can somebody explain why hillary voted for Kyl-Lieberman amendment?

[ORDagnabbit]

she basically said she was misled about her vote for her vote to give bush authority to go to war in iraq.

if thats the case why did she vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment empowering bush to go to war with iran?

[AtomicKitten]

1. Um, she called it "diplomacy" ... just like she called the IWR.

War is peace, doncha know?

[maddiejoan]

2. Kyl/Lieberman

does not empower Bush to go to war.

[IndieLeft]

7. Um.... Essentially, yes it does.

It declares them, (I forget which faction of Iran's miliary) terrorists, which in conjunction with the patriot act give him the authority to pretty much attack at will.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

11. Revolutionary Guard. nt

[maddiejoan]

20. Do you have a problem with S 970?

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s970/show

[awaysidetraveler]

37. Sanctions aren't the problem, the terrorist label is the problem.

[maddiejoan]

40. Then you should have problems with R 970

as it designated the IRG a terrorist organization.

[Whisp]

9. yes it does.

it defines the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, doesn't it?
and we are in the midst of the war on terror.
doesn't take much of a leap to see the setup.

[IndieLeft]

12. Thanks... I couldn't remember.

[maddiejoan]

21. R 970

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s970/show

[lapfog_1]

13. So it was really an anti-war with Iran amendment then... right?

Or she voted to show solidarity with Joe Lieberman?

Or what, exactly?

[maddiejoan]

25. Here's Joe Wilson's take

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/a-reality-check-on-iran-p_b_70973.html

[lapfog_1]

29. A very unbiased source there.

A not a word critical of Obama in the article.

And what exactly was the DIPLOMACY of naming a section of the Iranian military a "terrorist organization"?
Joe doesn't address this at all.

In fact, it's rather more of an escalation of the war of words between Washington and Tehran, wasn't it?

You call for the destruction of Israel and we call an institution inside your government "terrorists"... which, because they ARE part of the government, means that you are a state sponsor of terrorists. With us or against us with no middle ground.

Yeah, that was real diplomatic.

:sarcasm:

Fact is, Joe is for Hillary.

This article does little to shed light on why anyone should vote for it (other that to appease the wing nuts and the AIPAC here in the US).

Fact is, after Bush DEMONSTRATED that he would misuse such authorizations in the past (notwithstanding the silly Durbin "signing statement" for the amendment), Congress voted to let him list the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group. And given the previous statements about the WOT, George could use this to argue that it amounts to authorization to take action against the Revolutionary Guard (at the very least). Such action leading directly to war with Iran. Not that our little King George would EEEEVER do something like that! :sarcasm:

Hillary trusts George. Over and over again.

[maddiejoan]

30. You ask

"And what exactly was the DIPLOMACY of naming a section of the Iranian military a "terrorist organization"?"

Why aren't you upset by Obama doing this?

[lapfog_1]

41. Oh, I am.

Where did I say I wasn't.

Anytime anyone in a position of power gives Bush moral authority to attack another nation or group of people, it bothers me. Because of his demonstrated propensity to do so. I surprised it doesn't bother everyone here.

However, its one thing to say something as a public statement. It's quite another to make the same statement as part of a US Senate resolution.

Even if what is said is the literal truth (Iran DOES sponsor Hamas, Hamas IS a terrorist organization... just one that doesn't attack US assets all that much).

What is the GOOD of saying it NOW. Would have been a MUCH MORE powerful statement if we had landed 200,000 troops in Afghanistan and taken out both the Taliban and every last member of OBLs group there. And NOT invaded Iraq. Iran might be on it's very best behavior right now.

Anyway, I'm disappointed with almost every Democrat in the Senate. And let's not even talk about the House and how they have disappointed me.

But we have choices to make now. Tests to apply to each candidate on their record. And Hillary has come up much shorter than Obama.

[maddiejoan]

42. How so?

Because he ducked out of K/L when he sponsored R 970?

