BIDEN speaks out against the Kyl/Lieberman amendment

[jillan]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aIGR9YHbfpRo&refer=us
Biden Says Bush Could Use Iranian Measure to Wage War (Update1)

By Nicholas Johnston

Oct. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Democrat Joe Biden, chairman of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said President George W. Bush could use a measure calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist group as a justification for war.

The Senate voted 76-22 on Sept. 26 to approve a nonbinding resolution asking the U.S. to formally include the 150,000- member military group on a list of terrorist organizations. Biden said Bush could use the vote to justify an attack on Iran, which is suspected of trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Biden said in an interview on ABC's ``This Week With George Stephanopoulos,'' broadcast today, that the vote in favor of the resolution was ``a gigantic mistake.''

``The president's going to stand there and say, if he does, `Ladies and gentlemen, as the United States Congress voted, they said these guys are terrorists. I moved against them to save American lives,''' Biden said.

Biden, a presidential candidate, criticized Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, a senator from New York, for supporting the measure on Iran. He said she would bear responsibility for any military action taken by the president against Iran.

Twenty-nine Democrats voted for the resolution, while 19 voted against. Barack Obama, a Democratic senator from Illinois and a presidential candidate, didn't vote.

[EST]

1. It can't be the result of stupidity, can it?

It's probably not all the other things I usually consign to publicans. But what the hell is it that dims peoples' ability to see the obvious, or what seems to me to be obvious?
I'm really starting to regret getting this involved. Too much to lose.

[jillan]

5. Sometimes I feel that way too. That I wish I could be someone that could just go on with my life

and not think so much about politics. Hopefully a Dem will win the WH and after a couple of years we will all be able to relax again.

[EST]

15. I'm afraid we will never again be able to relax.

[BootinUp]

2. Is it a good thing for Democrats to say Bush was given

some authorization from that bill? Probably not. Its like they are doing the Republicans job for them. Think about it Joe!

[jillan]

4. Biden, Edwards and Obama are all saying it. Whether it's a good idea or not - I don't care.

What I do care about is that the idiot-in-chief could interpret it anyway he wants.

[ginchinchili]

8. Is it a good thing not to tell the truth? Not to inform the public?

I don't think so. What Biden said is accurate. Bush has assumed too much authority as it is. Why, in heaven's name, give him more?

[Inuca]

12. I don't think Biden and

the others that have spoken against this resolution are saying that Bush was GIVEN the authority. I think they are saying that Bush can USE this as an EXCUSE. Not the same thing.

[ginchinchili]

14. That's true, and an important distinction.

Although anyone following American politics knows that in Bush's mind there is no such distinction. He's like a crafty lawyer. He looks at all the laws, then figures out the best way to manipulate those laws to his advantage. If Bush chooses to use the Iran measure to hit Iran, he will do so unabashedly. Biden is absolutely right on this point. As I stated in another post, I think Hillary knows better, but was playing politics with her vote.

[ginchinchili]

3. I think Hillary was more worried about it being used against her in a general election,

fearing that a vote against the measure would allow Republicans to claim she is weak on terrorism. Regardless, it was unquestionably the wrong way to vote on the measure. Biden has it right, it only serves to extend Bush's carte blanche use of our military power. It only demonstrates that Hillary is putting her own political ambitions ahead of the best interests of our country. I would venture to guess that it is also the reason Obama played it safe by not even showing up for the vote. I'm not sure which is worse. Bush cannot be trusted. No serious candidate for the Democratic nomination should still be debating that point in their minds.

[jillan]

6. I wonder if Hillary would have known how people would view that vote in the primary election.

I know several people that thought highly of her that don't anymore.

[Froward69]

9. I see that pattern as well, from those who pay attention.

then again I also see flat out ignorance regarding her vote. or anything partaining to substance from a large portion of the Hill-bots.

[ginchinchili]

10. I think it's because she believes she has the primary wrapped up

and her campaign team is now trying to predict what will be used against her in the general election. She figures that if it offends a few Democrats now it won't matter. You pay a small political price now for greater returns later. Personally, I don't appreciate that.

