1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

Kyl /Lieberman bill 3017- War with Iran

Discussion in 'Fred's House of Pancakes' started by mojo, Sep 25, 2007.

  1. mojo

    mojo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    4,519
    390
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Three
    http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/issues/kyllieberman.html
    (3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;
    (4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;
     
    #1 mojo, Sep 25, 2007
  2. Devil's Advocate

    Devil's Advocate Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    922
    13
    1
    Location:
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    Fianlly a Democrat that gets it!

    Oh wait, the DNC kicked out Lieberman.
     
    #2 Devil's Advocate, Sep 25, 2007
  3. Darwood

    Darwood Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    5,259
    268
    1
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    Maybe I'm misreading this, but it sounds like what were already trying to do.
    It doesn't say anything about attacking Iran directly or declaring war on Iran, does it? So what's the point? Just to reaffirm our resolve? Or does it actually provide a legal basis to expand the conflict accross the border? (Serious question, I don't know).
     
    #3 Darwood, Sep 25, 2007
  4. mojo

    mojo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    4,519
    390
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Three
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Sep 25 2007, 04:18 PM) [snapback]517584[/snapback]</div>
    http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/25/webb-kyl-lieb-iran/
    On the Senate floor today, Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) made an impassioned appeal to his fellow senators, declaring that the Lieberman-Kyl amendment on Iran should be “withdrawn” because the “proposal is Dick Cheney’s fondest pipe dream.” Webb cautioned that the “cleverly-worded sense of the Congress” could be “interpreted” to “declare war” on Iran.
    “At worst, it could be read as a backdoor method of gaining Congressional validation for military action, without one hearing and without serious debate.”
     
    #4 mojo, Sep 25, 2007
  5. fshagan

    fshagan Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2005
    1,766
    4
    0
    Location:
    Noneofyourbusiness, CA
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Sep 25 2007, 02:18 PM) [snapback]517584[/snapback]</div>
    A "sense of the Senate" resolution doesn't have the force of law, but some of the anti-war members of Congress feel that it might grant the Administration the "moral authority" to go after Iranian agents who are in Iraq killing our soldiers. We already kill or capture them, but the concern is that a Congress that agrees Iran is a problem might lead people in the Administration to believe that there is support for excursions into Iran or invading Iran.

    There is some talk about clarification of the resolution to make it clear that the Congress only supports actions within the current theater of war, and not into Iran. I don't think the resolution is helpful in the least, for all the reasons the anti-war people cite, as well as one of my own: resolutions such as this only serve to solidify the Iranian President's position in Iran.

    We should protect our soldiers within Iraq, but should not do anything that appears to be going after Iran. Let France, Germany and Isreal deal with the Iranian threat.
     
    #5 fshagan, Sep 25, 2007
  6. mojo

    mojo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    4,519
    390
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Three
    No coverage of this on the TV news.
    http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13015.html
    "In the 11th hour, the Lieberman-Kyl measure was pulled, so that proponents could give the language a little touch-up. It came back today, and passed fairly easily.

    The Kyl-Lieberman Iran amendment — which ratchets up the confrontation with Iran by calling for the designation of its armed forces a terrorist organization responsible for killing U.S. troops — just passed overwhelmingly, 76-22.

    To be sure, the revised version is preferable to the original. Two offending paragraphs, in particular, were omitted entirely, including the notion that “it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies.â€

    Indeed, the original resolution also included language that the Senate would “support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments,†as part of our drive to “combat†Iran’s “destabilizing influence.â€

    If the Senate is on board with this, and it clearly is, it’s hardly a stretch to think Bush could use this as cover to confront Iranian forces militarily under the guise of counter-terrorism."
     
    #6 mojo, Sep 26, 2007
  7. Darwood

    Darwood Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    5,259
    268
    1
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    "If the Senate is on board with this, and it clearly is, it’s hardly a stretch to think Bush could use this as cover to confront Iranian forces militarily under the guise of counter-terrorism."

    IF the public were entirely behind such a move.
    As of now, polarization will prevent it from being used in such a wordsmithing, devious manner. It would take smoking gun type proof and a national unity not seen since 9/11 to use this as legal backing to attack Iran.
    Otherwise, to use this as a "declaration of war" against Iran would clearly be disengenious and result in a massive public outcry and probable impeachment.
     
    #7 Darwood, Sep 26, 2007
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)