Hows the diplomatic move known as Kyl/Lieberman working out?

[Windy]

U.S. officials: 5 Iranian Revolutionary Guard boats harassed, provoked 3 U.S. Navy warships in the Strait of Hormuz on Saturday.

http://www.cnn.com/

Wow, what a step toward peace that was!!

[maddiejoan]

1. not getting your point

if there is one.


How does K/L figure in causing this?

If anything it shows K/L as a prescient move.

[leftchick]

2. "a prescient move"

indeed. For a neocon war on Iran. Fabulous idea! :eyes:

[maddiejoan]

4. who said war?

I'm just saying -- your post seems to say K/L is a causal agent in making IRG ships harass US ships.

I don't see the relationship.

Do you think it's good that IRG ships are provoking US ships?

[Windy]

7. You know if we were not making overt threats against IRAN and instead used true diplomacy

maybe this would not have occurred....

just a thought.

[maddiejoan]

10. where was there a threat?

K/L was not a call to war.

[Windy]

13. It clearly was. But I understand, you can't support HRC and have a problem with Kyl/Lieberman. n/t

[maddiejoan]

14. who do you support?

Hope it's Edwards then --because Obama agrees that IRG is a terrorist organization.

[leftchick]

9. first of all

I highly doubt the US version of events in the Strait of Hormuz. If anyone is there provoking I would bet on the US ships. The US has no fucking business being there. Unless of course one considers OIL our "national security interest" as hillary does.

K/L paved the way for bush to order strikes on Iran if the "terrorists" threaten the US or Iraq interests. Any other interpretation is as ridiculous as those defending the IWR in 2002.

[Jennifer C]

16. Well, think about it please.

After the IRG were designated a "terrorist organization" by Kyl-Lieberman, one of the direct responses and consequences of that action was the Iranian parliament voting to label the US military as "terrorists".

[Windy]

6. Its called escalating tensions... diplomacy does not do that. It is used to ease tensions.

The hostile actions of the iranian military have a direct correlation to essentially, the "act of war" implied in designating the military of a soverign nation as a terrorist group and threatening to use any action deemed necessary, including military assets, to counter them.

You'll try and spin anything to help your candidate.

I hope we don't end up in another war in Iran as a result of the irresponsibility of Clinton and the other senators who signed onto this ill advised and unnessary measure.

Oh but I'm sure she'll say that she wouldn't have gone to war against Iran if she was in office despite her vote if Bush/Cheney decide to take action..

[maddiejoan]

8. I'm not doing any spinning

You are.

You take this event and immediately --it's Clinton's fault?

you can say there is a direct causal relationship --it doesn't make it so.

[Windy]

11. Its not "Clinton's Fault" but it illustrates her poor judgment and lack of forward thinking

She has little concept of "consequences" of actions!That is a problem in a president as we've seen over the last 7+ years!

Trying to say that Kyl/Lieberman had nothing to do with the escalation of tensions IS spinning for your candidate.

[CoffeeCat]

3. I think everyone understands...

...that Kyl/Lieberman was a PR plank in Bush's run up to war with Iran.

He got his lemmings in Congress to declare that the government of Iran
was a "terrorist organization."

How in the world ANYONE can position this legislation as "a way toward diplomacy",
is beyond the pale. It's an insult to our intelligence.

I believe the only reason that war with Iran wasn't furthered, is because some
courageous patriots in the CIA released that NIE which demonstrated that the case
made for Iran moving toward nuclear weapons--is weak.

Without that NIE, Bush would have all ready been in the rose garden, marketing the
US into another war, with one of his talking points being, "Recently, Congress declared
the Iranian government a 'terrorist organization.' Congress agrees with me. These
people are terrorists and they must be stopped."

The Democrats (including Hillary Clinton) who voted for this Bush-enabling, pro-neocon
bunk, are either too weak to combat the President's warmongering OR they are neocons
themselves.

Either way, it was an abomination to vote "yes" on Kyl/Lieberman.

[leftchick]

5. I vote for number two

"they are neocons themselves."

[Windy]

12. Bravo and my fear is that its number two with Hillary. n/t

[leftchick]

15. all one has to do is read her foreign policy

she sounds just like cheney.

[CoffeeCat]

17. Really, leftchick?

I'd love to read her foreign policy to which you are referring.

I know she's a neocon, because she votes exactly like Lieberman.

We all used to be in agreement that Lieberman was an abomination. However,
when Hillary votes along with him now on war matters, somehow she's given
a free pass.

I'd love to know if you have sites or other things we could read about her
foreign policy. It would help. Frankly, I'm getting tired of sifting through
her Senate speeches, which are wordy and filled with a mountain of parsing.

Thanks for any insight. :)

[leftchick]

18. it is right on her website

she is apparently hoping most democrats are stupid...

http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/news/statements/record.cfm?id=269287

Now, make no mistake, Iran poses a threat to our allies and our interests in the region and beyond, including the United States. The Iranian president has held a conference denying the Holocaust and has issued bellicose statement after bellicose statement calling for Israel and the United States to be wiped off the map. His statements are even more disturbing and urgent when viewed in the context of the regime's quest to acquire nuclear weapons. The regime also uses its influence and resources in the region to support terrorist elements that attack Israel. Hezbollah's attack on Israel this summer, using Iranian weapons, clearly demonstrates Iran's malevolent influence even beyond its borders. We also have evidence, although it is by no means conclusive, of attacks using Iranian-supplied or manufactured weaponry against our own American soldiers. As I have long said and will continue to say, U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. And in dealing with this threat, as I've also said for a long time, no option can be taken off the table.

... sound familiar?