NYT: Clinton’s Iran Vote: The Fallout

(September 19, 2007) SENATORS Joe Biden and Chris Dodd voted against it. Senator Barack Obama said he would have voted against it if he had voted. Former Senator John Edwards implied he would have voted against it if he could vote.

And Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton? She voted in favor of the measure in question, which asked the Bush administration to declare Iran’s 125,000-member Revolutionary Guard Corps a foreign terrorist organization. Such a move — more hawkish than even most of the Bush administration has been willing to venture so far — would intensify America’s continuing confrontation with Iran, many foreign policy experts say.

By supporting the bill — sponsored by Senators Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Jon Kyl of Arizona — Mrs. Clinton is also solidifying crucial support from the pro-Israel lobby.

But Mrs. Clinton has come under withering criticism for her vote from many Democrats, who say she is implicitly supporting what they see as an attempt by the administration to build a case for war with Iran. And her vote has also set off a debate among foreign policy experts about how best to put pressure on Iran, with some of them saying that Mrs. Clinton, along with a big majority of the Senate, has gone too far.

Think of it as Iran declaring that the United States military is a terrorist organization because it carries out President Bush’s orders. Such a move, say some Iran experts — including some advisers to the Clinton campaign who declined to publicly criticize their possible boss — runs the risk of further alienating the Iranian population, because many Iranians are tied to the Revolutionary Guard or its many offshoots and enterprises in some way.

“What Senator Clinton and the other legislators who voted for this bill don’t seem to realize is that the Revolutionary Guards are not Al Qaeda,” said Karim Sadjapour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “They’re not a group of voluntary jihadists signing up to fight the United States. Many are conscripts taken from the regular army.”

Mr. Sadjapour, an Iranian-American, and some other experts argue that the rank and file of the Revolutionary Guard are far more representative of Iranian society than most Americans realize. So labeling Iran’s elite fighters as terrorists is a move that is more likely to drive the Iranian population closer to the hard-liners in Tehran.

Even within the Bush administration, there is debate about whether designating the entire Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization is a good idea. While some White House officials and some members of Vice President Dick Cheney’s staff have been pushing to blacklist the whole Revolutionary Guard, administration officials said, officials at the State and Treasury Departments have been pushing a narrower approach that would list only the Revolutionary Guard’s elite Quds Force and, perhaps, companies and organizations with financial ties to that group.

The designation would make it easier for the United States to block financial accounts and other assets controlled by the group. But most of America’s partners in a big diplomatic effort to rein in Tehran’s nuclear ambitions don’t like the idea at all, arguing that it might hamstring any number of business ventures with Iran. In addition, some European diplomats argue that the move could further alienate the Iranian population.

Read the entire article at
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/weekinreview/14cooper.html?em&ex=1192420800&en=87d744f5888a74ce&ei=5087%0A

Could this be Hillary's Katrina moment?

would be the most popular so he can jump on the other candidates who voted. You know...while he sat on the sidelines so he could straddle the fence.
Good job Obama. Sit on the sidelines and see what everybody else will do and then slur and bash those whose vote seems to be unpopular. ha ha ha what a president he would make ha ha ha

Reid had previously told Obama, don't worry, the vote won't be at x time, and so Obama goes out of D.C., and then Reid decides, ok, we'll have the vote at x time..

...and now it's all some scheme by Obama to stay on the sidelines.

Just like all the candidates serving in the Senate, their FIRST and PRIMARY duty is to the people who voted them in. Not out campaigning. It's easy to say how you would have voted when you don't have to put an official vote out. Or how you might have voted if you were still in the Senate to vote. Woulda, coulda, shoulda. But, Didja?

Obama should just stop campaigning and make sure he's at the Senate for votes when he's been told by his Majority Leader there won't be any, right? That's what a Good Senator does apparently.

We're paying him to be a Senator, not a campaigner.

And yes, the same is true for all of the other current
government empolyees who are flitting about the country
and *NOT* doing the people's business.

Tesha

But like I said. You people don't care, and in the first place, I answered only to present a fact, not to advocate. To hell with advocacy. I don't want anything to do with advocacy.

If you're wondering why they can't just ban him from campaigning, well, the First Amendment trumps Senate rules.

> But like I said. You people don't care, ...

"You people"? Which "people" is that?

He can campaign all he wants, he just ought not be
collecting a *BIG* Senatorial salary and benefits
package while he does it. We elected all these folks
to *DO THEIR JOB*, not to interview for a promotion.

If you or I tried this, we'd be handed our walking
papers double quick.

Tesha

Seriously where do you guys dream this shit up?

> Seriously where do you guys dream this shit up?

I have a proposition for you:

Tell your boss you're taking the next year-and-a-half
off from your job to campaign for some political
position. But also tell him you expect to continue
receiving your full salary and benefits.

Let me know if you don't get laughed right out of
your boss's office.

Tesha

So, just admit it.

And, as I recall, he lost, although I suppose it's
some small solace to some that he's still a Senator.

