Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

97-0 Vote for Lieberman Amendment! 97 Senators want War with Iran??? (including Feingold?)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:46 AM
Original message
97-0 Vote for Lieberman Amendment! 97 Senators want War with Iran??? (including Feingold?)

Closer
at Digby/Hullabaloo


Is it possible that 97 voting senators all want a war with Iran? Seems hard to believe, but in the absence of any serious opposition to expanding this war, what else could they be thinking?


-snip-

While the extent of Lieberman's dementia on this issue is something altogether different than the text of this amendment and its legal implications, it would behoove anybody considering an amendment on this topic from this particular senator to be as skeptical as possible. A 97-0 vote doesn't indicate much skepticism.

Lieberman's motives don't exist in a vacuum, either. It's been clear for a long time that this administration is itching for a war with Iran. Josh Marshall wrote about the neocon fantasy of "spreading the chaos" way back in 2003. We know that the administration tried to get authorization to fight in Iran and Syria when the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq was approved.


We have been told by The Guardian that Bush essentially gave Tony Blair a chance to pull the United States into a war with Iran when 15 British sailors were captured last March.

We also heard from Sy Hersh that the administration has been manipulating language in order to avoid Congressional oversight into their actions involving Iran:

more at Hullabaloo.....
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/closer-by-dover-...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
shain from kane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
1. Is this the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution for the Iranian War? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
2. It's not a vote for war with Iran
It's a vote to get more information on the connection between the insurgents in Iraq and the government in Iran. Assuming there is one.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. If you go to the link and read the whole article you will see it's NOT what you say...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. OK let's read the article
First point - Dover Bitch starts with his big gun; Lieberman is an asshole. I'm not going to disagree, but the mere fact of his assholery doesn't mean you mindlessly vote against everything he puts forward.

Secondly I agree that this bears watching; neither the Bush Administration nor Lieberman can be trusted, but you have to take the bill as it is written, which is what Fiengold did. The text of the bill is here --> http://agonist.org/sean_paul_kelley/20070712/full_text_...

Bryant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. Do you remember the Iraq War Resolution? And the Senators who claimed it didn't give Bush authority
for War with IRAQ? That's what this article is getting at. Senators backtracked on why they voted for Iraq War Resolution. Hell...most of them never read it carefully in the first place even when Senator Byrd stood for days on the Senate floor begging the Senate NOT TO VOTE FOR IT! He and Sen Kennedy even debated John Warner over it!

That anyone would trust Lieberman or this resolution is shocking. AND...read Dover's comments on how the "findings" in this bill give Bush another free hand in Iran.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #14
18. That bit didn't make a lot of sense to me
I gather you mean this bit --> If "force protection" is the name of the game, Congress has just, despite their attempts to de-fang the bill, handed the administration a list of Congressional "findings" that support whatever Bush and Cheney decide to do in Iran (and in secret). The findings themselves attribute the allegations of Iranian involvment to military representatives, but there shouldn't be any doubt that the White House would argue that the Congress has accepted them through their acknowledgement.

I don't see how that inexorably leads to an authorization of military force, particularly when the bill specifically says that the bill can't be construed as authorization of military force. What the bill does is get on record a list of things that the Administration is accusing the Iranians of doing, which the administration could use later as evidence that to make a case for war.

Bryant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #18
23. Well...your conclusion is the worry....
Quote from you:

What the bill does is get on record a list of things that the Administration is accusing the Iranians of doing, which the administration could use later as evidence that to make a case for war.

We know what Bush does....and so why would Senate give him the evidence...knowing he's a loose cannon. When Congress is "supposed to be" taking back it's own power...it hands Bush another amendment to give him more ammunition for Cheney's ambitions to extend the war. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #23
25. Congress's perception of the President is different than our own
As evidenced by the fact that they haven't impeached him.

Bryant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. It's surprising that Senators like Boxer, Feingold, Kennedy, Levin
Leahy, Whitehorse, Clinton, Kerry, Biden and a few others...would have the same view of the President as Specter, Lieberman and Warner.

Especially now. And, it's very disturbing if this is the case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. I disagree with that assertion
I don't know it depends on what sort of character you think a Person like Russ Fiengold has. I don't think this vote means he's now on Bush's side. I think the difference between Fiengold and us is that he sees Bush as someone he can work with; someone he has to work with for another two years anyway. Same with Lieberman. He doesn't feel like he has the option of just ignoring Bush/Lieberman, not to mention Republicanoids in Congress. So he gives them this bone in exchange for something down the road in theory. I am guessing.