[jillan]

11. I believe that is called pandering. And she does that well.

[Inuca]

13. Yes

I think it is pretty obvious that's what she's doing.

And on a related note, one (of the many) reason I feel so uncomfortable with the idea of an HRC presidency is that I am afraid that she will continue to take "tough" stances that may lead to disastrous consequences. She will be under a microscope in terms of her toughness, not only during the campaign, but once in office, if that comes to pass, hopefully not, but... And she will continue to try to counteract any perceived weakness because she is a woman with saber rattling and possibly worse.

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. I don't share that fear if she is elected

Though I do share part of that fear in regards to statements she might make trying to get elected. With a trigger happy President Democrats should think thrice about saying anything that might contribute to Bush's fionger "itching".

But if Hillary wins she will view that as a mandate - they always do, and she will feel much less of a need to "look Presidential" as a woman wanting to be President - since she will then BE President. That office comes complete with image steroids; Presidential seals, Marine corp bands, President One aircraft, blah blah blah. If Clinton wins she will try to produce positive results, both at home and abroad, same as any new President. Actions speak louder than words and Americans prefer Wars sucessfully averted more than they like entering into them.

[ginchinchili]

18. A president doesn't stop campaigning until after the 2nd election.

I, too, worry that Hillary will feel that she has to prove herself as a tough Commander-in-Chief. I don't think she'd be reckless, ala, Bush, but it could lead to some bad, possibly critical, choices.

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. I kind of already just posted a reply to this in post #19 n/t

[EST]

17. Yup.

Add to that the observed truth that once in office, the emphasis will be staying in office for the full two terms. This country is in an ocean of hurt.

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. But the way to stay in office is to please the people

That is very different in significant ways from trying to get into office for the first time. Clinton, right or wrong, thinks she has to appear strong enough to be commander in chief in order in order to get elected to that position. Americans want a President who is tough enough to do the job but that doesn't mean they want their Presidents to behave like internatioal bullies once in office, that is where Bush went off the track in his approval ratings.

If a President Hillary Clinton can avert a war with Iran once she is in office that would prove no less popular than President Bill Clinton averting a war with North Korea when he was in office. Having said that, I agree with Joe Biden regarding the subject of this thread.

[Inuca]

21. I did not mean to imply

in my post above that she would be anything similar to the current reckless incompetent disgrace in office. She is too smart for that, among other things. And I agree with your point that once in office you are judged by what you achieve. Usually. On the other hand, think 2004! I obviously cannot read the future, nor HRC's mind. But the risk of acting as an iron lady until 2012 at least is there. It is not the same thing, but compare her various statements, votes, etc. since she became a senator (and started building her image as a future candidate) with those of the other candidate senators (now, in the pat, or potential). Take the famous and dissected ad infinitum IWR vote, and compare her statements with those of some of the others that did vote for it, but who very strongly and insistently voiced their doubts and warnings, before and after the vote. Anyway... just my 2c. And I truly hope I am worng (I hope even more that she will not be elected, in which case all this becomes a moot point).

[ginchinchili]

22. I think you're absolutely right. The question is, to what extent will she act

on the need to portray that iron lady image. True, I don't see her being reckless about it, but it has to be more than just an act, a tough portrayal. She will take some military action somewhere. The question will be, is it the best decision and is it for the right reasons. It's a subtle point, but, none-the-less, another point I'd prefer not to have to worry about.

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. I understand and accept where you are coming from in good faith

In 2004 however Bush was already in the middle of a long slide in his popularity from dizzying heights after 9/11 and the much more widely supported military action in Afghanistan. He gambled on a polarizing campaign and barely slipped through - with "a little help" in Ohio at the very least. I still believe that had Kerry taken Bush on stronger earlier regarding Iraq (remember the Democratic Convention that Kerry's team attempted to script to stay upbeat where Bush was seldom mentioned by name let along directly attacked - except for the most part by mavericks like Sharpton or ex-President Carter who had too much status for a muzzle? There was a lot of talk about that here at the time.)

Bush's popularity immediately began declining again after November of 2004. The Republican machine - with the help of Main Stream Media, managed to make Kerry's supposed negatives much of the focus of the 2004 campaign. Bush's conduct in office has continually been losing the support of the American people since the months immediately following 9/11. Too bad that gave him such an artifical surplus of good will. Neither Hillary nor Bill would act so foolishly in an attempt to win a second term for Hillary. They simply are too politically attuned if for no other reason, though I think there are plenty of other reasons also.

[gateley]

50. We Dems are desperate for a turn-around in this war. If she becomes Prez and

actually implemented a reasonable solution (may I suggest the Biden plan? :) ) and if she were encouraged dialogue with Iran an honestly pursued a diplomatic approach, she would most likely have no problem achieving re-election. If on the other hand she were to continue the status quo, I think that aspiration would be in jeopardy.

[Froward69]

7. Thank you ginchinchili !!!

I WAS WORKING ON SAYING EXACTLY THAT. but I couldent articulate it as well as you just did.

[gateley]

49. That's the theory that makes the most sense to me. She had to know it wouldn't

be viewed favorably by most Dems, and based her decision to have it in her arsenal when she was debating in the GE. Pretty ballsy move, you have to admit. But to me that just smacks "political strategy" big time, and I'd prefer she vote her conscience and do what she knows is right as opposed to how such a move will play out in her quest for the office.

[AtomicKitten]

24. funny how he voted "no" and attacked Obama instead of Hillary on it

Biden and Dodd voted no, Obama and Edwards released statements opposing it. And for all the haters trying to play bait & switch to soften scrutiny of that vote, even if Obama did duck that vote (there is no evidence that he did as he has plausible deniability with Reid tabling the vote), it would be for strategic purposes - just like Hillary's "yes" vote looking to the GE. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, eh? Maybe not here at DU but in a fair and reasonable world it is.

Hillary has the distinction of being the only Democratic presidential candidate to vote "yes" on this. Brava.

[jillan]

25. Read it again - it was a direct hit on Hillary.

[AtomicKitten]

26. A couple days after the vote, Dodd and Biden were chiding Obama over the vote.

Probably angling for a VP spot if she gets the nod.

[jillan]

28. They were more upset with those that voted for it.

Voting for the resolution was reality.
Missing the vote was unfortunate.

[AtomicKitten]

32. in a 75-22 vote -

missing that vote made no difference

I am satisfied that he issued a statement, just as Edwards did, opposing the measure. And Jimmy Carter agrees.

[jillan]

33. I'm not arguing with you here.

It's unfortunate Obama missed that vote, and it's not like Biden hasn't missed a few either.
Biden and Dodd were just trying to score some political points. We are going to see alot of that from all of the candidates especially now as we are getting closer to the primaries.

peace.

[AtomicKitten]

34. thanks and I agree

Like my late father used to say, it will all come out in the bath water.

cheers!

[PatSeg]

35. But if you're a presidential candidate

missing an important vote does make a difference. It is a clear statement of where you stand and what your priorities are. I'm quite sure Obama would have voted against it, but being in the public eye 24/7 he needed to be on the senate floor that day.

[AtomicKitten]

36. I agree that would have put all this to rest.

But it is what it is and, again, I am thrilled he didn't vote "yes" because I would have had to part company with him on that.

[Inuca]

37. I am also 100% with you here

and I think that those that hold this against him are using straw arguments. Had he missed the vote on purpose, he would not have issued such a clear statement just a few hours later.

[AtomicKitten]

47. here's a link fleshing out that theory

Asked why he missed the vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment if it was so important, Obama said, “Well it wasn’t a close vote. One of the things about running for president is there will be votes all the time that aren’t close. I put out a statement very clearly in terms of my opposition and I think it’s important for us to send a signal to the world that we are not expecting to solve every problem militarily.”

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/09/4415/

[ginchinchili]

29. Perhaps they were chiding him because he deserved chiding.

If Obama is going compare the vote on this bill to the Iraq measure in 2002, then he should have recognized the importance in being there for the vote. He either considers it important, or he doesn't. And since he decided it wasn't important enough for him to show up for, then he loses the moral authority to criticize Hillary for voting in favor of it. If Bush uses this measure to hit Iran, both Hillary and Obama bear some responsibility for it: Hillary because she voted "yea" and Obama because he didn't bother to show up to vote against it.

[AtomicKitten]

31. Obama is entitled to speak on any issue.

Whether or not he ducked this vote (that is most certainly debatable, although I notice you've passed judgment in that regard by your "didn't bother to show up" and "didn't consider it important enough to vote" comments :eyes: in spite of the fact that he has a reasonable excuse), humoring the detractors, I would much rather he not vote at all for whatever reason than vote yes.

The vote went down 75-22. Obama's vote would have made no difference. I don't see how Obama bears any responsibility for this, but you are entitled to apportion whatever blame you choose.

Again, Hillary has the distinction of being the only Dem candidate to vote "yes."

[ginchinchili]

40. Of course he is.

What I said was that he loses credibility in using that issue to criticize Hillary on. And, yes, I said he didn't consider it important enough. If he did he would have been there, right? He may have felt that it was important, but obviously not important "enough" to go there and cast the vote. The only exception would be if he was physically prevented from doing so. I haven't heard that. Otherwise, he can't have it both ways.

I realize you're a strong Obama supporter, and that's fine. I like Sen. Obama a lot. But that doesn't mean I'm going to give him a pass on everything. The same holds true for Joe Biden and everyone else on the planet. We have to take responsibility for our actions.

Who's to say Obama wasn't avoiding the vote because his advisers warned him that a "no" vote could be used against him in a general election, as making him look weak on national defense and in fighting terrorism? Not improbable. Politicians do it all the time. In my opinion that's why Hillary voted "yes" on the measure. I'm not saying that's the case, but the rooster can't crow about laying the hen if he only did so in theory.

I thought the vote was very important. Suppose you knew that the levy around your town was about to give way, but you had a prior engagement. Even though the levy is important, you chose to go to your prior commitment. The levy gives way because there weren't enough people there to reinforce it with sand bags. Some people were there throwing on bags of mulch, which did more harm than good. What I'm saying is you aren't in much position to criticize those throwing on the bags of mulch because you didn't even bother to show up. In my opinion he shouldn't be using this particular issue to criticize Hillary on. Those who did vote against it have every authoritative right to do so. Just my opinion.

[Inuca]

43. Sorry, I disagree with you here

You said: "Who's to say Obama wasn't avoiding the vote because his advisers warned him that a "no" vote could be used against him in a general election,...". His clear opposition to the amendment could be used in exactly the same way, so I don't think the argument holds water. I think he was away because he was indeed sick, or because of logistics, or simply did not care enough or was careless, I don't know, but I really doubt it was a political move. Just my 2c....

[ginchinchili]

46. I respect that.

In politics, voicing an opinion is very different from an actual vote. I'm not comparing Obama to Bush, but Bush has done that sort of thing many times, the non-committal thing. This is not regarding a vote, but it enabled him to dodge responsibility. Several times Bush implied that Saddam was behind 9/11 and it led the majority of Americans to believe likewise. When the press finally cornered him on it--and it took way too long for them to do so--he could claim that he never said that, however...and then proceed to craft an answer to his advantage with the luxury hind site. The truth is, if Bush had been doing his job like he should have been, he would have made it clear to us that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11--the rooster actually doing the deed as opposed to just discussing it. Because then there is no question of motive. Things are made clear.

I guess my point is that when a politician misses a vote, particularly when it's important, they should go around criticizing those who voted in a way that has since become somewhat of a political liability, as with Hillary. Those voting "no" needed Obama's vote and support, like the townspeople who were piling on the sandbags but didn't get enough help to succeed. Sometimes things come up, and when they do, you sacrifice you moral authority to criticize others who did show up and voted in an unpopular way, the mulch baggers. Obama strikes me as a guy with a lot of integrity. It's little things like that that demonstrate one's integrity.

[ginchinchili]

27. But if you watched This Week w/George Steph., you'd have seen that

it was Hillary he criticized about it, not Obama. Yes, if Obama is going to campaign on the fact that he wouldn't have voted to give Bush authorization to invade Iraq (a point that conveniently can't be proven one way or the other), then this vote should have been important enough for him to show up for. After all, that's his job. But it was Hillary that Biden was calling out. Actually, I believe it was George who brought up Hillary and the way she voted. Biden just told the truth. Bush can use the measure to hit Iran and Hillary would have to bear some responsibility for that. Hillary should know better.

[Tom Rinaldo]

30. Although I have praised Biden's position on this thread

I still want his active support for the Webb Amendment.

[Inuca]

38. I have the feeling that

Webb himself is not that enthusiastic about his amendment. There were some interesting comments from Mario Cuomo about this a couple of weeks ago, I do not have time to look for a link, sorry, something along the lines that amendments such as this one actually weaken the power of the Congress, because the COnstitution already states that only COngress can declare war, and therefore a specific law that states that in a specific case the president must seek the COngress' approval should not be needed.

[Tom Rinaldo]

39. I don't buy your speculation about Webb

Cuomo making that comment does not equate with Webb back tracking on support for that amendment. You are making that connection without offering evidence that Webb buys into that.

And there have always been myriad legal arguments about the Constitution and the power of a President to order military action with or without specific Congressional consent. But Congress actually passed the War Powers Act (I believe it is called that) which mandates that the President needs to go to Congress within a fixed time period AFTER THE FACT of ordering American military action in some cases, so obviously Congress assumes that the President in some cases may use force without receiving specific prior authorization. Then there is that matter of how the IWR is interpretted. Although almost no Democrats would agree, Bush likely would claim an attack on Iran was covered by the IWR already as matters now stand.

Of course George Bush Senior bombed Libya's capital without prior Congressional approval and that did not provoke a constitutional crisis. If I'm not mistaken Reagan's invssion of Grenada was not approved in advance by Congress either and I think many more instances in the gray zone can be found if we start looking for them. When Bill Clinton sent Cruise missiles into the Sudan and into Afghanistan there was no prior Congressional authorization for those attacks either.

Now if Bush were planning a large scale invasion of Iran as a first act of war, yeah almost any constitutional scholar would say Congress would have to authorize that first. But of course that is not what the neocons in the Bush Administration are planning as a first act.

If you are saying that Biden opposes the Webb Amendment for the reasons you cited or any other, I would like to hear that directly from Biden. Do you have any quotes from him on that? If he is simply being silent on it I would like for that to change. I want him to move it out of his committee and if not I want to hear in his own words why not.

[Inuca]

44. It was indeed mostly idle speculation

no disagreement there. Based in part on an interview with Webb I saw shortly after the vote on Kyl-Lieberman that left me with that feeling. He did not sound enthusiastic about his own bill (or at least that's how he sounded to me), and even less thrilled about HRC deciding to cosponsor it 6 months after he introduced it.

As for Biden, I did not say that he is either for or against it, I did not see/hear anything either way. But I think that the fact that the bill lingered for more than 6 months without anybody paying too much attention to it means something, but I am not sure what :-).

[Tom Rinaldo]

45. Thanks for the reply

I certainly agree that it having lingered means something but it isnt clear just what. When language like Webb's amendment was pulled from the House Bill six months ago that funded the Iraq war, it was pulled because of the concerns of Blue Dog Democrats and Democrats alligned with AIPAC. You may have noticed already but prior to the last couple of months Democrats by and large were gun shy about seeming weak against Iran. The strong leadership we need on this issue is only NOW starting to emerge, and the passage of the Kyle - Lieberman Amendment set a fire under many in the grassroots about whether Congress is opposing Bush's probable plans to attack Iran. That is causing some of uor elected leaders to respond. I think it's a new ball game now, and I would like the Webb Amendment reconsidered in light of that.

[gateley]

51. I think that's a fair request of Biden. nt

[Think82]

41. here's the link to the interview:

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3756981

[ginchinchili]

42. I encourage you all to drop an opinion on their blog.

You have to register, but that only takes a minute.

[Nutmegger]

48. R&K #5....

Thank you kindly pirhana! :hi: