Clinton and Lieberman look like stooges by supporting Bush...

[kentuck]

Hillary Clinton was the only Democratic candidate to vote for the Kyl Amendment to declare the Revolutionary Guard of Iran a "terrorist" group. Most people could see thru the intent of the Amendment. It was to open the door for George Bush to exercise another military disaster.

Understandably, the other Democrats are taking Hillary to task for her position on that Amendment. It was naive. It was dangerous. It was unpresidential.

With Lieberman, it was predictable.

[LakeSamish706]

1. Yep, and she admitted that her vote in favor of Iraq was a mistake...

But to date she has not apologized for it as have others that voted in favor.

[JTFrog]

9. Close.

"If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from," Mrs. Clinton told an audience in Dover, N.H., in a veiled reference to two rivals for the nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.

[Evergreen Emerald]

2. You may want to read up on what the other Candidates said: and I see you gave a pass to the Senator

...who did not even bother to show up for the vote. If it was so important, such that it was a path to war, you would think Obama would have at least made it to the vote.

Here is some reading for you:

Sen. Obama Shifts On Using American Forces In Iraq To Blunt Iranian Threat
In today’s NPR debate, Sen. Obama criticized re-structuring our forces in Iraq to blunt Iran’s influence on the war:

There was another problem with it, the resolution that was we haven’t spoken about and that was that it suggested that we should structure in some way our forces in Iraq with the goal of blunting Iranian influence in Iraq- now this is a problem on a whole bunch of fronts but number one- the reason that Iran has been strengthened was because of this misguided war in Iraq. We installed- helped to elect- a government in Iraq that we knew had connections with Iran- and so the notion somehow that they’re not going to have influence and we may be using yet another justification for a continuing mission in Iraq- I think is an extreme problem and one of the reasons why this was a bad idea.
A year ago, Sen. Obama said we should keep forces in Iraq to 'send a clear message' to Iran:

A reduced but active presence will also send a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in this region…Make no mistake, if the Iranians and Syrians think they can use Iraq as another Afghanistan or a staging area from which to attack Israel or other countries, they are badly mistaken. It is in our national interest to prevent this from happening.
UPDATE: The Obama campaign links to a transcript from Tim Russert where he says he supported leaving troops in Iraq to blunt the power of Iran as a way to protect Israel. This transcript only further illustrates that he has shifted positions on this issue.

12/4/2007 3:19:13 PM #

Fact Check: Sen. Edwards and Sen. Obama on Iran’s nuclear threat
In January, Sen. Edwards emphasized the nuclear threat by Iran speaking to a conference in Israel:

Speaking by satellite to a conference in Israel, Edwards said stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons 'is the greatest challenge of our generation.' 'All options are on the table to ensure that Iran will never get a nuclear weapon,' Edwards told the seventh annual Herzliya Conference on Monday, according to The Jerusalem Post.
In September 2004, Sen. Obama suggested to the Chicago Tribune editorial board that he would use surgical missile strikes against Iran:

he United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said. 'The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?" Obama asked. Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said.
12/4/2007 2:54:01 PM #

Sen. Obama Shifts On Iran Negotiations
Today at the NPR debate, Sen. Obama said he would lead high-level Presidential diplomatic efforts with Iran:

should have stopped the saber rattling- should never have started it- and they need now to aggressively move on the diplomatic front- I’ve started that consistently since the beginning of this campaign and that is for the President to lead diplomatic efforts to try to the prospect of joining the World Trade Organization the prospect of overtime in exchange for behavior that is something that has to be perused.
But in an interview with Harretz Daily Newspaper in May 2007, Sen. Obama said he would only pursue ‘low-level talks’ with Iran and said high level talks would be inappropriate:

I asked whether the U.S. should talk with Tehran even as the centrifuges are still spinning and producing more enriched uranium. Obama's answer is both yes and no: "Its important to have low-level talks" with Iran even without them freezing the enrichment, he said. However, high-level talks "will not be appropriate without some sense of progress" on the enrichment issue.
12/4/2007 2:30:22 PM #

[kentuck]

4. Better to learn late...

than never to learn at all.

[suston96]

3. Hillary Clinton was the only candidate......

Good for her. And all the other candidates voted against it? Did Obama vote against it?

The Iran Revolutionary Guard is in charge of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems so that declaration makes sense.