But I think Sen. Fiengold disagrees with both Democratic Underground and his Republican collegues on Bush.

Bryant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #18
41. What if the Administration just jumps into a war with Iran and uses
this bill as a case as to the reason why? Remember, they don't use the facts to prove their case - they just take the low road when it comes to the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. I suppose they could
But in all honesty they could totally do that anyway.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. True, they could, but innocuous bills like this one give them a wooden
leg to stand on, as far as committing huge crime goes. It legitimizes their ideas in their own heads and makes it that much more dangerous for the world at large, IMO.

What I'm saying is PLEASE, let us not encourage this insane group in the WH IN THE LEAST! Yes, Iran is probably supplying Iraq with weapons, so let us NOT encourage the WH with any 'support' intended or otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr.Phool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #14
19. You nailed it right there.
They didn't read it carefully. If at all. To busy raising campaign finance money to do their jobs.

When a US Senator (Specter - an attorney))can claim he didn't know about things in a bill he supposedly wrote, it's gone way too far.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snappyturtle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #4
21. I agree with you and ....
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 10:16 AM by snappyturtle
I got the following link from afterdonwingstreet.org. It is the actual amendment. I did not see the disclaimer you mention in your response #9. It lists 20 "facts"(listed as findings) of Iranian interference, is the best way I can say it. Hezbollah is mentioned a lot too!!??

http://iranlegislation.wikispaces.com/space/showimage/D...

ALL this amendment calls for is more reports of grievances against Iran. Me thinks they're building their case to go to war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #2
8. and whose intelligence will they rely on to determine that connection? oh riiiight
the same people who lied to us about iraq.

then its all good, then.

x(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #8
67. even better THEY FUCKING OUTSOURCED INTEL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #2
12. Now Let's Tag An Ammedment To It...
demanding the same information be gathered about Saudi Arabia.

Talk about a poison pill.

Cheers...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. That's not a bad idea
Although I gather Lieberman would support us bombing the hell out of Saudi Arabia too. Bush would be upset though.

Bryant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #12
72. Kharma...where do we get the votes for an Amendment to the Amendment that won Overwhelmingly.
if Senate Passed this vile thing 97-0...then what's the hope of changing it? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #2
53. Right! ..and the IWR was not a vote for WAR with Iraq....
deja vu all over again. :)

I am cursed with a memory! :cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #53
57. Well the Iraq War Resolution was called the Iraq War Resolution
Just out of curiousity have read the bill?

Bryant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #2
78. hahahaha
They also said a vote for the IWR was only to give Bush bargaining power on those "wmd's" Remember that?

No one NO ONE should give ANY support to the pretenders in the WH for ANY type of military action ANYWHERE IN THE FUCKING WORLD
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoodleyAppendage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
3. 97 Senators are either terrified of AIPAC or in their back pocket.
Don't underestimate the power of the AIPAC lobby in the Senate.

J
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #3
35. The AIPAC "boogeyman."
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoodleyAppendage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #35
44. The AIPAC "ostrich with head in sand" defenders.
I guess being Jewish immunizes the person or organization from any criticism? Whatever.

J
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #44
47. What a poorly crafted response.
I didn't defend AIPAC, nor did I imply being Jewish 'immunizes' anyone or anything from criticism. Talk about your dried out old strawan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoodleyAppendage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. Not worth arguing with you. n/t
I'm not going to waste my time on your baiting. AIPAC is a threat, and I, for one, will vote for candidates who are not in its back pocket.

J
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. There was no arguing, as you have no point.
You simply use a common "boogeyman" or scapegoat to explain away your issues, that's not arguing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #35
50. It may be a boogeyman,
but if people believe in the boogeyman, what then?

AIPAC is much like the NRA - people support it because they fear opposition will cost them money and votes. Whether that fear is grounded in reality or not, if they THINK it is, they will grant it that power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. Interesting.
"AIPAC is much like the NRA - people support it because they fear opposition will cost them money and votes. Whether that fear is grounded in reality or not, if they THINK it is, they will grant it that power."

Then, the burden lies on the person "thinking" opposing AIPAC will cost them money and votes. The fact is that every group has the same "power," so to speak. Some may have more influence than others, but to pretend one group is so monolithic in its power, thereby making our Congress march in lock-step is ignorant, at best.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoodleyAppendage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #52
54. What about the power of the anti-semitism threat?
Anti-semitism is thrown around as a threat often and the last thing a Senator wants is to be accused of it, thereby alienating a whole block of voters.

