Senate Declares “War” On Iran

by Bryan

13 comments

1 Steve Bates { 09.26.07 at 2:08 pm }

Josh Marshall seems to think (about an hour after you posted) that some, perhaps most, of the threatening language was removed before the vote. One can only hope. TPM is following it.

2 Michael { 09.26.07 at 3:01 pm }

Your link to the bill text is fractured. And if Durbin actually voted for something that would expand Bush’s Middle Eastern war zone, he’s going to be getting quite an earful from me.

3 Michael { 09.26.07 at 3:05 pm }

I’d love to think it was a coincidence that the text of the amendment appears on page S11911 of the record.

4 fallenmonk { 09.26.07 at 3:27 pm }

Even with the removal of paragraphs 3 and 4 of the original amendment and the addition of some mealy mouthed language from Gates this is paramount to announcing that we are going to engage Iran. You can’t really call the army of a sovereign nation a terrorist organization and expect nothing to come of it. I sure would like to hear Hillary and Reid’s excuse for voting for it.

5 Cookie Jill { 09.26.07 at 3:35 pm }

I called Hagel’s office and told them “this is going to be an unusual call…I’m a left leaning Democrat from California and I just wanted to call and thank the Senator for voting against the Lieberman/Kyl amendment. I also want to thank the Senator for his service to the country. I know that he’s not getting alot of love from his side of the aisle of late, but I did want him to know that I truly appreciate for his standing up and fighting for what’s right regarding this war of choice”

6 Bryan { 09.26.07 at 4:19 pm }

Lugar voted against it, for crying out loud.

The text link is broken because Congress can’t figure out permalinks. They need a blog for this crap.

The text when I checked the vote still talked about the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization and still referenced the use of the military. It was an authorization of the use of force for this White House.

I will not vote for anyone who voted for this bill, and I do not give a flying fuck if they are nominated by the Democratic party for President, I still won’t vote for them.

7 andante { 09.26.07 at 7:38 pm }

Buh-bye, Hillary. I wasn’t all that keen on her to begin with but this seals the deal. I won’t vote for a Republican, but Hillary won’t get my time, money, or vote.

Nor am I happy with Obama. He needs to define himself on votes such as this. Defining yourself as “not voting” isn’t leadership.

8 whig { 09.26.07 at 7:54 pm }

You mean Hillary isn’t a Republican?

9 Steve Bates { 09.26.07 at 8:53 pm }

“You mean Hillary isn’t a Republican?” – whig

It depends on what the meaning of “isn’t” isn’t.

andante, I am long since committed to vote for the Democratic presidential nominee in 11/2008, and I shall keep my commitment. But I am thinking of renaming my blog. If this were just one incident, I’d rage in anger and then let it pass. But I cannot ignore the emerging pattern.

It will be a cold day in Texas in July before I vote for a Republican. But in my youth I was an independent, and I can, if necessary, become an independent again. The Democratic leadership, as well as the Democratic presidential candidates, must earn back my trust and respect if they want my support in the future.

10 whig { 09.26.07 at 11:06 pm }

Good one, Steve.

11 Bryan { 09.26.07 at 11:16 pm }

The change is wording makes no difference because they left the “terrorist” label in, and that’s all the excuse the Hedgemony needs. If the Dems don’t understand that by now, they aren’t teachable.

12 andante { 09.27.07 at 5:19 am }

I suppose in the end I will be a good little soldier and vote the “D” regardless. I may have to hold my nose….nay, wear a gas mask, but I won’t vote Republican.

But – damn. If I wanted “market-based” health care insurance and relentless warmongering, I’d be a Republican.

13 Bryan { 09.27.07 at 11:55 am }

I’m still firm on not voting for people who won’t vote for me.

I’ll writing in a lot of candidates, but a little money and my vote is all I have to bargain with.