Senator Clinton Why did You Vote for an Amendment That Could be Used as Support for Attacking Iran?

[leftchick]

http://www.therealnews.com/web/index.php?thisdataswitch=0&thisid=485&thisview=item

Four Questions for Senator Clinton Regarding that vote......

Why Senator Clinton?

We ask Clinton why she voted for an amendment that could be used as support for attacking Iran

2007-10-15

On September 26th, Senator Clinton voted for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, which designates the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. She was the only Democratic Presidential candidate who voted for the resolution.

"This isn't our present policy of keeping the military option on the table. It is, for all practical purposes, mandating the military option"

-Senator Jim Webb


The best question is the last. Why did she vote for a bill authored by the same nefarious people and groups that brought us the Iraq war?

[Rhythm and Blue]

1. "Could be used as support?"

Anything "could be used as support." Hell, SCHIP "could be used as support,"--the Iranians don't believe in giving healthcare to America's lower-middle-class children, do they?

Is there anything in that bill that actually grants any more war powers to anyone? Didn't think so.

[jgraz]

2. Silliness. Declaring any organization to be "terrorist" could be interpreted as an OK for war

But nice try.

[Rhythm and Blue]

5. Not legally, it couldn't be.

I mean, it could be interpreted as such to the man on the street, or to a blogger who only sorta pays attention. Declaring an organization to be terrorist allows the US to cut off funding and monitor its activities. It does not grant anyone the authority to invade the nation in which it resides.

Whether Bush has the power to invade Iran without further legislation is of course a matter of debate (even though it really shouldn't be). This amendment does not impact this power either way.

[jgraz]

7. Holy shit, you still expect this regime to care about LEGALITY?

They just care about what they can sell through their right-wing noise machine. They technically did not have the legal authority to go into Iraq, but they did so anyway.

[Rhythm and Blue]

11. Holy shit, did you read my post past the headline?

Whether Bush has the power to invade Iran without further legislation is of course a matter of debate (even though it really shouldn't be). This amendment does not impact this power either way.

There are two options here.

1. Administration cares about legality. They still don't have any authority to invade. No invasion will occur.

2. Administration doesn't give a fuck what anyone thinks by this point. They don't have authority to invade, but legal authority is for pussies. Invasion will occur whether Congress wants it or not. Whether Congress declared that the IRGC to be terrorists doesn't really have anything to do with anything.

[jgraz]

13. Yes...but you apparently missed mine

This adminstration's authority has never come from the law. It's come from the political spin they can generate while maintaining the barest appearance of legality. In that way, the K/L vote gives them all the power they need.

[Rhythm and Blue]

17. And that opinion would depend on there actually being

a change in public support for war with Iran after the passing of this amendment. Haven't seen anything of the sort.

[cuke]

31. Obama co-sponsored S970 which also calls the IRG a "terrorist organization"

Why does Obama want to nuke Iran?

[againes654]

3. Considering that we have vowed to

hunt down all terrorists and the countries that harbor them, I would say, yes, that could be used as a step to war with Iran. That is where Hillary lost all of her support from me.

[leftchick]

6. thank you

Senator Webb is quoted well here pointing out how this leads to war. How anyone can justify Sen. Clinton doing that is scary.

:scared:

[Rhythm and Blue]

10. So something "could be used as a step towards war?"

Declaration of war is not really a matter of steps. It's not like there are a certain number of boxes that have to be checked off for a war to occur, and it's not like war is declared by some divine referee after a particular saber is rattled X number of times.

The mere fact that a resolution is hostile towards another nation is not in and of itself a "step towards war." Congress denounced the Armenian genocide. That was not a step towards war with Turkey. Congress is honoring the Dalai Lama. That is not a step towards war with China. Congress has previously declared the IRA a terrorist organization. That was not a step towards war with Ireland.

[againes654]

12. ROFL

So this administration didn't take steps in gearing up for the Iraq war? Bullshit! This is more than a "hostile resolution" directed at another nation. We didn't declare the Turkish army a terrorist organization. We didn't declare the Dalai Lama a terrorist.

