I'd like to point something out that no one has addressed thus far..

[Tellurian]

S. 970: Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007

SEC. 16. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

(d) List of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury shall report to the appropriate congressional committees on the efforts of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury to place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) and the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224 (66 Fed. Reg. 186; relating to blocking property and prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism).

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

This "Act" was voted on and passed in April of 2007. This section of THAT bill has conditions. I've emboldened the language that applies. It calls for designations of Foreign Terrorist Organizations within 6 months of passage of this "ACT".

So, 180 days from April of 2007 is October of 2007. Here comes the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment. Full Text here.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/kyl-lieberman-amendment/?resultpage=1&

When you reach page 8... you see where sections # 3 and # 4 have been stricken from the proposal, which may have been interpreted to mean authority to go to war with Iran. You also see specifically The Iranian Revolutionary Guard has been mentioned as the Terrorist Organization.

If sections #3 and #4 had not been stricken from the proposal and for the record; we'd be in a peck of trouble. I have to say this. Had Sen Clinton NOT taken her job seriously and NOT been on the job (in the senate that day) instead campaigning somewhere in a primary state. There was a clear and present danger those two sections may have slipped in on the next to the last page of this Amendment without much objection or notice.

This is just another reason why I feel my candidate, Sen Hillary Clinton is the best choice for the next presidency. Her due diligence is just what we need for the betterment of our country in the most expeditious way.

[Tellurian]

1. For those inclined to using the Iraq War Vote as criteria for their presidential vote..

I live in the present and planning for the future.

[pocoloco]

2. Well thats just great! Everybody deserves a future!

Fuck those poor bastards who don't have one because of the IWR. Tough shit, right?

[Tellurian]

3. I guess The Iraq Vote is as good an excuse as any...

and there lies a deeper problem..

[SergeyDovlatov]

6. and her Iran vote and her Patriot Act vote

[Clintonista2]

7. Obama voted to renew the patriot act, and as for her Iran vote

Dick Durbin (Who voted against the IWR), voted for it. Are you calling Dick Durbin a war mongerer?

[SergeyDovlatov]

8. and that is why neither of them are my choices. they put what is expedient about what is right!

Kucinich and Gravel for the win, baby!

Patriot Act is about civil liberties not about Warmongering.
Any congress critter that voted for Patriot Act will wear this badge of shame until the end of their pathetic lives.

[Clintonista2]

9. But why target Hillary only?

That's what I don't get. I see people say "Hillary voted for this" "Hillary voted for that", but when you point out to the person that Obama, or Edwards voted for it too, they always say "well, they aren't my choice either." Even if they aren't your choice, why only target Hillary? That's pretty dishonest, don't you think?

[Tellurian]

10. It's the meme of the day in the memo e-mails...

blanket emails for a united front.

[DemBones DemBones]

24. That's a silly accusation to make.

Who is supposed to be sending out these memos? We know it's not the DLC.

[Major Hogwash]

4. Hillary is "a clear and present danger" to our freedoms here at home.

If touting Hillary as "the one" becomes the meme then the rest of this Matrix bs at DU isn't going to matter.
It isn't just the Iraq War that needs to end, but the Patriot Act has to be stopped as well.
I'm surprised that Hillary agreed with Bush about the need for the Patriot Act.
I don't think limiting our freedoms at home is going to make someone else free abroad.

[Tellurian]

5. If Hillary is the nominee, yes the basic matrix of DU is going to matter..

DU is all for supporting unequivocally the Democratic nominee.

Anyone not following the DU Rules will have their posts deleted or worse they will be banned.

[reggie the dog]

14. so

we will not be able to challenge fearless leader?

[jmp]

18. Then this place will be a ghost town.

With only you ... and the Clinton campaign workers.

[DemBones DemBones]

23. We know the rules. Unless we're made to swear loyalty oaths,

we can stay without supporting the nominee. And how effective would it be to ask people on the internet to swear loyalty oaths?

This is the second post I've seen in ten minutes here warning all of us that we'll have to support Hillary. I guess her supporters are nervous or just wanting to throw their weight around.

But those of us who don't support Hillary won't have to do anything except follow the rules, which forbid criticizing the nominee. We don't have a nominee now so we can criticize any candidate.

[Tellurian]

11. Has anyone noticed the lack of interest by the Obama Camp

in this thread?

The proof must reverberate like a mirror of Truth acting as a spoiler to their disproved histrionics.

[robinlynne]

21. the truth? why not vote no. That was the correct vote!

[Gregorian]

12. Thanks. I appreciate hearing about this.

I am assuming it's correct that she was active in taking the steps to remove those parts of the bill. Because it's late, I am not reading the tpm link.

But even though I have not been one to support Hillary, I feel it is very important to know more about the candidates. I have my choice based on ideological aspects. But in all honesty I don't think many people really have a handle on who would make the best choice for the nomination.

I see Wes Clark giving his approval to Hillary. And there must be some very valid reasons for that.

All in all, I like being wrong about my negative assessments of a candidate.

[oasis]

13. A kick and a recommend for a better informed DU community. (eom)

[midnight]

15. As I'm reading through this post and the ones that follow I happen

to feel that post 12 and 13 sum up best what I was thinking-so ditto.

[MLFerrell]

16. And yet "your candidate" still voted for an unnecessarily belicose resolution against the Iranians.

"Her due diligence is just what we need for the betterment of our country in the most expeditious way."

:eyes:

I need her "due diligence" like I need a kick to the testicles.

[Tellurian]

17. If Hillary hadn't worked to strip sections #3 &#4 out of the Amendment

you'd have a gripe. Apparently you haven't read the OP or if you did, you fail to comprehend the end result.

If you read the article in the OP and the links proving a Vote had to be taken within 180 days of the passage of the "S. 970: Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007". Hillary used that opportunity to have section #3 and #4 deleted from the Amendment. I'm thankful she took the time to read and delete sections of the Amendment that may have given the impression Bush has any type of authority to go to war.

[yodermon]

19. When the bush administration attacks Iran before then 08 elections

what will your candidate say?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-vE8w1Huj0

That the Republican Guard is being declared a Terrorist Organization is a baby step towards approved war with Iran.
Having sections 3 & 4 removed is fantastic political cover which your candidate may use to triangulate any position she desires. It's so shrewd and brilliant I guess I'll just have to vote for her. :toast:

[robinlynne]

20. There was, of course the option of voting no. or not bringing it up for a vote at all.

[AtomicKitten]

25. Of course.

It was a mistake to throw in with yet another GOP war scheme.

[slipslidingaway]

22. I do not see the vote on this bill? Back in September I posted

about this bill when it passed the House and at that time it had been referred to the Committee on Finance in March 2007. Status has not changed according to the Thomas site???

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3550649

[William769]

26. ...

:kick:

[slipslidingaway]

27. Kick for reply. The OP stated this bill was passed in April 2007,

but the Thomas site says otherwise? See reply #13, posted below???

I do not see the vote on this bill? Back in September I posted about this bill when it passed the House and at that time it had been referred to the Committee on Finance in March 2007. Status has not changed according to the Thomas site???

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3550649



"This "Act" was voted on and passed in April of 2007. This section of THAT bill has conditions. I've emboldened the language that applies. It calls for designations of Foreign Terrorist Organizations within 6 months of passage of this "ACT".

So, 180 days from April of 2007 is October of 2007. Here comes the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment. Full Text here."