Kyl-Lieberman Iran Amendment Passes By Huge Margin
The Kyl-Lieberman Iran amendment -- which ratchets up the confrontation with Iran by calling for the designation of its Revolutionary Guard as 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.
Late Update: You can read a copy of the actual legislation here in our TPM Document Collection.
Also added to the final version was this conciliatory-sounding language:
"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 the preferable approach. That 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."
In the end, though, the amendment says this:
"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."
Comments (78)
ohiomeister wrote on September 26, 2007 1:22 PM:I think her poll numbers may have given Hillary confidence that she doesn't have to hide her hawkishness any longer.
Big mistake -- hope someone brings it up at the Dartmouth debate tonight.
JWL wrote on September 26, 2007 1:29 PM:Does anyone doubt the administration will invoke this resolution when the war on Iran is announced as having commenced?
Does anyone doubt Hillary Clinton is George Bush in drag?
eric wrote on September 26, 2007 1:29 PM:I think her poll numbers may have given Hillary confidence that she doesn't have to hide her hawkishness any longer.
Probably the opposite, actually. I think that she has to pretend to be hawkish about stuff like this.
phil james wrote on September 26, 2007 1:29 PM:Good for Hillary. She recognizes that the American public is getting bored, bored, bored with the never-ending quagmire that is Iraq. Now we can have some entertaining shock-and-awe in Iran to light up our TV screens. So do you think Dubya will make an announcement on the day the bombing starts or wait until the reports on the first round of smart-bombs are in?
J DAlessandro wrote on September 26, 2007 1:30 PM:Its meaningless; President Cheney already has the bombs loaded on the planes - And if they passed a resolution forbidding an attack, it would make no damn bit of difference. The Senate has made itself irrelevant; they get ignored and lied to with impunity. Like the bully in the schoolyard says, "What you gonna do about it?"
Hillary's getting that great AIPAC money; its an easy vote for her.
When is Blackwater going to be designated a terrorist organization? I'm more worried about them than the Iranians at the moment.
mopper wrote on September 26, 2007 1:32 PM:I think Obama missing this vote was a mistake on his part. He's already on record as against this measure, and saying that the U.S. population does not want war with Iran, etc etc, but with a no vote, he could go after Hillary saying this the AUMF part II. Perfect way to contrast his judgment with hers.
Instead, I guess he's at his event in Maine or whatever. Sucky.
Dan Riffle wrote on September 26, 2007 1:34 PM:I can't believe Obama missed it, how's he supposed to go after Hillary tonight? I'm all for skipping the silly MoveOn.org vote, but you're seriously undermining your own credibility now.
Anns wrote on September 26, 2007 1:35 PM:I just called my Senator's office. I told the phone person how bitterly disappointed that Senator Clinton does not recognize her constituents views about giving the president the right to go to war, ENOUGH! We are seriously going to give this Senator the nomination? I am really disgusted.
jeanruss wrote on September 26, 2007 1:39 PM:just another sign that the Clintons and Bushes are IDENTICAL. Edwards is the only candidate that can turn things around and get the country back on track.
phil james wrote on September 26, 2007 1:44 PM:"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."
See. There you go. That language removal will stop the Bush-Cheney train-wreck-to-be in its tracks. And you thought the Senate was virtually powerless in the face of the all-powerful bi-unitary executive. Whew. And here I was thinking the Dem Senate leadership were a bunch of pansies.
garth wrote on September 26, 2007 1:45 PM:How is a constituted army of a sovereign nation a "terrorist organization"? Was the Soviet Army a "terrorist organization"?
I'm sure the term "terrorist organization" is all Bush needs to Yoothorize an attack under the 2001 AUMF.
Just here to echo disappointment that Obama missed the vote. I guess he's somewhere between Maine and New York City, where he's scheduled to appear tomorrow. Maybe he doesn't
I have no doubt that Hillary will be able to spin the vote, if pressed, in her favor. She's doing so well, because she's been very effective in twisting words around in her favor. Refer to the Logo/HRC forum. Hillary defended DOMA, her refusal to support gay marriage and her husband's implementation of Don't Ask Don't tell, and got the audience love every word. It's really amazing how good she is at this kind of thing, especially when comfortable and confident. Her strong, commanding tone, on the other hand, can often seem calculated and cold (see her appearances on last sunday's programs). I think Obama gives her a run for her money here, but Hillary is still the stronger competitor in this regard.
gqmartinez wrote on September 26, 2007 1:49 PM:Obama did what I expected him to do. Too bad, I really want to like the guy. (OK, I like him just fine. I meant get excited about him. Missing two important votes matters more to me than what he says--talk is cheap.)
However, if the part that authorized military action was removed, is this really AUMF II? Didn't anti-war folks win this one?
Peter wrote on September 26, 2007 1:49 PM:Hillary just blew her big lead with the Democratic base. She will never get the nomination now. Between this and her cowardly Iraq vote in 2002, and the stories from yesterday about Bush advising her on Iraq, she's toast.
I supported her Senate candidacy in 2000 in NY. I wouldn't vote for her today for dog catcher if she was running unopposed.
james wrote on September 26, 2007 1:50 PM:So when exactly is Obama going to show up for a vote? In a week when the press reports that he's missed about 40% of the Senate's votes this year, seems like a bad idea to skip this one.
Colin wrote on September 26, 2007 1:52 PM:I'm sure the term "terrorist organization" is all Bush needs to Yoothorize an attack under the 2001 AUMF.
Yup. I'm guessing this is what the White House wanted - the rest of it was just a feint that they were willing to give up. With the Iran guard now declared a terrorist org., Iran just became a state that harbors terrorists. And the Bush doctrine says that's all we need to go in.
The Senate is willfully abdicating its authority.
bob wrote on September 26, 2007 1:53 PM:Hillary doesn't get it, and she doesn't share core progressive values. This resolution further confirms it.
Nominating her would be a terrible mistake that progressives will massively regret.
phil james wrote on September 26, 2007 1:54 PM:Let's see Hillary takes off the mask, Obama just takes off. Do the math. That leaves Edwards as the only credible Dem candidate, which I thought he was from the get go.
dcshungu wrote on September 26, 2007 1:55 PM:Does anyone doubt the administration will invoke this resolution when the war on Iran is announced as having commenced?
If anything qualifies as "saber rattling" this vote is it. For some time now, bloggers everywhere (including TPM) and pundits have been harping about the possibility that Cheney/Bush were looking for an excuse to attack Iran. There is no way in hell, while he is still mired in Iraq, GWB would get the support to launch an attack against another country, especially one the size of Iran.
I never thought it would happen and I do not think that this resolution gets us any closer to going to war against Iran. The people won't go for it, the Congress won't go for it, the EU allies won't go for it, and the military, citing a decimated force, definitely won't go for it. So, who do you think is going to attack Iraq? Maybe if they contracted out Israel...
To hype this as the "Iran war Authorization" bill, like TPM did, is, well, just hype. Bush will not be able to launch another "war of choice" ever again...he's got no time to fool anyone anymore. In 16 months, he's out and into oblivion, where he belongs!
gqmartinez wrote on September 26, 2007 1:55 PM:Why are people so worked up about this lame ammendment. I don't think I even fault Obama for missing the vote anymore (after taking a look at it). It does nothing. Even symbolically, it's nothing. It doesn't seem to authorize the use of force at all, in fact, the opposite.
Keith wrote on September 26, 2007 1:59 PM:Not sure why Senator Obama missed the vote, but I recall reading last night that there wasn't going to be a vote. Couple that with the relatively recent announcement that a vote would be heard (1225 EST on TPM's clock), I suspect he's somewhere prepping for the debate. All speculation on my part.
The standing military of a sovereign nation is a terriorist organization? WTF? When did the US become hellbent on becoming a laughing stock of the entire world community?
dcshungu wrote on September 26, 2007 1:59 PM:correction:
I never thought it would happen and I do not think that this resolution gets us any closer to going to war against Iran. The people won't go for it, the Congress won't go for it, the EU allies won't go for it, and the military, citing a decimated force, definitely won't go for it. So, who do you think is going to attack Iran? Maybe if they contracted out Israel...
bob wrote on September 26, 2007 2:01 PM:The post-9/11 AUMF allows the Bush/Cheney admin to use force against terrorist organizations. Now Iran's army has been designated a terrorist organization.
I'm not saying it's going to happen, but in terms of laying the groundwork, it sure sounds like it to me.
Terp wrote on September 26, 2007 2:01 PM:(My) Senator Webb has to be one of the most inconsistent senators. One minute he's voting expediently and the next he does the right thing. I don't know what to think.
mopper wrote on September 26, 2007 2:02 PM:gqmartinez--
It's my understanding that Congress has previously given the President the power to use military force against any terrorist organization or something along those lines, and as such, the formal declaration of Iranian Revolutionary Guard units as terrorist cells would then place them under the jurisdiction of that already-passed authorization to use force.
However, if, either a) my understanding of prior authorizations of military force, or b) my understanding of what this current bill accomplishes is incorrect, someone please correct me (so I'll feel a lot better about the state of our country)
Keith wrote on September 26, 2007 2:03 PM:GQMartinez:
Stop pretending that you are anything but an ardent HRC supporter. Those of us that are familiar with this community are well aware of were your loyalties lie, so it's pointless to pretend otherwise.
Better to pretend that the bill is meaningless when your candidate of choice is backing it, than acknowledge that this was just one more building block to war with Iran.
Hillary clearly isn't worried about tonight's debate but the ones next October. Kevin Drum has a good post today about not taking polls too literally. When scared witless by Republicans, the American people aren't nearly as dovish as initially seems. Rather than GWB II, Hilary is clearly repudiating the W/Rove formula of playing exclusively to the base. And while I personally hate her relative hawkishness (next to the Reps she's Ghandi), I can see its strategic value. Next to her general election rival she'll seem a moderate sage.
some dude named steevo wrote on September 26, 2007 2:03 PM:Going to war with Iran is not the important thing in the big picture. That would be bad, but not the end of the world.
The important thing is that if we attack Iran it will most likely escalate and Russia and China may declare war on the US. WW3 could be triggered if we invade Iran.
I think that is just what W wants, so he can declare martial law and halt the next elections and remain president a little while longer.
I hope I am just being paranoid.
JWL wrote on September 26, 2007 2:06 PM:"I think that [Hillary] has to pretend to be hawkish about stuff like this".
You do? "Pretend" when the issue is war and peace.
Well, maybe that is a quality this country wants in a president. It worked well enough for George Bush to be re-elected, after all.
dcshungu wrote on September 26, 2007 2:09 PM:I think Obama missing this vote was a mistake on his part. He's already on record as against this measure, and saying that the U.S. population does not want war with Iran, etc etc, but with a no vote, he could go after Hillary saying this the AUMF part II. Perfect way to contrast his judgment with hers.Instead, I guess he's at his event in Maine or whatever. Sucky.
Correction: Obama was on record opposition the original version of this bill, not the "diluted" version that passed overwhelmingly. Is missing this vote another one of those "protest" statements that are not statements at all? "Profile in courage"? Hardly...it is the opposite. Not knowing whether this vote would be popular or unpopular, he once more chose to skip it to preserve his 'viability'. I hope he won't come out after the fact and try to lecture us about how he skipped this vote because it was travesty, and he had more important business to attend to. I am beginning to detect a pattern here...I wonder if he would have skipped the AUMF vote.
Anonymous wrote on September 26, 2007 2:10 PM:It's hard not to feel paranoid with this gang in power. What start out sounding like wacky conspiracy theories turn out not only to be true but to be worse than initially believed. Bush and crew doesn't give a damn about whether or not they have the support of Congress or the people, so public opposition won't stop them. As for whether or not they can start a war with Iran, plans for strategic bombing have already been mapped out, and the army will do what it's told. Besides, provocation may be all that's needed. If they can ratchet up the tensions and then point to something that Iran's done that can be in any way interpreted as belligerent, public support will shift quickly.
Susan in Iowa wrote on September 26, 2007 2:11 PM:For those of you who think that Edwards is somehow less hawkish on Iran than Hillary: Boy, are you wrong.
At a speech to the Herzliya conference in Israel in January, he said plenty that should raise eyebrows. But his final comment was a showstopper. In response to a question about what he would do if diplomacy fails, he said:
"...The vast majority of people are concerned about what is going on in Iraq. This will make the American people reticent toward going for Iran. But I think the American people are smart if they are told the truth, and if they trust their president. So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran."
I have tried several times to get a straight answer out of his campiagn about what he meant, including asking Elizabeth herself, in case he misspoke. By the way, he was the ONLY Democratic candidate who spoke to the conferemce, which is a neocon and Likud gathering. The speech is on line in several places, including at: http://www.herzliyaconference.org/Eng/_Articles/Article.asp?ArticleID=1728&CategoryID=223
This crap is not legally binding. This is embarrassing and little else. The whole point of Republicans and Lieberdems pushing this is to convince people that it's inevitable, to beat down our spirits, and make folks think it's inevitable. If we want better than this, we have to flood their offices with calls, flood them with e-mails, and make damn sure they know that a threat to their job security is on the horizon if they go with any more of this crap.
Folks are doing this because they think they're being political realists. Let's show them what the political reality really is, rather than hope they absorb it by osmosis.
Keith wrote on September 26, 2007 2:15 PM:mopper is right, the 2002 authorization included terrorist organizations operating in Iraq and the change or Revolutionary Guard designation is the green light to engage in country and follow them back to Iran...further to that, the 2002 authorization cites "sense of the Congress" amendments so don't believe the talking point that this is meaningless...
cervantes wrote on September 26, 2007 2:22 PM:While this is certainly not helpful, at least the language which ultimately passed cannot be viewed as any sort of backdoor authorization for the use of force, in other words the most dangerous elements of the bill were removed.
That doesn't mean Chimpy won't go ahead anyway, but he won't have a fig leaf of legality -- at least not so far.
arch stanton wrote on September 26, 2007 2:23 PM:Enjoy the good times people...it ain't ever gonna be this good again. Oh yeah, stock up on canned goods.
dcshungu wrote on September 26, 2007 2:26 PM:Would everyone just take a deep breath and calm down? No one is going to attack Iran as long as we are mired in Iraq, and Afghanistan still requires a large US military presence! With which military is Bush going to attack Iran? If he tries, he should be certified a lunatic psychopath and criminal and impeached immediately
Bush is done. He is headed for oblivion, never again able to launch a "war of choice"...
Gotta go now, and so should you...
Dennis wrote on September 26, 2007 2:26 PM:I have been perusing this site approximately 3 months now and all I can say "you fucking people slay me". You actually think that we have "a government of the people, by the people and for the people."
The WH has been telling everybody to kiss its ass & eat shit. What does congress do?
absolutely nothing!!!
General Betrayus becomes another "house slave."
Dick Cheney says shit and all three branches of gov't. say "where, how much, how high & what color".
Wake up folks! your elected officals don't give a crap what you want.
Unfortunately for every good rep or sen there are 10 Pelosi's, Reid's & Clinton's.
Have a great day and bask in your ignorance.
Dennis
phil james wrote on September 26, 2007 2:27 PM:Keith
Agreed. The terrorist organization designation is the substance of this whole thing. Everything else is window-dressing. This is indeed the authoization Cheney needed to start the bombing. Only one question remains. When we occupy Iran, should our new embassy be bigger than the one in Iraq?
colonpowwow wrote on September 26, 2007 2:36 PM:Well, I suppose we'll just have to wait and see why Senator Clinton joined with those noted warhawks Durbin, Levin, and Schumer and voted for this watered-down, sabre-rattling amendment.
In a related matter, Clinton headquarters around the country began the shuttering and closing down of their local offices as her campaign absolutely collapsed from the public backlash surrounding her outrageous "yes" vote on the Lieberman Kyl Amendment.
Hey, Hillary can count. There's no doubt that this amendment would have still passed big with her voting "no" on it - and she could have mollified the folks here. A perfect scenario for political "triangulation" and she just passed it by.
Again, let's hear what she has to say about it. I hope she faces some tough questioning about it and aquits herself honorably. In other words, Hillary-haters, get your typing fangs ready for tomorrow's postings.
Keith wrote on September 26, 2007 2:37 PM:Dcshungu:
If you have learned nothing in the last 6.5 years, it should be that this administration is not bound by troubling little facts such as military readiness. They already have a couple of air craft carrier groups in the Persian Gulf. They don't need to go in by ground, we prefer the air (where we reign supreme). I'm not trusting the administration to the right thing (or even the RATIONALE thing).
Hatch wrote on September 26, 2007 2:38 PM:Not knowing whether this vote would be popular or unpopular, he once more chose to skip it to preserve his 'viability.'Come on, what good would it have done him to race back to Washington this morning to vote in the minority against a non-binding resolution? We already know Obama's position on Iran and it's clear he would've voted against this amendment. He's way behind Clinton in New Hampshire, he was already there for the day, and it makes perfect sense that he chose to stay there today to talk to voters and prepare for tonight's debate. Some people are complaining that Obama has missed 40% of the votes this year. Well, Kerry missed 72% of the votes in 2003 and most of us still supported him in 2004.
The real rage should be directed at Clinton, who showed her true colors by voting in favor of continued American aggression, non-binding or not.
wowisdabomb wrote on September 26, 2007 2:41 PM:Anyone who thinks Bush will NOT use this resolution to bomb Iran is a SIMPLETON AND A DOLT!(or a democrat)
Bush will hoist this resolution up a pole once the bombs start dropping over Tehran.
This resolution opens the gate and the legal reason to do it. Bush does not care what the congress or the American people think or wants. He believes he is on a mission, and will carry that out.
DonnaG wrote on September 26, 2007 2:47 PM:Nice job of separating your actions from your empty words about diplomacy, HRC, et al.
I see this vote as a huge pander to the AIPAC lobby [and their money right before the end of the 3rd quarter].
I also see this vote as one more indication of the gulf between the beltway insiders and the rest of the nation.
I see this vote as evidence that there's not nearly enough daylight between the actions of the two partys' leaders once they enjoy the perks and powers of office, which includes sharing in the spoils of wartime.
Anonymous wrote on September 26, 2007 2:47 PM:Kabuki Senate?
No.
Cosmeticians who call blood glory and carnage security, they obey their paymasters.
They've shown their color: it's the color of blood. Not their own, of course. So far, only the blood of those who cannot defend themselves.
Bush, the first, enables Clinton, the first, who enables Bush, the second. Why would we want Clinton, the second, taking the baton from Bush, the second?
Their unoriginal rationalizations, delivered by well-paid, well-coifed, well-scripted androids, matter not a whit.
The only question remaining is when they turn their dogs loose on their own people.
gypsy howell wrote on September 26, 2007 2:48 PM:With which military is Bush going to attack Iran?
Haven't you been paying attention? His new private one, of course. Blackwater.
PeteN wrote on September 26, 2007 2:50 PM:Boy, I'm really getting to the point where Lieberman's unctuous, smarmy, self satisfied grin puts me right off my supper.
Anonymous wrote on September 26, 2007 2:59 PM:Here is the relevant section of the 2001 AUMF:
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Approved September 18, 2001.
Well, Anon., my understanding was that it was the 2002 AUMF (against Iraq), but it seems like the sections you quoted there from the 2001 AUMF don't do what others have claimed. Notably, authorize the President to use force against any terrorist organization; rather, only against those with some involvement in 9/11.
So if that's it, I feel a lot better about this.
CF2K wrote on September 26, 2007 3:20 PM:mopper,
Read the sections again. If Bush "determines" there were any connection between Al Qaeda and Iran, then he can attack. Couldn't be any easier for him than that, since there has been LOTS of reporting asserting this connection, as well as the 9/11 Commission report.
It's a done deal.
ralphbon wrote on September 26, 2007 3:23 PM:People forget that the Oct 2002 AUMF was similarly "watered down" from far more belligerent language proffered by the Rethugs. Dems then, as now, pretended to be oh so responsible and responsive to consitutents' concerns in implementing their ultimately meaningless dilutions.
Bush will take this amendment, as he did the AUMF, and run with it at a time of his (well, Cheney's) choosing.
In light of continued Democratic acquiescence, I think the only meaningful way to stop the bomb-Iran juggernaut is through coordinated pledges of sanctions from the international community, leveled at the US, conditioned on our letting loose yet more dogs of lunacy.
Legalize wrote on September 26, 2007 3:23 PM:This "resolution" could have simply read: "The Iranians are skunks," and W would use it as "legal" justification for attacking Iran. He's already got a half dozen 50 page legal memoranda sitting on his desk, telling him and all of us that it's perfectly legal.
Steve LaBonne wrote on September 26, 2007 3:27 PM:Screw the useless Dim-ocrats. I'm beginning to seriously lean toward staying home on election day in 2008. I mean, if we get this toxic crap passing with a huge number of votes from "our" side of the aisle, what's the point in voting anymore?
midwestblue wrote on September 26, 2007 3:28 PM:If you want to scare yourself silly, read this piece by Philip Giraldi on Antiwar.com. It's entitled "What World War III May Look Like:"
http://antiwar.com/orig/giraldi.php
I've called for the paperwork to change my party affiliation to Independent. Let them wonder how I'm going to vote. They Democrats KNOW if you have a "D" behind your name, they've got you by the short and curlies. They know you aren't going to vote Republican.
dcshungu wrote on September 26, 2007 3:29 PM:wowisdabomb wrote on September 26, 2007 2:41 PM:Anyone who thinks Bush will NOT use this resolution to bomb Iran is a SIMPLETON AND A DOLT!(or a democrat)
Bush will hoist this resolution up a pole once the bombs start dropping over Tehran.
This resolution opens the gate and the legal reason to do it. Bush does not care what the congress or the American people think or wants. He believes he is on a mission, and will carry that out.
This simpleton and dolt would put his money where his deductive brain power (common sense) is and bet anyone $1,000 that Bush will not launch an attack against Iran during his remaining time in office, and that he dared, he'd be impeached, with most of the members of his party voting "yea".
There is normal paranoia and neurotic/psychotic paranoia. What I sense here is the latter. Bush is an idiot and not a powerful tyrant, and this the US of A. Enough gets to be enough at some point. To believe that Bush would be so brazen as to launch another attack while (1) he is still mired in Iraq and Afghanistan, (2) the military is stretch thin, (3) his approval rating is near Nixonian level, and (4) the Dems are in charge of Congress (well, sort of) is to exhibit signs of psychotic paranoia or, well, to be a simpleton and a dolt...
Unmitigated Audacity wrote on September 26, 2007 3:31 PM:arch stanton - What you said. Between the impending blowout of the world financial system due to the collapse of the dollar; the mortgage, Hedge Funds and derivatives mess; and the likelyhood of $200+ oil when we bomb Iran (not to mention likely Russian and Chinese retaliation of some sort), it is safe to say that the "good times" are gone for good. We're looking at a new dark age for the next 100 years or so. We can pin our hopes for future human progress on a new renaissance 3 or 4 generations on. One based on science and reason. Its beyond sad, but our generation has totally blown it. We are in the thrall of sophistry; there are no leaders who are willing to speak the truth. I'm not sure there are any who believe in the concept of truth anymore.
dndobson wrote on September 26, 2007 3:32 PM:Purpose: to express the sense of the Senate regarding Iran.
Not a law.
Not an Authorization.
Pure Politics.
I'd sat that dropping the objectionable language was a political victory for Dems. Blocking the vote would have been a political victory for the Repubs.
Steve LaBonne wrote on September 26, 2007 3:35 PM:"and that he dared, he'd be impeached, with most of the members of his party voting "yea"."
Nice fantasy world you live in. In reality, all the Liebercrats and Hillarycrats would scramble to "support the troops" and an impeachment resolution, if it even got to the floor, would get about 3 votes in the House.
dcshungu wrote on September 26, 2007 4:01 PM:Mr. LaBonne: Back that assertion with just a little bit coherent thinking... It sounds, well, simplistic at best..
Steve LaBonne wrote on September 26, 2007 4:08 PM:Have you been paying any attention at all to anything that's happened since Nov. 2006? Guess not. I'll fill you in: complete spinelessness has been the Democratic order of the day. This latest fiasco is just a continuation.
markg8 wrote on September 26, 2007 4:13 PM:"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."
Dick Cheney reads this as throwing prudence out the window.
dcshungu wrote on September 26, 2007 4:21 PM:Have you been paying any attention at all to anything that's happened since Nov. 2006? Guess not. I'll fill you in: complete spinelessness has been the Democratic order of the day. This latest fiasco is just a continuation.
I am sure I have been paying attention as much as or more than you have. The difference is that I have not been so traumatized by Bush as to part company with my senses, but you have. Paranoid rants cannot pass for logical thinking and common sense. I put my money where my common sense is...so put up or (well you know the rest).
As stupid as Bush is, he would not dare to initiate another war of choice because even he knows that would be the last straw; he won't get any support, and that would be the end of it...La Fin>/b>, Mr. LaBonne.
craig wrote on September 26, 2007 4:37 PM:"he would not dare to initiate another war of choice because even he knows that would be the last straw"
man, you have NOT been payin attention the last six years, have you? the only thing henry kissinger ever wrote that was worth the ink was his thesis about why revolutionaries succeed, and the opposition fails: because the opposition can't bring themselves to believe that the revolutionaries MEAN WHAT THEY SAY.
"I have not been so traumatized by Bush as to part company with my senses, but you have."
no, bush has.
bush needs no 'support' except that which he gets from his wacky god. he is convinced that HE ALONE can save the west.
and cheney sits closely by, whispering in his ear from the latest podhoretz column.
You just go right on thinking that. Meanwhile I'll go on remembering how the Dems caved on Iraq and continue to shrink in horror from doing ANYTHING of substance to bring the end of that war one day closer. (And if you think the Republicans would balk at supporting anything Bush does, let alone support his impeachment, then I'm not the one who's taken leave of his senses.)
lestatdelc wrote on September 26, 2007 4:54 PM:Anyone have a link to the roll call vote?
DonnaG wrote on September 26, 2007 4:57 PM:Here's what came through my mind when BushCo was beating war drums pre-Iraq, "Where were the German people when Hitler began to aggress?"
It seems to me that we have a colluding bunch of republican and democratic types in Washington who have long ago stopped caring about the opinions and wishes of 'we the people' and who are quite comfortable with saber-rattling and allowing deceptions to force us into pre-emptive illegal wars of aggression.
Where were the German people in Hilter's beginnings? Probably telling themselves at each jolt that their war-mongering leadership couldn't be taken seriously, that their leaders' aggressions didn't mean what they actually would come to mean.
The path of losing individual integrity or national integrity is the same......little chunks of integrity fall off oh... so... s l o w l y, each chunk being justified by some self-deluding explanation..... too few recognizing the overall directional pattern of loss until it is too late to stop the later, even more steep, inevitable slides..... like finding ourselves in the midst of an unwinnable military Iraq fiasco that leads, of yeah, not only to insane justifications for continued slaughter, but to the next double-down betting step, aggression toward another nation that has not threatened us, Iran.....and suddenly we wake up to find our nation to be the pariah of the civilized world.
melior wrote on September 26, 2007 5:07 PM:
It seems clear that Cheney needed this official Super Evil Terrorist designation in order to support wiretapping of US citizens with ties, benign or otherwise, to Iran.
No one seriously believes the 'sense of the Senate' is in any way urgent otherwise, or even meaningful.
anonymous wrote on September 26, 2007 5:07 PM:Hillary's vote in favor of the resolution that Bush used as a legal and political justification for the invasion clearly was neither a mistake nor something she regrets, as she is doing the same thing with Iran with full knowledge of the administration's and military's willingness to lie and with full knowledge that the hype about the danger of Iran to regional security, much less American national security, is overblown.
Democrats who voted for this are shamefully continuing to fall for the cries of the Boy-President-Who-Cried-Wolf.
Their betrayal of their constituents, our soldiers, and the nation's security is an abomination.
sailmaker wrote on September 26, 2007 5:14 PM:I think they just nullified part of the Third Geneva Convention.
I am not a lawyer however, captured uniformed soldiers carrying arms in the open get POW treatment. Non state actors (terrorists) get the Gitmo detainee treatment. Iran is a signatory to the Third Geneva Convention.
See what you think, Goldsmith, "The Terror Presidency", WW Norton & Co, pages 109-110.
dcshungu wrote on September 26, 2007 5:22 PM:You just go right on thinking that. Meanwhile I'll go on remembering how the Dems caved on Iraq and continue to shrink in horror from doing ANYTHING of substance to bring the end of that war one day closer. (And if you think the Republicans would balk at supporting anything Bush does, let alone support his impeachment, then I'm not the one who's taken leave of his senses.)
You are mixing apples and oranges. Starting another war is whole different kind of ball game, Monsieur LaBonne... and in GWB Team, the Quarterback has been sacked and the Team is demoralized.
How does the saying go again?
Just because you're paranoid does not mean that they are not out to get you. LOL. This Bush guy has really screwed up your mind. Ok, listen carefully. Bush is done. You can stick a fork in him now. Ok? He won't be starting any new wars because he no longer has any power. You and me and the guy over there would stop him, if Congress can't stop him. Ok?
craig wrote on September 26, 2007 4:37 PM:"he would not dare to initiate another war of choice because even he knows that would be the last straw"
man, you have NOT been payin attention the last six years, have you? the only thing henry kissinger ever wrote that was worth the ink was his thesis about why revolutionaries succeed, and the opposition fails: because the opposition can't bring themselves to believe that the revolutionaries MEAN WHAT THEY SAY.
Man, talk is cheap and I am really getting tired of the paranoia. Put your money where your paranoia is and take my Gentlemen's bet offer: $1,000 if Bush starts a NEW war AND gets away with it...
He can start the war but the circumstances being what they are now, he won't get away with it...your paranoia and mental trauma notwithstanding.
Anonymous wrote on September 26, 2007 5:42 PM:dcshungu: Man, talk is cheap and I am really getting tired of the paranoia. Put your money where your paranoia is and take my Gentlemen's bet offer: $1,000 if Bush starts a NEW war AND gets away with it...
There's a strawman bet if ever there was one.
There's not much gentlemanly about a bet that imposes the condition "and gets away with it" even assuming anyone has any idea what you mean by "getting away with it" much less what you mean by "starts a new war."
Getting away with it merely means not getting impeached, since that is the limit of Congress's ability to keep Bush from "getting away with it," and you can't demonstrate that Congress has the stomach or votes to impeach under any foreseeable circumstances.
After all, Bush doesn't even have to start a NEW war, since he and his cohorts insist it's all the same war - the GWOT where war in Afghanisan is war in Iraq is war in Iran.
All he has to do is get permission to blow up something within Iran which Congress just handed him.
He doesn't even need an army to do that and the minute he blows something up there, we are at war and he will get away with it.
So, if you are willing to agree that blowing something up in Iran (or even hot-pursuing alleged Iranian instigators over the border) is starting a war, and clearly this would be something that Congress would never have the balls to impeach over, then you might get some takers.
Karen wrote on September 26, 2007 7:25 PM:I agree with Diane. Blackwater Security needs to be designated a "foreign terrorist organization." Those guys are really scary, and they are HERE.
Joseph Kelly wrote on September 27, 2007 12:52 AM:How calm the country is, how dispassionate the arguments.
Yet, last year's Lancet report says that 655,000 Iraqi civilians have died in the past four and one half years due to the US occupation.
If you accept those numbers, more non-combatants have died there than the combined populations of Guam (170,000), US Virgin Islands (112,000), the Northern Mariana Islands (80,000) and America Samoa (66,000).
More Iraqis have died than the population of Wyoming (515,000), The District of Columbia (580,000), more than Vermont (623,000), more than North Dakota (635,000). How many people are there in your state, your town?
And on it goes, and now Iran.
Yet, last year's Lancet report says that 655,000 Iraqi civilians have died in the past four and one half years due to the US occupation.
Thank you for quoting The Lancet, a mainstream scientific journal that gives your post instant credibility. We went into Iraq because Saddam was a murderous thug, right? Well, guess what? We might have killed or caused the death of as many people as Saddam did (if not more). Who is going to invade us?
And now we are to believe that America can invade Iran and still be a credible nation?
The next POTUS is going to have her hand full just trying to undo the damage that the current village idiot has done!
I declare a truce on all the Dem candidates, unless the attacks on any of them gets too shrill to ignore... We can do better regardless of which one the Dems is nominated...
Bush will not invade anyone because he is too stupid and has emasculated himself along with America.
Take the bet. Bush does not have the power to invade anyone anymore, lest he be impeached.
Cheers!
J L Buntzen wrote on September 29, 2007 7:57 PM:Clinton's vote for the Leiberman-Kyl Resolution has done it for me. As a life-long Dem, even if she is the nominee, I simply will not vote. Her vote on this measure is just unacceptable. All the lip service to the approach of diplomacy and collaboration w/Europe, etc. flies out the window. She is indeed Bush Lite.
Never, never will I vote for her.
What are all these Progressive Voices who ignore Dennis Kucinnich? He's the ONLY one consistently standing up for ALL our Progressive Values. He's the only one speaking Truth to Power. He's the only Public Figure to address this issue as prologue to War with Iran!
What will it take for you to wake up? A pretty face does not a Leader make! Support the one who will lead this Country in the direction we want to go and he WILL be Electable.
