Daily Kos

Sen. Clinton Co-Sponsors Anti Iran-Attack Bill With Sen. Webb

by Hornito

Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 03:49:30 PM PDT

From Senator Clinton's Website today:

October 1, 2007

Senator Clinton Announces Co-Sponsorship of Webb Legislation Prohibiting the Use of Funds for Military Operations In Iran

Reiterates that President Bush Needs Congressional Authorization Before Attacking Iran

Washington, DC – Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton today announced that she is co-sponsoring legislation introduced by Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) that prohibits the use of funds for military operations against Iran without explicit Congressional authorization (S. 759).

More after the jump

Senator Clinton - who has been at the forefront of calling on President Bush to seek authorization from Congress before taking military action against Iran (Read the Senator's Speech on the Senate Floor from February) – said today, "In February, I took to the Senate floor to warn that President Bush needs Congressional Authorization before attacking Iran. Given recent reports about Administration military planning toward Iran and to ensure that Congress plays a proper role in the authorization of any potential military force, today I have added myself as a co-sponsor of a bill introduced by Senator Jim Webb which prohibits the use of funds for military action in Iran without authorization by Congress."

Senator Clinton added, "Iran has gained expanded influence in Iraq and the region as a result of the Bush Administration's polices which have also rejected diplomacy as a tool for addressing Iranian ambitions. I continue to support and advocate for a policy of entering into talks with Iran, because robust diplomacy is a prerequisite to achieving our aims. I also support strong economic sanctions against Iran, including designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization, to improve our leverage with the Iranian regime."

"Any military action against Iran will have an immediate impact on our troops serving in Iraq, our allies in the region as well as long term U.S. strategic interests. Senator's Webb's legislation insures that Congress will play its constitutional role of providing proper oversight over the Administration's policy toward Iran. Congressional oversight and debate can help avoid the mistakes and blunders that have afflicted U.S. policy in Iraq. We cannot allow recent history to repeat itself."

Link: http://clinton.senate.gov/...

NOTE: It appears to be an amendment to H.R.3222, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, of 2008. In checking the Thomas Senate bill list for today, it's not posted as yet. I sure would like to see the exact language in the bill/amendment.

Well, this will go a long way to making up for her vote on Kyl-Lieberman. Still, it seems she's parsing here, but I guess this is as good as we can expect during a campaign season.

Now, if Hillary keeps this up, and truly stands against further warmongering by this regime, I will have to reappraise my "non-support" of her candidacy. Another thing, this surely must piss off AIPAC. Go girl!

Poll

Does Sen. Cinton;s co-sponsorship of this bill change your feelings towards her candidacy?

36%39 votes
6%7 votes
40%43 votes
16%18 votes

| 107 votes | Vote | Results

Tags: Iran, AIPAC, Hillary Clinton, Jim Webb (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 120 comments

  •  OH WAIT... (5+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    taylormattd, Turkana, lgmcp, GoldnI, Greasy Grant

    You mean Hillary doesn't suck??

    The Republican Party: the party of greed, hate, anger, fear, waste, death and destruction!

    by ultrageek on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 03:41:39 PM PDT

  •  Positive Steps. (8+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    taylormattd, Hornito, campskunk, lorelynn, lgmcp, cpresley, A Mad Mad World, la urracca

    Hopefully this thing will pass.

    I honor that service, and I respect [McCain's] many accomplishments, even if he chooses to deny mine. Obama 6/3/08

    by AUBoy2007 on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 03:43:43 PM PDT

  •  Frankly, I am quite surprised by this.... (9+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    taylormattd, Sandy on Signal, lorelynn, Asinus Asinum Fricat, lgmcp, GoldnI, Timbuk the Second, phoenixdreamz, Greasy Grant

    I have been solidly "anti-HRC" up to now, and still have my reservations, but this goes a long ways towards my "re-consideration" of her as a candidate of choice for me.

    ..better that money be spent in the U.S. building windmills than squandered in the ME for Bush-McCain to tilt at them. -andydoubtless

    by Hornito on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 03:44:10 PM PDT

  •  Tips, comments, mojo, flames?? n/t (29+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    oldpro, taylormattd, Sandy on Signal, DaleA, litigatormom, AUBoy2007, DianeNYS, Turkana, Lepanto, lorelynn, swissffun, Jay Elias, Asinus Asinum Fricat, lgmcp, Marcus Tullius, kck, bonesy, MarketTrustee, worried dem, cpresley, Reel Woman, GoldnI, ibonewits, indy2dem, james risser, phoenixdreamz, Niniane, Greasy Grant, Berkeley Vox

    Be nice.....

    ..better that money be spent in the U.S. building windmills than squandered in the ME for Bush-McCain to tilt at them. -andydoubtless

    by Hornito on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 03:44:53 PM PDT

  •  clear as mud (21+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    RichM, Hornito, jxg, cookiesandmilk, Pithy Cherub, John Driscoll, Hillbilly Dem, William Domingo, Lepanto, lgmcp, Marcus Tullius, worried dem, pkbarbiedoll, Reel Woman, A Mad Mad World, james risser, thursdays child, RIP Russ, Greasy Grant, CeeusBeeus, Tyrannocaster

    This statement is still a problem and gives Bush plenty of leeway:

    I also support strong economic sanctions against Iran, including designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization, to improve our leverage with the Iranian regime."

    She should not have voted for Kyl-Lieberman last week.  

    I got the news today

    by Sandy on Signal on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 03:45:51 PM PDT

  •  You know, when she made her famous speech (8+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    oldpro, litigatormom, Bouwerie Boy, kck, pkbarbiedoll, cpresley, phoenixdreamz, Berkeley Vox

    to AIPAC, she quite famously said:

    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 have said for a very long time, no option can be taken off the table.

    But she is much less famous for having said this:

    There are no easy answers to the complex situation we face today. I have advocated engagement with our enemies and Israel's enemies because I want to understand better what we can do to defeat those who are aiming their hatred, their extremism, their weapons at us. And I believe we can gain valuable knowledge and leverage from being part of a process again that enables us to get a better idea of how to take on and defeat our adversaries.

    This is a worthy debate to have in our country today. There are many, including our President who rejects any kind of process of any sort of engagement with countries like Syria and Iran. I do believe that that is certainly a good faith position to take, but I am not sure it is the smartest strategy that will take us to the goals that we share.

    In the real world, she did indeed say that "nothing could be taken off the table" but she then turned around and rapped Bush for taking diplomacy off the table. That never gets mentioned in the complaints.

    The Watermelon - a comedy about how really weird things can happen! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDimaB95fK0

    by lorelynn on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 03:46:31 PM PDT

  •  Love the bill (14+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    taylormattd, Hornito, tabbycat in tenn, John Driscoll, AUBoy2007, Simplify, Turkana, Bouwerie Boy, lgmcp, worried dem, cpresley, phoenixdreamz, Niniane, Greasy Grant

    But it's a shame that it's necessary.

    It's like introducing a bill to state that the sky is blue.

    You can't reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into. - Jonathan Swift

    by A Mad Mad World on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 03:46:47 PM PDT

  •  Good news and I welcome it, (8+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Hornito, Sandy on Signal, John Driscoll, Lepanto, rsie, Reel Woman, ibonewits, james risser

    but that's some pretty gnarly "parsing":

    I continue to support and advocate for a policy of entering into talks with Iran, because robust diplomacy is a prerequisite to achieving our aims. I also support strong economic sanctions against Iran, including designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization, to improve our leverage with the Iranian regime.

    Yes, I'm sure if Iran designated any of our military units, say perhaps the Navy Seals, as a terrorist organization and claimed the right to capture, torture, and kill them on sight, that would do WONDERS to improve their "leverage" with us.  Yeah, that would really enhance the robustness of their diplomacy.

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 03:47:12 PM PDT

  •  General query... (19+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Hornito, jxg, Sandy on Signal, Pithy Cherub, Hillbilly Dem, AUBoy2007, Simplify, Lepanto, dzhessi, Asinus Asinum Fricat, lgmcp, Marcus Tullius, rsie, james risser, thursdays child, RIP Russ, Greasy Grant, CeeusBeeus, Tyrannocaster

    ...is anyone else cynical enough to consider the possibility that this bill is a cost-free ploy, knowing that it will not pass by enough to surpass a veto?  In other words, she can gain the cred for trying to prevent an attack on Iran without actually preventing a possible attack (which I still believe will not happen).  

    The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

    by Jay Elias on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 03:47:31 PM PDT

    •  Hmm (4+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Hornito, cpresley, Reel Woman, thursdays child

      Can Bush veto a bill that states the obvious: that the Constitution requires Congressional authorization for a new war?  What will he say, that he can start new wars without a Congressional declaration or authorization?  Because Iran does not fall under the terms of either the original AUMF or the Iraqi AUMF.

      "Mom, did you hurt yourself, or are you yelling at the TV again?

      by litigatormom on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 03:51:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  He can veto any bill he wants... (1+ / 0-)

        ...that's actually in the Constitution.

        The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

        by Jay Elias on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 03:53:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think he cares (0+ / 0-)

        He'll just say it's part of the "war on terra" that we're already fighting.

        The real reason the Government wants to have a war in Iraq is TO HAVE A WAR IN IRAQ - Keith Olbermann

        by thursdays child on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 04:10:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  prove that iran does.... (0+ / 0-)

        ...not fall under the aumf; or, more accurately, that this now-identified terrorist group within iran does not.

        hint: it does...or, it will be argued it does/did after the bombs fall.

        by james risser on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 04:18:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Note, I am not quite ready to change my.... (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          james risser

          sig line yet... I need to see more. Much more.

          ..better that money be spent in the U.S. building windmills than squandered in the ME for Bush-McCain to tilt at them. -andydoubtless

          by Hornito on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 05:07:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Well Congress says they are terrorists and so (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Sandy on Signal, james risser

          does Hillary, so Bush doesn't have to prove anything.  He is free to fire at will.

          Thank you so much Hillary.

          by Fools on the Hill on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 05:50:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I haven't seen that drawn out... (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          james risser

          ...that, now that they're 'officially' a terrorist organization rather than the military of a sovereign nation, the Republican Guard could fall under the AUMF as it's already been adopted.  That would make Webb's bill that much more important.

          However, from what I see in Clinton's statement, there's nothing that would prevent a "hot pursuit" or "imminent danger" justification for up to 60 days of (limited) bombing under the War Powers Act.

          And, once that's had its incendiary effect upon Iran -- precipitated a military response of some kind -- it will be child's play for the Cheney/Bush noise machine to create another bum's rush of Congress into giving them a formal "authorization" for further (widening, never-ending) military engagement against Iran.

          There's nothing in Sen. Clinton's statement that indicates she'd have a problem with the above scenario.  To say:  

          "President Bush needs Congressional Authorization before attacking Iran."

          ...sounds like she presupposes the need to attack Iran.

          There's less than meets the eye in her signing on to Webb's bill.

          by eztempo on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 06:59:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  no... (0+ / 0-)

            that, now that they're 'officially' a terrorist organization rather than the military of a sovereign nation, the Republican Guard could fall under the AUMF as it's already been adopted.  That would make Webb's bill that much more important.

            it is the exact opposite: that is why webb is too late, post kyl-lieberman, to have any effect whatsoever on the bush crime family and their attack on iran.

            webb would have to completely disavow, dismantle the aumf---a task that may not even be possible at this point!

            webb-clinton is simply window-dressing and a fraudulent attempt to un-ring the bell that kyl-lieberman rang...

            by james risser on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 07:10:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  "Resolution" vs. "Statute"? (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Hornito

              I don't know the hierarchy of what trumps what, but Webb's amendment will be law, if passed and signed or vetoed and over-ridden, with specific prohibitions:

              "...no funds appropriated or otherwise made available by any Act, including any Act enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act, may be obligated or expended for military operations or activities within or above the territory of Iran, or within the territorial waters of Iran..."

