View Story | 34 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
Drafted by neocons Loserman and Kyl, stated that Iran was helping terrosists in Iraq, which combined with the Iraq War resolution, will be taken by Dubya as giving him authorization to take military action.
It could have been a benign resolution if it were like one that had mostly Dem support before it, but the words "Nothing in this resolution shall be taken to authorize the use of military force against Iran" was intentionally omitted.
Economic -3.50/Social -2.41 End Dubya/McCain neocons. Obama '08!
by CenterLeft on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 03:56:31 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
because he was busy campaigning for president. However, he did sign on as a co-sponsor to S 970, which stated:
The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) and the Secretary of the Treasury should place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on 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://thomas.loc.gov/...
Here's what General Clark said about Clinton's support for K-L:
There is nothing in the non-binding Kyl-Lieberman bill that would give President Bush any authority whatsoever to go to war. Sen. Richard Durbin joined Senator Clinton in supporting this legislation and said, "if I thought there was any way it could be used as a pretense to launch an invasion of Iran I would have voted no." Sen. Carl Levin, who, like Senator Durbin, did not vote for the 2002 Iraq resolution, also joined Senator Clinton in supporting this bill. In fact, Senator Clinton has spoken out early and forcefully, warning in February that President Bush does not have the authority to take military action against Iran without congressional authorization.
There is nothing in the non-binding Kyl-Lieberman bill that would give President Bush any authority whatsoever to go to war. Sen. Richard Durbin joined Senator Clinton in supporting this legislation and said, "if I thought there was any way it could be used as a pretense to launch an invasion of Iran I would have voted no." Sen. Carl Levin, who, like Senator Durbin, did not vote for the 2002 Iraq resolution, also joined Senator Clinton in supporting this bill.
In fact, Senator Clinton has spoken out early and forcefully, warning in February that President Bush does not have the authority to take military action against Iran without congressional authorization.
http://www.unionleader.com/...
by skohayes on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 04:29:25 AM PDT
specifically, "Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as giving the president authority to use military force against Iran."
That language was not in the bill that Loserman wrote and Hillary voted for.
Why did Loserman and the other neocons shut down the alternative that Obama, Kerry, Kennedy, etc. supported if it wasn't to get that sentence out of the bill?
And why did Hillary back Loserman's version?
And by the way, where was she (or Obama, actually) campaigning for the Democratic nominee Ned Lamont against neoconservative traitor Loserman in '06 when Edwards managed to make it there?
by CenterLeft on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 04:59:57 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 34 comments