Clinton Defends Vote on Iran Resolution

[DeepModem Mom]

Source: New York Times

By Patrick Healy

PENACOOK, N.H. – At a campaign Q & A session with hundreds of voters here Saturday morning, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton moved forcefully to correct the record about her vote in September on Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – and asserted that her enemies were spreading misinformation about that vote.

Mrs. Clinton, along with 75 other Democrats and Republicans, voted for a non-binding resolution to designate the Guard Corps as a terrorist organization, given evidence that it was supplying weapons to militias in Iraq and also supporting Hamas and Hezbollah. Yet some Democrats have accused her of empowering President Bush to go to war with Iran, just like she authorized military action in Iraq in 2002, a position that many liberals still decry. (Some have objected to language in the Kyl-Lieberman amendment on Iran, which passed easily, because it links this nation’s military actions in Iraq to perceived threats from Iran.)

At the event here, a woman in the audience said she was concerned about the Iran vote and whether Mrs. Clinton was aiding and abetting Mr. Bush. Mrs. Clinton started off by explaining her decision: “I voted for it, number one, because they are a terrorist organization,” adding that the Guard Corps had supplied “the deadly projectile bombs that have killed so many of our young men and women.”

She went on to note that the resolution was non-binding and gave “absolutely no authority” to Mr. Bush to go to war, and recalled that she gave a speech last winter declaring that the president had no latitude to take military action against Iran. (The resolution states that it’s the “sense of the Senate” (the term for this type of measure) that the way the United States structures its future 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.'’)

Mrs. Clinton noted that “Senator Obama’s biggest supporter in the Senate,” Richard Durbin, his fellow Democrat from Illinois, had also voted for the resolution – and that Mr. Durbin had said that it was not a pretext for war. Mr. Obama skipped the vote because he was campaigning....

Read more: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/clinton-defends-vote-on-iran-resolution/

[Me.]

1. We Have A Terrorist Organization Too

It's called */Cheney.

[saracat]

2. I think it is really petty to switch the conversation to Obama and Durbin.

This is something I really don't like about Hillary.That doesn't play well.She should have left her answer at her explanation.

[Bluestar]

6. But the fact remains--"Obama skipped the vote"

This reminds me of some teenager skipping school to avoid a test. I am sick to death of all the Obama worship on this board.

[saracat]

9. Hey, I am not an Obama supporter.That wasn't the point.It was the deflection

towrd another candidate and Durbin.A sort of "he did it too" that I find childish.Whatever!

[creeksneakers2]

3. She's getting a raw deal over that vote. That vote had great results

The resolution authorized US troops to engage in combat with Iranian assets in Iraq. Before the resolution, the Bush administration accused Iran of covertly aiding the insurgency in Iraq. Now the Bush cabal says Iran is not interfering in Iraq.

I can think of three possibilities. Its possible Iran decided to pull out because of the resolution. Its also possible, and I think more likely, that Iran never was involved in Iraq in the first place. It could also be that Iran is involved in Iraq but the Pentagon won't confirm that because they don't want to give Bush a pretext to send them into war with Iran. The Pentagon claims Iranian assets were pulled out of Iraq, coincidentally about the time Kyl-Lieberman passed.

Once the resolution was passed, Bush could no longer claim that Iran was interfering in Iraq unless Bush ordered combat with Iranian assets in Iraq. They had to either kill some Iranians or declare Iraq free of Iranian support for insurgents. The Pentagon had to either declare Iraq free of Iranians or expand the war. The Bush cabal had no choice to but to declare Iraq Iranian free.

There were two pretexts for war with Iran. One was Iran building nukes and the NIE took care of that. The other was Iranian involvement in the Iraq war and Kyl-Lieberman took care of that. Now Bush has no pretext for war.

No matter which scenario is true, Kyl-Lieberman made war with Iran far less likely.

Its true Iran was named as a supporter of a terrorist organization but that did not and would not lead to war.Even without Kyl-Lieberman, Bush would have said the same thing anyway. War with Iran was extremely unlikely to begin with. The public is very against it. War would be suicidal for GOP chances in 2008. The Pentagon all but vowed to refuse to carry out Bush's orders.

Kyl-Lieberman never authorized war with Iran, as the far left baselessly claimed. The resolution was a big success. Hillary should be proud of her vote.

