home

Obama's Political Stunt On Iran

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 09:40:54 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

First, let me make clear my view that Hillary Clinton's vote in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment was a huge mistake, both on policy and politics. Senator Chris Dodd got it right at the debate:

So what to do now? Pretend that Kyl Lieberman provides a LEGAL basis for Bush to attack Iran? Absolutely not. And yet, Senator Barack Obama, in a crass and harmful political stunt, is doing exactly that:

Democrat Barack Obama introduced a Senate resolution late Thursday that says President Bush does not have authority to use military force against Iran . . . Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the Illinois senator drafted the measure in an effort to "nullify the vote the Senate took to give the president the benefit of the doubt on Iran."

This is simply a false statement from the Obama campaign. Obama apparently is willing to pretend the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment authorizes the President to attack Iran, when it does not, in order to extract politcal gain as a result of Senator Clinton's huge mistake. That is despicable. More.

Senator Obama refused to sign a letter circulated by Senator Jim Webb that made clear that:

"We wish to emphasize that no congressional authority exists for unilateral military action against Iran," it says. That includes the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, the letter says.

Instead of agreeing with this inarguable statement, Obama chooses to try and make political hay, and says only legislation can undo, implicitly, the Congressional grant of authority to Bush to invade Iran. The truth is the Obama campaign is lying. On the issue of going to war with Iran. This is worse than any doubletalk. This is playing with the security of our nation for crass political gain. This is the lowest moment of the campaign for any Democrat. Shame on Obama.

Chris Dodd knew not to play politics with this issue:

Even though Dodd shares that view, he signed the letter because "we felt that it was necessary to make it clear that this administration cannot take military action against Iran without the express authorization of Congress," said Dodd spokesman Hari Sevugan.

Dodd proved yet again why he should be our next President. Country over politics. Always.

< Friday Open Thread | On The Rightroots >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama's Political Stunt On Iran | 123 comments (123 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    hold on now (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Anonymous Liberal on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 10:02:29 AM EST
    BTD,

    I kind of see the point your making, but this entire post strikes me as being ridiculously hyperbolic. "Simply dispicable"?  A "new low"? That's nonsense.  

    How is Obama's move here any more worthy of condemnation than Hillary's decision to vote for Kyl/Lieberman and then sign on to Webb's very similar resolution?

    And it seems like a stretch to interpret Obama's not signing the letter (which Biden didn't sign either) as somehow being a repudiation of its contents.  The bottomline is that a letter signed by 30 Democrats (most of whom didn't even vote for the resolution at issue) isn't even worth the paper it's printed on.  It's a totally meaningless gesture that just makes Congress look weak and impotent.  Indeed it undermines any attempt to pass a resolution stating the same thing, because critics can just point to the letter as evidence that the resolution is unnecessary.

    But if I understand you correctly, you're upset because you think Obama's rhetoric could be interpreted as an endorsement of the idea that Congress did in fact give the President the power to attack Iran.  I think that's a really weak argument. First, it's pretty much impossible to criticize Kyl/Lieberman without implying that it provided the president with something he could use a justification for war, which is all Obama's saying.  That's the whole point.  That's why it was a bad resolution.  I'm sure that Obama agrees that the resolution was not intended to authorize war.  But he thinks it was reckless and worries that the President might try to use it as a justification for launching an attack.  If that's what he believes, what is he supposed to do?  Just sign a meaningless letter and let the issue drop?  

    Are you kidding me? (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 10:21:45 AM EST
    I condemn Hillary's grievous mistake on Kyl-Lieberman. It was horribly wrong. I told Peter Daou at the time as I told any readers I may have.

    But a mistake is a mistake. It was not a political calculation as far as I can tell. She screwed up. Now what should Clinton do once she made that mistake? Let it sit and live with it? Or try and rectify it. Supporting the Webb Amendment and signing the Webb letter is good. It is NOT bad just because Clinton voted ay for Kyl-Lieberman.

    What Obama is doing is of a completely different degree and actually, is completely different. He is PRETENDING, indeed lying, about the effect of Kyl-Lieberman. Are you seriously excusing that? Are you arguing t5hat is NOT despicable?

    That preteding Bush DOES have the authority to attack Iran, when he does not, in order to gain political advantage is NOT despicable?

    Your last paragraph makes no sense to me. Are you saying that Bush would only use Kyl-Lieberman for LEGAL justification? He would not of course, unless, some Democrats, especially leading Democrats, act as if it does.

    The mistake of Kyl-Lieberman was POLITCAL and POLICY, not legal. It HAS no legal effect. Obama is stating it does.

    You write:

    it's pretty much impossible to criticize Kyl/Lieberman without implying that it provided the president with something he could use a justification for war, which is all Obama's saying.

    That simply is wrong. By insisting that legislation is necessary to undo the effects of Kyl-Lieberman, Obama is saying it does grant legal justification for war with Iran. How could it not be saying that?

    Why did Obama NOT sign the letter? Does hebelieve his legislation will ever be passed? What happens if it is voted down? What would that mean LEGALLY? What would it mean politically?

    IMO, you are absolutely wrong on the deleterious effect of Obama's actions. You write:

    I'm sure that Obama agrees that the resolution was not intended to authorize war.  But he thinks it was reckless and worries that the President might try to use it as a justification for launching an attack.  If that's what he believes, what is he supposed to do?  Just sign a meaningless letter and let the issue drop?

    A meaningless letter? Meaningless to whom? To you? Why is it meaningless POLITICALLY? Why would you argue that stating clearly that the President does not have the authority to attack Iran is meaningless?

    If it is meaningless, what would be meaningful? Why is the Obama Amedment meaningful? Is it more meaningful than the Webb Amendment? Why would Obama not simply support the Webb Amendment?

    What is the meaning of legislation that is not passed?

    You really missed the boat in your analysis imo.

    Parent

    As soon as Obama refused to sign the letter (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 10:26:11 AM EST
    The mistake of Kyl-Lieberman was POLITCAL and POLICY, not legal. It HAS no legal effect. Obama is stating it does.
    Is exactly what occurred to me. Talk about a political move with bad policy implications!

    Parent
    I have no idea (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 10:31:10 AM EST
    how AL can possibly defend this crass move.

    It so happens thaqt I am someone who believes there is little chance that Bush will attack Iran OUTSIDE of an Iraq incident.

    This is part and parcel of taking the bait on Iran by Dems.

    What is particualrly ugly about it is that it is being done in the name of politics.

    I am thoroughly disgusted.

    Parent

    But wait (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Anonymous Liberal on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 10:59:25 AM EST
    BTD, have you read Obama's resolution? It in no way states or implies that Kyl/Lieberman authorized war.  Nor does it repeal Kyl/Lieberman.  It is styled a "joint resolution clarifying that the use of force against Iran is not authorized."  And the only operative section simply states that no prior resolution or statute "shall be construed to authorize, encourage, or in any way address the use of Armed Forces of the United States against Iran."

