Incredibly, there is still a great deal of misconception and mytyhology being spun about legislation dealing with Iran.  Senator Hillary Clinton's Presidential campaign has spun many of them.  Specifically, these myths are:

  1.  Kyl-Lieberman was substantially the same bill as S.970, which was co-sponsored by Chris Dodd and Barack Obama;
  1.  That Kyl-Lieberman encouraged diplomacy instead of war-mongering.
  1.  That Senator Clinton's co-sponsorship of Webb's Iran amendment somehow balances out her vote for Kyl-Lieberman.

The record shows that Kyl-Lieberman is not only about bombing Iran, but keeping US forces in Iraq.

Below the fold I will debunk Myth #1.  Tomorrow I will turn to Myths #2 and #3.

Myth #1:  Kyl-Lieberman and S.970 are exactly the same or fundamentally the same piece of legislation.

Status:  FALSE.

S.970 is about diplomacy and international cooperation.  Kyl-Lieberman is about staying in Iraq and bombing Iran.

S. 970 has 4,180 words in total.

The Kyl-Lieberman amendment as passed contains 1,499 words.

Right away, that should tell you that S.970 is a much more comprehensive piece of legislation.

But, how much text do they actually share?

Fifty-seven words.

1.4% of the text of S.970 is found in Kyl-Lieberman.  A whopping
3.8% of the text of Kyl-Lieberman is found in S.970.

Ah, but you say, that language deals with the designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist entity--and that's the whole ball game, right?

FALSE.

Here is some language from S.970 that you won't find in Kyl-Lieberman:

(7) The United States should use all political, economic, and diplomatic tools at its disposal to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.

(8) Nothing in this Act should be construed as giving the President the authority to use military force against Iran.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.  That seems like a pretty big difference.  In fact, it's a gigantic difference.

You will also NOT find this lengthy block of text in S.970:

Iraq.

That's right.  S.970 doesn't reference Iraq once.  

Kyl-Lieberman uses the word "Iraq" or some derivation thereof 19 times.  

Kyl-Lieberman also has other language:

``[i]t is increasingly apparent to both coalition and Iraqi leaders that Iran, through the use of the Iranian Republican Guard Corps Qods Force, seeks to turn the Shi'a militia extremists into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests   and fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq''.

``Iran plays a harmful role in Iraq. While claiming to support Iraq in its transition, Iran has actively undermined it by providing lethal capabilities to the enemies of the Iraqi state''.

Iran has been intensifying aspects of its lethal support for select groups of Iraqi Shia militants, particularly the JAM [Jays al-Mahdi], since at least the beginning of 2006. Explosively formed penetrator (EFP) attacks have risen dramatically''.

. It is an accepted fact that most of the sophisticated weapons being used to `defeat' our armor protection comes across the border from Iran with relative impunity''.

. Many of the arms and weapons that kill and maim our soldiers are coming from across the Iranian border''

with respect to evidence of the complicity of Iran in the murder of members of the Armed Forces of the United States in Iraq, that ``[t]e evidence is very, very clear.

``[t]here has been no decrease in Iranian training and funding of illegal Shi'a militias in Iraq that attack Iraqi and Coalition forces and civilians . . . Tehran's support for these groups is one of the greatest impediments to progress on reconciliation''.

that ``[m]ost of the explosives and ammunition used by these groups are provided by the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force

I laid out the concerns we had over Iranian activity that was damaging to Iraq's security, but found no readiness on Iranians' side at all to engage seriously on these issues.

w]e have seen nothing on the ground that would suggest that the Iranians are altering what they're doing in support of extremist elements that are going after our forces as well as the Iraqis''.

that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;

   (2) that it is a critical national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;

There you have it.  Iran is killing US soldiers.  Iran is killing Iraqis.  Iran is the enemy.   Diplomacy isn't working.  We must structure our military plans around the mission of countering Iran.  

Boiled down to its essence, Kyl-Lieberman is a justification for:

  1.  Prolonging our stay in Iraq; and
  1.  military action against Iran

To say that it is the same as S.970 is more than a mere fib--it is a grotesque lie.

The Senators who foolishly voted for this piece of offal will now have to argue that they favor abandoning a 'critical national interest' by advocating that we withdraw troops from Iraq.  And, when the push for military action against Iran comes, they will have that laundry list of casi belli thrown back in their face.  

Somehow, I suspect that they'll lack the political courage to stop the IWR II.
Tomorrow, I will discuss in further detail Myths 2 and 3.

Note:  If you're looking to debate Barack Obama's statements on this, I'm not really interested in debating them.  Until his campaign responds appropriately to last night's fiasco, I am not going to advocate on his behalf.