Why did Senator Clinton vote for Kyl-Lieberman?

I hate starting more than 1 thread in a day but I would really like some substantive answers on this. I would guess that Meet The Press tommorrow might delve into this. Anyway, I'm still persuadble to support HRC but I have some serious concerns about her. Can some of her supporters please tell me why she voted for the Kyl-Lieberman Iran ammendment? To me, it's a hands-down no vote. Why did she think it justified?

In effect, Obama was saying, "Screw you, Mr. President! I will not show up for your ridiculous
votes that propel the neocon agenda forward, under the guise of "national security". I will
not participate in a manipulative farce, in which standing up against your failed, war-centric
policies provides you with an opportunity to suggest that we don't care about the safety of our
own children. Not me! Not this vote. Not today!"

I mean really.....do you actually equate Obama's absence from the vote, because he was campaigning,
equivalent to Hillary handing Bush another marketing plank for leveraging war with Iran?

Obama is on the record, saying that he would have voted AGAINST Kyl/Lieberman. He's stated
that many times.

Hillary, on the other hand---gets defensive when asked about this. Her nostrils flared in Davenport, Iowa--
when an audience member asked her about the vote. She got really angry and accused him of being "a plant"
in front of everyone! So, she evaded an answer.

How can you people rationalize this?

Wake up, for Pete's sake!

(edited)

He did not send out a statement on his position prior to the vote either.

Obama has a track record of not showing up or copping out on key votes.

How convenient that Obama makes a statement about it now. How weak!!!

...stay away from the bullshit, as opposed to Hillary---who couldn't get back to DC
fast enough to give Bush more leverage for more war.

I wish Obama would have made a statement on the record. I wish someone had the guts
to call all of this bullshit out--for what it is.

However, I'm wondering why you can be so outraged at Obama for missing votes (and they
all miss votes, even Hillary!), but you seem to be absent of words or emotion for Hillary's
vote---which empowers Bush toward more war and a widening war involving another country!

I wish you could explain that.

I'd rather have a candidate who commits.

...and he has missed votes--just like other candidates on the campaign trail.

This is the same argument that the Republicans tried to use against John Kerry.

The fact is, both Kerry and Obama have great achievements during their political
careers.

You could use the "Look at these votes they missed!" argument for any candidate.

Anyway---it's hard to believe that you'd rather have a committed warmonger candidate
than a candidate who refuses to show up and propagate war.

...that Obama not showing up wasn't ideal in my book.

I'm glad that he didn't vote for it. I bet Bush was pissed at all of the
politicians who didn't show up for his precious "Help me in the run-up to
war with Iran" vote.

I wish Obama would have publicly voted no and that he would have given a
resounding speech, rejecting Bush's neocon plan.

However, he didn't. He stayed away. I am glad that he did that.

Do you have any disagreements or disappointment in Hillary for voting
for Kyl/Lieberman?

Or are you fine with her returning to Washington and voting "yes"?

About Hillary - that is the only thing that is keeping me from throwing my support to her.
That's how much it bothers me.

...because Hillary has great power. She's a powerful Senator from New York on the Armed Services
Committee.

She knows the neocon game. She understands very well their intentions and that they've wanted to
dominate the Middle East for a long time. She also understands that their plan was to invade Iraq first
and then widen their foothold by following with Iran, then Syria.

Look at this letter that the neocons wrote to Bill Clinton in January 1998.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Armitage, Bolton, Perle and other neocons asked him for war with Iraq several years
before Bush was President. President Clinton refused. Hillary knew these guys had been shopping around this
war, because they asked her husband for it. Yet, she stood on the Senate floor and made the case for war with Iraq.

She knew. She said nothing.

Hillary should "NOT" have voted yes, and Obama should have had guts to show up and vote one way or the other. It's really easy to say "I would have voted no", that's playing it safe. The right thing to do is not so easy!

On a scale of 1-1o---with 1 being horrendously bad and 10 being remarkable and courageous, I give
the candidates the following scores:

Hillary--for showing up and voting "Yes" on Kyl/Lieberman, which leverages the neocon war in the Middle East---1

Barack Obama--for missing the vote due to campaigning and not speaking out during the time of the war------6

Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, --for showing up, speaking out and voting "NO"-------10


The problem with voting "yes" means that you're supporting the neocon agenda and allowing BushCo to
railroad you into a vote because you don't want to appear "soft on terror. That's bottom of the barrel.

The problem with not showing up is a question of commitment, and a missed opportunity to speak out
against these atrocities. However, it's not propagating war, which is much worse, in my opinion.

Biden and Dodd get props, that's for sure.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told "the Chicago Tribune on September 26, 2004, 'he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures , including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point ... if any, are we going to take military action?'

"He added, 'aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in' given the ongoing war in Iraq. 'On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse.' Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if 'violent Islamic extremists' were to 'take over'," Joshua Frank wrote January 22, 2005, for Antiwar.com.<1>
s voting record in 2007 establishes that he continues to be pro-war. On March 28, 2007 and March 29th, 2007, he voted for cloture and passage of a bill

designed to give Bush over $120 billion to continue the occupation for years to come (with a suspendable time table) and inclusive of funding that could be used to

launch a war with Iran. Roll calls 117 (Passed 97-0) and 126 (Passed 51-47, with every Democrat voting for it)

:shrug:

why did he take the day off, and vote FOR R970?

and, more importantly, she thinks that "strength" is defined by matching men in their cruelty and testosterone-driven foreign policies.

I just did some research and found this:
UPDATE II: The roll call for the vote is here. The following senators voted against the amendment:

Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Dodd (D-CT)
Feingold (D-WI)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)
Wyden (D-OR)

Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Barack Obama (D-IL) didn’t vote.

I notice that Reid didn't oppose it but some of our star senators like Webb, McCaskill, and Tester did along with even republican senators Lugar and Hagel.

Since 28 dem senators didn't vote against it, I guess HRC might not have perceived it as that controversial. More insights are welcome though.

while Biden, who I supported until he dropped out, and Dodd voted against it.

It should be in the archives here. Do a search and find it. And READ it.

Otherwise, look it up on THOMAS and read what she ACTUALLY voted on.

These fucking morons who insist it had a provision about nuking Iran in it are showing their own ignorance of the content of the resolution. And that's all it was--a "Sense of the Senate" resolution, not LAW.

That's hard. And boring. And grown-up stuff.

It's much more fun to fight. Fighting's cool!

Political education would take all the fun out of it. I wanna scream HILLARY EATS BABIES and OBAMA KILLED BAMBI.

--p!
HILLARY EATS BABIES
OBAMA KILLED BAMBI
HILLARY EATS BABIES
OBAMA KILLED BAMBI
HILLARY EATS BABIES
OBAMA KILLED BAMBI
HILLARY EATS BABIES
OBAMA KILLED BAMBI
!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have read the bill word for word.

Yes, it's true, there is nothing about nuking Iran.

What's that got to do with anything?

We're in the pre-war stages with Iran. Just like we were in with Iraq.

Bush needs to secure a few marketing planks, before he can go in. He needs
Congress publicly declaring that Iran is a "terrorist organization" so when he
stands in the rose garden and makes the case for bombing Iran, he's got that
talking point, Ya see, my fellow Americans. It's my job to keep you safe and
even Congress agrees with me that Iran is a 'terrorist organization."

Defining Iran as a "terrorist organization" give Bush more leverage for war with
Iran. The PNAC plan, which is visible on their Web site, states that they want
Iraq first, then Iran, then Syria.

Why do you all bury your heads in the sand when it comes to the neocons--and Hillary's--
votes---and act like you don't know what's going on?

Nice hair splitting!

Boy, Joe Lieberman never got these concessions from DUer's, but Hillary sure does.

I'm well aware that the bill declares the military arm of the Iranian government
a "terrorist organization." Iran's military---is a part of the Iranian government
that is operated by the Iranian government, much like our own military.

In effect, the Iranian government--is now operating a "terrorist organization".

It doesn't matter how you spin this, George Bush will stand in the rose garden
and use this vote to leverage war with Iran.

Hillary helped to make that possible.

God knows, I'm not supporting Clinton, but facts matter. And somehow I'm getting the feeling you don't know too much about Iran. The IRG is NOT the sole military arm of the Iranian Government. And the IRG is quite a unique organization- nothing at all like our own military.

I was opposed to this resolution- but simply because it gives bushco a flimsy fig leaf.

And I'm doubtful that bushco will attack Iran People have been saying he would for 3 years now. I believe he's aware that he'll be impeached if he does it- even if that happens 6 months from now.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard--is an arm of the Iranian government.

It is run under the umbrella of the Iranian government.

Therefore, in the eyes of the US government, Iran is running, funding and operating a "terrorist organization"
within it's government.

The United States holds the government of Iran responsible for actions of the IRG.

Cali, did you notice what happened after the Kyl/Lieberman vote? The CIA released an NIE that
destroyed Bush's case for war with Iran--demonstrating that there was no evidence that they
were developing nuclear weapons. That's what destroyed Bush's chances for war with Iran.

Kyl/Lieberman demonstrates that Bush was gearing up. He had been gearing up the rhetoric
against Iran for months. Those who voted "yes" on Kyl/Lieberman were complicit in that
gearing up.

said.

It declared the RG a terrorist organization. NOT the "military arm of the Iranian government." Iran has universal service, they've got a massive military--it's not too ready, but it's there.

The RG are a small subset of the military--the elites, formed out of Khomeini's old Pasaradan--who were the enforcers and bullies in the early days of the revolution. I know these guys well, they harassed me and my friends and neighbors back at the start of the revolution.

In any event, even today, they remain a small percentage of the total force.

That's not hair splitting. You haven't read the full resolution, or you haven't understood or retained what you say you have read.

And it isn't ratified law--it's a "Sense of the Senate" resolution--a way for the Senate to express an opinion. But don't let that detail bother you, either.

Talk about SPIN--you're doing a fine job of that with your half-baked, half-truths, there!!

You get back to me when Old George declares war, OK?

:eyes:

it declared the IRG a terrorist organization, and that's not inaccurate. In fact, both Obama and Edwards agreed with that position until just a short while ago.

Furthermore, you need to understand that bushco needs zip from the Congress to bomb the shit out of Iran. He can do so under the authority delegated to the president in the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

Kyl Lieberman declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

Who do you think runs the Iran Revolutionary Guard...Pizza Hut?

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard is the official military of Iran, run by the government
of Iran---much like our own military is an arm of our government.

You can split hairs all you want, Bush will use this vote in his PR campaign leading
up to the war.

It's propaganda, softening up the public for war with Iran.

We were propagandize to death with Iraq. Now, Bush is running the same game-plan with Iran.
To vote for this---via Kyl/Lieberman---is to allow Bush to propagandize our country into
another war based on more lies and fearmongering.

Please don't position that as something benign, it's not. But you know that.

And I certainly don't support Clinton's vote, but neither is it the boogey woogey resolution that so many have claimed. It has no force of law behind it, and it is not comparable to the IWR.

Kyl/Lieberman in one of many hors d houvers--served up to the American public, before the main
course of war is dished out.

I look at Kyl/Lieberman as I would the UN Resolutions that made demands on Saddam.

I don't see Kyl/Lieberman as a final vote that declares war.

It's a plank in Bush's publicity campaign for war with Iran.

Knowing what we know about Bush's lies, when it comes to taking us to war, voting "yes"
to this madman is really reckless.

It's not the equivalent to voting "yes" on war, but it's allowing the neocons to get a few
inches closer.

He voted YES on the nearly identical R 970 which also declares the IRG a terrorist organization.

and also believes that the non-binding resolution does not authorize military action towards iran.

All this resolution did was highten the rhetoric at a time when it would have been better to cool things down. The Iranian Guard holds 80 seats in their parliament and thus, the very people who we need to negotiate with are now labeled as "terrorists." Furthermore, the majority of Guard have been voting for the moderates.

While the Guard has several divisions with one that handles their foreign meddling, they are not a monolithic organization. If anything they are more like the Mafia than a terrorists organization.

Why do you think Sen. Clinton immediately rushed to sign Webb's stalled Amendment without even notifying Webb? I suspect that she suddenly said "Ooops!"

I agree that the part about going to war with Iran was stripped from the final resolution. And I don't care about anything that Obama did or didn't do. I do care about stupid cowboy moves that are being made in the Senate. (Note: Pelosi refused to bring this to a vote in House. Oh if only Reid was as wise.) I care very much about stupid people endangering the future of my country.

This Resolution was named Boxer-Feingold.

This resolution does not advance diplomacy. It also does not advance the push for sanctions since those are the business of State. Besides, we have been sanctioning Iran for years and years.

I would suggest that Clinton supporters who love our country write to her and beg her to dump some of her trigger-happy foreign policy team who advise her to pull crap like this. Lee Feinstein (bush's policy of preemptive war doesn't go far enough) would be a start. Oh, maybe he could take that PNAC loving Michael O'Hanlon with him.

She'll do anything to win.

She was running hard right all year thinking the rest of the Dem field was just going to roll over and play dead.

Somebody is going to have to explain it to Hillary that you don't run (or vote, for that matter) to appease the right wing neo-con vermin. Of course, she just might agree with them on a number of issues, so perhaps she was just voting her conscience.

OK just read the resolution in a PDF file for the first time. My first reaction was "whoah!." It talked about the Iranian millitary supplying the insurgency in Iraq, which to me is a debatable point, praised Petraeus in much the same way that the Republican leadership does and used his words as gospel and just sounded like the very essence of neocon talking points.

As far as she voted for it to cool things down, kind of like how she voted for the Iraq AUMF thinking that it would just lead to inspectors being forced back in.........

I really try to like her, I really do, but this doesn't help. I also remember how she was a vocal supporter of the Iraq war until after Jack Murtha stood up against it so passionately and probably tilted the congressional majority towards us in doing so.

They're the ones that got us in this predicament.

They're the ones that think it's more important to talk about rock stars than foreign affairs.

The only thing that is getting me through all this is that Joe Biden is still the chairman of the SFRC.
It's not what I hoped for, but it's not a bad place for him to be.
Altho, if Obama wins the Presidency, Biden would be a great SoS.

So you'll only get opinions of why from the Obama attack dogs.

I've noted her absence here as well :P

substantiating the claim that IRG elements were aiding and abetting elements in Iraq that were responsible for attacks against the Iraqis and American personnel.

The K/L authors originally wanted a stronger worded resolution, but other Senators made them take out the stronger language. It was a means of calling out Iran publicly and applying pressure. Not in any way, an authorization for war.

Or that the elected government in Iraq is controlled by the pro-Iranian SCIRI Shi'ite faction? Iran would want to overthrow them in favor of al Sadr's anti-Iranian Shi'ite faction because why?

People smuggle lots of stuff from Mexico into the US. Does that mean that the Mexican government is behind it?

They called out a group assisting in the attacks against Americans and Iraqis.
I don't have a problem with that.

How would any arm of the Iranian government benefit by undermining the most pro-Iranian government that Iraq has ever had?

Wait that was firemen and red suspenders.

it: 1. Pulled the teeth of the Repugnants calling her soft on defense and 2. The IRG was a force of special troops in Iran directly run and directed by the mullahs.

Her reasoning was correct at the time. We expect our leaders to think about what they are voting for and to vote for our benefit. In this case, if anyone bothers to read the damn bill, this was to and for our benefit.

It was not the sort of bill that would allow BushCo to take us into another war. The Mullah-directed force of the IRG are indeed a terrorist force, primarily used against Iranians.

Obama, on the other hand, did what he usually does with a controversial bill, he avoided voting yea or nay. He seems to coast along seldom making decisions. Can we afford a president who cannot make decisions? That is not a slur against Obama but a legitimate question.

with Where was Obama? Can you not explain why Clinton voted for it?