MyDD :: So Why Did Dick Durbin Vote For It?

So Why Did Dick Durbin Vote For It?

by bookgrl, Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 08:39:05 PM EST

I'll admit, I was spooked by the passage of Kyl-Lieberman amendment, mostly because I don't trust Lieberman. But, at this point, I don't see passage of this amendment as in an open invitation by Congress for Bush to wage war on Iran no matter how much Lieberman wishes it were so. And, I'd just like to know, can anyone tell me why, if this is a move toward war with Iran, did Dick Durbin vote for it?

Remember, Durbin voted against the Iraq war and has been quite vocal about our need to end the occupation. He said this of the amendment: "If I thought there was any way it could be used as a pretense to launch an invasion of Iran I would have voted no." Indeed, he strongly criticized the language of the legislation, prompting Lieberman to delete two paragraphs. He's adamant that we not engage Iran militarily, arguing he is "opposed to military action in Iran." According to Jill Zuckman of the Chicago Tribune, Durbin like Clinton noted such actions would "require congressional approval." Durbin explained his vote in this way, "to say we need to pressure the Iranians to change their course in the Middle East and I want to do it by nonmilitary means, that's what my vote was all about."
According to Zuckman, Durbin said he "received assurances that the U.S. is not preparing to attack Iran from a source he respects, Defense Secretary Robert Gates: "He was as clear as could be that there are no plans for that to happen."' So, I just would like to know, given Durbin's record, why would he vote for this "sense of the Senate", labeling the IRG a terrorist group, if it indeed gives Bush the impetus to engage Iran militarily?

Link: http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/p olitics/blog/2007/10/obama_and_durbin_al igned_on_ir.html

Tags: Dick Durbin, Kyl/Lieberman, Iran, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, election 2008, president (all tags)

Permalink :: 41 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: So Why Did Dick Durbin Vote For It? (2.00 / 1)

Not trusting Lieberman is understandable and he is after to hit Iran with anything he can, but Hillary is way too smart to vote for something he could use, which is why she only voted yes after they cut out the offending passages, I'm sure much to Lieberman's chagrin. The truth is, Bush certainly doesn't need this to start a war with Iran, I'm sure he could think of other ways to do it if he wanted.

by reasonwarrior on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 08:47:35 PM EST

Oh, I agree. I'd like to know (2.00 / 1)

from those certain the amendment lays the groundwork for war why they think Durbin would support it?

by bookgrl on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 08:49:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, I agree. I'd like to know (none / 0)

Beacause the progressive apparenlty have the saem problem the far right has--too many paranoid, shoot from the lip types who scream "sellout" and "coward" at their allies when they don't do everything 100 percetn the way they want it done.

by spirowasright on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 09:40:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So Why Did Dick Durbin Vote For It? (2.00 / 1)

Facts don't really matter in this situation . It's perception that really matter's especially in the primary race and Edwards is playing on the emotional reaction , the specifics of the situation has been thrown out of the window .

The paragraphs that were supposed to be taken as a chance at military action were stripped off because of complaints from a lot of these senators that voted against the war .

I wasn't worried about the legislation , I particularly don't care if Libermann sponsored it or not ( Frankly I think this unhealthy hatred of Libermann is sometimes absurd ). It was the right thing to do , it didn't authorize war , it was for sanctions and diplomatic pressure . However in the heat of a campaign specifics and facts are thrown out of the window.This was a sense of the senate vote which was not codified into law .

This past string Obama/Dodd and Clinton actually cosponsored a bill entitled "The Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007." that would have actually codified this into law not a sense of the senate vote , but now in the primary they are backing off .

Clinton took a courageous stand others didn't.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext .xpd?bill=h110-1400

One provision goes like this:

(14) the United States should designate the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which purveys terrorism throughout the Middle East and plays an important role in the Iranian economy, as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, place the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of specially designated global terrorists, and place the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of weapons of mass destruction proliferators and their supporters;

Obama wanted the Iranian Revolutionary Guards identified as a terrorist organization, same as Clinton.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 08:51:50 PM EST

That's my point. (none / 0)

Is anyone bothering to read this?

I don't have an unhealthy hatred for Lieberman. I've just followed his career enough to know what he is up to. He tried in '98 to force Clinton's hand with Iraq, and I think he clearly want's war with Iran, though he was forced to give up any language or authority in this legislation that would have furthered that goal. I think he's actually lost it a little. My point is all these folks coming out with their doomsday scenarios about this "sense of the senate", how can they square that with Durbin's support of it?

by bookgrl on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 08:58:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's my point. (none / 0)

That's the thing, no one who had reservations with the amendment read it. I read the entire thing twice and some sections more than twice and found nothing to be of concern with. Then again, I'm not a legislator or a lawyer.

