This is of a piece with the 97-0 anti-Iran
Senate vote you commented on in June

http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001614.html

Chris Floyd, writing in July, called this previous action "a blank check for war on Iran"

http://www.chris-floyd.com/content/view/1225/

But, as "Silent Cal" Coolidge is reported to have said - if 10 troubles are rolling down the road at us, 9 of them will end up in the ditch before they get here

And 9 out of 10 ain't bad

if the national review were a dog, someone'd shoot it after reading an article like that -- not safe to have it around children anymore. sad day.

Jon -

Please don't link to the National Review again. My eyes are bleeding now.

Speaking of the 97-0 bill, hasn't it been 60 days? Has the administration sent a report? Does it go to the Armed Services Committees in both houses, or ...? Will there be hearings?

The one glimmer of hope I drew from that bleak episode in the Senate was the possible opportunity to challenge the assertions the administration is making (which now include charges that Iran is supplying EFP's to the Taliban in Afghanistan) and its "evidence."

Another thing I don't have time to do, but would like to see someone else take on (hint, hint):

Compare the 'findings' in this bill with those in the 97-0 measure (Cernig quoted them at length in a post at the time at the Newshoggers).

Also: Wes Clark and Peter Rodman were on the Diane Rehm (sp?) show this week (Wednesday? not sure), talking trash about Iran. Apparently there was listener call-in pushback, but they never gave an inch.

At the time I couldn't follow the link to the show (somewhere in some comment section), but if it's as represented, and combined with his Wash Post Outlook piece last Sunday and his endorsement of HRClinton for president, it seems Wes has come a long way in a few months -- when he dared to muse about the possibility of living with Iranian nukes and cast aspersions on Democratic funders who were making it hard to keep the discussion on a rational, non-war basis.

It's my guess carrots and sticks were involved in the transition. He'll be in an HRC cabinet.

It's my guess carrots and sticks were involved in the transition. He'll be in an HRC cabinet.

the 'Democratic' wet-dream has him as SecWar.
I try to make it a rule that, when dealing with people who have spent their professional lifetimes in the military, do not believe a fucking word they say about peace, war, the military, or anything else impinging on the topic.. They wouldn't have stayed in unless they LOVED it. I was in, too; hated it (USAF, '64-68; made my buck stripe). I trust people who HATED it, not people who LOVED it.

Granted, Bush can have a talk with God and get authorization for killing people, seems he was talking about his chats with the Bigger Guy upstairs earlier in his administration, but every piece of garbage that says Iran is naughty is gonna be used to justify moving against Tehran.

Granted, Bush can have a talk with God and get authorization for killing people, seems he was talking about his chats with the Bigger Guy upstairs earlier in his administration, but every piece of garbage that says Iran is naughty is gonna be used to justify moving against Tehran.

Granted, Bush can have a talk with God and get authorization for killing people, seems he was talking about his chats with the Bigger Guy upstairs earlier in his administration, but every piece of garbage that says Iran is naughty is gonna be used to justify moving against Tehran.

Like being tied to the rail and a freight train's coming, ain't it. ONLY ONE thing will put this trouble in the ditch before it hits us, IMPEACHMENT. 1-202-225-0100, just say IMPEACH.

@KCinDC: I think Norm's thinking this resolution will be popular with donors now and in the next six months -- he's competing directly with Al Franken for those dollars. I wish I thought there's no way Al would get in a who-can-hate-on-Iran-more contest with him...

Does he think being in the forefront of the Iran war is going to be popular in Minnesota next year?

It didn't hurt him when he got elected the first time, following the biggest anti-war demonstrations in Minnesota, in which I participated, since Viet-Nam. Why should he worry now? The same shitheads live there now as did before, and Iran's been a target for 30 years.

"If something like this passes both the House and Senate, I think Bush could legitimately argue that between it, the War Powers Act and the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations to Use Military Force, he has all the authority he needs to attack Iran."

Bush cannot legitimately argue anything.

Jeezus, the fool can't even string two coherent sentences together. And even if he could, it still wouldn't matter.

Congress cannot side-step their exclusive Constitutional authority to declare war by simply introducing new legislation. This would actually require a Constitutional Amendment, which must first be passed by Congress and THEN ratified by a three-fourths majority of state legislatures.

Good luck with that in today's anti-war America.

Therefore, any new law (or "authorization") that purports to transfer war-making power from Congress to the president is UN-FUCKING- CONSTITUTIONAL (as in ILL-FUCKING-EGAL).

I'm speechless. I used to think it was Dumb and Dumber running the country, but now I'm convinced it's Dumbest.

If Busholini can wing this one over on us, we better start practising our goosestepping, folks.

Sig heil, Joe Lieberman.

It clearly says in Iraq.

That it does, Don, but it seems clearly designed to open the way for Iranians in Iraq to be killed, not 'merely' kidnaped and held with no process or evidence for nine months or more.

That would be a provocation to which the government of Iran might understandably feel it had to respond -- and then the war will be on, with the Iranian action being the "justification" for the wider assault our government would surely launch.

To answer my own question (at 6:02 on Sept. 21) about the 'report on hostile Iranian activities in Iraq':

I had forgotten that was, like the Kyl-Lieberman-Coleman measure, an amendment to the defense appropriations bill (H.R. 1585), and will not take effect until it's signed by the president.

Between now and then is the process of plowing through more amendments (take a look at the bill's history so far at thomas.loc.gov), then House-Senate conference committee meetings to reconcile the two versions (which get further apart with each of these Senate amendments). In theory, some of the most noxious measures might get dropped in conference, but amendments that pass 97-0 are not often in that category.

So the 60 days clock won't start ticking until later this fall. More support for my suspicion that the attack on Iran will happen in the early winter, or next spring. Our ruling regime has to "exhaust the diplomatic options" first...

Based on statements made for the past few years we are on a downhill treadmill for the opportune event or events (actual or fictional, as decided by the Decider}, upon which military operations against Iran will be launched. A Declaration of War, constitutionally mandated, is apparently not necessary, if one is to judge by the Commander in Chief's authorization by simple congressional "resolution" to take whatever action is appropriate, such as in Iraq today

Based on statements made for the past few years we are on a downhill treadmill for the opportune event or events (actual or fictional, as decided by the Decider}, upon which military operations against Iran will be launched. A Declaration of War, constitutionally mandated, is apparently not necessary, if one is to judge by the Commander in Chief's authorization by simple congressional "resolution" to take whatever action is appropriate, such as in Iraq today

Based on statements made for the past few years we are on a downhill treadmill for the opportune event or events (actual or fictional, as decided by the Decider}, upon which military operations against Iran will be launched. A Declaration of War, constitutionally mandated, is apparently not necessary, if one is to judge by the Commander in Chief's authorization by simple congressional "resolution" to take whatever action is appropriate, such as in Iraq today

It clearly says in Iraq

Don't get hung up on the specific words of this. They don't matter. The objective of the amendment is to create momentum toward war. Words would matter if we had a functioning constitution and a political class that believed in the rule of law. But we don't. What matters is momentum.

Also, this would seem to give a green light to the "military instruments" in Iraq to pursue Iranian meddlers across the border into Iran, which could certainly provide a good start to a new war.

People need to start calling Joe Lieberman what he is: A Zionist Butcher.

Do we all realize what utterly horrific price we pay that our Congress has been bought by AIPAC and the right wing Israeli nazi party (yeah - that's you Bibi) and the war crimes we have in the works for Iran? Like Sen Dodd- what would his old man say about his cowardice and complicity (including your Ho Lieberman vote back in July blowing open the doors for W and Cheney to assault Iran)?

These Judeofacists and their Neocon comrades have already destroyed America - we will need a new constitution to redress the crimes these Neocons (Israeli-firsters) have brought upon us. The entire Congress should be overthrown by revolution for having sold America to the Israelis - for $165K a year our Congress has sold or cowered before AIPAC, the American Enterprise Institute , and Israel. There is no longer an America - there is a slavish, blackmailed, cowardly group of trash - land of the slaves, home of the cowards. Those are our 'American values' - that is who we are. Our attack on Iran will be the END of America - we deserve everything we get - for the centuries it takes - to avenge the war crimes that have been committed in our names, with our tax dollars, with the perverts we have elected. fini America - we never faced down Krystol and Dershowitz and called them the Judeofacist semites they are until it was too late. How cute. How cowardly. How pathetic
It might have destroyed our political, academic, or punditocracy careers haha

What is fascinating in the National Review article is that it gives no credence to the idea that democracy in Iraq means that the Shia won. Which by extension means that the Shia's brothers, cousins, aunts and uncles in Iran also won.
Meanwhile the occupation needs to be ended. Only Americans who wish their own country were still a colony are unable to appreciate this.

WE could always IMPEACH them but WE ALL gotta push together at one point or another. Call 1-202-225-0100. Just say IMPEACH.

Jon,

Thanks for the warning. When you write about upcoming legislation, would you include the bill number in the post? That way anyone who wants to call a senator or representative can refer to a specific bill.

In this case, the number (Senate Amendment 3017) was in the MS Word file, but having it written more prominently might be helpful. Thanks.

Can you say, "Vice President Wesley Clark"? I think you can.

"If something like this passes both the House and Senate, I think Bush could legitimately argue that between it, the War Powers Act and the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations to Use Military Force, he has all the authority he needs to attack Iran."

"Bush cannot legitimately argue anything."

This has Never stopped the Bush Admin before, won't now... you'll see - Bush will attack before 2008 elections, regardless of what Congress or the American People want. He just does not care what anyone thinks - ask his Master - Cheney - he'll tell you that Bush will do AS CHENEY says, and that's that.

One 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

.

The last legal Declaration of War by the Congress of the United States was issued for WWII. Since then we have had Korea, Vietnam, Grenada (and various other Central American adventures, Iraq I, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq II and soon to be Iran. All without the proper constitutional procedures followed.

We've been giving the screwheads this power for over 50 years.

Can this vote be reversed even though it has already been voted on?

Unfortunately, most outlets were too busy debating the Ahmadinejad-Columbia "free speech" issue, but some blogs did make note of the legislation beforehand, see here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/azadeh-ensha/ahmadinejad-why-the-righ_b_65519.html. Of course, more are writing about it after the fact, which is not as helpful.

From the National Review's Sept. 21 editorial: "No great imagination is required to predict the Left’s attack on the amendment. “Needlessly provocative,” they will say. “What we need is more diplomacy.” And, “If you don’t like American soldiers dying from Iranian-made IEDs, bring them home.”
The last is of course another way of saying, “Surrender” — "
COMING FROM THE LEFT, I'll say: NR you hide your basic intentions behind your exaggerations and your regurgitated mendacities: You don't give a shit who dies for America's precious hegemony over Middle East oil! That's your prime motive and you know it! Yours is archetypical imperialist propaganda, 200 years old at the least. Provoke a tit-for-tat situation with a target nation in the name of reason and freedom, then willingly amplify the provocations and invade. Fuck you and your fucking empire.

From the National Review's Sept. 21 editorial: "No great imagination is required to predict the Left’s attack on the amendment. “Needlessly provocative,” they will say. “What we need is more diplomacy.” And, “If you don’t like American soldiers dying from Iranian-made IEDs, bring them home.”
The last is of course another way of saying, “Surrender” — "
COMING FROM THE LEFT, I'll say: NR you hide your basic intentions behind your exaggerations and your regurgitated mendacities: You don't give a shit who dies for America's precious hegemony over Middle East oil! That's your prime motive and you know it! Yours is archetypical imperialist propaganda, 200 years old at the least. Provoke a tit-for-tat situation with a target nation in the name of reason and freedom, then willingly amplify the provocations and invade. Fuck you and your fucking empire.

I seem to recall the worst wording of the Kyle amendment 3017 was removed. And this seems to indicate the final version that was approved. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S12095&dbname=2007_record
can anybody confirm?? I am not a lawyer.

(b) SENSE OF SENATE.—It is the sense of the Senate—

(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and
structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long- term
consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East,
in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the
Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the
region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and
the health of the global economy;

(2) that it is a critical national interest of the United States to
prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning
Shi’a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that
could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming,
subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of
Iraq;

(3) that the United States should designate Iran’s Islamic
Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under
section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the
Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated
Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224; and

(4) that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible
expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under
United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted
unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.