    That's much better wording than the Webb amendment, which has some pretty big loopholes.  

    You're pointing to one vague quote as evidence that Obama is saying that the Kyl/Lieberman gave the president the authority to attack Iran. That's not what he's saying.  He's saying that he's worried that this president will seize upon Kyl/Lieberman as if it were some sort of authorization for to attack Iran (even though it isn't). That's why he wants a clarifying resolution.

    As for the letter, it's really difficult to understate how meaningless a letter signed by 30 Democrats (most of whom didn't even vote for Kyl/Lieberman) is when it comes to how the President will interpret that resolution. If it was signed by a significant number of Senators who voted for the resolution, it might have more meaning.  

    I think it is undoubtedly true that Obama is trying to get political credit for this, that he wants to be seen as a leader on this issue and not a follower, hence the need for his own resolution.  That's fair criticism.  But I think it's ridiculous to suggest that 1) he is stating that Kyl/Lieberman provided Bush with sufficient legal authorization to go to war, or 2) that Obama's move here will somehow help Bush make the case that Congress authorized war in Iran.

    Parent

    The resolution is not the point (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:15:09 AM EST
    The press releases, which you no doubt see as meaningless, are critical here.

    The language of Obama's resolution is actually meaningless in the sense it will never see the light of day.

    I find it ridiculous that you ignore the VERY WORDS of Bill Burton, Obama spokesman when you write:

    But I think it's ridiculous to suggest that 1) he is stating that Kyl/Lieberman provided Bush with sufficient legal authorization to go to war, or 2) that Obama's move here will somehow help Bush make the case that Congress authorized war in Iran.

    How can you ignore that?

    Parent

    I'm not sure I understand (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Anonymous Liberal on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:33:18 AM EST
    Are you worried that Bush will cite the vague words by Obama's spokesman as evidence that Congress authorized him to go to war with Iran?  That doesn't seem very plausible to me.  

    Moreover, I don't even think Obama's spokesman intended to imply that Kyl/Lieberman in fact authorized war with Iran. The argument he's making is that Kyl/Lieberman provided an untrustworthy president with something he can (incorrectly) cite in support of an attack on Iran.  That's unquestionably true.  If Bush attacks Iran, I'll bet you a million dollars that he cites the Kyl/Lieberman resolution when defending his decision.  That's the concern that Obama(and Dodd and Webb and others)have. They think the amendment provides the president with some political cover if he chooses to launch an attack.  

    I think Obama's right that the Webb letter is a pretty ineffectual response to this concern.  

    And while you're right that Obama's resolution probably won't pass, I think it is superior to the Webb amendment, and I don't see how offering another resolution makes the situation any worse.  

    Parent

    Not To Mention (1.00 / 0) (#61)
    by squeaky on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:06:32 PM EST
    That the context of this is that a majority of Americans have swallowed whole the lies that Iran is a threat to America and the world. And Hillary's vote for Kyl-Lieberman has been spun as a vote for Bush to go to war with Iran.

    Obama knows all this and has taken advantage of the misinformation. I agree that this is a very low tactic, almost Rovian.

    Parent

    Absolutely (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:39:41 AM EST
    Any Democratic interpretation of Kyl Lieberman that favors Bush wil absolutely be used by them.

    You surely can not doubt that can you?

    Insisting that legislation "overturning" Kyl Lieberman is necessary is absolutely playing into Bush's hands.

    To be clear, I think the Webb Amendment is also counterproductive in that sense but it is ot playing in the fanfare of Presidential politics.

    Frankly, I do not understand your argument at all.

    Parent

    but by this logic (none / 0) (#55)
    by Anonymous Liberal on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:57:52 AM EST
    any criticism of Kyl/Lieberman could be construed as counterproductive because it implies that the resolution is significant.  

    How do you suggest Hillary's rivals go about criticizing her vote?  Isn't any criticism necessarily going to imply that Kyl/Lieberman provided Bush with something he can cite as justification for war?

    You're seizing on the word "nullify" used by Obama's spokesman, but it's more likely that he means Obama's resolution would nullify the political cover provided by Kyl/Lieberman rather than any legal authority. After all, Kyl/Lieberman was only a sense of the Senate resolution. It has no legal effect. If Bush goes to war, he's not to going to claim that Kyl/Lieberman "authorized" it.  He's going to claim that it was authorized by the Iraq AUMF and his own authority as CiC.  He'll then cite to the Kyl/Lieberman reoslution as support for his rationale for attacking Iran.  

    The Obama amendment would nullify the political cover Kyl/Lieberman currently provides for such a move.  It would make clear that neither the Iraq AUMF, nor Kyl/Lieberman was intended to address the issue of using armed force against Iran.    

    Parent

    Any criticism? (none / 0) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 01:06:16 PM EST
    Please AL. What are you at? I think any criticism that makes clear that K-L does not authorize war with Iran is perfect.

    The point is we ca not trust Bush. But let's make it clear there is NO authorization touse force i Iran.

    Instead of taking Biden's tack, Obama insinuates that K-L DOES authorize force against Iran.

    I am not following your reasoning at all. Indeed, you appear to have willfully misunderstood my point.


    Parent

    Let me try again (none / 0) (#122)
    by Anonymous Liberal on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 03:34:22 PM EST
    I think this whole criticism assumes certain things that aren't very realistic.  Implicit in your criticism of Obama is the notion that there is some real chance the the Kyl/Lieberman resolution could be construed as legally authorizating war, and therefore, if Obama or his spokesman suggest that a clarifying resolution is necessary, they are somehow "playing with fire" and risking lending credence to an argument that Kyl/Lieberman legally authorized war with Iran.

    But I just don't think that's a real concern. Kyl/Lieberman was just a sense of the Senate resolution. It has no legal effect, nor would the Bush administration ever claim it does. If the president attacks Iran, he'll rely primarily on his own CiC authority. He'll also point to the Iraq AUMF.  The Kyl/Lieberman resolution will be trotted out merely as political cover to butress his argument that the Iran strike was directly linked to Iraq.

    This administration doesn't think it needs congressional authorization to attack Iran. It will rely on Kyl/Lieberman for political, not legal cover.  So there's not really any risk that Obama's spokesman's statements will be used as proof of some non-existant legal authorization.

    Where I do agree with you is regarding the effect of Obama's resolution.  While I think it is a very good resolution, it would not help the cause if it was defeated.  If it can garner a majority, though (even if not a filibuster proof majority), it would effectively nullify any political cover Kyl/Lieberman might provide.  Reid just needs to be careful not to hold a vote unless the votes are there.  

