Hillary, Get Out Your Prayer Rug. You Gotta Pray Bush Doesn't Attack Iran After Your Vote.

[David Zephyr]

HILLARY YOUR PRAYER RUG IS CALLING: Let the chips fall where they may. I've been very kind to Senator Clinton all year long here at the DU (maybe too kind), but her vote in favor of the recent resolution in the U.S. Senate declaring that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps were "a terrorist group" was best described by Senator Joseph Biden: "a gigantic mistake." And make no mistake about it, should George W. Bush, the "decider" choose to decide now to launch a military attack on the sovereign nation of Iran, then Hillary Clinton can kiss her lead in the national polls with Democratic voters goodbye...and for good.

LISTEN TO BIDEN: Senator Biden, the Chairman of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee who has more experience in these matters than most everyone in Congress, warned that "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." Why would Joe Biden say this? Because it's exactly what happened the last time when too many Democrats in Congress (not all) caved into political pressure and fears about not being "patriotic" and gave Bush a nod on invading Iraq with the now infamous Iraqi War Resolution (IWR). Bush took their vote and invaded Iraq. And to this day, Bush and the G.O.P. never miss an opportunity to remind Americans that Congress voted to authorize the war.

PAST IS PROLOGUE: How many times have we heard the sad and weak "explanations" by those very members of Congress about their lousy vote. Many of them went along the following lines:

"I was misled."

"I voted for the IWR because I thought the President would come back to Congress for another vote."

"I voted for the IWR because I trusted the President not to go to war."

"I voted for the IWR because I wanted to strengthen the President's hand with the United Nations."

"I voted for the IWR because I wanted more weapons inspections."

Blah, blah, blah. Even George Bush likes to say: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

MORE THAN A WINK OR NOD: At least a few Democrats were honest and admitted they'd made a great mistake. Joe Biden is one of them and it looks like he learned his lesson. The lesson? Only a naive fool or a political opportunist within the Democratic Party would ever, ever, ever give anything, be it a wink or a nod, that George W. Bush could then use to wage war. And let's not be stupid: Declaring officially that Iranian Revolutionary Guard were terrorists, is a lot more than a wink or a nod.

LET US BOW OUR HEADS IN PRAYER: So Hillary, here's hoping that your prayer rug can fit both you and Bill onto it and that it gets thread-worn in the next 150 days because should our self-proclaimed "war president" venture into any military mischief with Iran, you can kiss your ambition goodbye. And if Bush does misbehave, you, Senator Clinton will be responsible. It will be your war, too.

Start your prayer engines.

[gateley]

1. I'm in agreement with Biden.

I feel HRC voted this way as a political strategy. It's my opinion there's no way she doesn't realize the implications of her vote - she's far too smart and "naive" would not be an adjective I would attribute to her. She took a risk so I can't help but think that she's fairly certain an Iran incursion won't occur and I pray she's right.

[leftchick]

2. she doesn't need any stinkin prayer rug

She has RUPPERT!!

[MethuenProgressive]

3. "Five Phoney Quotes"

Your whole post is on the lines of "I know what the facts are, but I'm going to pretend I don't know what the resolution really said, so I can make stuff up to be angry about."

[rucky]

4. which begs the questions:

how did we get into Iraq, and why didn't Congress do anything to stop it?

[David Zephyr]

15. You misspelled "phony".

While the quotes I provided were clearly identified with the words "along the lines of", each one can be attributed to a Democrat in the Senate and House.

Which one do you think was Hillary's?

And to the point: Do you think the Congress was correct in making that resolution about Iran?

[msongs]

5. clinton is NOT responsible for Bush behavior, neither is Obama nt

[BootinUp]

6. If Biden were a co-sponsor of the Webb Amendment

I would take his charge more seriously. As it is, it looks too much like primary politics.

[jillan]

13. I don't think Webb is impressed that Hillary signed on to his amendment

read this:

WEBB: Well, here‘s the problem with that resolution. We have never declared an entity of a foreign government a terrorist organization. And once you do that, you change the formula in terms of the authorization that might be needed, in my view, to go into Iran. You don‘t need a separate authorization, or at least the administration can argue that. They can say, Under anti-terrorism, we can go into Iran and conduct military activities against this terrorist organization, which, by the way, happens to be a part of a foreign army. We‘ve just never done that before in our history. It‘s a very troublesome concept..

MATTHEWS: Do you think Hillary Clinton is a changed candidate? She supported the war in Iraq and she supported that resolution last week targeting Iran. Do you think she‘s going to offer a change in policy of any dramatic manner from Bush?

