Democrats were charged to end a war, not start one.

[IndianaGreen]

Published on Friday, September 28, 2007 by CommonDreams.org

Democrats Were Charged To End A War, Not Start One

by Mike Gravel

Hillary Clinton was either misinformed or economical with the truth in Wednesday night�s debate when she responded to my challenge to her by saying the Senate�s resolution earlier in the day on Iran was designed to permit economic sanctions against individual members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.

She and her staff should know the United Nations Security Council on March 24 already slapped economic sanctions on individual Guard Members. Like the Red Army in China, Iran allows Guard commanders to own and run private companies. Security Council Resolution 1747, which the United States voted for, froze financial assets held outside Iran on the seven military commanders, including General Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr and six other admirals and generals.

I know of no law dictating the State Department must first designate individuals or groups as terrorists� before sanctions can be imposed on them. Dozens of countries have been under U.S. unilateral sanctions that are not designated as terrorist. The U.S. first imposed sanctions on Iran in 1979 over the hostages, not terrorism. The only possible purpose of the Senate resolution asking the State Department to designate the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization� is to set it up for military attack in George Bush�s war on terror.

As Virginia senator Jim Webb valiantly said in the Senate, the United States has never before designated the military services of a sovereign state a terrorist group. Indeed, though there is international dispute over the definition of terrorism, there is little disagreement on the legal point that terrorists are non-state actors who target civilians, i.e., never members of a government. Governments can be guilty of war crimes, but not terrorism. And the resolution talks about attacks on American troops, not civilians.

The hypocrisy of Hillary and the 75 other senators who called for more unilateral sanctions on Iran, was exposed Monday by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier who said, according to Spiegel Magazine, that American companies are violating existing U.S. sanctions by surreptitiously doing business with Iran through front companies in Dubai.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/27/4175/

[Nutmegger]

1. R&K for Gravel...

:thumbsup::applause::kick:

[nvme]

45. CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN THE POWER OF THE PURSE

I am ignorant on this point. If a majority of both houses are need to create a bill the prez sign it becomes law. What is needed to defund? a simple majority or 2/3 . can the prez veto it. i am truly fuzzy on this point if you could email your response. I would be greatful

[txaslftist]

46. A simple majority can defund.

All they have to do is not vote for the appropriation. Without 50%, the bill won't pass. So 51% can decline to pass the appropriations bill, and the money stops.

[Exultant Democracy]

2. Hillary "voted for this resolution in order to apply greater diplomatic pressure"

not start a war. Why can't people understand that.:sarcasm:

There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again. You've got to understand the nature of the regime we're dealing with.

From his mouth to gods ears.

[JeffR]

8. This is one hell of a post!!!

Well done!

[Just-plain-Kathy]

14. Re: Hillary "voted for this resolution in order to apply greater diplomatic pressure"

:puke:


K&R: for truth teller Gravel. :patriot:

[BootinUp]

3. My understanding is that the sanctions

carry more sever penalties for companies that aid the individuals so designated. Frankly, Gravel is not the person I would look to for an accurate analysis anyways.

[IndianaGreen]

7. Hillary Clinton Votes for War � Again

Published on Friday, September 28, 2007 by Huffington Post

Hillary Clinton Votes for War � Again

by David Bromwich

Yesterday, by a vote of 76-22, the Senate passed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment in support of military actions against Iran. This is the second such endorsement of the president by a senate majority in just three months. In July, the Lieberman amendment to �confront Iran� passed with the far stronger majority of 97-0.

The original draft of Kyl-Lieberman had asked U.S. forces to �combat, contain, and roll back� the Iranian menace within Iraq. But the words �roll back� were all too plainly a coded endorsement of hot pursuit into Iran; and the senators did not want to go quite so far. To assure a larger majority the language was accordingly trimmed and blurred to say �that it should be the policy of the United States to stop inside Iraq the violent activities and destabilizing influence of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies.�

The inclusion of Hezbollah deserves some notice. It is part of a larger attempt, already apparent in the Lebanon war of 2006, to manufacture an �amalgam� of all the enemies of Israel and the United States throughout the region, and to treat them all as one enemy. Those who believe in the amalgam will come to agree that many more wars by the United States and Israel are needed to crush this enemy.

