|
||
Hillary Clinton Votes for War Again
Yesterday, by a vote of 76-22, the Senate passed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment in support of military actions against Iran. This is the second such endorsement of the president by a senate majority in just three months. In July, the Lieberman amendment to "confront Iran" passed with the far stronger majority of 97-0.
The original draft of Kyl-Lieberman had asked U.S. forces to "combat, contain, and roll back" the Iranian menace within Iraq. But the words "roll back" were all too plainly a coded endorsement of hot pursuit into Iran; and the senators did not want to go quite so far. To assure a larger majority the language was accordingly trimmed and blurred to say "that it should be the policy of the United States to stop inside Iraq the violent activities and destabilizing influence of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies."
The inclusion of Hezbollah deserves some notice. It is part of a larger attempt, already apparent in the Lebanon war of 2006, to manufacture an "amalgam" of all the enemies of Israel and the United States throughout the region, and to treat them all as one enemy. Those who believe in the amalgam will come to agree that many more wars by the United States and Israel are needed to crush this enemy.
More provocative is a secondary detail of the amendment, which received less notice from the mainstream media. Kyl-Lieberman approves the listing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard of Iran as a "foreign terrorist organization." Now, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard is the largest branch of the Iranian military. By granting Vice President Cheney's wish (a distant dream in 2005) to put the Iranian guard on the U.S. terrorist list, the Senate has classified the army of Iran as an army of terrorists. The president, therefore, as he follows out the Cheney plan has all the support he requires for asserting in his next speech to an army or veterans group that Iran is a nation of terrorists.
It was said during the Vietnam War that "a dead Vietnamese is a Viet Cong." It will assuage the conscience for U.S. bombers of Iran to know that a dead Iranian is a terrorist. The Senate, by this classification, has absolved the bombers in advance.
Hillary Clinton voted in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment to press the army toward war with Iran. This was an important step, for her, and a vote as closely considered as her vote to authorize the bombing and occupation of Iraq.
Here are the senators who voted against Kyl-Lieberman:
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)
John McCain and Barack Obama did not vote.
It is a remarkable fact that the war meditated against Iran, like the war on Iraq, is sought most keenly by a vice president and president who went further than most of their generation to avoid serving their country in Vietnam. The fact becomes the more remarkable in view of the contempt shown by both men for those who did not cheer and avoid, but opposed the Vietnam war by conscientious dissent. The same is true across the range of non-combatant neoconservative war architects and propagandists. Psychological compensation of an astonishing kind (to say no more) is at work in this display of rashness disguised as courage in the later careers of our war leaders behind the lines. For several years now, the mainstream press and media have said as little as possible about it.
Two votes against Kyl-Lieberman were issued from veterans with considerable experience and firsthand knowledge of war, Chuck Hagel and Jim Webb. If these two men were now to sharpen their dissidence, if they could make their reasons articulate and see the present as a time that calls them to the sustained work of opposition-- we might have the beginnings of a potent resistance which will never come from Harry Reid.
What of the absence of Barack Obama? In a speech in Iowa on September 12, he addressed by anticipation the matter before the Senate in Kyl-Lieberman: "We hear eerie echoes of the run-up to the war in Iraq in the way that the President and Vice President talk about Iran. They conflate Iran and al Qaeda. They issue veiled threats. They suggest that the time for diplomacy and pressure is running out when we haven't even tried direct diplomacy. Well George Bush and Dick Cheney must hear--loud and clear--from the American people and the Congress: you don't have our support, and you don't have our authorization for another war."
It is baffling that a man who spoke those words two weeks ago could not find the time or the resolve to cast his vote in a conspicuous test for authorizing war on Iran. This seems to be one more demonstration of Obama's tendency never to take a step forward without a step to the side. As for his own message about Iran, it has not been "loud and clear," but muffled, wavering, experimental.
With Hillary Clinton, we know where we stand. Yesterday she voted to bring the country a serious step closer to war against Iran. And she did so for the same reason that she voted to authorize the war on Iraq. She thinks the next war is going to happen. She hopes the worst of its short-term effects on America will have died down before the election. She suspects the media and voters will show more trust for a candidate who supported than for one who opposed the war. She wants a ponderous establishment of American troops and super-bases to remain in the Middle East for years to come. If she wins the presidency, she will inherit the command of that army and those bases, and she believes she can manage their affairs more prudently than George W. Bush.
Hillary Clinton is consistent. Every move is calculated, her actual intentions are masked, but the total drift is easy to comprehend. It is not so with Obama. How can he expect anyone to back a man who will not back himself?
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
WHAT A MISSED OPPORTUNITY FOR OBAMA.
What could more important in New Hampshire, that he could not fly back to Washington to make his OFFICIAL outrage known by voting against the amendment.
It would have been an occasion to actually do something that would say to the voting public that we can trust this man and what he stands for.
So much free publicity. So much opportunity wasted. Instead he wimped out and hid. No guts , no glory.
Hillary cannot afford to appear as a potentially weak president especially as a woman and primarily to our allies and our enemies. This was a risk she had to take, but if there is enough basklash,she has lost the nomination.
NO VOTE for Hillary Clinton !
(SAY NO TO WAR)
We Need A Third Party Candidate !
Thank you, Mr. Bromwich. Your recent articles are a breath of fresh air. Keep up the great work. Americans need to hear you loud and clear.
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=284561&&
Hillary has been disappointing these last few weeks- too hawkish- too something- and yet I know around 50-60 ladies in Long Island (out East) who won't vote for her- this leaves her with people who say one thing- but the post-grad gals out east aren't going for her- they all want Obama- maybe she's getting blue collar upstate New York women- I know of no women out here; oddly a bunch of men over 80 indicated they'd vote for her!Huff Post- where are these polls taking place? So far, in Long Island's Newsday Poll- Obama has consistently maintained a lead in this major paper- if she can't get all of us gals onboard- the polls smell fishy and they need to come to all of Long Island where Obama is really in the lead!
longislandlol, Polls can be constructed to slant the results any way that the pollster wants them to be. Any one who believes a poll just does not think for themselves. I know because in Psyc. 550 we had to construct polls that leaned ,left , right and centrist and then serve them to the public to see if the results were as expected.
And THIS is who the powers that be have pre-ordained as our nominee. We should all be very afraid. As for Obama, he is indeed a man of words and not deeds.
Thank you Senator Amy Klobuchar for getting this one right! Now, fix that FISA vote!
ON THE ROAD TO HELL FOR ISRAEL
ANTI-SEMITISM IS EVIL, just as is anti-any-ethic-group. But what about ANTI-ISRAEL, based on the behavior of that nation?
We Americans need to stop playing word games. For example, if we apply Webster's definition of "TERRORISM" to the already-forgotten recent Middle East war between Israel and Hezbollah, and use OBJECTIVE MEASUREMENTS, then Israel and not Hezbollah was the biggest terrorist in this tragedy, with 50 to 1 non-combatant deaths for Lebanon vs. Israel (2/3 of Israeli dead were soldiers), and an even greater disparity in terms of infrastructure and the long-term suffering of people. Israel could have fought Hezbollah up close and personal, but instead involved a million innocent Lebanonese in an asymmetrical war using United States-supplied warplanes and smart bombs.
Of course, the word terrorism is reserved for our enemies, and not part of our terms of endearment with Israel. However, before we consign what happened to Lebanon and its people to "collateral damage" and it completely fades from our short attention span, perhaps we can find a more appropriate term to describe ravaged Lebanon, such as "collateral devastation." As the pendulum of action and reaction/cause and effect swings our way, we won't just sit and wonder why these terrible terrorists hate us and want to kill us (they do 9-11, we do Lebanon, and so on).
Human beings think and rationalize in words. For this reason, words decide issues. Many people use words imprecisely or for advantage, and not for truth. The prime example here, anti-Semitism and anti-Israel are not the same thing. If they were the same, then the Israeli government would be infallible. Israeli tough-guy terror (seen often, even on American TV) is about half the reason the United States is hated in the Middle East. Unfortunately, we have to go along too because no one can speak the truth of words and reality. Our one-sided policy in the Middle East is a disaster. NO war for Israel!!!
Bite me John,
Are those words clear enough for you?
Was the conflict between Israel v hezbollah or Israel v Lebanon? Was hezbollah responsible for their actions that started the recent war? Where were they to fight them up close and personal? You think they are going to take an open field of battle or will they hide amongst the innocent?
Words don't describe the ignorance it takes to not grasp the cowardice on the part of hezbollah. Then in your beautiful use of our ever so clever words you indicate they're the victim, and we deserve what we get.
Who is killing the Lebanese members of their Govt?
How many of the kidnapped Israel soldiers by hezbollah (before the escalation of the conflict) were returned alive?
I've got your pendulum right here and another word.
"kaffir" (The word kafir/kuffar was used by Muslims in Africa to refer to the non-Muslim African natives. Many of those kuffar, who were enslaved and sold by their Muslims captors)
That's the word they hope to refer to you as. You think this struggle is new you Dolt? You hone your use of the beautiful English language. You can use it to beg forgiveness for not knowing the proper time to place your carpet.
The comments regarding Obama and his dual stance regarding the war on terror, are exactly why I am promoting an Edwards/Obama ticket. Please read on!
We must not simply swap another Clinton for another Bush and if you can't understand that, research the Mena airport in Arkansas. You'll see the families connections years ago during another phony war, the war on drugs.
This is where GHWB, the CIA, BCCI, Barry Seals, Vince Foster, Pablo Escobar, Marc Rich, Jim McDougal, and Iran/Contra, all come together. Google Gary Webb's Pulitzer Prize work for the SJ Merc. News to start with.
As Edwards' VP, Obama will learn to trust his heart and will be able to reject the triangulation, so necessary in the Senate. As administration's proponent of populism, Obama will find his voice, speaking truth to power and become a people's champion.
the NEXT duet
Hillary and McCain
bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, IRAN
HAGEL/WEBB 2008
WEBB/HAGEL 2008
It's so scary that these people voted yet once again for war and think they are not. We need another war like we need a hole in the head. During the debate the other night Edwards said Hillary voted for this and she just smiled!!! Smiled, like and idiot!!! People will die and she smiles.
Obama is the shoulda, woulda, coulda candidate. I was ashamed to see one of my senators voted for this amendment, Patty Murray. Seems counter to her public displays of reason these past six months.
On the other hand, THANK YOU Senator Cantwell for your courageous stand against this war-mongering government.
OBAMA HID - JUST LIKE THE LAST VOTE ON FUNDING,
HE WAITED UNTIL ALL THE SENATORS HAD VOTED, TO
SEE HOW THEY WERE VOTING AND THEN AT THE VERY
LAST MINUTE HE VOTED. THIS TELLS YOU ALL YOU
NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THIS PHONY.
This tells me all I need to know about Hillary and Obama. She votes for war and he just hides. Makes Biden, Dodd the others look better all the time. As far as I am concerned Hillary and Obama are out of the running with this vote.
There were warnings of a big sucking sound when Slick Willey was running for his first term. It was called NAFTA. This time with Hillary, it is called WOT.
The WOT is a means to suck the money and life out of ordinary Americans and put into the hands of the have-mores. This largely has been the role the Federal Government has played throughout it's history.
If Americans read history, they'd understand nothing was handed to the citizens. Everything was fought for, civil war, womens movement, civil rights, workers unions. And they would never elect people like Bush and the Clinton who are politicians that kiss up to their corporate masters.
Hillary had her chance to protest the war in the Senate. She chose to hide and vote for the wars. She doesn't deserve to become President.
Check out www.johnedwards.com/issues/iran. He is running against Hillary and her worldview.
He needs our support NOW to become the one democratic candidate who can actually win against the Republicans. Please help.
I agree.... Clinton is the Left side of Big Money and the Status Quo
its a myth that they cant defund the war. its a fiasco and american troops arent protecting anyone.
had they left long ago the level of violence would be nowhere where it is now.
now if they leave it will gradually work itself out; as long as they stay it will not.
not IMMEDIATELY defunding the war has the effect of weakening our economy and the fight against terrorism.
afghanistan could possibly not be as futile were we to shift troops there; but im not sure of that. at least factions there arent killing each other, so maybe a military presence would be justified there.
everyone misses the main point: if peace is to be maintained IT ALWAYS HAS TO BE ENFORCED BY MULTI-NATIONAL FORCES, including muslim ones.
a unilateral american invasion and occupation will always be doomed to failure.
Really does make one wonder what's happened if we re-elect the worst president in history and have what others have deemed as the worst congress as well. Makes kind of a sad commentary on 'we the people'. It's unbelievable that we will be paying off the Iraq conflict (in may ways including financially) for many years to come, have exhausted our present military resources, and yet continue to look for trouble elsewhere in the middle east.
I have two sons of draft age and struggle with the notion that once the draft is actively started to support ANOTHER conflict in which we never should have engaged, everyone should be expected to support this madness in the name of national security, the 'war on terror', or patriotism as it relates to fighting in the middle east. Particularly when it's people who have little or no military experience and no apparent personal losses at stake as they scream "sick 'em" or some other variation of needless mongering.
Perhaps the Israelis were correct all along and we should have gone into Iran versus Iraq. Too late for 'two steps back' now and frankly, we don't have the resources to be 'victorious' without a CONSIDERABLE burden on the United States. How much are we going to pass onto future generations in terms of 'holding the bag' for poor decisions made now?"
No, the Israelis are wrong. Iraq was the absolutely necessary prelude for attacking Iran because oilman Bush knew perfectly well that he needed a quick and rich source to cover the temporary but potentially devastating loss of Iranian oil. The strategy has backfired and now some Israelis are daydreaming nonsense.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
