« Street Harassers: The Next Generation | Main | Eat Your Peas » Clinton and Webb01 Oct 2007 10:56 pm From Hillary Clinton's office: Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton today announced that she is co-sponsoring legislation introduced by Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) that prohibits the use of funds for military operations against Iran without explicit Congressional authorization (S. 759). The political instincts that led her to vote for Lieberman-Kyle remain troubling, but this is obviously a big step forward. Comments (35)
What Petey said. 
HOLY SHIT! What Petey! max
I was so shocked at agreeing with Petey that I left 'said' out of 'What Petey said!'. (Not actually a joke at all!) max
Yeah, um. This is a case of reflexive hawkishness, then realizing that it led to political problems for her, and then doing some CYA work. There's no Webb amendment on Iranian airstrikes if you let Republicans in Congress mau-mau you into striking Iran.
I agree that Petey has nailed it. Oh what a bunch of idiots we have in the Democratic Party. There are ways to be a calculating coward without being branded as such, as so many Republicans prove it every day, and for Mrs. Clinton to not have learnt from her adversaries can only lead one to the overwhelming conclusion that she is an idiot.
Given that she'll be the next president, this is all very disturbing.
The beautiful and allurring missus Clinton knows her voters. They're not too intelligent, pay more attention to Halo 3 opening than the politics of the country, and realize they have a very short memory. Pretty much whatever she wants to say she can get away with. I think Dick Morris is aiming a little low when he says she has an 80% chance of winning.
No. Hillary is not dumb. She knew the effect her vote on Kyl-Lieberman would have; in my opinion it was merely a continuation of her rhetorical bellicocity in the vein of "not apologizing for Iraq" - to better position herself against attacks from the right in the general.
"I think Dick Morris is aiming a little low when he says she has an 80% chance of winning." Y'know, Dick Morris and his pupil, Mark Penn, have never shown any particular aptitude at winning Democratic nominations or understanding the Democratic electorate. Penn's last campaign was the Lieberman for President campaign from '04, which didn't fare too well. Neither Morris nor Penn has ever won a contested nomination fight. While Hillary is in a strong position, she remains vulnerable to the primary electorate in the early states in a way I don't think most folks quite appreciate.
At the end of the day, Bush and Cheney get the IRG classified as a terrorist organization with Senator Clinton's blessing, which is all they will claim they need to send in the bombers. Legally, the right to designate "foreign terrorist organizations" belongs to the Secretary of State, not to Congress. You could look it up. Yet our esteemed Secretary of State, who takes her marching orders directly from President Bush, has not done this. Indeed, in the 6 years since 9/11, the Administration has not lifted a finger in the direction of designating the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. Nor is this even surprising, because as Senator Webb wisely pointed out in opposing the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, it's completely senseless and inconsistent with past practice to go designating an official arm of a foreign military as a terrorist organization. Be that as it may, it's simply absurd to think that designating the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization is crucial to the war plans of the Bush Administration, yet they've done nothing all these years to seek such a designation even though they already had the power to make it happen. I guess they thought it would be subtler if they let Congress make the first move. And yet, with Congress in friendly Republican hands all those years, no one ever made a move towards this end. The only reality-based conclusion from these facts is that designating the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization just isn't very important to the Bush Administration. People can predict doom all they want, but if this were truly such an important step, there is no way the administration would have sat on their hands for years just waiting for Congress to offer them the keys to the kingdom. I don't know how many times the blogosphere plans to recreate this particular freakout, but it's something to behold.
Doesn't this just mean she was for war with Iran before she was against it?
"it's simply absurd to think that designating the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization is crucial to the war plans of the Bush Administration, yet they've done nothing all these years to seek such a designation even though they already had the power to make it happen. I guess they thought it would be subtler if they let Congress make the first move. And yet, with Congress in friendly Republican hands all those years, no one ever made a move towards this end." I suggest you read Monday's Sy Hersh piece in the New Yorker about how the administration's war plans have recently shifted to making the IRG a military target at least on par with the nuclear facilities. In fact, the Israelis are claiming to be worried that the administration is only going to strike the IRG while ignoring the nuclear facilities. I haven't been an Iran alarmist until the last month or so. But pieces are clearly being moved around the bureaucratic and political chessboard to get in position for an attack. That doesn't mean an attack is definitely going to happen. But if the WH does pull the trigger, they will use Lieberman-Kyl as the backing.