More provocative is a secondary detail of the amendment, which received less notice from the mainstream media. Kyl-Lieberman approves the listing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard of Iran as a �foreign terrorist organization.� Now, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard is the largest branch of the Iranian military. By granting Vice President Cheney�s wish (a distant dream in 2005) to put the Iranian guard on the U.S. terrorist list, the Senate has classified the army of Iran as an army of terrorists. The president, therefore, as he follows out the Cheney plan has all the support he requires for asserting in his next speech to an army or veterans group that Iran is a nation of terrorists.

It was said during the Vietnam War that �a dead Vietnamese is a Viet Cong.� It will assuage the conscience for U.S. bombers of Iran to know that a dead Iranian is a terrorist. The Senate, by this classification, has absolved the bombers in advance.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/27/4181/

[BootinUp]

9. There is a better explanation

as I already indicated. I think its understandable that people freaked a bit over the resolution, but I am confident the kind of predictions you have posted will all turn out to be quite wrong.

[Exultant Democracy]

12. Wanna bet a million Iranian lives? If your not scared of what Bush will do

once he gets his foot in the door you haven't been paying attention.

[IndianaGreen]

36. Hillary showed bad judgment when she voted for IWR and the Lieberman Iran War Resolution

She also voted for similar bellicose resolutions on Syria and Lebanon, just as she was urged to do by the Israel Lobby.

The last thing we need is another agent for imperial Zionism in the White House, that's the reason why we are in Iraq now, that's why we will go into Iran next.

[AuntPatsy]

4. Ahhh but all we get is "you just don't understand" Well then if we do not

understand why they are acting the way they are and not the way they should be acting then they should dam sure begin explaining, I feel like we the people have pretty much become nothing more than an experiment in a world gone totaly self serving and the hell with our neighbors.

We need to stop letting them write the scripts...and we can do it if we come together more and quit allowing them to keep us so divided.

[EFerrari]

5. Fresh air!

K&R

[mod mom]

42. speaking of... Sy Hersh will be on Fresh Air tomorrow Oct 2nd to talk about Iran:

Fresh Air



The one-hour program features Terry Gross' in-depth interviews with prominent cultural and entertainment figures, as well as distinguished experts on current affairs and news.

Upcoming
Tue, October 2, 2007 --
Seymour Hersch -- The program welcomes back investigative journalist Seymour Hersch, a regular contributor to The New Yorker magazine who has written in depth about the Bush administration. His article in this week's edition focuses on the administration's shift in position on Iran, redefining the war in Iraq as a strategic battle between the U.S. and Iran. Hersch exposed the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in 2004 in a series of articles published in the magazine in early 2005. He has been the recipient of the Pulitzer Prize, five George Polk Awards, two National Magazine Awards and a dozen other prizes. He is also the author of eight books including "Chain of Command" about Abu Ghraib.

[Truthiness Inspector]

6. Look back to 1998 n/t

[gateley]

11. I don't know what that means - could you explain? Thanks. nt

[IndianaGreen]

37. Bill Clinton signed the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act which called for regime change

and laid the foundations for Bush's criminal and illegal invasion of Iraq. Lieberman's Iran resolution follows the same neocon pattern of incremental steps towards war. Hillary went along with it, just as she did on Iraq.

[gateley]

10. I've always REALLY liked Gravel. If he were in the WH, there'd be no

question as to what we were doing, why, and who was trying to fuck it up. Whatta guy.

Thanks for this post.

And a big K&R for the good Senator.

[IndianaGreen]

38. If it hadn't been for Gravel and others like him that defunded the Vietnam War

we would still be there, and there wouldn't be enough room for all the names of the fallen at the Vietnam Memorial Wall.

Gravel is right when he says that this Congress can end the Iraq war today if it were to do what a previous Congress did when it defunded Vietnam.

