Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

“Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize...the use of Armed Forces against Iran"

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
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:05 AM
Original message
“Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize...the use of Armed Forces against Iran"
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/07/senate-democrats-... /

Senate Democrats Vote for War With Iran

by Pham Binh / July 14th, 2007

That’s right. Senate - Democrats - Voted - For - War - With - Iran!

On Wednesday, the Senate voted 97-0 for an amendment written by Joe Bomb Iran Lieberman, whose position on Iran is identical to Dick Cheney’s.

The amendment repeats the flimsy charges made by the Cheney administration earlier this year that the Iranian government is arming Iraq’s Shia militias with explosively-formed projectile explosives that have killed almost 200 American troops and that Shia Iran is giving a safe haven to Sunni extremist Al-Qaeda (even though AQ is blowing up Iraqi Shias left and right). These are the same charges that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Statt, Peter Pace, distanced himself from, claiming that the evidence did not support the contention that Iran’s government either supplied or was complicit in the supply of these weapons to militias in Iraq. (Pace’s will not be renominated for the position, by the way.)

The amendment states that “the murder of members of the United States Armed Forces by a foreign government or its agents is an intolerable act against the United States,” and demands the government of Iran “take immediate action” to end all forms of support it is providing to Iraqi militias. It also mandates a regular report on Iran’s anti-US activity in Iraq .

Senior Democrat Carl Levin successfully inserted a small change to Lieberman’s text stating that, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of Armed Forces against Iran.” If you’re thinking, “phew! That’ll stop a war on Iran!” think again. The Iraq Liberation Act passed by Congress in 1998 and signed by Bill Clinton had the same text. And we all know the story of how that text stopped the invasion of Iraq .

Charging Iran with killing US troops has nothing to do with the facts. It’s about beating the war drums and trying to convince Americans that in order to “protect our troops” the US must bomb Iran.

more...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
1. Flag waving "toughness" is always a popular stance for politicians.
“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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
2. you do recal Congress voted SINCE 1998 (on IraQ)?




...........
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/07/senate-democrats -... /

Senate Democrats Vote for War With Iran

by Pham Binh / July 14th, 2007
..............

Senior Democrat Carl Levin successfully inserted a small change to Lieberman’s text stating that, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of Armed Forces against Iran.” If you’re thinking, “phew! That’ll stop a war on Iran!” think again. The Iraq Liberation Act passed by Congress in 1998 and signed by Bill Clinton had the same text. And we all know the story of how that text stopped the invasion of Iraq .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Let's hope Senate Democrat Carl Levin doesn't vote for another IWR
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 10:18 AM by wtmusic
an Iranian War Resolution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnceUponTimeOnTheNet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Levin did not vote for the Iraq War Resolution.
He voted against it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Thank you -- my mistake. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:09 AM
Response to Original message
3. So not voting against war with Iran = voting FOR war with Iran.
And the assault on reason continues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sakabatou Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. The hell?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. I'm saying that argument makes no sense.
Bush didn't go to war with Iraq on the basis of the act Clinton signed. Turning the act Clinton signed into an Iraq war resolution is a rhetorical game with no basis in reality. Turning this vote on Iran - which I do not care for at all - into an Iran war resolution is equally nonsense and part of the continuing assault on logic and reason - just in this case, from the left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlackHawk706867 Donating Member (670 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:13 AM
Response to Original message
4. If the US strikes Iran, it's game over.... That will no doubt bring in..
Russia, China, Venezuela, Syria and a host of other countries that will form against the US. Should this happen, we will see a full scale world war with no clear winners.

ww
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #4
12. If we attack Iran, WW III starts, and we get our oil supplies cut off and lose BIGTIME, PDQ.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #4
15. Maybe that World War III is the very bad thing that Chertoff's gut is telling him about
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 02:31 PM by truedelphi
I know my gut goes into paroxysms whenever I think of Iran and this country's
government's reaction to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:25 AM
Response to Original message
8. No one has explained to me why the Democrats would do this.
Is there ever going to be a political party that represents us?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. The Democratic party is seeming more and more to me to be packed with
a bunch of Ivans - Republicans gone deep undercover to undermine true Democratic principles. That's why so many Dem higher-ups get such big corporate funding. The corps know they are not really Dems.

I know. Tinfoilhattish. But I really have to wonder at times if it's true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old guy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #8
14. Is this throwing Lieberman a bone?
It seems that he is looking for an excuse to jump to the repubs. So he sets up this ridiculous ploy hoping the Democrats stop it. Only they don't. This thing will not permit or stop * from starting a war with Iran. IMO it is all Lieberman trying to look relevant. Just a thought.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. I hope not. why the hell should he get a bone?
I mean, AIPAC already owns the souls and the votes 1/3 of the democrats, and at least 50% of the GOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheBaldyMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
11. the IWR was passed before the 2003 invasion
doesn't make the Iraq war legal but kind of scuppers the claim the the 1998 ILA gives carte-blanche to Bush with Iran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 02:38 PM
Response to Original message
16. that only applies to Armed Forces.
you know - with arms.

Says nothing about smart bombs, robot planes, air launched cruise missiles, sea based cruise missiles, land based cruise missiles, bunker buster bombs, ballistic missile strike, artillery attacks from the north, tank incursions as a "defensive" move, a nuke or three for color and impact, hell, the list is almost endless.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressoid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
18. Huh? What? WTF does our current invasion/occupation have to do with the Iraq Lib Act of 98?
Bush did that because of a completely different resolution. No?
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 Thu Oct 30th 2014, 11:52 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