Would it be snarky to suggest this might be one of those Cubs-Yankees "alternate sides" strategies?
Petey is right. Hillary Clinton is straddling the issue in less than a week.
It can't possibly pass outright not to mention survive a veto and if by some odd circumstance it did it would be ignored. The now supposedly limited target list will grow and grow and grow. Two years after the attack at least a million Iranians will be dead from them. Which is the whole point.
Isn't it quite consistent, though, with the obvious Democratic Party motto: just like the Republicans but without frothing at the mouth!
Re: But pieces are clearly being moved around the bureaucratic and political chessboard to get in position for an attack. How? In the run up to the Iraq War, the administration spent months with high profile campaigning at home and abroad (at the UN and in foreign capitals) for support for thr move. Nothing of the sort is happening today. In fact if you didn't read either leftwing or rightwing blogs (the rightwingers screaming because Bush is being namby-pamby on Iran) you wouldn't even know anything was amiss at all.
"How?" By linking Iran and the IRG to American casualties in Iraq. By laying the groundwork to hold GOP support for airstrikes solid. By passing Lieberman-Kyl to give the fig-leaf of Congressional approval for action against the IRG. By setting military plans for an IRG oriented attack. They're ready to go now, which wasn't true 3 months now. Again, that doesn't mean that they're going to pull the trigger, but they're now in a position where they can. And they'll likely continue to be in that position for the rest of their term. "you wouldn't even know anything was amiss at all." That's the beauty for the WH of not caring about their approval ratings, and not caring politically if anyone in the country supports the airstrikes who isn't a Republican. The game for them is just to make sure that 67% of GOP Senators have their back. With those kind of pre-requisites, you can do a zero ground troop, airstrike-only action without a whole lot of domestic noise beforehand.
I thought the administration designated the IRG a terrorist organization weeks ago? In any case, this Clinton move to co-sponsor the bill with Webb is not just a classic Clinton move, it is becoming a classic Congressional Democrat move: allow something terrible to come to the floor and pass, act stunned at the constituency reaction, vow to "fix" it with a new bill or an amendment or some other shit THAT WILL NEVER PASS, AND IF IT DID IT WOULD BE VETOED. How fucking stupid do they think the rank and file are? Pretty stupid. And hell, Hillary IS the frontrunner.
The cynicism of this woman, and her contempt for the electorate, know no bounds. She's on her cell phone with the hawks saying "Hold on a sec while a throw some crumbs to these nitwit doves."
JonF, the deaf and dumb, hasn't heard any talkup of Iran war for the last TWO YEARS? What planet has he been exploring for NASA for the past two years? Doing talk up abroad? How about THIS: US trains Gulf air forces for possible Iran strike Or Sy Hersh's report that Britain is on board for the Iran strike because Brown is upset that the British Navy seemed weak when the Iranians grabbed their sailors recently. I just quoted a poll here the other day that specifically stated that 40% of the US public think Iran is a threat and would support military action. Dick Cheney told his associates that they only need 40% support to go for it. Christ, where is this clown JonF coming from? Meanwhile, how about THIS: Poll: Most Israelis support using nukes Money quote: "37% of Israelis believed the use of nuclear weapons to prevent a war would be justified, while 35% believed the weapons could be justifiably used during a war. In addition, the survey found that Israel had the lowest public support for destroying nuclear weapons out of all the countries questioned. Israel also had the highest percentage in favor of the country using its "power and influence in a way that serves its own interests" - approximately 55% - as opposed to "coordinat[ing] with other countries to do what's best for the world as a whole." Nearly 72% also agreed that "nuclear weapons place Israel in a unique position, so it is not in our interest to participate in treaties that would reduce or eliminate our purported nuclear arsenal." Fucking racist Zionists. Tell me again how Israel is full of "peace-loving people" who only want "security" for Israel. As for Clinton, I agree - she is faking it to CYA in case Bush gives the order sooner than later. Besides which, as others here have said, the Republicans AND the Democrats will shoot Webb's bill down, just as they have before. So she's bullshitting with this nonsense. As for the notion that designating the IRGC would have been done years ago if it was important, this is just stupid thinking. Bush and Cheney need this crap NOW to 1) enable them to justify a strike without Congressional authorization, based on the previous authorization of use of force to attack "terrorists", 2) link Iran more firmly with "terrorism" and specifically "terrorism" in Iraq as public justification for a strike; 3) raise the public drum beat for war with Iran without relying on the phony "nuclear weapons program" crap which they have no credibility for due to the WMD bullshit they spewed before the Iraq war; and possibly other reasons I can't think of right now. The deniers are truly something to behold. Totally incapable of seeing the exact same run up to war that occurred before the Iraq war: the same fake claims of "WMDs", the same fake claims of "supporting terrorism", the same fake claims of "we're committed to diplomacy". All exactly the same. Meanwhile, more intelligent analysts like Zbigniew Brezinski and Joseph Cirincione have been aware of the situation for the past year. Brezinksi says in Hersh's article: "'This time, unlike the attack in Iraq, we’re going to play the victim. The name of our game seems to be to get the Iranians to overplay their hand...' Brezinski said that Iran would probably respond to a US attack 'by intensifying the conflict in Iraq and also in Afghanistan, their neighbours, and that could draw in Pakistan. 'We will be stuck in a regional war for twenty years,' he said." But the deniers continue to claim that this is not only unlikely, it is IMPOSSIBLE! After Bush and Iraq, these nitwits claim a war with Iran is IMPOSSIBLE! What planet are they living on? They absolutely REFUSE to deal with the REALITY that Bush and Cheney want a war with Iran. Half of Cheney's closest associates have SAID SO! What part of that don't these clowns understand? Try to grow some balls and deal with reality!
Re Richard Steven Hack 1. It would be nice if Mr. Hack got a consistent story line together. On comments in several threads, Mr. Hack has claimed that Israel has one of the most powerful military forces in the world and then has stated that, in the event of a war with Syria, that the former will get their clock cleaned. Based on that, one can only conclude that Syria also has one of the most powerful military forces in the world. Apparently, nobody else in the world is too impressed with Syrian military capabilities, considering that the Syrian Government has to keep a significant portion of their armed forces in the Damascus area to prevent the overthrow of the government (before the Assad regime took over, there was a coup in Syria every 2 or 3 years). Let's remember that the Alawite government in Syria represents only 9% of the population. 2. Mr. Hack is at least partially correct in that the Bush regime will make a determination as to whether to attack Iran independent of Congressional resolutions and public opinion. They don't care what I say, or Norman Podhoretz says or what Mr. Hack or Mr. Williams or Congress or the news media or public opinion says. I strongly suspect that all the candidates in both parties are secretly hoping that the attack will take place in order to get it over with. That way, they won't have to make a decision when any of them become president.
Sometimes I wonder if a war with Iran is SO stupid it just might work. I mean, my immediate instinct is to expatriate in the event of an American attack on Iran, but then part of me says it's just too pat to believe that Cheney & Co. are really THAT stupid and reckless. (Maybe they are.) Yes I know, this will be portrayed as concern trolling, but I care not. 1) A majority of Americans thought invading Iraq was a good idea. A majority of Americans (including Democrats) can't well be called just as stupid and reckless as Cheney has been portrayed for having engineered the Iraq invasion. 2) Many antiwar people complained at the time that Iraq was the wrong target, and that it was Iran (and the DPRK) we had "taken our eye off of." 3) The domestic politics in Iran are arguably more favorable for the aftermath of a strike against the theocracy than they were in Iraq. I don't think anyone is talking about an invasion and occupation. It would be more of a decapitation or degrading of the leadership. 4) The standard response is to say that this will drive the entire population into the arms of Ahmadinejad (and by extension the clerics). I'm not sure what the evidence for this is, but it is certainly hard to gainsay. But the clerics aren't popular. I believe Ahmadinejad's election had to have been rigged to an extent. 5) One way to compromise the Shiite faction in Iraq would be to weaken their leadership in Tehran. Granted, a war with Iran would be a terrible terrible precedent and burden for the United States. And all of it would most likely lead to what Brezinski predicted, a long regional war. Just trying to see the other side here. I refuse to believe they're just insane desperate warmongers, as many here do.
Bush and Cheney need this crap NOW to 1) enable them to justify a strike without Congressional authorization, based on the previous authorization of use of force to attack "terrorists" You undermine your credibility, to the extent you had any, by revealing that you haven't even read the AUMF. There is no connection between the designation of "foreign terrorist organization" and the AUMF. None at all. It's not even a fig leaf. Recall that in Cheney-land, where the justifications for all sorts of hypothetical military actions are dreamed up, the AUMF wasn't even necessary in the first place.
A re-post of a comment I left over at Ezra's place: I've seen a lot of this "Clinton wants to have it both ways!" or "Clinton is atoning!" stuff about the Lieberman-Kyl/Webb thing, and I frankly don't buy it. My sense is that Hillary, having been in the White House a while (and, obviously, wanting to be there again), generally votes on these issues to give the President whatever latitude she would want/expect were she President. Lieberman-Kyl isn't by itself a pernicious piece of legislation -- it designates the IRG as a sponsor of terrorism, which from what I can tell is almost certainly the case -- but is made so by the fact that those in the White House who would be charged with executing the implications of that legislation are, almost to a person, bellicose lunatics. I find some merit to the Edwards position -- that, regardless of what you think on the merits, you can't give this gang even the smallest iota of power -- but I don't think it's right to say that Hillary's argument (or at least, the argument I'm putting in her mouth) is only colorable qua her political ambitions.
Doesn't this just mean she was for war with Iran before she was against it? - Blutarski Exactly why this sort of game (which too many Dems. play) is so politically bad -- her voting record now opens her up for attacks "HRC even realizes that the IRC is a terrorist group, yet she doesn't want to actually fight them. why is HRC soft on terrorism?" This is why a quasi-hawk like Kerry lost while if perhaps we nominated someone more dovish (he says with 20/20 hindsight), perhaps we wouldn't have been open to attacks for being dovish. This sort of "irony" gets Dems. -- trying to be more moderate and non-partisan but in the process coming off as "effete liberals" and hyper-partisan -- and the GOP has done well in never falling into this trap. Indeed, for that matter, when was the last time you heard GOoPers worrying about "electability"?
"At the end of the day, Bush and Cheney get the IRG classified as a terrorist organization with Senator Clinton's blessing, which is all they will claim they need to send in the bombers. Legally, the right to designate "foreign terrorist organizations" belongs to the Secretary of State, not to Congress. You could look it up." Rice came out in favor of the idea a while ago. She just didn't lift a finger as SoS to do it. There's a lot of political benefit to making the Democrats do it for her and Bush-Cheney. If they decide to attack and the Democrats disagree publicly, they'll just turn around and say "flip-flopper!" and the media will buy it.
She voted for Kyl-Lieberman once, but she didn't inhale. Most of my 'blue' Oregon delegation voted for K-L too. I will vote for none of them. I'll actively support campaigns opposing anyone on my ballot who voted for K-L... independents, greens, libertarians, socialists, Nader, anyone except the Republican and the Republican Lites. A big step forward? Not if it doesn't pass. Then it's only posturing. And that's what Hillary's best at. She's been in the national eye for about 15 years now and been a Senator half that time and I still can't think of a single accomplishment she's achieved, period.
Re: JonF, the deaf and dumb, hasn't heard any talkup of Iran war for the last TWO YEARS? I would it really hurt you to attemopt civility. It's not like we on opposing sides here. I no more want to say escalation than (I assume) you do. And Matt's site is one of the few places I even see any sort of ilitary action against Iran discussed (though I admit I do not watch Fox News so it's possible the Faithful are being rallied there). Occasionally something crops up on Tpmcafe and very rarely on Slate, other than that, nada.
Whether she is voting to give herself the authority she believes the office of the president should have or playing both sides, the bottom line is that she continues to calculate and not lead. She has no vision which means she cannot deliver leadership. At best she would be a competent manager. All the people voting because they think we will get a third term of Bill are fooling themselves. My perception of her was so much more positive before I saw her campaign.
Don't con me, JonF. You aren't raising all this skepticism just to be intellectually precise. You're either a victim of cognitive dissonance, as I've said, or you're deliberately being obtuse because you favor an expanded war. There really aren't any other alternatives. I have been following the Iran issue for more than a year now and I can assure you that there have been tons of discussion about it on blogs and the MSM. However, almost all of it except for pieces from Sy Hersh, Joseph Cirincione, Larry Johnson, Brezinski and others has been from the "denial camp" swearing up and down that it's all not possible, that's just "neocon huffing and puffing" to "scare the Iranians." (Well, the Iranians haven't gotten scared.) Meanwhile, the precise operational plans are made, the hardware is being put in place, and the means for escalation are being moved into position. The fact that much of the public does NOT understand just how close we are to another war is easily explained by the fact that Bush and Cheney intend this to be more of a "surprise war" than Iraq was. Why? Because they know people aren't going to go for it BECAUSE of Iraq - except for the 40% Cheney says they need - and which they have, according to the latest polls, as a result of the latest accusations by Petraeus and Crocker and others. Get a clue - or shut up about "not knowing."
As usual, SLC is too stupid to read. I never said that Syria will defeat Israel in any form of conventional military conflict. What I have OBVIOUSLY said - except to SLC's glaucoma-ridden eyes - is that Israel will be defeated by 4th Gen war techniques executed by Hizballah in Lebanon and what is LEFT of the Syrian military after Israel defeats Syria.
Joe, as I said, they aren't "insane, desperate" war mongers - they're just greedy, power lusting war mongers. There's a difference. "Desperate" is what the morons who think this is all about internal US politics want to think. They think Bush is going to attack Iran - or NOT attack Iran, depending on whether they're "deniers" or not - just to foil the Democrats. They don't realize that there is real money in war. And there are foreign policy objectives to be gained through war - however stupid those objectives may be. Bush and Cheney are doing this for precise - if stupid and egomaniacal - reasons. They're not "desperate". What possible harm is Cheney going to suffer if the US DOESN'T attack Iran? Well, he's going to lose some money somewhere, probably, or not make as much as he hopes to make. Or his cronies in the defense and oil industries won't. That's enough reason for him to attack Iran. He doesn't need any high-sounding neocon policy objectives. Although achieving "American Empire" is the sort of "policy objective" that the neocons and Cheney could go for. If he's "desperate", it's only because some people in the State Department and the Pentagon think he's nuts and are fighting against him. And for a power lusting asshole like him, ANY resistance is bad. I mean, he even says "fuck you" to Senators who question his absolute authority.
Guess people don't know what the AUMF said: "Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40)..." Which I provide here for your edification: Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23] 107th CONGRESS JOINT RESOLUTION To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States. Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'. SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements- (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
============================================ Therefore: ============================================ (a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq. (b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION. In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and (2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. ============================================= In other words, if the IRGC is designated a "terrorist organization", the AUMF authorizes Bush to apply military force against "international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." Which, if you believe Iraq was one of those nations, then it won't be hard to believe Iran was one - even if it wasn't, just as Iraq wasn't. In any event, it's not even THAT relevant. What IS relevant is that Bush and Cheney can DECLARE that the war on Iran is authorized because Congress said they could attack terrorists anywhere anytime. Even if not true, they can still claim it - and forty percent of the US population will believe it and support it. Therefore, declaring the IRGC a "terrorist organization" has value, with or without reference to the AUMF. If you want to see the OPPOSING notion, read this resolution: US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations resolution on Congressional Authorization for Military Action against Iran http://www.gsinstitute.org/pnnd/documents/US_S_Con_Res_13.html There you will see that the Senate Committee resolution does indeed suspect that the AUMF might be so used to justify an attack on Iran. As did H.Con.Res. 33 on January 16 introduced by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) along with 18 other co-sponsors.
Comments closed October 15, 2007. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
"The political instincts that led her to vote for Lieberman-Kyle remain troubling, but this is obviously a big step forward."
You gotta be kidding. This is classic Clinton.
She gives aid and comfort to the hawkish Lieberman-Kyl, which passes.
And now she seeks cover in the dovish Webb resolution that she knows won't get cloture.
At the end of the day, Bush and Cheney get the IRG classified as a terrorist organization with Senator Clinton's blessing, which is all they will claim they need to send in the bombers.
Posted by Petey | October 1, 2007 11:44 PM