Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment

[BootinUp]

Washington, DC � �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.�

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=284561&&

[Lucinda]

1. Thanks for that

I thought it was obvious but its good to see in her own words.
And its not gonna matter to some.

Luc

[Exultant Democracy]

2. "I voted for this resolution in order to apply greater diplomatic pressure"

Isn't that from her greatest hits album?

[Kagemusha]

6. Yes.

Sounds like her Iraq vote, word for word

[Tesha]

39. "I voted for war on Iran before I'll eventually promise to oppose it after it starts." (NT)

[Cameron27]

3. Thanks Jim,

I'll kick & rec, but I already know what the reaction will be.

[BootinUp]

4. as do I

;)

[Kelly Rupert]

5. Not that most the anti-Hillary forces will bother with this,

but K&R'd in hopes some of them will.

[RiverStone]

7. Nothing in this resolution changes that.� --- WTF???

Yea right!

She and et. al. that voted YEA cracked the door open another notch for BushCo to start another conflict. HRC assumes the current administration actually reads the legislation. Did not the IWR travesty teach her a damn thing? Obviously not.

There is no sensible spin Hillary supporters can place on this reckless vote, though alas HRC's lame excuses are a start (per this thread).

In 3 years, will the Kyle-Lieberman Amendment be part of the Iran War Apologist's repertoire? That is, assuming HRC apologizes this time.

:think:

[Forkboy]

8. This sounds eerily familiar.

[Nutmegger]

9. "I voted for this resolution so I can appear as being 'tough on terra.'"

There, that's what she really means.

[JanusAscending]

10. You said it !!!

Another Nutmegger in complete agreement!!

[Nutmegger]

19. I'm so tired of this "tough on terra" nonsense.

Tough on crime, tough on this, tough on that. I makes me want to puke. :puke:

How are things in your neck of the woods? :hi::hug:

[JanusAscending]

45. Kinda quiet up here!

We're getting ready to re elect our great Dem. team of Selectmen in Nov. Thomaston went Democratic for the first time in a looong time last election. As far as National politics up here, it's still pretty quiet. Not much Ct. can do to help until '08, then LIEberman can EAT DIRT !! (that's if we're still alive to see another election, thanks to the "traitor":nuke: :grr: :hi:

[Pierogi_Pincher]

22. Transplanted 'nutmegger' here.

I got so bummed out re: Lamont vs. Joke Lieman. Curse that.
Miss CT humongously; doesn't look like we'll ever get to go back. :cry:
P_P

[Nutmegger]

24. We all are.

It sucks, we all tried so hard to get rid of this bastard. Ugh... :puke: I just seen Ned Lamont at CCSU last week. He did a great job. All throughout the forum, I kept thinking what it would have been like seeing him on CSPAN on the Senate floor speaking truth to power. Instead my Senator puts up the pro-Iran war amendment. :puke:

Where abouts were you from? Do you think you'll make it back for a visit at least? :hi:

[Pierogi_Pincher]

25. You could inhale the delicious sea breezes

from our ol' stompin' grounds!;)
Yeah, we'll get back to visit someday, I guess. They say it's hard to recapture the way you remembered a place & times gone by if you try to relive it.
P_P

[Pierogi_Pincher]

26. P.S. Nite-nite! (or good morning!) I gotta hit the hay. n/t

[Canuckistanian]

11. Oh, well. As long as it's non-binding.

See, this way, no one can use it as an excuse to attack! They can't even use it as propaganda!

Therefore, it has NO SIGNIFICANCE whatsoever!

Boy, am I relieved.

[IndianaGreen]

14. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 laid the legal framework for our 2003 invasion of Iraq

Non-binding resolutions have been used by Bush as pretext to wage war.

[Pierogi_Pincher]

21. True. True.

You give him a silly little millimeter and ****'ll take a whole football field.
P_P

[BootinUp]

15. The significance

is that it should now be clear that Bush cannot get a resolution that includes any language about use of military instruments. Also that the Senate supports a diplomatic solution which includes economic sanctions.

[madrchsod]

17. bush can do what ever he wants to

because the senate and the house refuses to stop him. if he attacked iran they would do the same.

[BootinUp]

18. That may be, but it doesn't change what I said

He won't get a resolution for it. I think its unlikely even Bush has the stupidity to attack Iran with the current armed forces situation. Also Iran is not so close to having a nuke that they would be able to fly that excuse in the next year and half.

[eridani]

31. Who said anything about a ground invasion?

We still have plenty of planes and bombs.

[BootinUp]

33. Looks like you did.

[Lerkfish]

36. no, its clear that you cannot look at what has already happened and learn from it.

[RiverStone]

43. Amazing how folks can read entire different things

Into the same verbage...

Mike Gravel summed her vote up well here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-mike-gravel/hillary-war-with-iran-is_b_66505.html

[madrchsod]

12. this non binding resolution changes everything

the senate of the usa declared another countries army a terrorist organization thus rejecting the geneva convections. once again they walked into the trap laid out in plain sight.

[IndianaGreen]

13. Same crap that happened with Iraq, giving Bush the authority to wage war again!

Another fine example of Hillary's unsuitability for higher office, giving Bush the green light to do anything.

Hillary will do Israel's bidding on Iran, as she did on Iraq. What did we get out of that earlier fiasco other than 3,800 dead GIs and a million dead Iraqis?

Published on Friday, September 28, 2007 by CommonDreams.org

Democrats Were Charged To End A War, Not Start One

by Mike Gravel

Hillary Clinton was either misinformed or economical with the truth in Wednesday night�s debate when she responded to my challenge to her by saying the Senate�s resolution earlier in the day on Iran was designed to permit economic sanctions against individual members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.

She and her staff should know the United Nations Security Council on March 24 already slapped economic sanctions on individual Guard Members. Like the Red Army in China, Iran allows Guard commanders to own and run private companies. Security Council Resolution 1747, which the United States voted for, froze financial assets held outside Iran on the seven military commanders, including General Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr and six other admirals and generals.

I know of no law dictating the State Department must first designate individuals or groups as terrorists� before sanctions can be imposed on them. Dozens of countries have been under U.S. unilateral sanctions that are not designated as terrorist. The U.S. first imposed sanctions on Iran in 1979 over the hostages, not terrorism. The only possible purpose of the Senate resolution asking the State Department to designate the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization� is to set it up for military attack in George Bush�s war on terror.

As Virginia senator Jim Webb valiantly said in the Senate, the United States has never before designated the military services of a sovereign state a terrorist group. Indeed, though there is international dispute over the definition of terrorism, there is little disagreement on the legal point that terrorists are non-state actors who target civilians, i.e., never members of a government. Governments can be guilty of war crimes, but not terrorism. And the resolution talks about attacks on American troops, not civilians.

The hypocrisy of Hillary and the 75 other senators who called for more unilateral sanctions on Iran, was exposed Monday by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier who said, according to Spiegel Magazine, that American companies are violating existing U.S. sanctions by surreptitiously doing business with Iran through front companies in Dubai.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/27/4175/

[madrchsod]

16. he`s got a little over a year left

and no army to do it with

[burrowowl]

20. Looks like she is falling for

the same CRAP that got us into Iraq! and Obama skiddles out!
Go Kucinich! He knows what is up!

[JanusAscending]

46. Excuse me but,

He didn't "skiddle out" He was ill, and had to be up to making it through a debate. I know what his vote would have been. The same as the other "honest" Senators running, as well as John Kerry.

[emilyg]

23. Thank you.

[AtomicKitten]

27. I don't agree with the implications of this vote.

However, I am always interested in hearing what the candidates have to say on issues.

Thanks for posting.

[AtomicKitten]

32. and here's why:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1943839&mesg_id=1943839

[Egnever]

28. This legislation reaffirms my policy of engagement

Somehow I don't see how calling another countries army terrorists gets you any closer to engaging them in any kind of reasonable way.

[tkmorris]

29. "You are all terrorists. Now let's talk."

Does that make sense to anyone? Nope, me either.

I am so sick of this.......

[Lerkfish]

37. yup, in a nutshell, and I do mean "NUT"shell, you've explained it succinctly.

these people are NUTS and people who continue to apologize for them don't seem to recognize that.

[OneBlueSky]

30. hmmm . . . sounds like Hillary has been catching major shit for her vote . . .

so she had to issue a press release to "clarify" her intentions . . . forgive me if I don't believe a word she says . . . blah, blah, blah . . .

[MadHound]

34. Gee, and Hillary is calling out Obama and others for their lack of foreign policy experience

Yet here she goes and commits a huge mistake like this one, declaring a legitimate arm of the military of a sovereign nation to be a terrorist organization. All in light of all the implications that Bushboy's myriad executive orders, and the Patriot Act(which Hil also voted for) bring to bear on this issue. What a dumb ass move, almost as dumb as her IWR vote.

Here's an interesting link that goes into further detail. Apparently Bush is going to use this "non-binding resolution" as a wedge large enough to drive his Iranian war through. <http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1943512>

Can you say Shock and Awe II?

Once again, by being fooled by Bush, Hillary shows that she's simply too stupid to be president. One more reason that I won't vote for her.

[Lerkfish]

38. stupid or complicit? we report, you decide.

[Dawgs]

35. This is exactly how she defended her Iraq vote. She hasn't learned a fucking thing.

[tomp]

40. to say she hasn't learned implies...

...she didn't understand before. she knows exactly what she's doing and she's not on our side.

[Lerkfish]

41. that appears to be the case, by observing what she says.

[jmp]

42. Bush fooled her again.

Or was it Lieberman this time?

[polichick]

44. Nobody fools Hillary...

Her intelligence is one of her greatest assets ~ but I certainly do see a connection between Hillary and Lieberman.