Why the hell would Hillary vote to label the Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist group?

[IranianDemocrat]

I myself served in the revolutionary guards for 2 years.


FACT: in Iran all men when they hit 18 have to serve in the military.

They put you in a room at 5 AM they tell half the room that they are assigned the regular military and half to the revolutionary guards. I assigned to a the motor pool where I had the standard terrorist job of writing down peoples names that check out the jeeps and recording the date and time they check back in. Very dangerous.

I did that shit for two years and I can honestly say I never met a terrorist while I was in the IRGC. In fact I would say over half of the total personnel of the IRGC are conscripts just like I was. Only a dedicated maybe 30-40 percent are proffessional military and an even smaller percentage serve as any sort of Intelligence apparatus.

Honestly Hillary must be stupid.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Clearly, She's Fond Of War

She thinks it makes her look tough. And she figures that other people's kids will have to fight and die, not hers. And, most people - even most on this site - don't really hold it against her.

[TwilightZone]

2. Obama wanted to do the same, of course.

So, I presume that your thoughts would apply to him, as well?

[Alexander]

18. But he didn't.

[niceypoo]

26. He sponsored legislation that had the exact same language

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.970:">Obama's bill lists Iranian Rev Guard as 'terrorist' -- though he criticizes Hillary's vote
Here's an excerpt from a bill Obama sponsored, that does the same thing as a bill he criticizes HIllary for voting for:

S.970
(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 missed the vote that Hillary voted on, of course...

[Alexander]

38. But according to Shillbot logic, supporting bills that don't pass means nothing...

Say all the Hillary supporters who defended her pro-MBNA vote in 2001.

[Cha]

20. NO Obama didn't and you're fucking lying about it...you are

so fucking busted. a hilary lying about Obama AGAIN.

[niceypoo]

28. Before you make an ass out of yourself, do some minor research

:rofl:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s970/show

[TwilightZone]

33. Perhaps you should learn something about your candidate:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4161985#4165180

By the way, genius, I'm not a Hillary supporter. You should probably stop knee-jerking like that - you're going to hurt yourself.



Note: thanks to niceypoo for the link so that I didn't have to look it up yet another time.

[David Zephyr]

23. You must be in the "twilight zone" or in bizzaro world to have written that.

You got that one really wrong. Accident or design?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

24. Learn something before spouting off

Senator Obama supports the IRG designation. Right now. This minute. You can put your fingers in your ears, but he does.

Look up his statement in response to Condi Rice making the designation.

I am sorry he has deceived you on this point. It sucks to be lied to by implication like that.

[Hobarticus]

25. Hey, no FACTS here, smarty-pants!

[niceypoo]

27. Obama co-sponsored S.970 which contains the following:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s970/show">you can see the legislation here

Here's an excerpt from a bill Obama sponsored, that does the same thing as a bill he criticizes HIllary for voting for:

S.970
(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 supporters need to pull their heads out of the sand

[TwilightZone]

34. Oh, good. Another Obama supporter who knows nothing about his candidate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4161985#4165180




Note: thanks to niceypoo for the link so that I didn't have to look it up yet another time.

[msongs]

3. are you still living in Iran? nt

[IranianDemocrat]

5. no

'murica

[Yael]

9. Welcome to the land of the clueless

And the message board of the sane. :hi:

[RufusTFirefly]

Welcome IranianDemocrat!

Here's hoping your presence has raised the country's collective IQ. Heaven knows it could use a boost!

[ccpup]

4. Obama was stupid first ... 6 months before Kyle/Lieberman

S. 970

(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

[rodeodance]

29. Obama did not take a stand on K/L-not even "PRESENT"-he did not show up to vote. easy for him

to say after the fact How he would have voted.

[readmoreoften]

6. Because the word "Revolutionary" has terrified Americans for the past century.

Few politicians have the courage to challenge their constituents with the truth. Clinton didn't have the guts to call them out on it. Obama didn't even have the guts to show up. Who knows what Edwards would've done.

Our political system has been utterly hijacked by buzzwords, inanity, and fearmongering.

[Emit]

7. At a gathering for Hillary that I attended

(for the record, I am not a Clinton supporter, but I did attend this event) I met Congressman Sestak, who was out campaigning for Clinton. He said that the only reason she voted for it was to allow the US to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization so that sanctions could be applied -- he said otherwise, sanctions could not be applied.

Here's Hillary on the matter:
"In what we voted for today, we will have an opportunity to designate it as a terrorist organization, which gives us the options to be able to impose sanctions on the primary leaders to try to begin to put some teeth into all this talk about dealing with Iran," she said.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15198515

Now, I thought we had been imposing US sanctions on Iran since the late '70s, but, what do I know? :shrug: Maybe they are referring to 'new' sanctions.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Those Were The Other Double-Secret Sanctions

We can't tell you about them. Too secret.

:rofl:

[Emit]

14. Yeah

When the congress critter didn't give it up after the torture we inflicted upon him -- dried cheese hors d'oeuvres and a little water boarding -- I figured it was too double top secret for the commoners.

:rofl:

[Windy]

17. Bull***. Sanctions could have been imposed through the UN w/o the designation.

The US was calling for the label, not the UN.

This was NO diplomatic move as she claims. I am not going to rehash this issue over and over, but I invite you to google Sen. Jim Webb's comments on the amendment. I think you may get some enlightenment, even if you won't openly admit it.

[Emit]

19. You assume much. You'll get no argument from me, my friend.

But thanks for the input. Please do not mistake my post as an attempt to defend Clinton on this matter.

As many politicians do, and as Clinton herself does too much, the man had nothing to say in response to my questions on the matter. Besides, had I pressed the issue further with this congress critter, I may have sorely embarrassed my MIL, which I am inclined not to do for obvious reasons. I made my point clear with the man before he left, and with a few other more adept attendees, as well. These little political social events can turn stomachs.

[Yael]

8. She's hoping Jomentum will join her as her running mate?

Who knows what she was thinking. She is a crony capitalist war monger, DC old school style.

[Individualist]

10. Are you familiar with the Democratic Leadership Council?

Let's just look at the cold, hard facts about the DLC and its record. The DLC has pushed, among other things, the war in Iraq and "free" trade policies, using bags of corporate money to buy enough Democratic votes to help Republicans make those policies a reality. They have chastised anyone who has opposed those policies as either unpatriotic or anti-business -- even as a majority of Americans now oppose the war in Iraq, oppose the DLC's business-written trade deals, and are sick of watching America's economy sold out to the highest corporate bidder. Additionally, in brazenly Orwellian fashion, the DLC has also called its extremist agenda "centrist," even though polls show the American public opposes most of their agenda, and supports much of the progressive agenda. http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0727-32.htm

This is why the DLC is dangerous. For all their claims of supposedly wanting to help Democrats, they employ people like Marshall Wittman who specifically try to undermine the Democratic Party, even if it means he has to publicly defecate out the most rank and easily-debunkable lies. They reguarly give credence to the right wing's agenda and its worst, most unsupportable lies. They are the real force that tries to make sure this country is a one party state and that Democrats never really challenge the Republicans in a serious way. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/why-the-dlc-is-so-dangero_b_13640.html

"The Democratic Leadership Council's agenda is indistinguishable from the Republican Neoconservative agenda," http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Kucinich_DLC_agenda_undistinguishable_from_Neocon_0813.html

http://dlcwatch.blogspot.com/

Without a doubt, the DLC is the most fundamentalist organization within the caucus, the most ideologically rigid, and the most destructive to the progressive cause. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/24/1712/23448


mhtml:mid://00000008/!

[creeksneakers2]

12. To add pressure on Iran for the negotiations

The resolution also dealt with alleged Iranian involvement in the war in Iraq. Combat was allowed with Iranian assets on Iraqi soil if those assets were aiding the insurgency.

I don't know for sure if the insurgency ever was actually aiding or not. Within a month after the measure passed Iranian diplomats met with Iraqi leaders and promised no more interference. US military, up to Pataeus, said that in that same month Iranian activity dropped substantially and perhaps ended. (I'm not saying I agree with this, but this is how they tell it)

For whatever reason and whatever actually happened, IWR was the probable cause of a deescalation of tensions caused by the alleged Iranian involvement in Iraq. That lasted until a week ago, when Bush met with Patraeus, and Patraeus announced soon afterward that Iran was back to interfering.

IWR took temporarily took away an excuse Bush gave for war. It didn't last though.

[Yael]

13. Oil pipeline to the Caspian was my first thought

after I got the snark out of my system...

[K Gardner]

15. Good question for an OP.. and excellent responses from those who have

honestly answered. Thanks for a civil, informative discussion :-) :hi:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Because erecting a bogeyman is a popular ploy to achieve power.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H.L. Mencken

[Occam Bandage]

21. Because they supply funding and training for foreign militias, and that is enough

to reasonably apply the label, given the goal of additional leverage in negotiations.

[Dante_]

22. It's not about the individuals. It's about the organization which is a terrorist entity.

Just as one can hate America but love Americans (so say many foreigners) we can talk about the terrorist organizations without denigrating those poor conscripts. Certain Iranian leaders are evil in many ways. When they open up and allow democratic reforms to proceed that great nation will take it's rightful place at the table of sane nations.

[IndianaGreen]

30. Hillary is an agent of the Israel Lobby

And the Israel Lobby exists to push for the policies of rightwing Israeli governments, like they did when they pushed for war with Iraq.

[niceypoo]

31. Does that mean that she has a secret decoder ring?

And invisible ink?

[IndianaGreen]

32. I meant "agent" in the legal meaning of the word, not in the pop spy concept

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/agent

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

35. Regarding Sentate bill 970 and the later Kyl - Lieberman bill that passed

There's something I don't quite understand here. Barbara Boxer, one of the most anti-war people in the Senate, who voted against the IWR and who has also consistently voted against funding for the war, and who also voted against Kyl-Lieberman is listed a one of the co-sponsors of S. 970. Ted Kennedy was a co-sponsor, too. In fact, 68 Senators were listed as co-sponsors.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s970/show (click on the link at Sponsor Sen. Gordon Smith and 68 co-sponsoring Senators)

By the way, Barack Obama was not THE sponsor of that bill. He was listed as one of 68 Senators co-sponsoring the bill (I assume it means he supported it). Hillary Clinton was also a co-sponsor of S. 970 as well, along with Obama.

What I wonder about is whether anything transpired between the draft of S. 970 and the later Kyl - Lieberman legislation that would have caused Barbara Boxer to vote against the latter bill, whereas she apparently supported S. 970. I deplore the fact that Obama, Clinton, Boxer, Kennedy or anyone else would support S. 970, as I think that branding a regular unit of a foreign army as a terrorist organization really does nothing for diplomacy. But did it become apparent to Boxer and others that Bush would seize upon Kyl - Lieberman to justify a possible invasion of Iraq or military action against Iran, which wasn't apparent to those co-sponsoring S. 970 at the time? I don't know the answer, but I remain puzzled as to why someone as liberal and anti-war as Barbara Boxer would list herself as a co-sponsor of S. 970, while later voting against Kyl - Lieberman.

Anyway, this is one of the reasons I miss Joe Biden in the debates. I know he has a lot of baggage in his past, but at least Biden voted against Kyl - Lieberman (and did not support S. 970) and had a lot to say about Iran, a subject of which we hear very little in the debates with the remaining three. Dodd voted against it, too.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

36. this may help

To understand the S970 and K/L issue, you have to recognize that Senator Obama continues to support the IRG terror designation.

His claimed objections to K/L are on tangential matters having nothing to do with the terror designation which he has always supported, and continued to support after K/L was voted on.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4165479

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

37. That doesn't help - sorry

My question is why someone as liberal as Barbara Boxer would be one of 68 co-sponsors of S. 970, along with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and then vote against Kyl Lieberman. Ted Kennedy also was a co-sponsor of S. 970 and also voted against Kyl Lieberman. Is there something we don't know as to why they would take one position towards the Iranian Revolutionary Guard vis-a-vis S. 970 and then completely change their minds when it came to the Kyl Lieberman vote?

[eridani]

39. Very simple. Clinton voted to give Bush an excuse to bomb Iran

Sure, the bill technically doesn't say that, but then neither did the Iraq War Resolution say that Bush was entitled to unilaterally invade Iraq.

She (and all the other frontrunners) are in favor of continuing the project of American domination of the rest of the world by military force. That's why they get to be frontrunners. A great deal of our economy is completely tied to military spending, and people (only a small percentage of whom actually put their own lives at risk) pay their rent with that money.

[moondust]

40. Poor, uninformed, arrogant judgement.

She obviously didn't learn this moral lesson of the IWR vote: You cannot give the neocons a single f'ing inch without some real actionable checks on their flagrant abuses of power.