Hillary would bear responsibility for any military action taken by Bush against Iran.

[IndianaGreen]

Biden Says Bush Could Use Iranian Measure to Wage War (Update1)

By Nicholas Johnston

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a2TcvJ1bzkCc&refer=us

[LakeSamish706]

1. And in my opinion he is absolutely correct. n/t

[Bitwit1234]

2. Oh Hillary the Amazon...she is taking over the presidency and hasn't even run for it yet...

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. Can we do without the sexist/lesbian combination crap?

Most people who don't like Hillary don't have problems finding genuine issues to attack her on.

[jillan]

3. Check out the home page of DU :)

and then check this out

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5heE937QM6QzE9T5U7wFrft0XfTmA :(

[IndianaGreen]

11. They are following the same script they used on the run up to the Iraq War

which makes it more mind boggling that any self-respecting Democrat would have voted for yet any authorization to Bush to deal with one of his enemy countries.

[incapsulated]

4. lol

It's called desperation mode.

[IndianaGreen]

6. Cheney: Iran will not get nuclear weapon (Sunday, 21-Oct-2007)

Thanks to those that voted to give Bush another green light for war, Cheney is now beating the war drums for the next neocon war, this time in Iran.

Cheney: Iran will not get nuclear weapon

LEESBURG, Virginia (AP) -- The United States and other nations will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday.

"Our country, and the entire international community, cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions," Cheney said in a speech to the Washington Institute for Near East Studies.

He said Iran's efforts to pursue technology that would allow them to build a nuclear weapon are obvious and that "the regime continues to practice delay and deceit in an obvious effort to buy time."

If Iran continues on its current course, Cheney said the U.S. and other nations are "prepared to impose serious consequences." The vice president made no specific reference to military action.

"We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon," he said.

Cheney's words seemed to only escalate the U.S. rhetoric against Iran over the past several days, including President Bush's warning that a nuclear Iran could lead to World War III.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/21/cheney.iran.ap/index.html

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. This, from the one candidate who has more experience than any

two other candidates in the race.

He knows what he's talking about.

[denem]

7. Biden's first Big Lie

No amount of spinning can turn Lyle/Lieberman into a support or authorization for war. It simply isn't true. All the speculation concerns what Bush may use for cover afterwards. Failures are orphans, the responsibility for the disaster would lie squarely in the lap of The Decider.

[IndianaGreen]

13. Remember that Clinton era resolution that called for regime change in Iraq?

They all laid the groundwork for the Iraq War Resolution.

The Kyl-Lieberman resolution went further than any other resolution in that it declared part of the Iranian government a terrorist organization. This has given Bush the green light to strike Iran because in the aftermath of 9/11 Congress gave Bush the authority to go after terrorists groups anywhere in the world.

Biden is not the only one saying this, but also Jim Webb and Chris Dodd.

[incapsulated]

16. Wrong.

(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).

That is from S. 970: Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007, March.

The one Obama voted for.

[Cameron27]

23. Thanks, I've been looking for that for two days.

[killbotfactory]

48. There was no official vote on that

The only vote was to send it to committee, to be debated and revised, it never made it for a final vote.

[AtomicKitten]

51. Funny thing but you are also wrong.

There was no vote on that bill. It never made it out of committee.

Yet you persist in distorting Obama's voting record by claiming he voted on a bill that was never brought to a vote.

Tsk, tsk.

[denem]

18. Kyl-Lieberman does not express support or authorisation for war.

Its as simple as that. This is an argument about the aftermath. No amount of talk about green lights will shift the blame an inch away from where it belongs, The Decider. The greater the catastrophe, the greater the odium.

[IndianaGreen]

20. Anyone that gives Bush authority for anything is unfit for higher office!

Bush already has the authority to go after terrorist groups anywhere. When Congress declared part of Iran's government to be a terrorist organization, it gave Bush the green light to use the war authority that it got from Congress on the aftermath of 9/11.

[AtomicKitten]

52. I absolutely agree with that.

I have stated for the last two years I will not support anyone in the primary that voted "yes" on the IWR. And the Kyl-Lieberman amendment was the piece de resistance. I was rather shocked to realize there was a Democratic candidate that didn't learn the first time the dog bit them.

[denem]

54. Except that it is wrong

Kyl-Lieberman doesn't authorize anything: It does not support military action, it does not even legally designate anything as terrorism. It is at most a fig leaf for the firestorm that would blaze if military action was taken against Iran.

The Administration announced in August it would be designating the Iranian National Guard as a terrorist group: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/14/AR2007081401662_pf.html

"The designation of the Revolutionary Guard will be made under Executive Order 13224, which President Bush signed two weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to obstruct terrorist funding. It authorizes the United States to identify individuals, businesses, charities and extremist groups engaged in terrorist activities. The Revolutionary Guard would be the first national military branch included on the list, U.S. officials said -- a highly unusual move because it is part of a government, rather than a typical non-state terrorist organization. ...

The main goal of the new designation is to clamp down on the Revolutionary Guard's vast business network, as well as on foreign companies conducting business linked to the military unit and its personnel. The administration plans to list many of the Revolutionary Guards financial operations."

When Lieberman attempted to add in language which contemplated military action it was excised. John Edwards talked about it being a first step towards authorization. There is no authorization. There is no path towards authorization.

Kle-Lieberman does not authorize or support military action against Iran.

[AtomicKitten]

55. If you want to throw "wrong" around, then you are wrong.

I never claimed this was an authorization for anything. But this is most definitely a precursor for more war. Jimmy Carter agrees.

Kyl-Lieberman was this decade's version of the Iraq Liberation Act which was most definitely a precursor for war. It was a foot in the door for the neocon loons who kept banging away at Iraq until * voila * shock and awe.

We've seen this movie before.

[denem]

56. A kiss does not make you pregnant

The only relevant precursor to war here is The Decider as Commander in Chief making up his mind to go to war.

[AtomicKitten]

57. Well, if you are comfortable with the Dems greasing the path for Junior

... that is your prerogative; I expect more from my representatives.

[denem]

60. No I am not happy with pandering or enabling of any sort.

I disagree strongly with Hillary's vote. I believe it was ill judged and wrong. I do not believe it takes the United States closer to war.

[cali]

58. oh for pete's sake.

no, it doesn't authorize or support miitary action, but of course it gives bush political cover and legitimacy if he bombs Iran. It's an awful piece of crap that doesn't have anything to do with diplomacy. Clinton's playing a game here, and if bush attacks, she has helped give him a fig leaf.

[denem]

63. He won't have a fig leaf

A fig lead won't cover a volcano. If Bush bombs Iran, I believe the results will be catastrophic. Iran has been quite categorical: it will use all the weaponry at its disposal, including the 600 missiles it claims to have aimed at Israel.

It surprises me that after all this time, westerners still haven't got their heads around the meaning of Martyrdom in Islam, particularly given the history of the Iraq / Iran war. Yes, in my opinion, they will go for broke against The Great Satan.

I believe Hillary's vote was wrong, both politically and morally. I do not believe it brings the United States closer to war, that's The Decider's prerogative, and I do not believe it will provide cover for the bonfire should the United States bomb Iran.

[IndianaGreen]

68. Don't forget that it was Hillary that told AIPAC Convention "all options were on the table"

When Hillary was confronted as to what she meant by "all options," and whether that included first use of tactical nukes (as Seymour Hersh had revealed in an article), Hillary brusquely dismissed the questioner and refused to answer the question or clarify her statement.

A reasonable person can only conclude that Hillary is as anxious to use tactical nukes on Iran as Bush is. Anyone that advocates first use of nuclear weapons should be committed to a mental institution to prevent him, or her, from causing harm to themselves or others.

[CK_John]

8. What bs! Bush's actions belong to Bush and no one else. n/t

[IndianaGreen]

14. We got a lot of "Good Germans" on both sides of the political aisle

How many Democrats voted to give Bush dictatorial powers?

[MonkeyFunk]

38. Yes

anybody who disagrees with you is a nazi or a nazi enabler. :eyes:

People who keep referring to nazi germany in relation to this administration earn a permanent spot on my "dumbass" list.

[Jim Sagle]

9. Biden's talking out of his ass as usual.

Hillary's vote was a bad one - but if w wants his war, he'll get it reagardless of ANYONE's vote.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IndianaGreen]

27. Yet they never explained why Hillary & Co voted "Yes" on the resolution

Even if the vote didn't matter, why did they vote for war?

[Jim Sagle]

41. First of all, I'm not a Hillbot (check my avatar).

Second, I didn't say she's not responsible for her vote, she's just not responsible for the coming war.

