MyDD :: Wesley Clark -- Op-Ed response to Obama's attack

Wesley Clark -- Op-Ed response to Obama's attack

by Hurdy Gurdy, Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 12:21:42 PM EST

The New Hampshire Union Leader published the following Op-Ed written by General Wesley Clark this Sunday Morning:

Clinton's approach deters a rush to war

I am not allowed to post the entire Op-Ed. Please read the entire piece for a full picture. I post just excerpts below:

In the back and forth on Iran, one critical issue is being missed: which candidate will create the strategic shift necessary to deal with the challenge of Iran and help end the fighting in the Middle East? I believe that candidate is Hillary Rodham Clinton.
snip
That is why I am so dismayed and disappointed about political attacks that misrepresent the senator's positions and betray a fundamental misunderstanding about how to conduct effective diplomacy in the 21st century.

In supporting legislation that seeks to exert diplomatic pressure on Iran, Senator Clinton is standing up to the Bush administration, which has recklessly refused to talk to Iran about its clandestine nuclear program. In voting for a non-binding resolution that urges the administration to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, she is forcing the Bush administration to apply diplomatic pressure. This is the best way to call attention to the problem, empower US diplomacy, and warn Iran that it must cooperate.

There is nothing in the non-binding Kyl-Lieberman bill that would give President Bush any authority whatsoever to go to war.
snip

The issues we confront in the Mideast today are serious. Iran must not be allowed to build or acquire nuclear weapons. Neither must Iran be permitted to intervene with force, arms or terrorism inside Iraq. Actions like putting pressure and sanctions on the Revolutionary Guard are necessary and appropriate. And, as Senator Clinton has said, these actions must be combined with a far-reaching diplomatic initiative in the region that includes a dialogue with Iran.

This is not the time to rush to war, nor is it the time to do nothing. Rather, this is the time to work resolutely to avert the need to use force at some point in the future.

This Op-Ed is obviously a response to Barack Obama's Op-Ed attacking Hillary Clinton, published last week in the same newspaper, Union Leader.

I have great respect for Senator Dick Durbin, the senior Senator from Illinois. He is Obama's mentor and biggest supporter. I don't think that we can find a more honest arbiter on the issue of whether Obama's attack against Hillary Clinton is fair. He said that Obama is wrong about the Non-Binding "Sense of the Senate" resolution on Iran's Revolutionary Guard:

Durbin, 62, said Obama was wrong to upbraid Clinton for her Sept. 26 vote to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, a nonbinding resolution that Durbin also supported. Obama, who was campaigning in New Hampshire and missed the vote, said the language of the measure could potentially push the U.S. closer to war with Iran.

"It's rare that Barack and I disagree on an issue of this magnitude," Durbin, the second-highest ranking Senate Democrat, said in an interview with Bloomberg Television's "Political Capital with Al Hunt," scheduled to air today. "I have the same concerns that Barack Obama does about this administration and what they might do with the power that they have. But I don't think this resolution gives them a green light to do anything."

Also of concern to me is the fact that Obama skipped the vote. Ninety-eight Senators were present for this vote. If Senator Obama believed the measure was as dangerous as he says, wouldn’t he have had some obligation to stand up, speak out, and fight against it? Obama's excuse for being absent was:

"This is one of the problems with running for president," Obama said. "You can't always anticipate which votes are which, but I put out a statement at the time stating that this was a bad idea and that I would have voted against it."

Obama blamed scheduling for the missed vote.

"If you're in New Hampshire, then it's hard to get back," he said.

But, Senator Joe Biden says differently:

"I wonder why he wasn't there to vote," Biden said. "We all knew that this vote was coming up."

I also want to bring attention to the fact that Obama co-sponsored the following BINDING bill:
The "Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007," which Obama cosponsored on April 24, 2007, states clearly that:

"The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) and the Secretary of the Treasury should place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224 (66 Fed. Reg. 186; relating to blocking property and prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism)."

Why did Senator Obama co-sponsor an actual bill (not a non-binding resolution) designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a "terrorist organization" (the " "Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007") if he did not think that the Revolutionary Guard were engaged in "terrorist" activity; and further, where were the Revolutionary Guards engaging in the "terrorist" activity Obama wished to stop?

Wouldn't Obama's binding bill give Bush a greater rationalization to attack Iran as Obama claims the non-binding resolution provides?

Based on the facts that I presented above, I would like to express my profound dissapointment with Obama's attack upon Senator Clinton. I am in total agreement with Senator Durbin and General Clark that Obama is wrong in attacking Senator Clinton in this manner.

Tags: Wesley Clark, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Dick Durbin, Iran, Kyl-Lieberman amendment, Iranian Revolutionary Guards, terrorist organization (all tags)

Permalink :: 95 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Wesley Clark -- (1.50 / 2)

A great response from Clark and a well thought-out diary, thank you. Falling behind in a campaign is not an excuse to misrepresent and distort someone's position for political gain, especially on something as important as this.

by reasonwarrior on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 12:34:03 PM EST

Re: Wesley Clark -- (2.00 / 1)

I have to disagree. Whether or not the senate resolution was nonbinding is not the question. The question is: Does the resolution encourage this administration to further prepare for a military strike against Iran? Does the senate resolution help this adminitsration argue in the court of public opinion that "we cant just sit idly and do nothing against this new and grave threat"? And further: Diest the senate resolution make it more or less palatable for democrats to criticize this administration with clarity and credibility if and when this adminustration decides to use the militarty - of course as a last resort - against Iran?

No. No. No. No.

There we go.

I totally didnt expect such a commentary to come from general Clar. I have been one of his earliest suppoporters and a member of the draft Clark movement in 2003. I was holding out hop for him to enter the presidential race this time again and was very disappointed when he instead endorsed HRC.

I think Edwards is righr. The junior senator from New York hasnt learnt the right lessons from her Iraq vote.

She should have abstained during this vote and explained why. She can still make her case for a tough diplomacy with/against Iran when she is in the White House. Doing so now, just encourages the Neocons to try another misguided adventure before the next elections!!!

I remember very well, how people thought and argued in 2002. Everybody believed the Bush administartion was just saber rattling against Iraq. And it worked as an election theme. We are strong, we protect you.

Now we see another episosed in that political game, republicans are so clever at.

It makes me sad and sick to see so many democrats falling for it again. Dont they ever learn?

by MarcTGFG on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 02:25:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wesley Clark -- (none / 0)

Preview is my friend ;-)

It should read: Yes. Yes. Less.

Sorry for the other typos :-(

by MarcTGFG on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 02:27:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wesley Clark -- (none / 0)

You asked: Does the resolution encourage this administration to further prepare for a military strike against Iran?

Absolutely not. As Senator Durbin already said: "I don't think this resolution gives them a green light to do anything."

You asked: Does the senate resolution help this adminitsration argue in the court of public opinion that "we cant just sit idly and do nothing against this new and grave threat"?

This resolution can help the administration insofar as to argue for exerting diplomatic pressures and economic sanctions. Nothing more.

You asked: Diest the senate resolution make it more or less palatable for democrats to criticize this administration with clarity and credibility if and when this adminustration decides to use the militarty - of course as a last resort - against Iran?

The real question is whether the IRG is conducting terrorism. If they are, they should be labeled as a terrorist organization. The next question is if they are a terrorist organization, what should we do about it? Nothing? The resolution gave consent for exerting diplomatic pressures and sanctions. Whether military action is needed is subject for further consideration by the Congress. The Congress would naturally demand a period of time (minimum 1 year) for diplomacy and sanctions to work. That should pretty much take us to January 2009, by which time Bush and Cheney will be out of office and the danger of unwarranted war will pass.

You are suggesting that Senator Clinton should abstain from voting on this amendment. I strongly disagree. Running away ferom a difficlt vote on a national security issue, the way Obama did, would severely damage the credibility of the person to be CIC.

You said that she can still make her case for a tough diplomacy with/against Iran when she is in the White House. Are you saying that we should do absolutely nothing about the IRG terrorist activities between now and January 2009? How irresponsible that would be! Terrorism is like cancer. Once discovered, it needs to be treated as soon as possible before it spread As Geeral Clark has said: "this is the time to work resolutely to avert the need to use force at some point in the future."

Senator Clinton and the Democrats have learned. They refused to vote for the resolution until paragraph 3 and 4, which would otherwise give Bush the authority for military action, were removed.

by Hurdy Gurdy on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 03:20:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wesley Clark -- (none / 0)

Assuming the State Department indeed lists the IRG as a foreign terrorist organisation the US will have the unilateral authority to interfere overtly with the financial transactions of a branch of the Iranian government and armed forces which reports directly to Supreme Leader of Iran the Grand Ayotollah Ali Khamenei. Purchases of TOR-M1 air defense systems from Russia, which the US attempted unsuccessfully to block with sanctions late last year, wages for IRG personnel in embassies worldwide, in fact just about any overseas bank account of the Islamic Republic of Iran is now fair game for interference. Is this how you start diplomatic negotiations? Give me a break.

by Shaun Appleby on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 06:28:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wesley Clark -- (none / 0)

Allow me to use the cancer analogy again here.

Terrorists = cancer cells

The Senate, upon examination of the pathologists' report, agreed that the IRG is cancerous and something needs to be done about it. What are the options? The oncologist suggests that they should try chemotherapy, radiation and surgery to kill the cancer cells off. The Senate replied: we don't think radiation and surgery are warranted at this moment. let us try chemotherapy to starve the cancer cells first.

That caused quite a stir. Many came forward to warn about the danger of chemotherapy. Shaun Appleby pointed out the bad side effects of chemotherapy. He asked: is this how you want to cure the cancer? Give me a break!

Uh-Oh, what should I say?

I would say, I am not an oncologist. I am not in a position to judge whether chemotherapy would work in this case.

Shaun, may I ask if you are privy to all the informations available to the Executive Branch and the Congress? If you don't, would you give the benefit of a doubt that an avenue may exist to starve the IRG of funding that you don't have any knowledge of?

by Hurdy Gurdy on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 07:56:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wesley Clark -- (none / 0)

Well, thanks for the Dr. Strangelove moment with the oncological metaphor, which I find frankly alarming. My only response to that is who is the patient in your analogy? The international community? The planet? The Middle East? In that context one wonders what treatment is indicated for the traumatic injuries the patient is suffering elsewhere, gunshot wounds, loss of blood, dizziness, etc. Triage is the second rule of medicine.

But your second point is a profound one, and worthy of careful consideration. My interest in world affairs started with a study of history, a life-long fascination with the events and personalities which indelibly shaped the reality we inhabit today. In general, and their are very few specific exceptions to this, world-shaping events and significant shifts in geopolitical relationships take place with ample contemporary public-record evidence of the factors effecting the outcome. It is possible to go back to the published evidence at the time and identify the typically dissenting opinions which correctly identified the issues and outcomes with seeming prescience. Churchill's poorly received speeches on the threat of Germany are a classic example, he was the laughing-stock of Parliament in the mid-30's. Senator Obama's speech against the war in Iraq is another relevant example.

It is almost always possible, if one seeks information widely and balances it fairly, to discern the real issues underlying these actions, increasingly so with the miraculous access we now have to global opinion and information. To suggest that the institutions we have endowed with our authority are privy to information so important and clandestine that it renders our judgement irrelevant is a treacherous first step down a slippery slope to a place we have famously avoided for the whole of our national history. Let's not go there. There is no secret so vital that we should abdicate our responsibility to this nation, which we have fought for so valiantly, to the unspecified ambitions of those we have elected to serve us.

by Shaun Appleby on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 08:31:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wesley Clark -- (none / 0)

You asked me a question and I answered it.

But, you haven't answer my question:

Are you privy to all the informations available to the Executive Branch and the Congress? If you don't, would you give the benefit of a doubt that an avenue may exist to starve the IRG of funding that you don't have any knowledge of?

by Hurdy Gurdy on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 09:00:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wesley Clark -- (none / 0)

What? You didn't get my response? Shucks.

No, of course I am not privy to all the information available to the Executive Branch and Congress. But I am not an ignoramus or an intellectual coward either. I will bet you a steak dinner that there is nothing which is not readily discerned from the public record which bears sufficiently on this decision as to affect the outcome. The bloody State Department doesn't want to do this. Don't you get it? And they are privy to the whole enchilada. Don't give your power away, man, you have every right to be informed, confident and active.

by Shaun Appleby on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 09:34:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wesley Clark -- (none / 0)

I am a scientist. I'm trained to place my judgement based on complete and accurate available information. Unlike you, I would NEVER make definitive judgement, and push it upon others as absolute, based on partial information.

by Hurdy Gurdy on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 09:56:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wesley Clark -- (none / 0)

Well, that brings up another profound question, the limits of reductionism as a legitimate analytical tool for explaining chaotic systems. I certainly respect your posts for their logically conceived arguments and it is a pleasure, generally, to respond to them. But science can measure far more than it can describe, especially in the nether realms of our social and political sciences, which I believe, given our current understanding, are misnamed.

When I was suffering many years ago from as yet unidentified maladies contracted in equatorial Borneo my doctor in Singapore pointed out he was a tropical disease specialist, not an expert. There were no experts. He reckoned someone could have done a doctoral thesis on my maladies, given the area where I was working. There are no 'experts' among our social and political scientists, merely specialists.

by Shaun Appleby on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 10:35:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wesley Clark -- (none / 0)

I have met many people in my profession that have told me that it would be impossible to do this or that. Some argued that -- THE EARTH IS FLAT! Can't you see, here I give you the proof for it! If you can't see it, you are #@!&*. More often than not, I managed to prove them wrong.

I'm reminded of the story about the blinds trying to describe to one another what an elephant looks like. One says I'm sure it is a trunk thing, that's how it feels like to me. Another says, no, NO, give me a break, it's a wide vertical flat surface, like a wall, I'm very sure of it! You are WRONG! And so on...

I think it is a good thing to have an open mind. Afterall, by definition, a liberal is one favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. ;)

by Hurdy Gurdy on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 10:58:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wesley Clark -- (none / 0)

Ok, prove me wrong. I love it. So what is the lesson of The Five Blind Men and the Elephant? See the whole, right?

Open mind, great. No, opinion? <incorrect answer buzzer>! So we agree on the rules-of-engagement. Terrific. Back to the question of the Kyl/Lieberman vote, perhaps?

by Shaun Appleby on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 11:18:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wesley Clark -- (none / 0)

Incidentally, since you place such a regard on complete and accurate available information, which I endorse, why would you make the compelling case for exclusive informations available to the Executive Branch and the Congress as if Jethro from NCIS was going to save the day? My kid loves NCIS, and I enjoy it too, but our cultural heroes are just that. 'We the people' are not just the recipients of the blessing of the Constitution. It was a contract. And 'we the people' are basically the only signatories. If we, the majority, abrogate that authority the contract is essentially broken and the finest, shining outcome of the Age of Enlightenment is extinguished.

You know, Obama speaks to me on a really patriotic level. Truly patriotic. His prophecy, for those who haven't yet heard it, is that before this is over, and we have a long row to hoe, we must make common cause with our allies on the Right who share our loyalty to the Republic. Read it and weep. We are in deeper sh*t than we admit.

by Shaun Appleby on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 11:12:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wesley Clark -- (none / 0)

Obama speaks to you. Good. I see, you buy his messianic prophecy. That is fine with me. Read it? Yeah, I read his book. Weep? Nah, I don't weep over silly stuff.

We are in deeper sh*t than we admit? Yeah, I have been told that by just everybody for as long as I can remember.

Relax, have some hot milk, everything will be fine. :)

by Hurdy Gurdy on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 12:00:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wesley Clark -- (none / 0)

My point was that our essential liberties are on the line here. Relax? Sure, nothing new, but it ain't gettin' any better. Would love to have you with us.

by Shaun Appleby on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 12:15:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wesley Clark -- (none / 0)

Those that support this Lieberman call for war amendment learned NOTHING from the 2002 AUMF vote. Edwards and Obama are right here. If you give Bush a blank check you can't pretend to be surprised when he cashes it.

Instead of diplomatic action, this vote gives the green light to Bush to begin military action against a "terrorist" organization. And he won't need congressional approval for that because congress has already given him approval to attack terrorist organizations. These politicians and their supporters that argue otherwise take the rest of us for fools that can't read between the lines. We will not be silenced by any parade of loyal "endorsers" that will gladly say anything they can that places their candidate in a favorable light. Even when they are chummy with the likes of Joe Lieberman. We need to rescue our party from these thieves and liars. And Warmongers.

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

by Hillary Lieberman on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 09:38:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wesley Clark -- (none / 0)

You wrote: "Instead of diplomatic action, this vote gives the green light to Bush to begin military action against a "terrorist" organization. And he won't need congressional approval for that because congress has already given him approval to attack terrorist organizations."

That is blatant falsehood.

Consequences of being classified terrorist organization:

For the consequences;

Legal Consequences

1. With limited exceptions set forth in the Order, or as authorized by OFAC, all property and interests in property of designated individuals or entities that are in the United States or that come within the United States, or that come within the possession or control of U.S. persons are blocked.

2. With limited exceptions set forth in the Order, or as authorized by OFAC, any transaction or dealing by U.S. persons or within the United States in property or interests in property blocked pursuant to the Order is prohibited, including but not limited to the making or receiving of any contribution of funds, goods, or services to or for the benefit of individuals or entities designated under the Order.

3. Any transaction by any U.S. person or within the United States that evades or avoids, or has the purpose of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate, any of the prohibitions in the Order is prohibited. Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions is also prohibited.

4. Civil and criminal penalties may be assessed for violations.

Other Effects

1. Deters donations or contributions to designated individuals or entities.

2. Heightens public awareness and knowledge of individuals or entities linked to terrorism.

3. Alerts other governments to U.S. concerns about individuals or entities aiding terrorism, and promotes due diligence by such governments and private sector entities operating within their territories to avoid associations with terrorists.

4. Disrupts terrorist networks, thereby cutting off access to financial and other resources from sympathizers.

5. Encourages designated entities to get out of the terrorism business

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/2002/16 181.htm

It is clear from the above that the impact of placing the IRG on the list is to leverage economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran. That was the reason so many people who voted against the iraq war , voted for the bill , they made sure any language in the original bill that could even have given Bush a chance to think it was a check to go to war was stripped , then voted for it , like Clinton . None of them voted for war.

by Hurdy Gurdy on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 10:28:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wesley Clark -- (1.00 / 1)

And it is a call for war. Someone would have to be mentally deficient to not see how this amendment is a provocation of a large part of a sovereign nation's armed forces. It is dumb ass diplomacy.

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

by Hillary Lieberman on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 04:59:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wesley Clark -- (none / 0)

When one loses control and resort to name-calling, he/she has lost the debate already. "Mentally deficient" is a more appropriate label for those that refuses to accept facts. The following is the usual consequence of candidates that conduct negative campaigns based on falsehood and LIES: here

The pathetic dead cat bounce is over. It is on its way zero! :)

by Hurdy Gurdy on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 06:06:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wesley Clark -- (none / 0)

Thanks for abusing the rating system here. Just like a loyal Clinton supporter would do.

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

by Hillary Lieberman on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 06:40:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wesley Clark -- (none / 0)

Uprated. Inappropriate troll rating.

howardpark, you should not troll rate posts inappropriately.

by Hurdy Gurdy on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 09:46:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wesley Clark -- (1.00 / 1)

The correct spelling is New Hampshire Union Leader.

by howardpark on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 10:09:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama is lying (2.00 / 1)

"This is one of the problems with running for president," Obama said. "You can't always anticipate which votes are which, but I put out a statement at the time stating that this was a bad idea and that I would have voted against it."

Obama blamed scheduling for the missed vote.

"If you're in New Hampshire, then it's hard to get back," he said.

Obama is lying when his campaign suggests that he missed the vote because it was rescheduled from the previous day at the last minute. He wasn't on the job the day before, either. Instead, he was at an event in Arkansas at noon and a fundraiser in Portland, ME at 5:00pm when Harry Reid announced there would be no vote on Kyl-Lieberman that night.

Apparently Obama's pledge to "tell the truth to the American people" doesn't extend to his reasons for missing Senate votes.

by hwc on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 12:37:24 PM EST

Re: Obama is lying (2.00 / 2)

I'm really getting tired of this phony "Obama skipped the Iran vote" discussion and its a shame that way too many bloggers have failed to do the proper research.

Missing a vote is not the same as avoiding it. The congressional record from that date made it clear that the Kyl-Lieberman Amemdment would not be voted on in the near future.

Mr. REID: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID: Mr. Chairman, there will be no more votes tonight. We have tried to work something out on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment and the Biden amendment. We have been unable to do that.
We have been very close a few times, but we have just been informed that Senator Biden will not have a vote anytime in the near future. There will not be a vote on the other one anytime in the near future. We hope tonight will bring more clearness on the issue.
But right now, I think it is fair to say there will be no votes tonight.
Does the Senator from South Dakota have any comments?
Mr. THUNE. No, I do not. I would say to the leader, that is good for our Members to know. We have Members who have been inquiring whether they will be able to vote.

The fact is that Obama was present in the Senate on 9/25 when the measure was initially scheduled for a vote. Therefore, Barack goes to campaign in NH, the same place as the next day's debate, when Reid INDEFINITELY tabled it. Sen. Reid then subsequently calls a vote the next day, which occured at 12:44 pm on 9/26.

Had he missed the vote and not taken a position on it, I'd see the reason for criticism. But Obama did release a statement after the vote was announced, so he didn't sit idly by when it was all said and done.

Senator Obama clearly recognizes the serious threat posed by Iran. However, he does not agree with the president that the best way to counter that threat is to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq, and he does not think that now is the time for saber-rattling towards Iran. In fact, he thinks that our large troop presence in Iraq has served to strengthen Iran - not weaken it. He believes that diplomacy and economic pressure, such as the divestment bill that he has proposed, is the right way to pressure the Iranian regime. Accordingly, he would have opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment had he been able to vote today.

What I don't get, Hurdy Gurdy and hwc, is that you and others care more about candidates who couldn't get back in time for a vote, but took a clear position on it. Yet you have less concern about Hillary's vote and how it could potentially be used by Bush to take us into a war with Iran. And before you talk about her co-sponsored bill with Jim Webb, note that this happened after Hillary took heat for voting in favor of Kyl-Lieberman.

So who's lying now? Show me facts that prove otherwise instead of conveniently leaving them out.

Vote Who Sane '08!

by nafamabo on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 10:30:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is lying (none / 0)

Good post! What the Hillary gang are attempting to do is discredit Obama for not voting to obscure our view that Clinton did vote and actually VOTED FOR Joe Lieberman and Dick Cheney's bill to justify and lead us closer to war with Iran. Old tactic, typical bullshit response.

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

by Hillary Lieberman on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 09:57:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is lying (none / 0)

Everybody should be concerned about Senators that do not fulfill their Senate responsibility.

Again, it is utter falsehood to claim that those that voted AYE are leading us close to war with Iran. See my earlier response to your LIE -- here.

The reason your candidate is doing so poorly is that the voters can see through this kind of LIE that he is spouting. You are NOT helping your candidate by spewing LIES.

by Hurdy Gurdy on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 10:37:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is lying (none / 0)

First off, I agree that Obama should have been there to cast his vote one way or the other. I believe that Senators and elected representatives in general have an OBLIGATION to do the job they were elected and hired to do.

Next, while we apparently disagree about what the Lieberman Iran War Amendment really means, your gal felt it unclear enough to rush to endorse Webb's proposal.

I am NOT spewing ANY lies. Not a single one. Any time you tell Bush that he should act to classify a large part of a nation's armed forces as a terrorist organization it leads us closer to war. Bush does not need to consult with Congress to attack terrorist organizations, they have already ceded that power to him. So lets not play these pretend games like the vote was innocuous. It wasn't and isn't.

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

by Hillary Lieberman on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 04:56:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is lying (none / 0)

You wrote: Any time you tell Bush that he should act to classify a large part of a nation's armed forces as a terrorist organization it leads us closer to war. Bush does not need to consult with Congress to attack terrorist organizations, they have already ceded that power to him.

That is false.

We already classified many government entities as terrorist organizations. For example, Hamas, Hezbollah, et al. Bush is NOT authorized to conduct military action against any of them. He needs specific AUMFs to do so. He may do only the following:

For the consequences;

Legal Consequences

1. With limited exceptions set forth in the Order, or as authorized by OFAC, all property and interests in property of designated individuals or entities that are in the United States or that come within the United States, or that come within the possession or control of U.S. persons are blocked.

2. With limited exceptions set forth in the Order, or as authorized by OFAC, any transaction or dealing by U.S. persons or within the United States in property or interests in property blocked pursuant to the Order is prohibited, including but not limited to the making or receiving of any contribution of funds, goods, or services to or for the benefit of individuals or entities designated under the Order.

3. Any transaction by any U.S. person or within the United States that evades or avoids, or has the purpose of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate, any of the prohibitions in the Order is prohibited. Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions is also prohibited.

4. Civil and criminal penalties may be assessed for violations.

Other Effects

1. Deters donations or contributions to designated individuals or entities.

2. Heightens public awareness and knowledge of individuals or entities linked to terrorism.

3. Alerts other governments to U.S. concerns about individuals or entities aiding terrorism, and promotes due diligence by such governments and private sector entities operating within their territories to avoid associations with terrorists.

4. Disrupts terrorist networks, thereby cutting off access to financial and other resources from sympathizers.

5. Encourages designated entities to get out of the terrorism business

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/2002/16 181.htm

by Hurdy Gurdy on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 06:17:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is lying (none / 0)

You and those like you are naive, irresponsible and dangerous.

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

by Hillary Lieberman on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 06:42:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is lying (none / 0)

I think you ARE suffering from EHS (Exploding Head Syndrome), very common among the pathological Hillary haters. It's going to get worse as Hillary's Intrade poll goes to 100 and your candidate goes to zero. I do feel your pain. ;)

You are so pathologically angry at Hillary and her supporters that you are posting HATE day and night and everywhere you go. That's so very sad!

by Hurdy Gurdy on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 07:08:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is lying (none / 0)

You can live in la la land if you so choose but I don't hate anyone really. I tell the truth and you just think I hate her.

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

by Hillary Lieberman on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:13:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary is war-mongering (2.00 / 1)

and hence she has lost my vote for good in the Democratic primary. Just over two years ago, she was my second choice after Gore. I had even written her an open letter 2 years ago, hoping to make her positions less hawkish and DLC-like. Before her Kyl-Lieberman vote, I would have probably voted for her over Edwards who supported the invasion of Iraq more strongly than she did.

But, because of her Kyl-Lieberman vote, coupled with her past vote for the Iraq War Authorization Resolution, she will no longer receive my vote in the Democratic primary under any circumstances. If she's the nominee, I will vote for in the general election, but only highly reluctantly so.

It seems not to be widely realized that Hillary (along with 66 others, including Obama and Boxer) Co-Sponsored S. 970, "Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007" of Mar 22, 2007. Sen. Webb told us all we need to know about Kyl-Lieberman which Hillary voted for and Obama said he would not have voted for, had he been able to vote.

The United States Senate
Sep 26, 2007
Section 19

Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA): Mr. President, I have grave concerns about this amendment. I spoke at length on the floor yesterday about them. We have never characterized an entity of a foreign government as a foreign terrorist organization. If we are saying that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is conducting terrorist activities, what we are saying, in effect, is that the Revolutionary Guard is conducting military activities against us. This has the danger of becoming a de facto authorization for military force against Iran.

We have not had one hearing. I recommended yesterday that the amendment be withdrawn so we can consider it in the appropriate committees. I oppose passage at this time in the hope that we can get further discussion.

I yield the floor.

More details here and here.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 06:24:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary is NOT war-mongering (none / 0)

"We have never characterized an entity of a foreign government as a foreign terrorist organization."

That statement is not true. Hamas and Hezbollah come to my mind. There may be many more.

Hamas. Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by Unite States. It was elected in January 2006 as the government of the Palestinian people.

Hezbollah. United States officially list Hezbollah or its external security arm as a terrorist organization. Hezbollah is an organization which has seats in the Lebanese government.

My understanding is that Webb gave the speech on the September 25 that he didn't like the bill , Hillary Clinton also signaled she didn't like the language. On the 26th, right before the vote, bill was stripped of paragraph 3 and 4. (Link)

Original Bill:

1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;

(2) that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;

(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;

(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;

(5) that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224; and

(6) that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.

Bill that was passed:

(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;

(2) that it is a critical national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;

(3) that the United States should designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224; and

(4) that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.

Offensive Paragraph that was removed:

(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;

(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies.

For the consequences:

Legal Consequences

1. With limited exceptions set forth in the Order, or as authorized by OFAC, all property and interests in property of designated individuals or entities that are in the United States or that come within the United States, or that come within the possession or control of U.S. persons are blocked.

2. With limited exceptions set forth in the Order, or as authorized by OFAC, any transaction or dealing by U.S. persons or within the United States in property or interests in property blocked pursuant to the Order is prohibited, including but not limited to the making or receiving of any contribution of funds, goods, or services to or for the benefit of individuals or entities designated under the Order.

3. Any transaction by any U.S. person or within the United States that evades or avoids, or has the purpose of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate, any of the prohibitions in the Order is prohibited. Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions is also prohibited.

4. Civil and criminal penalties may be assessed for violations.

Other Effects

1. Deters donations or contributions to designated individuals or entities.

2. Heightens public awareness and knowledge of individuals or entities linked to terrorism.

3. Alerts other governments to U.S. concerns about individuals or entities aiding terrorism, and promotes due diligence by such governments and private sector entities operating within their territories to avoid associations with terrorists.

4. Disrupts terrorist networks, thereby cutting off access to financial and other resources from sympathizers.

5. Encourages designated entities to get out of the terrorism business

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/2002/16 181.htm

It is clear from the above that the impact of placing the IRG on the list is to leverage economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran. That was the reason so many people who voted against the iraq war , voted for the bill , they made sure any language in the original bill that could even have given Bush a chance to think it was a check to go to war was stripped , then voted for it, like Clinton. None of them voted for war.

NeuvoLiberal, Clinton's vote gave me more confidence that she will do the right thing despite political pressures to take the easy way out. I have two very close friends, security mom type, who have confided in me that they respected Hillary more because of her K/L vote. These two are more centrist, moderate type of Dems.

It is not possible for Hillary to satisfy everybody. There will always be people for and against every vote that she casts. It boils down to knowing her overall record.

I will end by quoting the sentiment of someone that has known Hillary for a long long time.

mp, I don't begrudge you for expressin' your doubts. Senator Clinton has said repeatedly that she has to earn everybody's vote; she expects nothin' as a "given" from anybody. But this I will say, Admin is so right: nobody will ever find a candidate that they agree with 100%. Hillary herself always points out "we won't always agree." I feel like when she does that she's preparin' us all for when she is president, or further in the campaign, and has to make decision that we don't like. I read the Iran bill and heard explanations that satisfied me that she'd done the right thing for right now. I can' t imagine Hillary Clinton wantin' military action against Iran (or any other country). And this bill is certainly no authorization of force -- it is necessary to impose economic sanction on Iran, as I understand it. I'm a member of the LGBT community and sure, I'd love to be able to marry my beloved partner. But i remember the civil rights movement, and the women's movement and I remember Stonewall riots. And these things have taught me the incremental nature of social change in our country. I truly believe that Hillary Clinton wants to lead the changes that I most want to see- and are most needed in my lifetime. I been watchin' her since she was a young person in Arkansas and she's never let me down. Ultimately though, trust is a personal choice and I hope that you and others who are really serious about how you vote will be able to make the choice to pull the lever for Hillary and give her the opportunity to provide much needed leadership for this country. mollyj

by Hurdy Gurdy on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 10:19:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary is NOT war-mongering (none / 0)

"Hamas. Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by Unite States. It was elected in January 2006 as the government of the Palestinian people."

But, didn't the political arm of the Hamas rise to power years after they were classified as a terrorist group?

The quote of Webb is from 9/26, just a minute before the K-L votes were cast.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 11:28:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary is NOT war-mongering (none / 0)

That was my point -- Hamas continued to be classified as a terrorist organization after they gained power as government of the Palestinian people in 2006. That, in my opinion, showed that Webb was wrong to say no government entities has ever been classified as terrorist organization.

Ten Senators that voted against the Iraq AUMF voted AYE to the K/L amendment. I'm sure all these very fine Senators voted their conscience -- for diplomatic pressures and economic sanctions (blocking funds from reaching IRG) and not for war.

by Hurdy Gurdy on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 11:54:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No hearing was held, and no, (none / 0)

Iran's military is not the same as Hamas/Hezbollah.

"Ten Senators that voted against the Iraq AUMF voted AYE to the K/L amendment."

The way to look at this is:

Hillary:

voted for the Iraq war resolution

Co-sponsored S. 970

Voted for S. 3710, the Kyl-Lieberman resolution

That's 3 strikes.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 12:20:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No hearing was held, and no, (none / 0)

The IRG is separate from, and parallel to, the other arm of the Iran's military.

The following WaPo article gave a good description of the terrorist activities conducted by the IRG.

WaPo article on IRG:

The question is whether the IRG is conducting terrorism.

For the criteria of what constitutes terrorism:

(d) the term "terrorism" means an activity that --

(i) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure; and

(ii) appears to be intended --

(A) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(B) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

If IRG is conducting terrorism, it should be classified as a terrorist organization. If the terrorism was aimed at Americans, we should proceed to try to stop their anti-American terrorism by cutting off their source of funding.

This, of course is my personal opinion, which you may not agree with, and which I will not force upon you. You are entitled to your own opinion and your choice of Presidential candidate.

by Hurdy Gurdy on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 01:02:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:She did not lose your vote (none / 0)

How could Hillary Clinton Lose your Vote. She Never had it !

In all your hundreds of Anti-Hillary postings here, Hillary never had your vote & never would have gotten your vote.

Just wanted to take out All the "Dramatics" of losing your support.

"One can't lose something she never had."

by labanman on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 10:57:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:She did not lose your vote (none / 0)

losing the chance to get my vote.

If it came down to HRC and JRE by the time my state's primary rolled around, before K-L, I would have picked Hillary. Now, I will either go JRE or stay home for the primary.

"In all your hundreds of Anti-Hillary postings here, Hillary never had your vote & never would have gotten your vote."

Maybe dozens. But you'll also find that I defend what is true; for example, I told many times that outside of the war, Hillary does have a progressive record. And I had pointed out that JRE's Iraq war hawking was worse than HRC's.

"Just wanted to take out All the "Dramatics" of losing your support."

What you call "dramatics" is merely truth being told, like it is and like I see it.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 11:20:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

terrorist organization designation (none / 0)

The critics have missed one other aspect of Clinton's effort, implicit in Clark's op-ed. Only the State Department can designate an organization "terrorist", the Kyl-Lieberman resolution was a non-binding push on the administration to do so. To date the Bush State Department has resisted doing so. If such a designation would open the way to military action the administration would no doubt make it. They have not because opening diplomatic means of pressuring Iran weakens Cheney's case for military action.

That was the purpose of the earlier, binding, effort cosponsored by Obama, Dodd and Clinton. Apparently Obama has decided that it is more expedient to make invading Iran a primary issue than to continue pressuring the administration to use diplomatic means. Clinton remains consistently committed to diplomacy.

by souvarine on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 01:00:09 PM EST

Re: terrorist organization designation (2.00 / 1)

But he question isnt whether the senate resolution is nonbinding. Of course it is. But it helpf this adminstration and especially the hardliners in this administration to make the case for military action. You dont have to be very clever or a US senator to see that...

In the AUMF in September 2001 congress gave the president the following authority:

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Dont you think, he will use this as an encouragement to argue that Iran is harboring terrorists and he therefore already has the authorization to use military force?

Thats the way he argued in Iraq. Therefore the Iraq resolution was worded so it didnt say it authorized military action against Iraq on its own, but that it reinforces the powers already given to this president to fight terrorists and defend the country as spelled out in the constitution and the AUMF.

by MarcTGFG on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 02:33:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: terrorist organization designation (none / 0)

The Kyl-Lieberman amendment spelled out in very clear term what the IRG is involved in and 9/11 is not included. Thus, Bush cannot use the 2001 AUMF as authority to strike Iran.

by Hurdy Gurdy on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 03:27:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No (none / 0)

You may recall the administration struggling mightily to make the case that Iraq supported the 9/11 hijackers. They failed to make the case and were not able to invade Iraq on that pretext. Bush had to get an Iraq specific AUMF in October 2002 saying:

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

The Al Qaeda AUMF of September 2001 did not authorize the invasion of Iraq, and does not authorize attacks in Iran. Nor does the Iraq AUMF authorize any military action in Iran. Bush would have to get another AUMF, even with proof that Iran was actively engaged in terrorism against the United States.

by souvarine on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 03:35:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

That's the whole point. There was no Kyl-Leiberman for Iraq therefor he needed a whole other AUMF. But if the Senate has already declared Iran to be a state supporter of terrorism it will be just that much easier for him.

by Mystylplx on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 03:42:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

This is a " sense of the senate " vote , it is non binding and it is not codified into law.

Bush cannot use it for anything because it is not legislation , it is not a law , it is non binding and it is not a bill.

To top it off , Nancy Pelosi has said She is not going to bring it up in the House of Rep. , ever !!!

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 Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 03:46:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

Why do they do those "non-binding resolutions" things? Isn't that like a carpenter building a house that won't stand, or a farmer growing crops that aren't real?

Ah, never mind me. I've had one too many beers today and really shouldn't be posting.

by Mystylplx on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 03:54:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

That is key to my point at the top of this thread. The Senate does not have the power to designate the IRG a terrorist organization under the relevant executive order, they are using this non-binding sense of the Senate to pressure Bush to use the diplomatic tools available to him.

by souvarine on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 04:04:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

Bush would obviously dearly love to take military action against Iran. I don't think even he wants to put in ground forces at this point, but he would LOVE to start up air strikes. So what I don't get is how even a non-binding Senate resolution will pressure him to use the diplomatic tools available to him. It seems to me that it will do exactly the opposite--it will give him an excuse to NOT use those tools. After all, diplomacy doesn't work on terrorists, right? And it will give further excuse to the State Department to officially declare them terrorists, which will just give Bush even more excuse to NOT use the diplomatic tools available to him.

I said elsewhere that her vote was a legitimate judgement call, but it really seems to me that, once again, her judgement leaves something to be desired. Her political judgement is undeniably astute, but her real world judgement is virtually nonexistent.

by Mystylplx on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 05:28:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

You wrote: Bush would obviously dearly love to take military action against Iran.

That is not true. He has been persuaded that war against Iran is a very BAD IDEA. ;)

Why Bush won't attack Iran

by Hurdy Gurdy on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 05:41:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

Again, go back to my post at the top of this thread. The Bush administration does not need congressional authorization to declare the IRG a terrorist organization, and yet they have refused to do so. The question is why?

Clark's answer in this op-ed is that they have refused to use the terrorist designation because they don't want to use the diplomatic tools that designation would permit. The Bush administration wants to use military force against the IRG, the terrorist designation would divert from that plan and require that they try the economic sanctions the designation enables.

by souvarine on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 05:43:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (2.00 / 1)

An excellent point, but not the correct answer. The State Department has baulked at declaring the IRG a foreign terrorist organisation for the sound diplomatic objections which have been pointed out repeatedly in this forum, specifically that the IRG is part of the formal armed forces of a sovereign state, from Reuters:

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week said Washington was considering sanctions against the Qods Force, the elite unit of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, which it accuses of inciting violence against U.S. troops in Iraq.

Andrea Shalal-Esa - Reuters 14 Oct 07

The State Department, correctly, has attempted to mitigate the damage of this resolution by proposing to list merely the 'Qod's Force' component of the IRG, which makes perfect sense and has been their stated position since Kyl/Lieberman was drafted.

Since Rumsfeld 'resigned' Rice and Gates have been staking out a valiant opposition to the Cheney Erstatzführerbunker on foreign policy. Gates, the only other human being required under US rules of engagement (see National Command Authority) told him to 'go-fish' on a nuclear pre-emptive strike early in the piece. Remember the 'just another day in the Persian Gulf' interview, and that wee little grin of his at the time? God, I loved him that day. And he and Rice have been the desperate unsung heroes since. I am not so partisan that I don't want to see those two prevail in the internal struggle. The actors in the Kyl/Lieberman legislation, and AIPAC, understand exactly what is going on and Kyl/Lieberman was a hand grenade into their foxhole. Not Cheney's. Hmmm...

C'mon, read the rumours behind the news once in awhile. Everybody gets this, even the media. Why screw Gates and Rice attempt to save us from ourselves in favour of Cheney's 'great game.' For a campaign? For a lobby group? For 1.5% higher polling in the general election? Souvarine, you made a compelling point elsewhere for the election of an executive who would put all this right, and I agree with you in principle. But we gotta' hold everything together until Inauguration Day too.

by Shaun Appleby on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 09:28:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

I don't have nearly your grasp of the details, so I am not going to win this debate on that ground. My impression is that the real target of the resolution is the Qods force within the IRG, and I agree with you that targeting sanctions at them would make sense.

I also agree that one can usually determine the factors at work in a foreign policy dispute (the president's vision is often no better than an 'open source' vision), but who is playing what role in an intra-governmental political battle can be much harder to discern. I'm inclined to trust Gates' skills and motivation, and Clinton's, but I view rumors coming from State as serving Rice more than the country. I'm not convinced that the resolution as passed screws Gates.

by souvarine on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 10:00:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

Right. According to Senator Durbin, Gates was the one that assured him that they DON'T want war with Iran. This suggests that Gates was hoping for the Senate to pass the amendment.

by Hurdy Gurdy on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 10:07:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

Well, that's a fair point. My guess is that Durbin was citing Gates more than supporting him, mitigating the slight, perhaps. Personally I think this was a lobby issue. I don't think Hillary is a villain in this, but a minor victim. I actually appreciate her recent back-flip on Iran and applaud it. In the context it seems a courageous and positive step. For her to publicly support 'unconditional' talks with Iran actually mitigates the damage considerably and I respect her for it.

by Shaun Appleby on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 11:36:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

That is also not the case, there were plenty of resolutions condemning Iraq's sponsorship of terrorism in Israel. Saddam Hussein very publicly paid large amounts to the families of suicide bombers. The Al Qaeda AUMF only covers countries harboring organizations that committed "the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

Iran helped the US attack Al Qaeda, and the IRG resolution has nothing to do with 9-11. The IRG resolution is intended to head off Bush from escalating military action by the US in Iran.

by souvarine on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 03:53:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

OK.

Nap time for me.

by Mystylplx on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 03:55:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

Also, to clarify, both Iran and Iraq have long been designated state sponsors of terrorism. This resolution calls for the IRG to be designated a foreign terrorist organization.

by souvarine on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 04:00:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

Apologies for having posted this same comment elsewhere but it seems relevant.

You are really falling for the right-wing and AIPAC line on this escalation of conflict with the sovereign state of Iran. Declaring the IRG a terrorist organisation opens up a new front, as you point out, in the conflict. Are we going to block their accounts when they are making payment to Russian for more Tor-M1 air defense missiles?

TEHRAN, February 7 (RIA Novosti) - Iran has successfully tested the TOR-M1 air defense missile system recently supplied by Russia, the Iranian news agency ISNA said, citing the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps responsible for national missile forces.

The tests were part of military exercises that began in southern Iran Wednesday after Russia completed the delivery of 29 TOR-M1 anti-aircraft missile systems to Iran in late January under a $700 million contract signed at the end of 2005.

Russia's weapons supplies alarmed the United States, which imposed new sanctions on the Russian government's official arms dealer Rosoboronexport and on two other companies for the sale of TOR-M1 to the Islamic Republic. Rosoboronexport faced sanctions for arms sales to Iran and Syria twice last year.

RIA Novosti 7 Feb 07

Those sanctions were lifted by the way because there was no legal justification for imposing them. Welcome to the New Cold War, your girl is taking us back to the bad old days. We are raising the stakes on relations with Russia, an Israel/Palestine settlement, and war with Iran. Why doesn't the State Department want to do this? Because Gates and Rice are desperately struggling with Cheney for control of US foreign policy at the moment and this is what Cheney wants. It is unconscionable and I cannot think what Clark's motives are for supporting it outside of loyalty to Hillary.

by Shaun Appleby on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 06:12:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

No, I am not falling for the right-wing and AIPAC line (which, by the way, was rebuked when the resolution was amended). I am buying Clark's (and Clinton's and Durbin's and Mikulski's and Cardin's) argument. For that matter I am buying Obama and Dodd's argument from April on S.970.

by souvarine on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 06:29:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

So what about blocking the IRG bank account when it comes to paying Russia for the next shipment of missiles? Good idea? Is that what the amendment and listing is useful for? Because that's exactly what Bush is likely to do.

by Shaun Appleby on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 06:35:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: terrorist organization designation (none / 0)

There's a good cop/bad cop element to diplomacy.

The next time Ryan Crocker meets with the Iranians, he can say, "look, our Congress is pushing for us to name the Revolutionary Guard a terror organization. We are trying to resist the pressure, but we need some progress in these talks so we can show Congress we are getting somewhere."

Conversely, the State Department is also fending off pressure from Israel and Saudi Arabia to "do something about Iran". This vote lets the State Department throw the Israelis and Saudis a bone. "See, we are serious....".

Don't assume that you are seeing the whole kabuki theater performance in these votes and behind the scenes diplomacy.

There's also a dance going on between Gates/Rice and the Cheney neocons. Gates has quietly assured the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Pentagon has zero intention of military action against Iran. He is in cahoots with Levin and the Armed Services Committee, including Clinton.

by hwc on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 03:30:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wesley Clark -- Op-Ed response to Obama's attack (2.00 / 2)

Good summary and response Hurdy Gurdy. However, I still disagree with Hillary's vote.

by lonnette33 on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 01:05:32 PM EST

We Have Been Told In School (2.00 / 1)

That "sense of Congress" resolutions are "nonbinding" and the courts have backed that up (so far). We were also told we had a right of habeas corpus. Of course this is post-9/11, so it's all different now.

by blues on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 01:27:58 PM EST

Re: We Have Been Told In School (none / 0)

Exactly. Nonbinding or not, it encourages this president to make somnthing foolish.

by MarcTGFG on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 02:28:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama's Opportunism (2.00 / 1)

Good post.

Given the fact that Obama missed the vote, as well as his sponsorship of the bill in April, his current attacks reek of desperation and opportunism.

by BigBoyBlue on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 01:51:10 PM EST

Re: Obama just NOT READY! (none / 0)

Well written diary. Kudos to you.

Sen. Durbin is without a doubt the # 1 Barack Obama supporter in the Senate. He was the number one major politician that had pushed Barack Obama to run for President when Obama was still unsure.

He is a true progressive & a true mentor to Barack.

Durbin is also the number 1 defender of Obama by consistently telling the media that Obama is ready for the Presidency & Obama has enough experience to lead our country.

He was also the number 1 cheerleader of Obama after Obama's brilliant speech at the 2004 convention.

So when Sen. Durbin has to publicly announce his strong disagreement with Sen. Obama on a major issue like this ( and actually have to side with Hillary Clinton- Obama's main competitor)- Durbin must feel very strongly about this issue.

When you have prominent Anti-War Senators like Durbin & Levin siding with Hillary Clinton- That's very significant.

What also bothers me the most about Obama is his " CONSISTENT" & very questionable MISSED VOTES on those " Controversial votes". Its those votes that no matter what how you vote, you will get criticism from people within your own democratic party.

How can it be a coincidence that Obama is quickly accumulating a string of " Absences" when it comes time to vote for these VERY IMPORTANT votes especially for one who is running for President.

Its bad enough that he was not in the Senate during the Iraq war to vote.

With all the problems facing the United States, I would seriously worry about the capability of Obama as President. There is something about this guy. His avoidance, indecision, adds to his lack of experience.

I would personally be much more comfortable with a Clinton, an Edwards, even a Biden or a Dodd over Barack Obama. - HE IS JUST NOT READY FOR THE PRESIDENCY!

Everyone was so concerned about George W. Bush's very thin resume when he ran for President.
Democrats repeatedly warned the nation on this.
And the results of this was 7 years of mistakes, indecisions, and serious judgement errors by Bush.

The problems we now face are much greater after the Bush presidency.

Now Barack Obama wants to be President. The problem is Obama's experience is even THINNGER than Bush. If he was to be President, he would have the thinnest resume of any U.S. President.

Why in the world would we even risk electing an Obama when we have so other competent people running for President.

This guy is not ready! He can be a democrat. But he is still not tne most qualified. Giving beatiful speeches does not make you qualified. Being a great orator does not make you qualified.

by labanman on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 02:36:56 PM EST

LOL (none / 0)

Now Barack Obama wants to be President. The problem is Obama's experience is even THINNGER than Bush. If he was to be President, he would have the thinnest resume of any U.S. President.

Unhinged.

by Korha on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 02:42:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LOL (none / 0)

Nope, he has more experience and a better resume than Lincoln did. Check facts, then post.

by NicholasWalter on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 04:03:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LOL (none / 0)

Lincoln founded and built the Republican party into a national force before becoming president. Are you claiming Obama (or for that matter any of our candidates) have more experience than that?

by souvarine on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 04:06:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama just NOT READY! (none / 0)

Hillary Clintons resume is also thinger than Bush's. Depending on how you look at it her resume is even thinger than Obama's.

by Mystylplx on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 03:24:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama just NOT READY! (none / 0)

Actually, depending on how you look at it, Obama has had more time in elected office and has been involved in more campaigns than Bush had been in when he ran. Bush had "executive" experience which neither Obama nor Hillary have had, but Obama's resume is actually thikler than Bush's, while Hillary's is thinger by any way you look at it.

by Mystylplx on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 03:29:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]