Kyl/Lieberman votes--can we discuss it (reasonably)? No candidate bashing, if possible.

It's a major issue in reference to the Dem prez candidates, but let's try to blind ourselves regarding GE 2008 if possible.

I know it's non-binding. I know it's not directly a call to attack Iran. I know some (but to me, not nearly enough) of the offensive language was struck out of it. Yet some of our major Democratic players in the senate DIDN'T vote for it, for which I personally applaud them. Even two prominent Republicans didn't vote for it.

I'd even give a pass to the "ayes" IF:

A)We DIDN'T have a megalomaniac chickenhawk in the WH, not to mention hordes of his enablers and billions of tax-exempt think tank money pulling his strings;

and

B)We didn't have the history of the IWR, which, at the time, also seemed rather benign for the most part, but--see point A.

Reference: Nay votes
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)

I promise that I will, however I MAY (not will, I'm a proud yella-dawg) have to hold my nose, vote for the Dem in 11/08. The alternative is unthinkable to me (my state is becoming an ever-more swinging one).

But how could the majority of Democrats roll over on this one? Maybe I don't understand something, but I'm trying. Please help, if you would.

Edit: swinging, not swining. Except for our state legislature, but...

teeth are capped. The Iranian Guards may suffer attacks, but this goes back to our hostages, I'm afraid.

Dubya will use the vote to excuse doing what he wants. He will continue his contempt for Congress and will ignore its intent, as well as its words in bills enacted. Congress will continue to wimp out and not effectively challenge him.

we have ample evidence to the contrary.

just about anyone else, I'd be somewhat less concerned.

With this guy--there aren't any accidents coming out of the neocon think tanks...

I fear there may be more violence, but there hasn't been a declaration of war against Iran and you won't see one. Stopping the executive is another matter and we may have to wait until the next election.

where there was a "declaration of war" against Iraq? Just curious...

the same thing as an official Congressional Declaration of War. The legality of the use of an AUMF vs. an official declaration has been in dispute since it was first introduced. The United States has never declared war on Iraq.

No, we're not at war with Iraq - and never were - but that's quite irrelevant.

that by calling any group a terrorist organization gives Shrub and friends carte blanche to go after them. No amendment can stop that.

the wording of it is very carefully crafted and NOT to promote a diplomatic initiative.

I could've sworn I responded to someone on this topic earlier? :shrug:

copied and posted again only to discover it did take.

:shrug:

Reasonably, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment blames Iran for the violence in Iraq, and call them a bunch of terrorists.

It's the moral and intellectual equivalent of Congress passing an amendment before the Iraq War that declares that Iraq conclusively has WMDs, and caused 9-11.

So I don't see how, as a reasonable person, I'd piss on these people if they were on fire, let alone vote for them.

For that matter, why did two very prominent Republicans vote "nay" as well?

Not one of them. There simply is no excusing it. :shrug: If, as Pitt suggests, this was all about "politics" -- something I agree with -- then what they did was obscene. Playing "politics" with something as serious as labeling the standing army of a country "terrorists" at a time you have a truly evil admnistration intent on attacking that very country is beyond reprehensible. I have no words to fully describe the disgust I feel about what they have done.

I can understand a bit of politics mixed with genuine principles, but this? The kind of "politics" these people play I have no use for.

If Bush decides to attack Iran, this resolution will have jack shit to do with that decision. This resolution was designed to force Democrats to either piss off their base or give the Republicans fodder to attack them for being weak on "national security".

That said, this resolution is counterproductive at a time when we should be reaching out to Iran and attempting to settle our differences.