this and the earlier Lieberman Amendment hook into the AUMFs of 2001 & 2002

enabling Bush to legally wage war against Iran (legally from the outlook of U.S. law, if not legally from international law--and I'm sure it hardly needs mentioning that we don't give a shit about international law).


The AUMF of 2001 authorized Bush to attack nations harboring organizations responsible for attacks on US nationals and national interests. Under the terms expressed in the Lieberman Amendment, and reiterated in this Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, the Iranian military is to be designated as a terrorism sponsoring organization on the top of our list : "Specially Designated Global Terrorists". That makes IRAN a legal target for Bush if he chooses to launch his attack. Legal from the point of view of U.S. law.
The AUMF of 2002 places the military at Bush's discretionary use in Iraq:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and


The verbiage of the two Lieberman Amendments, which are each practically longer than the IWR itself, describe at length the CONTINUING military threat faced in Iraq as being little else besides the military threat posed by IRAN. In the amendments the deaths of our soldiers in Iraq are attributed to a country and the country killing our soldiers is named as IRAN. The menace to our national security interests regionally as well as in Iraq is named as IRAN. Given that the Amendments are authorizations for funds to be used by the military in the Iraq War, they are saying WHAT the war is about and what the money is to be used for. Therefore to the extent that the United States is at war at all--in the legal sense of the term "war"-- in its military deployment in Mesopotamia, it is at war, according to the view of these 2 measures now passed by the Senate, with the country of Iran. The war in Iraq, with all its legal (US Law) justification is being morphed into a war on IRAN.

Bush can attack Iran and the sound from the Senate will be complicit and stony silence, if not outright applause. They can hardly do otherwise: like the Liberation of Iraq Act that was passed in 1998 and was signed into law by Bill Clinton, this recent record of hawkish posturing has backed the Senate into a pro-war corner. In the event of war against Iran, Bush can silence Democratic outcry (assuming there would be any, which is a big assumption) by pointing to the Senate's own words, words endorsing the view that Iran has committed acts of war against the United States (see the previous Lieberman Amendment) that Iran is a willing host and sponsor of terrorists that have attacked US nationals in the region generally and specifically in Iraq is guilty of supporting terrorist resistance to the prosecution of the AUMF 2002. I'll paste it for you:

10 Sense Of Congress.--It is the sense of Con-
11 gress that--
12 (1) the murder of members of the United
13 States Armed Forces by a foreign government or its
14 agents is an intolerable and unacceptable act of hos-
15 tility against the United States by the foreign gover--
16 ernment in question; and

This conclusion follows on paragraphs and pages of cited remarks from US military authorities enlisted to show that all the know-how and organization of the insurgency in Iraq is in fact coming from the Iranian Military, with the full knowledge of Iran's top civilian governmental authority. Bush may bomb the living shit out of Iran and the Democrats will have nothing to say. If he hears a peep from them he'll simply throw their exact words back in their face. He'll say they agreed in funding the Iraq War that the government Iran was responsible for the ongoing warfare and terrorist murder against our service members and against our Iraqi allies, and they the Democrats of the Senate agreed that this terrorism and warfare was, to quote: "unacceptable" and "intolerable". But NOW they say it's acceptable and must be tolerated. Bush must be licking his chops in anticipation--fortunately even though the Senate has rolled over, there's still ONE institution that stands in his way of launching a war against Iran: our military.

This latest disgusting rollover from the Senate is not merely "like" the blank check of the IWR, it is PART OF--an addendum to-- the SAME blank check.

[uppityperson]

7. I would like to see the exact language since I've read different takes.

[doublethink]

45. Here .......

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

[uppityperson]

54. Thanks, looks like paragraphs 3&4 under (b) were dropped...

http://irannuclearwatch.blogspot.com/
Senators Lieberman and Kyl dropped paragraphs 3 and 4 under Section (b), the Sense of Senate section, in attempts to alleviate concerns that the resolution might be taken as an authorization for the use of force against Iran.

Senator Webb stood up once again to oppose the bill, noting that if the administration proceeds as recommended in the resolution, it would be the first time that the US has desinates an entire military as a terrorist organization and this could be taken as a defacto authorization for use of force. Mr. Webb again noted that there has not been one hearing on this matter and that the amendment should be withdrawn and considered in the appropriate committees.

[doublethink]

64. Senator Webb knows how this administration has used these ....

amendments in the past (Iraq). They twist the wording and 'interpret' it to fit their agenda. This Lieberman/Kyl amendment is bad news and we're going down the exact same road we took prior to the Iraqi war. It's really not all that hard to see. Been traveling down this road for quite some time haven't we. Sigh ..... Peace.

[uppityperson]

72. Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1912317

[goodgd_yall]

8. I was going to abandon Hillary for this

but the amendment isn't really all that.

[mark414]

14. neither was the IWR in 2002...

[goodgd_yall]

18. That gave Bush a lot of power. This does shit.

[mark414]

34. do you think George understands or cares about that nuance?

[goodgd_yall]

53. The IWR was not nuanced at all---read the difference

The IWR had this language:
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

This Sense of the Senate has nothing that direct.

