Hillary Clinton To Co-Sponsor Webb Amendment on Iran

How do you mitigate the fall-out from voting Yes on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment that designated Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group?

From Taylor Marsh:

In March, James Webb introduced legislation demanding that the President seek congressional approval before striking Iran.

I've just learned that Senator Hillary Clinton will co-sponsor legislation with Webb and re-introduce it into the Senate.

To give you a sense of what the amendment will look like, here's the wording of Webb's original amendment:

Specifically, the amendment requires that the President seek congressional authorization prior to commencing any broad military action in Iran and it allows the following exceptions: First, military operations or activities that would directly repel an attack launched from within the territory of Iran. Second, those activities that would directly thwart an imminent attack that would be launched from Iran. Third, military operations or activities that would be in hot pursuit of forces engaged outside the territory of Iran who thereafter would enter Iran. And finally, those intelligence collection activities that have been properly noticed to the appropriate committees of Congress.

If anything demonstrates Clinton's sly ability to wage a general election campaign while waging a primary election campaign all as a sitting senator, it's this maneuver from Lieberman to Webb in a few short days.

Senator Clinton's statement announcing her co-sponsorship of the amendment is HERE.



Display:


Good... (2.00 / 1)

Edward's supporter, Obama supporters and everyone that hates her or did not agree with her vote on the Kyl Amendment will just say it is flip flop.

Well, it is not flip flop, and she is not having it both ways. She is being a United States Senator.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 06:29:34 PM EST

Re: Good... (none / 0)

She can't have it both ways. If she wants to be tough on terrorism. Fine. I can understand that.

However, the claim that she is doing her job as a senator, is bogus. She's a senator and a candidate for president. She needs to explain what the threat is in Iran. Frankly, I just don't understand her position. All this talk about war, makes people nervous.

and in case you didn't catch it..
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/1 0/1/112038/673


Dare to be free.
by misscee on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:12:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good... (2.00 / 1)

Seems clear to me...

She views Iran as a continuing sponsor of international terrorism, which is always a threat to the U.S. and it allies, hence her vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment...

But she does not view Iran as a current direct military threat to the U.S. or its allies, so co-sponsors legislation to forbid any military action in Iran unless the strict conditions in the Webb amendment are adhered too...


by SaveElmer on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:15:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good... (2.00 / 1)

She is not having it both ways. Here it is in simple form.

Clinton believes the Iranian Revolutionary Guard should be listed as a terrorist group. She does not believe we should wage war or rush to war with Iran. She believes the President needs explicit approval from the Congress to attack Iran. She believes in strong diplomacy to rein in Iran.

How is she having it both ways?


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:17:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good... (2.00 / 2)

You are aware that Obama and Dodd co-sponsored a bill earlier this year to declare the Iran Republican Guard a terrorist organization, right?  Does that make you uneasy about both Obama and Dodd?


by georgep on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:44:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good... (none / 0)

link


Dare to be free.
by misscee on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 05:56:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Triangulation (2.00 / 1)

Contradiction is so easy when people aren't paying attention.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyANKNUeE Yw


by jsamuel on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 06:31:33 PM EST

Re: Triangulation (2.00 / 1)

Point out the contradiction. I look forward hearing your spin


by world dictator on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 06:52:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Triangulation (none / 0)

She is an expert on this.  How did Obama let her get ahead of him on this?  He missed an opportunity.


I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:25:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Triangulation (none / 0)

 Easiest answer ever. Barack Obama is in the race to provide the illusion of competition, not to actually compete.

 He conveniently splits the anti-Hillary vote. That's his role.


by Master Jack on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 08:06:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Triangulation (none / 0)

For him to do that, there would have to be an actual sizeable anti-hillary vote. And there just isn't one.

The anti-hillary vote is 5% tops. (And I'm being extremely generous here) That would mean he takes away a full 2.5% from Edwards or any other Non-Hillary candidate. I don't think that matters all that much. Especially as he's reduces Hillary's percentages more then that.

Same with the support of Edwards. People support candidates because they like the candidate, not because they dislike another candidate.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 04:54:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Triangulation (none / 0)

 Huh???

 Hillary's polling 40, 45 per cent at best. The majority of Democrats would rather have someone else be the nominee.

 Obama's there to pretend he's an alternative.


by Master Jack on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 07:28:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Triangulation (none / 0)

Being undecided or for Edwards or Obama doesn't mean you're against Clinton.

There is a huge difference between the non-Clinton vote and the anti-Clinton vote. And you seem to confuse them.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 11:31:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

These two are in no way contradictory... (2.00 / 1)

It only becomes so when one accepts the netroots version of what Hillary voted for on the Kyl-Lieberman resolution...that is some kind of declaration of war in the form of a non-binding sense of the senate resolution with references to military action stripped out of it at the behest of Democrats...poppycock...

Hillary did not vote for war, did not vote to begin planning for war, and did not vote to give any authorization to Bush for such a purpose. The fact of the matter is Iran is a sponsor of international terrorism and for candidates to run on the opposite notion seems kind of dumb to me...

Hillary has made quite clear in all of her public statements, position papers, and votes that she is for direct diplomatic engagement with Iran and Syria, does not favor military action in Iran, and her support of Webb's proposal is a natural outgrowth of that...


by SaveElmer on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 06:49:28 PM EST

Re: These two are in no way contradictory... (none / 0)

I agree.

