It has all the citations and links. Obama was a co-sponsor of S970 which said in part:
S. 970: Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007 (Senator Obama one of 68 co-sponsors)
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).
Now here is the wording in K/L that was lifted from the legislation Obama co-sponsored:
Kyl/Lieberman Amendment No. 3017 to the 2008 Defense Authorization Act.
...(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
The thread was by Kurt_and_Hunter:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4165479In the backlash to her K/L vote Hillary Clinton issued a number of statements and took a number of acts. She co-sponsored the Webb Amendment that would have forced Bush to return to the Senate for specific authority to attack Iran, and she was one of a number of those Democratic Senators who had voted for K/L who signed a Webb written letter to the White House clarifying that that amendment was not intended to support use of military action against Iran. She also issued clear statements attacking Bush for not engaging in real "all issues subject to negotiations" diplomacy with Iran. In short she negated most of the political milage Bush could have hoped to squeeze out of her vote should he later attack Iran. I didn't say all, I said most, and I think that is an honest appraisal.
I think it is bullshit to claim that Clinton wants a war with Iran. I think she made a political calulation regarding Iran that snapped back to bite her. Almost all of the Democratic candidates had been doing the same thing but the rest of the ones in the Senate were clever enough not to attach their names to a Senate resolution sponsored by Lieberaman, that was a huge turn off to many Democratic primary voters who didn't give half a damn about the rhetoric toward Iran prior to then.
What would have happened had Clinton voted the other way? Instead of passing by 76 to 22 it would have passed by 75 to 23. Same difference in terms of how Bush could have used that vote after the fact, but instead of Iran suddenly erupting into a huge topic of debate, because of the primaries, it would have been forgotten in a few days by most since no one could have gained any political advantage by forcing pulic attention to it. There is a reason why Obama, Edwards, and Dodd all made prior political moves to call out Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. You can call it simply politics or you can say it was a principled position to influence Iran away from a certain course of action through the use of "sticks" in diplomacy. The policy that John Edwards advocates toward Iran for example is to enter into diplomatic negotiations with them; using a mixture of sticks and carrots. Prior to the political usefulness of the K/L vote fall out, most of the Democratic candidates agreed that designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization was one of those "sticks" that everyone kept talking about.
In fact a majority of Democratic Senators, those who gained no political advantage in the primaries by pleasing left of center Democratic primary voters, voted for Kyle-Lieberman. And yeah, I think they were wrong to do so, probably. Why do I say probably? Because there were some serious back room negotiations on the final version of that amendment.
The original version came much closer to actually providing Senate backing for Bush's ability to attack Iran whenever he wanted to. Which would have been worse? The mostly nuetered K/L Amendment passing by 76 to 22 or a much more hawkish version passing by something like 59 to 39? Because that may have been the actual real choice without a back room deal. I am only speculating I admit, but not wildly so. We do know that there were last minute negotiations on the final wording, we do know that the final wording was much clearer about not authorizing attacks inside of Iran, and we do know that Hillary Clinton at least claims she would have opposed the origninal version and that she was involved in those closed door negotiations.
We also know that the entire Democratic Senate leadership...
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Senate_leadership...ultimately voted in favor of the revised K/L Amendment, without exception.
Harry Reid, Majority Leader; Aye
Dick Durbin, Majority Whip; Aye
Patty Murray, Conference Secratary; Aye
Chuck Shumer, Vice-Chairman of the Conference/DSCC Chairperson; Aye
Debbie Stabenow, Steering Committee Chairperson; Aye
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00349#position That on the surface is consistent with a deal having been struck. Durbin in particular is no foreign policy hawk.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