AIPAC as pussycat. Give me a break.

J
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. More nonsense.
There are those that throw around accusations of bigotry willy-nilly, there's no denying that issue. But, it is no different than a candidate being accused of racism or any number of other charges, thereby potentially eliminating an entire voting block.

"AIPAC as pussycat." Laughable strawman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #54
56. Considering that most Jewish Americans DO NOT want a war with Iran...
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 02:59 PM by LeftishBrit
(and indeed according to a poll a few months ago, neither do most Israelis),

why would anyone be accused of anti-semitism for opposing a war with Iran?????

If someone is accused of anti-semitism, it would be for other reasons!

What people MIGHT be afraid of, is being accused of being unpatriotic or soft on terra, if they don't at least pay lip-service to the Bush/ Cheney line on Iran.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoodleyAppendage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #56
60. Maybe those Jewish Americans should reign in the lobby?
AIPAC's position is decidely antagonistic to Iran. If the majority of Jewish Americans oppose such a position, then they need to reign in the powerful lobby that has the ear of so many Senators.

J
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #60
75. A majority of Jewish Americans did vote against Bush...
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 06:01 PM by LeftishBrit
if everyone else had done the same thing, then perhaps the war with Iraq, and the threatened war with Iran, wouldn't have been a problem.

I note that you are from North Carolina, a state which elected two Republican senators and voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004. Maybe the people of North Carolina need to do a bit more reigning-in of their president!

And yes, Britain should have dumped Blair long before it did. Most places and groups have done less than they should to prevent these problems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bullimiami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
5. i havent researched it but i have to think if feingold voted for it that
it is pretty well constrained in its scope and not insanely broad like the iwr.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. a little more from the article explains some of this....here's a snip:
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 10:36 AM by KoKo01
Revisiting Digby's post on the Lieberman Amendment, some Senators are explaining themselves and it looks like they've lost the thread, too. Here's Sen. Russ Feingold explaining why he voted for the amendment:

While I don't agree with Senator Lieberman when it comes to Iraq, his amendment having to do with Iran offered yesterday was not controversial because it basically just required a report on Iran's role in Iraq and any responses by the US government.



I'm stunned by this response, and not just because it's from Feingold. Apparently, the addition of this clause has convinced senators like Harry Reid that the bill is benign:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of Armed Forces against Iran.



I just don't see how anybody who's been paying attention can come to that conclusion. First of all, consider the source:

"I think we have to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," Lieberman said. Host Bob Schieffer followed-up: "Let's just stop right there. Because I think you probably made some news here, Senator Lieberman. You're saying that if the Iranians don't let up, that the United States should take military action?" "I am," Lieberman responded.

Lieberman added that "if there's any hope" of stopping Iran's nuclear program, "we can't just talk to them. ... We've got to use our force and to me that would include taking military action."




That was a month ago. While the extent of Lieberman's dementia on this issue is something altogether different than the text of this amendment and its legal implications, it would behoove anybody considering an amendment on this topic from this particular senator to be as skeptical as possible. A 97-0 vote doesn't indicate much skepticism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #9
15. Feingold is stuck on this one
and has little choice to vote for it. There is language specifically denying an authorization of intervention.

Let Lieberman rant all he wants. This bill doesn't make an attack any more likely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knowledgeispwr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #15
38. I agree
This amendment seems like propaganda to me, but it definitely does not give authorization for war with Iran. While I think we should definitely continue to pay attention, some us are jumping the gun on this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #15
51. And when there is a terrorist attack which is "conclusively proved"
to have been spawned by Iran, the hawks will offer a new bill demanding action against Iran, and point to this one saying "everybody agreed then that Iran was a threat - unanimously! What has changed, except the reality of an attack on Americans/US soil?" Then, everone who voted for this will have to explain how Iran could be a threat, worthy of further investigations/sanctions/whatever, but not be a threat after it actually attacked.

It's a set up for the next Tonkin Resolution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
6. They probably don't want the right-wing press to be able to paint them as 'unpatriotic'
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 09:54 AM by LeftishBrit
or 'soft on terror'.

One of the most corrupting influences on politicians is fear of the right-wing media IMO.

I hope and suspect that ultimately this is all posturing and there will not be a war. For one thing, whose army would they go in with? All the available troops are in Iraq. For another thing, I doubt that they'd get much co-operation from the rest of the world. Even our Tony avoided aggression when he COULD have had an excuse (the British sailors) and Gordon would probably be even less keen on war. And I don't see the UN or Europe getting gung-ho on this.