DerekaLarsson and Freaky Thristy will not agree with you though. Neither will rssrai I believe.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 06:53:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: These two are in no way contradictory... (2.00 / 1)

And on top of that. Everyone in the netroots who did complain about the Kyl-Lieberman bill were like "well if the bill specficially said the President has to get congressional approval in order to attack Iran it would be alright". And so Clinton listens and then many of those same people complain about her pandering or being inconsistent.

HA.


by world dictator on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 06:55:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: These two are in no way contradictory... (2.00 / 1)

It shows their hypocrisy, but they will deny it because they have a genuine hate for Clinton. They can't help it.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:02:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

no (2.00 / 1)


mitigate the fall-out

This is not to 'mitigate' anything. She's been very consistent on Kyl-Lieberman amendment. The real flip-floppers in tis progress are Obama and Dodd, especially Dodd. What a shameful pander. They co-sponsored non-binding Kyl-Lieberman amendment earlier, then suddently pulled the plug under the pressure from netroots. Shameful. No principal whatsoever.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 06:51:39 PM EST

Re: no (2.00 / 1)

You have it right. Hillary will make a vote to upset the base (liberman-kye) because she does not pander. She understands the threat of Iran  but she also understands the Pres has no credibility.


by dobied on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 06:54:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton To Co-Sponsor Webb Amendment o (2.00 / 2)

Even though people don't like President Bush That does not mean that Iran is not a problem. There is evidence there killing our troops and going to get a nuclear weapon. The problem is the president has no credibility and people think he is crying wolf. The senator from New York has it right. She leads.

Hillary/Webb 08


by dobied on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 06:52:38 PM EST

netroots (none / 0)

exactly. If netroots continue this sort of gocha politics, they're going to become even more irrelevant. No serious senator is going to be held hostage by dailykos on every single bill. It's completely ridiculous.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 06:54:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hang On (2.00 / 1)

I understand the intent of this legislation is to constrain the freedom of action of the executive on military action against Iran, which is admirable, but I have some reservations about the wisdom of doing so in this way on the following counts:

1) The exceptions stated specifically in the legislation seem to imply that Iraq is the sovereign state for which the criteria of exception apply; First, military operations or activities that would directly repel an attack launched from within the territory of Iran. Second, those activities that would directly thwart an imminent attack that would be launched from Iran. Third, military operations or activities that would be in hot pursuit of forces engaged outside the territory of Iran who thereafter would enter Iran.  Does this not formalise Iraq as quasi-sovereign US territory in terms of international law?  What is the status of Iraq vis a vis the US in terms of formal treaties of mutual defence or deterrence?  Is Iraqi territory now the dominion of the US for assessing belligerence by foreign powers?

2) If the conditions described in this legislation are met does not this actually authorise the military action it seeks to constrain?

3) The legislation fails to take into account the pre-approval of a pre-emptive nuclear strike by Congress under the authority of the SIOP and the National Command Authority which was considerably broadened in August 2006 to include rogue nuclear states who may not yet have achieved nuclear weapons capability.

4) Does this legislation, albeit intended to constrain the actions of the executive, not further legitimise the false perception that war with Iran is a likely or credible scenario?

5) Are we not further eroding the sovereignty of Iraq by making these declarations on their behalf?

I think we have to be careful in the current climate of public opinion to not get sucked into the narrowly held but widely reported view that Iran is a legitimate, current threat to the sovereignty of the US.


by Shaun Appleby on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 06:52:54 PM EST

Re: Hang On (none / 0)

Again just because you don't like Bush does not me Iran is good. Don't forget Iran took down Carters presidency. They are shite radicals.


by dobied on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 06:56:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hang On (2.00 / 1)

It sounds like you believe that being radical Shi'ite is a casus belli in itself.  I am surprised that the very concern I was expressing, the positioning Iran as a legitimate enemy of the US, has gained such currency and apparent support.  Among Republicans, surely, but among progressive Democrats?  Isn't this how we got into the mess in Iraq in the first place?


by Shaun Appleby on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:04:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hang On (none / 0)

To all your questions...

No.


by world dictator on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 06:58:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hang On (2.00 / 1)

Well it seems to me we are headed into very dangerous territory here.  Personally I don't think our military, from the SECDEF on down, have the intention or resources to prosecute such a war but the outcomes would be truly horrific.  Do you interpret the exceptions to this bill to be predicated on an Iranian attack on or hot pursuit from US territory?  Or Iraqi?  What if the majority Shi'ite government of Iraq didn't want the US to respond immediately to such an incursion?  What if they wanted to settle it diplomatically with Iran as a sovereign power themselves?

Given the lessons we should have learned after invading Iraq I am wondering why we are even having this conversation.


by Shaun Appleby on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:12:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hang On (none / 0)

Should we attack Turkey if they make a military incursion into Kurdistan, for example?


by Shaun Appleby on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 08:28:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hang On (none / 0)

Should we attack Turkey if they invade Kurdistan?

No.

Should we, as well as every other free democratic nation defend the Kurds right to exist as an independant country?

Yes


by world dictator on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 10:19:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hang On (none / 0)

Does that include the Kurds in Turkey?  This is a very ticklish subject and Turkey has been a firm ally, to us, at least up until now.  It's almost as controversial and complex as the Balkans.  The point of my rhetorical question was obviously to draw a parallel with an Iranian incursion into Iraq.


by Shaun Appleby on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 10:56:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hang On (none / 0)

The situations are not analogous.

I'm not saying we should invade Turkey to "liberate" the Kurds who live there. What I am saying is that the fledgling democracy thats being set up in the Kurdish lands in Iraq should be defended if Turkey invades.

With Iran, the Iranians are aiding the Shiite insurgents in order to assist them in winning control in Iraq as well as killing American troops.

