What about the Kyl-Lieberman ammendment AS PASSED was objectionable?

Please provide specific objectionable text. Posting things such as "It gives Bush authority to go to war with Iran" is neither accurate nor useful.

Thanks.

as the root cause of the citizen uprising in Iraq.

It showed me that even Democrats in the Senate are still buying the lies the administration keeps feeding them.

" . . . Many of the arms and weapons that kill and maim our soldiers are coming from across the Iranian border . . . "

and on and on and on

" . . .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 . . . "

Iraq is an absolute clusterfuck, with the primary violence now being a power struggle between Shi'a militias (some of which are indeed supported by the IRGC), and with a dozen other undercurrents, from Sunni nationalism to al-Anbar tribal leadership intrigue to Kurdish separatists to paranoid local-defense militias to ethnic cleansing.

... a terrorist organization can, arguably, serve the same purpose as the text which was removed. Besides, the conventional wisdom "knows" what the bill was about, and they also know it passed. Like the IWR, it has served it's purpose in suppressing outrage over our buildup.

in order to apply economic leverage. What's wrong with that?

Do you disagree they are engaged in terrorism?

... everywhere they may be found.

So now the Iran army are terrorists. Even GW can make this logical step

Hmm, let's see... there is this,

"that it is a vital 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;"

This declares the goings on inside Iraq the VITAL NATIONAL INTEREST of the United States. Meaning, it is OUR BUSINESS to continuing sticking our noses into other people's countries and telling them how to run it.

Or this...

"that it should be the policy of the United States to stop inside Iraq the violent activities and destabilizing influence of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies."

This provison does not limit the policy to the Iraqi borders. It states that the GOAL is to stop violence inside Iraq, but leaves open the possibility (via omission) that to achieve such goals, one might have to look OUTSIDE the borders.

and this...

"to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States National power inside Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments in support of the policy with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies."

Again, it talks about using the power INSIDE IRAQ, but not where that power COULD BE DIRECTED. By the reading of this, one could launch an attack FROM INSIDE IRAQ to IRAN and still be within the directions.

and then of course... this doosie...


"that the United States should designate the 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"


Now, we have designated a soverign government's entire army a terrorist organization.

Those shilling for Clinton are getting pretty thin in their defenses of this, when it is so obvious... Its like those loonie tunes who continue to try and claim that the IWR wasn't a declaration of war on its face. All you need to do is read the text to understand it.

Original Amendment
(3) 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;

Revised Amendment
(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to stop inside Iraq the violent activities and destabilizing influence of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies.

Clearly, the language was changed to emphasize stopping the activities inside Iraq, not going into Iran.

One could easily argue that IN ORDER TO STOP THE ACTION IN IRAQ, on needs to GO INTO IRAN.

Which was what laid the groundwork for the Iraq war.

The amendment relies heavily on the Petraeus report as evidence of Iran's involvement in Iraq. That, I believe, is wrong. It's fairly obvious that the Petraeus report has been heavily influenced by the white house, and neither Petraeus nor the white house have produced concrete evidence of that assistance. And no, detaining Iranian diplomatic staff is not "proof" of anything except the fact that Iran has had diplomatic relations with Iraq.

The amendment would also provide Congressional backing for the designation of Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.

I believe that this is a bad move and it sets a worse precedent. The Guard, whose size is estimated between 125,000 and 180,000, operates as an elite branch of the army with expertise not only in military affairs but in construction, transportation and business. This would be akin to saying that the Army Corps of Engineers is a terrorist organization; it's wrong, it's stupid, and it's very, very, provocative.


U.S. and British Military intelligence officers, commanders and civilian officials have expressed doubt that EFPs and other armaments in the hands of Shiites have actually come from Iran or that Iranian Quds force personnel have been involved in the supply.
This is a link that the Petraeus and the white house have insisted exists, and there is little concrete proof of the claim. It sounds, in fact, a lot like the WMD claim.

There is, in fact, a lot more evidence that these bombs are being manufactured in Iraq. (See http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/27143)

The Bush administration is eager to go to war, to promote their agenda and to obtain as much of the world's oil as possible. These actions are another step along the road.

I want to make it clear that Clark is completely against the administration's policy (or I should say, lack of diplomatic policy), but unlike you he does accept the reality of arms going from Iran to Iraq.


Do you believe that the Iranians are supplying terrorists in Iraq with weapons?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Absolutely, and not only supplying terrorists with weapons but they're also doing everything they can to gain influence inside Iraq.

http://securingamerica.com/node/2275

What's needed is real diplomacy. At least this amendment said something about that at the end, but I'd like to see a stronger push for diplomacy from the Congress.

That said, a lot of folks are making more out of this amendment than is there. It's now IWR vote.

Stronger diplomacy is the key. This wasn't the greatest resolution in the world, but it was no IWR vote. Not even close.

Iran doesn't have a national interest in what type of country forms on their borders?

If WE have the right to decide what type of country forms 10,000 miles away, why doesn't Iran have the same right?

but apart from that, there's more than a little evidence that a lot of the parts and pieces are being assembled inside Iraq from parts either manufactured there or provided by Hizbollah in Lebanon. That's a very round-about route. If they intended to provide arms to Iraq, why not do it directly?

It is the sense of the Senate that " . . . (3) 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 . . . "

or this

It is the sense of the Senate that " . . . (4) 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 policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies; . . . "


Are those not objectionable. . . . and give junior the authority to go to war?

UPDATE Before the vote today, changes were made to the original amendment, with paragraphs three and four taken out completely. This paragraph was also added at the end:

“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.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/26/breaking-lieberman-kyls-iran-amendment-passes/

My source still had them in . . . and included the a statement that they were included in what was submitted

http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2007/09/kyl-lieberman-amendment-on-iran-passes.html

And therein lies the problem.

(2) that it is a vital 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;

Fully agree with that...how could it not be in our national interest? What we need is more diplomacy.

The fact that YOU fully agree with that and that Clinton fully agrees with that is EXACTLY the problem.

It is not in our vital national interest at all what happens in Iraq. The fact that some people here want to make us THINK that is, is the game the politicians play.

(5) that the United States should designate the 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;

Yes, we should.

Executive Order 13224

In general terms, the Order provides a means by which to disrupt the financial support network for terrorists and terrorist organizations by authorizing the U.S. government to designate and block the assets of foreign individuals and entities that commit, or pose a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism. In addition, because of the pervasiveness and expansiveness of the financial foundations of foreign terrorists, the Order authorizes the U.S. government to block the assets of individuals and entities that provide support, services, or assistance to, or otherwise associate with, terrorists and terrorist organizations designated under the Order, as well as their subsidiaries, front organizations, agents, and associates.

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/2002/16181.htm

This is EXACTLY the same path.

The amenment concludes:

"Clearly, the diplomatic and economic approach is the one we are pursuing."

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/kyl-lieberman.pdf

Personally, I would like to see a stronger sense of the Senate resolution emphasizing diplomacy (and I hope there will be), but I think the significance of this amenment is being way overblown by political partisans. It's nothing at all the like IWR Edwards sponsored.

First you declare them renegades and a threat, you label them.. then you use the labeling later to justify war.

Do you think the IWR voted for by Clinton wasn't build on the 1997 Iraq resolution?

THAT is disturbing.

See what JIM WEBB (a military expert) said on the Senate floor and Hardball yesterday.

which is the same as fighting Iran.

Declaring Iran's military a terrorist group certainly doesn't help. Especially considering if we judged ourselves by the same standard, we would have to declare our military, or at least our defense contractors who have been selling arms to insurgents, as terrorists. Bush can attack Iran already, for up to 60 days without congressional approval. If Bush frames an attack on Iran as "combating a terrorist group that operates within Iraq" it will be much easier to sell an attack to the public, and if our leading presidential candidate is echoing this kind of saber-rattling, it makes it much harder to stop.