Hill's Vote For Kyl-Lieberman Resolution HELPED LEGITIMIZE Bush policy towards Iran!

That is why Sen Clinton was WRONG to vote for it. Everything about that amendment was wrong and based on neo-con fantasies written by AIPAC. God help us all....

<snip>


Among the more fantastic charges that Bush made against Iran was that its government was actively arming and helping the Taliban in southern Afghanistan. In fact, the Taliban are extremist Sunnis who hate, and have killed large numbers of Shiites. Shiite Iran is unlikely to support them. The neo-Taliban are a threat to the Karzai government, which represents the Northern Alliance (Tajiks, Hazara and Uzbeks) along with non-Taliban Pushtuns. The Hazara are Shiite clients of Iran, and both the Tajiks and the Uzbeks are close to Tehran. The neo-Taliban are being supported by Pakistan, which resents the Northern Alliance, not by Iran, which favors it.

That Iran is trying to destabilize the Shiite government in Baghdad is absurd. The Bush administration charge that Iran is the source of explosively formed projectiles is based on very little evidence and flies in the face of common sense; in fact these bombs are probably made in Iraq itself or perhaps come from Hizbullah in Lebanon.

The charges are frankly ridiculous, and certainly are so if proportionality is taken into account. That is, if one bomb was sold by an Iranian arms dealer to the Taliban for profit, a hundred bombs were given to the Taliban by Pakistan for tactical reasons. Likewise, the Shiite militias in Iraq have killed very few American troops when the US troops have left the Shiites alone; most attacks on the US come from Sunni Arabs.

The Senate Kyl-Lieberman resolution helped legitimize this new Bush policy, which is why the senators should not have voted for it. It took us one more step down the road to war with Iran.

http://www.juancole.com/labels/Iran.html


Anti-Iran hawks win partial victory
By Jim Lobe

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/II29Ak01.html

<snip>

In fact, the first call for cross-border attacks on Iranian targets was made by the Senate's "independent" Democrat, Joseph Lieberman, who is regarded as particularly close to the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Indeed, it was Lieberman and Republican Senator John Kyl - an honorary co-chair of the pro-Likud Committee on the Present Danger - who co-sponsored the Senate amendment naming the IRGC as a terrorist group in an effort clearly designed to help tilt the internal balance within the administration.

As introduced, the amendment, which according to several Capitol Hill sources was drafted by AIPAC, actually went considerably further, deploying language that some senators argued could be interpreted as authorizing war against Iran.

But Hillary supporters will tell you that you're misunderstanding her and her vote on this, just like we misunderstood her vote on the IWR:eyes: The flat out truth of the matter is that Hillary is a war monger and will keep us in Iraq and Iran for a long, long time. She doesn't give a rat's ass about the lives loss just so long as she appears "tough on defense". Playing politics with peoples' lives:puke:

warmonger indeed.

It's NON-BINDING!!!!!

:eyes:

fuck that "non-binding" shit. :grr:

Watch what happens when you add them together:

From the Iraq AUMF:

"(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations"

From Kyl/Lieberman:

"(5) that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization"

Military action against Iran is already authorized.

Hillary Clinton is so far off my radar now. She will never get my vote for any office.

:grr:

We are already in Iraq forever. The left needs to work hard to keep the neo-cons out of Iran.

exposing herself aligned with AIPAC and the neocons, I do not see how anyone can call her a Liberal! :argh:

It gives him a fig leaf.

terrorists aren't figs, friend.

Nevermind.

such things; I understand.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IJ27Ak05.html

Explosive charge blows up in US's face
By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON - When the United States military command accused the Iranian Quds Force in January of providing the armor-piercing EFPs (explosively formed penetrators) that were killing US troops, it knew that Iraqi machine shops had been producing their own EFPs for years, a review of the historical record of evidence on EFPs in Iraq shows.

The record also shows that the US command had considerable evidence that the Mahdi Army of Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr had received the technology and the training on how to use it from Hezbollah, rather than Iran.

The command, operating under close White House supervision, chose to deny these facts in making the dramatic accusation that became the main rationale for the present aggressive US stance toward Iran. Although the George W Bush administration initially limited the accusation to the Quds Force, it has recently begun to assert that top officials of the Iranian regime are responsible for arms that are killing US troops. (me: SO DOES HILLARY!)

British and US officials observed from the beginning that the EFPs being used in Iraq closely resembled the ones used by Hezbollah against Israeli forces in southern Lebanon, both in their design and the techniques for using them.

Hezbollah was known as the world's most knowledgeable specialists in EFP manufacture and use, having perfected this during the 1990s in the military struggle with Israeli forces in Lebanon. It was widely recognized that it was Hezbollah that had passed on the expertise to Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups after the second Intifada began in 2000.

:banghead:

It's really irresponsible for Hillary to repeat these charges when there has been no conclusive evidence presented.

The Mahdi Army is a splinter group that isn't controlled by either the Shi'a majority regime in Baghdad or by Tehran.

Again.

K&R

:puke:

PB

Unfortunately, 75 other Senators signed the same resolution. To her credit, she is a cosponsor of the Webb Bill.

The bottom line is the road to war is taken one step at a time, and this is headed in that direction.

Here's Hillary's statement after her Kyl-Lieberman vote: http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=284561&&

September 26, 2007

Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment


Washington, DC – “Earlier today, I voted for a non-binding resolution that designates the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. The Revolutionary Guards are deeply involved in Iran's nuclear program and have substantial links with Hezbollah.

“I voted for this resolution in order to apply greater diplomatic pressure on Iran. This resolution in no way authorizes or sanctions military action against Iran and instead seeks to end the Bush Administration's diplomatic inaction in the region.

“Iran has gained expanded influence in Iraq and the region as a result of the Bush Administration's polices which have also rejected diplomacy as a tool for addressing Iranian ambitions. While the United States has spurned talks, Iran has enhanced its nuclear enrichment capabilities, armed Iraqi Shiite militias, funneled arms to Hezbollah and subsidized Hamas, even as the government continues to damage its own citizens by mismanaging the economy and increasing political and social repression.

“I continue to support and advocate for a policy of entering into talks with Iran, because robust diplomacy is a prerequisite to achieving our aims.

“This legislation reaffirms my policy of engagement and refers specifically to the statement of Defense Secretary Gates who said that "diplomatic and economic means" are "by far the preferable approach" for dealing with the threat posed by Iran.

“In February, after troubling reports about the possibility of military action against Iran, I took to the Senate Floor to warn that President Bush needs Congressional Authorization before attacking Iran. Specifically, I said it would be a mistake of historical proportion if the Administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further and explicit Congressional authorization. Nor should the President think that the 2001 resolution authorizing force after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, in any way, authorizes force against Iran. If the Administration believes that any use of force against Iran is necessary, the President must come to Congress to seek that authority.

“Nothing in this resolution changes that.”

I didn't buy your bullshit the first go around, so don't think for a milli-second I could possibly be tricked by effort #2. :mad:

No more Clintons! No more Bushes! No more taking it in our tushes!

Can she really succeed by trying to walk both sides of the road at the same time?

If the fix is in (please convince me i'm wrong) Then she will.