WEBB: I hope so. She actually did go on the amendment that I had offered earlier this year to require a separate authorization to go into Iran. She went on, I think, as a corrective measure for the other vote that she took, so I‘m hoping that she understands now the danger of that particular amendment. And she‘s offering some (INAUDIBLE) some very good stuff in other areas


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21114452/

[BootinUp]

18. really?

She went on, I think, as a corrective measure for the other vote that she took, so I‘m hoping that she understands now the danger of that particular amendment. And she‘s offering some (INAUDIBLE) some very good stuff in other areas.

Thats not how I read him at all. What bothers me is the lack of discussion about his amendment. It seems he doesn't have much support for it in the Senate besides Hillary.

[jillan]

23. When is this amendment going to be voted on??

Webb proposed this amendment earlier this year. Why is Reid holding it up?


As Cheney steps up his rhetoric on Iran, it is time for Congress to take a stand.

[BootinUp]

25. I am trying to find out more

At the WesPAC blog there is a campaign being started to hold the politicians "Feet to the Fire" and this will be one of the first targets.

[BootinUp]

26. link to the bill

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.759:

It is stuck in the Foreign Relations Committee.

[jillan]

31. Webb is in the SFRC.

Doesn't make sense. I mean he is there, in that committee. He should be able to get it on the floor then.
I'm wondering if Elmer Fudd is holding it up.

[Tom Rinaldo]

37. I suspect it is a matter of trying to reach critical mass before moving

The Democratic leadership in Congress many moons ago stripped a similar measure from the House Bill that contained the original Democratic proposal regarding funding the Iraq war. Blue dogs were nervous and AIPAC had just held a lobbying summit in DC. Webb's Senate Amendment got side tracked at the same time.

I admit that I am somewhat of a cynic regarding Democrats in Congress and Iran. Until this issue gave some of them an opening to make some hay on the campaign trail at Clinton's expence there really wasn't much talk coming out of any of them about standing up to Bush on Iran. Mostly Democrats all fell over themselves to prove that they too would stand up to Iran if they said anything at all about it. The only difference between the Democratic and Republican saber rattling tended to be that Democrats included gratuitous references to diplomacy as a throw away line, usually defined as I'm not aftraid to give those Iranians a piece of my mind to their face.

I like what Biden has had to say recently about Iran - it is much more direct and on target than the type of prattle I describe above. I honestly don't know if I haven't heard him saying this stuff this directly before because he hadn't before, or whether it is my and the media's fault that I didn't hear it even though he was saying it. But even if I give Biden retroactive credit, I don't think he was making this a very high profile priority before now in any case.

The way I see it we now have to keep heat on the feet of Congress on Iran, as someone described above. The grassroots backlash to the K/L amendment passing with such a large majority is now creating a strategic opening for us to advance the Webb amendment - now that some members in Congress, like Biden but not just him, are openly talking about their concern that Bush might start another war without their approval. I sure as hell hope that activists aren't refusing to push for Webb to pass now simply because Clinton just signed on to it. Isn't that what we want politicians to do, to shift their emphasis when we point out the importance of them doing so - whatever their motivation might be in seemingly responding to our concerns once we express them forcefully?

[jillan]

63. About Biden - please watch the video I posted in response #7

I don't trust this administration at all.

Maybe we should all start emailing Webb to get his amendment to the floor.
It is time.

[Tom Rinaldo]

67. Thanks. I am not at my home computor 'cause I am not at home

I will try to watch that tomorrow night when I do get back home. We may need to do a coordinated campaign to help Webb's amendment secure more support from other senators before forcing a vote on it. It is certainly time to begin doing that at the very least. Gathering a few more co-sponsors may be a good place to start.

[Tom Rinaldo]

30. I believe it is in Biden's committee...

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

[jillan]

32. Webb is in that committee.

[NCarolinawoman]

61. Or is it in Levin's committee?

Webb serves on the Armed services Committee with Hillary Clinton, But he also serves on Biden's Foreign Relations Committee as well.

(I think I need a Civics lesson, by the way)

From which committee did Webb's amendment emerge? Could Levin be holding it up? Could Reid be holding it up? Is their pressure from AIPAC once again?

Any thoughts on this?

[Tom Rinaldo]

68. Someone should come along with a clear answer soon

But I think it is Biden's, though I do not claim to be sure. Actually some folks I know who have decided to really key in on getting Webb passed think the way to go is building pressure on a lot of senators to support Webb, while trying to get additional co-sponsors, rather than pushing to force a vote on it now before a full scale lobbying campaign in support of it can get into full swing. Until the last few weeks a lot of Democrats weren't that interested in confronting Bush on Iran, they were more interested in convincing voters that they too were capable of confronting Iran themselves.

