Hillary Clinton Ok with Attacking Iran

Just so everybody knows where this idiot stands; she has not learned a thing from giving Bush authorization to attack Iraq. She and several other Democrats, like Dianne Feinstein, votes for the
Lieberman-Kyl Amendment on Iran

The Lieberman-Kyl Amendment had been gutted of its war authorizing provisions, but was still provocative, unnecessary and stupid. It should have been voted down. It was not. It passed. Where will these idiots draw the line?

Barack Obama, sticking with his plan of not knowing how to be a leader, was absent from the vote.

The Senators who voted NO to war with Iran:

Biden (D-DE)

Bingaman (D-NM)

Boxer (D-CA)

Brown (D-OH)

Byrd (D-WV)

Cantwell (D-WA)

Dodd (D-CT)

Feingold (D-WI)

Hagel (R-NE)

Harkin (D-IA)

Inouye (D-HI)

Kennedy (D-MA)

Kerry (D-MA)

Klobuchar (D-MN)

Leahy (D-VT)

Lincoln (D-AR)

Lugar (R-IN)

McCaskill (D-MO)

Sanders (I-VT)

Tester (D-MT)

Webb (D-VA)

Wyden (D-OR)

So, why is it so bad? Because the amendment identifies Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp as "a foreign terrorist organization." I wonder if that could lead to an attack?

This amendment is very to the 1998 Iraq Liberation Amendment, which was the first step to attacking Iraq. The process has begun and Democrats don't realize you should stop it before it starts, not after the media ball gets rolling.

Idiots.

They will draw the line when people stop giving them power.


Hillary was on Stephanopoulos on Sunday. George Stephanopoulos said, "Can you pledge that all US troops will be home over the course of your first term as president?"

She replied with

"You know, I'm not going to get into hypotheticals and make pledges because I don't know what I'm going to inherit, George. I don't know, and neither do any of us know, what will be the situation in the region; how much more aggressive will Iran have become; what will be happening in the Middle East; how much more of an influence will the chaos in Iraq have in terms of what's going on in the greater region; will we have pushed Al-Qaeda in Iraq out of their strongholds with our new partnership with some of the tribal sheiks, or will they have regrouped and retrenched?"

She's not going to pull troops out. Especially if they voted for Lieberman-Kyl Amendment on Iran

It's all about power to both sides, personally I'm fed up with both Democrats and Republicans.

I read the entire document and I don't see anywhere in it that if you support this amendment then you are inherently supporting war with Iran.

The amendment states various finding about Iran meddling in Iraq which is the general consensus from what I have read. I guess you can make specific claims about how much they are doing it and in what forms. And then amendment goes into various ways to counter act this meddling such as putting the Islamic Revolutionary Guards on the list of foreign terrorist organizations. Which is reasonable if they have in fact been operating in Iraq. By doing so it gives the government the ability to restrict their movement and funds. The amendment also suggests to step up various economic means of pressuring Iran which is also a good idea.

It isn't all or none. You can support this amendment and not support war with Iran. If you succumb to reactionary statements you are no better then Bush.

From the amendment in question:

I read those, They seem to me to specifically deal with military operations within Iraq although Bush could try to expand that to taking out targets in Iran I doubt the democrats voting for it would say is the correct meaning. It seems clear to me though this amendment does not authorize the over throwing of the Iranian government.

Huh, so then I guess we should put our army on the terrorist list, using that brilliant reasoning.

Maybe you should read my original post.

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Politics is about power, no? Why would you be surprised that getting into a position to make changes is essential to a politician? Or anyone who wants to make a change, "political" or no?

Fixed.

It's kinda ironic since Iran used to have a Democratic head of state , which we removed . What does that say ? Hillary is just "another one of the boys" , meaning ...She will not withdraw troops and there are no plans to bring troops (all of them) home anytime soon . It feels like a South Park episode in the world lately , huh ?

I see these as VERY separate issues, and I think it is essential that we not tangle them together. I was NEVER for the invasion of Iraq. I wish to god that it never happened. But even so, I acknowledge that requiring a candidate to pledge to withdraw the troops by date X, regardless of the situation, is a recipe for disaster in the country which we tore to pieces.

However. The idiocy it takes not to see where this road, paved by the NEO-cons in the GOP leads is completely separate act of lunacy.

I would say the difference is that our army is trying, although failing, to restore order. Iran seems interested in furthering the chaos because it embarrass the United States and sets them up as a regional power. And the forces from Iran aren't operating in the open.

I have read it. You seem to think that this amendment is a slippery slope to a war with Iran. I don't see it. That is one possibility but this amendment does not say anything in it that would lead me to believe that is the only or likely outcome. War with Iran would be bad but that doesn't mean while we are still in Iraq we should let them get away with arming and training the insurgents.

I am not quite old enough to remember it in person. But I do know how it was used as an "enabling pretext" (to coin a phrase).

And I know how well all that turned out. I remember watching them push helicopters off carriers; and Vietnamese off helicopters.

I have just finished Barbara Tuchman's "The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam"

It amazed me how much the talk of the politicians in the book reminded me of the same stuff they spew today in support of these foreign adventures. Unfortunately, I think Hillary has morphed into a major tool.

My worry is when Iran or some other state decides that our military forces are no longer protected by Geneva Conventions.

So wait, Iran doesn't want the US to succeed and take over the neighboring counties on its East and West? How shocking. Tell me, what country in the world would stand for its enemy doing that?

Anyone who believed Iran would not be involved in this war by supporting Shiites is an idiot.

Same goes for the Saudi Arabia and the Sunnis, as they are doing the same thing as Iran.