Clinton Defends Vote on Iran Resolution

[Purveyor]

PENACOOK, N.H. – At a campaign Q&A session with hundreds of voters here Saturday morning, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton moved forcefully to correct the record about her vote in September on Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – and asserted that her enemies were spreading misinformation about that vote.

Mrs. Clinton, along with 75 other Democrats and Republicans, voted for a non-binding resolution to designate the Guard Corps as a terrorist organization, given evidence that it was supplying weapons to militias in Iraq and also supporting Hamas and Hezbollah.

Yet some Democrats have accused her of empowering President Bush to go to war with Iran, just like she authorized military action in Iraq in 2002, a position that many liberals still decry. (Some have objected to language in the Kyl-Lieberman amendment on Iran, which passed easily, because it links this nation’s military actions in Iraq to perceived threats from Iran.)

At the event here, a woman in the audience said she was concerned about the Iran vote and whether Mrs. Clinton was aiding and abetting Mr. Bush.

Mrs. Clinton started off by explaining her decision: “I voted for it, number one, because they are a terrorist organization,” adding that the Guard Corps had supplied “the deadly projectile bombs that have killed so many of our young men and women.”

---eoe---

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/clinton-defends-vote-on-iran-resolution/

[RufusTFirefly]

1. Wow. Reads like a Clinton press release

"moved forcefully" -- strong leader
"correct the record" -- darn liars
"along with 75 other Democrats and Republicans" -- she wasn't alone
"many liberals decry" -- those fringe loonies!
"which passed easily" -- bandwagon fallacy

[jgraz]

5. That's easy to fix

PENACOOK, N.H. – At a campaign Q&A session with hundreds of voters here Saturday morning, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton spun like a draedel to paper over her vote in September on Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – and pathetically whimpered that her enemies were spreading misinformation about that vote.

Mrs. Clinton, along with 75 other Stooges and Warmongers, voted for a stealth declaration of war to designate the Guard Corps as a terrorist organization, given obviously fake intelligence that it was supplying weapons to militias in Iraq and also supporting Hamas and Hezbollah.

Yet actual, real Democrats have accused her of empowering President Bush to go to war with Iran, just like she cravenly voted for military action in Iraq in 2002, a position that over 70% of the country thinks is retarded. (People with the sense God gave a doorknob have objected to language in the Kyl-Lieberman amendment on Iran, which passed easily, because the Senate is filled with spineless morons.)

At the event here, a woman in the audience said she was concerned about the Iran vote and whether Mrs. Clinton was aiding and abetting Mr. Bush.

Mrs. Clinton started off by blinking several times and taking a swig from a hip flask: “I voted for it, number one, because my advisors wanted me to look tough,” adding that the Guard Corps had supplied “enough flimsy information that I thought I could reasonably cover my ass on this one.”

~~~~~~~~

Better?

[RufusTFirefly]

7. Nice job! You're hired!!

... but not for the New York Times (or the Clinton campaign) obviously.

Sorry. :-(

[K Gardner]

8. Duzy !!!!

[creeksneakers2]

2. She's getting a raw deal over that vote. That vote had great results.

The resolution authorized US troops to engage in combat with Iranian assets in Iraq. Before the resolution, the Bush administration accused Iran of covertly aiding the insurgency in Iraq. Now the Bush cabal says Iran is not interfering in Iraq.

I can think of three possibilities. Its possible Iran decided to pull out because of the resolution. Its also possible, and I think more likely, that Iran never was involved in Iraq in the first place. It could also be that Iran is involved in Iraq but the Pentagon won't confirm that because they don't want to give Bush a pretext to send them into war with Iran. The Pentagon claims Iranian assets were pulled out of Iraq, coincidentally about the time Kyl-Lieberman passed.

Once the resolution was passed, Bush could no longer claim that Iran was interfering in Iraq unless Bush ordered combat with Iranian assets in Iraq. They had to either kill some Iranians or declare Iraq free of Iranian support for insurgents. The Pentagon had to either declare Iraq free of Iranians or expand the war. The Bush cabal had no choice to but to declare Iraq Iranian free.

There were two pretexts for war with Iran. One was Iran building nukes and the NIE took care of that. The other was Iranian involvement in the Iraq war and Kyl-Lieberman took care of that. Now Bush has no pretext for war.

No matter which scenario is true, Kyl-Lieberman made war with Iran far less likely.

Its true Iran was named as a supporter of a terrorist organization but that did not and would not lead to war.Even without Kyl-Lieberman, Bush would have said the same thing anyway. War with Iran was extremely unlikely to begin with. The public is very against it. War would be suicidal for GOP chances in 2008. The Pentagon all but vowed to refuse to carry out Bush's orders.

Kyl-Lieberman never authorized war with Iran, as the far left baselessly claimed. The resolution was a big success. Hillary should be proud of her vote.

[Windy]

4. You've obviously never read it.

and no, there have been no results from the amendment other than causing more tension with Iran. the only thing that has come about recently that is positive is the NIE which stated that Iran did not have an active nuclear weapons program.

You don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Your flat out wrong!

Kyl/Lieberman did authorize the use of military force from inside Iraq to stop the revolutionary guard. Had the NIE not come out, Bush/Cheney, et al would have launched strikes with missiles, aircraft etc, from inside Iraq against Iran.

No, her vote was an incredible lapse in judgment. Of course I can't say it was a lapse as it is defined because it fits the pattern that started with her Iraq vote which she has failed to recant.

Kyl/Lieberman didn't take care of anything. It gave and still gives bush the ability to launch military strikes from inside Iraq on the revolutionary guard, which is Iran's military!

Your spin is unsupported by the facts.

[creeksneakers2]

9. My spin is supported by facts. How do you explain this?

U.S. diplomat wary about Iran's role in Iraq

U.S. military officials have cited the drop in roadside bombs and mortar and rocket attacks in recent weeks as a sign that Iran, which Washington accuses of fomenting unrest in Iraq, is altering its behavior. Many have said they remain in "wait-and-see" mode to determine if the change represents a firm policy change.


http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/world/iraq/bal-te.iraq24dec24,0,3505705.story


I'll reread the resolution but I'm certain it did not authorize the US to launch attacks from Iraq against Iran.I'd like for you to tell me the exact statements in it that authorized such a thing. I have an open mind.

The uproar over Kyl-Lieberman is far left propaganda. We did not attack Iran, nor were we close to doing it, nor will Bush ever do it. I remain skeptical of all dramatic pronouncements, no matter which side they come from. Time showed the Kyl-Lieberman uproar to be baseless.

[Windy]

13. They were never really in Iraq to the extent claimed. Its called smoke and mirrors

Futher, there has been an increased military presence as evidenced by the number of US troops that have been killed over the last year and coupled with an enforced curfew, that has caused a downward swing in violence.

The administration fabricated a lot of the information regarding Iran's involvement in Iraq.

That amendment did nothing to put any pressure on Iran. It is an instrument to permit war by loophole.

Jim Webb, Joe Biden and many others agree with my position. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/25/webb-kyl-lieb-iran/
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26287

You obviously have problem with reading comprehension and examining the big picture. Also forward thinking on your part is obviously lacking.

The reason that others have apologized for their Iraq war vote is that it gave bush the green light to go forward. While the resolution contained tacit discussion regarding UN action, Bush accelerated the time frame, used propaganda regarding WMD to push the fear buttons and launched strikes on Iraq. The ONLY think tha prevented him from doing that this time was the NIE.

[creeksneakers2]

18. I gave the possibility that Iran wasn't involved in the first place

But if that's the case, after Kyl-Lieberman the administration said Iranian support for the Iraqi insurgency diminished. So if they were lying about Iranian involvement, they stopped lying about Iranian involvement after Kyl-Lieberman.

Iranian involvement in Iraq was one of the two major reasons given to go to war. Eliminating that reason made war with Iran less likely. So Kyl-Lieberman made war less likely, not more likely.

[TwilightGardener]

10. LOL! The vote had no results, except to heighten tensions, as the poster

says above. Nice spinny-spin. It was just another neocon brick in the warpath.

[creeksneakers2]

11. Where is your evidence of heightened tensions?

WASHINGTON'S DIPLOMATIC THAW

But for all the bluster of 2007, the near-term diplomatic forecast between the two capitals is decidedly less ominous. U.S. and Iranian officials are scheduled to meet in Baghdad soon to discuss Iran’s role in Iraq’s security situation. The meeting, scheduled for December 18 but later postponed, would be the fourth round of talks (AP) between the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, and his Iranian counterpart, Hassan Kazemi Qomi. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has also sounded a conciliatory note of late. During a briefing with reporters December 21, Rice left open the possibility of holding direct talks with Iranian officials before Bush leaves office.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/15143/washingtons_diplomatic_thaw.html?breadcrumb=%2F

Spinny-spin has no factual basis. My comments do. Where are your facts?

[TwilightGardener]

14. Its purpose was to give Chimpy latitude in taking action against

Iran's army under the umbrella of fighting terrorism. Joe Lieberman and Jon Kyl do not want peace in the Middle East--they want constant war, and the threat of constant war. Anyone who believes that this resolution was designed to do anything but create more justification for striking Iran is hopelessly naive. Declaring another nation's army "terrorists" does nothing to promote diplomacy. And some very, very smart people in the Senate knew it. We've been meeting with Iran about IRAQ (Crocker) since last spring, and Iran's involvement in acts against our military have decreased since then--had NOTHING to do with Kyl-Lieberman. And it was the NIE that lowered tensions--the excuses for war are melting away.

[creeksneakers2]

19. Agree and disagree

John Kyl and Joe Lieberman wanted a resolution that could be used to authorize war. That resolution failed and Hillary did not and would not vote for it. What Hillary voted for was an amended version with the authorization for war removed.

I can't prove Kyl-Lieberman caused a decrease in Iranian attacks but it looks like its probably the reason. The intent of Kyl-Lieberman was to pressure Iran to stay out of Iraq.

TIMELINE

September 10, 2007

General Patraeus testifies: "It is increasingly apparent to both coalition and Iraqi leaders that Iran, through the use of the Iranian Republican Guard Corps Qods Force, seeks to turn the Shi'a militia extremists into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests and fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq."

Patraeus also said: " General Petraeus said of Iranian support for extremist activity in Iraq on April 26, 2007, that "We know that it goes as high as Suleimani, who is the head of the Qods Force. ..... We believe that he works directly for the supreme leader of the country''.

Ambassador Crocker testifies: "Iran plays a harmful role in Iraq. While claiming to support Iraq in its transition, Iran has actively undermined it by providing lethal capabilities to the enemies of the Iraqi state."

Generals and others give similar reports.

Ambassador Crocker held three rounds of talks in Baghdad on Iraq security with representatives of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran before Kly-Lieberman was passed.

Ambassador Crocker testified: "I laid out the concerns we had over Iranian activity that was damaging to Iraq's security, but found no readiness on Iranians' side at all to engage seriously on these issues. The impression I came with after a couple rounds is that the Iranians were interested simply in the appearance of discussions, of being seen to be at the table with the U.S. as an arbiter of Iraq's present and future, rather than actually doing serious business ..... Right now, I haven't seen any sign of earnest or seriousness on the Iranian side."

September 20,2007

Kyl-Lieberman passed

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:1:./temp/~r110YXInIo:e531061:

October, 2007

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080103/NATION/498097125/1001

In October, U.S. military officials began noticing a decrease in the supply of Iranian weapons and assistance, Col. Boylan added.

Iran's leaders are no longer supplying weapons or training to Islamic militants in Iraq, the spokesman for the top U.S. commander in Iraq told The Washington Times.

Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, sees Iran as following through on assurances it made to Iraqi and U.S. officials LAST FALL,not to assist extremists in Iraq, spokesman Col. Steven Boylan said, adding that other U.S. officials have noted declines in Iranian weapons and funds to Iraqi insurgents.

"We are ready to confirm the excellence of the senior Iranian leadership in their pledge to stop the funding, training, equipment and resourcing of the militia special groups," Col. Boylan said. "We have seen a downward trend in the signature-type attacks using weapons provided by Iran."

[BootinUp]

3. I'm glad she is refuting the political spin

used by opponents more forcefully.

[sniffa]

6. Her experience on voting for dipomacy in 2002 worked out well.

[goldcanyonaz]

12. At least she showed up to vote.

[jgraz]

15. Yes, that extra vote for another war of choice really helped us

:eyes:

[nichomachus]

16. Actually, the vote had far-reaching effects

Prior to this, "terrorism" was defined as actions by non-military or non-governmental organizations.

With this vote, the US has declared that state-run, military organizations, and members of a military force can be considered as terrorists.

If I were a member of the US armed forces, I would be scared shitless, because, if captured, they could be treated by unfriendly governments as terrorists -- and the US has no leg to stand on to complain.

Thanks Hillary

Thanks Joe

Thanks for nothing

[Wizard777]

17. Hillary is in big trouble. She appears to be defending Bush like fear mongering.

Meanwhile Obama is talking about bringing troops home, closing Gitmo, and restoring Habeus Corpus. If this keeps up. Bill is going to have to knock Poppa Bush ass over tin cans in public to create some distance between the Bush and Clinton names.