Statement of Hillary Rodham Clinton on the Kyl=Lieberman Amendment
Submitted by joandarc on September 30, 2007 - 7:46pm.
Democratic politics
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=284561&&
Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment
Wed, Sept 26, 2007
Earlier today, I voted for a non-binding resolution that designates the Iranian Revolution Guard as a terrorist organization. The Revolutionary Guards are deeply involved in Iran's nuclear program and have substantial links with Hezbollah.
I voted for this resolution in order to apply greater diplomatic pressure on Iran This resolution in no way authorizes or sanctions military action against Iran and instead seeks to end the Bush Administration's diplomatic inaction in the region.
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. While the United States has spurned talks, Iran has enhanced its nuclear enrichment capabilities, armed Iraqi Shiite militias, funneled arms to Hezbollah and subsidized Hamas, even as the government continues to damage its own citizens by mismanaging the economy and increasing political and social repression.
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.
This legislation reaffirms my policy of engagement and refers specifically to the statement of Defense Secretary Gates who said that "diplomatic and economic means" are "by far the preferable approach" for dealing with the threat posed by Iran.
In February, after troubling reports about the possibility of military action against Iran, I took to the Senate Floor to warn that President Bush needs Congressional Authorization before attacking Iran. Specifically, I said it would be a mistake of historical proportion if the Administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further and explicit Congressional authorization. Nor should the President think that the 2001 resolution authorizing force after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, in any way, authorizes force against Iran. If the Administration believes that any use of force against Iran is necessary, the President must come to Congress to seek that authority.
Nothing in this resolution changes that.
it's not one bit more reasonable than I found it the first time I read this statement by senator clinton
Oppose all dumb wars of choice!...without
exception.
Hazelnuts in honey = food of the gods! Just a little treat my daughter brought back from her trip to Italy for us. YUM!
These aren't the brand she brought us, but I just found these online:
http://shop.vivande.com/product.sc?categoryId=7&productId=19
A search for "hazelnuts in honey" also turns up all kinds of interesting recipes, like this
http://www.allbakingrecipes.com/baking-recipes/cheesecakes/hazelnut-honey-cheesecake.php
and this
http://www.martindwyer.com/m/recipes/recipe.php?f=001399.html
Fun stuff!
makes for sweetness and light. Thanks
You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.--J. V. Marley
Hazelnut recipes are great, but double posts are just an oops.
You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.--J. V. Marley
is the VERY BEST Gelato , 'Italian "ice cream"'!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.slowtrav.com/italy/caffes/gelato.htm
Been there, done this!
http://www.slowtrav.com/photos/showphoto.php?photo=97&cat=508
Has anyone tried tempura green tea ice cream? I always get it when I go to Japanese restaurant without honey mmmmmmmmmmmm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fried_ice_cream
And just green tea is great...
never heard of that! but I did some reaserch on it
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/10/12/deepfried-cocacola.html
It might taste similar that is with honey. I usually get it without honey so it's not too sweet because green tea is usually not sweet and the fried part is what makes up for the sweetness.
It's like you are eating a fozen-creamy green tea wrapped in fried pancake... When I ate it for the first time I thought I was in heaven. You are eating cold and not so sweat with something warm and a little bit crunchy/sweat at the same time. The taste and texture is a great combo...
Also, fried ice cream comes in different flavors even in red bean ice cream...
But I prefer green tea.... ow boy now I want to get me some lol.
Frangelico!
Oppose all dumb wars of choice!...without
exception.
But I think it's entirely possible that Hillary voted exactly the way Wes advised. Why? Well, Jon Soltz was on Olberman not too long ago supporting the Bush administration's calling this group a terrorist organization as a way to impress on Iran the seriousness of the situation. And in the Oxonian(?) talk Wes spoke about Iranian officials he met not believing the US would attack them. Wes has talked tough toward Iran pretty consistently lately, I think in an effort to convince them Bush and Cheney are serious about attacking them. Similar to Gary Hart's essay. In addition, this vote gives the US another stick to hold over Iran when diplomacy does take place. (the next Democratic administration) Well, I think it's worth considering the possibility.