[Spazito]

74. Ummm, there is no "authorization" to attack Iraq expressly written

into the IWR yet there you are. If you remember correctly the UNSC NEVER passed a resolution authorizing an attack on Iraq either yet there you are.

If you tie in the latest amendment passage with the previous bills already approved you get:

a tacit approval given to bush to pursue terrorists wherever they are which, now, includes Iran via the approved designation of "terrorist" organization.

[Virginia Dare]

62. No, but the repubbies do...n/t

[Cha]

37. Like bushits need

shit all.

[mmonk]

9. Thanks for the post.

I'll judge the final product only and no speculation.

[mark414]

12. I do believe that this is the final language here:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:1:./temp/~r110vOhZdQ:e531061:

they barely changed a damn thing...didn't any of these morons learn their lesson 5 years ago?

kick the bastards out, all of them

[goodgd_yall]

21. Self-delete

[mark414]

30. it's the link directly from the roll call page

[goodgd_yall]

38. I'll read it again---the link isn't working for me right now. n/t

[goodgd_yall]

39. No, that is the old version. n/t

[bullimiami]

26. they learned NOTHING. never underestimate the stupidity of the us congress.

[uppityperson]

31. I think that was the first draft, not the passed version.

[goodgd_yall]

41. Correct n/t

[uppityperson]

44. Changes in my post #42, link ... Is this what passed? Latest I can find.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1911619&mesg_id=1912037

[snappyturtle]

51. sorry....but your link is temporary. nt

[shanti]

85. no, not all of them

leave the 22 that voted nay in!

[bdamomma]

13. thank you for bringing this forward

some people think that this amendment that was just passed a declaration for war with Iran.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

16. I was just about to read the amended version on thinkprogress

Thanks for your post.

I reserve all my harsh comments that I may until after I've read this: http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/kyl-lieberman.pdf

[Old and In the Way]

17. Iran's Revolutionary Guard declared a terrorist organization?

Ergo, this green lights our GWOT to go after the terrorists.

[leveymg]

29. That's been the strategy all along. The IRG is the weak link, the one most likely to strike back

under stress and provocation. That's why we kidnapped al Quuds commanders, and the Brits sent a rubber raft with a boarding party joyriding up the Shaat-al-Arab waterway near an IRG Coast Guard base.

The idea is, just keep poking them, insulting them. That's the ticket.

[mod mom]

19. Jim Webb still opposed the bill because it designates the Iran guard a terrorist organization

Doesn this allow bu$h to take action against their military? (and we all know cheney is drooling over the chance) I think Webb's recent military experience gives him good insight.

[Virginia Dare]

52. I think he's afraid it gives justification to keep status quo or..

expand in Iraq, in other words, we'll fight Iran in Iraq. That's my fear too. The Repubs will never allow Bush to open up another front, but this could be their back door.

[Lucinda]

20. Obama missed another vote?

I still need to read the link to understand it all a little bit better.

[Coexist]

78. if he gets the nod, he's going to be labeled "missing Obama" by the right

"hiding from every controversial vote, is Obama right to lead this country."

WTF is he doing?

[bullimiami]

22. i guess since the us troops are being used to terrorize iraq of course

they see irans troops the same.

[TwilightZone]

23. If we use the actual amendment instead of a version that never passed...

how are we supposed to complain incessantly about the not-included language?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

24. I'm sorry, but this is STILL..

bad news. It was just a few weeks ago Bush declared the Iran guard a terrorist organization -- remember that Bush feels that he can legitimately attack anyone anywhere he designates a "terrorists" -- and now the Senate is agreeing with that determination.

Jim Webb has this one right.

On edit: I just read the full bill and it is NOT good. In voting "yea" they are saying that Petreaous' testimony on Iran's alleged involvement in Iraq was accurate. Once again, this lends further cover for a Bush attack.

Some of the people I respect most voted against it -- Boxer, Sanders, Feingold -- and those I respect the least voted for it.

That is all I really need to know.

[Junkdrawer]

35. Yep. The Senate just said "We got your back"...

Looks like the Iran War will start with aggressive cross-border raids on the Revolutionary Guard IN IRAN.

From there, look for retaliations and who-knows-how-big false flag retaliations.

[snappyturtle]

56. Ditto "Yep". nt

[goodgd_yall]

63. It is----it's a new justification for being in Iraq

The language did change to "in Iraq" because some senators did not want this to be interpreted as reason to attack Iran, perhaps. But I think it's dangerous to pass any bellicose wording. They didn't have to add this amendment. Something's up.

[Virginia Dare]

65. That's exactly what it is...

not quite as alarmist as attacking Iran, but still very troubling.

[TwilightGardener]

27. Why did two Republicans, the TOP TWO on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, vote no?

That's what concerns me about it.

[NashVegas]

40. Because They Knew It Would Pass

And felt they could 'nay' it without getting into too much trouble, would be the cynic's view.

I suppose it's possible they voted their conscience but would still guess it was only because they knew it would still pass.

[TwilightGardener]

46. Hagel's retiring--not up for re-election. He votes his conscience. He and Lugar

are wise old dogs when it comes to foreign policy. If they object to this, then it's not as harmless as it may appear.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

49. I trust Hagel on this.

He has been practically the sole GOPer who has been speaking out loudly and consistently on the IWR and how wrong Bush et al have been on Iraq.

If he, Boxer, Feingold, and Sanders voted "no", I would take the "correctness" of that vote to the bank.

[TwilightGardener]

57. Yep--a handful, who are the best of the Senate, voted no. That really tells us something.

[Virginia Dare]

67. It's the two repubs who are publicly against the war in Iraq..

this is more about Iraq than Iran.

[TwilightGardener]

69. Hagel is very much against war with Iran (he's a "last-resorter")--

while he and Lugar might be concerned about the Iraq factor, I tend to think this has to do with their views on Iran as well.

[Beelzebud]

36. Oh I see. Everything must be fine. Just like those Iraqi resolutions that weren't to start war.

Oh wait, they started a war with Iraq based on resolutions they passed, claiming they wouldn't start war.

Excuse me for not buying the bullshit.

[uppityperson]

42. I found a comparison of original and the 1 passed (I think)

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

[goodgd_yall]

58. Thanks

It reads like a justification for U.S. military presence in Iraq rather than a justification for invading Iran.

[Virginia Dare]

47. It did get watered down, true, but it still sucks...n/t

[kenny blankenship]

59. "watering down" changes aren't to stop Bush-they're for protecting D's from criticism from us voters

[Individualist]

66. precisely!

[Gregorian]

50. I'm lost.

Congress is just a complex entity almost completely beyond the scope of the average American.

As far as I can tell this is just more hypocrisy. This is just our way of doing business as we've always done it. Unobstructed. Consume like a big fat assed American. But not acknowledging where terrorism comes from. Put on blinders and just continue life. We're digging a bigger and deeper hole in which to fall, day after day. But we have the neutron bomb. So don't even think about causing us trouble.

This is, to the world, as the drug war was to the US.


I don't know. Maybe I'm just an ignorant fool who is in over his head. I don't know anything about this bill other than it's more meddling in other people's lives. The way I see it is, there is now a target on America. And with each act of aggression, and each inaction to actually solve the real problem, that target gets bigger and bigger. The world will not stand for our consumption and aggression forever. But what the hell do I know? I'm just an average American.

[stellanoir]

55. pitchforks & pamphlets

are perhaps required

[Hydra]

60. This smells like another trial balloon

And like the hatefest at Columbia U., support seems to be on the side of the Admin.

I was told by someone I trust that this was all a done deal, but I didn't believe it until 2 days ago.

*shakes head*

[Bitwit1234]

61. So the bill really doesn't let bush invade or bomb Iran after all.

I guess we all got our pants in a bunch for nothing. Altho there probably is enough incendiary stuff to agitate.

[mod mom]

70. Hasn't * previously been given the authority to act against terrorist organizations?

LIEberman says only economic but as Sen Webb points out we have never before classified a nation's military as a terrorist organization. Won't this allow * to act w/o authority from congress?

[TwilightGardener]

71. Sure--just part of the GWOT!

[Klukie]

76. I wonder that as well....

Something stinks here.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

77. Yes, that is exactly right.

That's why Bush designating the standing army of a county a "terrorist" group send up such red flags.

If they are "terrorists" that he determines are aiding or abetting against American forces/interest in the "war on terror", he can go after them without further Congressional approval.

[Blackhatjack]

80. Of course if you already decided to strike Iran, I guess you'll take what you can get....

I can imagine that Bush would allege that the resolution gave him the support he needed to initiate the attack on Iran, and that it did not need to be in the form of a law since he has Executive Powers as the CIC to do it anyway without their approval.

[EFerrari]

87. At first I thought the reporter's name was Huge Margin.

I'm too fluent in Freepereese to read normally any more. :silly:

[annabanana]

88. Thanks Will - I had read that the amendement had been pulled

for a rewrite, and that the worst of the worst language was removed. But I also watched Webb get up and speak this morning about the designation of the armed forces of Iran being declared, pretty much, "fair game".. and the fact that this is a departure.

I don't always agree with Webb, but at least he seems to have his eye on the ball.

[Gregorian]

91. I didn't know it was a non-binding resolution!

Shit. I've been really upset about this. And I still am.

So why are they wasting time with non=binding resolutions about war with Iran?

[Spazito]

93. Non-binding simply means the bush cabal can legitimately

ignore it if they don't like it as opposed to simply ignoring it AND congress. On the other hand, the bush cabal CAN act on it if they like it, and they do, as if it was binding and then refer back to it as the reason they feel they received the go-ahead to act against the 'terrorist organization' aka the Iranian military.

The question you pose is a good one "So why are they wasting time with non=binding resolutions about war with Iran?". This was no "waste of time" for the repubs, it was a key amendment, imo.

[Gregorian]

94. Darn it. And thanks for the explanation.

Now I'm bummed out again. Argh. I'm so tired. But now I have a better understanding of the overall picture.