So Why Did Dick Durbin Vote For It?

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday October 10, 2007 · 5:33 PM PDT

2007/10/10 · 17:33

I'll admit, I was spooked by the passage of Kyl-Lieberman amendment, mostly because I don't trust Lieberman. But, at this point, I don't see passage of this amendment as in an open invitation by Congress for Bush to wage war on Iran no matter how much Lieberman wishes it were so. And, I'd just like to know, can anyone tell me why, if this is a move toward war with Iran, did Dick Durbin vote for it?

Remember, Durbin voted against the Iraq war and has been quite vocal about our need to end the occupation. He said this of the amendment: "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." Indeed, he strongly criticized the language of the legislation, prompting Lieberman to delete two paragraphs. He's adamant that we not engage Iran militarily, arguing he is "opposed to military action in Iran." According to Jill Zuckman of the Chicago Tribune, Durbin like Clinton noted such actions would "require congressional approval." Durbin explained his vote in this way, "to say we need to pressure the Iranians to change their course in the Middle East and I want to do it by nonmilitary means, that's what my vote was all about."
According to Zuckman, Durbin said he "received assurances that the U.S. is not preparing to attack Iran from a source he respects, Defense Secretary Robert Gates: "He was as clear as could be that there are no plans for that to happen."' So, I just would like to know, given Durbin's record, why would he vote for this "sense of the Senate", labeling the IRG a terrorist group, if it indeed gives Bush the impetus to engage Iran militarily?

Link: http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/...

This content was created by a Daily Kos Community member.

Make YOUR voice heard!

Comments are closed on this story.