Richard WarnickHillary Votes for War– Again!
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has refused to apologize for voting to authorize war with Iraq in 2002. Today, she voted in favor of an attack on Iran. Clinton wasn’t alone– the Kyl-Liberman Iran amendment passed overwhelmingly, 76-22. Senator Majority Leader Reid voted for it, too. Senator Obama was absent. How did this insane legislation even get to the Senate floor?
True, the most incendiary language authorizing war was removed from the amendment. The intent is the same. Talking Points Memo has the full text (PDF). Kyl-Lieberman designates the Iranian armed forces as a terrorist organization responsible for killing U.S. troops, an obvious pretext for an attack on Iran. At the very least, it is part of the Bush administration’s marketing campaign for another war.
Senator Jim Webb warned his colleagues yesterday:
Those who regret their vote five years ago to authorize military action in Iraq should think hard before supporting this approach. Because, in my view, it has the same potential to do harm where many are seeking to do good.
We haven’t had one hearing on this. I’m on the Foreign Relations Committee, I’m on the Armed Services Committee. We are about to vote on something that may fundamentally change the way the United States views the Iranian military and we haven’t had one hearing. This is not the way to make foreign policy. It’s not the way to declare war.
UPDATE: Today, Webb characterized the revised amendment as a “de facto authorization of military force against Iran.” TPM’s Josh Marshall offers a video account of the debate. What was left unsaid is that Bush already has an Authorization for Use of Military Force against terrorists, enacted by Congress on September 18, 2001. It is still in effect.
UPDATE: There are 22 senators who had the integrity and decency to vote no. See below for a list.
UPDATE: Hillary was for the war on Iran before she was against it. TPM reports Senator Clinton will be joining Senator Webb as a co-sponsor of his amendment, first introduced in March, which would require Congressional authorization before the president could launch a large-scale operation against Iran.
Senators who voted no on Kyl-Lieberman, unfortunately not including any Utah senators:
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)
September 26th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Surely you overlooked putting Hatch and Bennett on your list of those opposing it? ;-) What a bunch of Bush butt kissers they are.
I completely agree with you that this measure, even if it claims to be symbolic, is dangerous. Chris Dodd had this important reason for why he voted against it (similar to Sen Webb above):
It was along this train of thought that I recently wrote “Impeach Bush Before He Attacks Iran.”
September 26th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Defacto to GW is like a party hat and a bottle of booze. So I guess they’ve stuck us with another load of karmic downside. Bleh, I’m gonna be sick.
September 27th, 2007 at 6:15 am
In defense of Hillary, saying that all tools must be left on the table is only part of the equation. It is then up to the idiot war-monger in chief to select the appropriate tool. Can he be trusted to make a proper selection or combination thereof? Not attending to this variable (Booshes tendencies toward fascism while ample evidence exists) has been (and may again be) the shortcoming of purple-dog Dems.
September 27th, 2007 at 7:19 am
In last night’s debate on MSNBC, Hillary defended her vote for war by saying that the Senate had to act in order to impose economic sanctions. Utter nonsense. It was a non-binding “sense of the Senate” resolution, and the only purpose was to give Bush a green light to use the September 2001 AUMF to attack Iran.
September 27th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Not completely defending Hillary but at least she voted. I think David Bromwich put it best when he said.
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?
September 29th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Jth:
Even “Sue” is a better name then that, even if you’re a boy, but do you think the American people really want a candidate who supports war?
September 30th, 2007 at 8:36 am
[...] that America is already engaged in a “proxy war” with Iran inside Iraq. The Senate just passed a resolution that gives a green light to an attack on Iran. Is something about to [...]