[AtomicKitten]

13. I agree.

And although you inferred here at DU that Obama is a chickenshit for not voting, I am very pleased he didn't vote "yes" on this, and I give him a little more slack than you do regarding missing votes. This POS amendment passed by quite a large margin - much to my disgust, so his vote wouldn't have mattered anyway. He released a statement condemning the amendment. In assessing comparative negligence, I think he comes out okay and I still prefer him by a long shot over Edwards and Hillary. But then again if Gore jumped in all bets would be off.

[Zandor]

15. How are the polls looking, Mike? n/t

[Froward69]

16. Biden and Dodd voted against this

Hillary did. Shows where she will lead us, doesn't it???

[BootinUp]

18. Yes it does

To the Whitehouse in 08.

Here are some facts for everyone to consider:

Recent efforts by European nations as well as the US to have a productive dialog with Iran have been stymied by Iran.

Then we saw in increase in pressure both in sanctions and rhetoric from countries like France, the US, Israel, and the UN.

Now in the last few days, reports of more compliance from Iran working with the IAEA and the Iraqis/US on border control are coming out.

If we don't want the neocons and Israel to lash out with bombs we have to press the diplomatic effort. There are always differences of opinion on how to do that, but we can't just do nothing and expect to have any credibility with the American people. This resolution doesn't authorize a military strike of any kind on Iran, those who claim it does are doing so without any basis in fact.

[txaslftist]

23. She's not lead US to the White House. We're putting HER there.

Any Democrat could take the White House in 2008 against the pathetic crop of losers the GOP has fielded, any one of them.

This vote is a real good reason why it shouldn't be her.

Anyone who thinks we need to ratchet up the pressure with Iran or give the administration the idea that they have a green light to attack Iran has neither the judgment nor the wisdom to be president.

[BootinUp]

24. opinions vary on a lot of things

Iran has stymied efforts for serious talks this year on 3 occasions according to testimony in the same resolution. Have you read it?

[txaslftist]

26. What is the basis for the talks in the first place?

US Pressure and Israeli pressure, that's what.

Iran is completely within its rights to pursue nuclear enrichment and development for peaceful purposes. WE say they're developing military stuff; and the UN inspectors, who say they've had complete access, say there is NO EVIDENCE of that.

All of this is crap anyway. Certain folks want a war with Iran and have wanted it since the late 1980s, if not earlier. Why? Because they're sitting on a patch of oil we covet, they're not a DC puppet like Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, and they're a regional rival to Israel.

All of this "nuclear weapons" crap is just crap. The UN has been dancing to Washington's tune for three years, imposing sanctions, passing resolutions, and on an on in the hopes of appeasing the US. What they don't understand is that the only thing that will "appease" Washington is bombs falling on Iranian heads and denationalization of Iran's oil.

The rest of this is window dressing.

[BootinUp]

27. Well now we know where you stand. n/t

[txaslftist]

dupe

[txaslftist]

29. Yeah. I stand for peace and non-intervention. Scary, huh?

[BootinUp]

30. Obviously if you are not at all

concerned about Iran with nukes, you represent a very small percent of the constituency. Personally I favor diplomacy to prevent that until such time as they are not run by an Ayatollah.

[txaslftist]

33. "Iran With Nukes" is a fairy tale.

Sponsored by the same Disney Channel execs who brought you "Iraq's Imminent Mushroom Cloud" and "Saddam's Sponsorship of 9-11 Terra!"

If you choose to believe, go ahead, but don't forget to put a tooth under your pillow.

[BootinUp]

34. well,

I tend to think its quite aways out as a serious threat, i.e. definitely not imminent in any way. At least 5 years probably twice that.

[txaslftist]

35. Probably more than 10 years; assuming they pursue them.

The whole fairy tale is based on the idea that the "religious dictatorship" of Iran will ignore a Fatwa from their supreme ruler and proceed to weaponize nukes covertly.

On top of that, even if they had them, what makes them more of a threat than nuclear (and unstable) N. Korea or nuclear (and very unstable) Pakistan? I'll tell you what: They're on top of a bunch of oil that our multinationals and their pet president want back in the hands of oil companies as God intended.

Add to that the fact that our President, the idiot, actually spoke to the French President (or PM, I don't recall exactly) and asked about "Gog" and "Magog" (biblical rapture-nutter figures);and you start to perceive exactly what all this is about.

