Why has no one but Hillary...

[CarolNYC]

signed on as a co-sponsor of Senator Jim Webb's bill (S.759) to prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran? Are they all itching to bomb Iran or what?

http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/justforeignpolicy.org/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=11120">Ask your Senators to co-sponsor the bill here

[SaveElmer]

1. Interesting question...

Would be interested to know as well!!

[durrrty libby]

2. K

[The_Casual_Observer]

3. Why needlessly give the gop bastards ammunition for the

"Hillary is soft on Terror" campaign?
They don't need her signature.

[rusty quoin]

4. I didn't know about this one. Thanks for posting it.

[TwilightZone]

5. But, she wants a war with Iran.

Or so I've been told.

Great bill. If we could get it through Congress, Bush would be forced to veto it, putting the focus squarely on him.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

100. Bill didn't want a war with Iran

I'm sure that she will listen to her husband?

[Tom Rinaldo]

101. If you believe that you might as well believe...

...that she had Vincent Foster murdered. At least in public Clinton takes the position that Iran must not be allowed to gain nuclear weapons - but the other leading Democratic candidates aren't saying anything different in that respect and all of them keep repeating that "all options are on the table". The major difference between the Democrats and the Republicans on this seems to be that Republicans aren't willing to put real diplomacy on the table. Bill Clinton had plans to attack North Korea if necessary but Bill Clinton also sent Jimmy Carter to North Korea to find a diplomatic alternative to war. Neither Clinton "wants" war with Iran. I can't say that about some Republicans.

And you are right. The goal here is to at least force Bush to veto this and bring the danger of him going to war with Iran out into broad daylight. At the very least we need to get a majority of the Senate on record against allowing Bush to go to war with Iran without Congressional consent.

[TwilightZone]

104. As you probably surmised, I meant it as sarcasm.

Hence, the "Or so I've been told."

Unlike (apparently) a lot of people, I think that Iran has the potential to be a threat. Not a direct threat, but a retaliatory one should we do something ridiculously stupid like bomb and/or invade them. They have a real army and significantly more resources than Iraq had, and their reaction would be far more assertive than that of their neighbors.

I certainly don't believe that Hillary wants a war with Iran, and I find it difficult to understand how people buy into that notion so readily (other than that it's a convenient kneejerk response to everything). She's a smart woman, and if elected, she's going to surround herself with smart people, people like Wes Clark. They'll give her good advice, and I have no doubt that she will pursue diplomatic solutions with Iran.

[Cameron27]

6. Good question

K&R

[ruggerson]

7. Hmmm. Factual evidence she does not want war with Iran.

Thanks for posting this.

[Texas_Kat]

8. Wanna bet this question never gets answered?

It's all about the politics of "I wanna be president" rather than doing the right thing.

Hillary (I personally believe with Wes Clark's advice) is keeping her eye on what's important.

Meantime, Obama, Dodd, Biden have all flunked the 'standup guy' test.

[gateley]

9. Hi - what's the "standup guy' test? (I'm serious. I don't know.) Thanks. nt

[Texas_Kat]

20. You're guy isn't a hypocrite

That's the first hurdle.

[gateley]

58. Okay - thanks. nt

[BootinUp]

11. but but

they voted against the non-binding bi-partisan K/L resolution. That wasn't politics there. :sarcasm:

[DFW]

90. Very probably

I have talked to Wes Clark about Iran, and he is quite convinced that
Cheneybush will take offensive military action against Iran if they
can possibly figure out how to sell it publicly, and even if not, they
might well do it anyway. He is far more concerned about this than anyone
in the MSM seems to want to get into, but if ANY of the Democratic candidates
is listening to Wes Clark, they will get told in no uncertain terms why he
thinks a Cheneybush-ordered attack on Iran is a likelihood. If Hillary is
listening, this is what Wes Clark will have told her. It's up to any particular
candidate to decide whom to listen to, and to what extent to take what they hear
as gospel, but whoever listens to Clark will hear this, and he tends to know
what he is talking about on matters military.

[sandnsea]

10. They don't have to prove they aren't warmongers

or rope some above reproach Senator into submitting a bill they can attach their name to for political purposes.

[Cha]

12. Exactly. n/t

[BootinUp]

13. Another ridiculous anti-Hillary post n/t

[BootinUp]

14. Are you against or neutral on this bill? n/t

[Texas_Kat]

15. Well, the Webb amendment has been around since March 07

I'd say Obama's and Dodd's first effort (s970) which included the same wording as K/L was where they really stood. The rest is just rhetoric -- including attacking HC.

The effort by Webb was ignored completely till HC signed on to it.

Where was your 'standup" guy? Too busy campaigning?

[sandnsea]

31. And she waited until now to join it?

But it's got nothing to do with cover. Riiight.

S970 is a good bill, exactly what needs to be done, has nothing to do with saber rattling at Iran. It's a LIE that it is the same as the recent Iran bill. Just another Clinton LIE. And shame on Wes Clark for supporting her or the Iran bill.

[Texas_Kat]

34. Note the excellent grammar and use of sentence caps in Obama's bill:

Unlike the K/l non-binding resolution,who's sentence structure, punctuation and capitalization leave a lot to be desired:
Yeah, they're different.... right.... don't believe 'your lyin' eyes'.

Obama and Dodd's Bill (s970)
....(8) The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) and the Secretary of the Treasury should place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224 (66 Fed. Reg. 186; relating to blocking property and prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism).
Findings and Resolution (Sense of Congress): (970)

K/L
. ... (5) that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224;

From the State Department (this is what EO 13224 is about - economics):
In general terms, the Order provides a means by which to disrupt the financial support network for terrorists and terrorist organizations by authorizing the U.S. government to designate and block the assets of foreign individuals and entities that commit, or pose a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism. In addition, because of the pervasiveness and expansiveness of the financial foundations of foreign terrorists, the Order authorizes the U.S. government to block the assets of individuals and entities that provide support, services, or assistance to, or otherwise associate with, terrorists and terrorist organizations designated under the Order, as well as their subsidiaries, front organizations, agents, and associates.

