Ok, it takes alot to really tick me off, and even more to actually question whether or not I will support the Democratic nominee for President should it be Hilary Clinton. Up to now, I would be likely to say yes to that. Now, I'm not so sure. Whether I should have been or not, I was completely taken aback by Clinton's yes vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. For those not familiar with this scary piece of legislation, here's a little breakdown of it. The Kyl-Lieberman amendment states that:
It is the sense of the Senate...
It is the sense of the Senate...
that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;
to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph
to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph
3 with respect to the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;
that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization...
Does this amendment say "let's go attack Iran?" No, but it opens the door to a president who has repeatedly demonstrated that he will run a mile if allowed an inch. Cheney has been chomping at the bit for YEARS for an excuse to go after Iran. He now has his opening. In addition, take a look at the last sentence of the resolution. We have now designated a large portion of the military of another nation as "terrorists". Aside from what your personal feelings about Iran may be, there are tremendous implications for this kind of statement. First of all, in modern times, I don't think there is a precedent for this. We have labeled a large segment of a sovereign nation's defense as a terroist organization, and as we have repeatedly demonstrated, that means we, as a nation, claim cart blanche in actions available to us in this "war" on terror. This move opens up a hornet's nest of future possibilities for other nations, as well. What's to stop some despotic government from declaring the military of a foe as terrorists and circumventing international law? Or even more "respectable" nations? How much of a reach would it now be for Israel to declare the Lebanese army a terrorist organization, or visa versa? The specific linking of Hezbollah to Iran is especially troubling. It is insane.
Now, back to my initial point! Hilary Clinton, after declaring no more money with a timeline, and talking up a good game about the rule of law, etc., voted in favor of the amendment. Just who's rule of law is she referring to? Obviously not that of a sovereign nation. For me, Clinton has definitively shown her hawkish similarities to the Bush White House. I cannot support that in the president that I want to lead me. I've had reservations. Now I don't.
Whether Iran is an "evil" country, or not (please...), an incredibly dangerous precedent has now been set, and I can guarantee that this administration will find a way to run with it. Five or six years from now, Clinton won't be able to claim faulty information, or lack of facts. She knows exactly what she voted for today.
Does this amendment say "let's go attack Iran?" No, but it opens the door to a president who has repeatedly demonstrated that he will run a mile if allowed an inch. Cheney has been chomping at the bit for YEARS for an excuse to go after Iran. He now has his opening. In addition, take a look at the last sentence of the resolution. We have now designated a large portion of the military of another nation as "terrorists". Aside from what your personal feelings about Iran may be, there are tremendous implications for this kind of statement. First of all, in modern times, I don't think there is a precedent for this. We have labeled a large segment of a sovereign nation's defense as a terroist organization, and as we have repeatedly demonstrated, that means we, as a nation, claim cart blanche in actions available to us in this "war" on terror. This move opens up a hornet's nest of future possibilities for other nations, as well. What's to stop some despotic government from declaring the military of a foe as terrorists and circumventing international law? Or even more "respectable" nations? How much of a reach would it now be for Israel to declare the Lebanese army a terrorist organization, or visa versa? The specific linking of Hezbollah to Iran is especially troubling. It is insane.
Now, back to my initial point! Hilary Clinton, after declaring no more money with a timeline, and talking up a good game about the rule of law, etc., voted in favor of the amendment. Just who's rule of law is she referring to? Obviously not that of a sovereign nation. For me, Clinton has definitively shown her hawkish similarities to the Bush White House. I cannot support that in the president that I want to lead me. I've had reservations. Now I don't.
Whether Iran is an "evil" country, or not (please...), an incredibly dangerous precedent has now been set, and I can guarantee that this administration will find a way to run with it. Five or six years from now, Clinton won't be able to claim faulty information, or lack of facts. She knows exactly what she voted for today.
3 comments:
I think the yes votes on this act are VERY telling. I won't vote for anyone who supported this bill.
I Pretty Much Had My Doubts About Hillary From The Start, But This Is Like A Slap In The Face Coming From A Democrat. Looks Like Miss Hillary Must Have Some Republican Blood Flowing Through Her Veins. That, Or She Needs A Map To Find Her Way Back To Reality. We Certainly Dont Need Another Senseless War. And I For One Will Protest Until I Fall Over To Prevent That From Happening. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!
And of course Obama doesn't have a yes or no vote under his belt because he was home "sick" that day.
Post a Comment