    Parent

    I couldn't disagree more. (none / 0) (#123)
    by DA in LA on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 03:49:59 PM EST


    Parent
    Prove it (none / 0) (#11)
    by RedHead on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 10:27:41 AM EST
    I condemn Hillary's grievous mistake on Kyl-Lieberman. It was horribly wrong. I told Peter Daou at the time as I told any readers I may have

    You said nothing, here.

    Parent

    I certainly did say something here (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 10:29:17 AM EST
    But as I told you and others before, I will not exercise myself trying to convince the unconvinceable.

    Parent
    That's Nuts (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by squeaky on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 10:37:42 AM EST
    yet Clinton was let for the hook for the more flagrant violation of actually voting for the resolution.

    Try a simple google search, she was lambasted, and rightly so.

    not only have ALL Presidents (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 02:38:00 PM EST
     stressed that their power derives from Art. II, section 2, we have a LONG list of examples:

     Passing on the pre-1973 examples, just off the top of my head we have Iran,  Lebanon, Grenada, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo.

      Are you saying Presidents acted unlawfully in all of those?

    I wrote a detailed post (none / 0) (#120)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 02:56:31 PM EST
    on the subject.

    Parent
    BTD (none / 0) (#2)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 10:16:28 AM EST
      Here is a good illustration of my point.

     If you look in the open thread you will see I was writing a post which at its core agrees with the core your position about the Obama resolution. I had not read this thread yet and i will assume you had not read my post. We independently and coincidentally happen to agree.

      My point was basically the same but I didn't resort to the  inflammatory language, personal attacks and hyperbolic language which all but ensures the responses will now fall into two camps, one reacting as anonymous liberal has and the other parroting your attacks on Obama. What is gained by that other than heat and diversion?

     

    Response by whom? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 10:23:52 AM EST
    As I responded to you, you simply do not understand what i am trying to do?

    I respect AL immensely. But influencing him is not necessarily my goal.

    Nor is influencing you.

    Think about how I might be tryig to amplify my view.

    Moreover, I feel exactly what I wrote.

    Obama has acted despicably. You seem not to think that. Our views differ. What is wrong with that?

    Parent

    I think Joe Biden put it best (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jgarza on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 10:16:56 AM EST
    These people are in the senate, what they do has consequences.  Some people interpret that resolutions as giving bus authority to go to war.  If Hillary didn't intend to authorize m to go to war then she shoudln't have voted for it.
    She can claim her interpretation of the 2002 vote was to authorize diplomacy, but it was interpreted differently.
    So the "benefit of the doubt" that she gave bush is that he wouldn't interpret it and green light to go to war.  One would think after her 2002 vote she would have learned.  
    On the letter:
    Once you have sent a resolution officially passed with a strong majority of the senate, some little letter really doesn't have any teeth.  So the idea that this letter fixes her vote is ridiculous.  I'm glad Obama didn't go along with her pathetic attempt to hedge.  It's just more Hillary double talk.

    Certainly (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 10:24:58 AM EST
    Biden's response was imminently superior to Obama's.

    He was not willing to put politics ahead of the issue.

    Parent

    but Biden didn't sign the letter either (none / 0) (#28)
    by Anonymous Liberal on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:01:16 AM EST
    Why was it not crassly political for him not to sign on?  

    Parent
    Simple (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:12:51 AM EST
    He did not pretend the Kyl-Lieberman bill created legal authority for war with Iran.

    I disagree with Biden's decision to ot sign the letter, but he did not turn it into an argument that Kyl-Lieberman authorizes war with Iran. Obama did.

    The distinction is critical.

    Parent

    Making the case (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Jgarza on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:38:26 AM EST
    BTD,
    I don't think that you made the case that Obama said that kyle Lieberman gives bush authority to go to war.  I had a different interpretation(see my first response).  Certainly what he said can easily be parsed to mean different things.  The difference here is that he made a statement that can be parsed, Kyle-Lieberman is a resolution drafted and taking into account all its implications.  You are trying to play gothca politics from a statement and comparing that with the same gravity an officially passed resolution from the Senate.
    So yes you are right, if Obama said that Kyle Lieberman authorizes war with Iran, that would be really irresponsible.  Problem is, I don't think your post proves he said that.

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Anonymous Liberal on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:44:20 AM EST
    I agree with this.  If Obama were to say that the Kyl/Lieberman resolution provided the president with the legal authority he needs to attack Iran, I would join you in criticizing him.  But I haven't seen him say that (and I think his spokesman's statement can be interpreted differently).  There's a difference between saying that the Kyl/Lieberman resolution provided this president with something he can disingenuously cite as support for war and saying that the resolution actually did provide legally adequate authority for starting a war.  

    Parent
    Tell me how what Biden did and said (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:50:28 AM EST
    could possibly be interpreted the way Obama's actions ca be interpreted.

    You are not playing fair here at all.

    Parent

    I don't think they can (none / 0) (#58)
    by Anonymous Liberal on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:04:02 PM EST
    But I don't think Obama's actions can be fairly interpreted the way you are either.  

    I'm positive that neither Biden nor Obama thinks that Kyl/Lieberman provides legal authorization for war. It was just a senate resolution.

    Like I said in the comment in the other thread, the real worry is that Bush will attack Iran and cite the Iraq AUMF as authorization.  He'll then cite Kyl/Lieberman in support of his interpretation that the Iraq AUMF applies to Iran (given Iran's supposed involvement in Iraq).

    What the Obama resolution does is clarify that neither the Iraq AUMF, nor Kyl/Lieberman provides authority to attack Iran.

    Parent

    Can you possibly explain (none / 0) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 01:01:48 PM EST
    why Burton siad what he said? Can you possibly explain why Obama did not sign the letter? can you possibly ecplain why Obama does not straight out say K-L does NOt authorize action in Iran?

    You are being disingenuous it seems to me.

    Parent

    I strongly disagree (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:43:04 AM EST
    Unlike Obama, Biden CLEARLY STATED that Kyl Lieberma does Ot give the PResident authority.

    There is no parsing possible from Biden's stance.

    My interpretation of Obama's spokeman's statement is not only reasoable, imo, it is the only reasoable interpretation.

    Obama has decided to play with fire o Ira for crass political purposes.

    Are you supportig Obama's actions here btw? You argued Bide had the right approach. How can both Biden and Obama be right?

    Parent

    Biden (none / 0) (#60)
    by Jgarza on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:05:13 PM EST
    I was referring to Biden's remarks at the debate.  I really liked what he said, because it clearly pointed out that there is a lot of gravity when you pass resolutions in the senate. Clinton claims she voted for it because of HER interpretation, but that is not how legislation works.  She doesn't get to dictate how the president interprets it, so if it was unclear she shouldn't have voted for it. Thats how the resolution gave bush the benefit of the doubt.  If he wanted to say that she voted to authorize war with Iran, there is an easy way to say it, and it has nothing to do with "benefits" or "doubts."