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/2002/16181.htm

Still waiting for Obama to cosponsor Webb's bill to get out of the committee it's been stuck in since March. Oops, it's the Senate Foreign Relations committee.... Obama's committee.

Guess he's having trouble multitasking....

BTW, when has Clark EVER been wrong about international policy and matters of war and peace?

Edited to add a link for those who've never read EO 13224

[sandnsea]

38. It's an anti-proliferation bill

Has a completely different purpose.

Clark was wrong when he recommended a resolution against Iraq.

[Texas_Kat]

43. You don't understand how bills are written I guess

Mostly they're in 2 parts..... rhetoric and actionable items.

The rhetoric part is the bill's 'justification'. The parts that matter are the "actionable items."

These are both part of the actionable items in each bill. The 'justification' is pretty much useless.

[ruggerson]

16. So if she co sponsors a bill that opposes war with Iran

she's posing as a dove solely for political purposes, but if she votes for Kyl/Lieberman she really IS warmongering for an Iranian conflict.

Uh.

Okay.

[Cameron27]

17. Yep, that's exactly the way it goes around here.

[ruggerson]

19. Unbelievable

n/t

[CarolNYC]

21. So you're saying she roped Senator Webb into this back in March so she could sign on now?

You mean she like had this in reserve all these months just in case she was going to need it for political purposes somewhere down the line? Man, she's pretty good at this....

And do you think the others shouldn't sign on to it?

[Texas_Kat]

27. If she's THAT good, she should be President

Prescience and all that.

[CarolNYC]

28. Yeah....

would be nice to have a President who could plan ahead like that for all possible situations...Kind of doesn't say a lot for poor Jim Webb to suggest that Hillary snookered him into this, though.

[Texas_Kat]

29. I dare anyone to suggest that Jim Webb gets 'snookered' into anything

He's Irish and has the red hair to prove it.

I LOVE Jim Webb.

[sandnsea]

36. Can he tell her no, she can't co-sponsor?

That would be political suicide, of course he can't. If you love Jim Webb, you ought to be repulsed that Hillary put him in such an awkward position by digging up this old bill to cover her ass.

[Texas_Kat]

40. It's still an active bill, Webb still supports it and Clark believes it's vital

so..... it hasn't grown moss or started to decay...... maybe you should look up stuff instead of just spouting talking points.

[ruggerson]

47. At least you're getting talking points

I'm just getting

<<< crickets >>>>

[sandnsea]

48. There are no talking points on the Webb bill

I'm done with your blather.

[ruggerson]

50. Great. Then blather a response to my question.

which was simple. I asked for some evidence. Your silence only indicates that I am correct in assuming that your entire assertion is based on nothing more than an emotional dislike of Senator Clinton.

[Clintonista2]

84. Arguments usually end up that way for SandnSea

She makes a false statement, is called out on it, then says "I'm done with this" and leaves with her tail between her legs.

[DURHAM D]

102. He sure got snookered by Senator Warner recently.

He got played like a cheap yo-yo and his freshman status was painfully obvious.

[Texas_Kat]

115. I also note that Sen. Warner is retiring.....

coincidence? :shrug:

[sandnsea]

32. Apparently, even worse

She didn't care about the bill at all back in March, and just hitched her wagon to him when she realized she was in trouble on Iran. She uses people, just like she stayed with Bill to use him for her political career. It's so fucking obvious.

[ruggerson]

33. Can you give us some evidence for your hypothesis?

Something concrete other than your visceral dislike of the woman.

[Texas_Kat]

35. When did Obama, Dodd et al START caring?

<crickets....>

[sandnsea]

39. January 2007

When the correct bill to address Iran was introduced.

[Texas_Kat]

41. The 'correct' bill ...

says who? Who wrote it? What does it say? What's the Senate bill number.....?

[ruggerson]

42. CAN. YOU. GIVE. US. SOME. EVIDENCE?

or are we to assume that this is assumption on your part because you dislike Mrs. Clinton so?

[incapsulated]

55. Your sig line is hillarious, btw

zomg, that bitch Hillary just used poor innocent Bill for... 33 years, just so she could one day take his old job.

I mean where do you guys come up with this shit?

[superkia]

18. Wouldnt they have to submit a bill or vote to give funds for war?

If so wouldn't this be just trying to look tougher than you are or wasting time? I could be wrong here, but I did think that they had to get the funds, I didn't know it was the other way around where you vote for no funds before anyone even asks for it. I would rather they spent the time working on an important thing like HR333 for impeachment. Why is it that only Kucinich has spoke up about impeachment, where are the other candidates that are supposed to represent the American people? I guess there is no reason for impeachment, I will be waiting for an answer.:eyes:

While I'm here, why did she look at the evidence like Kucinich and vote for the war in Iraq when he said there was no evidence and that it was about oil? I know that Greenspan and some others have since came out an admitted that it was about oil and hell, Kucinich is a short congressman that is unelectable and just doesn't stand for anything except standing up against the health care industry, fighting the patriot act and the attack on our constitution and the attempt to privatize Iraq's oil. You know, he doesn't represent anything the people do, hes whacky and Clinton is for all of those same things hes against. Im am so happy she is fighting for the people and not the corporations!

[Texas_Kat]

22. "Wouldn't they have to submit a bill or vote to give funds for war?"

Military operational funding doesn't require 'advance notice'. Funding for initial attacks come out of the DoD standard operations money. REPLACING that money (and the munitions and money for extra 'expenses') is voted after the fact, then supplementals are requested to continue 'operations."

Jim Webb agrees that Bush already has enough to do whatever he wants in the ME:

Re: Iran, the first place to look in order to understand the possibilities inherent with this Administration is the "Presidential Signing Statement" that accompanied the 2002 Authorization to use force against Iraq. Those who participate in Daily Kos should get a copy of this signing statement. Its language is very troubling. Basically, the President asserts his authority to use force as Commander in Chief in almost any situation that he deems is a threat to American "interests" around the world.
Because of the vagueness of this language, and because of the many statements by this Administration, I am considering legislation that would clarify the authority of the Congress. The best clarification would be to say, simply, that no past legislation or policy gives the President the authority to conduct unilateral military attacks against Iran, without the consent of Congress.
by Jim Webb onThu Feb 15, 2007 at 04:19:18 PM CDT
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2007/2/15/164028/169/124#c124

This thread isn't about impeachment....or the IWR, you'll need to ask about that somewhere else.