[Rhythm and Blue]

22. Yes, this is very slightly more than a hostile resolution.

It also gives the United States the authority to monitor, intercept and cut funding to the IRGC. It does not come any closer to providing authorization for war. You saw the word "terrorism" and panicked. That doesn't mean anything.

[cuke]

32. Obama co-sponsored S970 which also calls the IRG a "terrorist organization"

So I guess Obama also wants to move towards war with Iran

"It also gives the United States the authority to monitor, intercept and cut funding to the IRGC. "

No, it doesn't. It was a NON-BINDING resolution that called upon the *admin to "monitor, intercept and cut funding to the IRGC"

[leftchick]

14. Did you even listen to Senator Webb?

Did we ever declare war with Iraq? No! It is unilateral action against, now here is the clincher, a "terrorist state". They do not need any boxes checked! Were you around in 2002? It is even easier for the US now to do pre-emptive strikes when you call a country a "terrorist state" thanks to those swell opposition folks in congress. This bill was authored by the PNAC people, AEI people, and AIPAC! The same neocons who brought us the Iraq Occupation. Why in the world did any Democrat vote for it??? Senator Webb was spot on and well worth a listen to!

[Rhythm and Blue]

21. You may have missed the Iraq War Resolution.

That pretty clearly gives the President Congressional authorization to go to war with Iraq, even though a few Democrats have tried to weasel their way out of responsibility, claiming "we didn't think that giving him the authority to invade Iraq meant he'd actually invade Iraq!"

If anything, the IWR (by providing a specific authorization for invasion of a specific country) harms the theory that Bush can go to war with Iran--after all, if he doesn't need specific authorization to invade countries, why did he get it in 2002?

Kyl and Lieberman have sponsored many bills. Were all of those "a step towards war with Iran" too? Why aren't you showing me language in the bill authorizing war instead of showing me organizations that lobbied for it?

[leftchick]

25. "we didn't think that giving him the authority to invade Iraq meant he'd actually invade Iraq!"

I believe that includes Hillary and Kerry among many. The fact remains none of them should have voted for it without researching the ramifications.

[Rhythm and Blue]

27. The "ramifications" were obvious to everyone.

They knew they were voting for war at the time. They thought it would have been suicide to oppose what was supposed to be a quick, triumphant, successful PR-coup of a war. It's not like they thought that authorizing military action (when we were deploying carriers, tanks, and soldiers to the region and the President was saying daily "Iraq must disarm or we will invade," would all somehow lead to there not being a war.

[Yael]

23. Not all terrorists. We don't have any problems with Sudan, for example.

They don't have oil. No oil, no terrorists. Easy math.

[robinlynne]

4. um. she said it would help to bring about peace and negotiations..............

[jgraz]

8. Yeah, after the bombing

Even with Hillary's shameful record in the Senate, this vote is a standout.

[leftchick]

15. peace through war!

it sounds like a bushco plan. :eyes:

[Imagevision]

9. Hillary will be Bushlite - unfortunately she like Peolosi will first have to elected

to prove the point

[madrchsod]

16. she thought she should look tough

but all she did was get sucker punched. i`m still pissed off cause i never thought durbin would fall for this either.

another first for our senate--declaring another country`s a terrorist organization thus stripping them( in america`s eyes) of the geneva convections. giving the authority to pursue another nation`s army with out declaring war.

[leftchick]

18. that is it in a nutshell

:(

[lateo]

19. Fool me once....

shame on....shame on....just shame on you.

[onenote]

20. the us has been labelling Iran a threat to peace for a long time.

"I, JIMMY CARTER, President of the United States, find that the situation in Iran constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy and economy of the United States and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat." President Jimmy Carter 1979
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12170.html

"Iran has continued to engage in activities that represent a threat to the peace and security of all nations." President Bill Clinton, 1997 http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-20140188.html

[Nimrod2005]

24. She actually voted against it before voting for it! She can explain I am sure....nt

[leftchick]

26. after the first Iran strike

she will say "If I had known then what I know now" and some will fall for that line of BS again.

[Rhythm and Blue]

28. No, she will say

that the Bush administration had acted illegally by authorizing a war without Congressional approval.

[leftchick]

33. really?

:rofl:

[Froward69]

29. With Hillary

same old, same old... retread of bushy boy. just different corporate cronies.

[The Backlash Cometh]

30. Hey, Hillary is charismatic and beautiful. Don't mess that image with tough

questions.

[leftchick]

34. sorry

It annoys me no end when she is defended for voting with the neocon fascist rat bastards that brought us the Mid East Occupation and OIL Grab.

[The Backlash Cometh]

36. It just floors me how people can't read the writing on the wall.

The idiots voted for Bush too. Everyone believed the hype about his governing from the middle. We'll be lucky if Hillary doesn't get her own set of neo-cons bending her ear if she gets elected. Personally, I think it's imperative we get someone who hasn't made the connections with people that have gotten us to where we are today.

Time to make some new friends.

[Totally Committed]

40. "Time to make some new friends."

I agree.

TC

[The Backlash Cometh]

42. The montage on your post,...very scary. Very scary indeed.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. So she can say, "Doh, I didn't know it could lead to war"....again.

[leftchick]

37. HuffPo: "Does Hillary Support War with Iran?"

this is an excellent analysis of what is at stake with Hillary's vote and how closely it fall in line with bushco foreign policy...


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-gareth-porter/does-hillary-support-war-_b_68540.html


<snip>

Even more serious, she told the same audience Saturday that the Iranians "are supporting sending weapons into Iraq right now that are used against our troops". That tortured formulation tells us that Clinton cannot be counted to exercise any independent judgment about the facts surrounding the administration's case for war.

That is why Clinton's co-sponsorship of the Webb amendment requiring the president to seek congressional approval before any military action against Iran should not be taken seriously. Some bloggers have viewed that move as a hopeful clarification of Clinton's Iran policy. But calling for a vote on the issue is not an indication that Clinton is opposed to war with Iran. She has carefully avoided saying anything about her views on that issue except insofar as they can be inferred from her acceptance of the administration's rationale for war.

Her campaign and her Senate office have carefully refrained from issuing any statement about the Webb amendment, much less the bigger issue at stake. The reason for her reluctance to have the spotlight shown on her position is clearly that she is unwilling to state flatly that she is opposed to war with Iran.

In fact, of course, she is one of the leading supporters in the Senate of the Bush administration's policy of threatening war against Iran. In a speech last February 2 to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Clinton said, "U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," she said. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."

The rhetoric of "no option" being taken "off the table" is, of course, the signature of the Bush administration's approach to Iran. It means nothing more or less than that the administration asserts the right to attack Iran unilaterally and without provocation, should it decide that it is necessary in order to deal with an alleged nuclear threat from Iran. It posits no requirement that the intelligence community has reached a conclusion that Iran is actually on the verge of building nuclear weapons and that there is no possibility of reaching a diplomatic agreement with Iran to avoid a confrontation. That policy line reflects the views of the most extremist leadership the United States has ever known and would expose this country and the entire world to what could be the most incalculably dangerous sequence of events known since World War II.

[leftchick]

38. Juan Cole: The Iran Hawks

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/10/17/iran/index1.html

<snip>

Of the four senators among the Democratic candidates, only Hillary Clinton voted for the non-binding Kyl-Lieberman resolution on Sept. 26. The Kyl-Lieberman resolution, which passed 76-to-22, with 29 Democrats voting in favor, 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." Jim Lobe, among the best journalists covering neoconservatism in Washington, wrote that unnamed "Capitol Hill sources" told him that the resolution was crafted by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker, interviewed on "Democracy Now," concurred that the amendment was pushed by the Israel lobby.

It would be unprecedented to declare a military force of a state to be a "terrorist" organization, and illogical, since the formal definition of terrorism is that it is committed by non-state actors. It would also endanger U.S. troops, who might well be designated terrorists by some foreign governments. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said Sunday that she would not allow a similar resolution to be brought up for a vote in the House of Representatives, telling ABC's "This Week," "This has never happened before, that a Congress should determine one piece of someone's military is ."

Sen. Chris Dodd voted against the resolution on the grounds that it would green-light a Bush administration attack on Iran. Sen. Joe Biden also opposed it, though he argued that it was just a resolution and could not authorize a war. Sen. Barack Obama missed the vote because it was abruptly rescheduled after he had already left on a campaign swing, but when he learned of the rescheduling he issued a statement against the resolution. Obama blasted Clinton's vote for the resolution as a repeat of the mistake she made when she voted in 2002 to authorize the Iraq war. (Clinton muddied the waters somewhat by backing a resolution by Virginia Sen. Jim Webb requiring that Bush seek Congressional authorization before attacking Iran.) Some analysts suggested that Clinton is already thinking past the primaries. They believe she is making her decisions on the assumption that she will face a Republican hawk in the presidential contest of 2008, and therefore has to guard against charges that she is weak on national security. According to this analysis, the other Democratic candidates, trailing her, are still playing to the party faithful, who are to the left of the general public.

In short, Clinton's staffers must have read the Opinion Dynamics poll for Fox Cable News, which shows that 80 percent of the U.S. public believe that Iran's nuclear program is for weapons purposes, and 50 percent believe that the U.S. should take a tougher line with Iran (as against 31 percent who do not). About 29 percent of the sample want Bush to go ahead and attack Iran before leaving office, while a bare majority thought he should leave the problem to the next president. Some 54 percent of respondents believed that if Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had been allowed to visit the site of the Sept. 11 attacks, he would have been intent on honoring the hijackers.

[Totally Committed]

39. Because if she gets the nom, and then wins the election, nothing will change.

That was the old boss... now meet the new boss... same as he ever was.

TC

[MLFerrell]

41. Because she's a warmongering, corporatist Republican who calls herself a Democrat.

And legions of DUers are stupid enough to believe that she's progressive.

She's not. She's more like Bush than Ron Paul is.

Fool me once...

[skipos]

43. Yeah, fool me once with "Gore=Bush" don't fool me again with "HRC=Bush"

Please look here:
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=296
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=55463

Ron Paul is more in line with George Bush than HRC in about every way possible. That's why he... uh... is running as a Republican.

Hillary is my last choice for the nomination, but lay off the "Hillary=Bush" lie.

[MLFerrell]

44. I don't see Ron Paul making bellicose statements toward Iran.

HRC does, with her "all options are on the table" bullshit.

I DO hear Ron Paul calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. HRC won't even commit to a withdrawal by 2013 for God's sake!

Let me rephrase my statement slightly: On foreign policy, HRC IS BUSH.

Maybe not quite as dim as dimson, but every bit as hawkish and dangerous.

[leftchick]

45. I agree

read the link I posted from HuffPo. It is scary the similarities. In fact there is no difference...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2061781&mesg_id=2065974

<snip>

Even more serious, she told the same audience Saturday that the Iranians "are supporting sending weapons into Iraq right now that are used against our troops". That tortured formulation tells us that Clinton cannot be counted to exercise any independent judgment about the facts surrounding the administration's case for war.

That is why Clinton's co-sponsorship of the Webb amendment requiring the president to seek congressional approval before any military action against Iran should not be taken seriously. Some bloggers have viewed that move as a hopeful clarification of Clinton's Iran policy. But calling for a vote on the issue is not an indication that Clinton is opposed to war with Iran. She has carefully avoided saying anything about her views on that issue except insofar as they can be inferred from her acceptance of the administration's rationale for war.

Her campaign and her Senate office have carefully refrained from issuing any statement about the Webb amendment, much less the bigger issue at stake. The reason for her reluctance to have the spotlight shown on her position is clearly that she is unwilling to state flatly that she is opposed to war with Iran.

In fact, of course, she is one of the leading supporters in the Senate of the Bush administration's policy of threatening war against Iran. In a speech last February 2 to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Clinton said, "U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," she said. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."

The rhetoric of "no option" being taken "off the table" is, of course, the signature of the Bush administration's approach to Iran. It means nothing more or less than that the administration asserts the right to attack Iran unilaterally and without provocation, should it decide that it is necessary in order to deal with an alleged nuclear threat from Iran. It posits no requirement that the intelligence community has reached a conclusion that Iran is actually on the verge of building nuclear weapons and that there is no possibility of reaching a diplomatic agreement with Iran to avoid a confrontation. That policy line reflects the views of the most extremist leadership the United States has ever known and would expose this country and the entire world to what could be the most incalculably dangerous sequence of events known since World War II.


:scared: