Hillary Clinton on Board to Block Iran Military Strike Funding

There is breaking news via Taylor Marsh that Hillary Clinton will support Senator Webb's Resolution demanding that the President seek Congressional approval before any military action against Iran and prohibiting the use of funds for military operations in Iran.

This is significant news because while Hillary Clinton did support the Kyl-Lieberman Resolution calling for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to be formally labeled a terrorist organization -- and thus providing the President with a potential back door Congressional authorization for yet another war in the Middle East -- her opposition to White House military action against Iran without Congress's sign off cuts a different and healthy direction.

It is essential that the Senate pass a resolution that claws back its Congressional prerogatives to declare war (or not) from the White House and not allow the Executive Branch the ability to further expand the current horrific mess in the Middle East.

Hillary Clinton needs to apply her ascending political weight to the passage of the Webb resolution. It is not enough to just support a resolution and watch it languish. This is a measure that needs to be passed and sent to the White House to rob legitimacy from any conflict Cheney and his followers might engineer in the waning days of this administration.

As Clinton works to pass the Webb resolution, she needs to articulate what mix of incentives and disincentives should be on the table in the kind of direct US-Iran negotiations she has called for.

Thus far, George Bush is the executive force in these narratives -- while Senators just vote one way or another without real responsibility for outcomes.

Hillary Clinton needs to perform like an executive and call together her team to secure Webb's Resolution as a benchmark of her abilities -- and then needs to put on the table for Americans and Iranians to see a policy track that differs from the course the Bush and Ahmadinejad factions have set us on.

-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note

Comments

[radicalmoderate]

The sword has been pulled from its sheath, the blade is lying in the sun. Anyone who voted for Lieberman's war mongering voted to act against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. If it was meant to frighten the Iranians, it only srengthens them. It also give Dubya all he needs to bomb something. If the Iranians are helping the Shia militias who kill Americans then the Saudis who are helping the Sunni militias should also have been condemned and declared our enemy. If the surge is working then why does anyone think this escalation against Iran is needed? In the eyes of more and more Muslims we are occupiers and the real terrorists. (Not "phony terrorists" either.)

If this vote did not give Bush the right to attack then why is the Webb bill being brought forward? When it fails it will mean that the Senate does not want to take the military option away from the administration, the military or by proxy even from Israel.

This is the worst thing the Dems have allowed to happen since taking over both houses. It did not have to happen any more than the unconstitutional MoveOn denouncement vote did. Our country is being held hostage by the fear of the 20% of the ultra right wingers who still listen to the Limbaughs and O'Reillys who control the hate speech and the conversation.

[ElkoJohn]

I guess Liebermann "fooled" Hill like Bush "fooled" Hill, "oops" she says, "i better vote for Webb this time."

[Qbear]

Reid made a HUGE blunder bringing Kyl/Lieberman to the floor. He played into Lieberman's goal of gutting the democratic Party of candidates...and Hillary was dumb enough to take the bait.

GAME OVER Hillary

[Qbear]

too little too LATE.

Hillary already gave Cheney a Sense of the Senate vote,(Kyl/Lieberman,) which he'll use to rationalize attacking Iran.

Hillary = Lieberman with a fake laugh

[BearCountry]

Hillary is a neocon but trying to disguise it by voting to give w powers, then saying that the "real" vote will come at a later time and she will show her opposition then. The "real" time never seems to come for her to do that. Hillary's vote for the k/l bill is all the authority that w needed. When he sends "surgical strikes" into Iran, he will wave that bill.

Then the vote to authorize the money ($150B) but not actually appropriate it is a joke. Once the strikes against Iran start, there won't be any way that congress will withhold the money.

Obama as a leader on the national stage is a bad joke. Every time there is something meaningful to vote on, he disappears like w after 9/11. I'm not sure what his supporters think that he will do differently if he actually gets elected.

[leftLibertarian]

Hillary is for the war and against the war.

Whatever you are for, so is she. Whatever you are against, so is she.

Whatever will get her elected, she will do.

She is without principles.

She is one of the reason why America is in an illegal war in Iraq.

[JohnCitizen]

SEARCHING FOR TRUTH, JUSTICE AND PEACE

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. Now the Israeli lobby is pushing for war with Iran!

[hoopoe]

the hypocrisy is staggering, isn't it?

as if to show how absurd kyl-lieberman was, the iranians just passed a non-binding resolution declaring the CIA and US army 'terrorist' organizations. it has an element of truth to it...

if only we could wrest the word 'terrorism' itself from the warmakers in this country and demand they apply it appropriately according to its actual, technical definition, perhaps they wouldn't be able to sell this perpetual warfare... the haphazard use of that volatile and misunderstood word has got to stop if we are ever going to have a ration discourse again!

this would all be hilarious if it were not about to start another war...

[myname]

I think the title of this piece ignores Hillary's calculation and double speak and gives a false impression that she is not pandering for the neocon vote.

Call her what she really is: untrustworthy,Flip Floper

[AlteredEgo]

Eye wash from Hillary for damage control. Her principles are only her principles when they are convenient. Remember the film "The Contender" with Joan Allen?!!! As stated in that film, principles must still stand when they are NOT convenient or they are not principles.

[Sundialsvc4]

It isn't enough to "vote to cut the funding."

The Senate should be asking the House to adopt Articles of Impeachment against an entire list of "civil officers" for immediate consideration by the Senate.

In a single afternoon the problem could be ended: the Commander-in-Chief and his lackeys would be relieved of their commands and removed from their posts. And if I recall my succession-list correctly, Nancy Pelozi would probably become our first woman President after everyone in front of her was simultaneously removed.

Problem solved. Peace restored.

[mosh]

WHERE'S OBAMA IN ALL OF THIS???? We all behave as if Hillary is the inevitable candidate in 08. What about Obama - the no show on the lieberman Kyl vote? How come no one is asking where he stands on this? And why the hell didn't he vote?? Head cold or no head cold how dare he not vote on what we all agree could be the second most important vote to be cast since 9/11. He couldn't vote the first time around on the pivotal question of Iraq but based a large part of his campaign on how he would have voted had he been in the Senate - given his record, maybe he wouldn't have voted at all. Maybe he would have been home in bed self medicated with Nyquil. Hillary and Obama both lost my vote in the primary on this one - one because she did vote the other because he didn't. I don't trust either of them -

[vicissitude]

Obama did not abstain from the vote. He was told there would be no vote in the near future. The record is evidence :

The exact transcript of the record says:

"Mr. REID. Mr. Chairman, there will be no more votes tonight. We have tried to work something out on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment and the Biden amendment. We have been unable to do that.

We have been very close a few times, but we have just been informed that Senator Biden will not have a vote anytime in the near future. There will not be a vote on the other one anytime in the near future. We hope tonight will bring more clearness on the issue."

All presidential contenders have many out-of-town commitments. For those who are sitting senators, they change their campaign schedule when they do know an important vote is coming up but otherwise they will pursue their campaign plans. Obama is no different. Here is his statement on the bill:

Senator Obama clearly recognizes the serious threat posed by Iran. However, he does not agree with the President that the best way to counter that threat is to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq, and he does not think that now is the time for saber-rattling towards Iran. In fact, he thinks that our large troop presence in Iraq has served to strengthen Iran - not weaken it. He believes that diplomacy and economic pressure, such as the divestment bill that he has proposed, is the right way to pressure the Iranian regime. Accordingly, he would have opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment had he been able to vote today.

[mosh]

"Accordingly, he would have opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment had he been able to vote today"

Able to vote TODAY? What is this some talking point lifted from his website last week?

It was his business - his job - to know whether there was a vote on, everybody else seemed to know. What happened to him?

You seem to know alot about what the Senator believes. However his actions (omission or commision??) speak much louder than your words, even if you were Obama himself, which I assume you are not.

And to everyone else out there - I still ask:

WHAT ABOUT OBAMA??

[drblack]

Why don't the Dems demand a new vote for a War Authorization. The reasons in the original War Authorization have all been proven false or no longer matter.
America needs to get the Constitution back in as our defining document...repeal of the so called patriot Act, military commisions, FISA update, so called protect America act, Real ID act.......all of these are poison to a Free country.
Hillary is the big money, big power candidate. She will sell America to the highest bidder just as she and Bill did with themselves.
Bush is terrible but at least he called himself a neoCON republican.
The USA will not survive much longer as a free country without some true progressive, populist leadership who work to reinstate the Constitution and the absolute Freedom for the individual it guarantees.
We are becoming like China...free to make and spend money but not much else.(of course Clintons and Bushes sold us out to China, so it is not surprising that the new Chinese hybrid of Communist capitalism is the new way for the USA as enforced by Bush-Clinton))

[nomobull]

god help us now

[drblack]

Anyone who trusts Hillary is as dumb as those who supported Bush.
She will do what her corporate masters tell her to do....just as Bush, Reagan and Bill Clinton did.

[Justtellthetruth]

I would remind you that "Congress" gave this administration the ability to attack Iraq, so demanding that they have say so over the preemptive attack of Iran is not much of a comfort, especially after they have voted to help further demonize Iran, even while pakistan, our ally is still about 50 times more dangerous to the US than iran could ever be (I'm not saying we should attack pakistan, Im saying that if they can be called our ally, then Iran ought to be considered one of our special friends in comparison).

Hillary will vote to allow war with Iran after they have really stepped up the demonization campaign, and BTW, how many faux Hitlers will we attack preemptively before we realize that we've been had?

This is a calculaed political move for damage control in light of the universal disgust at her and her fellow sellouts recent actions vis a vis kyl Lieberman.

We ought to unseat the lot of them, republicans and democrats alike. Don't leave a single incumbent standing.

And for gods sake, unless you want to explain to your kids why you allowed that mean, self centered, unprincipled old lady to reinstate the draft and inspire eternal, avoidable, damaging and costly wars in the middle east, for gods sake, vote for anyone else.

[SensibleAmerican]

I can see that the Nader-herd jumped on this again with their usual puerile and empty rhetoric! Not surprising though

Let's begin with the much touted Kyl_lieberman "resolution". What started as a slimy pathway to war was so diluted with its teeth all but taken out, that it needed dentures! The last thread left is the recognition of the Iranian Guard as a terrorist organization. Then it is non-binding, which makes it almost a protest!

Remember the Dems and their "non binding" resolutions on Iraq?! In Senate terms these as just "stating for the record". In other words, how some members think or feel and how they express their opinion on a certain subject matter

[SensibleAmerican]

As for the Webb resolution it IS an actual resolution that shall become part of, or an actual Bill! A BINDING resolution!

Having stated all this, I will need to refresh some memories on Bush's ways of thinking! Once this guy is convinced (read brainwashed) by Cheney and his cabal of neocons, he continues to do what he wants to do! There are frigates already placed within striking distance of Iran. There is ample proof that a lot of IEDs in Iraq are being manufactured in Iran!

If the neocons get down to it, they will find a way to attack Iran, Congress or no Congress! Read the Wars Act again and you will understand how the President has almost dictatorial powers in the time of war. Another reason why he will never end the Iraq war