[RaleighNCDUer]

44. IOW, this bill just prevents long term funding.

It has absolutely no effect on a short-term "shock and awe" blitz of the Republican, er, Revolutionary Guard and a few dozen nuclear development facilities if * should choose to attack them. Which, because of the current contstraints on manpower, is all we could do to Iran in the first place.

She gets the benefit of playing like a dove, while having no effect on war plans.

Triangulating again.

[Texas_Kat]

54. While Obama et al stand on the sidelines

Where's the soaring rhetoric? Where's the comittment to a 'new hope"?

oh, sorry for the Star Wars reference...

[illinoisprogressive]

23. she wants cover for her vote. I expect they will let this stand with just her cosponsoring it.

[Texas_Kat]

24. Where were they in March 07 when this bill was written?

Just asking....:shrug:

Oh yeah, covering themselves.

[ruggerson]

25. I believe the OP wanted to know why Obama and others haven't co sponsored it

not your projection about Mrs. Clinton's intent.

[CarolNYC]

26. But the question isn't why she signed on...

But why no one else has. Do you think they shouldn't? If not, you can ask your Senators to sign on at the link in the OP.

[Texas_Kat]

45. That's just sad... playing politics instead of standing up against a war with Iran

oh, yeah... I forgot.... St Obama couldn't possibly be playing the "i wanna be president' version of the political game, right?

[Cameron27]

30. I'm going to kick this

so more can sign the petition even if they don't want to answer the legit question in the OP.

[Rhythm and Blue]

37. K&R'd for the "OMG HRC WILL BOMB IRAN" crowd.

[Marnieworld]

46. Because perhaps they are familiar with the Constitution

It is an unnecessary bill since only Congress has the power to Declare war already. Why muddy the powers they already have?

Don't take my word for it. Mario Cuomo wrote a great op-ed about it.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E3D81430F934A35753C1A9619C8B63&n=Top/Opinion/Editorials%20and%20Op-Ed/Op-Ed/Contributors

[incapsulated]

49. But Bush and Cheney are not

In case you hadn't noticed, they have submitted the position that the president is above such things and needs no permission from congress to declare war.

[Texas_Kat]

52. And Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo and Iraq never happened

all with benefit of the War Powers Act.

Cuomo is a smart, idealistic guy, I appreciate and approve of that.... in a perfect world... this one isn't.

[jillan]

51. Maybe they don't need to cover their butts like Hillary does?

Sorry - but that came from Webb himself last week on Hardball. (not his exact words, but same message)

[Texas_Kat]

53. So did he ask her not to co-sponsor the bill?

Has he withdrawn it?

[jillan]

56. Here's what he said:

WEBB: I hope so. She actually did go on the amendment that I had offered earlier this year to require a separate authorization to go into Iran. She went on, I think, as a corrective measure for the other vote that she took, so I‘m hoping that she understands now the danger of that particular amendment. And she‘s offering some (INAUDIBLE) some very good stuff in other areas.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21114452/

[incapsulated]

57. In other words....

He is also saying she was been on board with him BEFORE Kyle/Lieberman.

Thanks for the confirmation.

[karynnj]

111. Where do you get that

it is clearly afterward as a corrective action. (unless I missed something.)

[Texas_Kat]

59. Good to know, thanks for the transcript

"And she‘s offering some.... some very good stuff in other areas."

Thanks, Webb isn't a novice...

[geek tragedy]

Webb's comments were not flattering to Senator Clinton.

If you read the actual transcript, Matthews asked him if she'd be different than Bush. His answer was "I hope so."

That's not a vote of confidence.

[geek tragedy]

79. Webb's comments were not flattering to Senator Clinton.

If you read the actual transcript, Matthews asked him if she'd be different than Bush. His answer was "I hope so."

That's not a vote of confidence.

[Texas_Kat]

85. Note that Webb hasn't yet endorsed anyone

We'll see.

[w4rma]

60. What has Hillary done to promote this bill and get more cosponsors? (nt)

[Adelante]

86. Has Edwards come out in favor of the Webb Amendment?

Is he backing it? Or has he opposed it? Either way.

[JTFrog]

61. Maybe because it's what

the constitution already says? :shrug:

[NobleCynic]

62. Self-delete

[CarolNYC]

63. So, it seems the answer to the question of why there are no more co-sponsors is...

because Hillary's a warmongering bitch.

If you have a moment, perhaps you could take the time to click the link and ask your Senators to get past that and sign on as co-sponsor. Unless you think it's a really bad bill, of course.

Thanks!

[cali]

64. I will ask WHY my Senators haven't co-sponsored.

I trust both of them far more than I trust either Webb or Clinton.

[CarolNYC]

68. Thanks

You are fortunate to have Senators you feel you can trust. Many of us aren't so lucky.

[cali]

70. Pat Leahy and Bernie Sanders.

I do feel fortunate.

[CarolNYC]

75. Yeah, two good ones....

Thank goodness for all of us that there are some good ones left.

[TriMetFan]

117. Can I ask why Senator Clinton is a "bitch".

You could of used jerk, ass, fool, but why bitch? Is it because she is a woman?

[LWolf]

65. Is HRC his only cosponsor?

Has NO ONE else really signed on as cosponsor, or are you just referring to presidential candidates?

Not all of whom are Senators, of course.

[CarolNYC]

67. No, LWolf

HRC is listed as the only co-sponsor. You can see the status here.

[LWolf]

118. Interesting indeed.

Not only did Obama, Biden, and Dodd not cosponsor, but not a single other Democrat in Congress, including some who have been more obviously anti-war than any of the above, did not. I'm curious.

[Ethelk2044]

66. She is the very one who has been itching. She knows Webb hit her and hit her hard

with her other vote. Now she is trying to change her image.

[CarolNYC]

69. So, no one else is sponsoring it because Hillary's trying to change her image?

Even you'd have to admit, I think, that's a pretty stupid reason.

[Ethelk2044]

71. NO that is the reason why she is sponsoring it now to try to make up for the

Lieberman-Kyle amendment. Others probably will sponsor in time.

[dogman]

72. When will Obama make up for his non-vote?

Is he to busy to represent me in DC right now?

[CarolNYC]

74. Come on, dog...

He's running for President. You expect him to do his job too? Pretty unreasonable, you know.

But, Obama and his representation or non-representation of you and your statemates aside, there are a whole lot of other Senators AWOL on this one as well.

[dogman]

76. Yes, I followed your link.

I would also like Durbin, who also voted for K-L, to co-sponsor this bill.

[CarolNYC]

73. But the question was why has no one else co-sponsored it...

not why Hillary has. It's been around for a while. Got any ideas, I mean other than that Hillary sucks?

[Rhythm and Blue]

77. Kicked again. Why hasn't YOUR candidate signed on, Obama guys?

Not like he voted against the Kyl amendment.

[Tom Rinaldo]

78. This Bill is critically important

Kyle Lieberman was not intended to be legally binding. The Webb amendment is. I think taking the correct position on Web is of higher importance than any position or non position taken on the version of Kyle - Lieberman that passed - after it was watered down from it's initial version.

But for anyone who disagrees with my opinion above about the relative importance of Webb to Kyle Lieberman, I assume that is because you consider Kyle - Lieberman to be war enabling legislation. If you really feel that way, than is should be much more important to get as many Senators as possible on record in favor of Webb now than it was before. To minimize the importance of supporting the Webb amemdment somehow now, because it is Hillary Clinton who is taking the lead is supporting James Webb on it, seems to me at the very least to be intellectually dishonest. Clinton got her lumps from many in the netroots over her vote on Kyle-Lieberman. Now what about the Democrats in the Senate who, unlike Hillary Clinton, have not stepped up to support Webb on this? Aren't their votes needed? Isn't their support important? Doesn't it matter? Is Hillary Clinton the only Democrat in the Senate who motivates DUers to hold feet to fire? What is that about?

[geek tragedy]

80. Because they don't need to cover their butts

like she did.

And Jim Webb has said as much.

[Tom Rinaldo]

81. So all you really care about is the politics of it then

Not stopping war with Iran? You are keeping score about who needs to cover what butt but don't give a damn about who actually supports legislation that would prevent George W. Bush from attacking Iran without prior Congressional approval?

Exactly whose Butt are you trying to cover here?

[CarolNYC]

83. It amazes me Tom...

that not only are people here more concerned with the politics of this and knocking Hillary than with us actually going to war with Iran but they don't even attempt to hide the fact that they don't really care about war with Iran near as much as they care about scoring political points.

People, this Iran shit is serious. Wake up!

[CarolNYC]

82. So you think it's a bad bill then?

And no one should sign on unless they have a butt that needs covering?

What has Webb done that he needs to cover his butt by introducing this bill? Or do you agree with the one above who suggests that Hillary snookered Webb into this bill back in March so she could have it lying in wait for the moment when her butt needed covering?

And Webb said that no one should co-sponsor with him unless they needed to cover their butts? That sounds kind of bizarre to me but hey, politics is bizarre. When and where did he say this about only wanting butt-covering co-sponsors anyway?

[Adelante]

87. To prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran.

(Introduced in Senate)

S 759 IS

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 759

To prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 5, 2007

Mr. WEBB introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

A BILL

To prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR MILITARY OPERATIONS IN IRAN.

(a) Prohibition- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds appropriated or otherwise made available by any Act, including any Act enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act, may be obligated or expended for military operations or activities within or above the territory of Iran, or within the territorial waters of Iran, except pursuant to a specific authorization of Congress enacted in a statute enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(b) Exceptions- The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to military operations or activities as follows:

(1) Military operations or activities to directly repel an attack launched from within the territory of Iran.

(2) Military operations or activities to directly thwart an imminent attack to be launched from within the territory of Iran.

(3) Military operations or activities in hot pursuit of forces engaged outside the territory of Iran who thereafter enter into Iran.

(4) Military operations or activities connected with the intelligence or intelligence-related activities of the United States Government.

(c) Report- Not later than 24 hours after determining to utilize funds referred to in subsection (a) for purposes of a military operation described in subsection (b), the President shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on the determination, including a justification for the determination.

(d) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined- In this section, the term `appropriate committees of Congress' means--

(1) the Committees on Armed Services and Foreign Relations and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and

(2) the Committees on Armed Services and Foreign Affairs and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.759:

[Tom Rinaldo]

88. Isn't this what most of us here at DU really want passed?

I wouldn't get upset if Trenton Lott signed on to this bill now as a co-sponsor of it (as written) if that would help it to become law. I will get upset if more of our supposedly "good Democrats" don't. When one thinks that Clinton or any other Democrat does something wrong they should hear about it, but when Clinton or any other Democrat does something right that should be heard about also. We should all be pulling for this legislation now. Webb gets my full respect for his continued leadership on this issue, but right now Clinton is the only Democrat in the Senate willing to stand fully with him on this amendment. Good for her and shame on those who should be standing with him now also but are not.

[Cameron27]

89. I thought that petitioning for Webb's bill

would get 100% support, but apparently because Clinton's name is associated with it, the OP gets ignored or trashed.

[BootinUp]

91. This is a somewhat

depressing thread. n/t

[Adelante]

92. I was thinking it's similar to the hundreds of threads posted

in the past year about Iran. Nobody seems to really give a shit unless the topic can be used as a battering ram against somebody. There's no real interest.

[Tom Rinaldo]

94. Thanks for putting your finger on it WesDem.

That is it exactly. The same people who didn't lift a finger to stop a war with Iran for the last two years here suddenly see a chance to draw political blood over this so they pounced. But as soon as they see no further advantage to a Democrat who they support in discussing real measures meant to actually counter that threat, they go silent or become apologists.

[Tom Rinaldo]

93. This exposes the ugly soft underbelly of Democratic Underground

I'm not going to let up on this one because it disgusts me. I had absolutley no problem saying on this board that I disagreed with Hillary Clinton's vote on Kyle - Lieberman but I support her co-sponsorship now of the Webb amendment. What is so fucking hard to do about that?

Anyone here who went all up in arms about Kyle-Lieberman but now has nothing constructive to say about the pending Webb amendment other than trying to find a new angle to attack Clinton with is a complete phoney with no integrity in my book.

I can't even count all the threads that went up on DU blaming Clinton for not standing up to the Bush war machine on Iran. If folks sincerely believed what they were saying in those threads, fine, but where are they now when there is an effort in the U.S. Senate to legally prevent Bush from attacking Iran? Kyle - Lieberman wasn't legally binding, Webb is. Kyle - Lieberman wandered into that debateable swamp called "provoding leverage" but Webb is clear as glass. The Webb amendment stops Bush from striking Iran without Congressional consent.

What is so hard to understand about that? What is so terribly difficult to support about it that Senate Democrats are holding back support from it? And why do the outraged masses of DU posters worried about war with Iran now fall silent when they are asked to put pressure on the United States Senate to act to stop Bush's war with Iran?

It's politics alright, politics of the worst kind. Sheer hypocrisy.

[Tellurian]

95. ditto and well said!

It's a pity we're surrounded by this bitter contingent of malcontents...when their own candidate is out raking in the gold.. too busy to show up for the job he was elected to do. But not too busy for posing for photo-ops promoting himself as "THE ONE" who is going to bind us together...and they wonder why his poll numbers are swirling the last circle before the final flush. :shrug:

[Tom Rinaldo]

99. Frankly right now most of my anger is with some of mu fellow Duers

The one's who screamed bloody murder over Clinton's Kyle - Lieberman vote but aren't lifting a finger to support efforts to get more Senators to sign on to the Webb amendment. Worse yet are the ones who keep looking for a new twist to attack Clinton with over Webb - even though she is the one who has signed on. I'll get around to being furious with other Democratic Senators soon if they don't start stepping up to the plate on Webb. Like I said I supported the Senators who voted against Kyle - Liebgerman and I was critical of votes in favor of it. Now I am praising Webb and Clinton for supporting efforts to keep Bush from unilaterally taking us to war. I would love to have a chance to praise Obama also, for example, if he will step forward and add his name to the sponsors of Webbs legislation.

But most of all I hate the shher hypocrisy around here of people who seem only to want to score political points over Iran, who can't bring themselves to act constructively or even say a single positive word when politicians who we want to act differently actually start acting the way that we want. Like I said it makes me think that they never gave a fuck about Kyle -Lieberman to begin with, only with finding some dirt to throw at an opponent of their own candidate.

[CarolNYC]

107. It's something else, isn't it?

I don't know why it surprises me though....It should be expected by now I guess.

[cuke]

108. You should turn that post into an OP

and start a thread with it

[incapsulated]

113. Well, Tom...

I'm not at all surprised because I knew it was bullshit all along.

[Rhythm and Blue]

96. Seriously, everyone who bashed Clinton for Kyl-Lieberman:

Why so silent on this? Could it be that Clinton, and not actual concern over Iran, is what drove you?

[Adelante]

97. Well, I don't agree on K-L and said so

But I commend Clinton co-sponsoring this important legislation.

[Divine Discontent]

98. hi

my first post in this, but, I have concern about both issues - I'd hope all liberal Democrats would have the same sentiment. I don't like corporate whoring at the sake of the American fighting force and our work force being ravaged by the wasting of our tax dollars for the Military Industrial Complex.

[Clanfear]

103. I hate to say this

But Hillary's move on this seems to be more pandering than anything else. There is no way this bill ever sees the light of day, much less make it past a veto.

[Tom Rinaldo]

105. That reply is both lame AND frightening

That bill sees the light of day if and when the Democratic Caucus wants it to, and your response indicates you see no point even bothering to put pressure on the Democratic Caucus to move that bill into the light of day. That's not exactly a big crowd to work. Do you think we are that impotent? Do you think Senator Obama is that impotent? All you are doing is proving my point about all of the fake outrage expressed here at DU this last few days. If the netroots created a backlash against Clinton's Kyle - Lieberman vote that clearly took her by surprise, as many have already claimed, why suddently are you so convinced that the Webb amendment will never see the light of day? Is Barack Obama working that effectively behind the scenes to kill it? Here is what I just saw you write, only using other words:

"Ho hum, nothing we can do about this, none of us have any influence on Democratic Senators. We can't be bothered trying. Besides anyone who moves to support legislation against Bush unilaterally going to war now is only pandering. Personally I think Senators who won't lift a finger now against it are preferable."

Do you really think you just gave a compelling argument? Are you honestly suggesting that Democrats not even bother attempting to bring legislation up for a vote unless they are confident that they can over ride a Bush Veto in advance? Really, is that what you are saying, because if it is then you are staking out a position toward Bush more compliant than that taken by our Congressional leadership to date, and most folks in the grassroots are already hopping mad at how compliant this Congress has been.

I say we go out and make a few more Democratic Senators "pander to us" on this issue. I happen to think that it is important and worth us making the effort. Obama might be a good place to start. He missed voting on Kyle - Lieberman and didn't speak out against it before the actual vote. Perhaps he would like to "pander to us" on this one now also. And if activists here don't see the point in even trying to support the Webb amendment I kindly request that they just stuff it on Iran from here on out because I am tired of everyone playing politics over stopping war with Iran.

[Rhythm and Blue]

109. How I wish I could recommend individual posts. nt

[CarolNYC]

106. This thread really is pathetic.

It certainly exposes the hypocrisy of those who only care about the coming war with Iran insofar as they can use it as a club to beat Hillary over the head with.

Arghhh!!!! And once it starts then we'll be in another mess that's impossible to crawl out of...But hey, so what, as long as folks can get some digs in at Hillary about it, it's all good, right?

What is wrong with people? It's just sad, sad, sad when it becomes all about the personalities and nothing about the actual issues facing us.

Just thoroughly pathetic, depressing, disgusting and a bunch of other adjectives I can't even think of right now.

With attitudes like these from our supposedly progressive activists, we deserve a war with Iran.

Well, I hope that at least some people who may have read but not got involved in the thread actually clicked the link and tried to convince their Senators to get on board strongly and vocally about this.

And, yeah, I know, Hillary sucks and all that but THIS IS NOT ABOUT HILLARY!!!!!

[incapsulated]

112. I think you know the answers to those questions

For a good many people here, all this crap about Iran and Iraq is nothing but rhetoric and posturing.

[karynnj]

110. From Webb's comment,

it sounds like many did not think it was the right way to do it.
It was sitting there since March - with no sponsors. Webb on Hardball the day she signed pretty much implied she did it to counter her vote on Kyl/Leiberman.

I don't think the Senators, other than Webb and Clinton want to bomb Iraq.

[Tom Rinaldo]

114. I agree that virtually none if not none of the Democratic Senators

want to bomb Iran. Obviously Clinton doesn't want to bomb Iran either which some here prefer to gloss right over. I stropgly supported the Webb amendment the first time it was introduced. Like Webb, I think that it IS the right way to go. So my feelings now are not any type of shift for me. I remember at the time it first was introduced that a lot of folks here backed the Webb amendment and wanted it brought to a vote. What if anything has changed for them now?

And if you really want to read into Webb's comments what you are reading into Webb's comments than the full story would probably go like this - Hillary signed on to counter the grassroots backlash against her vote on Kyl/Leiberman. Well if Hillary Clinton can be moved to reconsider and now cosponsor the Webb amendment because of heat from grassroots Democrats, even with her current big lead in the polls, than why would other Senate Democrats be immune from some "backlash" for their role in keeping the Webb amendment bottled up and off the floor?

Far as I'm concerned if other Democratic Senators want to take the position that the Webb Amendment is "not the right way to go" let them take that position to our faces, and defend that position to our faces. Especially if they want to make political hay out of how some Democrats voted on Kyle/Lieberman. And the same holds for all the activists on DU and elswhere who went up in arms over the vote on that amendment. Our reaction opened up a new door for the Webb amendment to pass through if we care enough about it to demand it.

It would be one thing if those loud voices here on DU who blasted Hillary Clinton for being pro war with Iran honestly were willing to make their case for why they think it would be the wrong thing for Senators to sign on to the Webb amendment, as their justificaton for not doing anything now to push for it to be reconsidered. Fine let's hear them say "I do not support the Webb amendment and I do not want our Democratic Senators to support it either". I'm still waiting for some one who vehemently opposed Kyle - Lieberman to make their case against the Webb amendment, but all I still hear from them is silence.

[CarolNYC]

122. Yes, I keep specifically asking if people think it's a bad bill....

and every time that question is ignored? What's up with that?

I don't know, maybe it is a bad bill. I'm open to someone saying it is and telling me why. That would be a legitimate reason for not co-sponsoring it, if you thought there was something wrong with it...but no one addresses that, just how awful Hillary is. wtf?

[karynnj]

126. I was just stating what I heard Webb say

I agree that Hillary, like any sane person, does not want to bomb Iran. She also was likely responding to the negative backlash of anti-war Democrats. That doesn't make it wrong. I was struck most by Webb's tone when speaking of HRC joining it - which might say more of Webb, than of HRC. It does say he is not playing the political game most do. It could even show that he thinks in black and white and is less able to see gray than most Senators. He was one of the most outspoken opponents of Kyl/Leiberman. Contrast his words to say, Biden - where it came down to his saying that it was lack of trust in Bush that made him vote no. (What scares me more on Kyl/Leiberman is that many commentators "independently" spoke of how that bill was similar to the 1998 resolution "that started us on the path to where we are in Iraq", which is typical Republican spread the blame. I would choose the start as Bush's command to attack, the start of the Gulf War in 1991, and the IWR - in that order - all before the 1998 resolution.)

It is wrong to assume that all Democrats, not co-sponsoring a bill, are against it. I first thought it might be because the President has the power to defend the country in case of an imminent attack, but there are exclusions for that. I have not read any Senator say anything critical, the idea that it was dead came from Webb's vague comments there. The last action on it was to send it to the SFRC. I think Webb could bring it to the floor if he wanted to - as Kerry and Feingold brought their resolution that had no party leader support. It would be good to get comments from any Senator on the negatives of the bill, which still has only 1 sponsor.

My problem with HRC is mostly that she made no attempt at all to lead on Iraq and among Democrats worked against those trying to define a Democratic plan to get out. In 2005, Feingold, spoke of himself, Kerry, Kennedy, Levin and others as the people on forefront on this. In 2006, she was as negative as the Republicans on Kerry/Feingold - yet, within 6 months, she was repeating almost word for word, Kerry's points then. All without ever saying that it was Kerry's plan and that he had been right - to undo some of the effects of the vicious Democratic establishments' attacks on him then. He is not running as an opponent, so there is no reason not to admit it - especially as her competitors in the Senate - Obama, Dodd and Biden voted against it too and Edwards did not publicly back it or the concept of a deadline then. He is running for the Senate, so giving him credit that is clearly due, when it costs her nothing and would somewhat compensate for attacks that stemmed from her coterie would seem the right thing to do - unless she fears him as a potential opposition voice after she is elected.

Without Kerry/Feingold, there would have been no Senate debate on Iraq and the Republicans would have done better with their claim that the Democrats had no plan. Clearly Democrats heard something in the run up to that election that made them change on a dime and get behind Feingold/Reid which copied Kerry/Feingold. (She also refused to lead on Alito - though it was clear the NYT wanted her to lead it, and trashed Kerry when he did. This was another a winnable fight, especially if the Senators fought it on unitary President and being outside the mainstream, not on abortion.)

I realize that she will likely be the nominee. It is only because she would sign bills like S-Chip, as she persuaded her husband to do in 1997, and the Republican might not, that I will vote for her in the general election. But, in doing so, I will than promise myself to watch her actions and complain, as much as if she were a Republican, if she does things I think are wrong. It will take a lot to make me either trust or like her. In the Clintons' case, my trust, which they had, once lost will be hard to regain. But, I have never posted that she is likely bomb Iran.

[Mass]

127. Could it be because they support it. Why do you assume they do not!!!

Ironically, I posted that I liked the bill and wished more senators co-sponsored and I was blasted by a comment saying I did not say why I thought the bill was bad. I DO NOT, but ask a question about the bill if you want a thread about the bill. And allow others to question Hillary's motives without disliking the bill.

[karynnj]

128. Exactly - this thread creates a false litmus test

That all Senators that did not co-sponsor an amendment that no one co-sponsored for 6 months are somehow not as anti- Iran war than HRC. Webb has basically said that it was a CYA move for HRC.

Why the bill is not supported or what the concerns of Senators are are good questions. That does not mean that it was not a CYA move on Clinton's part - and a smart one at that. (I suspect it might be a cynical move as she does not seem to have yet gotten any one else on board - so she may just have put her name on a bill that she knows is dead - just to point to it.)

[Tom Rinaldo]

132. That is a false characterization

This thread deals with a snap shot in time. That snap shot happens to be RIGHT NOW, post Kyle -Lieberman. The goal is to get the U.S. Senate formally on record forbidding an attack on Iran without specific Congressional approval. It is an action focused call to push the Senate to now consider the Webb Amendment. The strategy being offered is to leverage the post Kyle - Lieberman vote created activist backlash to establish renewed momentum for the Webb Amendment. The tactic being offered is to seek more cosponsors for the Webb Amendment in order to demonstrate that momentum.

The question in the OP is a literal one, and a fair one to ask. You essentially said that when you wrote: "Why the bill is not supported or what the concerns of Senators are are good questions." Nowhere in the OP of this thread or in the participation by most on it does it presuppose that Clinton is now more anti-Iran War than other Democratic Senators who are not co-sponsors of the Webb Amendment. It does ask why more don't now join her in co-sponsoring it and frankly, an answer that "they don't have as great a political need to cover her butt as she does" is not a sufficient answer to the question being asked. This is about more than politics. If they do not now feel sufficient political motivation to get behind the Webb Amendment to me that only begs the question, why not? And the first thing that comes to mind for me is that we in the grassroots have not yet given them sufficient motivation.

Look, I know that you are a veteran of the activist push behind John Kerry's leadership to pressure U.S. Senators to fillibuster Bush's last Supreme Court appointment. That tactic had been dismissed as "not the right way forward", for whatever reasons, by many Democratic Senators prior to the netroots push for that fillibuster. We changed some minds with that effort, not enough but some. It was worth our effort, even in defeat, because ths issue was too important to just conceed the outcome. I don't care if someone wants to say that we managed to change some minds only because this or that Senator felt a need to cover their butt. What I cared about then was the position Senators subsequently took and how they subsequently voted.

What I care about now is stopping a war with Iran and getting Democrats to show more spine against Bush in that regard. I can point you to the posts in my journal here or on my blog where I strongly backed the Webb amendment when he first proposed it. I can point you also to my posts where I attacked Congress at the time for caving on efforts to force Bush to get their consent to attack Iran. And I can point you to posts here at DU where I said Hillary was wrong to vote for Kyle -Lieberman. My posts on this thread are not the result of some kind of new found pro Clinton religion due to Clark's endorsement.

When all is said and done, for better or for worse, I expect politicians to be politicians. There is a positive aspect to politicians keeping their ears to the ground to know when their constituents expect them to alter their priorities. It seems most of the Democratic Senate Caucus was content to allow the Webb amendment to be forgotten in the shadows of inaction. If nothing else Hillary Clinton now cosponsoring it - however you or anyone else might characterize her motives in so doing, returns the Webb Amendment to the light of day. Whether or not is slips back into the shadows now CAN BE EFFECTED by our own actions. IF MORE SENATORS now start signing on as cosponsors of the Webb Amendment it is far more likely that it will be brought up for a vote.

Like I have said repeatedly above - unless all of the DU members who screamed bloody murder over Kyle - Lieberman passing (WHETHER OR NOT they focused on Hillary's vote or instead on all the Democrats who helped it win an overwhelming majority) oppose the Webb Amendment - why aren't more of them now putting pressure to get Senators in addition to Clinton to now sign onto the Webb Amendment? WHY ARE WE ALLOWING WEBB TO BE IGNORED?

[karynnj]

133. I did say that they need to explain why the amendment works

or doesn't work.

The reason I called it a false litmus test is that you can support things without sponsoring them. I also don't see that HRC's signing on has moved the issue as much as one would expect given who she is. If HRC pushes others to get the Webb amendment to the floor, I will concede that her action in signing on was more than CYA. I haven't seen that, but there also hasn't been much time. The Clintons have the ability to get the Democratic leadership to do this, if they really wanted.

If you want to use Kerry's Alito effort as a comparison - look at what was done in each case. The first thing Kerry and Kennedy did was lobby their caucus to fight this. Then, Kerry did everything he could - from 3 excellent Senate speeches using the arguments that could have gained strength and stopped it - balance of powers/unitary President, not abortion to writing diaries on Dkos and having his office provide people with information on who to call and lobby. Kerry was attempting to make up for the poor job done by most of the judiciary committee. I don't see HRC doing this - there have been no whispers of it coming up in the caucus. She and BC have the biggest voice in the party, but not one Senator has signed on since she did - which makes it unlikely that she is actively lobbying her fellow Senators. Someone would do so if only because she is likely the next Democratic President. In terms of reaching people, unlike Kerry, she has incredible ability to get mainstream media - which she hasn't used. Nor has she gone to the blogosphere? All she has done to date is sign on to a dormant bill where she is the only co-signer.

I agree that if the Webb amendment could prevent or even get the Senate on record that Bush can not invade Iran - it would be a good thing. What I object to is that rather than write the OP as you did this post - a call to get other Senators on board - this calling out every Senator who is not co-sponsoring this amendment - something Clinton did after it was dormant for months, leading to Webb's suspicions. Not sponsoring a bill does not equate to not being willing to vote for it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

134. We actually pretty much agree, as usual when you get down to it, lol

the parsing of words over the OP (which I did not write but do support)is not over whether or not cosponsoring the Webb Amendment is a litmus test for being anti rush to war with Iran, I agree that it is not, but whether or not the OP was setting it up as a false litmus test by asking why haven't Senator's other than Clinton co-sponsored it etc. I don't think that it did.

But rather than beat that horse to death I think our area of agreement is solid. Building support for the Webb amendment now seems in both of our opinions to be a good end to pursue, and at the very least asking Democrats who do not support it to defend why they do not support it if they do not support it advances an important debate. It is certainly possible for a Senator to "support" legislation without cosposoring it - though cosponsorhip is traditionally noted as a sign of strong support. But pragmatically speaking, it would greatly increase the chances of this legislation coming up for a vote if it gains more cosponsors now.

Without a doubt Kerry took on leadership regarding the Alita matter that Clinton has not yet taken regarding Webb. My point in making that comparison was not to equate the degree of corresponding leadership on an important issue that each has shown. It was to point out that it is not a futile undertaking for the grassroots to attempt to influence members of the Senate Democratic caucus to reconsider an aggressive tactic that previously they had dismissed as "not the right way to go" for whatever reasons they each held. A bottom line for me is that Clinton in my opinion took a constructive step in now cosponsoring the Webb Amendment whatever her reason for so doing was, and that has helped create an opening for anti-war activists to ask other Democratic Senators to take a similar constructive step, for whatever reason they may then see fit to do so. I credit Clinton for having taken a constructive step, not (as of yet anyway) for taking on real leadership in regard to Webb. I would welcome any and all other Senators to take a similar positive step, and would absolutely love it if some of them (in Addition to Webb) took on real leadership in pushing for its passage.

[CarolNYC]

130. In my defense...

as I said below, I did not see the comment about your liking the bill which was added in your edit. It was not there when I read your original post and I was commenting on the post as it originally stood. I've thanked you below for your comment on the bill. OK?

[Rhythm and Blue]

116. Kicked in dwindling hope n/t

[Mass]

119. Because they do not need a cover for voting YES to Kyl-Lieberman?

Even Webb knows that Reid will not put this bill to a vote.

Even Webb were more than skeptical and less than thrilled by this co-sponsoring.

Just to make it clear: I like the bill and wished there were much more supporters to it, but the point stands: Hillary voted for the anti-Iran bill that went to the floor, then co-sponsor the anti-Iran war bill that will never go to the floor.

[flpoljunkie]

120. Ding, ding, ding!

[CarolNYC]

121. So then you think it's a bad bill....

that shouldn't see the light of day?

[Mass]

123. Did you read what I wrote or are you here to defend Hillary when she does not need it?

Would you have defended her like that if Clark had not endorsed her?

[CarolNYC]

124. Why do you insist this is about Hillary?

I'm not defending anybody. Did you read my OP? I didn't ask why Hillary co-sponsored it. I asked why no one else did.

Hard as this may be to fathom, for some of us the world doesn't revolve around Hillary.

[Mass]

125. Read your title!!!

And I said in the post what I thought of the bill, but I was answering to your question, which was revolving around Hillary.

[CarolNYC]

129. Oy, now I see the confusion....

I did not see what you added to post in the edit until now. It was not there when I first read it and I never went back to it to see if you might have edited it. I don't usually go to check like that. Sorry for the misunderstanding but surely you see how that could have happened.

Thanks for your comment on the bill. As to my title, I guess I could have said "why does Jim Webb's bill have only one co-sponsor" but, frankly, I get the feeling that a post with Hillary in the title gets more hits than one with Jim Webb in the title. I still don't know where you got that I was defending her on anything though. I just think a lot of the rhetoric here is over the top, hence my over the top statement about them all itching for war with Iran, which of course I don't believe is true.

If we can just put Hillary aside for a moment, because I do value your opinion on things like this, I'm glad you think it's a good bill but why do you think it will never make it to the floor and do you think there is nothing that can be done to get it there?

Thanks again and sorry I did not see your edit the first time.

[Adelante]

131. Your question

"Would you have defended her like that if Clark had not endorsed her?"

Is off-base and mildly insulting. Clark started warning about a direction toward war with Iran in his own 2003 campaign. He was going after it stronger after he finished campaigning for Kerry in 2004. And thereafter has made it one of his premier projects including StopIranWar.com and many OpEds and interviews. Clarkies have started many, many threads on the subject here at DU and other sites to spread awareness of what Clark views as a significant peril. This is certainly not the first thread promoting the Webb amendment, either. Another question might be "Would Clinton have co-sponsored the Webb amendment had not Clark endorsed her?" I don't think she would have actually. However, politics being politics, I don't that much care. I've said I will want to see her actively pursue a push through the Senate before I'm satisfied about her motives, but I am still glad she did it. The point of the OP is to put pressure on other senators to join in. Defending Hillary isn't nearly the point unless you think that's what we've been doing for three years in anticipation (although I don't see you as a conspiracist) of Clark's endorsement of Hillary.

[Adelante]

135. I also wrote this

I wrote this via the form on her Senate website:

http://clinton.senate.gov/contact/webform.cfm?subj=issue

Dear Senator Clinton:

I am pleased that you are co-sponsoring Senator Webb's bill S. 759, reaffirming Congressional power to declare war and prohibiting the use of funds for military operations in Iran absent congressional authorization. I write to urge you to do more. Please apply your influence in the Senate to press for the Webb-Clinton amendment to be immediately addressed by the Foreign Relations Committee and convince your Senatorial colleagues to commit their votes to its passage. Thank you.

Biden is the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and Obama and Dodd are members. I'm going to write to them, too.

http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/about.html