Clinton surrogate Joe Wilson lies about Kyl-Lieberman.

[geek tragedy]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20071105/cm_huffpost/070973

The November 1 letter directly addresses the Kyl-Lieberman non-binding resolution, which declares a sense of the Senate that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, an autonomous force within the Iranian military structure, is a terrorist organization. The resolution also makes explicit that it is a diplomatic sanction, not in any way to be interpreted as a basis for military action. During the debate, Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois deleted reference to "military instrumentalities" and added: "Nothing in this Act should be construed as giving the president the authority to use military force against Iran."

Durbin explained, "I am opposed to military action in Iran. To say we need to pressure the Iranians to change their course in the Middle East and I want to do it by nonmilitary means, that's what my vote was all about.''

As those who voted for its final Durbin version, including Senator Clinton, have made clear, the resolution is an attempt to inject a diplomatic element into a situation fraught with potential danger.

That language does not appear in Kyl-Lieberman. Nowhere does Kyl-Lieberman explicitly state that Kyl-Lieberman is to 'not in any way to be interpreted as a basis for military action.'

Who are you going to believe, Clinton's surrogates or your own lying eyes?

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/kyl-lieberman.pdf

[Atman]

1. There are two words which DO in fact give Bush authority to invade Iran,

no matter how anyone tries to spin it...Terrorist Organization. That drops it right into Patriot Act territory, and de facto gives Bush "authority" to invade.

On Edit: Btw...what's with the dual slam on Clinton and especially Joe Wilson? Did I miss something in the article? Wilson's name isn't even mentioned. It seems like you were just going after a cheap-shot headline that doesn't actually have anything to do with the story you linked to.

.

[geek tragedy]

2. It would make a HUGE difference if Wilson were

telling the truth.

Unfortunately, he's lying.

[Atman]

3. Maybe you could provide a link to what you're talking about.

I'm just missing it, I guess. Again, the story you linked to doesn't even mention Wilson's name, yet you've called him a liar in your subject line. What did he lie about? Seriously, I'm not doubting you (yet), because I simply don't know what you're talking about, and you didn't offer anything by way of background. Just a smear.

.

[geek tragedy]

4. He wrote the op-ed in the first link.

He's claiming that Kyl-Lieberman explicitly states that it can't be construed to authorize military force.

That is a lie.

[Atman]

5. Okay, I'm sorry. I missed the by-line.

I thought it was just another Yahoo news story.

.

[geek tragedy]

6. No problem.

It's rather shocking that the Clinton campaign thinks they can get away with this kind of lie.

[TwilightGardener]

7. I noticed that. I was disappointed in Wilson--that's stooping pretty low, to

make up something that doesn't appear in the actual legislation. If that language about not construing the amendment as permission for military action actually WAS in the amendment, then there would be no need for the letter Hillary and Webb generated, so Wilson makes a nonsensical argument.

[geek tragedy]

8. Same thing as Wes Clark.

They both sold their integrity when they signed on with Camp Clinton.

[TwilightGardener]

10. I am inclined to agree, as a (former) Wes Clark fan.

[Tellurian]

21. I doubt Joe Wilson would risk his reputation by lying for anyone..

He risked his life and that of his family to expose Bush's Lie..

I doubt you are qualified to call Joe Wilson a liar based on your interpretation of facts.

[geek tragedy]

23. Who are you going to believe, Joe Wilson or your own

lying eyes?

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2007_record&page=S12094&position=all

[Tellurian]

35. With your own credibility at stake..you calling the His44.org site Republican..

was a dead wrong accusation. Why should anyone trust your extrapolation of facts when the only one who agrees with you is the hypocrite himself, Obama?

[geek tragedy]

36. Nice Chewbacca defense. n/t

[Tellurian]

37. Not really. If you were on the witness stand and made the claim and were found out to be mistaken

or lying...your cred would be less than zero!

I'll reserve judgment about Ambassador Wilson, giving him the benefit of the doubt, until a more reliable source making the accusation provides prima fascia evidence to your biased accusation.

I can't imagine either Wes Clark or Joe Wilson lying about the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment just to give Hillary a free pass. They just wouldn't do it.

So, that leaves just YOU!

[dionysus]

38. his underoos are too tight :)

[Tellurian]

39. Nice Chewbacca defense. n/t

[geek tragedy]

40. Thanks for the kick. n/t

[On the Road]

9. I Hate to Say It,

because I've been a supporter of Joe Wilson, but I have no idea what he's referring to when he states that KyL-Lieberman imposes only diplomatic sanctions:

(b) Sense of Senate.–It is the sense of the Senate....

(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;

(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;

http://wanderingdonkey.com/2007/09/27/kyl-lieberman-passes/

It's difficult to see how to read that language as a prohibition of military action.