Oh, you believe the NIE report? That the same NIE that said there were WMD in Iraq? Same one? Oh.........

And why are there so many threads on this same topic?

[rodeodance]

6. lumping clinton with only Lieberman is sheer stupidity.

[Lerkfish]

43. really? in this particular instance, why is that "stupid"?

did they not vote the same way?

[bvar22]

48. Then call me stupid.

Hillary may be slightly more conservative than Joe,
but there is really very little difference.





"What are the AntiWar Democrats gonna do?
Vote for a Republican?!!!!Hahahahahahahahaha"

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. Ummm... Senator Obama suppoprts declaring the Revolutionary Guard of Iran a "terrorist" group

And Chris Dodd certainly supported it in April.

And Edwards suggested it was too wimpy!!!

[cali]

7. It's the ever present DU tactic of selectively posting information

gotta love the attempt to link Clinton with Lieberman though. It's so.... subtle.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

10. Clinton deserves her whippin' on Iran, but not as the scape-goat for every other Iran-hawk candidate

It's like we can invest her with every Democratic fuck-up on issues of war and peace since 2001, then burn the effigy and all is healed.

Everyone other than Kucinich has enabled the GWOT.

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. This is essentially my position also

But I give credit also to Biden for his expressed position regarding Iran over the last several months also. Essentially all of these guys were loudly calling the Revolutionary Guard a Terrorist organization at some point in the last year. Obama and Dodd sponsored a bill that said so, John Edwards had it up on his web site before scrubbing it to replace it with language that better allowed him to attack Clinton.

[Renew Deal]

31. I think there's a difference between the two issues

Classifying the Iran Revolutionary Guard is one issue. Giving Bush tacit powers to start another war is separate. Some say that's not what they gave Bush, but if you listened to him yesterday, he disagrees.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

46. The difference is that the first is real and the second is campaign rhetoric

The IRG designation is routinely cited as that part of K/L that provides tacit support for war. Jim Webb, the prime mover of the "Giving Bush tacit powers to start another war" argument, cites the IRG designation as THE part of K/L that, in his view, gives Bush Bush tacit powers to start another war.

Obama supports the IRG designation and does not think that it offers tacit support for war, but he pretends that somehow K/L is a rush to war for other reasons he can't quite explain that have nothing to do with the IRG designation he supports.

It's a shell-game.

Obama is probably the only person on Earth who supports the IRG designation while claiming K/L is a rush to war. It would be pretty funny listening to him trying to explain that position to his own supporters.

[BenDavid]

8. Help me L-rd! This was a non-binding resolution and it did

receive 70 plus votes. So, it had to have some dems supporting it. I suspect that if today HRC brought to the Senate floor a non binding resolution that stated the KKK is a terrorist organization and she voted for it and the same ones that did not vote on the Revolutionary Guard would still be saying this too was a bad vote.

The Senate resolution, which is not binding, calls on the administration to designate the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group and to impose economic sanctions. Even if the White House were to take such a step, policy experts said it was unclear that it would be anything more than a symbolic gesture without the cooperation of other nations.

Obama cosponsored another bill earlier this year to declare the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. “Nevermind that he made the very argument he is now criticizing back in November 2006,” it adds. “Nevermind that he he co-sponsored a bill designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a global terrorist group back in April 2007.”

Well well mr obama....

Ben David

[Skip Intro]

12. Wasn't there also language passed that said K/L was NOT an authorization for war & Clinton signed on

Didn't that happen? Woludn't that be considered context, at least somewhat relevant to the K/L vote?

[kentuck]

11. Will Hillary continue the Bush policy ?

Convince me otherwise. She is too close to AIPAC and the Jewish lobby, in my opinion.

[Cameron27]

13. There's a Jewish lobby?

[MethuenProgressive]

16. It's really sad to read "Jewish Lobby" in a post by a DUer, especially during Hanukkah.

Learn a little:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_lobby

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

19. It seems Dradles aren't the only things spun during Hanukkah

(I am agreeing with you, if there's any ambiguity)

[Cameron27]

28. It's disgusting to read that kind of thing here.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

15. She would desire a resolution to tensions with Iran

She is too AIPAC, no doubt.

But, unlike Bush, President Hillary would gain far more from resolving differences with Iran than she would gain from ongoing tensions.

