Peter Daou, Hillary Clinton’s Netroots Liaison, just sent an email linking to Taylor Marsh’s piece.
In March, James Webb introduced legislation demanding that the President seek congressional approval before striking Iran.
I’ve just learned that Senator Hillary Clinton will co-sponsor legislation with Webb and re-introduce it into the Senate.
If Hillary is a real leader, the Senate Democrats will rally behind her on this amendment. We’ll see which lobbying group wears the pants in the Democratic Party…AIPAC or the voters.
OK from Taylor Marsh’s piece, “Specifically, the amendment requires that the President seek congressional authorization prior to commencing any broad military action in Iran and it allows the following exceptions: First, military operations or activities that would directly repel an attack launched from within the territory of Iran. Second, those activities that would directly thwart an imminent attack that would be launched from Iran. Third, military operations or activities that would be in hot pursuit of forces engaged outside the territory of Iran who thereafter would enter Iran. And finally, those intelligence collection activities that have been properly noticed to the appropriate committees of Congress.”
How exactly does this negate or impact in the slightest the last vote, which would allow the President military action on a less than “broad level” (whose definition do you think they’ll use?) targeted at a terrorist organization under the AUMF? You could easily see a less than broad hit on the Revolutionary Guard, who would respond triggering exception number 1, 2 or 3.
Sounds like more triangulating..she can say she voted against attack after she voted for attack…unless you read the fine print and it all means the same or maybe is just meaningless.
“We had information that they were DEFINITELY going to attack on Tuesday, so in order to thwart that imminent attack, we wiped out everything that protected the oil fields on Monday afternoon.”
They’re still trying to convince themselves that they’re dealing with honorable people who have honest intentions, and it’s once again not going to work….
can HRC have her cake and eat it too? Apparently so since she voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. She caught a lot of flak with people reminding her that this time she can’t blame George that she was deceived.
discect it, bisect it, trisect it…slice and dice it every which way to sundown, at the end of the day, it still comes out looking like a pentagon.
another meaningless exercise in transparent posturing, pursued with the full knowledge that it’ll never get the 60 votes required…result: no change in the staus quo, more war, and a new
‘look at me…l’m serious’… talking point.
that this could be passed off as leadership in todays political climate speaks volumes about the level of disdain the d‘s view the intelligence and attention span of the people paying attention.
BAH!
lTMF’sA
Sorry, but when I see it I’ll believe it. Not many around here see Hillary engaging in anything more than posturing for political cover. She is one of AIPAC’s darlings and she is not likely to change this far into the game.
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=4636
We bomb,Iran closes oil down, gas lines, winter comes, freeze in the dark, horsie ride.
End of story.
This is yet another example of Hillary trying to have it both ways. She’s laid the groundwork for an attack on Iran by voting for the Iran=Terrorists resolution and now by introducing this bill she can say she would have handled the “evil” Iranian regime in a different way–she would have got the support of the Congress and the international community . . . . Yawwwwwn. You suckers can buy that one but you know what they say, “you can fool me once, but . . . .”. Well, whatever.