[Texas_Kat]

12. You are inaccurate

Items 3 and 4 that you listed here were deleted from the final bill.

TPM Cafe has actually posted the final copy of the amendment :

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/kyl-lieberman-amendment/?resultpage=8&

[geek tragedy]

13. Note that Joe Wilson is also inaccurate by

those very terms.

[Texas_Kat]

17. Your opinion, nonetheless....

The poster I corrected was just plain inaccurate and included language that was specifically deleted before final passage.

If you study K/L without all the emotional overreaction, you'll find that the whole thing was geared towards economic sanctions rather than military action. But hey, don't let me spoil its rantability for you. Everyone needs a good catharsis.

[geek tragedy]

19. Uh huh. Suuuure Joe Lieberman doesn't

want military action against Iran.

[Texas_Kat]

22. If it had Dick Durbin's name on it, would it be acceptable?

You have illustrated a point that we complain about all the time. If that's not a knee-jerk reaction to having Holy Joe's name on it, I don't know what is.

[geek tragedy]

Puh-leaze.

Kyl-Lieberman was designed to beat the war drums.

I don't trust Joe Lieberman and Jon Kyl.

And, now, I don't trust Joe Wilson.

[Texas_Kat]

27. Maybe, but the Dems managed to gut it.....

and only leave in economic sanctions. Trust whoever you want to.... but a word of advice, do more research and engage in less hysteria.

[geek tragedy]

28. Doesn't change the fact that Joe Wilson

is making a blatantly false claim about K-L.

And it was hardly gutted.

[On the Road]

33. Thank You for the Correction -- Seriously

I had never read the text and googled a preliminary version.

Now, on the other hand, was there any language added which restricted the scope of the bill to diplomatic sanctions?

[geek tragedy]

34. No. The Congressional Record

has the final version.

Joe Wilson is misrepresenting what Kyl-Lieberman says.

[flpoljunkie]

11. The Obama endorsed resolution the Hillary supporters always bring up, does include this prohibition.

[geek tragedy]

14. So easily confused are they. n/t

[flpoljunkie]

30. So determinedly spun by the Clinton camp.

[TacticalPeek]

15. That language is not claimed to appear in Kyl-Lieberman by Amb. Wilson in your quote.

Wilson in your quoted article is explicitly referring to the letter from Webb and others to President AWOL warning him that "the recent designation of the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist, should in no way be interpreted as a predicate for the use of military force in Iran", which is 100% accurate.

http://webb.senate.gov/pdf/iranletter.pdf

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/1/19275/7874


You apparently misinterpreted the article. You also owe Ambassador Wilson an apology since he did not lie as you claim.

[geek tragedy]

16. Read it again.

The resolution also makes explicit that it is a diplomatic sanction, not in any way to be interpreted as a basis for military action. During the debate, Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois deleted reference to "military instrumentalities" and added: "Nothing in this Act should be construed as giving the president the authority to use military force against Iran."

[TacticalPeek]

24. Read it again. That is what Durbin's version of the resolution said.

Wilson is referring to voting for/against the Durbin resolution and signing/not signing the Webb letter.

"Given these facts, distorted criticism of those senators who voted for the Durbin version of Kyl-Lieberman, especially Senator Clinton, and refusal to sign the November 1 letter lacks merit on the substance."


(my bold)

[geek tragedy]

25. The Durbin version?

There was only one vote.

[TwilightGardener]

18. Wrongo--Wilson says:

"The resolution also makes explicit that it is a diplomatic sanction, not in any way to be interpreted as a basis for military action. During the debate, Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois deleted reference to "military instrumentalities" and added: "Nothing in this Act should be construed as giving the president the authority to use military force against Iran."
Wislon is clearly describing K/L here, NOT the letter.

[geek tragedy]

20. PDF of the Congressional Record:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2007_record&page=S12094&position=all

[Texas_Kat]

26. Where's the copy of the amendment in it's final form?

This was just the original submission.

[geek tragedy]

29. No, that is the final version. n/t

[Texas_Kat]

31. You're right..... it is

with items 3 and 4 deleted.... sorry.

[geek tragedy]

32. Cheers. n/t

[bornskeptic]

41. That is not what Wilson is saying.

I think he worded it poorly, but he's not claiming that the sentence "Nothing in this Act should be construed as giving the president the authority to use military force against Iran" was added to the resolution. He is merely quoting a statement by Durbin regarding the deletion of the "military instrumentalities" reference. "Added" is meant as in "In addition to deleting that language Durbin said..." A suspicious person might suspect that Wilson wrote it that way with the intent of misleading the casual reader, but I have no idea whether that is the case.

[geek tragedy]

42. Except Durbin didn't say anything like that.

He criticized one paragraph that was in there, but he did not use that phrase during the floor debate.

Sorry, but Wilson is lying here.