I expect Hillary to act in her narrow political self-interest. And war would not be in her narrow political self-interest.

(IMO, she supports IRG designation as something she can bargain away with Iran as President. War would bet a complete political loser for President Clinton II)

[MethuenProgressive]

14. K/L as voted on matched a bill Obama co-sponsored a few moths before.

He was for it, before he skipped the vote and later declared he was against it.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

17. No, it's worse than that.

He is STILL FOR IT.

He supports the IRG designation.

His ostensible objection to K/L is based entirely on matters other than the IRG designation.

Here is Senator Obama's reaction when Sectretary of State Rice designated the IRG as a terrorist supporting entity, October 25, 2007:

"It is important to have tough sanctions on Iran, particularly on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which supports terrorism," Barack Obama said. "But these sanctions must not be linked to any attempt to keep our troops in Iraq, or to take military action against Iran." The senator from Illinois added that "unfortunately, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment made the case for President Bush that we need to use our military presence in Iraq to counter Iran -- a case that has nothing to do with sanctioning the Revolutionary Guard."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/25/iran.campaign

[mtnsnake]

18. Kentuck, can you do me a favor? Tell us which of our candidates voted and which DIDN'T vote at all.

You said that Hillary was the only Democratic candidate to vote for this.

Were there any of our candidates who copped out from taking the vote and putting themselves on the line? Just wondering...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

20. Dodd and Biden voted against it, but Dodd was a co-sponsor of the same language in April, so the

only one of the four Senators who has not supported the IRG designation this year is Biden.

Kucinich is in the clear, of course.

Edwards said as president he would give the IRG designation teeth, so he's no IRG dove.

I have no data on Richardson.

[mtnsnake]

21. That still doesn't answer my question. Did any of our candidates skip this important vote?

and thus avoid the same scrutiny of those who voted one way or the other?

[AtomicKitten]

22. Hillary has shown she isn't afraid to take a stand on both sides of an issue.

Her voting yes on K-L and then quickly moving to cosponosor Jim Webb's bill to neuter K-L was the epitome of triangulation. America can do better.

[bvar22]

49. Hillary voted FOR it,

before she was AGAINST it!

More "DoubleSpeak" from the queen.


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[David Zephyr]

23. Yeah, and Lieberman's role as author of the resolution against Iran should be inspected.

This is no little thing, Kentuck.

Bush and Cheney (with Lieberman and Kyle) were pushing us into yet another war by fearmongering with lies intentionally.

I'm glad to see you are making a point of keeping this a hot topic. We were close to war.

[Bitwit1234]

24. Are you stupid or what SHE WAS THE ONLY DEMOCRAT BULLSHIT.

And why did Saint Obama duck this vote...you know like he usually does with it comes to a hard vote.

It is so sickening that people like to slur and flame Hillary and have to lie to do it....get the facts straight SHE WAS NOT THE ONLY DEMOCRAT TO VOTE FOR THE """""""RESOLUTION"""""""""""".

[mtnsnake]

25. I think he meant the only Dem "candidate", but your right about what you said about Obama ducking

the vote because "he usually does with it comes to a hard vote", as you say.

[kentuck]

26. Just for the record...

I am not an Obama supporter at this time. I can find fault with all of them. However, I want to make certain I do not vote for or support someone that will continue this mess that Bush has created in Iraq and the Middle East. We don't know how close he was or is to attacking Iran. All he needs is the slightest legitimacy from the Congress to act upon his insanity. All the Democrats should understand that- including the most naive ones here on DU.

I will support Hillary if she is the candidate but I want to know her plans ahead of time. As I will support Obama, Edwards, Biden, or Dodd, or whomever. But, I do not have to remain silent as these issues are slapping us in the face. I do not have to pretend that it does not matter.

[MethuenProgressive]

29. For a second, I thought you were going to address your use of the term "Jewish Lobby"

For the record, do you know what that term means?

[kentuck]

30. Are you saying there is no such thing as a "Jewish lobby"??

That's about as credible as what Bush said about the NIE...

[Enrique]

32. I'll say it

the term "Jewish Lobby" is troublesome to me, and imo it discredits opposition to Bush.

[kentuck]

33. You're entitled to your opinion..

I think you are naive.

[Lerkfish]

44. AIPAC does not exist?

can you prove AIPAC does not exist?

I edited to add:

oh, I read further in the thread and see that the problem is with the wording, no one is denying AIPAC exists. my misunderstanding.

[cali]

34. What does the "Jewish lobby"

lobby for? Do you really not understand why this is problematical? Because it is. And that's why people are calling you on it.

There's an Israel lobby. It's not even solely composed of Jews. There is no "Jewish lobby".

[kentuck]

35. Why is it problematical?

Is it that some cannot handle the truth??

[MethuenProgressive]

37. "The expression is commonly associated with antisemitic aspersions."

Here. Learn a little:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_lobby

[kentuck]

39. Is it possible to use the words ...

without it being "commonly associated with antisemitic aspersions."? That sound rather foolish to me. AIPAC is not a figment of someone's imagination.

[cali]

38. no. it has nothing to do with that.

first of all, is there a "Christian lobby"? Of course not, because you can't lump all Christians together. That's part of the problem. Look, all you have to do is click this link, and you'll see that "Jewish lobby" is a term almost solely used by anti-semitic sites and sources.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Jewish+lobby&btnG=Search

[Poll_Blind]

40. The truth is that the "Pro-Israel Lobby" would be a better term to...

...describe the group(s) you're directing attention to. It is also the truth that many humans here, in this political place, who would normally be described as "adults" because of their age and appearance are exploiting your use of a vague descriptor to insinuate that the root of your commentary stems from anti-Semitism to shut you down and define you as one who should be shunned and whose opinion should be disregarded.

  Of course you have been on this message board for years and they know that you are not an anti-Semite.

  But because it is ultimately more expedient for them to insinuate that your entire standpoint is culturally "demonic" instead of actually adressing your point, they choose it.

  And they who do this are also regular posters who have been here for years and whose positions are well-known.

  And this goes on, with verve, on the other forums here in different fashions with different (but equally-abhorrent) mischaracterizations. It is, ultimately, tolerated behavior.

PB

[cali]

41. I don't think anyone has indicated in the slightest way that they

think kentuck is anti-semitic, but you have to drag that bullshit in, don't you?

No one has remotely suggested that anti-semitism is in play re the OP. You appear to be the one sliming here and trying to shut up others.

This is simply about explaining why the phrase "Jewish Lobby" is a poor choice of words.

It's a shame you are attempting, for whatever the reason, to turn this into something it isn't. I guess the guestion is why would you?

[mod mom]

36. DLC/PNAC TIES:

Will Marshall, the head of PPI signed PNAC letters.
(Called "Bill Clinton's idea mill," the Progressive Policy Institute was responsible for many of the Clinton administration's initiatives...)
Starting right after 9/11.
***************************
Along with such neocon stalwarts as Robert Kagan, Bruce Jackson, Joshua Muravchik, James Woolsey, and Eliot Cohen, a half-dozen Democrats were among the 23 individuals who signed PNAC's first letter on post-war Iraq. Among the Democrats were Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution and a member of Clinton's National Security Council staff; Martin Indyk, Clinton's ambassador to Israel; Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute and Democratic Leadership Council; Dennis Ross, Clinton's top adviser on the Israel-Palestinian negotiations; and James Steinberg, Clinton's deputy national security adviser and head of foreign policy studies at Brookings.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0522-10.htm

More about Will Marshall
Note the PNAC link to the left.
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1295

[Lerkfish]

42. sometimes, appearances are NOT deceiving.

they WERE stooges, and they are either the stupidest pols going, or they are complicit in the crimes of this administration. You pick

[polichick]

45. imo Clinton and Lieberman are stooges for putting the agenda of...

...the Israel lobby over the best interests of the United States.

(It's not about supporting Bush; it's just that the lobby and the neocons have something in common.)

[HughMoran]

47. Morans

They are no smarter than Freepers for believing anything the beady-eyed compulsive liar says.

[KoKo]

50. It does seem a bad miscalculation unless they know something we don't

...like the speculation Israel will handle it for us. :-(

[ClarkUSA]

51. What'd ya expect? Hillary Clinton & Joementum are both neocons and they have the votes to prove it.

I'm glad the rest of the Democratic field called Hillary on her Iran vote. I don't want this warmongering liar and her phony antiwar hubby
anywhere near 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue again.