Aren't you glad Hillary voted for the Kyle /Lieberman amendment?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080113/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_mideast

"Bush says US, allies must confront Iran

ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates - President Bush said Sunday that Iran is threatening the security of the world, and that the United States and Arab allies must join together to confront the danger "before it's too late."

Haven't I seen this movie before?

don't forget "35 years of change."

it would be 100% justified.

Pre-emptive strikes are all the rage ya know.

Obama didn't have the balls to vote on it at all.....

We are so screwed.

but at least I know where she stands - and since Obama couldn't be bothered to vote I'll have to assume where he stands and I don't like either her vote or his non vote - which was my point....

and maybe Gore would reconsider?

when he publicly said he was against it?

If Obama thinks it's ok to claim to be against something while not voting against it, then he's afraid to put himself on record when it could come back to burn him.

You're trying a little to hard to contrive reasons to be angry at Obama.

I was just surprised to see you saying it was ok for him not to vote and claim he was against it after the fact.

Hell, I could run for president and win on those rules.

This is exactly what is wrong with Obama AND Clinton - they politically posture EVERY FREAKING THING - now they are certainly not the only ones

BUT Clinton most likely voted YES because at the time she thought she was a shoe in for the nomination and was looking towards the general and wanted to be seen as STRONG

Obama - didn't bother to vote because then he doesn't have to be accountable for this either in the primaries or the general

Biden and Dodd seemed to be able to vote NO and their votes probably weren't the deciding vote either

Give me a break - these freainkg pathetic politicians need to TAKE A FRIGGIN STAND and then defend their positions and live with it....

I am SO sick of these people standing for nothing but election

how many Senate votes Edwards missed the last time he ran. Missed votes happen when someone runs for President.

There were four Senators running for President at the time of this vote. Three of those Senators were able to make it to the vote and Obama couldn't seem to manage it. Personally I think he did it deliberately for political reasons

Look we basically have three choices - we all have to make our own decisions based on what is important to us - Clinton's yes vote and Obama's not voting annoyed the crap out of me - BUT this is not the only deciding factor - basically I think there is VERY little difference between Obama and Clinton - I also have a SERIOUS concern that either one can be elected in this country - and I hope that Edwards' rhetoric will match his actions. Best I can do.....

in the area

She already used the "I was misled" excuse with the IWR, she couldn't use that excuse with Kyle/Lieberman amendment

but, if I take your argument that she was doing purely on political reasons, then that makes it even worse than Obama's sitting it out. What that says is she will even advocate war on the same basis as the IWR, if she perceives that as helping her career

Nothing stopped her from voting no, or doing what Obama did. She made a choice

is worse than sitting it out IF Obama sat it out for purely political reasons too....which I suspect he did....

and still claims to be against it!

Hillary clearly on the wrong side here.

Obama was also wrong for not standing up to the pro war monkeys.

Neither are worthy of my support at this time.

Kucinich and Edwards are the only candidates I will consider supporting.

as my Mother always taught me talk is CHEAP and actions speak LOUDER than words - If he didn't want me to assume then he should have taken his SORRY butt to the Capitol and VOTE....

She was misled! Or, to put it in proper temporal frame, will have been misled.

that she just didn't know Bush would abuse the authority to attack Iraq. Then what are we to think now? If she didn't learn he will abuse authority, she is stupid, but she isn't stupid.

There won't be another vote before war with Iran. Clinton authorized it.

But she won't be asked about it.

Yes, the Kyle/Lieberman amendment declares that we will stay in Iraq indefinitely as long as Iran is perceived a threat. It represents the view of those that voted for it, but the problem goes back to the IWR. The Iraq War Resolution effectively over-rides the War Powers Act. The IWR allows bush to invade any country without Congressional oversight

The War Powers Act would have required after 60 days of comitting armed forces to a country one of three actions:

1. Congress declare war
2. Congress bring the troops home
3. Congress extend for one more month for clean up operations

Makes me wonder after all we have been through, why no one has tried to repeal the IWR?

I doubt it will even happen if the Democrats win in 2008, but it should

the Iraqi invasion.

