Can an Obama supporter straighten this out, re: Kyl /Lieberman?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

I know that Clinton's vote for Kyl/Lieberman is considered a problem because designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization is tantamount to a declaration of war, or greases the skids for war with Iran, or at the very least inhibits negotiation.

My question is, if that is the case, why would Obama and Dodd, along with Clinton, cosponsor legislation (S. 970: Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007) with exactly the same language calling to designate the IRG a terrorist organization? (Webb and Biden not cosponsoring.) If the Iranian Revolutionary Guards language IS tantamount to war, why support a bill that includes it, no matter what else might be in the bill? If it is NOT tantamount to war, then why claim it is?

This is not a rhetorical question. If it is a BUM RAP on Obama I want to know that. If it's a fair cop, I want to know that. I have seen Obama and Clinton partisans kick this around, but I am not getting the arguments all that well.

________________________________________________________________________

S. 970: Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007
SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
The following is the 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).
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-970
________________________________________________________________________

Kyl/Lieberman amendment numbered 3017
the sense of Congress:...
(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;

[geek tragedy]

1. The problem with Kyl-Lieberman isn't the terrorist

designation for sanctions purposes, but rather its linkage of Iran and the war in Iraq. It essentially endorsed Petraeus's statements, which establish a valid casus belli, i.e. excuse to bomb Iran.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. I can appreciate the validity of that, but there's been a lot of heat around here re: the IRG issue

Can we subtract the IRG issue from the Obama vs. Clinton Iran debate?

(If so, it would save some bandwidth)

[geek tragedy]

9. What matters is the context for the entire bill.

S.970 was about international diplomacy and non-violent action to curb nuclear proliferation.

Kyl-Lieberman was about agitating for a war with Iran.

I mean, why do people think JOE LIEBERMAN introduced it? Because he wants diplomacy? :rofl:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

20. Agreed. Lieberman has no good intentions

But the real-world effect (great or small) of designating the IRG as a terrorist organization would be the same regardless of the character of the sponsors.

[cuke]

26. Strongly disagree

Both bills had the same intention - to promote democracy. The idea that S970's designation of the RG as a terrorist org has nothing to do with why Kyl/Lieberman does the same is just smoke. They both are based on the same activities the RG is involved with in Iraq.

[illinoisprogressive]

2. the K/L bill has language that gives Bush room to go to war with.

[SaveElmer]

3. Wrong...nt

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. What is it? I am a Clinton apologist, but I like Obama and dislike unfair charges.

I am open to persuasion on the point.

[Ethelk2044]

13. It is not unfair. No one held anyone's had to vote for the Amendment

Some people had the fore sight to see it was wrong.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

19. The question was whether it was unfair to Obama, not Clinton.

Obama seems to have also supported designating the IRG a terrorist organization. My queery is whether there were mitigating factors I am unaware of, and what the Obama campaign's stance is on the IRG issue.

Essentially, Would he have voted for Kyl/Lieberman if it only dealt with the IRG?

[AtomicKitten]

6. You can read what Jim Webb says about Kyl-Lieberman

... at the link on my sig line. You are comparing apples and oranges. Which one do you think has teeth? A bill stalled in committee that went nowhere or a bill that passed 75:22?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. That ultimate fate of a bill isn't quite relevant

I've read Webb's comments, but Webb did not sponsor S970 either. He has been consistant accross the board.

Nobody says "I co-sponsored that bill with the expectation that it wouldn't pass." If it had 67 sponsors, why would one cosponsor it with the expectation it would fail?

The IRG language on both is non-binding "sense of congress."

[Ethelk2044]

10. Difference Webb had the common sense not to vote for it. He had GOOD Judgment

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

16. I wouldn't have voted for it either. I agree it sucks, I'm just trying to

clear away the clutter of Obama vs. Clinton issues regarding Iran.

Webb is my senator, and I am inclined to support his judgement on both Kyl.Lieberman and S970, since he supported neither one.

[AtomicKitten]

18. The fact that it never made it out of committee is the first clue.

Kyl-Lieberman is tantamount to the Iraq Liberation Act in the 1990s that opened the door for the march to war on Iraq that has been PNAC's wet dream for decades. The drumbeat has been louder and louder over the last couple months.

Biden and Dodd voted against Kyl-Lieberman, Obama missed the vote but issued a clear statement of his opposition to the bill, and Edwards issued a similar statement. Jim Webb was furious about this thinly veiled attempt by BushCo to wage war on Iran. Jimmy Carter also called bullshit on it.

It was not until Hillary realized the backwash of this vote did she summon some heavy-hitters to try to smooth it over for her. It is her vote that stands out on this. It is her vote that requires scrutiny.

[Ethelk2044]

8. link provided

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-gareth-porter/liebermankyl-vs-the-evi_b_66020.html

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

11. Thank you. I agree the Iran/Iraq link has not been made.

And I concur that it's not desirable to buy into it. I wouldn't have voted for Kyl/Lieberman.

What I am trying to figure out is whether the specific IRG issue is a red herring, as it relates to Clinton v. Obama.

If so, the key to Kyl/Lieberman (for primary arguing purposes) should be only the question of endoring the Petreus view of Iran cross-border stuff in Iraq.

I am sympathetic to that.

[geek tragedy]

14. I agree.

Though I would note that taking the same action, i.e. the IRG designation, can have radically different consequences depending on the overall context of the bill.

The purpose of Kyl-Lieberman was to justify military action against Iran.

[cuke]

27. The IRG issue is the same as "endorsing the Petraus view"

Otherwise, designating IRG as a terrorist organization makes no sense. If it's not the IRG's activities in Iraq that won them the designation, then what did?

[geek tragedy]

29. Providing aid to Hamas, PIJ, and Hezbollah. eom

[cuke]

30. And there you have it

a pretext for * to start a war

I don't understand how anyone could believe that * could not use the "IRG is a terrorist org" as a pretext for war.

[geek tragedy]

32. Because Hamas isn't at war with the US.

Hamas isn't killing US soldiers.

There are many terrorist organizations we don't bomb. When's the last time you heard of us bombing the Tamil Tigers?

[maximusveritas]

12. Dodd and Obama aren't the only ones

These people also cosponsored S.970 before voting against Kyl-Lieberman.

Barbara Boxer
Sherrod Brown
Maria Cantwell
Christopher Dodd
Daniel Inouye
Edward Kennedy
John Kerry
Amy Klobuchar
Blanche Lincoln
Jon Tester

Lots of good anti-war liberals in that list.
As others have pointed out above, there were plenty of things wrong with Kyl-Lieberman. For some reason, it has been simplified down to that one line about declaring the IRG a terrorist organization, but it's much more complicated than that.

[Ethelk2044]

15. They had the foresight to know the amendment was wrong and did not vote for it

Other words GOOD JUDGMENT.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

21. Thank you. My inquiry was only on the IRG aspect. If that's no big deal, that clarifies the issue

[hedgehog]

17. Does anyone have any idea if a sponsor can pull his or her name

off a bill as it undergoes the amendment process?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

22. That's just the sort of thing I was wondering. Did S970 contain IRG language when Obama signed on?

If it was added after Obama joined as a co-sponsor then it's a bum rap on Obama.

If it was part of the bill when he signed on then he (and his supporters) shouldn't say anything about the IRG issue.

It's a fairness question.

[AtomicKitten]

24. Whoa!! You're saying Obama can't speak on this?

Holy sh*t! Who makes these rules ... Parker Brothers?

Obama (and his supporters as you say) are entitled to speak on this and anything else.

This is the second time today an HRC supporter (yeah, you're on the cusp, wink, wink) has declared Obama can't comment on Kyl-Lieberman because he didn't vote on it, the dates aren't satisfactory, or some such nonsense.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

25. That's an over-reaction, Atomic Kitten

Nobody should lie about anything... on any side.

If Obama supported designating the IRG as a terrorist organization then his suppoeters should not slam anyone else for supporting designating the IRG as a terrorist organization. That's not the same as not talking about Kyl/Lieberman at all. Just the IRG designation.

And if the IRG language was added to S970 AFTER Obama joined he bill then Hillary supporters shouldn't attack him on it. (The purpose of this thread was to see if there was some factor like that in play)


Anyone can say anything they want, but I certainly wouldn't favor Hillary supporters attacking anyone for supporting a position she held herself. That's just decency.


By the way, I am not one of these knee-jerk supporters. I spent over an hour today putting together a post of ACLU materials on the candidates that says Richardson is clearly the best, and that Kucinich has the best ratings, and that praised oBama more than Clinton.

I support Hillary the same way I would support any popular Dem under attack. I defend Obama also, and my interest in whether the IRG issue is a bum rap on Obama means something to me. I don't like bogus political arguments.

If anyone offers information that Obama did not support the IRG designation then I will enthusiastically tell HRC supporters that's a bogus argument.

I will vote for Joe Biden when the primaries make it to me, if for no other reason than to enhance his standing in the party. I have no problem with Hilary as the nominee and would vote for her in the GE enthusiastically. The same goes for everyone else in the race. I would feel more comfortable if HRC were the nominee, but I am happy with whoever wins. (The race will be over before it gets to me.)

[AtomicKitten]

28. thanks

I appreciate you taking the time to elaborate.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

23. ***THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR INPUT***

I have learned from this exchange.

Resolved:

***Kyl/Lieberman is odious for reasons separate from the IRG question.

***The IRG designation should not be part of Obama/Cinton dust-ups on Iran, though Biden can criticize the IRG designation all day long, because he didn't support it in either instance.

[calteacherguy]

31. Wow. Just...wow.

That's politics for yah.

[Forkboy]

33. Wow.Just...wow.

That's feigned outrage for ya.