I find it impossible to believe that Wesley Clark would advise any congressional to advocate placing another country's entire official military force on the state department's official terrorist list...their troops on the ground in Cheney's cross-hairs
I'm no expert, but I would guess that would be a
violation of international law.
no flames
Oppose all dumb wars of choice!...without
exception.
is just one small part of the Iranian military. From what I've read, they ARE the ones fomenting unrest in the ME. However, to what degree, I do not know. Ask Richard Clarke.
Wes Clark for Vice President or Secretary of State 08
That's what was placed on the US State Dept's official terrorist list, based on what I read when the "non-binding" resolution was released, and that's what Hillary says in her statement - not exclusively their Qud Forces or merely the force leaders who are proven antagonists.
And btw, we're actually the ones fomenting unrest in the middle east. Lest we forget.
Oppose all dumb wars of choice!...without
exception.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/iran/qods.htm
Following some paragraphs on the entire unit:
Foreign Operations
The foreign operations by the Guardians, which also encompass the activities of Hizballah and Islamic Jihad – are usually carried out through the Committee on Foreign Intelligence Abroad and the Committee on Implementation of Actions Abroad. As with agents of Ministry of Intelligence, Pasdaran personnel operate through front companies and non-governmental organizations, employees or officials of trading companies, banks, cultural centers or as representatives of the Foundation of the Oppressed and Dispossessed (Bonyade-e- Mostafazan), or the Martyrs Foundation.
The Qods (Jerusalem) Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is responsible for extraterritorial operations, including terrorist operations. A primary focus for the Qods Force is training Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups. Currently, the Qods Force conducts training activities in Iran and in Sudan. The Qods Force is also responsible for gathering information required for targeting and attack planning. The Pasdaran has contacts with underground movements in the Gulf region, and Pasdaran members are assigned to Iranian diplomatic missions, where, in the course of routine intelligence activities they monitor dissidents. Pasdaran influence has been particularly important in Kuwait, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates.
The largest branch of Pasdaran foreign operations consists of approximately 12,000 Arabic speaking Iranians, Afghans, Iraqis, Lebanese shi’ites and North Africans who trained in Iran or received training in Afghanistan during the Afghan war years. Presently these foreign operatives receive training in Iran, Sudan and Lebanon, and include the Hizballah ["Party of Allah"] intelligence, logistics and operational units in Lebanon [Hizballah is primarily a social and political rather than military organization]. The second largest Pasdaran foreign operations relates to the Kurds (particularly Iraqi Kurds), while the third largest relates to the Kashmiri’s, the Balouchi’s and the Afghans. The Pasdaran has also supported the establishment of Hizballah branches in Lebanon, Iraqi Kurdistan, Jordan and Palestine, and the Islamic Jihad in many other Moslem countries including Egypt, Turkey, Chechnya and in Caucasia. Hizballah has been implicated in the counterfeiting of U.S. dollars and European currencies, both to finance its operations and to disrupt Western economies by impairing international trade and tourism.
The Office of Liberation Movements has established a Gulf Section tasked with forming a Gulf Battalion as part of the Jerusalem Forces. In April 1995 a number of international organizations linked to international terrorism -- including the Japanese Red Army, the Armenian Secret Army, and the Kurdistan Workers' Party -- were reported to have met in Beirut with representatives of the Iraqi Da'wah Party, the Islamic Front for the Liberation of Bahrain, Hizballah, Iran's "Office of Liberation Movements," and Iran's Guardians of the Revolution. Tehran's objective was to destabilize Arab Gulf states by supporting fundamentalists with military, financial, and logistical support. Members of these and other organizations receive military training at a Guardians of the Revolution facility some 100 kilometers south of Tehran. A variety of of training courses are conducted at the facility for fundamentalists from the Gulf states, Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia, and Lebanon, including naval operations, mines, and diving operations in a special camp near the Orontes River.
The State Department asserts that Iran supports the Lebanese Hizballah, as well as Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas, groups labeled as foreign terrorist organizations that are active in Israel.
Hizballah Deputy Secretary-General Naim Qasim appeared to confirm the importance of Iran to his organization during a late-July ceremony in the town of Tulin, when he said "We must stand side by side against the Israeli enemy, because Lebanon's strength is part of Syria's strength, and Iran's support and [Hizballah's] support for Palestine are an honor for us."
In January of 2002 - Israeli forces seized a Tonga-registered vessel, and found onboard 83 canisters - which were hidden in crates and among other cargo - and filled with 50 tons of weapons - including surface-to-air missiles and anti-tank mines. Intelligence reports indicate the likely involvement of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in facilitating this large arms transfer to other terrorist groups.
Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2003: Islamic Revolutionary Guard and Ministry of Intelligence and Security personnel were involved in planning and support for terrorist acts. Although Iran detained al-Qaida operatives in 2003, it refused to identify senior members in custody. Tehran continued to encourage anti-Israel activities, both operationally and rhetorically, providing logistic support and training to Lebanese Hizballah and a variety of Palestinian rejectionist groups.
During 2003, Iran maintained a high-profile role in encouraging anti-Israeli activity, both rhetorically and operationally. Supreme Leader Khamenei praised Palestinian resistance operations, and President Khatami reiterated Iran’s support for the “wronged people of Palestine” and their struggles. Matching this rhetoric with action, Iran provided Lebanese Hizballah and Palestinian rejectionist groups -- notably HAMAS, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine–General Command -- with funding, safehaven, training, and weapons. Iran hosted a conference in August 2003 on the Palestinian intifadah, at which an Iranian official suggested that the continued success of the Palestinian resistance depended on suicide operations.
Iran pursued a variety of policies in Iraq aimed at securing Tehran’s perceived interests there, some of which ran counter to those of the Coalition. Iran has indicated support for the Iraqi Governing Council and promised to help Iraqi reconstruction.
Shortly after the fall of Saddam Hussein, individuals with ties to the Revolutionary Guard may have attempted to infiltrate southern Iraq, and elements of the Iranian Government have helped members of Ansar al-Islam transit and find safehaven in Iran. In a Friday Prayers sermon in Tehran in May 2003, Guardian Council member Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati publicly encouraged Iraqis to follow the Palestinian model and participate in suicide operations against Coalition forces.
Iran is a party to five of the 12 international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism.
Anonymous sources in the Israeli defense establishment said that Iranian involvement in terrorism in the occupied territories has increased. These activities mostly are run through Hizballah in Lebanon and, between 2002 and 2004 Hizballah had tripled or even quadrupled the scope of its operations in the territories. The threat to Israel from rockets provided to Hizballah by Iran and Syria has grown, both in range and quantity. Iran is supplying an array of rockets by air and sea and overland from Syria, while both countries are providing logistical support and training as well. Israeli Defense Forces intelligence chief Major-General Aharon Ze'evi-Farkash said on 2 September 2004, "we are dealing with a threat on the northern front. That also means Hizballah and Iran, as well as Syria."
Wes Clark for Vice President or Secretary of State 08
our CIA operations, tripling and quadrupling day by day.
Now having been placed on Iran's retaliatory Terrorist List along with the U.S. military.
In no time at all, they'll surely be sitting down for talks over tea. /snark)
Oppose all dumb wars of choice!...without
exception.
From NPR:
The Evolution of Iran's Revolutionary Guard
by Renee Montagne
Morning Edition, April 5, 2007 · Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was once a member of his country's Revolutionary Guard, the force that recently captured 15 British sailors in the waters between Iran and Iraq.
Before announcing the Britons' release Wednesday, Ahmadinejad pinned a medal of bravery to the chest of the Revolutionary Guard commander who oversaw their capture.
Analyst Bruce Reidel was a CIA officer focused on Iran when the Revolutionary Guard established itself as a major force.
"The Iranian Revolutionary Guard was formed in May 1979, almost immediately after the revolution," Reidel said. "It was set up by the then Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini to be the guardian of the revolution."
Now associated with the Brookings Institutions Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Reidel says the ayatollah wanted protection against threats by Iran's regular army, loyal to the previous government, and foreign intelligence agencies, like the CIA.
"Iranian's had a vivid memory of 1953, when a coup had been launched against a much-less revolutionary government … and put the shah back in power," Reidel said. "I think you can effectively characterize them [the Revolutionary Guard] as the hardliners within the Islamic Republic."
Mohsen Sazegara helped found the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and says the group was originally intended to be a popular force like the Swiss army, the National Guard in the United States or Vietnam's Viet Cong.
"The Revolutionary Guard was supposed to be a people's army," Sazegara said. "It was supposed to mobilize the people of Iran in front of any foreign attacks to Iran."
In 1980, when Iran and Iraq went to war, the Revolutionary Guard acted as human waves in some of the toughest battles. Hundreds of thousands of fighters perished.
At the same time, the Guard began to export the ideals of the revolution throughout the Middle East. The Quds Brigade acted as its external affairs branch, helping set up Hezbollah and developing other ties with Shia extremist groups.
"The Iranian Revolutionary Guard, for more than 25 years, has been involved in shipping weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon, including [the] missiles used against Israeli cities last summer," analyst Reidel said. "They've also been involved in shipping arms to Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the Palestinian occupied territories."
Former Revolutionary Guard leader Sazegara says he became disillusioned with the organization as they gained more power within Iran. What bothered him most, he says, was when the Revolutionary Guard turned its attention to making money.
"The Revolutionary Guard started to intervene in economic and financial affairs in Iran," Sazegara said. "And, gradually, they have established about 100 companies all around the country, in construction, in trading, in manufacturing
"And now, the Revolutionary Guard is something really strange. It's an organization which is like a political party because they have 80 seats in the parliament, they have more than half of the members of the cabinet. They are like the KGB because they have secret services, and the act like that. And they are like a cartel or trust."
Sazegara, now a visiting researcher at Harvard University, was imprisoned in Iran in 2003 for criticizing the government.
"You can call the Revolutionary Guard a kind of government inside the government of Iran," he said.
Wes Clark for Vice President or Secretary of State 08
with Israel being allowed, exclusively, to possess nuclear weapons, do you think? Or the fact that we financed Iraq in the war against Iran?
Oppose all dumb wars of choice!...without
exception.
I can't watch the Oxonian Society film because of dialup, and I don't get MSNBC. However, I still think that this Lieberman instigated legislation is provocative and does not work to bring about better relations with Iran. That does not mean that I approve or defend any anti-American agenda that is being fomented by Iran.
Considering who was posting what in the CCN's discussion threads, I suspect that the General will support Senator Clinton's vote. I have no idea, nor will I ever know, if General Clark advised Senator Clinton regarding this move.
There are other people with other ideas, I just happen to agree with them. I really don't believe we need another war.
You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.--J. V. Marley
Well, because Lieberman is a sponser, I am very
suspicious, too. And, of course I don't know
either whether Wes gave her any advice on this,
but I was just basing my comment on what I have
observed lately. I can't think that either Wes
or Hillary wants another war right now. And
God knows I don't. And I don't know what you
mean by who is posting what, but then I often
seem to miss what is going on between the lines.
LOL
In his Oxonian speech iirc, Wes was talking about getting tough with Iran, but in talks with top-level officials, both sides. The shuttle diplomacy he has always talked about. And he told his story about being part of that team in negotiations with Milosevic. He said Milosevic didn't believe he would get bombed either.
But I don't think Wes would ever leave our diplomatic policy in the hands of one Joe Lieberman, do you?
Oppose all dumb wars of choice!...without
exception.
I can't believe anyone would entrust him with
anything of consequence, but Wes is always
looking for what works, no matter who brings it
up. What I was thinking of in the Oxonian talk
was when Wes happened to meet the Iranian
officials when he was waiting in the office of
another Middle Eastern minister and he decided
to take advantage of the situation to find out
whether Iran was taking the Bush threats
seriously. They weren't.
it's probably what spurred the story about Milosevic.
What Wes would do but bush won't...give a talented negotiating team a jet and tell them not to come home until they get results.
Apparently it's too late. Bush/Lieberman rules.
Oppose all dumb wars of choice!...without
exception.
he and edw may be the only 2 about whom I have ever discerned REAL dislike; not disagreement but dislike.
Wes often says that as the greatest power in the world, the US possesses the carrots and sticks necessary to work the diplomacy with Iran. So why do we need this "amendment" to help with diplomacy especially when our leader thinks diplomacy is only for friendly nations anyway?
So I guess it comes down to whether calling part of the government of Iran a terrorist organization is a bargaining gimmick or a hammer of some kind. Haven't we pretty much concluded that calling Iran a member of "the axis of evil" has been completely counterproductive?
I would love to have Wes' take on this too. Look, we are Wes' core constituency on this blog. Shouldn't we be able to get his view on this easily enough? Somebody???-......at the next Wes sighting or something?
Wes is in ore,was, and sfo, meeting folks, selling/signing books.
ATTENTION LEFT-COASTERS: PLEASE ASK WES QUESTIONS.
joan, would you like to formulate some questions?
Joan,
If not mistaken, Kathy B very much hopes to have that opportunity at the S.F. book signing.
Oppose all dumb wars of choice!...without
exception.
I'll see him in Seattle Tuesday evening for the book-signing, but at those things people don't often get much "face time."
San Francisco includes a reception. Maybe there'd be an opportunity at that point.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Don't settle for less.
Make America All It Can Be!
...at 5:38 MDT Monday, eight minutes after the Rockies and Padres kick off. I hope the pilot will keep us informed.
I'm very eager to meet any other Clarkies in the area who will be there. After the signing, some quaffing should be in order. Maybe Wes will need a Sam Adams after the event. I head back home at 3:15 p.m. PDT Wednesday.
That's all assuming that my bad legs and body riddled with osteoporosis will let me hoist my suitcase into the trunk of my car, LOL.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Don't settle for less.
Make America All It Can Be!
I was at the Barnes and Noble book signing and
there was a question and answer period. That's
when we all heard Wes say that there will be
strikes on Iran!
So Stan, we are depending on you to get his take.
Make sure someone is taking notes. I want all the
nuance.
I'm not sure I want to put him in what might be an awkward position, at least not in a public way.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Don't settle for less.
Make America All It Can Be!
Stan,now that we know he's "uneasy", I hope you
will press him on the hows and whys of that. We
need to hear more, although I think we've been
pretty good at reading between the lines.
Nevertheless!
at UCLA (and if any of the 80 others I emailed show up, they'll be ready to ask questions too...) ;P
Will do what I can.
However, it should be noted that the US policy states that we do not negotiate with terrorists. IRG, no matter what we think of them, is a powerful force in Iran. Cutting off dialogue with them seems like anything but a diplomatic move.
Anyway, I firmly believe that when General Clark endorses someone he will not undercut their position. Thus, I expect that he will support Senator Clinton's vote.
You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.--J. V. Marley
Wes may give some tepid support, I can't see that he would think this is a good thing what with Bushco's track record. You can't trust them an inch. No benefit of the doubt!
"Fooled me once, shame on you; fooled me twice,....can't get fooled again"
The resolution is certainly not promoting the idea of diplomacy, but heck, I'm no diplomat so what do I know.
Wes Clark: Soldier, Scholar, Statesman.
Well, I hope he doesn't say he agrees if he
doesn't. Maybe it's just me, but I can't believe
that Wes would say he believes something if he
doesn't. I can see him declining to answer or
trying to explain her reasoning, but if he does
something like that we'll know he doesn't agree.
We'll also know that he would decline to be part
of her administration, I would think.
after some research on this the other day-- is the decision to declare any entity an FTO (and the Hizbollah TV station was recently added to the list as well) it must first pass through three parties before Congress votes -- Sec of State KindaUseless Rice, who sees Terraists in her sleep; Sec of Treasury, in that the decision per these amendments involves primarily economic sanctions -- outside of providing ordinary sticks and stones to throw; and Attorney General, who is supposed to be looking out for the legality of our positions nationally vis a vis internationally... heh.... "supposed to".
After that it goes to Congress for approval, right?
If Wes were on an inside WH track- (big If) his advise could nip this kind of thing in the bud at the SOS level before Congress even had a chance to weigh in after the fact. At this point he can only use public forum to voice his opinion, but I don't think he would back down on stating his feelings on something this close to his heart-- endorsement or no endorsement. He may "temper" it, but I don't think he would skirt or avoid the issue either, if asked. And I'm willing to be wrong about that! I'll give it a whirl Friday if possible.
I'd be curious to get Wes's POV on just what percentage of this resolution he sees as blustering, rattling, posturing, muscling threat ... and what percentage as an economic restraint tool. And if the removal of the military clauses clarified or muddied the waters.
...was only getting tired of this finger-tapping
thing I do.
(don't settle for one of his 'Peyton' analogies tho, if you can help it - how many fumbled passes is one candidate premitted before getting benched?)
Oppose all dumb wars of choice!...without
exception.
I've heard different opinions on what they actually are. From what I understand of it, they've evolved, but they still aren't the whole of Iran's Armed Forces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Iran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Revolutionary_Guards_Corps
I noticed that the IRGC page says they are the largest branch in their entire Military. But, with the numbers that are supplied on the Military of Iran page, they are only 125,000 compared to the Army with 350,000. If that's true, then their Army is more than twice the size of the IRGC.
>Both fall under the commands of the Ministry's of Defense & Armed Forces<
I think that is key in this argument.
Lieberman of course, knows this.
Oppose all dumb wars of choice!...without
exception.
Its what I expected.
"We need a higher standard of leadership." Wes Clark
Ruth just heard him say that on the radio.
Good to have that cleared up.
When a caller expressed concern about Hillary's vote Wes just made it perfectly clear on Goyette's show he does not support the Kyl amendment. He said the danger is the threat of force without dialog. He did not support Hillary's vote.
"Some of them put on their cowboy boots and put their feet up on the desk." -Wes Clark
That I was wrong about Wes agreeing. Even
gladder to see I was right about him actually
saying he disagreed.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13487
People want leadership......and in the absence of leadership, they will listen to anyone who walks up to the microphone.
Lewis Rothschild, in "American President"
A Thousand times a thousand stars, Ruth and all
you reporters out there
I knew the General would not weasel on this
because he's just not a weasel-never was, never
will be and never could be! Thank you General
Clark
Wes had to be at the very least "uneasy" with
this one. "Uneasy". That's a great and tactful
word and on a scale of scale of 1 to ten, I am
uneasy at about 9.9!
Yes......heard it loud and clear
Whew.
People want leadership......and in the absence of leadership, they will listen to anyone who walks up to the microphone.
Lewis Rothschild, in "American President"
..I held my breath while the question was being asked.
;P
People want leadership......and in the absence of leadership, they will listen to anyone who walks up to the microphone.
Lewis Rothschild, in "American President"
never doubted...just getting very very impatient to hear this.
I would love to hear the General elaborate in a public venue, but probably that is just too much to expect now.
At least we don't have to fill in this blank any further.
'Wesley Clark is in the world...'
you get the picture
Oppose all dumb wars of choice!...without
exception.
...however was afraid he'd feel obliged to give cover to..... :x
People want leadership......and in the absence of leadership, they will listen to anyone who walks up to the microphone.
Lewis Rothschild, in "American President"
no doubt that statement was 'tempered' considerably - luv to hear the original off-stage response
'...you got a mic in your skirt, Gert?'
Oppose all dumb wars of choice!...without
exception.
So much for having her ear on matters fp.
"That's once..."
(as pardner used to say)
Oppose all dumb wars of choice!...without
exception.
do I feel like I've seen this movie before- PNAC II: The Sequel or How To Make the Same Mistake Over and Over To The Point Where Concerned Onlookers Have No Choice But To Ask Themselves: Is She Currying Favor With The MID, or, Is She A Hawk?
love, Inquiring Mind
--------------
Steve Clemmons on this (my bold, her bad):
If all parties were above board, this statement could calm some nerves, but the problem with the current administration is the duplicity and overreach of the Executive Branch. Bush's team concocted the anti-democratic notion of the "unitary executive" and has been disdainful of Congress' constitutionally specified authorities and responsibilities.
This administration has stretched the authorizations Congress has given it in the past -- and assembled rationalizations for action, like abandoning the Geneva Conventions, while Cheney staffers like David Addington stated "[Congress] doesn't have a vote" in what the administration was doing.
So, even if one takes Hillary Clinton's assertion at her word that she was not giving permission for the Kyl-Lieberman Resolution to be twisted into Congressional authorization for an Iran War, it doesn't mean that other Senators saw it that way -- and certainly doesn't mean that the administration won't spin the Resolution in that direction.
What is needed from Senator Clinton now is leadership in passing an explicit Senate resolution forbidding Bush from taking action against Iran without clear advise and consent from Congress -- a Resolution that would move the President's actions into the light instead of the murkiness where the possibility of an Iran action now rests.
That kind of resolution is needed. Some have been kicking around the Congress -- but if Hillary Clinton, right now the front runner to be the next President of the United States -- adopted this effort as her own, many would come to have greater trust in the kinds of rationales she provided in her statement above.
-- Steve Clemons
of kyl/lieberman?
Is rather like slamming the barn door after
the horse has escaped isn't it?
What are the odds she could get it passed?
Oppose all dumb wars of choice!...without
exception.
Hillary was pushing just this resolution (W
has to come to the Congress for any action against
Iran) but it seemed to have died a quiet death.
Does anyone know what happened to that effort?
...heard hillary's speech at the pulpit. Didn't know there was a resolution attached to it. Seriously thought she was merely posturing.
I'd like to believe I missed the resolution part given the fact that she has, in the meantime, signed a resolution that does not sound, anyway you slice it, as if it would meet the terms of the Geneva-Accords.
"non-binding" or otherwise
Oppose all dumb wars of choice!...without
exception.
I don't think its surprising Wes said he was uneasy with the resolution. He didn't go into any specifics other than to say we need more diplomacy and less threats. I would point out the following as a further defense of Hillary's vote:
from the resolution:
(13) Since May 2007, Ambassador Crocker has held three rounds of talks in Baghdad on Iraq security with representatives of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
(14) Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress on September 10, 2007, with respect to these talks, stating that ‘‘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. The impression I came with after a couple rounds is that the Iranians were interested simply in the appearance of discussions, of being seen to be at the table with the U.S. as an arbiter of Iraq’s present and future, rather than actually doing serious business . . . Right now, I haven’t seen any sign of earnest or seriousness on the Iranian side’’.
(15) Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress on September 11, 2007, stating that ‘‘[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’’.
Insert prior to section (6) the following:
(16) Ambassador Crocker further testified before Congress on September 11, 2007, with respect to talks with Iran, that ‘‘I think that it’s an option that we want to preserve. Our first couple of rounds did not produce anything. I don’t think that we should either, therefore, be in a big hurry to have another round, nor do I think we should say we’re not going to talk anymore . . . I do believe it’s important to keep the option for further discussion on the table.’’
(17) Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated on September 16, 2007 that ‘‘I think that the administration believes at this point that continuing to try and deal with the Iranian threat, the Iranian challenge, through diplomatic and economic means is by far the preferable approach. That’s the one we are using . . . we always say all options are on the table, but clearly, the diplomatic and economic approach is the one that we are pursuing.’’
___________________
Just In the last few days there have been news reports from Maliki about Iran seriously beefing up border control. Also in the couple weeks there seems to be an improvement on the nuke front as far as reports from the IAEA, but still work to do there. Anyways, I think that without having more direct information its understandable for everyone to be uneasy. But I think this resolution may have been justifiable to get Iran's attention based on their resistance to efforts by us and the Europeans to have serious talks.
If the Democrats do not push to get diplomacy going we surely will end up a bigger mess. It seems Hillary believes this resolution was needed based on information she has.
I am not going to debate this one anymore cause thats all the more I have to say. Sorry if I caused some ripples.
"We need a higher standard of leadership." Wes Clark
been that impressed by him either. He is experienced though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Crocker
"We need a higher standard of leadership." Wes Clark
her goal was to increase the possibility for diplomatic action then I would advise her that this Lieberman amendment has strengthened the hard-liner Iranians (our hard liners too) and weakened the case of the pro-western moderates. Naming a country's military as terrorists would not be a logical way to build better relations. Thus, I am left wondering what is she thinking.
According to the divisions of authority in Iran, the guards indeed have control over the entire missile program; however, some of the moderate leaders in Iran belong to those same guards. This latest action has certainly closed the door to reasoned dialogue to them.
Recently this forum has gone over and over the meaning of this resolution to bush's case. For me to accept that Democrats and republicans who voted against this piece of legislation because they are stupid is simply too much to swallow. When foreign policy wonks question the motives of handing bush additional authority, I'll be sticking with them.
You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.--J. V. Marley