Skip to main content

View Diary: Wes Clark calls bullshit on Kyl-Lieberman revisionists (405 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  webb is proposing a draft? (4+ / 0-)

    lemme look.

    Hillary 2008 - Flying Monkey Squadron 283

    by campskunk on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 08:24:44 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  oh, please dude (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mike Taylor

      Webb said: "This (K-L) has the danger of becoming a de facto authorization for military force against Iran."

      Hillay etal just gave a moron a potential "de facto authorization" to wage another war under wrong premises, which would be many times worse than the Iraq war. That would, if it happens, inevitably lead to a military draft.

      •  all i could find... (6+ / 0-)

        was him talking about his failed bill to lengthen downtime for troops. nothing about iran.

        Despite all this, the amendment lost. Defense Secretary Robert Gates argued that it would hamper the generals' ability to fight the war.  Which side is right? Both, and that is the problem. Placing so much burden on such a small number of people is grossly unfair. It is happening because the Bush administration knows that the only other way to maintain force levels is a military draft, which the nation would reject. But telling the generals to win a war and then depriving them of the means to do it is just as senseless.

        link

        Hillary 2008 - Flying Monkey Squadron 283

        by campskunk on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 08:31:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  you probably think you're pretty smart (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mike Taylor

          you said: "he's out of toy soldiers to play with now."

          What I said is, the war-mongers are probably counting on a military draft.

          End of story. Stop twisting things around.

          •  so how will they enact that? (4+ / 0-)

            it's your conspiracy theory. tell me.

            Hillary 2008 - Flying Monkey Squadron 283

            by campskunk on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 08:45:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  just like they passed Kyl-Lieberman, with (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mike Taylor

              Bush, the moron, signing it.

              •  so who's going to vote for a draft? (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DCDemocrat, Caldonia, phoenixdreamz

                Hillary 2008 - Flying Monkey Squadron 283

                by campskunk on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 09:09:24 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Once Bush pulls the trigger (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Mike Taylor

                  and starts bombing, the whole country would be put back in the "support the commander-in-chief" mode by the war hawks in the media. Then, the Dems in congress will start peeing in their pants (as usual) and vote for whatever the moron asks for.

                  •  i think you seriously underestimate... (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    DCDemocrat, Caldonia, phoenixdreamz

                    ...how severely people mistrust this administration.

                    you also forget all the bullshit bush went through last time. he spoke to the UN. he sent powell to the UN. he cooked all the intelligence and buffaloed congress to get an EXPLICIT AUMF vote. and now you say he's not going to do any of that- just start bombing one morning. in spite of the profound mistrust people have for him, and all the alarms that will go off if he tries to mobilize. bomb without any followup capability to put troops on the ground in iran, a country with 70 million people.

                    i don't believe you.

                    Hillary 2008 - Flying Monkey Squadron 283

                    by campskunk on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 10:04:48 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  See, he can use Kyl-Lieberman to justify (0+ / 0-)

                      bombing based on exaggerations and lies that IRG is harming US troops (which it maybe to some degree, but the Senate is supposed to vet that using hearings and other processes).

                      Now, the real logical problem with that is that we shouldn't have been in Iraq in the first place, and should try to hand it off to Iraqis as soon as possible and pull our troops (which is what Americans want).

                      If you think about it, what Webb said makes the best sense. We shouldn't be giving Bush any stick which he can use to launch an attack.

                      Dems are the ones that are supposed to counter Bush's trigger-happy ways, esp. after the experience with Iraq.

                      Doing the right thing is so obvious (UN inspections, hearings etc). Since they're all highly intelligent people, their behavior (esp. of those that voted for both IWR and K-L) can only be called political calculation/opportunism.

                      I noted something in the recent weeks. Most of the GOP candidates are running with "war on terror" and overblown rhetoric on "radical Islam" as a prominent "issue". You just have to visit their web pages to see that. That makes me wonder, given how badly Iraq has gone, whether they have inside information that Bush will indeed expand the war plausibly into Iran, and with the Jingoism that'd follow, the GOP could then try to benefit from the attack.

                      Bush can attack iran in many ways. What Kyl-Lieberman did it gave a "bipartisan" political cover for Bush to do actually go ahead and do so. it's really shameful what happened.

                      •  So explain how Obama (and Dodd) came wrote s97O (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        campskunk

                        since the language to ask the state department to impose economic sanctions was virtually the same.  Props to Obama though for having the better grammer and capitalization skills.

                        •  several points. (0+ / 0-)

                          in Obama's defense.

                          1. S 970 has an explicit provision that precludes using it as a war authorization: Section 2(8) in S. 970: "Nothing in this Act should be construed as giving the President the authority to use military force against Iran." K-L doesn't have that.
                          1. Back then when S.970 was introduced, I actually called out Obama, stating that we should not be giving excuses for Bush to use to attack Iran (I hadn't see the 2(8) provision then, in any case). I can't find the link for my comment, but I did so.
                          1. Last month, Obama came out with a statement which I think is a good one, maybe not on all claimed facts or rigor, but correct in terms of the key point highlighted below:

                          Obama's 9/12/07 speech

                             Iran poses a grave challenge. It builds a nuclear program, supports terrorism, and threatens Israel with destruction. But we hear eerie echoes of the run-up to the war in Iraq in the way that the President and Vice President talk about Iran. They conflate Iran and al Qaeda, ignoring the violent schism that exists between Shiite and Sunni militants. They issue veiled threats. They suggest that the time for diplomacy and pressure is running out when we haven't even tried direct diplomacy. Well George Bush and Dick Cheney must hear - loud and clear - from the American people and the Congress: you don't have our support, and you don't have our authorization for another war.

                          1. He said he would have voted against K-L on the same day of the vote.
                          •  So he was for it before he was against it .... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            campskunk

                            Good lord,not this again!

                          •  that's a dishonest claim by you. (0+ / 0-)

                            Obama was never for authorizing Bush invade Iran. He explicitly came out stating that Bush doesn't and won't have such an authorization.

                          •  Didn't say that, neither bill authorized such (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            campskunk

                            Both "Sense of the Senate' sections/resolutions called for economic sanctions (K/L didn't have anything else left in it after the Dems stripped it of 'military' options).

                            Obama's bill was broader reaching, so to compare apples to apples.... he supported economic sanctions against Iran when he was the co-sponsor and was against them in the K/L resolution.

                            Seems like the definition of "for them/against them" to me.  Many  us see the contradictions in his statement clearly.

                          •  S. 970, unlike K-L, rules out authorization (0+ / 0-)

                            for war. THAT's the key distinction.

                          •  Does it? (0+ / 0-)

                            It's only listed in "findings'....  the 'justification' part of a bill -- the 'conclusions' that the 'senators' agreed to.  Maybe they put it in the wrong place, I dunno, but if it was supposed to be 'actionable' it should have been put somewhere else.

                            Maybe you think the statement is sufficient to keep Bush from bombing Iran? I don't.  It's just rhetoric and ineffectual rhetoric at that. That LIEberman had the military provisions stripped from his non-binding resolution was a defeat for their side.  Given the realities of our numbers in the Senate, I'm frankly surprised we got them removed.

                            Webb believes that Bush already has self-appointed authority to do just about whatever he wants in the ME.  s970 didn't do anything to change that.  K/L didn't do anything to make it "more" or "less" likely either.  

                            Passing Webb's amendment (S.759 ) would specifically prohibit using funds to "from being obligated or expended for military operations or activities within or above Iran's territory...."

                            As of this morning, there is still only one co-sponsor -- Hillary Clinton.  Why hasn't Obama or one of these others railing about K/L cosponsored THAT one?

                          •  that's what hillary sees that obama doesn't. (0+ / 0-)

                            she's looking down the road. she's got the tactical skills and the strategic smarts to deliver the goods. she's not thinking like a senator does anymore. the american public doesn't understand how you jockey for position in a deliberative body. it makes for a poor resume as an executive.

                            we can't afford to lose another election. that's why my money's on hillary.

                            Hillary 2008 - Flying Monkey Squadron 283

                            by campskunk on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 09:10:50 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site