[Windy]

7. Why do you keep posting this garbage

there have been no results from the amendment other than causing more tension with Iran. the only thing that has come about recently that is positive is the NIE which stated that Iran did not have an active nuclear weapons program.

You don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Your flat out wrong!

Kyl/Lieberman did authorize the use of military force from inside Iraq to stop the revolutionary guard. Had the NIE not come out, Bush/Cheney, et al would have launched strikes with missiles, aircraft etc, from inside Iraq against Iran.

No, her vote was an incredible lapse in judgment. Of course I can't say it was a lapse as it is defined because it fits the pattern that started with her Iraq vote which she has failed to recant.

Kyl/Lieberman didn't take care of anything. It gave and still gives bush the ability to launch military strikes from inside Iraq on the revolutionary guard, which is Iran's military!

That amendment did nothing to put any pressure on Iran. It is an instrument to permit war by loophole.

Jim Webb, Joe Biden and many others agree with my position. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/25/webb-kyl-lieb-iran /
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26287

You obviously have problem with reading comprehension and examining the big picture. Also forward thinking on your part is obviously lacking.

The reason that others have apologized for their Iraq war vote is that it gave bush the green light to go forward. While the resolution contained tacit discussion regarding UN action, Bush accelerated the time frame, used propaganda regarding WMD to push the fear buttons and launched strikes on Iraq. The ONLY think tha prevented him from doing that this time was the NIE.

[creeksneakers2]

8. Why do you keep attacking me personally with no supply of evidence?

You could start by showing me evidence that tensions increased with Iran. I can show you evidence that relations are better than before.

You could start by giving me the quotes from the resolution that authorized an attack on Iran.

You could start by explaining why war wasn't launched with Iran if Bush wanted it and it was authorized.

You could start by factually refuting anything I offered as fact.

Understanding the big picture doesn't come from just reading Think Progress and Taylor Marsh (although I'm a big fan of Taylor Marsh). Understanding the big picture comes from reading lots of different sources, recognizing facts and casting away unsupported presumptions, and using sound logic to arrive at conclusions.

Are you sure Jim Webb was talking about the final resolution? There was a previous resolution that might have led to war with Iran. That resolution was amended into a resolution that did not. If Webb was talking about the revised resolution he got it wrong.

[Windy]

13. Webb has been against the resolution in all its forms

Give me that facts that support that tensions have eased DUE TO THE RESOLUTION and not the subsequent release of the NIE.

You have none. I've given you facts regarding the curfew and the escalation of troops and increased casualties suffered by our military are in the news daily. No additional sources are needed.

I am an attorney and I can read the law itself and easily find the section that can be used to go into Iran militarily. Let me point it out to you..and you don't need to be an attorney to see it, you only need the ability to read and a modicum of intelligence.

(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;]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:1:./temp/~r1104kYU35:e531061:

And by the way, why isn't mrs. clinton equally as concerned about the arms coming in to the Sunnis from Saudi Arabia???

[rockybelt]

14. Is creeksneakers on the wrong board?

[creeksneakers2]

16. This is Hillary country. n/t

[Pale Blue Dot]

19. I noticed that you found time to respond to rockybelt, but not to Windy's quoting

of the actual resolution. And I expect that you will respond to me, and STILL not respond to the quotation in the actual resolution.

Do you have the courage to actually read what it says? Can you still defend your argument?

[creeksneakers2]

21. I responded to most of what Windy said in post #20

The wording gave the US authority to use force INSIDE IRAQ against Iranian assets engaged in hostilities. It did not authorize a war against Iran. To verify this, read the plain meaning of the quote.

Condi Rice subsequently said that the resolution did not authorize war with Iran. If the Bush administration, as alleged by the far left, wanted to use Kyl-Lieberman as an authorization to attack Iran they would never have conceded in advance that it didn't apply.

Do you really believe 70 Senators voted to authorize war with Iran? If they did and Bush wanted war, why was there no war?

[Pale Blue Dot]

22. I am interested in what Windy has to say.

I'm not an attorney, but my reading of that section seems to suggest that the U.S. could take any options nessecary to protect interests in Iraq, including military options. I don't see where it says that those actions are limited to Iraqi soil.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I wouldn't want to give this President any more hairs to split.

[creeksneakers2]

20. I don't see it that way Windy esq.

It says Iranian assets can be attacked INSIDE IRAQ.

EVIDENCE THAT TENSIONS HAVE EASED AND KLY-LIEBERMAN PLAYED A ROLE
Circumstantial but very stong.

TIMELINE

September 10, 2007

General Patraeus testifies: "It 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."

Patraeus also said: " General Petraeus said of Iranian support for extremist activity in Iraq on April 26, 2007, that "We know that it goes as high as Suleimani, who is the head of the Qods Force. ..... We believe that he works directly for the supreme leader of the country''.

Ambassador Crocker testifies: "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."

Generals and others give similar reports.

Ambassador Crocker held three rounds of talks in Baghdad on Iraq security with representatives of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran before Kly-Lieberman was passed.

Ambassador Crocker testified: "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. The impression I came with after a couple rounds is that the Iranians were interested simply in the appearance of discussions, of being seen to be at the table with the U.S. as an arbiter of Iraq's present and future, rather than actually doing serious business ..... Right now, I haven't seen any sign of earnest or seriousness on the Iranian side."

September 20,2007
Kyl-Lieberman passed
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:1:./temp/~r110YXInIo:e531061:

October, 2007

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080103/NATION/498097125/1001

(Edited order to call attention to most relevent fact first)

In October, U.S. military officials began noticing a decrease in the supply of Iranian weapons and assistance, Col. Boylan added.

Iran's leaders are no longer supplying weapons or training to Islamic militants in Iraq, the spokesman for the top U.S. commander in Iraq told The Washington Times.

Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, sees Iran as following through on assurances it made to Iraqi and U.S. officials LAST FALL,not to assist extremists in Iraq, spokesman Col. Steven Boylan said, adding that other U.S. officials have noted declines in Iranian weapons and funds to Iraqi insurgents.

"We are ready to confirm the excellence of the senior Iranian leadership in their pledge to stop the funding, training, equipment and resourcing of the militia special groups," Col. Boylan said. "We have seen a downward trend in the signature-type attacks using weapons provided by Iran."

http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/3010.cfm

Intelligence Report Opens Door for Policy Changes on Iran
Niusha Boghrati
Worldpress.org correspondent
December 7, 2007

(snip)


"Iran seems to be honoring a commitment to stem the flow of deadly weapons into Iraq, contributing to nearly a 50 percent drop in the number of roadside bombs that kill and maim American troops," said Maj. Gen. James Simmons, deputy commander of Multinational Corps-Iraq, in late October. The October figure was the lowest since September 2005, he said.

American authorities have long insisted that the bombs were coming in from Iran, despite Iranian denials.

Also in October, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters that the Iranians had apparently assured the Iraqi government that it would stop the flow of bomb-making materials and other weaponry into Iraq. The comment was neither affirmed nor denied by Iraqi or Iranian authorities.

"We believe that the commitments that the Iranians have made appear to be holding up," Simmons said, adding that Iranian-made weaponry still being found in Iraq appeared to have been smuggled into the country months ago.

[ohio2007]

4. " 75 other Democrats

and Republicans, voted for a non-binding resolution .."
snip
..Mrs. Clinton noted that “Senator Obama’s biggest supporter in the Senate,” Richard Durbin, his fellow Democrat from Illinois, had also voted for the resolution "...

look who's calling the kettle black
LOL

Obama wasn't around to vote on the meaningless "campaign ad filler" vote but he said he would authorize force if needed.

At least Obama seems to be getting the Iranian supreme leaders endorsement ;)

[indimuse]

15. LOL!!!

March 05, 2007

Electronic Intifada Printer Friendly Version
EMail Article to a Friend
I first met Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Barack Obama almost ten years ago when, as my representative in the Illinois state senate, he came to speak at

the University of Chicago. He impressed me as progressive, intelligent and charismatic. I distinctly remember thinking 'if only a man of this calibre could become

president one day.'

On Friday Obama gave a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in Chicago. It had been much anticipated in American Jewish political

circles which buzzed about his intensive efforts to woo wealthy pro-Israel campaign donors who up to now have generally leaned towards his main rival Senator Hillary

Clinton.

Reviewing the speech, Ha'aretz Washington correspondent Shmuel Rosner concluded that Obama "sounded as strong as Clinton, as supportive as Bush, as friendly

as Giuliani. At least rhetorically, Obama passed any test anyone might have wanted him to pass. So, he is pro-Israel. Period."

Israel is "our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy," Obama said, assuring his audience that "we must preserve our total commitment to our

unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs." Such advanced

multi-billion dollar systems he asserted, would help Israel "deter missile attacks from as far as Tehran and as close as Gaza." As if the starved, besieged and

traumatized population of Gaza are about to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Obama offered not a single word of criticism of Israel, of its relentless settlement and wall construction, of the closures that make life unlivable for millions of

Palestinians.

[Laughing Mirror]

5. She's such a war hawk somebody ought to ask her why she doesn't enlist

It is wearying listening to the candidates lie and project their lies & delusions on people who come to listen to them and ask them questions.

[Amonester]

10. Neocon Lies = "...supplied the deadly projectile bombs...

... that have killed so many of our young..."

Someone there asked her to PROVE that (false) claim?

If there are greedy liars responsible for their death and lifelong distress it's the Bu$h cabal she's "good friend$" with...

LIE$, LIE$, LIE$ from the PNAC war criminal$ BS propagandist$.

Enough.

[Malva Zebrina]

11. This is what people do not like about Hillary

She thinks we are stupid and cannot parse that unfortunate, miscalculated vote. (the second one--the first one caused the killings of innocent human beings, many of them children and to this day, insists it was right, or refuses to admnit it was wrong because she was "duped" you see. She ain't with it,She is old stuff trying the same tactics as Bush and she ain't with the dirty hippy liberals that is for sure. She thought she would get on the side of the Republicans because she assumed, arrogantly, that her candidacy would just spin her into office like Peter Pan, and then..and then out comes the leak of the NIE report and now she tries to reverse gears and spin it. This is what people do not like about Hillary Clinton and why Obama is kicking her butt.

[IndianaGreen]

18. Hillary is part of the reason of what's wrong with this country!

She trusted Bush on Iraq, and she trusts Bush on Iran.

Hillary's judgment and temperament shows she is unfit for the Presidency, at least not as a Democrat.

[leftchick]

12. Biggest Fucking LIE....

“the deadly projectile bombs that have killed so many of our young men and women.”


she is repeating neocon LIES! Does she get her talking points from the Weekly Standard?

:puke:

[tabasco]

28. Yeah, this was the "Iraqis are too stupid to make a shape charge" lie.

Hillary doesn't give a shit about our soldiers except as political props.

[IndianaGreen]

17. If you want with war with Iran, vote for Hillary! What a dangerous warmonger she is!

She is spreading neocon lies about Iran. There hasn't been any reliable evidence tying the Iranian Guards, or any other part of the Iranian government, to attacks on the US occupation troops in Iraq.

Biden and Dodd voted against Kyl-Lieberman because they knew Bush would use it to attack Iran.

Hillary decided to pander to the dangerous and subversive Israel Lobby and joined her pal Joe Lieberman on his warmongering resolution.

If you want more people to die, vote for Hillary!

[ohio2007]

24. The Iran war is still on ?

it was supposed to happen with an invasion prediction date of June,2004 .
Even the mullahs no it won't happen

[scarface2004]

23. the clinton campaign is a terrorist organization!

time to invade!

[David__77]

25. The vote bolstered the pro-war forces. Period.

Declaring the state power in Iran to be a terrorist entity clearly gives political cover to the forces for war. Weasel words declare otherwise.

[lanlady]

26. last straw -- so long, Hil

I can't continue to overlook this woman's craven pandering to the neo-con/Likud crowd. I've lost all respect for her. Go Obama. Go Edwards. Anyone but Hillary.

[Rockerdem]

27. What was the point of sending a mixed message ...

... via the non-binding resolution? If it meant something, make it a binding law, and put in some control mechanisms. If it was worthless, why waste the time? Bush uses these things to trick the American people that Congress backs his warmongering without limits. The Democrats who push these things are not children. They understand full well what Bush is up to. Of course, we know what THRY'RE up to, also.

[goforit]

29. Didn't Karl Rove say stay away from Bush as far as you can? Clinton is in his lap