Bullshit. It's about bullshit. Batshit crazy bullshit.

Don't buy ANY of it.

It's pure hype.

Part of Goebbel's big lie theory was that if you tell a big lie often enough, even if it is completely outrageous, people will begin to believe bits and pieces of it; if not the whole thing.

Iranian terror sponsorship is one such lie. Iranian nukes is another.

So I don't care what a "majority" of the dumbass American people think. I know horseshit when I smell it, and this stuff is horseshit. The same kind we were spoonfed before the Iraqcle started.

And that's my last post today.

Goodbye and good luck!

[IndianaGreen]

39. Like txaslftist said, "Iran with nukes" is a neocon/neolib fairy tale

I can't believe you are falling for the same line of bullshit that got us into Iraq, from the same culprits in both parties. Other than the absence of Chalabi and Judith Miller, it is the same script with the same cast of characters.

Didn't you hear Hillary cackle at the AIPAC convention? Remember her threat of first use of nuclear weapons on Iran?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

28. "Testimony"...

whose testimony? And, may I ask, why on earth would you believe anything that came out of anyone associated with the Bush Administration? Or are you one those who believed Saddam had WMD/had something to do with 9/11/was a supporter of Bin Laden just because someone "testified" to that??? THEY HAVE FED US BULLSHIT IN THE PAST AND ARE DOING IT AGAIN.

I mean really now, what the fuck?????

[BootinUp]

31. I can understand that point of view

and it would be mine as well if there was any effort going on (other than by the Iranians) over the last two years or so to refute evidence about Iranian involvement and their openness to negotiate.

[Zandor]

20. Yes, the White House n/t

[jmp]

17. The polls look like the warmongers are winning. (nm)

...

[ColonelTom]

41. Yeah, if you're not winning in the polls...

... you can't possibly be correct.

Are you f*cking kidding me?

[Ken Burch]

47. The polls are AGAINST any more war, in Iraq OR in Iran.

Gravel's own poll standing is beside the point.

We have nothing to gain by lowering ourselves to "bear any burden, fight any foe", and forgetting once again all we've learned SINCE 1962.

Hawkishness doesn't work as a foreign policy anymore. And it makes it impossible for us to do anything progressive at home if we get into another war. I don't want the NEXT Democratic adminstration to be eight wasted years where we let Republicans tell us what to do.
That's what electing a hawk means.

[Festivito]

19. I still think it was the CORRUPTION, not the war.

The risk for fence-sitters to decide whether the war is bad or good is too high. They do not know how the end game will look. The last image is of Vietnam with people climbing that wall.

They fear being responsible for that scene happening again.

Corruption.

To end this war we need to convince THEM thoroughly that the waging and the inception were both irrefutably corrupt.

That's a tall order.

This constant repetition of the end-war mandate IF FALSE gives us false starts NOT GETTING THE JOB DONE.

We need to hit the morality of the war with e.g. How do you ask the last soldier to die for a criminally started war? (Need to work on wording.) And, How do you ask the last soldier to die for a corrupt war profiteer's contract?

[polichick]

21. We are very lucky that Gravel is in the race...

The spotlight he shines is critically important!

[polichick]

22. "through front companies in Dubai"

Wonder how many are there now ~ besides Halliburton.

[robinlynne]

25. Damn straight!

[BootinUp]

32. The legal penalties for doing business

with terrorists being harsher and more far reaching than other types of sanctions is one of the main reasons for the designation that Gravel completely misses.

[shireen]

40. after watching KO's interview with Hersh, i'm feeling sick to my stomach ,,,, nt

[jgraz]

43. And don't think for a second that Hillary and the other hawks aren't aware of everything Sy said

They're selling their souls to hang onto power (or grab more in Hill's case).

[NoGodsNoMasters]

44. This makes me sad...

It just illustrates the pathetic state of the democratic party. Moreover sanctions aren't such a hot idea. Sanctions in Iraq drove infant mortality through the roof because medicines for pediatricians weren't allowed through. This also helped Saddam hang on to power because it made them more dependant on his regime and thus less likely to be able to formulate a resistance. Our embargo against Cuba is a waste of time which accomplishes nothing. When will these people learn???!