There may be economic sanctions, and lots of talk; but I suspect no military action - or maybe I'm naive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoFlaJet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
7. If I were Harry Reid
I would encourage the caucus to vote against ANYTHING that asshole LIEberman brought to the floor-just on principle
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkofos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
11. By this "logic"?? shouldn't we be looking at Saudi Arabia's involvment
in arming the Suni's also??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #11
16. Good Point and Josh Marshall mentions this in his link to the article I posted this a.m.
LA Times would seem counter to Lieberman and other Iran Bombing advocates...YET..97 Senators voted to give Bush this authority which could be used just like the Iraq War Resolution (that many Senators didn't fully read)did. All Bush has to do is claim that Iran violated the United Nations Sanctions and it's BOMBS AWAY while Senators claim that they "thought" Bush would keep them informed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheBaldyMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
17. The article may be mistaken in its conclusions
there was an earlier thread on this topic where I outlined what was actually in the Liebermann amendment it is most definately not a rubber stamp for an attack on Iran. It asks for a bi-monthly report on the latest evidence of Iranian attacks on US forces. It will be presented by either the commander of IMNF (Iraq Multi-national Force) or the US Ambassador to Iraq.

It is merely an excuse for propaganda to be jammed in the Senates face every eight weeks. That's all.

The text of the amendment is simple to follow - a litany of mostly false statements (aka Findings) followed by the call for the regular reports in the closing paragraph.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #17
26. Scanning your PDF link to the language of the Amendment shows that this
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 10:32 AM by KoKo01
lays a basis for an attack on Iran. The language is inflammatory and leaves no real way out for Iranian Government to stop what the Amendment claims it is doing. Just as our propped up puppet Govt. in Iraq isn't able to stop insurgent attacks...there's no way Iran can stop what it is accused of. The language of that Amendment is enough to seal Iran's fate. And the reports will be coming from Bush/Cheney propagandists who will ramp up the threats and involvement just as the propaganda from Bush/Cheney's hand picked Generals now distort and lie that the surge is working. Distortions and lies will be given as "reports" to show that Iran is continuing it's terrorist activities as one of the Axis of Evil that Bush/Cheney vowed to go after with whatever means necessary.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheBaldyMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #26
29. I read the text and nowhere does it say that an attack is allowed on Iran
there is lots of shameless untruths and propaganda, Iran is accused of being a state sponsor of terrorism, but nowhere does it give a green light for an attack on anybody.

It is an excuse to slander Iran every two months that is all.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #29
30. I think you've got it!
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 10:57 AM by LeftishBrit
It's the regular verbal Two Minutes Hate against Iran, to show how tough everyone is against terror; but doesn't mean most of them really want military action.

The Iranian government *does* do some pretty nasty things; but so do Saudia Arabia, Pakistan, and any number of other countries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #30
63. But you know how Bush/Cheney let things sort of "get out of hand."
And, then there's the Media alays whipping the threat until folks are browbeaten to accept that Iran is Evil...We Must Bomb...Bomb...Bomb...It's a kind of brainwashing..and the Senate should be ashamed for what they did enabling after what happened tha last time...and every time they give Bushies an "out."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xultar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:13 AM
Response to Original message
20. Feingold has always said that MILITARY ACTION aginst Iran IS NOT OFF THE TABLE.
Don't be fuckin surprised. Purity is only resident on DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zabet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
22. The Iran War Train is gathering steam..
if it is not stopped-we are seriously scewed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FredStembottom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
24. A genuinely helpful thread! K&R
Thanks KoKo, Bryant, Baldyman, et al! :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:04 AM
Response to Original message
31. Why did the Bush Junta need a Senate resolution to investigate a matter
(Iranian presence/attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq) that is clearly within the purview of the Executive Branch with Bush as (gulp...) Commander in Chief?

Why?

That is, if you stretch law and precedent ve-e-e-e-ery thin, and grant ANY legitimacy to U.S. military presence in Iraq.

But, for the sake of argument, we're there. Can't be denied. And, for the sake of argument, let's grant that Bush is responsible for the safety of U.S. troops.

Ah, God.

This is so hard. This is a fascist coup, friends. This is it. Our democracy is over.

Bush and the U.S. military, in this circumstance--however it came about, and however illegal it is, and however many lies they have told about it--have an obligation to know what the fuck is going on in Iraq, and what kinds of dangers their corporate cannon fodder are facing. Why do they need a Senate resolution for this?

I think this is why: It's the best Lieberman could do, to get some kind of legitimacy behind Cheney's plan to attack Iran--if you consider the U.S. Senate legitimate, 98% of whom voted for the "Help America Vote for Bush Act" of 2002 (in the same month as the IWR). The "Help America Vote for Bush Act" permitted the fast-tracking of electronic voting systems all over the country, with machines run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations.

70+% of the American people now oppose the Iraq War and want it ended, up from a significant majority--56%--in Feb. '03, just before the invasion. But I remember a poll posted here at DU last summer that had a figure of 84% (!) of the American people opposed to any U.S. participation in a widened Mideast war.

The numbers against the Mideast war could not be more compelling. They are overwhelming--whether from the point of view of the Iraq War, or a widened war. And to see this toady resolution--blatant, obvious prep for war on Iran--endorsed by 97 Senators also blatantly, obviously mirrors the state of our democracy, which is upside down and backwards. The people want one thing, overwhelmingly, and the Senate unanimously has chosen the opposite--not exactly a declaration of war on Iran, but good enough to cover their asses (at least in their own ass-backwards view), WHEN Cheney gives the order.

American democracy is over. And its death was not the IWR, no. Nor this resolution. Its death was non-transparent vote counting, the means used for shoving unjust war down the throats of the American people.

I take that back. American democracy is not over as long as it lives in the hearts of the American people. They can disenfranchise us. They can drag us into unjust war. They can rob us blind. They can shred our Constitution. They can play this farcical game on the world stage, that this stinking heap of corruption in Washington DC is our legitimate government. But they cannot deprive us of our sovereignty, no matter how hard they try. It is always true. It is always reality that we, the people, have the right and duty to rule this country. That we are severely disempowered, and disenfranchised, does not change that reality. And we will get our power back some day--I am convinced of that--though it will likely take a long hard battle at the state/local level over transparent vote counting.

Anyway, ask yourself this: Why was this resolution needed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GeorgeGist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:54 AM
Response to Original message
32. deja vu all over again ...
:freak:s
:nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beelzebud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:55 AM
Response to Original message
33. Aren't you glad we have 2 parties that are totally different and represent a myriad of views?
Oh wait. We don't have that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
34. from Senate.gov
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/r...

Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (Lieberman Amdt. No. 2073, as Modified )
Vote Number: 242 Vote Date: July 11, 2007, 04:13 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2073 to S.Amdt. 2011 to H.R. 1585 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 )
Statement of Purpose: To require a report on support provided by the Government of Iran for attacks against coalition forces in Iraq.
Vote Counts: YEAs 97
NAYs 0
Not Voting 3

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 12:09 PM
Response to Original message
36. OOH I bet he's feeling all puffed up and important.. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
37. So whose taking bets as to when the war with Iran starts? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knowledgeispwr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
39. Different interpretation
I don't think that the 97 senators all want war with Iran. This amendment mandates more information/propaganda about Iran every 2 months. It specifically contains language saying it is not an authorization for military action, which why I'm sure so many voted for it. Why are senators going to vote 'no' to gathering more information? As someone else mentioned, I don't think the reports should be limited to Iran, but should include other neighbors of Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #39
45. The frame is confrontational and not conducive to diplomacy. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knowledgeispwr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #45
61. Perhaps...
but I think it'd be hard to say "stop messing in Iraq" without sounding confrontational and at the same time sound serious. In any case, the important thing is that this amendment is NOT an authorization for war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #61
66. The resolution is confrontational and undermines any diplomatic
effort with Iran.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #45
83. excellent point.
not to mention, it virtually presumes the report will attest to intervention by iran at levels sufficient to require a military response. and why would the democrats trust this report? why on earth would they after all the false info that has come out of iraq and the bush regime? what is the purpose of the report? how about reports from independent observers instead of these corrupt governments? i'd have asked for a report from joe wilson but he's behind hillary now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
librechik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
40. this will look great in 08 if we try to run as anti-war in Iran
cuz ionce again we voted FOR IT, (Before we voted against it)

I can't believe ho stupid an uninformed they are. Sure the devil was in the small print, but do they even remember the Iraq Ware Resolution?

I give up.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
46. Koko01, will you help me sponsor a call in day about this vote?
I've been trying to muster the energy to post a thread but need a pardner. Maybe tomorrow or Wednesday?

