Obama attacks Hillary on Iran vote. Hillary's camp responds. Obama's camp kicks butt!

Does anyone here believe that Bush will not treat Kyl-Lieberman as a green light to attack Iran?

Oh, that's classic! Way to go, Obama.

fact might actually get her votes post the Swiftboat era.

KYL-LIEBERMAN MODIFIED AMENDMENT NO. 2011 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''.

(MY NOTE - IT IS THE SENSE OF THE SENATE BELOW THAT WOULD HAVE THE OK FOR WAR - IF THERE IS ONE THERE - BUT BUSH DOES NOT NEED ANY CONGRESSIONAL ACTION TO GO TO WAR - AS HE HAS SAID OVER AND OVER)

(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 critical 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 the United States should designate Iran's 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
(4) 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.
Insert prior to section (6) the following:
(16) Ambassador Crocker further testified before Congress on September 11, 2007, with respect to talks with Iran, that ``I think that it's an option that we want to preserve. Our first couple of rounds did not produce anything. I don't think that we should either, therefore, be in a big hurry to have another round, nor do I think we should say we're not going to talk anymore . . . I do believe it's important to keep the option for further discussion on the table.''
(17) Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated on September 16, 2007 that ``I think that the administration believes at this point that continuing to try and deal with the Iranian threat, the Iranian challenge, through diplomatic and economic means is by far the preferable approach. That's the one we are using . . . we always say all options are on the table, but clearly, the diplomatic and economic approach is the one that we are pursuing.''

note that the famous combat paragraphs (3 and 4) - that I knew had been removed - were in the text I posted which was from the Congressional Record for the Senate on Sep 20, 2007.



The "as amended text" comes from TPM

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/kyl-lieberman-amendment/

Why is he Flip Flopping Now?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-970

he co-sponsored it.

Thats what happens when you do 10 things at once! grrrh!

I was surprised -- especially in light of his constant attacks on Hillary regarding Iran, et al -- that he would be a CO-SPONSOR of a bill basically paving the road for * and his merry band of clumsy thugs to attack them as part of the War on Terror beings how Iran is now OFFICIALLY supporting and harboring a "known terrorist group".

His campaign is deteriorating faster than cotton candy. He thinks no one is watching his actions.

Therefore Obama needs to deflect attention away from himself by attacking Hillary! Obama is a WUSS!

If you peruse the link provided for more information, Obama's been given an electronic rating of "POOR" performance in the Senate for missing so many Congressional Votes.

Besides being off fund raising somewhere; he's playing Preacher this week in the hopes of currying Republican votes.

Maybe next week, he'll be wearing a Cubs baseball cap for currying the baseball vote!

Obama, his Campaign and those who support him should really find a way to explain his co-sponsorship of that legislation if he's going to continue making Hillary's "Iran vote" a centerpiece of his stump speech attacks. It's an easy bunt for the Hillary Camp to throw that legislation back in his face and, in so doing, indicate possible hypocrisy. Obama should have some response ready other than deflection.

Cosponsoring a former piece of legislation with 67 other Senators (including HRC!!!) that went nowhere is rather a moot issue.

However, actually voting YES on the IWR and the Kyl-Lieberman amendment was most certainly a vote for war and a vote for more war respectively.

The only hypocrisy here is the Hail Mary pass a la Rove by some HRC supporters desperately trying to undermine Obama's strength - his consistent positions on Iraq and now Iran - particularly in light of HRC signing on to both. Best of luck with that turd polish.

"Senator Obama clearly recognizes the serious threat posed by Iran. However, he does not agree with the President that the best way to counter that threat is to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq, and he does not think that now is the time for saber-rattling towards Iran. In fact, he thinks that our large troop presence in Iraq has served to strengthen Iran - not weaken it. He believes that diplomacy and economic pressure, such as the divestment bill that he has proposed, is the right way to pressure the Iranian regime. Accordingly, he would have opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment had he been able to vote today."

* Barack Obama

it becomes more confusing because, on the one hand -- as apparent co-sponsors of legislation that recognizes the growing threat of Iran --, Obama seems to agree with Hillary that Iran is, in fact, a growing threat.

But he then turns around, misses a vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment -- I know, I know, he was campaigning in NYC and couldn't make it back -- and then attempts to blast Hillary's vote for it because it ... acknowledges that Iran is perhaps a growing threat.

I'm probably missing something here, so please forgive my inevitable "blond moments", as my friends would call them.

P.S. A sincere desire -- certainly on my part -- to understand the reasoning behind Obama's co-sponsorship of S.970 and his attacking Hillary for her stance on Iran does not automatically equate with hypocrisy, desperation or any turd polishing. It could just be (gasp) a desire for clarification!