Entirely different situations.


by world dictator on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 12:51:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hang On (none / 0)

Yeah, but the parallel I was drawing was that the Turkish attitude towards the actions of the PKK in Turkey, directed and abetted by Kurdistan,  are analogous to the activities of the various Shi'ite aligned, Iranian supported terrorist  groups operating in Iraq.  Yet in one case the host state is our perceived enemy and we are considering military action against them and in the other we are apologising to the affected nation, urging restraint  and making veiled threats against any military action that would violate Iraq's sovereignty.  We need to get our story straight one way or the other.


by Shaun Appleby on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 02:15:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hang On (none / 0)

The PKK/Turkish actions are at a SUBTANTIALLY smaller scale than Iranian/Shiite actions. Both in the number of skermishes and the level of violence.

Also theres a difference between the Kurds trying to  liberate kurds to protection under the umbrella of the functioning democratic kurd territory and Iranians intentionally taking sides with an insurgency thats designed to undermine democracy.

Pretty signficnt contextual differences. The analogy is , assuming it fits at all, is very very broad.

Also were talking about bombing Iran for lots of other reasons than their incursions into Iraq.


by world dictator on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 04:07:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hang On (2.00 / 2)

You ask very intelligent questions.

The Iraqi government is nominally sovereign (what we might call SINO) and has been recognized as such by the UN since 2004.

Under the terms of UN Resolutions 1511 and 1546, the multinational force in Iraq (that is to say, us) is authorized to take all necessary measures in support of the security and stability of Iraq.

Our forces are present in Iraq pursuant to the authority granted by these resolutions, and with the continuing permission of the sovereign Iraqi government.  At any time, if they asked us to leave, the mandate would expire and we would have to leave.  However, that's not the same thing as saying our forces are under the day-to-day control of the Iraqi government.

In 2004, then-Prime Minister Allawi wrote to the UN to request that the UN authorize the continued presence of coalition (US) forces in Iraq.  In regards to the issue of autonomy of US forces, he wrote:

coordination with the MNF. Intend to create with the MNF coordination bodies at national, regional, and local levels, that will include Iraqi security forces commanders and civilian leadership, to ensure that Iraqi security forces will coordinate with the MNF on all security policy and operations issues in order to achieve unity of command of military operations in which Iraqi forces are engaged with MNF. In addition, the MNF and Iraqi government leaders will keep each other informed of their activities, consult regularly to ensure effective allocation and use of personnel, resources and facilities, will share intelligence, and will refer issues up the respective chains of command where necessary, Iraqi security forces will take on progressively greater responsibility as Iraqi capabilities improve. The structures I have described in this letter will serve as the fora for the MNF and the Iraqi government to reach agreement on the full range of fundamental security and policy issues, including policy on sensitive offensive operations, and will ensure full partnership between Iraqi forces and the MNF, through close coordination and consultation. Since these are sensitive issues for a number of sovereign governments, including Iraq and the United States, they need to be resolved in the framework of a mutual understanding on our strategic partnership. We will be working closely with the MNF leadership in the coming weeks to ensure that we have such an agreed strategic framework.

As I read this, there's sort of an "understanding" that US forces will work cooperatively with the Iraqi government, but Iraq expressly declines to assert that they're in charge of what the US military does or that they have any kind of veto power over our operations.

If they didn't like something we did vis-a-vis Iran, they could ask us to leave, and we'd have to comply.  But I don't think the fact that we can conduct such operations is inconsistent with the concept of Iraqi sovereignty.  The legalities are pretty much as they've always been since the elections in 2004.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:25:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hang On (none / 0)

Thanks for a great post on that point.  It reinforces my apprehension that the exceptions in the legislation proposed do not explicitly take into account the conditional nature of our mandate for military activity in Iraq and may indeed increase the perception that an Iranian act of aggression on Iraq is a legitimate casus belli for the US vis a vis Iran.


by Shaun Appleby on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:34:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton To Co-Sponsor Webb Amendment o (2.00 / 2)

People act like this Lieberman-Kyl amendment just came out of the woodwork.  In reality, there's a long history of proposed legislation relating to Iran, and Congress seems to be all over the map most of the time.

For example, in May of this year, Sen. DeFazio from Oregon proposed an amendment to the 2008 defense authorization bill that would have precluded war with Iran without Congressional approval:

Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. DeFazio:

   At the appropriate place in title XII of the bill (relating to matters relating to foreign nations), insert the following new section:

  SEC. 12X. REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAN.

   (a) Rule of Construction.--No provision of law enacted before the date of the enactment of this Act shall be construed to authorize the use of military force by the United States against Iran.

   (b) Requirements.--Absent a national emergency created by attack by Iran upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces, no funds appropriated pursuant to an authorization of appropriations in this Act or any other Act may be obligated or expended to initiate the use of military force against Iran unless the President receives authorization from Congress prior to initiating the use of military force against Iran.

This amendment actually got a vote on the House floor, and it lost 288-136, with a full 100 Democrats voting no.  Among these were members of the Out of Iraq Caucus like Edolphus Towns.

Rep. Murtha voted no on this amendment, which completely baffles me, as he has sponsored his own high-profile attempts earlier this year to restrain President Bush from attacking Iran without Congressional authorization.

If anyone can explain to me what's going on here, I'm all ears.  Given how many folks who voted against the present war have taken the ostensibly pro-Iran war side on these items of legislation, though, I'm afraid I can't accept "they're all a bunch of warmongers" as an excuse.  Maybe they're just casting votes at random.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 06:57:37 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton To Co-Sponsor Webb Amendment o (none / 0)

It is possible Iran is a problem.


by dobied on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 06:58:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton To Co-Sponsor Webb Amendment o (none / 0)

A problem that would necessitate the use of military force without Congressional approval?  Please elaborate.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:12:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton To Co-Sponsor Webb Amendment o (none / 0)

The Iraq war and Iran, are two different issues. Opinions differ.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:00:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton To Co-Sponsor Webb Amendment o (none / 0)

Of course they are different issues.  This is not about whether we go to war with Iran, this is about whether prior Congressional approval should be necessary.  You can think Iran is a major threat and still believe that only Congress has the power to declare war.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:13:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton To Co-Sponsor Webb Amendment o (2.00 / 1)

Yes, Bush needs to come to the Congress, and lay out his case if he wants to attack Iran and get the approval from Congress. Is that what you are asking?

About a month ago, a story came out that the Bush Administration was contemplating listing the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, I don't believe that has occured yet, so Iran does not fall under the resolution passed by Congress which gives the President the right to attack foreign terrorists. So, Bush must come to the Congress.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:25:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton To Co-Sponsor Webb Amendment o (2.00 / 2)

I hope you're not conceding that as soon as the Bush Administration gets around to formally listing Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, they will then have the authority to attack Iran without going to Congress first.  That certainly wouldn't be my view of the law.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:27:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton To Co-Sponsor Webb Amendment o (none / 0)

I don't like it, but it is what Congress approved after 9/11.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:41:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton To Co-Sponsor Webb Amendment o (none / 0)

I should not have said that, let me find the legislation and read it and make sure that is what it says.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:44:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sy Hersh (none / 0)

Sy Hersh is on crack. He's been touting this imminent attack for almost two years. He has no credibility whatsoever. It bothers me all these clowns have become the heroes of 'netroots'.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:08:50 PM EST

Re: Sy Hersh (none / 0)

Seymour Hersh performed a public service roughly on the par with the Pentagon Papers during Viet-Nam in exposing the very real preliminary planning and geopolitical context for belligerence against Iran.  He continues to provide relevant insight and detail on the state of play of this issue which has done much to mitigate the machinations of the Vice President's office to orchestrate a fait accompli in Iran which would be far more disastrous than our current parlous state of affairs in Iraq and the Middle East generally.

Do you think a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran is, or ever was, a good or necessary idea?


by Shaun Appleby on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:22:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sy Hersh (none / 0)

Sy Hersh said the Pentagon was in the final stages of planning an Iranian attack over a year ago. Nothing happened. Now he says they ramping up their planning? Come on now.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:27:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sy Hersh (none / 0)

Yes, but there is every indication that was true at the time.  This year the Pentagon tacitly admitted they have been maintaining elaborate contingency plans for such action, including pre-emptive nuclear options at least by implication.  If Seymour Hersh's efforts in any way contributed to these plans not being followed through then he has served us well.

I think you will find that one of the compelling reasons that we have not attacked Iran is that in spite of the perception to the contrary it is widely accepted in the military that it is an attack we can't prosecute successfully.  Their is very little chance that even a pre-emptive nuclear strike could guarantee more than a temporary suspension of Iran's nuclear program.


by Shaun Appleby on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:40:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sy Hersh (none / 0)

Key word...contigency plans.

I remember when this story broke, war with Iran is immenient the pentagon is running simulations on it right now!, and I remember the pentagon's reply..."Uhh were the pentagon...we run simulations on everything. We're the pentagon...its what we do"


by world dictator on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 10:25:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sy Hersh (none / 0)

Yeah, well it is a little trickier than that.  It is very difficult to portray the situation as 'business as usual' at the time.  Personally I reckon the risk of a pre-emptive strike on Iran was imminent right down to the day Rumsfeld resigned.  Things have since changed, a little.  I would be happy to discuss this further but have diarised on it in the past.


by Shaun Appleby on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 11:00:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sy Hersh (none / 0)

Shaun I generally appreciate your commentary but on this point, you're just engaging in biased speculation.


by world dictator on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 12:44:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sy Hersh (none / 0)

Look it's probably not the place for this discussion but I have been following this story with great interest for quite some time.  Yes, there is a speculative element but I would be happy to point you in the right direction if you want to make your own assessment, the Hersh articles are a good starting point but there is plenty more where that came from.  If you are really serious I will post a selection of links I have been collecting from earlier this year, especially from Haaretz, the European media and Juan Cole.


by Shaun Appleby on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 12:47:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sy Hersh (none / 0)

I've actually followed this fairly closely. I havent been tracking it day by day but for various reason I got very famillar with the idea of airstriking Iran.

But I'd be happy to read any insightful links you might have


by world dictator on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 04:12:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Have Fun (none / 0)

These are in no particular sequence or order, and some are more related to general diplomatic affairs than a strike.  I'm afraid the UPI Security and Terrorism ones are broken which is unfortunate because they were often very insightful.  Their archive went off the air or changed URL conventions a month or so ago.  I stopped collecting them shortly after Gates became SECDEF, incidentally, as I figured the worst was over.  The turning point was his 'just another day in the Gulf' news conference.  Everybody understood exactly what he meant.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/1 7894
http://mydd.com/story/2007/2/6/81524/939 43
http://mydd.com/comments/2007/2/17/15170 /1934/18#18
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt .jhtml?itemNo=830309&contrassID=1&am p;subContrassID=1
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?c ontext=viewArticle&code=CHO20070221& amp;articleId=4888
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jht ml;jsessionid=C3HY5I431EHHRQFIQMGSFFWAVC BQWIV0?xml=/news/2006/04/09/wbush09.xml& amp;sSheet=/portal/2006/04/09/ixportalto p.html
http://www.sundayherald.com/internationa l/shinternational/display.var.1152839.0. america_poised_to_strike_at_irans_nuclea r_sites_from_bases_in_bulgaria_and_roman ia.php
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/vie w.php?StoryID=20070130-081535-4327r
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/vie w.php?StoryID=20070201-113929-6709r
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/1 7983
http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/07/ 01/20/10098195.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/29/n ews/tehran.php
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/30/n ews/sanctions.php
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/vie w.php?StoryID=20070126-120506-2922r
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/30/n ews/lebanon.php
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/midd le_east/article2190067.ece

Given the renewed interest in this subject I will keep track of the more recent articles I come across.


by Shaun Appleby on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 04:54:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Have Fun (none / 0)

I haven't read the articles yet, but I will, though I do notice that many of these sources are fairly liberal media outlets, which are more likely to engage in speculation to back up your argument.

Nonetheless I will read the articles.

Thanks for the links!


by world dictator on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 01:29:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sy Hersh (none / 0)

Here, let me just give you an example off the RSS feeds in the past few days.  There is an article in the Sunday Telegraph about the military and diplomatic  activities in recent weeks.  There is an article in the Sunday Times laying out the role Norman Podhoretz played in the events earlier in the year I was referring to.  This has been going on in the international press since Hersh's initial revelations and there is plenty to work with.  If you are reading this kind of coverage daily you get a pretty good picture of what is happening, and has happened, behind the scenes.


by Shaun Appleby on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 04:21:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sy Hersh (none / 0)

Here's an interesting piece from The Sunday Times whose military affairs reporter recently visited the 'Checkmate' Pentagon strategic air war planning centre (emphasis added):


I asked when the Bush administration's widely expected air war against Iran would begin. This was not a subject my hosts cared to discuss. Smiles vanished. Dr Lani Kass, Checkmate's formidable senior civilian official, a former Israeli military officer who had somehow morphed into a senior Pentagon advisor, dismissed my question, insisting no decision to attack Iran had been made. She called a possible air war "unlikely". But I was ready to bet plans to blitz Iran were being drawn up in an adjoining office. One could feel a buzz of excitement among Checkmate's hard-eyed officers who wore combat flight suits and tensed up every time I mentioned Iran. Pentagon sources say the air force has selected 3,000-4,000 targets in Iran, and that some US and British special forces are already operating there. However, Washington sources also report strong opposition to war against Iran among the Pentagon's brass, and high-ranking officials in the CIA, Treasury, and state department. They view war with Iran as unpredictable, unwise and dangerous at a time when US ground and air forces are stretched to breaking point in Iraq and Afghanistan. "We can defeat Iran," insisted Dr Kass, `but are Americans willing to pay the price?"

Eric Margolis - The Sunday Times 30 Sep 07

Food for thought there, eh?


by Shaun Appleby on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 05:43:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sy Hersh (none / 0)

I also strongly urge you to read the August 2006 interview with Noam Chomsky on the subject, excerpted below:


In June 2006, Khamenei issued an official declaration stating that Iran agrees with the Arab countries on the issue of Palestine, meaning that it accepts the 2002 Arab League call for full normalization of relations with Israel in a two-state settlement in accord with the international consensus. The timing suggests that this might have been a reprimand to his subordinate Ahmadenijad, whose inflammatory statements are given wide publicity in the West, unlike the far more important declaration by his superior Khamenei. Just a few days ago, former Iranian diplomat Saddagh Kharazzi "reaffirmed that Iran would back a two-state solution if the Palestinians accepted" (Financial Times, July 26, 2006). Of course, the PLO has officially backed a two-state solution for many years, and backed the 2002 Arab League proposal. Hamas has also indicated its willingness to negotiate a two-state settlement, as is surely well-known in Israel. Kharazzi is reported to be the author of the 2003 proposal of Khatami and Khamanei.

The US and Israel do not want to hear any of this. They prefer to hear that Iran "is sworn to the destruction of the Jewish state" (Jerusalem correspondent Charles Radin, Boston Globe, 2 August), the standard and more convenient story.

They also do not want to hear that Iran appears to be the only country to have accepted the proposal by IAEA director Mohammed ElBaradei that all weapons-usable fissile materials be placed under international control, a step towards a verifiable Fissile Materials Cutoff Treaty (FMCT), as mandated by the UN General Assembly in 1993. ElBaradei's proposal, if implemented, would not only end the Iranian nuclear crisis but would also deal with a vastly more serious crisis: the growing threat of nuclear war, which leads prominent strategic analysts to warn of "apocalypse soon" (Robert McNamara) if policies continue on their current course. The US strongly opposes a verifiable FMCT, but over US objections, the treaty came to a vote at the United Nations, where it passed 147-1, with two abstentions: Israel, which cannot oppose its patron, and more interestingly, Blair's Britain, which retains a degree of sovereignty. The British ambassador stated that Britain supports the treaty, but it "divides the international community" ­ 147 to 1. These again are matters that are virtually suppressed outside of specialist circles, and are matters of literal survival of the species, extending far beyond Iran.

Noam Chomsky - Yediot Ahronot interview 3 Aug 06



by Shaun Appleby on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 05:58:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Webb Amendment on Iran (none / 0)

Well, this is a "damage control" manuever on the part of Hillary Clinton, and a just a big face-saving exercise on the part of Congress.  However, it is wholly ineffectual.

Apparently what the bill actually says is that Bush (and Dick Cheney) must first seek Congressional approval to launch full scale war with Iran. But then this idea is later neutered later on by listing various "exceptions" to the original statement. The exceptions to forcing Bush to have to go through Congress are: 1)that it is in response to an Iranian "attack" (like the Gulf of Tonkin?) , 2)that an Iranian attack is imminent (like Iraq was an imminent threat in 2002?), or 3) that it is in response to an attack in Iraq and they are chasing them back to Iran.

Now, does anyone think, with all these loopholes that you could drive a truck through, exceptions, and opportunities for deception, that this is ever going to stop Dick Cheney and Bush from doing just whatevertheheck they want ... when they want??

Imagine if our Founding Fathers had said:
"Only Congress has the power to declare War, except if some other Country does something that the President doesn't like, or, he happens to feel like they might be an imminent "threat" of some kind (while we're already occupying their border).

This is just an irrelevant face-saving exercise, and unfortunately,   not the Congress actually taking back its Constitutional authority for itself.

___

The Democratic Party remains pathetic bystanders and facilitators to a criminal White House regime. And then they scratch their heads and wonder why people see them as being weak.

You support the troops best by removing them as hapless cannon-fodder in a Civil War, through the sending up of no (zero) funding bills at all, until the Occupation itself is starved off.  Then you publically expose Cheney and Bush to the world as the War-Criminals that they are, and make the case publically to the voters that new leadership is required.



For a "surge" in Truth:  Say NO to NeoCons!!!
by DerekLarsson on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:26:29 PM EST

Re: Webb Amendment on Iran (none / 0)

who gives a damn to you? Do you seriously believe Clinton is reading dailykos before she casts every vote? it's so laughable.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:29:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Webb Amendment on Iran (none / 0)


I think Hillary Clinton has already proven that she doesn't no how to read any better than George W. Bush [ hint: 2002, 2007 ]

For a "surge" in Truth:  Say NO to NeoCons!!!
by DerekLarsson on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:34:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Webb Amendment on Iran (2.00 / 1)

The exceptions are there because the bill would have trouble getting 1 vote without them.

The cheapest and easiest Republican response to this bill is to argue "oh, so you're saying that if Iran shoots at our troops, they need permission from Congress in order to shoot back?"

And when the Republicans go back to their districts and the peace-loving residents say, "But Senator so-and-so, I heard you voted to give Bush the authority to attack Iran without getting permission from Congress," the Republican response will be "Oh no, I certainly don't think we should be getting into any more wars, I just voted against that bill because it would have said that our troops can't even shoot back if they get attacked, without getting permission from Congress."

The reason the exceptions are in there is to eliminate the most obvious Republican objections to the bill, and force them to confront it at face value.  Do they think Congress should be utterly irrelevant in the warmaking process?  Let's see how they vote.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:32:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Webb Amendment on Iran (none / 0)


> "oh, so you're saying that if Iran shoots at our troops, they need permission from Congress in order to shoot back?"

Well, that's what the U.S. Constitution says.

1. Only Congress can declare war.

2. Iran won't shoot us, if we shut down the new U.S. Military Base we stuck on their border, and if we wise-up and get the hell of Ocuupying Iraq!!!

_____

And stop making excuses for unnecessary violence.
When you pirate somebody else's oil, the insurgents are not the bad guys....



For a "surge" in Truth:  Say NO to NeoCons!!!
by DerekLarsson on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:39:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Webb Amendment on Iran (none / 0)

Well, the great thing about America is that everyone is entitled to interpret the Constitution in their own way.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 09:07:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Webb Amendment on Iran (none / 0)

The U.S. Constitution is quite clear and there's no ambiguity.  Only the Congress can declare War.

It is unfortunate in this new dark age of "executive signing statements", "unitary executive", "I am the decider" bullying (which the U.S. News Media and Congress negligantly permit to happen) that the U.S. Constitution no longer has any relationship to the actual operation of our government.

If our elected Representatives actually followed the U.S. Constitution, we'd never be in these type of horrific messes and tragedies to begin with.
That's why the Founding Fathers wrote it that way.


"Were America to depart from its ideals and engage in aggressive actions beyond legitimate self-defense she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force."
        -John Quincy Adams

They were smart.
Ever since 1913, this Country sadly became very. very dumb!



For a "surge" in Truth:  Say NO to NeoCons!!!
by DerekLarsson on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 09:56:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Webb Amendment on Iran (none / 0)

I love how everyone is a constitutional scholar on here.

If you actually do a little more research you would see that they changed the constitution from saying Congress shall make war to what is actually in there now Congress shall declare war.

Then there are all the other checks that they put in, like making the POTUS Commander in Chief, and the same founding fathers made the first 4 cabinet positions under the Executive branch which includes Secy of War (defense).

You should also note that they included the "necessary and proper" clause -- and Congress decided to make it Necessary and Proper to enact the War Powers Resolution.

Lastly, your quote defeats your argument... it says Legitimate self defense, if Iranian Rev. Guard troops were shooting at American troops across the boarder, I think that would qualify as self defense.

Nice try though...


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 10:19:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Webb Amendment on Iran (none / 0)


Huh? You have no valid point here.

I said quite accurately (in my previous post) that: only the Congress can declare War. (I never used the words "make" as you accused me of).

There is no "change in the Constitution" here.
Only the Congress has the power to declare war.

The fact that the president is the Commander-in-Chief does not mean that the act of taking the Nation to War is his decision or his perogative. The president is not a King here and the Country was not a constructed to be a dictatorship. The fact that Congress has voluntarily abdicated its own Constitutional authority over the last 50 years is a vast departure from what our Founding Fathers had envisioned and intended.

The John Quincy Adams quote that I made also quite prescient and accurate, and it is laughable and foolish to suggest that it somehow "defeats my argument".

There was, in fact, no geniune, legitimate, self-defense issue whatsoever for this Country to Invade and Occupy the impoverished Nation of Iraq and slaughter 1.2 million people and seize control of its Oil fields. Iraq was a Nation that has no Navy, no Airforce, only a pathetically weak Army, and no nuclear weapons in its entire history, and no weapons of any kind ever found by the U.N. Inspectors.  This illegal Invasion/Occupation was wholly fraudulent and based solely on a foundation of lies and phony claims (all proven wrong). That ain't legitmate self-defense, Sparky.

Furthermore, you are also dead wrong in promoting (just like Hillary Clinton) this false and malicously trumped-up propaganda about the Iran Revolutionary Guard.  Why don't you first educate yourself  [ See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-gareth- porter/liebermankyl-vs-the-evi_b_66020.h tml ] and stop parroting the phony deceptions and lies made by the NeoCons who want to take this Country to another unnecessary War.

Finally, if we ended this barbaric and unnecessry Occupation of Iraq, then nobody would have reason to shoot at us.  Neither of these acts of U.S. aggression on Iraq or Iran have anything to do with avenging the Sept. 11 incident.

Propagandist like you are the reason why this Nation is bankrupt and 4,000 of our kids (soldiers) are needlessly dead now.

You must work for Halliburton (or Hillary Clinton)



For a "surge" in Truth:  Say NO to NeoCons!!!
by DerekLarsson on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 12:03:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Webb Amendment on Iran (none / 0)

Your rants are truly hopeless.  Yes, we ought to get out of Iraq, but that doesn't change the fact that if someone shoots at our troops, they do not need a declaration of war from Congress in order to shoot back.  Your claim that the Constitution is "clear and unambiguous" on this point is simply laughable.

But yeah, keep hurling those over-the-top insults, it does wonders for your credibility.  You're the only true Constitutional visionary in the world, everyone else works for Halliburton.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 02:26:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Webb Amendment on Iran (none / 0)


You are peddling false propaganda.

Read:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-gareth- porter/liebermankyl-vs-the-evi_b_66020.h tml

before you talk.

There is no justification for War with IRAN!
Stop peddling the phony propaganda used to foment a new War!

Read:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-gareth- porter/liebermankyl-vs-the-evi_b_66020.h tml



For a "surge" in Truth:  Say NO to NeoCons!!!
by DerekLarsson on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 12:33:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Webb Amendment on Iran (none / 0)

yet again, you're missing the details.

You dont need a formal declaration of war to start a war, or to use military force.

Maybe this will make things a little clearer.

Declare war

  1. Doesn't mean make
  2. Doesn't mean conduct
  3. JUST a declaration
   a.In international law, different sets of rules apply
   b.Belligerents had certain rights and responsibilities
      i. Neutrals had different rights and responsibilities
   c.If the country declared itself to be in a state of war no longer enjoyed the rights of the neutrals
  1. Could mean authorize
  2. Could mean just a simple declaration

There is no caselaw on the topic, and the only thing we have to go on is the War Powers resolution, which congress made with the power in Art. I sec. 8 -- necessary and proper clause.

The WPR is our "caselaw" our basis for understanding military use of force.


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 10:56:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Webb Amendment on Iran (none / 0)

that IS NOT what the constitution says!


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 10:14:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Webb Amendment on Iran (none / 0)

1. Shooting back in self defense is not a declaration of war. It's trying to save your life. If turkey unexpectedly invaded Iraq and starting shooting at American troops they wouldn't need to phone congress for persmission to defend themselves.

2. Iran, the decade long enemy of Iraq, is hardly concerned about the well being of the Iraqi government.

3. If you think violence is bad you shouldn't be justifying retributive violence. Even if you're right in your point of views on Iraq, violence is not a justified response.

4. If the Iraqi insurgents were really interested soley in getting the US out of Iraq then they would stop killing one another and agree to live together peacefully. The US army would leave Iraq TOMORROW, if the insurgents said "no more violence we're going to work togehter,etc,etc."

5. Yes the insurgents are the bad guys. One because theyre killing Americans. I get the feeling that thats not enough for you though so I'll explain it better.

A stable, non violent, and functioning Iraq could get the US out of Iraq a lot quicker, easier, and more peacefully than a fractured, broken, and violent Iraqi insurgency.


by world dictator on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 10:45:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Webb Amendment on Iran (none / 0)


How would you like it if China decided to Invade the United States, drop bombs on civilain populations, detain and torture its inhabitants, raid homes and destroy them, build China Military Bases all over the United States, and then bring in Corporations to steal and profit from our Oil?
Do you think Americans might fight back a little?

That is exactly what we did to Iraq.

No matter how you spin it, we are not the "good guys" here. The insurgents and poor civilians of Iraq there (who had nothing to do with Sept 11) have every damn right to hate us now.

And, funny thing .. they want us to leave!

Stable Iraq my ass.
Iraq was stable back in 2002.

The United States turned Iraq into New Orleans and turned New Orleans into Iraq.

Think again.
We are the Invaders.
We are the Occupiers.
We are the WMD users.
We are the Torturers.
We are the Natural Resource theives.

We are NOT the "good guys".