They need to hear from us that we will not tolerate another trumped up reason for war whose only end is to enrich Bush cronies. :mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #46
64. I just got back to this thread....I'll PM you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #64
65. Okay.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bushwick Bill Donating Member (605 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
58. What About Saudi Fucking Arabia????!!!!
Saudis role in Iraq insurgency outlined.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-sau...
Nearly Half of Foreign Detainees In Iraq are Saudi.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070716/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq...
Hundreds of Saudi Suicide Bombers Languish In Iraqi Jails.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #58
82. Seems it's meant to be kept quiet as if LAT's isn't good enough.......
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 08:12 PM by KoKo01
:-( The TRUTH (?????)once again, after ALL THESE YEARS...is being written by Bush Crime Family. Remember the NeoCons in this Crime Family told Ron Susskind that he put in his book: "We make our own reality." (I'm sure I screwed up the quote but think I got the jist of it correctly)

On EDIT:
Here's the real Susskind quote from a Google:
http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache


...there is considerable evidence that Karl Rove and the Bush Administration have long known how to exploit this. One of my favorite examples, reported by Ron Susskind in the October 2004 New York Times magazine, is of an exchange he had with a senior adviser to the president. That adviser sneered at what he called the reality-based community represented by Susskind and his questions. Thats not the way the world really works anymore, he reportedly told Susskind. Were an empire now, and when we act, we create our own
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
churchofreality Donating Member (545 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
59. When they investigate, they will find Kucinich under Ahmedinijad's desk.
I think Dennis likes him because they dress the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
conspirator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
62. pass the popcorn n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:53 PM
Response to Original message
68. I thought the Liebermen amendment was to require the administration to issue a report to the Senate
in 60(?) 90(?) days on how exactly Iran is 'involved' in Iraq? I watched this debate the other day. NO ONE said ANYTHING about attacking Iran and in fact, Carl Levin stopped floor proceedings to get Lieberman to take "VIOLENT LANGUAGE" out of the amendment BEFORE he would let the vote go forward. They then voted and it was 97-0. I don't think this was an amendment to go to war with Iran...or NONE of the Dems would have voted for it.

Does anyone have a copy of the amendment or has anyone read it? I looked for it the other day and couldn't find it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #68
69. "Baldy Man" post on this thread #17 Gives link to the PDF of Amendment Language...
My scan of it this a.m....sent chills down my spine.... Click and just read the first two pages and you see the CASE FOR BOMB...BOMB...BOMB...BOMB IRAN....

Maybe you think I overeacted...but read "Baldy's" links and then tell me I didn't. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loveandlight Donating Member (138 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #68
70. what about being fooled twice don't you get...
The first step in making a war happen it to get everyone to believe that Iran is doing bad things. Boogie man, oh my, they are attacking our troops. The senators should have voted against this resolution on the mere fact that it is full of inaccuracies and the kind of distorted "intelligence" that was used to build up toward a war with Iraq.

Here is the first step, you've just gotten the entire Senate to agree that Iran has been doing harm to US troops in Iraq and we need to investigate more about how they are doing this. Not whether or if someone else is doing it (Saudis as others have raised), but how the Iranians are doing it. You've got everybody on your turf now. The assumption is that Iran is bad and doing these things.

Second step, include this and other false information already published by the NY Times and others to build up the "facts" of all the bad that Iran is doing. Now that everyone has agreed that they are bad, its just moving the chess pieces across the board to checkmate everyone into a more aggressive piece of legislation that does authorize war.

This is complete blindness and complicity on the part of all of our senators. It scares me and saddens me and makes me wonder to whom are we to turn to get out of this mess.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #70
71. No. I don't believe the Senate agreed that Iran has been doing harm to the troops, but the amendment
was to show PROOF/EVIDENCE, in a report to the Senate, that they are? I will go read the Amendment later, but I just don't see the Democrats falling for this shit again and that wasn't even mentioned in the debate last week. Not a word was mentioned about attacking Iran (I watched the debate)....not even by asshole Lieberman. The entire debate was about getting a REPORT.

I'll go read the amendment though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #71
73. When you get a chance...it's important to read...
I tried to find something there that really holds Bush/Cheney's feet to fire...but it smacked too much of Iraq War Resolution giving Bush the "out" to bomb. And ...If you read the links I gave in my Original Post of the Comments by Digby ...it's not sounding good. Depends on if one thinks bombing Iran will be a good thing or not...I guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #73
74. Here's the Amendment. a non-PDF. That asshole Lieberman must have a running file on Iran because
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 05:49 PM by in_cog_ni_to
He has listed EVERYTHING EVERYONE has ever said about Iran. I surely don't trust what the damn State Dept. or Brigadier Generals say about Iran and I certainly don't believe a word Petraeus has to say about Iran either. He's just going to say what the psycho wants to hear. They lied before they'll lie again. This does look like Lieberman's attempt to further his agenda on attacking Iran...depending on the report they get, I suppose. I still don't believe the Democrats will ever agree to an attack on Iran. We cannot attack Iran. We don't have the troops or the resources! They may agree to sanctions of some sort, but the Democrats are not going to let these warmongers attack Iran, IMCPO. They're working so hard to end the Iraq War. I just cannot believe they would approve an invasion of Iran. :(

Bookmark this thread and if we do attack Iran with the Democrat's approval, you can come back and kick my butt with "Told you so!" :)



SA 2073. Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. KYL, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. COLEMAN, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. SALAZAR, and Mr. CRAIG) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 2011 proposed by Mr. Nelson of Nebraska (for Mr. Levin) to the bill H.R. 1585, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; as follows:

At the end of title XV, add the following:

SEC. 1535. REPORT ON SUPPORT FROM IRAN FOR ATTACKS AGAINST COALITION FORCES IN IRAQ.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Since January 19, 1984, the Secretary of State has designated the Islamic Republic of Iran as a ``state sponsor of terrorism,'' one of only five countries in the world at present so designated.

(2) The Department of State, in its most recent ``Country Reports on Terrorism,'' stated that ``Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism'' in 2006.

(3) The most recent Country Reports on Terrorism report further stated, ``Iran continued to play a destabilizing role in Iraq. . . Iran provided guidance and training to select Iraqi Shia political groups, and weapons and training to Shia militant groups to enable anti-Coalition attacks. Iranian government forces have been responsible for at least some of the increasing lethality of anti-Coalition attacks by providing Shia militants with the capability to build IEDs with explosively formed projectiles similar to those developed by Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard was linked to armor-piercing explosives that resulted in the deaths of Coalition Forces.''

(4) In an interview published on June 7, 2006, Zalmay Khalilzad, then-United States ambassador to Iraq, said of Iranian support for extremist activity in Iraq, ``We can say with certainty that they support groups that are attacking coalition troops. These groups are using the same ammunition to destroy armored vehicles that the Iranians are supplying to Hezbollah in Lebanon. They pay money to Shiite militias and they train some of the groups. We can't say whether Teheran is supporting Al Qaeda, but we do know that Al Qaeda people come here from Pakistan through Iran. And Ansar al Sunna, a partner organization of Zarqawi's network, has a base in northwest Iran.''

(5) On April 26, 2007, General David Petraeus, commander of Multi-National Force-Iraq, said of Iranian support for extremist activity in Iraq, ``The level of financing, the level of training on Iranian soil, the level of equipping some sophisticated technologies. . . even advice in some cases, has been very, very substantial and very harmful.''

(6) On April 26, 2007, General Petraeus also said of Iranian support for extremist activity in Iraq, ``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.''

(7) On May 27, 2007, then-Major General William Caldwell, spokesperson for Multi-National Force-Iraq, said, ``What we do know is that the Iranian intelligence services, the Qods Force, is in fact both training, equipping, and funding Shia extremist groups. . . both in Iraq and also in Iran. . .. We have in detention now people that we have captured that, in fact, are Sunni extremist-related that have, in fact, received both some funding and training from the Iranian intelligence services, the Qods Force.''

(8) On February 27, 2007, in testimony before the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate, Lieutenant General Michael Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said of Iranian support for extremist activity in Iraq, ``We believe Hezbollah is involved in the training as well.''

(9) On July 2, 2007, Brigadier General Kevin Bergner, spokesperson for Multi-National Force-Iraq, stated, ``The Iranian Qods Force is using Lebanese Hezbollah essentially as a proxy, as a surrogate in Iraq.''

(10) On July 2, 2007, Brigadier General Bergner detailed the capture in southern Iraq by coalition forces of Ali Musa Daqdaq, whom the United States military believes to be a 24-year veteran of Lebanese Hezbollah involved in the training of Iraqi extremists in Iraq and Iran.

(11) The Department of State designates Hezbollah a foreign terrorist organization.

(12) On July 2, 2007, Brigadier General Bergner stated that the Iranian Qods Force operates three camps near Teheran where it trains Iraqi extremists in cooperation with Lebanese Hezbollah, stating, ``The Qods Force, along with Hezbollah instructors, train approximately 20 to 60 Iraqis at a time, sending them back to Iraq organized into these special groups. They are being taught how to use EPFs , mortars, rockets, as well as intelligence, sniper, and kidnapping operations.''

(13) On July 2, 2007, Brigadier General Bergner stated that Iraqi extremists receive between $750,000 and $3,000,000 every month from Iranian sources.

(14) On July 2, 2007, Brigadier General Bergner stated that ``our intelligence reveals that senior leadership in Iran is aware of this activity'' and that it would be ``hard to imagine'' that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, is unaware of it.

(15) On July 2, 2007, Brigadier General Bergner stated, ``There does not seem to be any follow-through on the commitments that Iran has made to work with Iraq in addressing the destabilizing security issues here in Iraq.''

(16) On February 11, 2007, the United States military held a briefing in Baghdad at which its representatives stated that at least 170 members of the United States Armed Forces have been killed, and at least 620 wounded, by weapons tied to Iran.

(17) On January 20, 2007, a sophisticated attack was launched by insurgents at the Karbala Provincial Joint Coordination Center in Iraq, resulting in the murder of five American soldiers, four of whom were first abducted.

(18) On April 26, 2007, General Petraeus stated that the so-called Qazali network was responsible for the attack on the Karbala

GPO's PDF

Provincial Joint Coordination Center and that ``there's no question that the Qazali network is directly connected to the Iranian Qods force and has received money, training, arms, ammunition, and at some points in time even advice and assistance and direction''.

(19) On July 2, 2007, Brigadier General Bergner stated that the United States Armed Forces possesses documentary evidence that the Qods Force had developed detailed information on the United States position at the Karbala Provincial Joint Coordination Center ``regarding our soldiers' activities, shift changes, and defenses, and this information was shared with the attackers''.

(20) On July 2, 2007, Brigadier General Bergner stated of the January 20 Karbala attackers, ``They could not have conducted this complex operation without the support and direction of the Qods Force.''

(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--

(1) the murder of members of the United States Armed Forces by a foreign government or its agents is an intolerable and unacceptable act of hostility against the United States by the foreign government in question; and

(2) the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran must take immediate action to end all training, arming, equipping, funding, advising, and any other forms of support that it or its agents are providing, and have provided, to Iraqi militias and insurgents, who are contributing to the destabilization of Iraq and are responsible for the murder of members of the United States Armed Forces.

(c) Report.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 60 days thereafter, the Commander, Multi-National Forces Iraq and the United States Ambassador to Iraq shall jointly submit to Congress a report describing and assessing in detail--

(A) the external support or direction provided to anti-coalition forces by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran or its agents;

(B) the strategy and ambitions in Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran; and

(C) any counter-strategy or efforts by the United States Government to counter the activities of agents of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Iraq.

(2) FORM.--Each report required under paragraph (1) shall be in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #74
76. Thanks for putting it out there in Real Write...not like PDF so EVERYONE can SEE THIS!
I assume you think it's as inflammatory as I did. :-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #76
80. It's very bad and it's quite OBVIOUS where Lieberman wants to go with that.
My guess is, the language Levin made him remove, threatened Iran. We're just going to have to hope our Dems will not let these warmongers proceed after they get their report. We already KNOW what that report will say. It's not going to be good for Iran. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wiggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #74
79. Did you see the "sense of congress" section near the end (b1 and b2)? That's the part
that ties it up...Iran is murdering Americans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #79
81. LAT's says it's Saudi Insurgents Murdering American Troops, though...
So, how can it be the Iranians? And, we gave arms to Iran..so if they filter out to "insurgents" why should Iran be more culpable than the USA for all the Arms we've traded above and below radar to people we thought we could sway to our side...when in fact they were just ripping us off. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CGowen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #79
87. "sense of congress" sounds like "the gut feeling of Chertoff" n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 07:37 PM
Response to Original message
77. Seems what's said on this Thread isn't ALONE...DU'er "kpete" just posted THIS!
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 07:37 PM by KoKo01
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:59 PM
Response to Original message
84. Yes, Feingold wants war with Iran
He is a warmonger just like the rest of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 12:44 AM
Response to Original message
85. they are all whores
they want the heat and attention off Iraq
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 02:37 AM
Response to Original message
86. All The NSA Intercepts Went Straight to AIPAC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
88. Questions make baby Jesus cry
Toe the line. War with Iran is a winner!
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 02nd 2014, 09:50 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC