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?

Comments

[Susanholmes]

i'm beginning to feel a certain amount of despair. these pre-emptive, unprovoked wars... when is the rest of the world going to kick us like we kicked germany in the forties? i know the analogy seems a bit fantastic, but it's getting to that point.

[criggs]

I've been thinking for some time that matters are drifting in that direction. And, frankly, I'm not at all sure that a little spanking might not do this country a world of good.

[Bozwellian]

MANY of us have similar "wondering­s"..semi back to the ol "do unto others as would have hone unto you" and kinda see OTHERS IN THE WIDE WORLD not going along with the US song and dance that tells them to "do as WE say, not as we do"...!!! To OTHERS>> WE

[parryisle]

I remember when Judy Woodruff on CNN questioned Joe Lieberman about his military background he responed "Of course I would have loved to have been part of that group serving in our armed forces but I was in college at the time and also a parent." He therefore seems to have a resume similar to others such as Dick Cheney who received college deferments and his fifth and final one because his wife became pregnant. (I should add that while writing this Dean Martin is singing "Just in Time.")

[serenegeezer]

"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."

I am a Democrat but would certainly vote for Chuck Hagel were he to run as an Independent candidate. This solely because he has demonstrated that he is a man of integrity and courage and has spoken out honestly about the war and the Bush Administration. People like him and Webb and Feingold and, hopefully, Lugar and Warner must step up to save their (our) country.

[rjcrane]

I agree that Hagel is a man of principle. He learned a real lesson from his prior vote to allow Bush to use force against Iraq to never even open the door again for someone as insane and untrustworthy as Bush to preemptively attack another country. Hillary however did not learn this same lesson and is repeating her mistakes. Also it is clear to me her vote for this bad resolution was a nod to AIPAC in order to keep this support for her campaign.

We can only hope that Webb and Hagel, Feingold, Lugar and others can prevent an attack on Iran before Bush leaves office and that if Hillary is the next President she will rely on diplomacy to deal with Iran.

RJ Crane, editor
topplebush.com

[LizM]

You know...you could have added Joe Biden to your list of Senators and God help us all if he isn't the next POTUS.

And, I'm wondering if you might have any thoughts as to why Senator Hagel voted against the Biden amendment.­..I have been wracking my brain trying to figure it out, to no avail.

[jbatch]

Make that 3 -- Kerry also voted against it, and while he's a lousy candidate, he is a man of some integrity, and considerable experience with war.

[LoriAnn]

Forget Hillary, I was hoping for too much there!! Although some of this media is geared totally toward making her seem shaky and unreliable. I think HAGEL/WEBB or WEBB/HAGEL sounds better and better, unless Obama can show some real leadership somewhere and soon. We need a candidate to come out of the shadows and short of Jesus Christ we are not ever going to find the perfect, all knowing, savior, so be realistic and take into the equation that the media is still allowing itself to be a "tool" for the dark side.

[doug108]

Hagel is a right winger on virtually every other issue.

[dirtyrearend]

I once thought I was a republican. Thats before I found out what they are. Then for years I was a democrat, now I see that they are really masked republicans. So I have changed to independant What will they turn to?
At any rate, hearing the dems at the debates state they cant guarantee that they can get us out of Iraq by 2013 was disappointing to put it mildly. And for those that voted like Hillary to give that lying bush a blank check to attack Iraq? Hang em high!

[dirtyrearend]

I wrote this comment. The second to last sentence is supposed to say attack Iran,not Iraq

[DawnWE]

Hermann Goering:
Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country. quote verified at snopes.com

We must resist. We must speak up and speak well. We must choose.

[eliandbo]

Hillary: "Big long laugh,",..­."If I knew then, what I know now, I would have voted the same as I do now"! Another big "long laugh"!
"HeY, My daughter won't have to fight, like the bush daughters , she can go shopping."

[Kendo Nagasaki]

Karl Rove's favorite books are:

The Prince by Machiavelli

"1984" by George Orwell

and Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler

with an occasional look at Brave New World by Aldous Huxley

[janmB]

There was a sanction against Iraq around 1991 so it doesn't mean war is inevitable within any short time. It takes MORE than that.
While Americans were getting all riled up over Ahmadenjad its Ali Khamenei who I believe today is Commander of the Islamic Rev Guard and the religious leaders who are in charge

[gardenbookie]

Oh, Lehigirl, yes it's true....Hi­llary is very good at "playing the game".... to get into the White House. Is that the object of "the game"? What cunning and manipulative trick will she pull after she gets the prize and we're up to our ass in alligators with Iraq, Iran and any other nation that the Bush/Cheney team pulls into WW 3!? She has one agenda in 2008 ~ the king will be dead, long live the queen. She's too scarey for me.

Al, where are you? We really need you.

