Durbin: Lieberman-Kyl Amendment Is ‘Dangerous,’ ‘Puts Us On Record’ In Support Of Iran War
Durbin: Lieberman-Kyl Amendment Is ‘Dangerous,’ ‘Puts Us On Record’ In Support Of Iran War
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) spoke forcefully this afternoon on the Senate floor against the Lieberman-Kyl amendment. Durbin described the “sense of the Senate” legislation as a “dangerous effort to put us on the record for the use of military force in Iran.”
Noting that the language of the amendment suggests the use of “military instruments,” Durbin said:
What does that mean? Does that mean we are supporting the invasion of Iran? That we are supporting military tactics against Iran? Shouldn’t we be extra careful in the language of these resolutions when we find that the authorization for force for Iraq has dragged us into a war now in its fifth year, a war longer than World War II with bloody and deadly consequences for the United States and innocent Iraqis.
“I think it is dangerous language,” Durbin said, concluding his statement by saying he will oppose the amendment as it is currently written. Watch it:
Due to earlier concerns raised by Sen. Jim Webb, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced this afternoon that the language of the Lieberman-Kyl amendment was being modified. The Senate then released new language, but as Carah Ong notes, the modifications did little to ease fears:
The new language allows for the use of U.S. military instruments inside of Iraq for dealing with Iran, but it still does not contain a measure to prevent a conflict from spilling beyond Iraq’s borders.
Due to the still outstanding concerns raised over the amendment, Reid announced this evening on the Senate floor that Lieberman-Kyl bill “will not have a vote in the near future.” Reid added that negotiations are ongoing and “maybe the night will be bring more clearness to the issue. But right now I think it’s fair to say there will be no votes tonight.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Read between the lines fellas, read long and hard. Don’t want to have ol’ Georgie Poo bombing Iran and starting a third war.
Buck Fush
September 25th, 2007 at 7:51 pmWell, it looks like Reid sort of stood up for what is right. Now, bombard him with emails telling him to not even allow bills like this to come up for a vote. All he is doing is allowing the Republicans to frame the issue and we really don’t need any more of that.
Besides, what happened to their promise to pass a bill forbidding Bush from attacking Iran?
Here’s how to contact Harry Reid:
http://reid.senate.gov/contact/email_form.cfm
Enter your name and make up a street address. Then enter the following for City and Zip:
Las Vegas, NV 89101
That will get you past his filters that filter out anyone not in the State of Nevada. Unfortunately Harry Reid does not have a contact e-mail address for his being Senate Majority Leader like Nancy Pelosi does for Speaker of the House.
So, while you are at it, send Nancy Pelosi an e-mail reminding her that she promised to pass legislation forbidding Bush from attacking Iran.
http://speaker.gov/contact/
You don’t have to fiddle with her contact page because this is her Speaker page.
Bookmark both those URL’s and send them an e-mail daily. That’s what I do when I first sit down at my computer in the morning with my Latte.
September 25th, 2007 at 7:58 pmAt long last Harry Reid is finally realizing that he has the power to NOT allow votes on the floor. I hope he uses that power to not ever allow this dangerous bill to get voted on — which will in effect be giving GWB carte blanche to do whatever he has planned for Iran… We can’t afford the war in Iraq, we certainly can’t afford to start a 3rd war with Iran — For the love of Pete, and the love of this country, unless we plan on abolishing all schools and sending all of our children off to war… do not allow the Republicans to frighten us into voting for this bill.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:03 pmYou don’t have to be inside Iran to bomb the sh!t out of the country. We have plenty of weapons that can hit stuff in Iran from inside Iraqs borders. This is complete bullsh!t and doesn’t fix anything.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:04 pmWhat does this complicit Congress not understand about being duped?? Can’t they read between the lines? If we can, they surely can. You’ve got to be kidding me with the fact that this nonsense even made it so far up the chain. Bush and Liberman are getting desperate to get their war launched against Iran, that’s clear but it’s not going to happen.
This congress needs to get a grip and recognize what they’re really dealing with here…..lying, cheating, fraudulent criminals making a last-ditch attempt to totally destroy this democracy.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:08 pmThis language is giving The Chimp another “tacit approval” to engage us in another war. If Congress is fooled by this low level chicanery, then they all need to be booted from office.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:09 pmSimple. I have been saying it for years.
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ARE ONE AND THE SAME.
Yes, there are exceptions to the rule, but it doesn’t make the rule valid.
We are truly fu*ked as a country.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:16 pmWhat I find difficult to understand about this situation is that the Iraq government had help of the BADR brigade:
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/tomdispatch/2007/09/the-victor.html
As well SCIRI formed under Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini in 1982 and is associated with BADR. Iraqs shiite government had made deals with Iran since. Aye Aye Aye.
Wolfowitz, back then thought the Iraq Shiites could undermine Iraq shiites.
Wjat a mess these cons have made with their slide rule mcnamarian ideas.
So, I’m gonna speculate this is not about WMD, [nukes] but another regime change.
And now they want to bomb Iran.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:16 pmDemocrats just in charge on paper only. They did not pass anything so far with regard to war in Iraq or reduce the dollar cost of this war.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:18 pmThe opposite is happening since Democrats took over,..there are now more US troops in Iraq, and the dollar spent is getting way higher.
Last week the Democrats voted against Moveon with Republicans…so who is running the show?
Republicans stopped just about everything Democrats tried to pass using Filibuster.
And now Republican Kyle and Lieberman(I) wans to pass a resolution GIVING BUSH THE OK TO START ANOTHER WAR.
they already gave LIEberman his ‘lets make war on Iran’ amendment. They owe that skank LIEberman nothing and should knock down everything he does.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:20 pm.
In the near term, Harry? How about NEVER??
September 25th, 2007 at 8:22 pmYou silly people!
You think president Cheney is going to let this stop him?
September 25th, 2007 at 8:24 pmSomebody put a block on this. Stop it by any means. If the Repugs can stop our troops from getting the rest they need and deserve, surely the Dems can halt this abortion of a bill that would flush countless lives along with out economy and our country down the toilet.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:43 pmThe only reason we’re not already at war with Iran is that the general staff of the armed forces threatened mass resignation if they went ahead.
They know what will happen if they try.
The greatest military disaster since the war of 1912, and the US becoming a pariah among nations.
Are we ready for another Arab Oil Embargo, joined by Venezuela?
Are we ready for China refusing to buy our debt?
And if we use nukes, it’ll be vastly worse.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:46 pmDon’t forget, Bush claimed that he wouldn’t use the Resolution for the Use of Force to unilaterally invade Iraq, only as a legitimate diplomatic tool to force Saddam to comply with UN resolutions. That’s the only reason why the Democrats who voted for it did so. It was a ruse then and it’s a ruse now.
Any Democrat who votes for this is either a gutless wonder, a right wing shill or a fool.
September 25th, 2007 at 9:05 pmZionnazis want to start a war with Iran, don’t you realize it? You’re being used America, wake up!
September 25th, 2007 at 9:07 pmWatch Lying Joe Loserman with your own eyes so you can see just how full of sh*t he is, and how he blatantly, outright lied to the voters in Connecticut.
These are Loserman’s own words:
“No one wants more war.”
“None of us wants more war. Certainly not me.”
“We all want to end the war in Iraq.”
“I want to bring our troops home.”
“All of us want the war In Iraq to end. No one wants the war in Iraq to end more than I do.”
Watch him here:
September 25th, 2007 at 9:13 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM__d0rpXwc
Joe Loserman is just an example of whom we should fighting against. He’s a Zionnazi and they all lie!
September 25th, 2007 at 9:25 pm“Kyl and Lieberman said the proposal does not authorize military force again Iran, but encourages the U.S. to cut off its financial support.”
Comment by robroy
The “sense of the Senate” language used leaves open the door for possible invasion – the Lantos amendment does not.
September 25th, 2007 at 9:29 pmTom Lantos, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “It is my hope that they will take the carrot. But today, we are putting the stick in place.â€
Tom Lantos is a liar, a Zionnazi ready to make war on a sovereign country, a crime of war.
September 25th, 2007 at 9:33 pm“397-16 vote”
With no provisions for invasion, nor ambiguously-worded language, which can be misused for non-intended purposes…
September 25th, 2007 at 9:37 pmThe upside to the cons stealing the 2000 election is that that sorry bastard Lieberman was never the Veep…small wonder.
September 25th, 2007 at 9:40 pmI don’t see what all this fretting is about.
The Bush (mal)administration is evidently looking for legal cover, however flimsy, for unilateral military action against Iran.
All this is a redux of the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, down to comparing Ahmadinejad to Hitler, accusing him of sponsoring terrorism, and having WMD.
The most obvious course of action, if the Senate really wanted to prevent military action against Iran, is to vote down the resolution -regardless of the wording. Because you know the White House will twist the words to mean whatever they need them to mean.
September 25th, 2007 at 9:40 pmok – so if armid….arginar….amdligee….the iranian guy is such a ruthless despot,then why hasn’t bush nabbed him and thrown him onto a waterboard in guantanamo bay? – i mean,he was in the open and easy pickins’ for the usa but all that happened was fox noise and a few others sounding out what an evil prick he is and letting him wander around and publically deny homosexual activity in iran?…..did the good ole boys miss their chance?
September 25th, 2007 at 9:40 pm“die quetly”
As quetly as I can…
September 25th, 2007 at 9:44 pm“This is not even worth arguing,”
Thanks for acknowledging the worthlessness of your previous posts.
September 25th, 2007 at 9:46 pmOne thing for certain Senator Lieberman’s intents are malicious, his carefuly crafted Amendment puts the senator in a bind. Senator are going to have a very hard time with this amendment as the Israel Lobby will be out in force to make sure that it passes. Senators who do not vote for the Amendment will be punished. Do you believe the Lieberman – Kyl Amendment is crafted with backdoor for Congressional validation for military action? —->
http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=590
September 25th, 2007 at 9:50 pmWhat does Tom Lantos mean by saying: ” It is my hope they will take the carrot,but today we are putting the stick in place”?
And what carrot is T. Lantos is talking about ?!
September 25th, 2007 at 9:55 pmHow do the drooling bomb salesmen get a bill to the top of the heap?
September 25th, 2007 at 10:02 pmIsn’t there some type sanity level to reach before a bill can be heard?
People who do not speak the truth develop a habitual pattern of not telling the truth.
These bomb salesmen developed this pattern long ago.Really does not matter how the say things anymore.Their goal is always the same.
Sell bombs.
Lieberman (I) ,Kyle (R) ,Lantos (D)…It makes no difference what party is talking,the indication that all agreed on another war..as it seems. There seem to be an invisible hand working harder these days to get us to believe that there is no alternative but to go to war…
September 25th, 2007 at 10:04 pmNoting that the language of the amendment suggests the use of “military instruments,â€
Does that refer to nukelele? Organ Grinder? These b@stards are dead set on trying out all the toys no matter how many innocents die. No matter what the bombing of Iran does to our own country.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:58 pmIt’s about time they stand up to Bush’s (and his henchmen) saber rattling nonsense. This bill needs to be sent to the incinerator and not modified in any way.
This is nothing more than “imperialistic posturing” and permission for Bush to invade Iran.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:23 pmJB: And that’s the definition of evil… The definition of lack of humanity, soul, or morality. And Deadeye Dick and the Chimp have the nerve to call others “the axis of evil”. Hah! They’ve got nothing on these thugs.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:24 pmWith the dems supporting yet another insane, amoral war with this bill, it’s certainly clear that they ALL need to be given the boot out of Congress.
We can’t afford to wait: Clean House in 08!
September 25th, 2007 at 11:26 pmThey’ve got nothing on these thugs.
Comment by Veritas — September 25, 2007 @ 11:24 pm
Except that Bushco is even more short sighted. Seem willing to drag down the whole country for the fast buck.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:53 pmI want to see a complete stand still in Congress. I want Impeachment on the table and NOTHING ELSE! I want to see the wheels of government come to a grinding halt until justice is done. Anything else is a lie and an insult to our Republic.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:11 amWill the Senator from Israel yield? LMAO
Screw you, Lieberman.
Idiot.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:47 amFinally, a Senator is noticing the wording of this amendment.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:59 am.
I still have yet to be fully informed as to why we are in Iraq, STILL!
~ WMD’s = LIES!
~ Ties to al-CIAda = LIES!
~ Bio-chemical mobile weapons labs = LIES!
~ Yellow Cake uranium from Niger = LIES!
~ Imminent threat to the USA = LIES!
~ Al-CIAda in Iraq = LIES!
~ Instilling democracy = LIES!
~ Securing the Middle East = LIES!
~ National Security = LIES!
The only thing that makes any sense is the OIL, but where’s the resolution to invade and occupy another Nation so that America can pillage their natural resources? There isn’t one and you know why? Because it’s an international crime!
Our Congress has bowed to BushCo concerning Iraq. Our Congress has given BushCo tacit support of an illegal operation FROM – THE – GET – GO!
What is Durbin’s record concerning Iraq? Human Rights of Iraqis? Upholding his Oath to support and defend the Constitution of the USA from ardent usurpers and willful violators?
And he says, “I don’t think we should have such ‘loosey-goosey’ wording.” But Senator, staying in Iraq is still a good thing?
.
September 26th, 2007 at 2:36 am.
Oops, forgot to add:
If we’re there to settle the differences within Iraq, where is that resolution?
If we’re there to keep some peace, where’s the Peace Keeping mission?
There is none because none in D.C. are pushing for peace, are they?
.
September 26th, 2007 at 2:38 amWho is this ignorant fool?
WWII lasted six years!
The war in Iraq has only lasted four and half!
September 26th, 2007 at 3:25 amTest
September 26th, 2007 at 6:18 amWho is this ignorant fool?
WWII lasted six years!
The war in Iraq has only lasted four and half!
Comment by mrjonnewman — September 26, 2007 @ 3:25 am
Are you comparing the scope and urgency of WWII with the Iraq occupation?
September 26th, 2007 at 7:33 amIf Iran continues to attack us in Iraq and continues to defy the UN by building a nuke, isn’t it our responsibility to protect our troops from the continued attacks and itsn’t it the world’s responsibility to stop a terrorist regime from optaining a nuke? The use of our military at this point is almost a giving unless Iran stops attacking us immediately. Seems pretty logical to me.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:46 amUS involvement in WWII certainly did not last six years; it was less than four years.
Certainly Reid will not put up any real opposition to invading Iran. Reid is a DINO who thought it was easier to rise in the ranks in the dim party. He is a front for others who desire total chaos in the ME where he thinks that we will eventually come out as the rulers through quisling governments. When the rethugs were in power, the dims were helpless to oppose anything. Not that Reid has nominal majority power, the rethugs still set the agenda and he really does nothing. Cheney wants war with Iran, Cheney will get war will get war with Iran; Reid will not oppose it.
September 26th, 2007 at 9:32 amIf Iran continues to attack us in Iraq and continues to defy the UN by building a nuke, isn’t it our responsibility to protect our troops from the continued attacks and itsn’t it the world’s responsibility to stop a terrorist regime from obtaining a nuke? The use of our military at this point is almost a giving unless Iran stops attacking us immediately. Seems pretty logical to me.
Comment by Roger_Roger — September 26, 2007 @ 8:46 am
I understand your train of thought, but first you have to separate what Iran is actually doing to what Fox News and the Neo-Con/Zionist media say it is doing. Personally, I think Ahmadinejad and Bush are equally insane, religious fanatics. When Fundamentalists have control of firepower, you will always have disastrous results. The best course for both Iran and th USA is to remove these two and put more sensibe people in power.
September 26th, 2007 at 10:46 amWhy would this bill EVER come up for a vote??
September 26th, 2007 at 11:30 amToo bad Durbin, when it came time to vote AGAINST this measure, it appears, per an adjacent post, HE voted FOR the measure:
BREAKING: Lieberman-Kyl’s Iran amendment passes.
By a vote 76-22, the Senate passed the Lieberman-Kyl amendment, which threatens to “combat, contain and [stop]†Iran via “military instruments.†Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) called the amendment “Cheney’s fondest pipe dream†and said it could “read as a backdoor method of gaining Congressional validation for military action.â€
UPDATE II: The roll call for the vote is here. The following senators voted against the amendment:
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)
Can Mr. Durbin kindly explain himself??!?!?!
September 26th, 2007 at 2:31 pmYet when it came to the actual vote, Durbin voted FOR the measure. What a weak tea fraud.
September 26th, 2007 at 5:19 pmWAR PROPAGANDA
October 1st, 2007 at 4:18 pmhttp://beta.redlasso.com/Community/ClipPlayer.aspx?i=971bbec6-9037-4ec3-8576-77dc5fd68922