What is the effect of Kyl/Lieberman as a non-binding resolution?

[Sparkly]

Webb opposed the revised version, too, noting that it designates the Iranian guard a terrorist organization. The measure specifically says:

“the United States should designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization…and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists.”

If the Senate is on board with this, and it clearly is, it’s hardly a stretch to think Bush could use this as cover to confront Iranian forces militarily under the guise of counter-terrorism.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13015.html

Unless I'm missing something, that sounds dangerous. Could they be attacked without this resolution? Is the resolution primarily political, or does it carry some weight? Does a non-binding resolution declare an organization a "foreign terrorist organization," or is there a further process for that?

:shrug:

[fasttense]

1. Well the bushes have shown repeatedly that even minor encouragement

acts as a green light for their reckless and ill prepared plans. They have acted with less encouragement on far weaker legal basis. May God help us.

[Cameron27]

2. I don't know,

but bush will use anything to further his own agenda. I wish Clark would make a statement, I'd like to know his thoughts.

[sharp_stick]

3. Unless I'm missing something

the Secretary of State and her office have all the authority needed to put a group on the Foreign Terrorist Organization list. This is political theatre and some people think that shrubbie will use it as a pretext to attack Iran.

IMO Shrubbie doesn't need or care about this little vote and I may be in the minority here but because I think attacking Iran right now would be political suicide he isn't going to do it.

All the bitching and moaning I see around here is simply that. And the same people who said a thousand times before that they'll never vote for Hillary Clinton for whatever she did last week or blah blah blah are at it again telling us how pissed off they are and that they aren't voting for Hillary Clinton because of this now.

[TreasonousBastard]

6. I tend to agree-- more theater that too many are taking...

far too seriously. And yet another excuse to slam Hillary.

Pretty much par for the course around here.

[snappyturtle]

8. Hey don't get mad at us for pointing out how Hilliary has chosen

to vote. IF we can excuse her for the Iraq war vote that's one thing.....but this one? Give * an inch an he takes a mile. It isn't bitching and moaning to me. I don't like her visa plan, healthcare plan, long term plans for Iraq and now this...I'm sorry, but I cannot endorse her proposed policies.

It's all about money. Bush doesn't give a hoot about politics not when he can help his corporate friends with his occupation policy. Therefore, I wouldn't think that this is a small vote. I do not trust him. This vote is a tool in his box to use if he decides he needs it. Sorry for the rant but this is how I feel.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

9. Do you honestly think George Bush gives a SHIT...

about politics right now????

He is worried about only one thing: finishing what he thinks is a mission given to him, one that only he has the balls to do.

He wants to bomb Iran and he does not trust that the next President will finish what he has started, politics be damned.

He is going to do this before he leaves office, I have no doubt.

This amendment was just a fig leaf offered to him by the Senate.

[regnaD kciN]

4. The original AUMF...

...authorized Bush to take military action against all "terrorist organizations" in the area. Now that Congress has (overwhelmingly) approved a resolution declaring Iran's military to be just that, he has all the authorization he needs to attack Iran as well.

Meet the new Congress...same as the old Congress... :argh:

[blondeatlast]

5. With nearly anyone else in the WH, I wouldn't fret that they will be dropping bombs

on my SIL's country. But with BuCheney there, all bets are off.

That language is damn carefully crafted and should have been the red flag for the Democrats.

You see it, I see it, many others see it, but they missed it.

There's an earlier thread about this too, I think it was modmom's.

It cannot be publicly discussed enough as I see it.

[blondeatlast]

7. Among many other things, declaring them a "terrorist" organization allows W

to freeze any US assets--don't fret, you can bet they'll find some and very publicly show them off. So it's economic.

It also allows them to spin, spin, spin in the media--watch how often the ING (which is more like our Marines) are referred to as terrorists. so it's political.

And it's military, since fighting "terrorists" means we don't have to bother with that pesky Geneva convention. Kill 'em all--Let God sort them out. I bet He's as sick as we are of this shit.

[Sparkly]

11. I don't get what the "non-binding" resolution does...

Could he have declared them "terrorists" anyway? Is this a political measure to get Democrats on record with it? Or did it enable him to do something?

Either way, I don't see the rationale for any Democrat voting for it. :shrug:

[blondeatlast]

12. Me either, but I watched the vote and it absolutely sickened me.

I don't care if it's symbolic, it beats the war drum and puts Iran on the "damned if they do, damned if they don't" position.

As I said in an earlier post, how can I explain to my Persian in-law that they didn't actiolly vote to bomb her country--but in effect, that's exactly what they did. :shrug:

I just don't get it--especially the vote.

[pscot]

10. It gives our delusional president

all the permission he needs to go after Iran. I know it doesn't say that, that's the way they'll spin it. Remember, they create their own reality.