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 09:27:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You should read the article (none / 0)

I site if you haven't already.

by bookgrl on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 09:06:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You should read the article (none / 0)

Look at it in the context of the presidential primaries , he probably didn't vote because of the prior bill he had supported

Look at his quote from ap :

"There's nothing wrong with identifying the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, but it is a problem when you start using Iran as a justification for troop structures in Iraq and providing language that could potentially lead to military action in Iran," Obama said Monday, according to the Associated Press.

- Thats not a ringing disapproval of the intent of the legislation , he saw an opportunity he could sneak in an attack on Clinton in the primary although it was diminished because he didn't vote.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 09:23:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah, again, gee this diary is (2.00 / 1)

somewhat facetious. This is my point. Obama is running around gloating about how bad girl Hillary hasn't learned her lesson, meanwhile Durbin voted for the same amendment. I find it amusing. I was hoping someone who wrote one of those diaries from the other camps with the usual Hillary is a warmonger bs, would try and square this with Durbin's vote and statements, since he unlike Obama, actually was in the Senate and voted against AUMF. And, since he unlike Obama, actually voted on this sense of the senate, and voted in the affirmative.

by bookgrl on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 09:34:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah, again, gee this diary is (2.00 / 1)

Yeah , I can help but think that if he didn't think it was proper to designate it as a terrorist group and he hadn't supported an earlier bill similar in nature , he would have made time to vote and Voted " No" because he had to have known clinton would have voted " Yea " .

That would have been a huge issue he would have used to clubber her but his prior support didn't help his case .

Obama is making so many tactical moves that would be of detriment to him , just because he has been playing catch up ever since , so he is running a primary campaign and taking some positions that would really hunt him in the general. Hillary has had one eye on the primary and another on the general since day one.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 09:45:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah, again, gee this diary is (none / 0)

can't

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 09:46:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Agreed. If I were Hillary, I would (2.00 / 1)

remind voters that the senior senator from IL who was in the Senate to vote on AUMF, supported this sense of the senate, and actually showed up to vote. That was a huge tactcal error on Obama's part. If he believes voting in favor of this was wrong, where the hell was he?

by bookgrl on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 09:52:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah, again, gee this diary is (none / 0)

By the way , Obama is really going to find himself in a bind with this nafta thing , he has boxed himself in a corner by agreeing to the expansion , he might as well be saying screw labour .

The only thing that kind save him is if Hillary Clinton stupidly comes out in support of it , then the damage might be mitigated .

I seriously hope Hillary Clinton has the good sense to oppose it because Edwards is waiting in the wings and if she doesn't oppose him she would have given him a gift down the stretch and he would ride it to a win in iowa.

Right now , its between Edwards and Clinton in Iowa , this nafta expansion thing by Obama is going to affect him badly in Iowa in my opinion and if Clinton supports it , she can just take her position as No. 2 in the caucus.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 09:52:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah, again, gee this diary is (none / 0)

These labor leaders are adamantly opposed to it and I don't know why he just came out in support of it , obviously he will probably say it has worker protection and workers right in it , but specifics don't matter in a primary , its perception and emotions. And with labor leaders denouncing it , I don't get the move.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 09:56:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, I'm not sure about that (none / 0)

because I've read that Rangel worked this and it is a pragmatically fair trade agreement. It's the type of trade deal alot of Democrats will support. It's not the typical Bush deal, but is it enforcable? I don't know. It's politically dicey, though.

Frankly, all three candidate are slightly to the left of BC in regards to trade, but are not against trade. That to me is one of the great ironies of this primary. Hillary's been spanked repeatedly with NAFTA yet there is no discernable evidence that Edwards or Obama is more against open markets than she is, indeed in someways Edwards atleast has appeared slightly to the right of her in the past.

by bookgrl on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 10:03:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, I'm not sure about that (none / 0)

Thats my point exactly the specifics of it don't matter in a political season , look at the Kyl vote no one cared for the specifics , everyone just went after the emotions .

Nafta is poison in a dem primary and to workers in america .

hey Book look at the link below and look at what labor leaders are saying about the bill .

http://www.taylormarsh.com/

Its the first diary on the page .

Its going to be a pretty hard vote to take , Edwards is already waiting in the wings especially for Clinton , she has had to bear all the brunt of Nafta in this campaign it will be foolish of her to support it with so many union leaders denouncing it and will greatly affect her in Iowa. Edwards will not let it go.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 10:14:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wow, ok, well I see what you're (none / 0)

saying. I wonder what Hillary will do here. I tend to agree with Taylor. I really thought this bill was different, but now it is not clear to me how.

by bookgrl on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 10:29:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So Why Did Dick Durbin Vote For It? (none / 0)

As I repeatedly noted in those Kyl-Lieberman diaries, TEN legislators who voted against the Iraq war voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. Durbin was one of them.

No one seems to care how this happened or what any of them are thinking. Everyone believes they know best, and what they know in this case is that anyone who voted for Kyl-Lieberman is in favor of giving blank checks to Bush.

I'd also like to hear an answer to the question posed by this diary.

"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 Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 10:39:45 PM EST

Re: So Why Did Dick Durbin Vote For It? (2.00 / 1)

Simple they know what they voted for and the intent of the vote.

Others are going by emotions , paranoia , distruct of bush and some don't know what the legislation was.

For example the Rolph guy in iowa , he didn't even know the legislation that was passed into law , he was on radio the next day and said the bill that passed had the military instrument part in it and the radio host didn't correct him because he himself didn't know what was in the bill and he had been foaming at the mouth for at least a week that it was a vote to authorize military actions , it was only like 2 hrs after that he made the clarification.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 10:49:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So Why Did Dick Durbin Vote For It? (none / 0)

I thought that whole Rolph thing was dreadfully overplayed. I'm glad Taylor Marsh ended up posting a video so I could see for myself. In fact, Hillary was pretty gracious in offering an apology to the guy even though it was clear that, in fact, she was right and he didn't have the complete information.

People have a right to their opinions regarding the Kyl-Lieberman thing but they at least need to realize the fact that the warmongering language was taken out before the actual 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 Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 08:26:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So Why Did Dick Durbin Vote For It? (none / 0)

Lori, are you suggesting that not trusting Bush is an unfounded approach to policy decisions? I hope not.

My objection to her vote has little to do with the specific text and everything to do with the crystal clear link between declaring a group terrorists, the Patriot Act which authorized the president to take blissfully unspecified actions against terrorist groups, and a Commander-in-Chief who wants a war with Iran.

If supporting everything Hillary Clinton says and does without question means giving the current administration more rope to hang us all, I question the rationale of your cause, to say nothing of the ideology.

My understanding is that the diarist and contributors have been waiting for someone to express a pro-Edwards/Biden/Dodd viewpoint on Kyl/Lieberman. Come and get me.

Take out the trash. Down with Saxby Chambliss!

by CLLGADEM on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 07:42:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So Why Did Dick Durbin Vote For It? (none / 0)

What an excellent defense of Clinton's support for the Lieberman initiative. Make it seem innocuous because so and so voted for it too. How wonderful!

If it's good enough for Joey it's good enough for Hillary! Like two peas in a pod.

by Hillary Lieberman on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 03:39:55 AM EST

Re: So Why Did Dick Durbin Vote For It? (none / 0)

I understand why you'd resort to sarcasm, as it's very difficult to actually explain why Dick Durbin and 9 other Senators who voted against the war in Iraq would suddenly want to get us into war with Iran.

"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 Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 07:04:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

i'd give you the answer... (none / 0)

but i can see from the comments that you don't really want an answer, you just want to attack obama. so there's no point.

obviously, the fact that both obama and durbin are acting rational didn't occur to you. which speaks volumes...

"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton

by bored now on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 09:51:55 AM EST

It's not an attack. I was just (none / 0)

trying to make the point that one needn't be a warmonger to vote for this thing. I said I myself was spooked by the amendment, but I do think it puts things in perspective to note Dick Durbin voted for it.

by bookgrl on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 11:14:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

sorry if i misunderstood... (2.00 / 1)

durbin has a key jewish (democratic) population who support this tactic. i believe there was actually an effort by at least one conservative (or orthodox) group asking their membership to call their senators to support it. i doubt anyone called to oppose it...

"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton

by bored now on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 03:11:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In a Word (2.00 / 1)

AIPAC.

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 09:54:36 AM EST

Re: In a Word (none / 0)

That's kind of the all-purpose explanation in the liberal blogosphere, isn't it?

Do you think AIPAC cared more about this vote than they did about the Iraq war? Or do you have some reason to think Dick Durbin wasn't in their pocket back in 2002, but is now?

"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 Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 10:25:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In a Word (none / 0)

By the way, I am not saying he is in AIPAC's pocket. But to play devil's advocate, it is possible that he always felt pressure from AIPAC, but the Iraq vote was too important for him to compromise, but this vote was more symbolic, so he threw AIPAC a bone so they can get off his case.

by Pravin on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 10:42:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ok, that's an answer. (none / 0)

I think it's an overplayed one on the blogs, but it's possible.

by bookgrl on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 11:15:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

afaik, aipac didn't take a position... (none / 0)

although it may have. that's not what i've heard...

"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton

by bored now on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 03:12:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: afaik, aipac didn't take a position... (none / 0)

Take a position? It is suggested they wrote the original amendment. See comments and citation below.

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 06:05:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: afaik, aipac didn't take a position... (none / 0)

like i said, as far as i knew. i was relating something i had heard relating specifically to durbin...

"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton

by bored now on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 06:44:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Iran Sanctions Enabling Act (none / 0)

Well, just as an example, the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act was recently passed by a significant majority in the House. We haven't discussed it much here but it is potentially far more significant than Kyl/Lieberman. Consider this:

At the same time, the House of Representatives voted nearly unanimously - 408-6 - for another measure, the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, which would force Bush to impose sweeping sanctions against foreign companies that invest more than US$20 million in Iran's energy sector.

That bill, which is opposed by the Bush administration itself because of strong pressure from Washington's European and Asian allies and key US multinational companies, is considered likely to stall in the Senate through the remainder of this year.

But its huge margin of approval, which some observers said was boosted by this week's controversial visit to New York by Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, helped demonstrate once again how responsive members of both major parties are to the so-called "Israel lobby", which has made the sanctions bill its top legislative priority this year.

Jim Lobe - Asia Times 29 Sep 07

It is remarkable how little attention this bill has received comparatively to Kyl/Lieberman, but the timing and intention are the same. This bill is actively endorsed and facilitated by AIPAC, have a look at their website. Typically you have to read the overseas press, particularly the Asian press, to hear much about AIPAC and it's influence on US policy.

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 06:16:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In a Word (none / 0)

Well I didn't make it up. And yes I do think AIPAC was more unequivocally supporting this amendment than the AUMF. We kinda' dragged a doubtful Israel with us back then. Consider this from the Asia Times:

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.

Jim Lobe - Asia Times 29 Sep 07

I strongly urge you to read the full article as it cogently presents the argument that this vote was about giving the hawks support internally in the Bush administration, which explains the timing and content of the amendment:

Still, the fact that the amendment was approved by a significant margin - and with the support of key Democrats, including Clinton and Majority Leader Harry Reid - is certain to be used by hawks within the administration as an indication of bipartisan support for a more aggressive policy toward Iran.

Jim Lobe - Asia Times 29 Sep 07

Durbin voted for this for the same reason Hillary did. And the same reason Obama took a pass, for which I don't blame him one bit under the circumstances.

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 05:57:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So why is Webb against it? (none / 0)

Who knows why these politicians vote the way they do.

I stopped obsessing over voting scorecardds and see how they work with other progressives and are willing to stand up for progressive issues in public. Hillary has been a coward with respect to the middle east. This specific vote - who cares at this point. I dont trust many politicians of either party with the middle east.

by Pravin on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 10:40:55 AM EST

Re: So why is Webb against it? (none / 0)

Hillary has been a coward with respect to the middle east

- Kinda depends on what you consider to be strength doesn't it.

I have been hearing people call her a warmonger , hawk , neo con etc in the middle east .

Now she is a coward on the middle east.

So i guess it depends on the individual's perspective that is why she can be all things to everyone.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 11:04:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So why is Webb against it? (none / 0)

Being a hawk does not reflect true courage. standing up for the right cause does. I really doubt Hillary fell for Bush's lies back then considering the high placed friends Bill Clinton had.

by Pravin on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 01:30:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So why is Webb against it? (none / 0)

I doubt Bill knew any better about WMDs considering it was everyone's consensus that Saddam had them back when Bill was President.

Let's recall, in all fairness, that Bill Clinton didn't have the most awesome Iraq policy either. I mean, we didn't really accomplish much with those sanctions, but we sure made life miserable for a lot of Iraqis.

"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 Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 02:07:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i'd strongly suggest that bill was erratic about.. (none / 0)

foreign policy, paying attention only when he had to. not anything to be proud of -- but given the heavy-handedness of this president, no doubt bill was a relief to the other nations in the world...

"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton

by bored now on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 03:15:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So why is Webb against it? (none / 0)

Sometimes, Lori, being a hawk is being a coward. If she has gauged public opinion as consensually supporting an aggressive posture in the Middle East and simply goes along with that trend that is not heroic, merely convenient. And generally wrong from a policy point of view as I hope we have all realised.

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 06:03:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

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.