For a "surge" in Truth:  Say NO to NeoCons!!!
by DerekLarsson on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 12:15:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Webb Amendment on Iran (none / 0)

Congrats

You succesfully failed to address a single point I made. Failure to respond to arguments shows the weakness of your position.

Also, newsflash, were not debating whether the invasion of Iraq was justified. No matter how much you try to link out of the current discussion regarding Iran, the two are not the same. Nice try though. It was cute.


by world dictator on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 12:39:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Webb Amendment on Iran (none / 0)

There is no justification for War with IRAN!

Read:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-gareth- porter/liebermankyl-vs-the-evi_b_66020.h tml

Stop peddling the phony propaganda used to foment a new War!



For a "surge" in Truth:  Say NO to NeoCons!!!
by DerekLarsson on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 12:35:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Webb Amendment on Iran (1.00 / 1)

NO ONE is justifying the use of force against IRAN.

We're responding to your warped view of the constitution


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 10:58:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Call me cynical (none / 0)

But it seems to me nothing more than pandering by Clinton that says "Look, I'm really a progressive.  I was just forced to vote for Kyl-Lieberman so I won't look weak."

I for one am not convinced!


A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy. - Teddy Roosevelt
by minvis on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:31:40 PM EST

Re: Call me cynical (none / 0)


At this point, Hillary Clinton is a spinning weathervane with no core principles, no honesty, no moral judgement, and no credibility.

Just how does anyone know whattheheck she'd ever do as President after this cowardly follow-the-crowd U.S. Senator record for 7 years???



For a "surge" in Truth:  Say NO to NeoCons!!!
by DerekLarsson on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:42:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Steve Clemons weighs in and is right (none / 0)

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archive s/002387.php

Clemons writes:

"Hillary Clinton needs to apply her ascending political weight to the passage of the Webb resolution. It is not enough to just support a resolution and watch it languish."

Hillary needs to show she can lead. She needs to show she can move votes in Congress, esp. considering Republicans refuse to oppose anything Bush tells them to do.

Hillary's best bet is to appeal to the precedence that only Congress can declare war. She needs to call on Sen. Byrd and his emphasis on the power of Congress when it comes to war.


by John Campanelli on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:34:15 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton To Co-Sponsor Webb Amendment o (none / 0)

Iran....no nuclear weapons. None...

Iran....no system for the delivery of same....None...

Iran....a democracy....Yeah, they vote there....

Russia....currently possesses thousands of nuclear warheads which we know work...

Russia....just reactivated its intercontinental bomber groups which can reach the U.S. with nuclear weapons....

Russia....never deactivated it's intercontinental nuclear tipped missile forces...which are still target on our cities....

Russia... a dictatorship run by a man Mr. Decider likes and trusts.

Conclusion reached here by Kool-Aid guzzling 'progressives'......

Iran is a 'serious threat to the U.S.....'

It'd be funny if it wasn't so fucking stupid and dangerous.

Repeat after me:

Iran is not a threat to the continental U.S.

Dick Cheney is insane..

I will never repeat another Dick Cheney inspired meme ......Ever.


by Pericles on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:37:47 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton To Co-Sponsor Webb Amendment o (2.00 / 2)

Are you suggesting we nuke Russia? Russia has elections too you know. :)


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:43:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wbb Amendment (none / 0)

If Clinton wants to make this work, she has to get off her ecologically disastrous private jets, park her derriere in Washington for a while and work her heart out to make this pass. She'll start convinving me if she actually does some work.


by ahs on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:45:24 PM EST

Re: Wbb Amendment (none / 0)

Do Edwards and Obama and the rest have to get off their ecologically disastrous private jets too, or does this just apply to Hillary? And by the way, she's still doing her job as a senator.  She misses less votes than any of the others.


No Way. No How. No McCain.
by Denny Crane on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 12:18:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Webb Amendment (none / 0)

If Clinton wants to make this work, she has to get off her ecologically disastrous private jets, park her derriere in Washington for a while and work her heart out to make this pass. She'll start convinving me if she actually does some work.


by ahs on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:46:15 PM EST

Re: Webb Amendment (none / 0)

Excuse me, out of every Presidential candidate in the Senate, Clinton actually goes to work. She has the best attendance record among the presidential candidates.

As for those private jets, at least she and Obama pays the full price ($25,000). Edwards gets a discount. $800.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:52:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Webb Amendment (none / 0)

Yeah, I don't know how she does it.  The attendance and voting record is outstanding, given the murderous campaign schedule she keeps.  


by georgep on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 08:16:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton To Co-Sponsor (none / 0)

I think you have made a good point about the political pros and cons of this co-sponsorship.  This is yet another legislative initiative which is ambivalent in content, problematic in execution and a moot point in practice.


by Shaun Appleby on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 08:35:31 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton To Co-Sponsor (none / 0)

yet everyone on the netroots will hold their breath and see who voted for and against it, then bitch when the Repugs filibuster.


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 10:21:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton To Co-Sponsor (none / 0)

And fair enough, too.  That's what we do.  If politicians, and I am saying all of them, continue to use these amendments and bills as ideological banners and campaign-oriented initiatives then it is only natural we will micro-analyse the positions.  I wish we were a little more serious about using our legislative majority but it is nothing new or unexpected.


by Shaun Appleby on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 11:04:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Feb. 14, 2007 (none / 0)

Please click the link below to hear Hillary's speech to Bush about Iran.  She gave this speech 8 months ago.

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statement s/details.cfm?id=269287&&


The Facts: Please Read
by Regan on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 10:27:10 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.