Tesha

It was important to be a part of keeping money out of Bush's hands to continue the war, so they campaigned instead of voting. I am proud that my boy Dennis Kucinich was one of the 13 democrats that tried to stop it. Dennis seems to be doing all the right things but democratic voters don't seem to notice? I'm happy to see Ron Paul getting some support from the republican voters though, it shows that they are finally seeing what their politicians have been doing for the people...nothing. When more democratic voters wake up and see the games that are being played, maybe then they will see what Kucinich is trying to do for our country. I hope its not too late because if they keep attacking the constitution, we may not get another election after this one?

Here is a link that shows what candidates really want to end the war, you know the war that so many here on DU ACT like they want to end.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=237751

S. 970: Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007

SEC. 16. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

(d) List of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury shall report to the appropriate congressional committees on the efforts of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury to place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) and 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

This "Act" was voted on and passed in April of 2007. This section of THAT bill has conditions. I've emboldened the language that applies. It calls for designations of Foreign Terrorist Organizations within 6 months of passage of this "ACT".

So, 180 days from April of 2007 is October of 2007. Here comes the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment. Full Text here.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/kyl-lieberman-amendment/?resultpage=1&

When you reach page 8... you see where sections # 3 and # 4 have been stricken from the proposal, which may have been interpreted to mean authority to go to war with Iran. You also see specifically The Iranian Revolutionary Guard has been mentioned as the Terrorist Organization.

If sections #3 and #4 had not been stricken from the proposal and for the record; we'd be in a peck of trouble. I have to say this. Had Sen Clinton NOT taken her job seriously and NOT been on the job (in the senate that day) instead campaigning somewhere in a primary state. There was a clear and present danger those two sections may have slipped in on the next to the last page of this Amendment without much objection or notice.

This is just another reason why Sen Hillary Clinton is the best choice for the next presidency. Her due diligence is what is needed for the betterment of our country in the most expeditious way. Hillary takes her job seriously and most importantly shows up in the senate. She knows whats going on and casts her vote accordingly, whether you agree with her or not.

See Link:

Just so you know...Obama's Voting Record IS "POOR" ..in relation to his Peers!

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400629

If he can't handle 2 simple tasks, voting and campaigning. What makes you think he can handle a presidency fraught with decision making all day long...

Now you're just spamming the board with that cut n' paste crap.

What you call cut-and paste is original paperwork and official links..

That's spam, by any definition you choose to use.
That's spam and that means it shouldn't be pasted into every single thread you post in.

That's all I'm saying.

which is not an unusual occurrence at DU.

I knew it.

Mr. O'Slick even amazes his senate colleagues with the BS excuses he comes up with for his failure to discharge his duties.

His last debate performance was deemed sub-par because he had the......"snwiffles"!

Yet, the next day he was all smiles at his LAST BIG rally in NYC...

come to believe that her motive is suspect.

It's probably equally legally binding (i.e. not at all), but Iran's House equivalent really did do that, so we don't have to imagine it. It happened, in response to the Senate resolution.

thanks...

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RV8H100&show_article=1

Lots of links to it off Google when I searched but, I skipped the Fox News one...

For a change, Diplomacy is in full bloom:

here is the result of the KLA:

"The U.S. legislative push came a day after Ahmadinejad told world leaders at the U.N. General Assembly that his country would defy attempts to impose new sanctions by "arrogant powers" seeking to curb its nuclear program, accusing them of lying and imposing illegal penalties on his country.

He said the nuclear issue was now "closed" as a political issue and Iran would pursue the monitoring of its nuclear program "through its appropriate legal path," the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog."

DAMN! "... won't get fooled again." :eyes: :thumbsdown:

The Democrats demanded diplomacy. The Neocons were going to war no matter what we did.

To add insult to injury, the act of voting A SECOND TIME TO enable war criminals to resort to pre-emptive attacks on a sovereign nation... well, it sort-of casts a dark shadow on one's credibility. :eyes:

and instead beat the same old drum of misinformation?

Read this an educate yourself...

Bush Aides Say Iraq War Needs No Hill Vote

Some See Such Support As Politically Helpful

By Mike Allen and Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, August 26, 2002; Page A01

Lawyers for President Bush have concluded he can launch an attack on Iraq without new approval from Congress, in part because they say that permission remains in force from the 1991 resolution giving Bush's father authority to wage war in the Persian Gulf, according to administration officials.

At the same time, some administration officials are arguing internally that the president should seek lawmakers' backing anyway to build public support and to avoid souring congressional relations. If Bush took that course, he still would be likely to assert that congressional consent was not legally necessary, the officials said.

Whatever the White House decides about its obligations under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, some House and Senate leaders appear determined to push resolutions of support for ousting Iraqi President Saddam Hussein when Congress returns after Labor Day because they consider the issue too grave for Congress to be sidestepped. Administration officials say privately that military strikes against Hussein's regime are virtually inevitable, although all the specifics have not been decided and action is not imminent.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61040-2002Aug25?language=printer

...

I hope that was a joke, but I've decided not to care if you were serious, sorry.

I provided the link for your information. That's all.