For a start it can't hurt to start letting our Senators know how we feel about this. Look for further threads about the Webb Amendment to get posted in the coming days as an effort to pass it picks up steam.

[BootinUp]

92. see post #26

it is in the Foreign Relations Committee.

[Texas_Kat]

110. Stuck in Biden's committee

Currently the Webb Amendment is stuck in the Foreign Relations committee. That's the one that Joe Biden chairs........ so it's exactly the question to ask Joe Biden. When is he planning on getting it out of his committee?

Why is it still stuck in his committee and what's he gonna do to get it out on the Senate floor?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN00759:

The above is the proper link, but Thomas has somehow disallowed direct links from DU . If you copy and paste the URL into a fresh browser window, it will work.

[jillan]

7. Watch Biden talk about Iran here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-526337859449397787&q=biden+iran&total=41&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

This was one of those moments that solidified my support for Biden.

[durrrty libby]

8. " Get Out Your Prayer Rug."? Extremely stupid and ignorant sentence

I didn't bother after that

[Froward69]

70. In late 1943 Gen Patton asked his chaplin

to compose a prayer for good weather to wage war. The Chaplin replied "It will take a mighty Thick rug For that kind of prayer." The muslims routinely have prayer rugs. Calling for someone to "Get out their prayer rug" is a Viable and accurate use of the phrase. :spank:

[durrrty libby]

73. Hillary is Muslim? LIke I said , extremely ignorant and stupid sentence

Back atcha:spank: :boring: :nuke: :dunce: :hangover:

[Froward69]

74. are you that closed off?

you don't have to be muslim to have a prayer rug. nor do YOU:wtf: need to be bigoted...:argh:
there is no implication of Hillarys religon.

[durrrty libby]

75. There is plenty of "implication" but as a hater, you pretend it's not there.

So "closed off" would be your projection

[Froward69]

76. No hate here

just capable of accurate comprehension. as a step ford hillary voter, (like al Sharpton) you will perceive insult where there is none.:puke:

GO ROCKIES!!!

[durrrty libby]

78. Awww..I'm sorry. I didn't know you were a child

Time for nite nite little one:boring:

[Froward69]

79. ..!.

This Thread is understood my far more than me. Your ignorance of the content is not shared.

[David Zephyr]

100. Thanks, Froward69

"a mighty thick rug". ;-)

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. Prayer, sure for those who believe in it

Hillary or anyone else. But how about if some of us activists, who obviously are worried about the possibility that Bush might attack Iran, start getting behind the Web amendment NOW - which would send a stronger message from the Senate to the President that he can not attack Iran without specific Congressional authorization, than whatever message got sent by the largely symbolic Kyle - Lieberman amendment.

Do people care about stopping this pending war or do they only care about scoring points against Hillary? Why do the other Democratic Senators who voted for K/L never get talked about in the same negative light? And why aren't Obama, Dodd, and Biden - who sit on the committee that reviews it, stepping forward to speak for the Webb Amendment if they are so concerned about Bush having gotten the wrong message from K/L?

Nah, forget them for the moment - they are our employees after all, why aren't we demanding aciton on the Webb Amendment rather than continuing to exclusively grind out teeth at Clinton over a week after the fact? Are we that incapable of doing anything other than reacting negatively after the fact whenever it appears war with Iran may be moving closer?

I'm cool with people being upset with Clinton over her vote. I am not cool with letting the rest of Congress get a free ride and I am not cool with our passivity that keeps us in a complaining reactive mode and not out there organizing for a measure that can trump whatever we are afraid that K/L did.

[David Zephyr]

11. Hillary has told us she believes in prayer. The Webb Amendment should have gone first.

That said, the Webb Webb Amendment is a step in the right direction.

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. Yes it should have gone first. Absolutely no argument there

But it is more than just a step in the right direction. If the Webb Amendment is just a step in the right direction, K/L was just a lean in the wrong direction. Webb has teeth and is crystal clear in it's intentions. It goes right to the heart of the matter of stopping Bush from launching a strike against Iran without the support of Congress. And for anyone who says well Bush would do what he wants anyway, if that is your position than it doesn't make a figs leaf of difference how anyone voted on K/L anyway. I don't hold that position. I think K/L matters in a negative way and that only makes Webb even more important now in a positive way.

[David Zephyr]

24. K/L = Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) Jon Kyle (R-AZ): Authors of Hillary's resolution.

By the way, just so everyone knows: K/L is shorthand for Kyle/Lieberman, the two hawks against Iran that are itching to make war there and the two men who authored the resolution that no Democrat should have ever voted for.