[incapsulated]

12. If Biden believes a non-binding "statement"

About Iran means Hillary is personally responsible for a possible future war then he should remove himself from office immediately after voting in favor of IWR, because then he is personally responsible for a war that actually exists. And continues.

[IndianaGreen]

15. Exactly what do you think it means to declare part of Iran's government a terrorist organization?

This has given Bush the green light to strike Iran because on the aftermath of 9/11 Congress gave Bush the authority to go after terrorists groups anywhere in the world.

Biden is not the only one saying this, but also Jim Webb and Chris Dodd.

[incapsulated]

17. I dunno, ask those who voted for

S. 970: Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007

[incapsulated]

19. I will also ask

Where you got the idea in your head that Bush thinks he needs a "green light" to do anything.

He doesn't even acknowledge that the congress has any right to stop him from going to war, period, as president.

[IndianaGreen]

22. Would you give the keys of your car to a drunk?

Why would anyone give the keys to war to someone already drunk with war?

[incapsulated]

24. He already has the fucking keys

Jesus, IWR was something he and Cheney had to be TALKED INTO. They didn't think they needed ANY permission from Congress to do anything.

Don't you get it? You really need to watch that Frontline. They simply do not recognize the idea of check and balances. And will do whatever the fuck they like.

[IndianaGreen]

29. "Checks and balances"? Who put impeachment "off the table."

As you can see, when it comes to the rape of the Constitution and plunging our nation into needless wars, there are bipartisan fingerprints all over the place.

[incapsulated]

33. I love it when people change the subject

Because they no longer have a point.

[IndianaGreen]

35. Your "girl" Hillary is opposed to impeachment

Everything is related to the subversion of the Constitution and our freedoms!

[incapsulated]

40. Bzzzt. Not a Hillary supporter.

Try again.

[denem]

21. Exactly what do you think it means to declare part of Lebanon's government a terrorist organization?

Hezbollah? Is that a mandate for the United Sates to invade Lebanon and knock off the UN peace keepers while we are at it?

[IndianaGreen]

26. Did you notice how the US blocked ceasefire resolution in UN while our client state Israel

bombed Beirut? Did you even take note of our shipments of cluster bombs to Israel to be used during their bombing campaign on civilian targets in Lebanon?

[denem]

37. Lebanon.

I certainly did notice that. You don't have to convince ne of this administration's intentions or morality. We discuss these issues as if there are not real people dying, real lives destroyed, every bit as valuable as our own. But we play a cute blame game - who enabled this - rather than sheeting home the blame squarely where it belongs: the Republican Administration.

[aquart]

50. OMG. He voted for IWR. Trying to become a born again virgin?

Bad Biden. Disingenuous.

[jillan]

28. For those of you that think the Kyl/Lieberman doesn't matter - read this and learn

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/14/AR2007081401662_pf.html


The designation of the Revolutionary Guard will be made under Executive Order 13224, which President Bush signed two weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to obstruct terrorist funding. It authorizes the United States to identify individuals, businesses, charities and extremist groups engaged in terrorist activities. The Revolutionary Guard would be the first national military branch included on the list, U.S. officials said -- a highly unusual move because it is part of a government, rather than a typical non-state terrorist organization.

==================


From a different viewpoint on how we should be handling Iran (same article)

The administration's move could hurt diplomatic efforts, some analysts said. "It would greatly complicate our efforts to solve the nuclear issue," said Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear proliferation expert at the Center for American Progress. "It would tie an end to Iran's nuclear program to an end to its support of allies in Hezbollah and Hamas. The only way you could get a nuclear deal is as part of a grand bargain, which at this point is completely out of reach."

Such sanctions can work only alongside diplomatic efforts, Cirincione added

[incapsulated]

31. You really think he needs this bullshit statement to bomb Iran?

Really, everyone is so busy trying to pin the blame on the democrat they hate the most they are missing the POINT.

Bush and Cheney don't believe in democracy and spit on the congress. They will go in when they want to go in, and don't give a fuck what anyone says.

The congress will be lucky if they learn about it an hour before the bombs drop.

[jillan]

36. Then WHY isn't the Congress doing everything to stop him? WHY are they making it easier for him??

[incapsulated]

39. Stupidity and politics

Just like IWR.

But IWR was truly the only blank check he ever "needed" because all he needs to do now is state Iran is a terrorist threat right on his own, without any congressional "statements" and it is over.

Look, I think both these votes were horseshit. But he isn't asking any permission next time, and doesn't believe he needs it. He never did. IWR had to be forced down their throats.

Something like the Webb amendment would at least have them on record as dissenting from this without congressional approval, even if he ignores it.

[jillan]

42. I think the Webb amendment is a great piece of legislation. But that still doesn't make it okay to

give Bush/Cheney what they want in Iran....even if they do it anyway. What if they use that amendment as an okay from Congress to bomb Iran? Now they can do it and say that Congress agreed. If they did it without Congress' approval, we would have a case for war crimes. And of course they would say they had to.

Don't you see that? This amendment smoothed out the rough edges for them. Cut through the red tape.

[incapsulated]

43. He has all he needs with IWR

There is no red tape.

Those amendments certainly didn't help but he never needed them and neither of them are binding or calls for military action.

I'm sure if they bomb Iran they will drag them up as some kind of excuse but really, they aren't. However, that is why they should never have voted for them. Because why in the world would you want to go near this, let him sink himself, by himself.

[Tom Rinaldo]

45. I wish people here at DU were willing to put 1/10th the energy...

...into figuring out how to get the Webb Amendment out of committee and passed by the Senate as they are putting into posting about their anger over Clinton's vote. I'm not trying to tell anyone not to be angry about it if that is how folks feel, but if that is how folks feel than obviously folks are worried about Bush starting a war with Iran. And if folks are worried about Bush starting a war with Iran shouldn't we be putting more time into organizing to do something to oppose it? I mean in addition to talking about how pissed we are over the Kyle - Lieberman Amendment?

That amendment can maybe be interpretted as giving cover to Bush for attacking Iran, that is debateable but I am sympathetic to the positioh that it made matters worse. The Webb amendment is crystal clear. It would put the U.S. Senate on record saying don't you dare attack Iran unless you come to us first and get our specific approval. I think passing the Webb amendment would do greater good than Kyle - Lieberman did harm. And to listen to those most upset over Kyle - Lieberman, isn't it clear that we need to pass the Webb Amendment now more than ever?

Three of our Presidential candidates sit on the Senate Committee that the Webb Amendment must emerge from. Do you think maybe we can sort of let them know what is on our mind during our spare time when we aren't raging on about the Kyle - Lieberman amendment?

[incapsulated]

46. Amen.

:)

[Tom Rinaldo]

49. The fact that hardly anyone is mentioning the Webb Amendment

makes this whole expressed outrage over the Senate having voted us a step closer to war with Iran feel more like a tawdry set up for people to dump on Clinton rather than a real concern for stopping that war. No one seems to want to talk about constructive steps we could be taking now, they just want to blast Clinton - not even any of the other Senators who voted for Kyle - Lieberman who maybe we could now pressure into feeling a little remorse so that they too start speaking out against a rush to war by Bush.

I doh't get it, or maybe I don't want to get it because "getting it" is too fucking depressing.

[JTFrog]

62. Doesn't the Webb amendment

just say what the constitution already does?

[Tom Rinaldo]

64. I don't think that is a valid summary

First off there is a need for the Senate to go on record negating any claim that Bush could use that the IWR already authorizes him to use military action against Iran if certain circumstances exist which he simply would say do. Webb would accomplish that. Second it is clear that Bush uses an interpretation of the Constitution that will not stop him from initiating combat on Iran using his sole power to do so. I laugh at those who say well that would be grounds for impeachment since an attack would likely occurr late enough in Bush's final term that there would be no time to consider impeachment, let alone consider it while the U.S. was embroiled in a military conflict. No one claims that Kyle - Lieberman gives Bush any authority to attack Iran, but many fears he would use it as political cover. The Webb amendment would strip away any political cover for his actions.

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

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

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

[denem]

65. Thank You

You write with eloquence and clarity. I believe Reagan ordered the attack on Libya i986. The rationale was the Libyan regime's involvement with acts of terrorism.

[Nutmegger]

32. Bu-bu-but I heard it's non-binding!!!

:eyes::sarcasm::eyes:

Thank you for posting. This just makes my blood boil. Especially after everything we know today.

[Nutmegger]

30. It's a fucking travesty that this piece of shit passed.

As if the Senate has time to waste dealing with this crap in the first place.