              Whereas the Kyl-Lieberman measure is a vaguely written "Sense of the Senate resolution."

              Near as I can tell, Kyl-Lieberman was part of the drumbeat, the building of the 'bum's rush' of Congress into supporting military action against Iran.  The Webb Amendment -- if it becomes law -- will be a speed bump on the drive to support a fait accompli, if and when it comes into play, in my opinion.

              by eztempo on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 07:36:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  War Powers Resolution of 1973 (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            eztempo

            Section 2(c) provides:

            The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to  introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations  where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the  circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2)  specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by  attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed  forces.

            So Bush needs a specific statutory authorization to go into Iran, unless there is a "national emergency" resulting from an "attack upon ... [U.S.] armed forces."  That's more than just the "Quds" force giving Shi'a insurgents a few IEDs (assuming that's actually happening).

            Section 4(a)(1) provides that within 48 hours of ANY introduction of U.S. armed forces into Iran without a declaration of , Bush would have to report to the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate a written report setting forth:

            (A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
            (B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
            (C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

            This report is required regardless of whether there is already statutory authorization for the military operation. Indeed, a specific explanation of any extant authorization is required.

            Section 5(b) provides:

            (b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States....

            So, Bush would have to leave after 60 days (or 90 days in some circumstances) if no statutory authorization was forthcoming.  However, regardless of the provisions of Section 5(b), under Section 5(c), Congress has the power to order a troop withdrawal immediately in any case where the military action is not the subject of a war declaration or a specific statutory authorization:

            (c)Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

            Section 5(c) is the most important provision; in the absence of a war declaration or specific statutory authorization, Congress can pass a resolution that requires the President to remove such forces WITHOUT waiting for the sixty day period in Section 5(b) to elaspe.

            The Webb-Clinton bill sets the predicate for such a resolution because it says in plain English that there is currently no statutory authorization for Bush to go into Iran. It takes the legs out from under any effort by Bush to argue that the extant AUMFs authorize him to go into Iran.  Even if he claims that U.S. troops have been attacked by Iraqis -- and note that the WPR refers to attacks on U.S. troops, not the supplying of IEDs to Shi'a insurgents -- Congress can order him to get the troops out without waiting sixty days.

            Now, will Bush try to argue he already has statutory authorization anyway?  Sure.  But from a political perspective, Congress's interpretation of its own authorization makes it clear that Bush's interpretation is illegitimate. And recall that the Supreme Court has rejected Bush's prior attempts to claim that the AUMF authorized Bush's attempts to detain alleged "terrorists" indefinitely without charges.

            So I am not sure that Kyl-Lieberman, odious as it is, helps Bush very much.  Legally.  I concede that Bush doesn't care much about legality.  That's why the REAL solution to our long national nightmare is to impeach the bastard.

            "Mom, did you hurt yourself, or are you yelling at the TV again?

            by litigatormom on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 09:20:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think you have a Diary, here. (0+ / 0-)

              And I hope you put it up soon.

              by eztempo on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 12:36:25 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  ...certainly you've seen the confusion, here... (0+ / 0-)

                ...and, tho your acknowledgment that, "...will Bush try to argue he already has statutory authorization anyway?  Sure," and "...recall that the Supreme Court has rejected Bush's prior attempts to claim that the AUMF authorized Bush's attempts to detain alleged 'terrorists' indefinitely without charges" is a thin analogy to the issue of the President's power, as Commander In Chief of our Military's adventurism; I see you have important hairs to split, when it comes to the legal constraints on our Cheney/Bush Administration's ability to commit the next generation to an American never-ending conflict in the Middle East.

                by eztempo on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 12:47:53 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  And, 5(c) raises the question... (0+ / 0-)

                  What happens if Congress, by "concurrent resolution" WITHDRAWS its "statutory authorization" of military hostilities, i.e.: the AUMF? ...as some in Congress have been threatening?

                  by eztempo on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 12:59:32 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  If it's THAT obvious, resolution IS cost free (0+ / 0-)

        since it restates the law.

        However, the fact is that the IWR makes the attack on Iran to protect Iraqis legally plausible.  The resolution is worthless unless it cleans up that mistake.

        "For a man who will turn 72 this month, he's a surprisingly immature politician--erratic, impulsive and subject to peer pressure"-Newsweek.

        by Inland on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 05:50:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  At least she's on record against it. Of course, . (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Jay Elias

      any little "thing" happens, and she could flip in a second.

      ..better that money be spent in the U.S. building windmills than squandered in the ME for Bush-McCain to tilt at them. -andydoubtless

      by Hornito on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 03:55:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  exactly... (5+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Hornito, John Driscoll, Hillbilly Dem, thursdays child, RIP Russ

      ...and when the attack DOES happen, the bush crime family will simply use the aumf, the kyl-lieberman amendment, the fact that webb-clinton may not pass, and his article ii authority to claim he has every right to bomb iran when he sees fit, pursuant to these three or four arguments.

      the whole thing is a tremendous circle-jerk...

      by james risser on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 03:58:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, I still don't think it will happen... (4+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Hornito, eztempo, james risser, RIP Russ

        ...but I also see this kind of bill sponsorship as a simple and cheap way of purchasing the affection of certain demographics who are not disposed to support Sen. Clinton's Presidential ambitions.

        The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

        by Jay Elias on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 04:00:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Geesh, amd I getting LESS cynical in my...... (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Jay Elias

          old age, or are you overly cynical at a much younger age? LOL! Regardless, cynicism is good.

          ..better that money be spent in the U.S. building windmills than squandered in the ME for Bush-McCain to tilt at them. -andydoubtless

          by Hornito on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 04:14:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  further... (0+ / 0-)

          ...i believe that she knew/knows that kyl-lieberman is all the bush crime family needed to seal the deal...along with the aumf.  i am certain that the justice department has already drafted the arguments by simply cutting-and-pasting the arguments they used from the first fisa hearing that argued the aumf and article ii authorized illegal wire-tapping.

          similarly, once kyl-lieberman identified this nebulous iranian group as a terrorist organization, the aumf and article ii kicked in.

          this webb-clinton merely little bit of pre-primary pablum; it is closing the door after the pigs have left the barn...

          but, as you correctly identify, it does give the clintonistas the opportunity to run around in a circle and shout how 'caring, bright, articulate' the queen really is...

          by james risser on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 04:14:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Heh... (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            james risser

            ...like I said, I don't believe the US actually intends to attack Iran.  And if the Bush administration did want to, I think they would have a harder time persuading the military to approve it than they would Congress.

            But this is also typical of all Congresspeople.  Sponsor a bill that you know won't pass, because then you can say you sponsored it.

            The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

            by Jay Elias on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 04:18:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  you give them too much credit... (3+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Hornito, jxg, Sandy on Signal

              a harder time persuading the military to approve it

              there was no lack of talent for fire-bombing the vietnamese, using chemical weapons in fallujah, torturing innocent people in afghanistan, in iraq, in black-sites; i seem to recall seeing a video from inside the enola gay as well.  seemed to look rather easy to push a button.  

              iran will be bombed during a new moon from about 20,000 feet by people who think it is there duty to carry out their orders, regardless of the moral issues.  they will see nothing but a screen or a monitor with coordinates, a ceremony back on an aircraft carrier, a promotion, and a job at united airlines or boeing once they retire from service.

              by james risser on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 04:26:51 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Oh, I don't think they won't do it... (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                james risser

                ...because they have a moral objection.  My view, which every military analyst I've seen agrees with, is that attacking Iran will cost us thousands of soldiers lives in Iraq and fail to achieve any military objectives.  And that I do think that sailors and airmen care about.