Joe Lieberman from CBS News: "CBS) The United States should launch military strikes against Iran if the government in Tehran does not stop supplying anti-American forces in Iraq, Sen. Joe Lieberman said Sunday on Face The Nation. "I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," Lieberman told Bob Schieffer. "And to me, that would include a strike into... over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers."

How any Democrat could vote for a resolution dealing with Iran that was authored by Joe Lieberman and Jon Kyle is eye opening.

[BootinUp]

27. I prefer to call it the Castrated K/L resolution

This was a bipartisan resolution as passed. It contains testimony from hearings on Iraq, the Senates recommendation to declare the IRG a terrorist organization for increased sanctions on Iran, and a recommendation to pursue diplomacy.

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. This doesn't respond to my points though

I don't mind saying that I did not support that resolution, even though it did change a little for the better before being voted on. It wan't only the standard blue dog Democrats who voted for it. Durbin who I usually respect a great deal voted for it also, so I suppose you think he needs to get a prayor rug out also.

But better than prayor rugs in my decidedly secular opinion is getting more cosponsors for the Webb Amendment NOW. Including Dodd, Biden, and Obama.

[David Zephyr]

33. I'm with you on Webb. 100%

And I know you wouldn't have supported the Kyle and Lieberman resolution, but just the fact that these two hawks who are itching to attack Iran were the authors should have been enough for any Democrat, and most of all Hillary.

[BootinUp]

34. They lost though

The changes to the resolution were a clear message that use of the military against Iran is not condoned by the Senate.

[Sparkly]

21. Good points! Link to email Congress...

For those who haven't yet:
http://ga4.org/campaign/stopiranwar_congress

(I know, I know, it's not a magic wand but it won't hurt!)

[AtomicKitten]

10. Cheney is out and about banging the war drums today.

It is hard to believe that one of the Democratic candidates did not learn the first time the dog bit them.

[jillan]

14. He is scaring the crap out of me!

[AtomicKitten]

20. The hardest part is knowing what might be coming -

and being powerless to stop it.

Democrats have got to stop buying into GOP war schemes.

[David Zephyr]

28. Bush gets his resolution and talks of World War III with Iran.

Talk about banging the war drums. Cheney is back at it all over again. They have a resolution now.

[AtomicKitten]

107. deja vu

:scared:

[AZBlue]

77. There is no excuse for the second round.

None.

[AtomicKitten]

108. none

Any Democrat, but especially a Democratic candidate, voting yes on this POS bill is nothing short of breathtaking, and not in a good way.

[Rhythm and Blue]

12. Hey, thanks for the Islamophobia in the headline.

Really made the post seem reasonable.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. At Least The OP Didn't Suggest She Bow Toward Mecca

:sarcasm:

[durrrty libby]

17. Oh I think he did suggest that

[spoony]

113. They might be saving that one for an Obama thread

Lots of candidates to knock down before we're left with Biden, after all.

[David Zephyr]

22. Hillary & Liebeman's resolution was an offical act of Islamophobia; irony is hardly your strong suit

n/t

[Rhythm and Blue]

43. Yes, clearly recognition of Iranian state support for terror is Islamophobic.

:eyes:

[cuke]

44. Didn't Biden support S970 which labels IRG a "terrorist organization"

just like K/L?

[David Zephyr]

54. Now, we know: you support the Lieberman & Kyle resolution.

Saudi Arabia has its citizens killing our soldiers in Iraq. Where's the resoltuion about their state supported terror? Not one Iranian has shot one single soldier in Iraq, unlike Saudi Arabia.

[cuke]

58. Biden and Obama also supported calling IRG a "terrorist organization"

So much for your "Listen to Biden"

[Froward69]

81. WRONG

Check again... Thats a lie, It's dam* near slander. Biden:patriot: voted AGAINST it. you are confused.

[jillan]

84. sb 970 is completely different. And Biden is not a co-sponsor-Hillary and Obama are

And so is Dodd.

You really should check your facts before making accusations.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-970

[Tom Rinaldo]

91. I don't think it was that different, but it wan't Biden who co-sponsored it

The record should be clear on that and you are absolutely right to point that out. Are you sure Clinton was a co-sponosr of that one? She may have been but I don't remember hearing that.

[cuke]

111. I made a mistake. Biden didn't co-sponsor it, but Obama did

and while there are some differences, S970 calls for designating the IRG as a terrorist org, which according to Biden and Obama (and others) is a prelude to war

[jillan]

115. Look at the link I posted.

[Rhythm and Blue]

64. I have never been shy about stating that, no.

And I would feel perfectly comfortable with a resolution declaring the Saudis to be state sponsors of terror as well. They are.

Edit: Please do not misconstrue this to mean that I am in favor of war with Iran. I am against war with Iran in all cases except self-defense following an unprovoked Iranian attack (which is hardly likely) and, in event of the slightest scrap of doubt following this attack, pending an investigation to ensure that it was actually Iran and not Gulf of Tonkin v2.0.

[David Zephyr]

65. So do you think the U.S. has any "right" to attack Iran.

In light of 1953 and all the the U.S. did to Iran...

In light of nearly 1/4 of a century of our sanctioned torture by the Shah of his countrymen...

In light of all the blowback from 1953...

Do you really think that we have any "right" to attack Iran if they don't attack us first?

[Rhythm and Blue]

66. Certainly not.

Why on Earth would I? An attack on Iran would be a horrible violation of international law, would precipitate a human-rights catastrophe, and would likely result in further polarization of the Mideast.

[Think82]

35. BIDEN 08!

check out his abc interview too

[IndianaGreen]

36. Voters are cheating themselves by not taking a closer look at Joe Biden and Chris Dodd

Biden and Dodd voted against the Lieberman "Road to Iran War" Resolution. Hillary showed her lack of maturity and judgment by siding with the puke Lieberman and giving Bush the okay to do anything.

[David Zephyr]

56. Thank you for the sanity.

"Hillary showed her lack of maturity and judgment by siding with the puke Lieberman and giving Bush the okay to do anything." Nothing anyone says make one word of what you wrote untrue. Hillary is apparently wanting to now co-sponsor the Webb Amendment.

Her letter to the voters of Iowa clearly show she is in a panic. And justifiably.

And if Bush attacks Iran, Hillary's gains with the Left these past months are all wiped away in a nano-second.

[DemFemme]

80. Agreed.

"Her letter to the voters of Iowa clearly show she is in a panic. And justifiably.

And if Bush attacks Iran, Hillary's gains with the Left these past months are all wiped away in a nano-second"

I was thinking the same thing when I heard about Hillary's letter. Looks like a case of political primary strangulation via DLC triangulation.

[David Zephyr]

101. Welcome to the DU.

The fact that she's mailed out this panic CYA letter to Iowa says a lot more than this thread ever will.

A rotten vote by Hillary, just when I was trying to warm up to her.

[DemFemme]

116. Thanks!

BTW, Bob Johnson and others at dKos agree with you, too:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/10/23/23046/333

It was painful to see the CYA letter preceded by the CYA Webb amendment which followed the CYA Kyl-Lieberman bill. :banghead:

[PatSeg]

38. Hillary is a very skilled politician

It is unlikely that her vote was an unfortunate mistake. Do you suppose she made some kind of agreement with Libermann? I just don't understand her vote at all, so I just figure there was some backroom negotiations.

[Tom Rinaldo]

40. In fairness we should look at the role played by Durbin and others also

as well as noting that the amendment that emerged from negotiations contained very very similar language regarding Iran's Revolutionary Guard to one backed by Obama and Dodd earlier in the year that didn't come to a vote by the full Senate.

[PatSeg]

42. I don't understand Durbin's vote either

I think highly of him and wish we could get a better answer to "why", than we've heard so far.

[Tom Rinaldo]

95. One theory I am playing with without any evidence - just speculation

Perhaps Durbin crafted a strategic trade off. He is in the Senate leadership and it is his responsibility to know where the votes are and are not. Perhaps he knew that the original version of Kyle - Lieberman would have passed with a solid majority and some Democratic votes, just not as large a majority and with less Democratic votes than the version that ultimately got voted on. That version had specific language in it that seemed to many to authorize the use of America's military against Iran in certain circumstances regarding Iran's military "meddling" in Iraq.

That would bring up an interesting choice, wouldn't it? Allowing a resolution to pass with a more narrow majority that more openly supported U.S. military action agaisnt Iran in limited prescribed circumstances (that subsequently could be abused), or negotiating to have some of that language removed and then delivering additional Democratic votes to the version that would pass with a really large majority in return for that compromise.

I have no way of knowing if I am just blowing smoke with this speculation. No one has directly hinted that anything like that occurred, but we do know that there were late breaking "negotiations" about K/L. Clinton claims that she was prepared to vote "No" prior to those final negotiations. Usually negotiations involve some kind of trade offs but it might have had nothing to do with what I'm speculating about here.

[PatSeg]

112. Interesting speculation though

Thus far, it is the only explanation I've heard that makes any sense. People often forget how complex the whole process is, but you seem to have a clear grasp on it. Thanks again. Your posts are very informative.

[IndianaGreen]

69. Hillary and Lieberman do the bidding for the Israel Lobby

and the Israel Lobby is controlled by Israel's rightwing, and they want the US to go to war with Iran, as they did Iraq back in 2003.

[PatSeg]

83. This really is starting to stink big time

That vote was not just an error in judgment. Someone(s) made a deal and it is really frightening on so many levels.

[Tom Rinaldo]

88. Except when our candidates have prioritized appealing to the grassroots

few have exactly covered themselves in glory regarding Iran, up until the K/L vote, from my perspective anyway. Dodd and Obama both supported legislation with very similar language regarding Iran's Revolutionary Guard in the past. Democratic caucuses in both the House and Senate consciously chose NOT to include provisions in Democratic legislation six months ago that would require Bush to come before Congress for specific authorization to attack Iran before doing so.

I have been paying close attention to all this as my bug below might indicate. Up until very recently I found that it was the priority of our Democratic politicians by and large to use their public statements on Iran to buff up their own credentials on appearing tough against terrorists, far more than they showed any concern for slowing down the Bush Administration's drive for war with Iran. I am sorry to say that for most of them, including most of our Presidential candidates, the type of language that the altered Kyle - Lieberman contained was pretty much par for the course in their previous rhetoric, though perhaps not always so narrowly focused on dealing with Iran's Revolutionary Guard. Sometimes you had to key in on the speeches some of our candidates were giving to selected audiances to fully hear their hawkish side emerge, as when some of them attended events inside Israel or where AIPAC supporters gathered.

All of us are familiar with the repeated expressions of "all options remain on the table" and "It is unacceptable to allow Iran to acquire the means to build nuclear weapons". These are words that our own Democrats used and continue to use frequently. Many though certainly not all Democrats agree with those sentiments so it is not really surprising to hear them coming from our political leader's mouths. What has been lacking until now for the most part has been balence. Democratic leaders would deliver six sentances repeating how various alleged actions engaged in by Iran were totally unacceptable, then mention one throw away line about being willing to meet directly with Iran to tell them that to their face.

The word "Diplomacy" was used as the equivelent of an applause line, thrown out to appease a certain anti-war segment of the audiance but never fleshed out in the type of details necesary to counter the continuing thrust of talk of war with Iran that has been building steadily for over two years. In that way Democrats have been acting for the last year in a manner very similar to how they acted back in the Summer of 2002 when Bush first went on his anti-Iraq kick in an election year.

For me what is notable about the Kyle - Lieberman vote is that a few of our Presidential candidates are finally trying to distance themselves more openly from that type of talk. My guess is that they knew that with our arch enemy Lieberman's name attached to the legislation, grass roots activists would be paying closer attention than usual to what happened in the Senate with it, and of course now the primaries are getting closer. But I ask you, where was all the concern about Bush unilaterally taking us to war with Iran being expressed prior to Clinton's vote becoming a useful campaign issue? It is not as if Democratic Senators are dramatically less astute than the average DU blogger.

It has been no secret that Cheney has been pushing harder for war with Iran and making real progress in his efforts for some time now. We all knew it. The foreign press has talked about it constantly. It has been about as open a secret as Republican gay baiting. The Democratic Party has lacked the spine to speak out forcefully against preparations for war with Iran, that has been obvious to me for a long time now, and we can all speculate on reasons why that is so. My point though is that Kyle - Lieberman was supposed to be business as usual. After the effort was made to take out the most offensive hot button language in it, I doubt many in the Senate thought the aftermath of that vote could become explosive - no one has seriously called out Democrats for that kind of behavior regarding Iran previously, not to the point where they felt they had to listen anyway.

I don't think that vote reflected any new secret deals being cut, it was a logical extension of wide spread behavior that preceded it. Except this time it happened in a suddenly bright spot light, and this time there were some new political calculations concerning appealing to activist primary voters taken into account. Who do you recall in the Senate actively and publicly rallying the forces opposed to Kyle - Lieberman in the days before the vote on Kyle - Lieberman? Who was taking it to the people in a manner akin to opposition to one of Bush's Suspreme Court nominees? How strongly did Dodd and Obama, for example, speak out BEFORE that vote?

We really have our work cut out for us if we want to turn this thing around before Bush takes us to war with Iran. The anti-Iran pro war neocon forces have been on the march for many months now without real opposition from virtually any of our Democratic leaders. Hopefully that is just starting to change now.

[PatSeg]

93. Thank you

That was a very informed and articulate post. You make it all very clear, though it is very depressing.

[David Zephyr]

103. As always, you are one of DU's very best, Tom.

Cheney wants war with Iran. Bush wants war with Iran. Lieberman wants war with Iran.

How our party walked right into a set up by Kyle and LIeberman (who is not a Democrat) is simply stunning.

Until the Kyle / Lieberman Resolution's victory in the Senate, I figured our Democrats would be the obstruction to Cheney's war plans. Once again, the Bush Administration has used fear-mongering and the threat of making Democrats look "unpatriotic" to push their war one step closer to reality.

A real disappointment for me, Hillary's vote has become. I don't know if I can get past it.

[Froward69]

71. Her vote had to be

an attempt to look tough. Unarm The rethugs later.

[PatSeg]

82. Also, to many she is already the next president

and I think there are deals being made.

[Froward69]

102. I wouldent doubt it

goes her masters

[BootinUp]

39. Seems like the OP refuses to answer my posts

What a nice politically motivated attack.

He was for Hillary before he saw a little window of opportunity.

[Tom Rinaldo]

45. Many honestly are upset with Clinton over her vote

but that doesn't explain now calling it the Lieberman - Clinton amendment when close to two dozen Democrats voted for it, or after Clinton helped negotiate the removal of what all concede was the worst specific language in the origninal version. She should always be held accountable for her votes just like all Senators should - but it seems like only Clinton is being held accontable and no one around here seems to care that only Clinton has shown enough sense to now be backing the Webb Amendment.

I am certainly not rooting for Clinton to score points now with Webb. I would be fine with it if Biden or Dodd or anyone else seized the ball and now out organized Clinton to grab the credit for Webb starting to move forward. What I care about is stopping a war with Iran, not the political side show.

[BootinUp]

46. But this one wasn't - post on Oct 14

Tom, I hear you, and I will put some effort into that amendment. But this attack kinda stinks. The OP was for hillary 2 weeks and a few days after the resolution passed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3608977

[David Zephyr]

52. The OP has nothing to do with me supporting her. It's reminding her to pray.

Hillary talks a lot about praying. She worked in a Billy Graham Crusade she even boasts.

I might support her still in the primary. You are jumping the gun and filling in blanks that are not even there.

Webb can help her, but the fact remains that IF Bush attacks Iran (which I hope you agree would be a really bad thing), he WILL use this resolution to justify the attack and will say Hillary voted for it just as the GOP always reminds us that Hillary voted for the IWR, too.

And IF Bush attacks Iran, whether you support her or I do, she will lose the primaries. Obama, Edwards and even Al Gore will hammer her on this IF Bush attacks Iran.

So since she prays (as she tells us she does), she will certainly want to put this on her prayer list.

[BootinUp]

55. I appreciate the response

I have tried to point out why I think Biden's attack on Hillary is suspect above. I'll leave it at that. Meantime I will try to post more info about the Webb Amendment and efforts to get it out of Biden's committee as they occur. Time for a break.

[David Zephyr]

106. Good idea.

I'm not supporting BIden for president. If he wasn't running for president, his comments would indeed bear more weight. But what he said, I think, is none the less true.

Regarding the Webb Amendment, what it is now and what it will be when and if it passes could be two completly different things. It will educational to watch any "changes" that are made to it now and who "authors" those changes, won't it.

Meanwhile, where is the Resolution against Saudi Arabia? It's Saudis in Iraq that are actually killing American troops. Not one Iranian has shot at an American soldier. And yet, it is Iran that is the foucs of our politiicans?

A truly lousy vote by Hillary which has given me great pause about supporting her. I had glossed over a lot and now she does this.

This vote will hurt her with voters in the primaries. And she really needs to be concerned that she didn't give Bush something he can use now to wage the war he and Cheney want to make.

[smalll]

41. "Get Out Your Prayer Rug"??? HIllary's not the Muslim (Sorry! -- Muslim Apostate!) in this race. nt

[Rhythm and Blue]

47. Please don't dredge up that "Obama's a Muslim" garbage here. nt

[smalll]

49. He's not a Muslim. He's a Muslim apostate.

Meaning he was one by birth and in childhood, and he has become a Christian. And oh by the way, the penalty for apostacy in the Muslim religion? Death. According to pretty mainstream, non-Al-Qaedaesque Muslim theology.

[Rhythm and Blue]

51. That's simply untrue.

Obama writes that he "was not raised in a religious household." He describes his mother, raised by non-religious parents, as detached from religion, yet "in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I have ever known." He describes his Kenyan father as "raised a Muslim," but a "confirmed atheist" by the time his parents met, and his Indonesian step-father as "a man who saw religion as not particularly useful."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

He was never a Muslim.

[Froward69]

72. The Constitution explicitly states that

"There shall be no religous test to hold public office"

[calteacherguy]

48. The vote will have no effect on whether or not Bush attacks Iran. Biden is full of hot air. nt

[rhett o rick]

98. So when they invade they won't throw the vote in the face of the Democrats??? They won't go on MSM

and claim that the vote showed that the Democrats were behind the decision. There was no need for Democrats to once again support the Fuhrer. They did it again.

[David Zephyr]

104. You summed it all up, rhett o rick: "They did it again." Again.

How sad is that?

[Carrieyazel]

50. Hillary's voting record can be ripped to shreds. We're doomed if she's nominated.

The war vote will still end up haunting her, its a valid reason to oppose her.

[Major Hogwash]

53. Hillary is going to lose in Iowa, in just 73 days! She sent out a 3-page e-mail explaining her vote!

But Iowans aren't stupid! You don't need 3-pages to explain that Hillary voted with Bush to bomb Iran!!

They may live in small towns, like Ames, Iowa, but they aren't rubes, Hillary!

[David Zephyr]

57. I read her "letter". It says "I was against Lieberman's Resolution on Iran before I was for it".

Doesn't that have a familiar, sour ring to it? And Iowans are not stupid.

Here's her letter: http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/clinton_defends_iran_vote_in_i.php

[Carrieyazel]

59. She actually stated that in the letter??? Does she even HAVE a clue???

The Repukes will have a field day on this one, if she's nominated. She's got so much stuff that'll come back to haunt her, that we must be insane if we give the Repukes what they want: Hillary.

[Debi]

60. Here' s the piece from the Politico

Just got it in the mail today.

[Carrieyazel]

62. That letter could definitely be problematic for her. It's quite long-winded and is quite defensive.

[Think82]

87. What language was removed?

Didn't the amendment still call Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization?

[BootinUp]

94. see the link

in answer to your second question, yes, but the purpose of that language is to support increased sanctions.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/kyl-lieberman-amendment/
page 8 shows the 2 sections removed, page 9 shows additions.

[jillan]

85. For the first time Hillary is playing defense. And Biden made a slam dunk--->

[DemFemme]

89. Agreed. Biden, Obama and Edwards have all done much to draw attention to Hillary's IWR vote...

Er, I mean Kyl-Lieberman vote. ;)

[BootinUp]

90. And thats all it is too, a political play

all the hand wring over the vote from the left is a bunch of nonsense. No one on the right is using it to advance a war against Iran, why because the Senate rejected that and significantly altered the legislation.

[LeftCoast]

86. Nice Islam-bashing in the title

That'd fit in well over at FR.

Can't say I care for it myself though. Smells kinda like the underside of a bridge for some reason.

[David Zephyr]

105. The Islam-Bashing, darling was the Kyle/Lieberman Resolution. Irony is not your strong suit, either.

Laying the ground work for invading still another Islamic nation (Iran will be the third by this administration), the Islam Bashing is the Lierberman / Kyle Resolution.

[happygoluckytoyou]

96. HILLARY......GOP LITE

Even George Bush likes to say: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."


ACATUALLY HE LIKES TO SAY "FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU, FOOL ME TWICE, OR IS IT ONCE...WELL QUIT FOOLING ME"

WE WILL ALL BE THE HAPPIEST IF HILLARY DROPS OUT OF THE RACE AND LETS EDWARDS TAKE HIS RIGHTFUL SPOT AS THE NEXT PRESIDENT


AS FOR HER VOTE...... WHAT A PUSSY

[PurpleChez]

114. Right on.

I've got no time for the wingnuts who make out like Hillary is some horrible cross between Pol Pot and Lucifer. I just think she's an opportunist par excellance, so I'm at a loss as to how so many people still hold her up as some sort of heroic figure. Heck...I'll vote for her if she's our nominee. Any Dem would be preferable to four more years of Thugishness. But I'd sure as heck rather vote for Edwards, or Gore, or Obama.

[PurpleChez]

97. That there are still so many Hillary apologists is almost as dumbfounding

as the idea that a third of the population still supports George Bush.

Look...I was not born a Hillary basher. I loved her as First Lady. Even now, it's not that I think she's evil incarate. Rather, that she's an opportunist. And as such I cannot see her in the heroic context that so many still seem to feel for her. Watching some of these folks trying to explain or excuse every single action of Mrs. Clinton is little different from reading the comments of wingnuts who have an almost religious need to prop up the idea that Georgie never makes mistakes.

[rhett o rick]

99. What makes you think she doesn't want the Iran war?? nm

[alfredo]

109. She also voted for no money for an attack on Iran.