    I think there is a huge difference between a statement from a spokes person and a resolution from the senate.  The half sentenced you are basing this post on can be interpreted many ways.  I just think a half sentence, that is a quote of a quote, is pretty weak basis for your claim.  

    Parent

    It would be better no (none / 0) (#95)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 01:03:01 PM EST
    If Obama's spokesperson said what Biden said, don't you agree?

    You and AL are beating around the bush for some strange reason.

    Parent

    problem (none / 0) (#118)
    by Jgarza on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 02:52:10 PM EST
    just because what Biden said was better then what an Obama spokesperson said, doesn't mean there is a problem with what the Obama spokes person said.

    Parent
    Too Little, Too Late, Too Weak (none / 0) (#4)
    by RedHead on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 10:18:55 AM EST
    let me make clear my view that Hillary Clinton's vote in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment was a huge mistake, both on policy and politics.

    You should of said so at the time!

    You should of said something back in August when Clinton said the surge is working.

    Silence equals acquiescence; gravely damaging one's credibility.

    How many buckets do you have?  Being a Clinton water carrier must be exhausting.

    I did (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 10:25:27 AM EST
    But do not let facts stand in the way of your attack on me.

    Parent
    Prove it (none / 0) (#13)
    by RedHead on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 10:28:30 AM EST
    you can't

    Parent
    I choose not to prove it to you (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 10:31:46 AM EST
    A different thing.

    Parent
    Case Closed (none / 0) (#22)
    by RedHead on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 10:42:23 AM EST
    wild guess, but I take this to mean you did so at another venue, perhaps under a different handle.

    But that only strengthens my argument.  You didn't say anything about it HERE.  

    There can be no doubt you would have ripped Obama's head off, HERE, if he voted for Kyl-Lieberman.

    So why the inconsistency?   Because this is a pro-Hillary blog.  And that's great!  Just don't pretend your stand on issues is principled and devoid of politics, Richard Hofstadter would be greatly disappointed.

    Parent

    No, it does not mean that (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 10:44:17 AM EST
    But continue your campaign against me.

    It is a very meaningful exercise.

    Parent

    Cry me a river (none / 0) (#46)
    by RedHead on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:37:51 AM EST
    I'm gonna put you on Broadway - you're so cute, when you're hurt.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:49:25 AM EST
    As I said, just keep your fire on me ad we will be fine.

    No other targets. I must insist on that.

    Parent

    I'm not interest in firing on anyone (none / 0) (#56)
    by RedHead on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:59:25 AM EST
    If someone steps on my foot in the subway I don't say thankyou.

    Parent
    And who are you (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 10:27:17 AM EST
    carrying water for?

    Parent
    No one (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 10:28:08 AM EST
    She has taken to carryig anti-water against me.

    It happens with me often.

    Not an issue worth addressing.

    Parent

    Indeed it does (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 10:29:36 AM EST


    Parent
    BTW (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 10:43:20 AM EST
    This is what I wrote on Kyl-Lieberman the day is passed:

    Wasting time, good will and attempting to wreak havoc, the original Lieberman-Kyl Amendment on Iran was tantamount to granting President Bush the power to wage war against Iran. Still wasting time and attempting to wreak havoc, the Lieberman-Kyl Amendment was gutted of its war authorizing provisions, but remained provocative, unnecessary and stupid. It should have been voted down. It was not. It passed. Among the Ays was Senator Hillary Clinton. Among the Nays were Senators Chris Dodd and Joe Biden. Absent was Senator Barack Obama.

    I lacked the self restraint not to post it.

    Parent

    I think that is a very fair representation (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 10:47:18 AM EST
    of the version of the resolution that actually passed.

    "Red Head" will have to find another issue.

    Parent

    Hahahhah (1.00 / 1) (#37)
    by RedHead on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:23:25 AM EST
    That's it!  A wet paper sack!

    [K-L is] provocative, unnecessary and stupid. It should have been voted down. It was not. It passed. Among the Ays was Senator Hillary Clinton.

    You sure swatted her fanny!!  Wow, talk about stinging!!

    See, I knew you didn't hammer Clinton on K-L.

    Dude, the court room is laughing AT you - out loud.

    Hardly in the vein of "the dangers of Obamaism" or "Obama joins Bush" or "Obama is a neo-con" "obama's political stunt" et. al.

    Parent

    You are from the Reagan School (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:25:09 AM EST
    Fact are stupid things ay?

    Parent
    Blue smoke and mirrors (none / 0) (#43)
    by RedHead on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:33:48 AM EST
    that's so funny coming from self described "centrist" who supported Gulf I and the "highway of death"

    Dude, don't even go there, I grind up litigators (the real deal) for sport.  you have no chance.

    Parent

    Um (3.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:37:03 AM EST
    At least you are sticking to "grinding" me up.

    That is fine. Do not "grind up" other commenters.

    I'll have to delete any further comments that do so.  

    Parent

    Another Double Standard ? (none / 0) (#51)
    by RedHead on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:48:03 AM EST
    Responding to an elbow or the attempt to land an elbow is Okay.  Responding is not.

    you can label people "pedestrian" but other members can't.

    what a big Potemkin tent!

    don't tase me, bro!!!

    Sanitize the record, but that would be another sign of weakness.

    Parent

    Call it what you want (1.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:09:07 PM EST
    Just do not attack other commenters.

    Parent
    Clinton (none / 0) (#18)
    by RedHead on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 10:34:26 AM EST
    I'm sorry if you don't see it.  

    But what other conclusion is there?  

    Obama is repeatedly hammered for weaseling on Kyl-Lieberman, yet Clinton was let for the hook for the more flagrant violation of actually voting for the resolution.

    Parent

    "more flagrant" (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 10:36:38 AM EST
    Apparently you join Obama in a party of two: those who believe that sense of the Senate resolutions carry some legal power.

    Parent
    Badges? Badges ? (none / 0) (#30)
    by RedHead on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:11:24 AM EST
    In case you're not paying attention, the Bush administration don't need no stink'n badges.

    They'll attack Iran and use the SofS as cover.  Crikey this isn't about law.  The Bushies spit on the law every hour.

    And putting legalities aside, if the SofS is so meaningless ("no legal power"), why are Clinton supporter hammering Obama for failing to show up and vote.  Criticizing him being opportunistic is valid, but he's also been hit for NOT voting AGAINST the SoS.

    You can't have it both ways, because that would be phony.


    Parent

    If you spent (none / 0) (#35)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:18:12 AM EST
    more time reading BTD's comments and less time blathering, you'd already know the answer to that question.

    Parent
    Don't be pedestrian (1.00 / 1) (#40)
    by RedHead on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:27:46 AM EST
    put your crush aside.

    BTD failed to hammer Clinton for on K-L and for saying the surge is working (back in August).

    Admit it.  The truth will set you free - atleast fee of daddy issues.

    Come to think of it, I don't think he's hammered Clinton on any issue.

    Parent

    If this was my site (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:35:46 AM EST
    Your personal attacks on commenters would be fine.

    It is not my site and the site owner does not allow such attacks.

    Save your personal attacks for me exclusively please.

    I am supposed to delete them. I won't for now. But save your fire for me exclusively please.

    Parent

    selective enforcement (none / 0) (#54)
    by RedHead on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:54:46 AM EST
    What no admonishment for these personal attacks:

    "if you spent more time reading BTD's comments and less time blathering, you'd already know the answer to that question.


     Reading is fundamental

    now, now. Selective enforcement of the rules will damage the blogs credibility.  If I'm in the wrong, then so are the prior posts.

    Parent

    So sue me (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:08:35 PM EST
    Grind my bones.

    Just stop attacking other commenters.

    Parent

    And you either didn't understand (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 10:37:22 AM EST
    or deliberately ignored my question: who are YOU carrying water for?

    Parent
    Oh, me (none / 0) (#27)
    by RedHead on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:01:06 AM EST
    first, BTD doesn't need anyone to defend him.  

    second, I haven't supported any of the candidates, during the primary. In 2004, I contributed to both Howard Dean and Wes Clark, if that helps.

    third, I have no brief for any of the candidates.  I point out the double stand in attacking Obama on Kyl-Lieberman, while taking no vocal position, HERE, at this site, on Clinton's vote for Kyl-Lieberman.

    Obama's campaign is over.  BTD is beating a dead horse. IA is 8 1/2 weeks away.

    If you can find a post by one of the moderators criticizing Clinton for voting Kyl-Lieberman, post it.  But you can't.  It doesn't exist.  No why is that?  The only candidate who voted for K-L isn't held to account.

    But you know BTD would have been all over Obama if he voted for K-L.

    p.s. There is no Santa Claus.


    Parent

    Reading is fundamental (none / 0) (#29)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:04:58 AM EST


    Parent
    Tisk, Tisk (none / 0) (#32)
    by RedHead on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:13:07 AM EST
    such insults.

    shame, shame, shame.


    Parent

    Your glass water pail (none / 0) (#36)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:19:47 AM EST
    is leaking.

    Parent
    now that was unnecessary (none / 0) (#41)
    by RedHead on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:29:03 AM EST
    sniffle

    Parent
    Resolution Schmesolution Bush doesn't care (none / 0) (#34)
    by talkingchange on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:17:10 AM EST
    Do you honestly believe that any resolution is going to change Bush's mind if Bush decides to attack Iran?  Bush said a couple of days ago that he has decided to ignore Congress and will run the country by Executive Order.  Kyle Lieberman was a non binding resolution that was never ever brought up in the House. Once again, Obama goes off on his own refusing to sign on with other Democrats to a new resolution which makes it clear that diplomacy needs to exhausted before there is any talk of war.  Obama, however is the rightwing media darling probably because they know he is the weakest candidate and would put another Republican in office.  

    Obama's Rope a Dope (none / 0) (#39)
    by talkingchange on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:26:21 AM EST
    Earlier this year Obama co-sponsored a bill which would give Bush the right to attack Iran.  This new resolution is designed to make everyone forget the earlier one.  Listening to Larry Johnson, former CIA Agent yesterday he said that he could support Hillary or Edwards but not Obama because of the Hawks he has as his Foreign Policy advisors. Obama is clearly a hawk in dove's clothing.

    That bill did NOT authorize miltary force (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Geekesque on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:27:44 PM EST
    against Iran.

    That is a LIE.

    Parent

    No bill that's been passed does (none / 0) (#87)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:52:05 PM EST


    Parent
    Obama can not find it in him to (none / 0) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 01:00:09 PM EST
    say that.

    Geek needs to take this candidate sycophancy BS back to Dkos.

    Parent

    False (none / 0) (#71)
    by joejoejoe on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:14:18 PM EST
    Obama's early legislation on Iran (S.1430) was about economic sanctions and divestment and akin to legislation sanctioning aparthied South Africa in the 80s.

    Parent
    Designated IRG a terrorist org (none / 0) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:15:42 PM EST
    Do not tell untruths Joe.

    Parent
    Believe the bill itself or a Clinton press release (none / 0) (#99)
    by joejoejoe on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 01:13:51 PM EST
    Obama's bill did NOT designate the IRG as a terrorist group. Clinton is playing a game in a press release trying to confuse Obama's S.1430 with Gordon Smith's S.970.

    From Obama's S.1430, Iran Sanctions Enabling Act:
    SEC. 7. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THRIFT SAVINGS PLAN.

         It is the sense of the Congress that--

                (1) the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board should initiate efforts to provide a terror-free international investment option among the funds of the Thrift Savings Fund that would invest in stocks in which the International Stock Index Investment Fund may invest under section 8438(b)(4) of title 5, United States Code, other than the stock of companies that do business in any country the government of which the Secretary of State has determined is a government that has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism, for purposes of section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2780), section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371), section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)), as continued in effect pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), or any other provision of law relating to governments that provide support for acts of international terrorism;

    Clinton press release,

    Nevermind that he co-sponsored a bill designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a global terrorist group back in April.

    Clinton is playing a clever game here, referring to Gordon Smith's S.970, not Obama's Iran Sanctions Act. The Smith bill says:

    Finding: (8) Nothing in this Act should be construed as giving the President the authority to use military force against Iran.

    Sense of Congress: (8) 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).

    Obama's bill restated the State department designation of Iran as a state sponsor of terror as part of a legal underpinning for divestment. The Smith bill that Obama co-sponsored isn't a great bill but it EXPLICITLY says 'Nothing in this Act should be construed as giving the President the authority to use military force against Iran.' and never mentions Iraq, thus avoiding any AUMF/Iraq legal rationales for expanding the war.

    Parent

    You are just wrong (none / 0) (#105)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 01:24:27 PM EST
    I will have to find the link, but there is no dispute, by even the Obama camp, or the Dodd camp BTW, that they sponsored a resolution designating the IRG a terrorist organization in 2006.

    Dodd says that was then, this is now. With pretty words. In essence, it is a flip flop. A good one.

    Obama flip flopped too.

    Come on Joe.

    Parent

    I'll find it (none / 0) (#106)
    by joejoejoe on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 01:41:36 PM EST
    I'm not trying to spin you. I'll look for the '06 bill and when I find it I'll post here for the record. I'll stipulate that Obama cosponsored the mixed bag that is the Smith bill, which included the bad passage I quoted above about the IRG.

    Parent
    I think this is the '06 Iran bill (none / 0) (#114)
    by joejoejoe on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 02:36:42 PM EST
    H.R. 6198 [109th]: Iran Freedom Support Act

    Passed on a voice vote in the Senate. Brave!

    From AP, 9/26/06: "WASHINGTON -- The House voted Thursday to impose mandatory sanctions on entities that provide goods or services for Iran's weapons programs. The vote came as U.S diplomats continued to press the U.N. Security Council to penalize Tehran if it fails to end its uranium enrichment program.[...]

    But critics questioned the need for unilateral action when the United States was pushing for a multinational approach to Iran's alleged nuclear program. "It is, if you will, a cruise missile aimed at a difficult diplomatic effort just as they are reaching their most sensitive point," said Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore. "The timing for this legislation could not be worse."



    Parent
    Pshaw (none / 0) (#57)
    by joejoejoe on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:01:08 PM EST
    1. nobody gives a cr@p about 'circulating' letters

    2. legislation ratches up the attention on a critical issue. Is Obama demagoguing the issue? Who cares? He's demagoguing to STOP WAR, not start one.

    3. Here is Webb on Kyl-Lieberman: "At worst, it could be read as a backdoor method of gaining Congressional validation for military action, without one hearing and without serious debate." Was that a crass, political stunt by Sen. Webb? Should I believe the Jim Webb on the Senate floor or the Jim Webb in the circulating letter? (OH NOES! not a circulating letter!!!)

    4. You know DAMN WELL that the Bush administration is going to claim the authority to invade Iran based on the AUMF/Iraq, the AUMF/'01, Article II powers, and perhaps Kyl-Lieberman. You are entirely accurate to say it's BS to cite Kyl-Lieberman but David Addington certainly isn't going to check with your opinion, or that of Sen. Webb, Dodd, or Clinton - is he?

    5. Obama's Iran legislation: "Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That nothing in the Authorization for the Use of Force Against Iraq (Public Law 107-243), any act that serves as the statutory authority for Executive Order 13382 or Executive Order 13224, any resolution previously adopted, or any other provision of law including the terms of Executive Order 13382 or Executive Order 13224 shall be construed to authorize, encourage, or in any way address the use of Armed Forces of the United States against Iran."

    6. Obama's legislation puts the co-equal Congress on it's strongest footing under Justice Jackson's test ("When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb..."). A 'circulating letter' puts you on Countdown with Keith Olbermann...if you're lucky.


    It will not even be voted on (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:07:47 PM EST
    and Obama's statements are despicable and harmful.

    Biden did what Obama wanted and he did it right.

    Parent

    Sorry, but you're WAY off here. (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Geekesque on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:11:48 PM EST
    Introducing legislation stating that Bush doesn't have the authorization to attack Iran is a good thing.

    Welcome to upside-down world.

    Parent

    Legislation (none / 0) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:15:08 PM EST
    that will never even be voted on much less passed? Legislation that would never exist except for the fact that Clinton voted for K-L?

    Go play this game elsewhere Geek.

    Parent

    Why won't this get a vote? (none / 0) (#76)
    by Geekesque on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:20:39 PM EST
    Harry Reid found a way to get a vote for Kyl-Lieberman and a declaration of war on Moveon.org.

    If he can't schedule a vote saying that Bush isn't authorized to attack Iran, why the hell do we vote for Democrats?

    Parent

    Because (none / 0) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:37:31 PM EST
    it will LOSE!

    We do not want a vote on this.

    Parent

    So, a majority of people in the Senate (none / 0) (#85)
    by Geekesque on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:40:19 PM EST
    think that Bush already has the authority to attack Iran?

    Parent
    Indeed (none / 0) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:59:32 PM EST
    That very well may be true.

    Do you want to lose on this legislation? Is Obama more important to you than a war with Iran?

    You need to use a different style here Geek. This is NOT daily kos.

    Parent

    Oh come on. (none / 0) (#100)
    by Geekesque on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 01:14:11 PM EST
    If this legislation won't get a vote, as you claim, then it's 100% harmless, right?

    And, if a Majority of the Senate thinks that Bush already has authority to launch a war with Iran, we're pretty much screwed anyways.

    And, no, preventing a war with Iran is not less important than electing Obama.  Crikey.

    To be blunt, I think my arguments here have been more fact-based and less hyperbolic than yours.  I have not thrown insults around or issued strong moral condemnations of an anti-war piece of legislation.

    By your standard, we should never introduce anti-war legislation if there's a good chance it would fail.

    Parent

    If it won't get a vote (none / 0) (#104)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 01:22:31 PM EST
    then its value is what? You finally admit this is empty politics at best right?

    But it is worse than that. BushCo - "As Senator Obama recognized, the Kyl Lieberman Amendment endorsed military action against Iran . . ."

    Parent

    No. (none / 0) (#110)
    by Geekesque on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 02:13:58 PM EST
    My point was that you were pointing out how noxious it was while also saying it would not get a vote and thus would do no harm.

    The Kyl-Lieberman findings speak for themselves.  The facts alleged in Kyl-Lieberman form a factual predicate for invoking the IWR to attack Iran.

    Regardless of what Obama says.  Regardless of what a piece of paper with 30 names on it says.

    The only thing that will take the Senate OFF the record is another vote.  

    Parent

    I take it you oppose this legislation. (none / 0) (#59)
    by Geekesque on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:05:05 PM EST
    A letter to Bush means nothing.  Absolutely nothing.

    The Webb letter contains two big loopholes:

    It only talks about 'unilateral' action.  Bush ropes one country in, and it's multilateral.

    It also talks about 'offensive' action--while K-L was all about portraying any action against Iran as defensive in nature.

    K-L can and will be interpreted as establishing facts that allow Bush to use military action.

    Or do you think that Iran killing US troops in Iraq isn't a sufficient predicate for the use of force under the IWR?

    Since it will not pass (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:07:00 PM EST
    I am against proposing it.

    Are you really this sanguine on what wilo  be made of the failurte of such legislation to pass?

    Do you REALLY think Obama will do a thing with it?

    It is a cynical campaign device that does harm.

    It is despicable.

    Parent

    Let me get this straight: (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Geekesque on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:10:26 PM EST
    1.  He fails to show leadership by not acting;

    2.  If he does act, it's for political reasons and should be dismissed.

    Nota bene:  The Obama campaign is not claiming that K-L authorized the use of force.  The point is that it made several findings that Bush could use to justify if he invokes other, prior authorizations of force.

    Parent
    No let's get this straight (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:12:29 PM EST
    If Clinton had voted AGAINST Kyl-Lieberman, there would be NO Obama resolution.

    And you darn well know it.

    Do not play dumb with me.

    Iran is too important an issue for these political games.

    Parent

    So, you do NOT want Obama to show (none / 0) (#75)
    by Geekesque on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:19:17 PM EST
    leadership on Iran.

    Parent
    This is leadership? (none / 0) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:28:34 PM EST
    Oy.

    Parent
    Let me rephrase: (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Geekesque on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:32:50 PM EST
    You don't want him to do anything.  Because he's running for President, so anything he does is obviously a deeply cynical political stunt.

    So, yes, introducing legislation that would weaken the case for war is actually a bad thing.

    Because Barack Obama is doing it.

    Parent

    Ridiculous (none / 0) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:37:00 PM EST
    I want him to do things that ACTUALLY lead.

    This is not leadership. This is a harmful stunt.

    Politics at its worst.

    Parent

    Introducing legislation stating/clarifying (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Geekesque on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:39:36 PM EST
    that Bush has no authority to attack Iran is 'politics at its worst?'

    Note:  You should either tell us how the Obama folks said that K-L legally authorized war with Iran, or retract that part of your claim.


    Parent

    I retract nothing (none / 0) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:58:28 PM EST
    You explain to me how legislation is necesaary if Obama is not implying otherwise than what I said.

    Indeed, why does not Obama say it does NOT authorize military action now?

    Why did he not sign the letter AND introduce his legislation?

    Crass and harmful politics.

    As I said to you, go play your PResidential poltiics game at daily kos, I have no truck for candidate sycophants.

    Parent

    I will explain it. (none / 0) (#98)
    by Geekesque on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 01:11:04 PM EST
    Kyl-Lieberman was a vote of the Senate.  

    The Senate voted to validate the Bush administration's claims that Iran is killing US soldiers in Iraq and undermining the mission there.

    The Senate voted to voice its sense that the US should structure its military forces in Iraq to counter Iran.

    A stupid letter does nothing about that.  You are hung up on a piece of paper that means nothing.

    Russ Feingold and Ted Kennedy didn't sign that letter.  Neither did Biden.

    It does NOTHING to undermine a vote in the Senate.  It is even weaker than a signing statement.

    And I remind you of the site rules about personal insults.

    Parent

    It was NOTHING of the Senate (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 01:21:00 PM EST
    There is no meaning whasoever to K-L. It is meaningless bloviation. Reid should never have allowed a vote on it.

    If it was legislation with some meaning, it would be subject to Presidetial veto.

    I have no idea why Kennedy and Feingold did not sign the letter. But as I said, if Obama has followed Biden, I would have been fine with it. He chose not to. He chose to try aqnd make hay against Clinton.

    None of you are thinking on the substance. This is all Presidential politics to you. Shame on the lot of you.

    Parent

    I am thinking of the substance. (none / 0) (#108)
    by Geekesque on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 01:55:58 PM EST
    For instance, here is language that was put in the original S.970 that did not appear in Kyl-Lieberman:

    8) Nothing in this Act should be construed as giving the President the authority to use military force against Iran.

    Why do you suppose that language was not adopted in Kyl-Lieberman?

    I do not think Kyl-Lieberman is meaningless bloviation.   Its purpose is to ratchet up the war rhetoric and also to put the Senate on record as supporting the factual predicate for military action.

    Here is Matthews and Jim Webb talking about this:

    MATTHEWS:  Well, you know, the people who pushed for war with Iraq had a wonderful method, which was to get people to agree in principle, when it didn`t matter, in terms of operations, that we needed to go to war, and then get us to follow up on our agreement in principle.

    MATTHEWS:  So they had something called the Iraqi Liberation Act, which had no real military component to it, no actionable part.  And now they keep going back after that and saying, oh, you signed on to that; you must be for war.  Bill Clinton signed that.  He must be for war.  

    WEBB:  Exactly.

    MATTHEWS:  And here they are again trying to get the resolutions through.  It looks to me like they love these promissory notes.  They get people to sign in principle, and then they come back and say, where`s the war?  You promised me a war.

    WEBB:  Well, it`s actually--it`s called getting people on the record.  I think that people over here got maneuvered an issue at a time, just as you mentioned, before the war in Iraq, so that, by the time the actual vote came, they were boxed in so that they had to vote for it.

    MATTHEWS:  Yes.  

    WEBB:  And a lot of that is going on right now.

    The Senate needs to ratchet things down two notches.  A letter won't do that.  Especially one with gaping loopholes.


    Parent

    It was (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 02:22:51 PM EST
    Are you sure you are working off the K-L that was actualoly voted on? I think not.

    Parent
    I sure as heck am. I am intimately familiar with (none / 0) (#119)
    by Geekesque on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 02:54:10 PM EST
    it.

    Here's some of the 'facts' the Senate puts on the record:

    ``[i]t is increasingly apparent to both coalition and Iraqi leaders that Iran, through the use of the Iranian Republican Guard Corps Qods Force, seeks to turn the Shi'a militia extremists into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests   and fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq''.

    ``Iran plays a harmful role in Iraq. While claiming to support Iraq in its transition, Iran has actively undermined it by providing lethal capabilities to the enemies of the Iraqi state''

    with respect to evidence of the complicity of Iran in the murder of members of the Armed Forces of the United States in Iraq, that ``[t]e evidence is very, very clear.

    I laid out the concerns we had over Iranian activity that was damaging to Iraq's security, but found no readiness on Iranians' side at all to engage seriously on these issues.

    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;

    Iran is killing US soldiers.

    Iran is the enemy of our ally Iraq.

    Diplomacy is not working with Iran.

    We must use our military to counter Iran.

    Countering Iran is a critical national interest.

    The Senate voted 3-1 to endorse this crapola.

    Parent

    Where does the Obama campaign say that (none / 0) (#65)
    by Geekesque on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:08:43 PM EST
    K-L grants Bush legal authority to attack Iran?

    <blockquote.nullify the vote the Senate took to give the president the benefit of the doubt on Iran."</blockquote>

    That is not the same thing as saying it was an authorization of force.

    K-L's big problem was that it was a finding of facts that serve as a predicate to use force under other prior authorizations.

    Nullify a nonbinding resolution? (none / 0) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:14:03 PM EST
    Findings of fact that Bush himself can make, including facts Obama himself sponsored in a prior resolution he sponsored?

    Oh please.

    This is nothing but dangerous political posturing.

    Go run these lines at daily kos Geek.

    Do not use this nonsense with me.

    Parent

    Obama sponsored legislation (none / 0) (#74)
    by Geekesque on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:18:03 PM EST
    stating that Iran was killing US soldiers in Iraq?

    I'd appreciate a link to that.

    If you're referring to S.970, you're factually incorrect.

    The Senate voted to go on the record as saying that:

    1.  Iran is killing US soldiers;

    2.  Diplomacy isn't deterring them from doing so;

    3.  The United States should structure its armed forces in Iraq to counter Iran.

    You don't think that helps Bush's case for war?


    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:21:24 PM EST
    the designation of the IRG as terrorist group was in a resolution sponsored by both Obama and Dodd. Do not play coy please.

    And the issue of whether this resolution would even exist if Clinton had voted against K-L is ignored by you.

    Parent

    Why did Joe Lieberman and John Kyl (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Geekesque on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:26:47 PM EST
    introduce that legislation?

    I am flabbergasted that you object to legislation that would undo Kyl-Lieberman.

    S.970 and Kyl-Lieberman were entirely different bills.  Entirely.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/29/152057/38

    The designation of the IRG is not what makes Kyl-Lieberman such an awful bill.  Indeed, Chris Dodd also co-sponsored S.970 while voting against Kyl-Lieberman.

    Parent

    Stop pretending (none / 0) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:55:25 PM EST
    You know exactly why I oppose it.

    It will NOt pass.

    And its failure to pass will imply the opposite.

    Stop being a child.

    Parent

    I thought personal attacks weren't allowed. (none / 0) (#97)
    by Geekesque on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 01:07:36 PM EST
    Anyhow, was Webb wrong for introducing his legislation?

    And what is the point of 'clarifying' a vote with less than 1/3 of the Senate signing a letter?

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#102)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 01:18:06 PM EST
    Webb was wrong to introduce it quite frankly.

    The point of "clarifying" by letter is to make clear that the Democratic interpretation of K-L is that it does not authorize action in Iran.

    There is no chance of a vote against such a statement.

    It is an important political point regaridng the substantive issue of Iran.

    Parent

    Webb's letter doesn't say what you think it says. (none / 0) (#107)
    by Geekesque on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 01:50:28 PM EST
    It says no UNILATERAL and no OFFENSIVE action.

    Bush could drive an armored column through those loopholes.  

    Kyl-Lieberman puts the Senate on record as stating that Iran is the aggressor in Iraq.  Presto, any action is thus DEFENSIVE and not covered by Webb's letter.  

    Moreover, K-L puts the Senate on record as stating that Iran's influence in Iraq is a military issue to be solved by military means.

    That is what Kyl-Lieberman says.  How can the Senate really object to armed action against people the Senate has accused of killing US soldiers in Iraq, or that such action would not be authorized by the IWR?


    Parent

    The President can always act (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 02:21:23 PM EST
    in defense of an imminent attack. Is Obama going to argue that he can not?

    Indeed, you have made my longstanding case - the way to stop war with Iran is to leave Iraq.

    Parent

    There is no imminent threat from (none / 0) (#117)
    by Geekesque on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 02:46:05 PM EST
    Iran.

    Heck, for all we know, there is no evidence that Iran is killing US soldiers in Iraq.  Well, about as much as there were WMD's in Iraq.

    The point is that if Bush is going to get us into a shooting war with Iran, he first has to come to Congress and make his case.

    Kyl-Lieberman was the Senate's version of Colin Powell's presentation to the UN.

    Yes, to prevent war with Iran we have to leave Iraq.

    The problem is that Kyl-Lieberman says we should keep troops in Iraq to counter Iran.

    Nice conundrum, eh?

    Parent

    interestingly, (none / 0) (#86)
    by cpinva on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:46:51 PM EST
    i went back and read the kyl-lieberman amendment, in full, again. i can see how paragraphs (3) & (4), on page 8, could certainly be easily interpreted as providing authority for the president to act militarily against iran, in iran. there appears to be no stated limitation otherwise. i'd have copied them, but i can't get copy/paste to work on pdf files.

    while that may not have been its intent (and i'm not saying it was or wasn't, i don't do mind reading), it would seem, if it was intended to be restricted solely to potential action against iranian assets in iraq, it would have explicitely stated that. it doesn't.

    based on the above, and the fact, as noted by other posters, that the bush administration doesn't worry about little details like the constitution, the webb letter just adds to the obvious, and obama's comments also add to it.

    yeah, hillary (and anyone else actually trying to reign in this dumbass) probably shouldn't have voted for it. that said, the best course, for the democrats, in my opinion, would have been to say nothing. put the ball in bush's court, and force him to explain why he thinks it authorizes him to attack iran.

    there does come a time when saying nothing is the best strategy.

    You must be reading the wrong version (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:54:17 PM EST
    3 and 4 were eliminated.

    Parent
    i think eveyone is getting off track. (none / 0) (#94)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 01:02:30 PM EST
    K-L does not provide legal authority to attack Iran.

    The President has legal authority to order an attacl on Iran completely independent of K-L.

     Were the President to use his independent legal authority to attack Iran he would likely use K-L to make the argument he was justified because even the Democratic congress found it is run by terrorists.

     The real significance of K-L is POLITICAL nor legal.

      Any effort to to clarify or limit K-L whether by letter or resolution is also just political and will not actually prevent the President from ordering an attack.

     

    your second sentence (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 01:16:02 PM EST
    is completely incorrect.

    Parent
    No it's indisputably true (none / 0) (#109)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 02:13:18 PM EST
      At this very minute the President could (and in future minutes a future President could) pick up the phone and order an attack on Iran by giving an order to the appropriate militaty personnel in his role as Commander-in-cheif (Article II, section 2. Under the war Powers Act he is required to infoem and consult congress  but he needs no permission from congress to launch an attack.

    No it is indisputably false (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 02:19:40 PM EST
    Absent Congressional autorization or an imminent threat of attack, the President has no such legal power.

    You are absolutely wrong.
     

    Parent

    Sure he can (none / 0) (#115)
    by tnthorpe on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 02:37:18 PM EST
    but it's still unconstitutional. There's no imminent threat to the US,  no threat of invasion, no actual attack (though this is where Kyl/Lieberman is so dangerous), no threat to US territorial integrity, no declaration of war. Since WWII Congress has failed to restrain the presidency in this regard, War Powers Act notwithstanding.

    the United States role as world power and chief guarantor of the peace operated to expand the powers of the President and to diminish congressional powers in the foreign relations arena. Art. 2 does not accord the president carte blanche for intervention wherever and whenever he (or she) sees fit.

    Parent

    I'm sure you have... (none / 0) (#121)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 03:03:03 PM EST
     but in this world as opposed to BTD world, your posts do not carry the force of law. BTD world might be marginally safer in some respects than this one but it appears to exert little influence on this world.

    Obama's Political Stunt On Iran | 123 comments (123 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment