Beware Kyl-Lieberman Pro-Iran-War Amendment
They're trying to get us psychologically primed for bombing Iran.
As early as today (Tuesday, September 25, 2007) the Kyl-Lieberman amendment (No. 3017) may be voted on.
It is non-binding, but it is a "sense of the Senate" amendment basically saying the Senate views Iran as a danger to our war in Iraq, and that it is hunky-dory for the president to use everything at his benighted fingertips to oppose Iran, including military options, which means bombing and war.
Next war, next war, next war! -- yipppeeeee. Makes Joe Lieberman smile. And Cheney half-smile. And Bill Kristol - well God only knows what pleasures he feels at each new war.
So please call your useless, exhausted, scared Democratic senators and congress people, and your useless, exhausted, scared moderate Republican friends, and urge them to vote against this.
Google news has exactly three articles on this amendment. This was the most reasoned of the three - Joe Murray, writing in the Bulletin, "Philadelphia's Family Newspaper."
I feel inarticulate today, so I'd like to quote Mr. Murray a bit:
The neoconservative movement is in its 11th hour. With the blood of 5,000 soldiers on its hands, Iraq in the thralls of a civil war, the Middle East as stable as Nicole Richie and America isolated and alone, the movement that beat the drums of war is being repudiated and silenced......Americans want out of Iraq. A Sept. 18 USA Today poll showed that 59 percent of Americans are in favor of a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.
....But even though [the] country has indicted, tried and convicted neo-conservatism as a fatally flawed foreign policy, adherents to the movement are not going quietly into the night. Realizing that the end of the Bush presidency means an end to the neo-conservative reign, neo-cons in the White House are planning one last hurrah that is poised to take place in Tehran.
"Senior American intelligence and defense officials believe that President George W Bush and his inner circle are taking steps to place America on the path to war with Iran," wrote the British daily The Sunday Telegraph.
...Last week, unbeknownst to most Americans and ignored by most media outlets, Sens. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., filed an amendment to the 2008 Defense Reauthorization bill that gives a wink and a nod to the White House for the anticipated invasion if Iran.
....The amendment proclaims "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."
The Senate, therefore, should "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 ... with respect to the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran."
Translation: War with Iran will face no opposition from the Senate.
The topic of a possible attack on Iran is not in the news too much (although a lot of the media have been reflexively demonizing Iran lately, have you noticed?), but I did see the topic on one of the Sunday political talk shows.
I watched the McLaughlin Group on Sunday, after only watching one of Hillary's five appearances. (I must say I enjoyed her laughter on Fox News. A worthy response, and a hearty laugh.)
The topic on the McLaughlin Group was triggered by comments from General John Abizaid, who retired from being in charge of the Iraq war in May. Shortly before his retirement, he testified in Congress that he was opposed to the idea of the surge.
(And Bush, in naming Petraeus as his successor, undoubtedly chose someone in FAVOR of what Bush wanted. Yeah, he listens to his generals. Picks them to agree with him, then "obeys" them. Does Bush tell the truth ever? Every word he says seems a manipulation.)
Anyway, recently, in a very under-reported speech, Abizaid expressed his opinion that attacking Iran was a bad idea. (I quote from the McLaughlin Group home page, which doesn't have transcripts but only limited snippets.)
Abizaid said he doubted Iran would ever attack the U.S., and he went on to say "Iran is not a suicide nation. They may have some people in charge that don't appear to be rational, but I doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon. ...There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran. Let's face it. We lived with a nuclear Soviet Union. We've lived with a nuclear China. We're living with nuclear other powers as well."
Wow. Imagine, saying out loud "there are ways to live with a nuclear Iran."
The panel was conservatives John McLaughlin, Pat Buchanan, Tony Blankley, and liberals Eleanor Clift and Clarence Page.
FOUR of the five agreed with Abizaid and thought bombing Iran was a nightmare choice to consider.
That means conservatives McLaughlin and Buchanan were with the liberals on this position, indeed they were leading the conversation. Only gym-teacher-from-hell Tony Blankley was itching for a fight.
I used to view Pat Buchanan as a nightmare bully conservative. I must say, I have found relief and after a while interest in hearing him be against the war in Iraq (from the beginning). And I found his comments about what to do about Iran to be ... well ... really statesmanlike. (I'm transcribing this from my DVR recording of the show.)
McLaughlin asked Buchanan if Abizaid's offering his opinion about Iran was irresponsible, and Buchanan said this:
No, it was not irresponsible, and I would commend the General for doing this, John. I think what is going on here... first, a nuclear Iran is a terrible idea, but then you get down to the choice if we have to go to war to prevent it or delay it for 10 years, is a war with Iran worth it? General Abizaid is saying "I don't believe it is worth it." And secondly, I believe the General is speaking for generals retired and on duty right now, I think he's speaking for a lot of people in the Pentagon who desperately do not want this war with Iran, which the neo-conservatives and Mr. Cheney's element and the Israelis and others are pushing us toward. I think he performed a service for the country, he is doing what the Congress ought to be doing -- is weighing the question of whether or not what Iran is doing in Iraq and with regard to enhancement of nuclear technology is worth a United States war on Iran.
Eleanor Clift pointed out we were already living with North Korea, whose leader was as crazy or crazier than Iran's. And that Iran had a very middle class population who wasn't necessarily behind their leaders; it was remembered that millions of Iranians marched in SOLIDARITY with the U.S. after 9/11.
McLaughlin remembered that during the Iraq-Iran war (when we supported Saddam), Saddam used chemical weapons against the Iranians, and the Iranians did NOT use them back, because they said it was against their religion. (I didn't know that, did you?)
Plus if we embark on bombing Iran, Eleanor pointed out, you can't just assume the bombing will take care of it all, you have to have back-up troops if you need them, and we don't. And also bombing would throw these middle class Iranians back into the arms of the extremists, and the whole country would get nationalistic -- which happens when you bomb or invade a country, it doesn't usually lead to being offered flowers and dinner invitations. And that a more nationalistic Iran would be enormously harder to deal with in the future. Not to mention, if we bomb/invade yet a THIRD Middle East country, might not there really be hell to pay? Also not to mention the wonderful way that has of recruiting more terrorists?
Whaddya say, Bill Kristol, you agree in any way whatsoever, you despicable moron? (I'm sorry, but your name doesn't rhyme with "betray-us" and I couldn't think how else to insult you.)
Buchanan also felt that Iran may not really want the bomb at all, or if it did, it may primarily be for deterrence sake -- I mean, think about it, Israel has the bomb, the U.S. has the bomb, North Korea has the bomb, Pakistan (Lord protect us) has the bomb -- and Iran can't have it, why? Because we say they're crazy? Hmmmm.
Buchanan felt that there were assurances that we could give Iran that might cause them to give up the bomb (I think he meant promising not to attack them, but the section had a lot of overtalking), and that their economy was bad and needed help. And he felt that diplomacy with them should absolutely be tried and agreements made rather than going to yet another war. He felt coming to some agreement with them was possible, and way preferable to bombing them.
Plus, he also felt living with a nuclear Iran was preferable to another war. But that diplomacy had not been tried for real. (He also spoke of Nixon's making peace with China as a positive thing, and of Nixon having to overlook a lot that was bad about that country.)
I just found it very interesting to watch this show, which I haven't seen in a long time, in which the conservatives used to be in lock-step, and now they're not. Bush and the neocons have made Republicanism something it didn't used to be.
So McLaughlin and Buchanan (as well as some other conservatives) are not enamored of Bush and the neocons. Unlike Republicans in Congress, they're not lock-step with Bush. Only Tony Blankley was Bush-and-Cheney-esque... He feels we can "stop" Iran, which means by military means. And it's worked great in Iraq, right? Sure, no problem. Really easy to control stuff in the Middle East using force.
Well that's my hello for today.
Call your representatives. Tell them to vote "no" on the Kyl-Liberman amendment.
And didn't Barack Obama float the idea that the original Iraq war resolution should be rescinded? Or at least amended -- so that Congress RECLAIMS its constitutional power to declare war? (And they better add a specific clause, forbidding a strike on Iran without congressional approval too.)
I'm sure even if they did pass that, Bush could come yell at them when he wanted to bomb Iran and 60% of them would all quiver and give in. But still, it would be a good existential gesture, no?
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I've never believed that Iran posed a threat to the U.S. It amazes me that so many of the people who oppose leaving Iraq because they think it will descend into chaos (as if it already hasn't) are also the ones saying that we can't have negotiations with Iran and that military force against Iran is an option. Hello, Iran is Iraq's neighbor! If you think that Iraq can be stabilized without cooperation and support from Iran, wake up. It ain't gonna happen, and we best not burn all our bridges with them.
But because America never holds its elected officials responsible and dosn't seem to be able to connect the dots with any of this stuff, I hate to say it, but I think we will attack Iran in the near future. Our leaders will stand there and lie and coerce us into another red herring military endeavor.
I hope to God I'm wrong, but that's just the way it is in america: we think it is worth going to war to eliminate a "threat", whether it is a legitimate one or not, we will deal with that later.
Is it worth launching a pre-emptive war that will guarantee a high number of deaths over the ASSUMPTION that we MIGHT be attacked? War should only be used as a last resort, and only in DEFENSE.
War with Iran was decided on a long time ago. Kyl-Liebermann is just theatre to make it sound like it was approved by Congress. That way, when things go to hell in a handcart like they have in Iraq, they can say Congress said ok to war and it isn't their fault. Oh - and somehow, someway, Bill Clinton will be blamed. Can't forget that part.
Pat Buchanan has really mellowed over the last several years. He is an old time consevative and hates neo-cons. If you have followed him over the last several years, you would see that he is against starting a new cold war with Russia, against most war and he is not a free trader. I don't agree with some of his politics (being a liberal) but I think he is more patriotic than all the republican candidates combined. Read his latest opinion "Is Terrorism a Mortal Threat?" it will open your eyes.
Actually the resolution we call an amendment is a declaration of war under our system. Congress passes such things so that when the President does whatever he likes he has the constitutional cover of a congressional resolution making his actions legal and the congress, on the other hand, has the cover of saying "I didn't mean that", "had I known today what I knew them", "it was not suggested to us that it was a declaration of war", etc., etc., etc.
Adding clauses to the declaration is meaningless because the commander in chief does what he likes with the congessional declaration of war in hand.
Nice post, Chris. And I agree with you 1000%.
Even better than calling your congressman or senator is calling your pastor, priest, or rabbi. Tell them to take a stand against this. Do this from the grassroots. Congress is not listening.
I don't think the world is comfortable with a nuclear-armed AMERICA, at the moment. This administration has a marked tendency to throw its weight around, and when it's a nuclear weight, it should make people nervous. It does me.
As for hopeless277, I wish I could find fault with his/her evaluation, but I run into human animals all the time, saying that we should have started out that way in Iraq, and kept it up until the country was glowing glass.
The last occasion was on the porch of an eating establishment I'd been patronizing. Two plug-chewing old timers expressed that very opinion, and the owner of the cafe agreed with them. No recognition at all, that our own unevolved nature was what led us to where we are now. Just continue in the same deadly escalation of tit-for-tat, from our current morally corrupt position.
And they think they are different (and better) than the vengeance-besotted "Ay-rabs."
Needless to say, I don't eat at that place anymore.
A few days ago, when Gen. Falon stated that we don't need a war with IRAN, I wrote to one Sen. Joe Lieberman and pointedly asked that he STOP pushing us towards WAR with IRAN.
I did get back a nice form letter today. He stated the usual Cheney sponsored talkingpoints about Iran support of terrorists groups, backing Shia and SUNNI (really Joe, what proof?) groups in Iraq, blah...bla
1) Joe is not D-Conn. The Democrats in CT backed Ned Lamont. Joe is from the Lieberman for CT party.
2) Joe has shown his true colors again and again with his pro-war stance and continuing the drumbeat for more. I am sorry to the rest of the country that he is one of my senators - I prefer the title "Junior" Senator since Dodd has more yrs.
they all must use the same form letter. i have wrote letters to both sens.arlen spector and john casey of pennsylvania and recieved the same response.
Something definitely *snapped* in Leiberman when he lost the Democratic primary. The guy's entirely off the rails, giving in to his absolute worst instincts. Connecticutt should start a recall.
Joe got the Republican vote and the Jewish vote. (Don't tell me that most Jews are anti-Zionist. That's bunkum.)
His only purpose now is to promote a war on Iran.
How many Americans want to die for dear old Israel, land of the recipients of American tax dollars?
It is shameful being an American now. I wish all those enemy Neocons dead, dead, and dead.
The problem, more than impotent Democratic senators, is our friends and neighbors who "feel safer" every time the US bombs someone and implore our representatives to err on the side of barbarism.
The most serious mistake is to assume that, if the United States of America launches a preemptive military attack against yet-another sovereign nation, it will not precipitate a declaration of war against the United States.
I don't care how many missiles and bombs you have, how many draftees you can get, or what-have-you: war is NOT a genie that you want to allow to get out of its bottle.
As General (and President) Ulysses S. Grant put it, "generals don't start wars; politicians do."
Footnote: it is also foolhardy to assume that such an action would not result in a NON-MILITARY response from other nations ... which would turn out to be every bit as serious.
In short: it is foolhardy to assume that such an action would not be without undesirable consequences of any sort.
The neo-fascists put ENTIRELY too much trust in their "wiz[ard]-bangs," and in their own hubris.
Yes! We act like we can just throw our weight around unimpeded.
We and China are competing for the world's diminishing oil supply. China owns our monstrous debt.
Do the math.
I'm cherry picking here, but:
(I must say I enjoyed her laughter on Fox News. A worthy response, and a hearty laugh.)
I thought she sounded a bit, uh, off key.
Cheney et al. are just itching for a fake reason to attack Iran. Since we have no troops available for such a war, do we implement a draft? If so, how many days do you think it will take until the war is over? Starting a war is just fine until the warmonger's son/daughter is called to go and fight - something that the chickenhawks (Cheney of the 5 deferments, etc....) know nothing about.
If you think Bush needs a stupid admendment to nuke Iran, then I have some land in Florida to see you. This is just for show. Iran WILL be nuked. Those 6 nuclear cruise missles taken to Barksdale in Louisana were NO MISTAKE. Bush will not be content until he has murdered MILLIONS. Note to Dems: Just support it, you know you want to. After all, war has NO CONSEQUENCES for you. The American people will ALWAYS back a warmonger. ALWAYS.
I don't think you're right on that overall. But six loose nukes need to be discussed. It's hard to see that as a mistake. These people running this country are dangerous.
Do you or does anyone else reading this thread have some solid evidence that 6 or 7 of the crew involved in the Minot incident have died since then? I would just like to know one way or the other and not be prey to rumor. If they're alive, show them. If they're dead, show some kind of proof like funerals or obituaries.
Please do something NOW to show your opposition. Sitting at your computer you can email a message to your Senators (google their names and you can get their web sites) or get to them through thomas.loc
No matter how disappointed or even thoroughly disgusted you are at the inaction of the Congress, they are the ones who have the power and we must insist to them that we do not want a widening war.
I agree with hopeless. All these congressional maneuverings are an eye wash. Under the war powers act, a C-in-C can extend the parameters of a war if the Country is deemed to be under attack by abating forces
What do you think all the trumpeting about Iranian IEDs has been about?! While we invaded Afghanistan, Saddam was made the bogeyman. Now that we are in Iraq, AhemddinNajad is on the chopping block!
The neocons are indeed in their '11th Hour' as rightly stated in the post. But it is this very fact and their already blinding insane ideology which will make them even more desperate!
THOSE TRAITORS ARE WORTHLESS. If w3e could make it clear that they will not personally be safe after allowing another expansion of the Bush wars, thenm they would definitely change. Bullies are cowards. Bush hid out during the VietNam war.
I'm afraid the Congress and Senate are no longer working for the good of the American public. They are all positioning, not leading. Right now in America, we have many paid to lead, yet few earning their pay.
We need new leadership. Granted we tried in '06, but one side still trumps the other. It's not good for the American people or the troops. We need a new ticket! A Unity Ticket, voices will to speak 'Truth to Power' in both parties. Democrat/R
I want Al Gore and Chuck Hagel to come together and agree, the differences they share on social issues can be worked out together. Right now, the most important issue is WAR! We need people willing to stop spinning. Willing to talk honestly with Americans and the irresponsible behavior of the ones who choose war over diplomacy.
Chuck Hagel and Al Gore could speak to individuals from both parties who are looking for HELP!!!! STOP THE MADNESS!!!!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