                But I haven't a doubt that the military would fire-bomb all of Iran if ordered ordinarily.

                The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

                by Jay Elias on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 04:46:43 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The question is: can they foot-drag enuf? (0+ / 0-)

                  Can a hesitant Joint Chiefs slow or impede a provocative action against Iran until political opposition gels on Capitol Hill?

                  Events may move too fast for that to happen.

                  by eztempo on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 07:11:55 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  The military has to follow orders that is (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                james risser

                their duty.  If Bush says bomb, they bomb.

                by Fools on the Hill on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 05:52:32 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Agree totally (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      james risser

      That was my very first thought. She had already voted for something that would pass and now she's doing something symbolic (because it will be vetoed) and meaningless to try to appease the left.

      RIP #21 Sean Taylor

      by RIP Russ on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 04:37:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Congressional Authorization ... (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Lepanto, thursdays child, Greasy Grant

    This just means that she wants to be able to authorize Bush to start a war with Iran, just like she did with Iraq.

    by John Driscoll on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 03:49:24 PM PDT

  •  The still doesn't stop GWB... (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Hornito, eztempo, lgmcp, thursdays child

    ...from sending the "Great White Fleet" of soldiers into Iran, at which point there's no saying no to funding an invasion. The arguments would be exactly the same as currently reign over the Iraq debate.

    Her previous yea on a bill that could potentially set some terrible dominoes tumbling cannot be forgiven for a bill that would be toothless in action.

    Where are we going? And why are we in this handbasket?

    by kafkaesque on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 03:49:35 PM PDT

  •  So Hillary isn't for attacking Iran? (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Marcus Tullius, Niniane

    I could have sworn I saw more than a few posts here that said so. Man that is suck a relief.

    This liberal supports Hillary Clinton.

    by Christopher Liberal on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 03:50:42 PM PDT

  •  good (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Hornito, Marcus Tullius, cpresley

    for her. Hopefully the other candidates will co-sponsor.

    John McCain, 100 years in Iraq "fine with me"

    by taylormattd on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 03:51:43 PM PDT

  •  She Knows It Won't Pass (6+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    John Driscoll, Hillbilly Dem, thursdays child, RIP Russ, CeeusBeeus, Tyrannocaster
    The Grande Masque goes on-she know this bill can't get to the floor but she has to appear to do something in the face of all who ask, why does the funding bill get to the floor.  I don't know that I am a Kossack yet and may never be, but fellow adherents to the Constitution-judge action, ignore empty words and gestures.

    by OldCDR on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 03:52:10 PM PDT

  •  How is this not triangulation? (9+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    jxg, Sandy on Signal, John Driscoll, eztempo, james risser, thursdays child, RIP Russ, Greasy Grant, Tyrannocaster

    she votes to call the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist org. which gives Bush carte blanche to attack Iran, then comes out with this.
    It looks like she's playing both sides of the issue.

    "The original Star Trek is the Word." Bones: Chapter 1, verse 1

    by steelman on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 03:53:11 PM PDT

    •  who cares (6+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Hornito, hopscotch1997, Marcus Tullius, cpresley, Niniane, Greasy Grant

      who she calls a terrorist? If this passes Bush can't attack Iran, unless he does so in violation of the constitution.

      John McCain, 100 years in Iraq "fine with me"

      by taylormattd on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 03:54:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Then why did she vote with Lieberman? (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        steelman, james risser

        To triangulate with the war-mongering right.  I'll never support someone so unauthentic.

        The sun is setting on Saxby Chambliss. It's Knight-time!! - Rand Knight, Georgia's U.S. Senate candidate

        by pkbarbiedoll on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 03:57:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  . (3+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          taylormattd, campskunk, pkbarbiedoll

          triangulatingcorporatistwarmongeringneoconliebercratbitchpandererphonyAIPACshill

          (deep breath)

          corporatewhoreselloutMurdochcronycuckoldliarinevitable.

          Did I miss any?

          : )

          blind idealism is pure folly when you are standing on a precipice ~edrie

          by Marcus Tullius on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 04:02:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  so are we talking (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Marcus Tullius, cpresley

          about who we are support in the primary now? Because that's not the comment I was responding to.

          I was pointing out that if this legislation passes, it makes Kyl-Lieberman wholly irrelevant because it prohibits war with Iran.

          John McCain, 100 years in Iraq "fine with me"

          by taylormattd on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 04:05:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm referring to Clinton's lack of authenticity (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Sandy on Signal, steelman

            Of voting on an amendment to characterize Iran's guard "terrorists" one week, then voting against military action against Iran the next.

            Lieberman's bill is another piece in Cheney's war puzzle.  Hillary voted yes to appear more attractive to blood thirsty centrists.    Then a week later she votes yes on the Webb bill, to appear more attractive to doves.  

            She's doing what she does best.  And I want no part of it.

            The sun is setting on Saxby Chambliss. It's Knight-time!! - Rand Knight, Georgia's U.S. Senate candidate

            by pkbarbiedoll on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 04:09:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  if it passes (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            steelman, thursdays child

            Kyl - Lieberman already passed and spelled out calling the Iraqi security a terrorist organization which gives Bush a way around congressional approval. She voted for that bill and now  seems to have some remorse over it, but her bill might not pass.  

            In fact I am quite skeptical of anything of substance the Dems put up will be passed.  The last week has proven that quite clearly.

            I got the news today

            by Sandy on Signal on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 04:11:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  not really.... (0+ / 0-)

            ...as explained below in thread with mr elias.

            by james risser on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 04:32:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  how so? (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              james risser

              I read all of Jay's comment's and I don't understand how that changes anything I said in my parent comment.

              John McCain, 100 years in Iraq "fine with me"

              by taylormattd on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 04:50:17 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  did you read mine to him... (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                taylormattd

                ...about the aumf, kyl-lieberman, and article ii of the constitution being enough to form a good argument for bombing this rather nebulous now officially labeled 'terrorist group' inside iran?

                by james risser on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 04:53:02 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  yes but (0+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  james risser

                  if this resolution passes, both Kyl-Lieberman and the AUMF would be irrelevant. This resolution prohibits war with Iran unless Bush asks for and receives congressional authorization first. It doesn't matter what has been passed in the past, this resolution would be the current authority in place.

                  Here is an extreme example that makes the point: it would be as if Bush started bombing Germany and Japan and cited to the 1941 congressional authorizations of war against japan and Germany, even though the wars were officially declared over.

                  (Now, I am, of course, putting aside the fact that Bush actually thinks he has the inherent authority to bomb whoever the hell he wants regardless of what Congress does or doesn't do.)

                  John McCain, 100 years in Iraq "fine with me"

                  by taylormattd on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 05:03:56 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  i don't agree... (2+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    taylormattd, steelman

                    if this resolution passes, both Kyl-Lieberman and the AUMF would be irrelevant. This resolution prohibits war with Iran unless Bush asks for and receives congressional authorization first. It doesn't matter what has been passed in the past, this resolution would be the current authority in place.

                    first, the webb bill would have to specifically and with extreme clarity de-authorize the aumf.  this makes the presumption that such a withdrawal of the aumf would be possible; but, assuming it is, this webb bill would have to do so.

                    second, bush still has article ii powers and he has argued that those alone may have been enough to bypass fisa, ignore international treaties, and things we do not even know about!

                    third, the aumf was aimed at fighting terrorist groups---it did not say 'terrorist groups except those in iran'.  since kyl-lieberman added the iranian group to the group of state-department sanctioned terrorist groups, the initial aumf applies!!!!

                    i believe nothing of anything i am writing, but, i am certain that 3/4s of the bush crime family's justice department does, and that is all that matters...

                    i hope that clarifies it for all...

                    by james risser on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 05:32:22 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  well I do (1+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      james risser

                      need to see the language of the resolution, which I am too lazy to look at right now, but I'm pretty sure I still disagree with you.

                      If the resolution flat out prohibits war with Iran unless Bush first comes to Congress, anything and everything those other resolutions is superseded.

                      John McCain, 100 years in Iraq "fine with me"

                      by taylormattd on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 05:42:26 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  your persistence is admirable... (1+ / 0-)

                        Recommended by:
                        steelman

                        ....but i think you are wrong...  

                        the aumf stands, regardless of webb---even if it passes, unless it specifically withdraws the aumf in its entirety.  and, arguments can be made that the aumf can not be rescinded at this point.

                        kyl-lieberman and aumf and article ii is all bush needs.  that is why all those who voted for kyl-lieberman were so fucking stupid---yes, including the queen, but, not limited to the queen.

                        Authorization for Use of Military Force
                        September 18, 2001

                        Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]

                        107th CONGRESS

                        JOINT RESOLUTION

                        To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

                        Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

                        Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

                        Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

                        Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

                        Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

                             Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

                        SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

                             This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

                        SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

                             (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

                             (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

                                   (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

                                   (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

                        by james risser on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 06:07:47 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

      •  the "if" is the key (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        RIP Russ

        Kyl-Lieberman did pass, this likely won't. Locking the barn door after the horses have gone from my point of view.

        by fat old man on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 04:38:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Under this, Bush CAN ATTACK Iran, if: (0+ / 0-)

        The Webb Amendment actually says Cheney/Bush CAN attack if they use one of these pretexts:

             (1) Military operations or activities to directly repel an attack launched from within the territory of Iran.

             (2) Military operations or activities to directly thwart an imminent attack to be launched from within the territory of Iran.

             (3) Military operations or activities in hot pursuit of forces engaged outside the territory of Iran who thereafter enter into Iran.

             (4) Military operations or activities connected with the intelligence or intelligence-related activities of the United States Government.

        Plenty of room to chase "terrorist" trainers to their Iranian home bases.

        by eztempo on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 07:51:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Of course she is... (0+ / 0-)

      she mis-calculated about this issue.

      by CeeusBeeus on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 03:54:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This one week after she capitulated w/ Lieberman (7+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Sandy on Signal, steelman, james risser, thursdays child, RIP Russ, Greasy Grant, Tyrannocaster

    Her support of the Webb bill only proves what everyone already knows: She's queen of triangulation.  Never get a straight answer from her, always deception and pander.  

    The sun is setting on Saxby Chambliss. It's Knight-time!! - Rand Knight, Georgia's U.S. Senate candidate

    by pkbarbiedoll on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 03:54:15 PM PDT

  •  This just looks like politics (6+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Sandy on Signal, Lepanto, james risser, RIP Russ, royalscam, Tyrannocaster

    to me. If she was serious about this she wouldn't have voted for the Kyl-Lieberman bill.

    The real reason the Government wants to have a war in Iraq is TO HAVE A WAR IN IRAQ - Keith Olbermann

    by thursdays child on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 03:56:18 PM PDT

  •  Barn door... (7+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Hornito, Pithy Cherub, steelman, ibonewits, james risser, thursdays child, RIP Russ

    Horse escaping.  All that...

    by RichM on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 03:58:01 PM PDT

  •  Day late & dollar short but I support the thought (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Hornito, Marcus Tullius, james risser, RIP Russ

    Just as soon as the Ossetia war broke out, Dubya canceled a trip to Atlanta . . .

    by Bill White on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 04:03:58 PM PDT

  •  Not like Bush will sign it anyway (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    steelman, thursdays child

    And it won't get the veto proof majority either...so that damn bill calling an arm of the Iranian Govt a terrorist organization will still be in full effect.

    OH-16: John Boccieri will finally end 36 years of Regula Rule.

    by marcvstraianvs on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 04:07:20 PM PDT

  •  Webb's R and R Bill got 57 votes (2+ / 0-