That last thing Bush needs is another "excuse", a thing to turn to, when he bombs Iran. This vote should have never taken place. The giveaway was that is was sponsored by that repuke bastard LIARman. I wouldn't come close to one hundred feet of anything he sponsored. He's damaged goods, and would love to rip and tear any Democrat. Fuck him.

Yet Clinton needs to appear to be "tough on terra", so she votes for it then says it's for diplomatic purposes? Give me a break. :eyes:

R&K for Biden.

[jillan]

34. Biden also brought up the Cold War today and reminded us how we never

had to go to war with Russia. How diplomacy had worked. It took time and patience.

Unfortunately the transcript is not up yet. Biden said it much better than I did!

[calteacherguy]

44. I can see both the Durbin and the Webb side of this issue. It was a tough call.

However, Biden is just playing political games when he singles Clinton out. It's a lot of that legendary Biden hot air, imo.

[gateley]

47. Biden didn't single Clinton out - George S. asked if we went to war w/Iran

if those who voted yes should be held responsible, Biden said yes, then GS specifically named Clinton, and Biden said yes, everyone who voted yes.

I'm paraphrasing because I don't have the transcript, but that's the gist. Biden did not offer up her name as a sacrificial lamb, GS led him into it and then asked him point blank.


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

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





Edit to excerpt from article.

[cali]

59. It wasn't a tough call for either of my Senators who both

thought it was a terrible idea. And I trust both Bernie and Pat on issues of war and peace.

[PatSeg]

53. This was a really interesting debate and informative too

I understand the points that people were making, but then it narrowed down to one simple question in my mind - Why on earth did any Democrat vote for that resolution??? I can't think of a single reasonable answer, and that is truly disturbing.

[JTFrog]

61. The same way that Bush has beared the

responsibility? Is she gonna trade her life for those taken? How the fuck does she take responsibility when she can't even own up to her portion of responsibility over her IWR vote.

Unfucking real.

[Froward69]

66. Hear Hear!!!

[bpeale]

67. he is 1000% correct on this

people have to take responsibility for what they do. otherwise they are just hucksters trying to sell us a bill of goods.

[Tom Rinaldo]

69. So IG, you started this thread...

Does it bother you at all that very few folks here seem at all interested in anything other than calling out Clinton on her vote? Again, I am not bothered by folks calling her out on it. I am bothered that hardly anyone is showing any interest in pushing now for the Webb amendment which actually would address the problem that everyone is so angry about - Bush Cheney receiving encouragement to unilaterally attack Iran. I will be pissed if all that this outrage is really about is gettng at Clinton, with little or no real interest in actually doing anything to stop the next war from happening.

[IndianaGreen]

70. The best way to prevent war with Iran is by bringing H Res 333 to the House floor

That's the Cheney impeachment resolution which has been languishing in John Conyer's committee since Pelosi announced that impeachment was off the table.

[Tom Rinaldo]

71. I can agree with you on that

Of course we can and should work this from more than one angle, but impeaching Cheney does go right to the heart of the matter, and helps tie him in knots while that process grinds forward. Excellent point.

[zulchzulu]

72. I just gave Joe $50

He is correct. Hillary Clinton simply wants war in Iran. If she had voted no, then there would be no discussion.

She knew what she was doing. Look for her to say she was surprised that Bush would do such a thing in the near future.

[McCamy Taylor]

73. "Measure? Measure? We don't need no stinkin' measure." You have W. confused with someone who thinks

he has to justify anything that he does. The president select believes that he is above the law and can do no wrong, and he will do exactly what he wants, when he wants---if he can persuade the Pentagon to go along. That is the might big if that has kept him and Cheney out of Iran since 2005, not anything as piddling as a conscience or scruples.

Biden is just blowing out hot air, as he has a tendency to do from time to time.

Blaming Hillary for the actions of this administration is giving Hillary too much credit. She may seem like Superwoman, but there are things that even she can not accomplish.

[murbley40]

74. kick

[murbley40]

75. kick

[David Zephyr]

76. Kick.

She will bear responsibility because she gave him his piece of paper that he can wave for war.

How she could do this with Lieberman and Kyle, in light of her history with the IWR, is simply too much.

This will push away many who were trying to warm to her and overlook her culpability with the mess in Iraq. Her hall pass has been revoked.