[lapfog_1]

43. At least I can say that I supported a candidate that DIDN'T

vote for the IWR and didn't vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment.

No matter what he might have done or did otherwise.

You, on the other hand, have to keep justifying Hillary's vote for both...
and the best you can come up with is "well, Obama is almost as bad as Hillary".

Which doesn't cut it for me.

Nor does the "Obama has voted the same as Hillary" Talking Point.

Both times she stuck her finger in the air and triangulated... she was NOT going to appear to be "soft on terror" when she ran for President. So she voted for war and more war.

When it comes to Iraq and the WOT, where has Ms. Clinton differed in her Senate votes from the likely Republican nominee, Mr. McCain?

Clinton / McCain

IWR... check. "F"
Funding... check. "C" (this doesn't bother me that much)
Kyl-Lieberman... check. "D"

Obama

IWR... nope (but not in the Senate at the time) "A"
Funding... check. "C"
Kyl-Lieberman... nope (but didn't vote nay either). "C"

Given that Obama has contemporary public statement opposed to the IWR, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Given that we were already AT war in Iraq, de funding (which presupposes that it would actually do something) it would seem to be futile.
Kyl-Lieberman... given that Clinton has stated (not contemporary with the decision) that she opposed the original amendment and voted for the "watered down" version... she gets a "D" instead of an "F". Given that Obama didn't vote for it, but did issue some other statements that, while true, weren't helpful... I give him a "C"

So the report card is Clinton "F", "C", "D". Obama is "A", "C", "C".

So far, on foreign policy, Clinton has a "D" average. Obama has a "B-" (I weight the IWR more than the other issues)

I'm going with the "B-" person.

[IndieLeft]

3. NO, they can't explain it to you.

But they will be happy to tell yo to go to the Free Republic, and call you a repug.

[patrioticintellect]

4. I don't know why but she laughed about it

In Gravel's face when he, an American hero who helped end the Vietnam war, called attention to her vote.

[Whisp]

34. I just saw that clip yesterday...

and was appalled at her dismissive and insulting reaction - her cheesey big joke laugh.
what's so bloody funny about death and destruction, Hillary? What's so funny about accountability to the things you put your name to to support that turn out ugly?

those few seconds of her reaction encapsulate what has been so damn wrong for so many years. In a tight spot? Cant answer to your poor judgements? Laugh it off. Demean the questioner.

This is the same old. it works! it works for Bush and it works for clinton.
More should be damned sick and tired of this act.

[sfam]

5. We might be able to, but Hillary cannot...

At least not in a coherent way. But I think we all know the reason...

[Iwasthere]

6. In a word... Politics !

She CAN EASILY be influenced.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

8. BUT BUT BUT MR. HOPE AND CHANGE WAZ ABSENT 4 TEH VOTE! SERIESLY!1!

Just getting it out of the way before Team Red Herring shows up. ;)

[boston bean]

10. NO, can you explain why obama didn't bother to show up and vote for it.

I can, but I think it's pretty obvious, so I don't feel the need to.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

15. I already had you covered in post #8.

[IndieLeft]

17. That wasn't the question asked here.

Can you please stay on point and try to answer the question that the OP asked?

[HughBeaumont]

14. That . . . appears to be the mystery of all mysteries. Except when it isn't.

[Jennifer C]

24. A++++

Explains it perfectly.

[ORDagnabbit]

26. wow!!! thats awesome... never saw that one...when did it come out?

[HughBeaumont]

44. A few weeks ago, IIRC.

[DUyellow]

16. Obama wasn't there, so i voted for it... This is getting kind of low guys

[Hell Hath No Fury]

18. Two words...

Presidential ambitions.

End of story.

[IndieLeft]

19. I KNOW WHY SHE DID VOTED FOR IT!

Obama didn't vote for it, so Hillary couldn't copy his answer.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

And for those of you who say, why did't Obama vote on it? Well, maybe you have your answer too.

[adigal]

22. Senator Webb said she as much as gave a green light to Cheney

to attack Iran.

I have no idea why she voted for it, unless she thought that we, the Democrats, would go along with her in the general election, and she did it to prove her military toughness.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

45. Ding ding ding. She was the frontrunner by like 30 points when she did it

She was running for the General at the time.

[Lucinda]

23. Because they had an NIE and testimony saying that part of the IRG was aiding

those attacking American soldiers and Iraqis. So after the Dems made them strip the harsher language, she voted on a non-binding sense of the senate calling the IRG out, and calling for diplomatic pressure.

[lapfog_1]

36. it didn't "call them out", it named them terrorists.

That's a big difference.

Naming them terrorists for a President who has stated "with us or with the terrorists" and the "preemptive WOT doctrine".

And nobody, but nobody can list the "diplomatic pressure" it put on Iran or the Revolutionary Guard.

And all those "leaked intel" reports about "sophisticated bombs" in the hand of insurgents. And the NIEs, all likely products of the OSP. Dick Cheney's personal war making machine inside the Pentagon.

I'm sure that weapons were finding their way into Iraq from Iran. Hell, WE were sending weapons into Iraq that were used against us.

This was nothing more than saber rattling, and it was stupid.

The fact that it was named Kyl-Lieberman should have been enough for every Democrat to vote against it.

[tritsofme]

27. Well its a lie to say that Kyl-Lieberman granted any new war powers.

So I suppose your entire premise is flawed.

The way I see it, this couldn't have been that important of a vote if Obama didn't even care enough to show up.

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. OK, this is a long answer I wrote once before - be warned, lol

I think it is bullshit to claim that Clinton wants a war with Iran. I think she made a political calulation regarding Iran that snapped back to bite her. Almost all of the Democratic candidates had been doing the same thing but the rest of the ones in the Senate were clever enough not to attach their names to a Senate resolution sponsored by Lieberaman, that was a huge turn off to many Democratic primary voters who didn't give half a damn about the rhetoric toward Iran prior to then.

What would have happened had Clinton voted the other way? Instead of passing by 76 to 22 it would have passed by 75 to 23. Same difference in terms of how Bush could have used that vote after the fact, but instead of Iran suddenly erupting into a huge topic of debate, because of the primaries, it would have been forgotten in a few days by most since no one could have gained any political advantage by forcing pulic attention to it. There is a reason why Obama, Edwards, and Dodd all made prior political moves to call out Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. You can call it simply politics or you can say it was a principled position to influence Iran away from a certain course of action through the use of "sticks" in diplomacy. The policy that John Edwards advocates toward Iran for example is to enter into diplomatic negotiations with them; using a mixture of sticks and carrots. Prior to the political usefulness of the K/L vote fall out, most of the Democratic candidates agreed that designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization was one of those "sticks" that everyone kept talking about.

In fact a majority of Democratic Senators, those who gained no political advantage in the primaries by pleasing left of center Democratic primary voters, voted for Kyle-Lieberman. And yeah, I think they were wrong to do so, probably. Why do I say probably? Because there were some serious back room negotiations on the final version of that amendment.

The original version came much closer to actually providing Senate backing for Bush's ability to attack Iran whenever he wanted to. Which would have been worse? The mostly nuetered K/L Amendment passing by 76 to 22 or a much more hawkish version passing by something like 59 to 39? Because that may have been the actual real choice without a back room deal. I am only speculating I admit, but not wildly so. We do know that there were last minute negotiations on the final wording, we do know that the final wording was much clearer about not authorizing attacks inside of Iran, and we do know that Hillary Clinton at least claims she would have opposed the origninal version and that she was involved in those closed door negotiations.

We also know that the entire Democratic Senate leadership...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Senate_leadership

...ultimately voted in favor of the revised K/L Amendment, without exception.

Harry Reid, Majority Leader; Aye
Dick Durbin, Majority Whip; Aye
Patty Murray, Conference Secratary; Aye
Chuck Shumer, Vice-Chairman of the Conference/DSCC Chairperson; Aye
Debbie Stabenow, Steering Committee Chairperson; Aye
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00349#position

That on the surface is consistent with a deal having been struck. Durbin in particular is no foreign policy hawk.

In the backlash to her K/L vote Hillary Clinton issued a number of statements and took a number of acts. She co-sponsored the Webb Amendment that would have forced Bush to return to the Senate for specific authority to attack Iran, and she was one of a number of those Democratic Senators who had voted for K/L who signed a Webb written letter to the White House clarifying that that amendment was not intended to support use of military action against Iran. She also issued clear statements attacking Bush for not engaging in real "all issues subject to negotiations" diplomacy with Iran. In short she negated most of the political milage Bush could have hoped to squeeze out of her vote should he later attack Iran. I didn't say all, I said most, and I think that is an honest appraisal.

Overall, probably at her own expence, factoring in all that has followed, the cause of Peace with Iran has been furthered more by Hillary having voted Yea as the 76th vote in favor of the Kyle-Lieberman Amendment rather than Nay as the 23rd vote against it.

[bigtree]

31. pandering to the Jewish vote

Stupidest move she's made in this campaign. One of the stupidest votes she's made as senator.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

39. Tell that to all the Jews I know who opposed Kyl-Lieberman

Including my one friend who switched from supporting Clinton over it.

Nice broadbrush there, bud.

[Bread and Circus]

32. Because she was for the war after she was against it after she was for it....

[Thrill]

33. She thought voting for this whole thing would make her look tough

Thats the bottom line.

[1corona4u]

35. Can you explain why Obama missed it...

I mean, a real answer? Not an excuse.

[TwilightGardener]

38. Two Republicans had the guts to go against their party and vote against it.

The top two Repubs on the Foreign Relations Committee, that is. I guess they just weren't able to recognize a neocon-sponsored bill as the instrument of peace and diplomacy it was intended to be, those sillies! And I blame Obama for not being there, lest anyone think I'm unfair.

[Enrique]

46. because it doesn't authorize war with Iran

http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/news/statements/details.cfm?id=284561

September 26, 2007

Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment


Washington, DC – “Earlier today, I voted for a non-binding resolution that designates the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. The Revolutionary Guards are deeply involved in Iran's nuclear program and have substantial links with Hezbollah.

“I voted for this resolution in order to apply greater diplomatic pressure on Iran. This resolution in no way authorizes or sanctions military action against Iran and instead seeks to end the Bush Administration's diplomatic inaction in the region.

“Iran has gained expanded influence in Iraq and the region as a result of the Bush Administration's polices which have also rejected diplomacy as a tool for addressing Iranian ambitions. While the United States has spurned talks, Iran has enhanced its nuclear enrichment capabilities, armed Iraqi Shiite militias, funneled arms to Hezbollah and subsidized Hamas, even as the government continues to damage its own citizens by mismanaging the economy and increasing political and social repression.

“I continue to support and advocate for a policy of entering into talks with Iran, because robust diplomacy is a prerequisite to achieving our aims.

“This legislation reaffirms my policy of engagement and refers specifically to the statement of Defense Secretary Gates who said that "diplomatic and economic means" are "by far the preferable approach" for dealing with the threat posed by Iran.

“In February, after troubling reports about the possibility of military action against Iran, I took to the Senate Floor to warn that President Bush needs Congressional Authorization before attacking Iran. Specifically, I said it would be a mistake of historical proportion if the Administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further and explicit Congressional authorization. Nor should the President think that the 2001 resolution authorizing force after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, in any way, authorizes force against Iran.

If the Administration believes that any use of force against Iran is necessary, the President must come to Congress to seek that authority.

“Nothing in this resolution changes that.”

[tritsofme]

48. Exactly, it is a flat out lie to say that resolution authorized war.

Nothing more.

If Obama supporters are comfortable making these knowingly false accusations on an issue so unimportant that Obama didn't even show up, then I think we should be concerned about their sincerity.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

47. F-L-O-R-I-D-A in the General Election