[Purple Girl]

We must not be swayed to vote for a candidate just because of their gender, nor race. that is also discrimination. And worse it's again not voting for the best candidate. I am first human, then American, then female , then white.And that's my line of thinking when I listen to those in Gov't (or any other industry) and esp those seeking a promotion- to top grunt.

[vote4kucinich]

I was at the debate at Dartmouth on Wednesday night and came away very depressed. The top three frontrunners, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards would not commit to having all troops out of Iraq by the end of their first term in 2013! Tim Russert pressed them hard but each would not budge. I'm not clear about Biden's rather confusing position but the other four are firmly in favor of troops out as soon as possible, from Kucinich's 3 months to the others in one year.
It appeared, that the front runners plan to maintain bases in Iraq for ever-'to guard the embassies, etc." We must make the front-runners into the marginalized candidates and vice-versa!

[Misanthrope2]

And Edwards *actually* said...

RUSSERT: Senator Edwards, will you commit that at the end of your first term, in 2013, all U.S. troops will be out of Iraq?

EDWARDS: I cannot make that commitment. But I -- well, I can tell you what i would do as president. When I'm sworn into office, come January of 2009, if there are, in fact, as General Petraeus suggests, 100,000 American troops on the ground in Iraq, I will immediately draw down 40,000 to 50,000 troops; and over the course of the next several months, continue to bring our combat out of Iraq until all of our combat are, in fact, out of Iraq.

I think the problem is -- and it's what you just heard discussed -- is we will maintain an embassy in Baghdad. That embassy has to be protected. We will probably have humanitarian workers in Iraq. Those humanitarian workers have to be protected.
I think somewhere in the neighborhood of a brigade of troops will be necessary to accomplish that, 3,500 to 5,000 troops.

But I do say, I want to add to things you just heard. I think it is true that everyone up here wants to take a responsible course to end the war in Iraq. There are, however, differences between us, and those differences need to be made aware. Good people have differences about this issue.

For example, I heard Senator Clinton say on Sunday that she wants to continue combat missions in Iraq. To me, that's a continuation of the war. I do not think we should continue combat missions in Iraq.

And when I'm on a stage with the Republican nominee, come the fall of 2008, I'm going to make it clear that I'm for ending the war. And the debate will be between a Democrat who wants to bring the war to an end, get all American combat troops out of Iraq, and a Republican who wants to continue the war."

Thanks to Doofus for the transcription.

[yourstruly]

So now that Clinton has lined up with Lieberman, Cheney, Bush and the rest (I think we have to trust Webb here), why not just impeach this administration BEFORE they attack Iran? Daniel Ellsberg makes a plea to the diplomatic establishment and to our European allies to stop this madness in the October Harper's (available online). He's convinced they're going to attack Iran regardless. I might have questioned it before Amadinejad's dressing down up at Columbia, but I'm convinced now; CU Prez Bollinger is just looking for a cabinet post in the next neocon administration. In some ways, the Democratic race is a distraction from what we need to focus on, the rush to another, hideous war.

[criggs]

I just looked at Harper's table of contents for October at http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/10 and see no sign what sounds like this very interesting article by Ellsberg.

??????????­??????????­??????????­??????????­?????????

[criggs]

Well, 6 hours later, after combing the web, and after having an activist friend comb the highways and byways of the information superhighway, all we've come up with is a speech by Ellsberg given at American University and another one he gave at Elizabethtown in Pennsylvania, both within the past month. AND IN NEITHER SPEECH IS THERE ONE WORD ABOUT URGING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY TO TAKE STEPS TO PREVENT THE US FROM LAUNCHING ANOTHER WAR!!

It's really quite strange. I honestly do not believe that yourstruly is lying or making any of this up. But the fact that several hours of research on my part and on the part of my friend has yet to yield any sign of this alleged online Harper's article for their October edition is certainly very strange, to put it mildly.

Since it is an article which sounds fascinating, and which I would dearly love to read, I appeal again, not only to yourstruly but to all members of the Huffington Post community, to please speak up and explain if you know anything about this alleged article and where I could read it on line. Thank you.

Yours in reform,

Charles

[macsurf]

So, Mr. Bromwich, what do we ordinary American citizens do in the face of such hypocrisy and the blatant abuse of power on the part of the nation's political class?

I once admired Hillary Clinton. Now, I cannot abide her.

She is, I only half jokingly say this, America's Eva Peron. She covets power and, as Thomas Jefferson once said, and I'm paraphrasing, any politician who covets power, becomes inherently unfit to hold it.

I have no doubt the Bush/Cheney junta is looking for any excuse to attack Iran.

That does not surprise me at all.

I just cannot understand why, after they led us on their march of folly into Iraq on nothing but a mountaiin of lies, so many in the political class are falling for another snow job again.

I don't know. I've lost almost all faith in the entire political class in this country, Democrat and Republican alike.

It's all led me to wonder for the first time since I proudly cast my first vote thirty two years ago, if going to the polls next year is even worth it.

If Eva and the likes of a Matinee Mitt or Roust'em Rudy are the best this country can do in these critical times, I don't see the point in wasting my time by going to the polls to vote for people I have absolutely no faith in.

[vote4kucinich]

We absolutely must publicize the fact that Hilary, who voted for authorizing the War in Iraq (although she didn't think it would come to that, HA!) and is not exactly sorry or regretful about that vote but kind of wishes she hadn't voted that way, has now voted in the affirmative for exactly the same kind of action against Iran! It is truly incredible! In addition, at the Dartmouth debate on Wednesday night (I was there) neither she, not Obama, nor Edwards, would not commit to having the troops out of Iraq during their four year term, bringing us up to 2013!
Democrats! We've got some work to do to publicize this. We must send these guys to the back of the pack!

[Misanthrope2]

And Edwards *actually* said...

RUSSERT: Senator Edwards, will you commit that at the end of your first term, in 2013, all U.S. troops will be out of Iraq?

EDWARDS: I cannot make that commitment. But I -- well, I can tell you what i would do as president. When I'm sworn into office, come January of 2009, if there are, in fact, as General Petraeus suggests, 100,000 American troops on the ground in Iraq, I will immediately draw down 40,000 to 50,000 troops; and over the course of the next several months, continue to bring our combat out of Iraq until all of our combat are, in fact, out of Iraq.

I think the problem is -- and it's what you just heard discussed -- is we will maintain an embassy in Baghdad. That embassy has to be protected. We will probably have humanitarian workers in Iraq. Those humanitarian workers have to be protected.
I think somewhere in the neighborhood of a brigade of troops will be necessary to accomplish that, 3,500 to 5,000 troops.

But I do say, I want to add to things you just heard. I think it is true that everyone up here wants to take a responsible course to end the war in Iraq. There are, however, differences between us, and those differences need to be made aware. Good people have differences about this issue.

For example, I heard Senator Clinton say on Sunday that she wants to continue combat missions in Iraq. To me, that's a continuation of the war. I do not think we should continue combat missions in Iraq.

And when I'm on a stage with the Republican nominee, come the fall of 2008, I'm going to make it clear that I'm for ending the war. And the debate will be between a Democrat who wants to bring the war to an end, get all American combat troops out of Iraq, and a Republican who wants to continue the war.

[linkunlovr]

Why not do something really different and vote for Dennis Kucinich? The corporate owned media will tell you he has no chance and offer you their "choices" Hillary, Obama or Edwards. Kucinich is the only one with integrity and the guts to take on the special interests that run this country and provide funds for their
lackies. Just look at their health care proposals all of them want forced mandatory insurance! Gee do you suppose itr has anythign to do with the $$ they get from the insurance lobby?
Only Kucinich has a real not for profit health care proposal.K­ucinich is someone you canhave faith in. Just listen to him.

[vote4kucinich]

As you can tell by my name, I'm a Kucinich supporter and am actively working for him in NH. On Tuesday our local committee hosted Elizabeth Kucinich for the day. We arranged for her to meet with several groups and four times that day it felt like an infusion of oxygen to a gasping and desperate creature as she articulated Dennis' ideas. The people who met her were equally uplifted. As she says, 'Strength through peace' is a way to turn our present system on its head. As Dr. Phil says, "how's it working for you?" When we really examine America, it's not working very well for too many citizens and too many citizens of the world. So, I say to Democratic voters, don't choose a candidate because they might win, work to turn your candidate into a winner!

[TankerRat]

Macsurf, you HAVE a FIRST RATE rate candidate in Bill Richardson. Experienced, upbeat, hardworking, and a Democrat. He's repeatedly stated he'll get us out of Iraq and keep us out of Iran. If you do not vote you give up your voice. You must not do this. We NEED everybody to stand tall if we're going to change this situation. WE can do this but we must do it together.

[sierra]

It's not too difficult to understand why "....the politicians are again falling for another snow job."

The two major parties are two sides of the same coin; they just have slightly different faces.

Yes, there are some in both parties that have the interests of the people almost foremost; but the majority are allied to the simple modern thrust of, "Maniacal Consumer Capitalism" if not also allied to fundamentalist religious beliefs.

God (I'm an atheist) Help This World!!

A simple guideline would help all politicians:

In the Age of Nuclear Weapons, Either We Talk or We All Die!!

I too was insulted by the line taken not only by Tim Russert but by the "leading" three canidates, Hillary, Obama and Edwards standing on essentially keeping "troops" in Iraq even possibly beyond 2013.....

That only reinforces my take about both parties being two slightly different faces on the same corrupt coin....(N­o pun intended especially since the "dollar" is plunging on world markets)

What America needs is another Revolution!!

sierra

[mtburke59]

"What America needs is another Revolution!!"

We do have that chance for (peaceful) revolution every other year. We call them elections and even though the last two presidential election processes were flawed to the point of very probably putting the wrong man into the White House they are a mechanism for We The People to effect change, if we want and are willing to do it.

It is time we stopped whining about not liking the "leading" candidates - as annointed by the "Liberal Press" - and turned out, not just ourselves but worked on our friends and neighbors who are unhappy, at the primary level to throw out the current crop and send the message that when we get mad enough we can act. That applies not just to the current "leading" presidential contenders but also to any and all senators and representatives up for reelection who do not seem to care to do the job we want.

Quite frankly, if it comes down to the ones we currently seem to be having shoved down our throats, I would prefer to have one more choice on the ballot in November 2008: None of the above. And if None of the above wins, the parties have 6 weeks to nominate a new candidates and stand another election. Never happen but what a jolly sight that would be.

The current Democratic Leadership is neither democratic nor leaders. They are too busy trying to enhance their powerbase and keep those lobbyist dollars flowing in to do the job we think we hire them to do by electing them.

As for the Republicans, I like a line from one commentator that the state of Arizona could probably get all its energy needs by harnessing the spinning in Barry Goldwater's grave. They are not the Republicans I grew up with but just ideologues and scamps out to feather their nests and those of their friends.

Throw the bums out! We would be better with Bozo the Clown, and Bullwinkle the Moose. At least they are good for a real laugh.

[Cha]

Here is the transcript of the Kyl amdt. 3017: To Express the sense of the Senate regarding Iran.

3017

What to believe? Should we do something about Iran? Not? I'm beginning to give up on any kind of change. Things just "feel" wrong and I wonder what kind of nasty turn of events we will find ourselves witness to in the coming months?

Ugh.

[BARRISTER]

Sorry, Hilliary cannot now expect my vote.

[rbrooks]

Hillary is a DLC honcho: the Democratic party's version of a neocon Republican. She just voted for what Jim Webb accurately referred to as Cheney's wet dream. That one vote should tell you all you need to know about who she works for.
The mainstream media's barrage of pro-Hillary propaganda is the 2008 equivalent of the Supreme Court's 2000 appointment of Bush: the corporate/military establishment is "electing" the next president.

[SensibleAmerican]

It is the DLC "honchos" that got the Congress back after 12 years! Oh! AND the Senate!

As for the far-left-fringe "honchos"?! Please refer to the "Connecticut manual" for further instructions!

[cube3u]

Au contraire, the folks out in the campaign trenches who volunteered and made phone calls and walked from door to door talking to people made a very big difference. That's what made up for the rusting party machines the Dems have been relying on.

Until the DC party honchos bring their egos under control, we'll have problems in the party. SA is just one of the symptoms of the DLC overreaching egotistical types who have too much control in the party.

[peaceandfreedom]

Senseless, as Cube says, it was the people!

Now why do you always run away from the simple questions:

"She just voted for what Jim Webb accurately referred to as Cheney's wet dream."

But your response is more GOP drivel.

[stlrfan]

Hill ain't Bill, she had my reluctant support until this vote. We must convince Al Gore that all he needs to do is say the words.

[TankerRat]

Will you people PLEASE stop with this Al
Gore CRAP. He's a has been and is no better than Hillary. I've been stating for months now that Hillary is a charlatan. Maybe, just maybe, some out there will finally see what I've been driving at. This woman is DANGEROUS and YOU are the farthest from her priorities.

[eliandbo]

I watched and listened to Gore on all the talk shows for 8 years, he never answered one question. He came prepared with a prepared responce not relative to the questions.
He is another elite person , because of his daddy was put into office, enough already!
Why can't the people put in office somebody from the true middle class, not these plastic elites that don't know how the rest of America lives.
Please remember all the people that are in control and ruining this country are college graduates!

[research]

Please do not suggest Gore as a candidate! I appreciate his global warming work, but he is not presidential material.

[goldust]

Now I see why Lieberman, an orthodox jew, who lost the election was brought back by AIPAC's money as an independent! They knew that they were not done with their friend iran yet, so they needed lieberman to finish the job for the israelis using the american blood and money! why are we so stupid to be dragged by these non-americans to another war for israel!

[SensibleAmerican]

There was a vote for "War"?! Boy! I missed that one!

"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"! I thought he has been doing this regardless?! Remember "axis of evil", Circa 2002?!

I'll go back and read this post again and again till I make sense out of it!

[research]

Didn't it start out as a binding amendment that included "military" means. It was watered down and made non-binding because good people screamed bloody murder!. Iran is complying with NPT IAEC rules for reprocessing. As to their terrorist support, unfortunately the USA has lost that moral high ground required to have any effect on world opinion. the USA has become a terrorist sponsor itself!