You can look through this thread, not one of his supporters has refuted a single statement in this OP!

The Audacity of Hope has become.. The Audacity of Hypocrisy! (exposed)


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3591482

I expect nothing less from your camp.

Gobama.

But keep tryin!

Suffice to say, your bullying demeanor on these boards is not appreciated. You are the antithesis of open debate. People have legitimate concerns about your candidate.

I have long stated I will not support ANYONE that voted yes on the IWR, and now that Hillary has punctuated that epic mistake with another, she stuck a fork in her own candidacy with many, many voters who refuse to sign on to a candidate so eager to trifle with such grave issues as war to further her political aspirations.

The only reason I would vote for her if she gets the nod is to preserve the delicate balance on the Supreme Court. Not a ringing endorsement of your candidate but, hell, a vote's a vote, right?

And since when has defending my turf and exposing the hypocrisy of a phony candidate named Obama become bullying.

You better be prepared if that "phony" attacks my candidate, he had better have clean hands. As we're slowly finding out, Obama's hands are far from clean.

Your delusions of Strawberry Fields associated with the hypocrisy of Obama is a sad day for John Lennon. When the Lennons were always supporters of the Feminine Revolution. On that point, I have my doubts Obama would also qualify.

When you can refute any part of the Article written by Paul Street, let me know! I'd love to see cognitive research with links if you don't mind refuting Street's analysis.

The Obama Illusion

http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2007/streetpr0207.html

The answer is in the question.

You never had a chance!!

It IS what it IS!

You can squeal and snivel and bark all you want to try to mitigate the fact that Hillary
ACTUALLY VOTED YES on the IWR and the Kyl-Lieberman amendment.

And that is what it is. Since the turd polish isn't working, maybe some horizontal stripes will disguise the gravity and implications of those votes. Or some more rightwing sources. Good luck on all that.

You pretend to know what "IS" "IS" by your condescension and foolhardy play on words and phrases all while living in a shrieking bubble. The majority of Americans Care about ENDING the war. Not about who voted for it! They seem to have a handle on the reality of getting the troops home.

Clue in Obama with your turd polish...He sure could use a clue right about now.

Hoping to get your candidate elected by banking on America's stupidity on issues is the epitome of cynicism. Again not a ringing endorsement, plus you've forgotten to factor in the millions of Americans who aren't nearly as stupid as you think.

Irrational arguments are your forte...Another MO of yours is having the last word.

I can wait while you find your pom-poms and I can also wait for your last Obama hurray!

Have at it girl... Hillary isn't going away and neither am I!

Hope you're stocked up on turd polish because you're going to need it.

sans personal attacks? If so, provide links please.

Peace out.

criticize Obama

you guys crack me up.

Hillary's polling is suspect to say the least- you got push-poll master Mark Penn writing them.

If anything , you guys are screaming at the top of your lungs to ignore the man behind the curtain.

that Obama co-sponsored a bill -- the "Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007," from April 24, 2007, -- designating the Iran Revolutionary Guard a "terrorist organization" making it easier, some could argue, for * to respond with force because of a perceived "terrorist threat" from a "known terrorist group".

Sounds a bit like pot meet kettle.

.."a bill designating the Iran Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization"? When/what/where? I know nothing about this.

As for Clinton being "the lead co-sponsor of legislation by Jim Webb to prohibit funds for military action in Iran without approval from Congress."... a classical case of trying to have your cake and eat it too. Not to mention that she realized what a wonderful piece of legislation Webb had roughly 6 months (I think) after it was introduced, and coincidentally after her vote on Kyl-Liberman did not go that well with the dem base. Not very resolute, but what a deep, albeit slow, thinker!

S. 970
To impose sanctions on Iran and on other countries for assisting Iran in developing a nuclear program, and for other purposes.

Clause about the Iranian Revolutionary Guards:

(8) The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) and the Secretary of the Treasury should place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224 (66 Fed. Reg. 186; relating to blocking property and prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism).

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-970

S.759
Title: A bill to prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran.
Sponsor: Sen Webb, Jim (introduced 3/5/2007) Cosponsors (1)
Related Bills: H.R.3119
Latest Major Action: 3/5/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. COSPONSORS(1), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)


Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham - 10/1/2007

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110,d110:1:./temp/~bdAn5J:@@@P|/bss/d110query.html|

here's some info:

The "Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007," which Obama cosponsored on April 24, 2007, states clearly that:

"The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) and the Secretary of the Treasury should place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224 (66 Fed. Reg. 186; relating to blocking property and prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism)."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/10/the-obama-disse.html

Also, if one goes to http://thomas.loc.gov, one can find the Bill itself -- S.970, I believe. I've tried to paste the link, but it's not taking for some reason. It's in Sec. 3, Sense of Congress, Clause #8

there are many who will believe that Obama, with the co-sponsorship of this bill, is helping * pave the way for his war with Iran much as they blame and attack Hillary for her vote (not a co-sponsorship, by the way) in 2002 that supported diplomatic efforts with Iraq but that * used to go to war.

I have heard people say original co-sponsor, I have never heard lead co-sponsor, especially when there is only one.

and horse and buggies take so long these days. If only one could reschedule the fundraiser, fly through the air back to work and then maybe fly back to raise money! (sigh) Maybe someday in the future we'll have these super-duper rocket like air machines. :-)

Even Larry Craig was there.

they voted!

a vote too, but in all fairness the vote WAS scheduled at the last minute. Biden had to be there, the vote on his federalization resolution took place the same morning.

And Senator Obama made a choice to be out of town on a day that the Senate was scheduled to be in session.

but if my Senator was missing nearly 25% -- a number cited on DU not too long ago -- of the votes held because he/she was out campaigning for President, I'd be pretty pissed. It's not just ONE vote -- although it was a biggie -- that people go "WTF?" over. It's A LOT of votes he's missed due to campaigning.

Again, if only one could fly through the air ... :-)

and you're not defending Obama's dismal track record as a voting Senator.

The way I look at it, if a Senator is running for President and, because of that, misses a lot of votes, it opens up that Senator/Candidate to inevitable attack ads over something that is easily remedied: get back to the Senate and do your job! Especially in Obama's case where there are those who may question his "lack of experience", to have those voters -- especially those still on-the-fence -- learn you, in essence, weren't bothering to show up for work can be damaging.

I think that's my whole point with this issue. It wasn't necessarily ONE vote -- a vote that wasn't supposed to happen suddenly called up when he's out of town is obviously an unexpected situation he can do little about --; it's the whole picture of all the other votes missed and what any Opposition Candidate can do with that.

Just my two cents.

of votes when he was running. It happens, and should be no big deal--unless the vote is crucial and they intentionally miss it.

of the votes, my curiosity is genuine (I'm rarely concerned about politicians as it leads to inevitable disappointment when they screw you over ... which they always do) and I don't know that the JFK analogy is a good one to point to as communications systems and travel have changed greatly since then.

I do think it might be interesting to find the statistical information citing -- out of the Presidential Candidates running who are currently serving in the Senate or House -- what the percentage of votes missed is. Who knows? They might all be about even!

thanks for catching my JFK/JK blond moment. And I know one can't vote unless one is on the Senate Floor, but, if one is elected to BE on the Senate Floor, one should respect the Constituents who have trusted you to represent them and actually be there. It should -- over fundraising, campaigning, etc. -- be one's top priority. I don't know that anyone could disagree with that.

"Vote for me because I'm ahead and I'm going to win anyways."

has the nerve to use it against Clinton? And then we find out that he sponsored a similar bill?

Where exactly is the butt kicking?

Doh. He must be embarrassed.

Do your homework before you pop off. Kyl-Lieberman gives Bush a green light to attack Iran.

I am tempted to say, "go Cheney yourself" but rather than respond in kind I will suggest two things

1. He did miss the vote
2. He SPONSORED a similar bill.

He has no room to talk. And it is a shame that we cannot discuss on DU without making this personal.

making the Iran Revolutionary Guard officially a "terrorist organization" doesn't give * an excuse -- while jonesing to beef up his War on Terror -- to attack Iran for being involved with terrorism? Unfortunately your response to this indicates that one would somehow have to be (sadly) capable of the mental gymnastics and self-denial often found in Freepers and those who think * is just grand in order to buy it and still support your Candidate.

* is fighting a War on Terror and needs enemies to be designated Terrorist Groups before he can excuse an attack on them. Obama co-sponsors a bill putting the Iran Revolutionary Guard under the umbrella -- OFFICIALLY -- of a "terrorist organization". How does that NOT give * support to attack Iran -- and Iran's "terrorist groups" -- under his War on Terror powers? Yes, the Kyl-Lieberman shit is bad, but how does this bill Obama's involved with NOT compare?!

Hillary was there and voted for it.

I'll go with Obama on this one.

hillarites reeks of their MO..attack the messenger cause ya can't handle the message. Yeah, I'm a fucking "hillary hater"..so ya don't need to get on and label me one.

And I oppose that vote by Clinton, the truth is all three candidates share basically the same viewpoint on Iran.

again? I think not.

you co-sponsor legislation that in April that designates the Iran Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group, but have an explicit statement saying it doesn't support war with Iran.

And I'm absolutely certain that statement alone will stop * from using the legislation -- as well as the new official designation as supporters of terrorism -- as a pretext to include Iran in the War on Terror!

Obama's co-sponsorship of S.970 and how it -- explicit anti-war statements aside -- presents * with a perfect War on Terror pretext to attack Iran. And, no, I'm not arguing with you or trying to be mean or anything, but I am interested in what an Obama supporter thinks about this.

He should be beating both Clinton and Edwards on that one. Kyl-Lieberman should never have reached the floor and once it did Clinton should have voted against it, IMO, because it was an unnecessary provocation given that diplomatic efforts have not even started. But Obama, in conflating a force authorization with a bullshit sense of the senate resolution, confuses the issue for the public, especially with his own cosponsorship of an earlier one giving his opponents a way of fighting back, as well as what I mentioned is a general agreement on Iran policy among the three candidates. CLARITY is the IWR and he should stick with it.

Not only did he cosponsor an amendment that did precisely what Kyl-Lieberman did, but he ducked out on voting on Kyl-Lieberman altogether...a habit that has unfortunately become all too common with him...

Yeah, I'll take the word of Wes Clark and Joe Wilson over that of "Mr. Experience" any day...

that says it doesn't support war with Iran. And I'm sure * will honor that, you know? Much like he honored the 2002 IWR that supported diplomatic efforts before troops on the ground.

The IWR was law...the Kyl-Lieberman resolution was a sense of the Senate...

Obama didn't think it important enough to vote on...Dodd, ClLinton, and Biden all managed to be there...

I guess I should have included a :sarcasm: smilie with my earlier statement.

Sometimes I can be fairly dense!!!

I believe so. Wasn't really that important I guess or maybe he was afraid to actually cast a vote and prefers to slam those who took a position.

The vote came up suddenly and took place when he wasn't there. It's not as if it were scheduled for that day. I tend to agree with those who say he should make an effort not to miss too many more votes, but there is no reason to say he was afraid to vote on an unscheduled vote taken in his absence.

I disagree. Suddenly eh? So evidently there were some negotiations to change the bill going on and Obama was just out of the loop?

This is what Reid said the night before the bill


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r110:S25SE7-0035

Obama publicly announced at the time of the vote that he was opposed to the bill. All the presidential candidates in congress have been missing votes. Obama can't be blamed for missing a vote that he was told wouldn't occur.

was made. Was that regarding the uncastrated version of the resolution or the after the guts were cut out of it? Must have been the first version since Obama was out of the loop on the final version.

I'm glad to see that Obama's response was about Hillary getting irritated by questions about her Iran vote! :D

:dem:

think that the PNAC war mongers, who had their eyes beyond Iraq all along, and who are not rational, will not use this vote as an affirmation are either delusional or complicit. EITHER WAY THEY DO NOT DESERVE TO LEAD OUR NATION! imho

It's "non-binding"!!!11!!11!!11!!!

:rofl:

:eyes:

he intends to create a situation that will not allow any Dem to simply exit stage left. WAR IS TOO PROFITABLE FOR THESE THUGS.

I'm waiting for the loony left to admit they were completely wrong about this resolution as a justification for war. How long should I wait?

I believe us "looney left" were correct on that and time will tell, although in this case I pray you are correct.

to characterize the IWR vote as favoring an invasion. If you press me on that I will glady post the IWR resolution for you to read.

Who in their right mind would want to give bu$h and his neocon crony cowboys any kind of affirmation? I guess there are those who find the profitability of war irresistible. Diplomacy with this crowd is sooooo pre 911.

overseas selling supplies to the Iranian guard and suddenly that was changed to aiding a terrorist organization with severe criminal penalties that are enforced in many countries do you think it would affect your business plan?

The Kyl Lieberman resolution in its final form is a statement by the Senate that they will not support war against Iran. I really don't know how you can read it different when clauses that mentioned military instruments were stricken and clauses adding a pro diplomacy approach were added.

As for the IWR, I can only say that many Americans were lied to and could not believe what happened and is happening. The blame should be put on the Administration, and not diverted onto those that did not lie.

Sen. Webb blasts Lieberman/Kyl Amendment: “This proposal is Dick Cheney’s fondest pipe dream”
By: John Amato on Tuesday, September 25th, 2007 at 12:30 PM - PDT  

Sen. Webb went on the offensive today and denounced the Lieberman/Kyl amendment as warmongering and a big fat, wet kiss to the “William the Bloody” Kristol wing of the GOP—including the star of the Neocons: Dick Cheney. Lieberman is setting the stage with all his Iran amendments that have the sole purpose of bringing the US into war with Iran. This must be defeated and I implore the Democratic Party to vote this down. A big shout out to Jim Webb for standing up against this amendment. Call your Reps…(We have a “Contact Congress” box on the lower right hand column)


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

Those who regret their vote five years ago to authorize military action in Iraq should think hard before supporting this approach, because in my view, it has the same potential to do harm where many are seeking to do good. The constant turmoil that these sorts of proposals and actions are bringing to the region is counterproductive. They are regrettable substitute for a failure of diplomacy by this Administration.

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

This proposal is Dick Cheney’s fondest pipe dream. It’s not a prescription for success. At best, it’s a deliberate attempt to divert attention from a failed diplomatic policy. At worst, it could be read as a back door method of gaining congressional validation for action with one hearing or without serious debate.

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

outrage.

Nice try, though. If you don't believe watch the Countdown episode with Sen Webb and check the datre-after the vote!

debating this since last week I assure you that while Webb still had an issue regarding the final resolution, several of his earlier concerns were addressed in the final version, and his outrage was considerably turned down. Check your facts.

there is no need for me to re-examine it. If you want to remain in denial-whatever.

Worse, Congress abdicated their Constitutionally mandated war-declaring powers to Junior. Holy shi*t! There is NO excuse for handing car keys to a drunk.

You know I disagree with your desire to blame the wrong party.

regardless of how incremental, is the right thing to do.

Cheers.

Kyl/Lieberman was a disgrace and any Dem who voted for this ought to be ashamed.Maybe Obama didn't vote but at least he didn't vote FOR it. There is not justification for this vote. NONE.I have never seen Hillary or her supporters be able to defend it. It is simply not a defensible vote.

The official transcript shows Harry Reid said there would not be a vote on it in the near future:

"Mr. REID. Mr. Chairman, there will be no more votes tonight. We have tried to work something out on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment and the Biden amendment. We have been unable to do that.

 We have been very close a few times, but we have just been informed that Senator Biden will not have a vote anytime in the near future. There will not be a vote on the other one anytime in the near future. We hope tonight will bring more clearness on the issue."

I'm no English major, but that sure reads like there was some negotiating going on. Hence they were applying pressure to Lieberman to change the resolution. I have yet to read any reasonable explanation for him being absent during these negotiations. Certainly he is out of line to criticize others who voted on the compromise.

and no one has posted the statement he released when Harry Reid decided to bring this to a vote even though it was unscheduled, and, oh, the same legislation also denounced by Edwards as the first step to war on Iran, the same amendment that passed 76-22 so one vote would have made no difference but Hillary's vote was noteworthy, I give you ...

But I do know via the campaign that as soon as he found out Reid was holding the vote after all even though it was not scheduled that day, he released the statement.

Word of mouth, third person. That's all I've got, take it or leave it.

in its final form as amended.

full scope of what this administration is trying to do.

This resolution is deja vu upside the head. It is the beginning of the process of going to war. We have already seen this movie.

Even if you don't believe that to be true, the Democrats have very little ammunition. They won't consider impeachment. They won't cut off funding. They are rolling over to further expansion of executive power that tramples civil liberties.

Look, I understand Hillary is a girl and has to conjure testosterone 24/7 to be taken seriously, but holy shi*t! at the very least, the absolute limit of my capability to tolerate, she should never, ever have signed on to this bullshit.

The fine print is a red herring. Step back and take a good look. And if you still don't see it, on that we disagree as well.

winning the Iran argument at this time, thats my read on it. Besides, the Senate voted against the use of military instruments. Am I not posting English or something?

And since I have never understood why people get pissy about politics,
I'll just wish you a good evening.

"Hillary supporters will also note that Obama co-sponsored a bill designating the Iran Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, though the Obama campaign has said that their objection to Kyl wasn't to that facet of it but to the fact that it blamed Iran for problems in Iraq."

Sounds to me like the Obama campaign is looking for any sort of excuse they can muster to throw mud at Clinton, frankly.

But that's what happens when folks keep banging away at a candidate's strength particularly in light of the fact that their candidate has repeated her first mistake - the IWR - by making another - the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, both YES votes for war and more war respectively. However, the faux outrage expressed in this interesting comparative analysis is, as always, entertaining.

So I was rather disappointed when there was no "kick butt" to be found in the OP, but just more political game playing.

Nice picture, by the way.

like game-playing when supporting a candidate that doesn't have a leg to stand on on this issue, but they are facts nonetheless that matter to some people.

Harry Reid sounds awfully definite about not having votes on either Biden's amendment or Kyl-Lieberman.