Why is Kyl/Lieberman absent from the Dem primary campaign?

[CoffeeCat]

I find it really bizarre that no one has mentioned the Kyl/Lieberman vote in any of the debates.

Why haven't Edwards or Obama asked Hillary to explain why she voted for Kyl/Lieberman---a bill that
formally declares a military arm of the Iranian government as a "terrorist organization."

Hillary's past explanation was that she voted "yes" to help "foster diplomacy" between Iran and United
States.

Even her supporters would agree, that this is preposterous.

If she gave that explanation in a debate, she would look like a fool.

We've all debated Kyl/Lieberman to death, but this is a different twist. Why has their been no discussion
of this topic, at all?

It's such an obvious piece of low-hanging fruit.

Have all parties agreed to not bring up this topic? Is the media going along? Obama wasn't present for the
vote. Maybe he's thinking that bringing it up would highlight his missed votes, which Hillary has used to
highlight here "He lacks experience" talking point.

Maybe both camps figure it's a losing question for all involved? However, it's not for Edwards. Why
hasn't he brought it up? Why hasn't he media questioned her about it, or brought it up at the debates?

When an Iowa citizen asked Hillary about Kyl/Lieberman, she flew off the handle. She accused him of being "a plant"
in front of a large crowd--and cut him off---becoming very indignant and defensive.

Anyone care to speculate on why Kyl/Lieberman has been absent from discussion in this primary, except on the blogs?

[maddiejoan]

1. Obama can't bring it up

because he voted for the nearly identical R 970

I have no idea why Edwards doesn't bring it up.

[waiting for hope]

2. He did - at one of the debates.

I can't remember which one but here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOriNutwxG0

[maddiejoan]

3. Interesting that he doesn't attack Obama

over R 970 which does the same exact thing

[CoffeeCat]

4. He did bring it up once...but I don't think he...

...has drilled the point home.

If I was Edwards, I would have used that "question" opportunity in the last
debate to ask Hillary about that vote.

I think Edwards could hit it out of the park on Kyl/Lieberman.

It's possible that he's not bringing it up because it also opens up the
can of worms about Obama voting for R 970, which has similar language.

I'm guessing that there's a great deal more cooperation between Obama
and Edwards than most of us can imagine.

[CoffeeCat]

5. Thanks for that information...

I read R 970 in full. I have to say that I'm not happy, as an Obama supporter.

I do not support our government officially designating the Iran Revolutionary Guard
as a "terrorist organization" because it plays into the neocon plan for war with Iran.

The PNAC plan laid it out, on their Web site, for Pete's sake. Iraq first...then Iran...
then Syria.

I'm really unhappy about this, but I'm going to continue reading about this.

I have been totally against Hillary (or anyone) voting for Kyl/Lieberman, because it
enables Bush's warmongering. Yes, the resolution doesn't give a green light for war.
However, the Iraq war vote supposedly didn't either. That's what Hillary is arguing
now...that it wasn't a "vote for war, but a vote to ensure that the inspectors did
their job".

Kyl/Lieberman wasn't specifically a vote for war, but since when does George Bush
ask permission for any of his messes? He uses propaganda and guerilla marketing
to soften the public into a war. Kyl/Lierbman aids in that marketing game and
all of them damn well know it.

Maddiejoan, I'm not happy about Resolution 970 and Obama voting yes--but I'm
glad you directed me to it and I'll do some more reading.

MJ---Do you support Hillary's "Yes" on Kyl/Lieberman?

[maddiejoan]

9. No.

I don't support Hill's vote on K/L, but was not overly troubled by it either.


Here's a good read penned by Joe Wilson

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/a-reality-check-on-iran-p_b_70973.html

[karynnj]

6. They were different and S 970 never came to a vote

He was a co-sponsor but so were Boxer, Kennedy, Kerry and Dodd. There were 68 co sponsors. Not just thos who cosponsors something vote for it, so this might have been a bill almost everyone could have supported.
The amendment he did vote for included the EXPLICIT sentence that this did Not justify military action. Look at the difference in what the SFRC members did - the top 5 Democrats (Biden, Dodd, Kerry, Feingold, and Boxer)and the top 2 Republicans (Lugar and Hagel) voted againt Kyl -Leiberman.

Kyl Leiberman was brought up extensively in at least one debate.

[CoffeeCat]

8. Thanks for that...

I'm reading more about this now.

I appreciate your input.

[karynnj]

11. Here's something else I found looking for that:

S.J.RES.23
Title: A joint resolution clarifying that the use of force against Iran is not authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, any resolution previously adopted, or any other provision of law.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 11/1/2007) Cosponsors (None)
Related Bills: H.J.RES.64
Latest Major Action: 11/1/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

"Whereas the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq (Public Law 107-243) authorized the President `to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to... (Introduced in Senate)

SJ 23 IS

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. J. RES. 23

Clarifying that the use of force against Iran is not authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, any resolution previously adopted, or any other provision of law.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

November 1, 2007

Mr. REID (for Mr. OBAMA) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

JOINT RESOLUTION

Clarifying that the use of force against Iran is not authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, any resolution previously adopted, or any other provision of law.

Whereas the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq (Public Law 107-243) authorized the President `to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq';

Whereas, on September 26, 2007, the Senate agreed to a provision, Senate Amendment 3017 to Senate Amendment 2011 to H.R. 1585, stating the sense of the Senate 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';

Whereas, on September 26, 2007, the Senate also stated the sense of the Senate `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';

Whereas, on October 25, 2007, the Department of State designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics (MODAFL) as proliferators of weapons of mass destruction under Executive Order 13382 in relation to concerns about their role in proliferation activities;

Whereas, on October 25, 2007, the Department of the Treasury also designated 9 IRGC-affiliated entities and 5 IRGC-affiliated individuals, as derivatives of the IRGC, as well as Iran's state-owned Bank Melli and Bank Mellat and 3 individuals affiliated with Iran's Aerospace Industries Organization (AIO), as proliferators of weapons of mass destruction or supporters of terrorism under Executive Order 13382;

Whereas, on October 25, 2007, the Department of the Treasury also designated the IRGC-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) as a supporter of terrorism for providing material support to the Taliban and other terrorist organizations, and designated Iran's state-owned Bank Saderat as a terrorist financier, under Executive Order 13224; and

Whereas any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That nothing in the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq (Public Law 107-243), any act that serves as the statutory authority for Executive Order 13382 or Executive Order 13224, any resolution previously adopted, or any other provision of law including the terms of Executive Order 13382 or Executive Order 13224 shall be construed to authorize, encourage, or in any way address the use of the Armed Forces of the United States against Iran."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This pretty definitively seems to say that anything Congress passed can be used as justification.

[OHdem10]

7. They have discussed it in Debates. This sort of thing just

makes the public'e eyes glaze over.

The public has moved on. What counts is in the last debate
The Democratic Candidates are united on getting out of Iraq.
Russert explored this deeply and concluded . We have a clear
position of the Democratic Party and it is absolutely different
from the Republican Position. Dems will end the war and GOP
will keep us there in an undending war.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

10. Obama supports the IRG terror designation, so it's not something he wants to discuss in detail