When the administration can't get what they want, they use what they have. K-L is all they have, they don't need prior approval before an attack, this give the dressing they need to claim Congressional support. Congress knew what they were doing, where the vote would lead, which is precisely the reason they passed it.

before actual force was used?

You are correct, they didn't need approval before the attack, HOWEVER, the War Powers Act would have kicked in 60 days after we entered Iraq, and Congress then could have directly become involved

Unfortunately, the IWR overrode the War Powers Act, and that is pretty close to unforgivable. In fact it is a DIRECT INSULT to all who lost their lives in the Viet Nam war

But Bush justified the war with 1441, although it was a lie. KL will be enough for an attack on Iran.

it is so critical that the IWR be repealed in my view

authorization. It was specifically amended to make sure it wasn't a war authorization. How can Bush now claim it was intended to authorize war?

The Kyle/Lieberman amendment will be used to bolster the argument not to remove troops from Iraq. If they go into Iran, they will do it on the basis of the IWR

If they attack before the Democratic candidate is decided, they will not use it. All bets are off once the continuation of the policy is insured.

flavors of pro war next November, it can't get more ironic than that.

Overwhelming public opinion opposes the wars we have, much less expansion, bu the choice will be between two candidates who favor expansion of war.

definitely take the position of expansion

If the choice is between Obama and Clinton, we know from her voting record where she stands

Obama is an unknown based on his voting record, and Edwards has said he screwed up on the IWR, and he wouldn't make that mistake again.

So it comes down in the primaries with regard to the top 3 leading candidates, someone who voted for the Kyle/Lieberman bill which calls for our permanent presence in Iraq as long as Iran is considered a threat, and two other choices who didn't vote on that bill

It may be admirable that Hillary was so honest voting for that bill, but I will choose between the other two, because there is still a chance with them that we will get out of Iraq sooner than later

HT

for whatever reason, Our leaders in Congress are in favor of invading Iran and anyone else who has oil and strategic value as an occupied zone.

Nancy Pelosi has told us to fuck off and let the "adults" do their job, which seems to be supporting Bushco in wrecking the world.

The next few years will be very interesting, IMO. The Military Commisions Act of 2006 is still in play, in blatant violation of the Constitution, as well as other "laws" that allow them to arrest without charge or spy on us without oversight.

Reality is a bitch, some days.

we all know how Hill feels about AIPAC. Priority over us....

http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/news/statements/record.cfm?id=268474

wrote it, and specifically Clinton voted for it, which implies that she must subscribe to what was in that amendment, along with the others who voted for it

The question then becomes, does the American Public believe that are for policy should involve pre-emptive unending war?

If the Democrats win big in 2008, the first thing they should do is repeal the IWR

I am not going to hold my breath

Tool


noun 1. an implement, esp. one held in the hand, as a hammer, saw, or file, for performing or facilitating mechanical operations.
2. any instrument of manual operation.
3. the cutting or machining part of a lathe, planer, drill, or similar machine.
4. the machine itself; a machine tool.
5. anything used as a means of accomplishing a task or purpose: Education is a tool for success.
6. a person manipulated by another for the latter's own ends; cat's-paw.

Right after Kyl-Lieberman passed, The Pentagon says Iran stopped aiding the Iraqi insurgency. Its possible the Iranians were aiding and stopped because of Kyl-Lieberman. Its also possible that the Iranians never were aiding the insurgency but the Pentagon could no longer support Bush's lies because with authorization they'd be forced to produce something.

Either way, the number two reason Bush was using to sell war with Iran was Iranian interference in Iraq. That excuse evaporated within less than a month from the time Kyl-Lieberman passed.

Since then, he's lost the nuke argument too.

Bush isn't going to get us into a war with Iran now. He'll get no support at all. He can play tapes of speedboats and try to convince Arab nations that Iran helping a neighboring nation defend itself against Israel is a valid reason to start WWIII. It will do him no good. He can't come up with a case for war.

the bill to insure it would really work.

Absolute, unabridged, unqualified, nonsense. When the inevitable war begins, you will claim that the facts are unrelated, they did all they could (deep sigh). It is an insult to anyone who watches to claim that the vote was anything but a prelude to, another, war.

These neocons are beside themselves in blood-lust.