So, in essence, the word is devoid of any meaning other than that of the amorphous ENEMY? :shrug:

Here I thought that our God sent "War on Terrorism" was going so damn well. :(

Corruption is at the root of the all of our problems. And the only way to stop the corruption is to stop taking the money from that special interests because it is the money from the special interests, the bankers, the HMOs, the pharmaceuticals, the energy industry, the military industrial complex, etc. that causes the corruption.

Hillary takes money from the special interests. A vote for Hillary is a vote to continue the corruption. That is why I oppose Hillary. A vote for Hillary is a vote for corruption. She can't say "No" because she is being paid to say "Yes." When will people understand this. A vote for Hillary is a vote for more of the same.

Hillary will never enforce the law against the Bushies. If she is elected, the Bushies will just keep on going without ever answering for their crimes before a court of law. A vote for Hillary is a vote to continue the crimes of the Bush administration.

we specialize in truth here. Could you back up your allegations with links...and a firm conclusion based on fact? Where your evidence is overwhelming beyond a shadow of a doubt? I'm from the North East. Convince me!

Bill and now Hilary has co-opted or just plain adopted most any right wing position there ever was. Some of the biggest problems with the Democratic party today is this one sided compromising and triangularization that often neuters and mutes positions to oblivion. If you want more oblivion please assist the Royalty of the Clinton x(

could you provide the definition of Triangulation?

The Clintons are the best weapon the republicans have at keeping America divided. Having fact and slogan being able to interchange without pause often tells me the people who practice that same ritual are often just not reasoning very well The classic example of doing the same thing and expecting a different result is what passes for politics in the US. Having presidents for more than six years, or having an incentive for another term because those presidents are good at jobbing people is a bad idea. Bill Clinton jobbed a lot of people in his second term and most are not willing to admit it. This other idea of having some part of the ex-president's near family serve in same office as well is even worse if you haven't noticed

There are many more examples in this article about the triangulation thing but this one seems a little more to that particular point of this thread

Dems Driving Triangulation "Over the Dead Bodies" of the Progressive Movement
Posted May 20, 2007
(snip)
IRAQ - POTENTIAL TRIANGULATION TO KEEP THE WAR GOING

Finally, Iraq - the big issue that helped Democrats win in 2006. The Associated Press reports that congressional Democratic leaders may be backing away from using their power to oppose the war, floating the possibility of an Iraq War supplemental bill that "would allow the president to waive compliance with a deadline for troop withdrawals." The New York Times says that the "likelihood that any final agreement will specify no withdrawal date for American troops from Iraq raised the possibility that antiwar Democrats will not support it, particularly in the House, and that the measure will need substantial Republican support to pass."

TRIANGULATION STRATEGY: The dynamics set up a situation whereby the Democratic congressional leadership would join with all Republicans to ram a blank check Iraq spending bill through Congress potentially over the objections of many of rank-and-file Democrats and the progressive movement.

***

Where is the motivation for triangulation coming from? As MacArthur says, at least some of it comes from money -- especially the issues like trade and corruption that deal directly with Wall Street's power over the Democratic Party. But I'd also say it comes from the psychology of those who the Democratic Party elders in Washington have grown used to listening to. Remember, Washington is a place dominated by David Broderism -- that is, the religion that says bipartisanship for bipartisanship's sake should be the ultimate goal of politics, regardless of the policies being pushed in bipartisanship's name. The Democratic Party - far more than the Republican Party -- often seems to play to the opinions of the David Broder, rather than the opinions of the vast majority of the American people.
(snip)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/dems-driving-triangulatio_b_48907.html

non-binding or not.

it does create a pathway for committing some kind of military action against iran.

was unknowing instrument to cause her embarrassment.

Say it ain't so.

Oh wait, she was duped by those two president guys too wasn't she?

The queen of good judgment and common sense. :eyes:

If you are a voter and are looking for more war and death and spiraling costs, then you have a clear, consistent candidate. Hillary Clinton has proved she would rather give Bush his chance to make a mark in American history as the worst president ever.

Clinton understands what war is...and she loves it.

Hillary Clinton is kicking Obama's ass nationwide!

Check the polls for verification.

This is from the comments section, link below



http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/14/410530.aspx

I agree, I cannot wait for the actual voting to start, then we will know.

nice... :rofl:

Not much. As expected.

And I'm enjoying the spin that Obama was surprised by the vote - but hardly any other Senator was.
Maybe with experience, he'll be "surprised" less often...

Not the OP.

And the statement you quote IS spin. I do not think CLinton wants to go to war with Iran, at least I hope she doesn't. But I do think that this vote was made with an eye to the general election, another of her many attempts to look tough and combat the alleged perception that she may not be strong enough in combating terrorism, etc. because she is a woman. It's another example of political positioning rather than strong opinions and principles.

Moreover, I am very apprehensive of what this need to be perceived as tough, which will NOT end once she is in office, may lead to if she is indeed elected.

I think I've got a new bumper sticker, by gum.

Lieberman is Obama's #1 mentor...