Webb Tries To Put Brakes on Iran Push

By: Shawn
Published On: 9/26/2007 2:53:29 PM

One of our Virginia Senators, Jim Webb (D) took to the Senate floor Tuesday to declare that the "Lieberman-Kyl amendment" (S.A.2011 to the Defense Authorization Bill) on Iran should be withdrawn because the "...proposal is Dick Cheney's fondest pipe dream."  Senator Webb cautioned that the "...cleverly-worded sense of the Congress" could be interpreted to declare war on Iran.  Here are some select quotes from what he said:
"Those who regret their vote five years ago to authorize military action in Iraq should think hard before supporting this approach. Because, in my view, it has the same potential to do harm where many are seeking to do good.

At best, it's a deliberate attempt to divert attention from a failed diplomatic policy.

At worst, it could be read as a backdoor method of gaining Congressional validation for military action, without one hearing and without serious debate.

We haven't had one hearing on this. I'm on the Foreign Relations Committee, I'm on the Armed Services Committee. We are about to vote on something that may fundamentally change the way the United States views the Iranian military and we haven't had one hearing.

This is not the way to make foreign policy.

It's not the way to declare war.


I could not agree more!

cross posted on VirginiaDem.org

Comments



Toned-down Amendment Passed, 76-22 (Ron1 - 9/26/2007 3:08:38 PM)
Unfortunately, the amendment passed. However, the language was softened considerably, removing Section (3) and (4) from the original Sense of the Senate portion of the Amendment -- these were the sections that said it should be US policy to combat the violent activities of Iran inside Iraq, and to support the calibrated use of all instruments, including military, in support of this policy. However, the Sense of the Senate still declares the Revolutionary Guard of Iran a terrorist organization, which may be all the legal justification the "lawyers" in the White House need to press for military action based on the AUMF and the original declaration of war against al Qaeda in the aftermath of 9/11.

Very disheartening to see the US Congress still act as willing patsies in these decisions with such nonchalance.

Webb, Biden, Dodd, Feingold, Byrd, Kerry, Leahy, Lugar (!), Hagel, Tester, McCaskill were some of the notable "Nos".

Only 19 Dems (plus Bernie Sanders) voted no. Profiles in courage McCain and Obama chose not to vote on this measure.



What will history say? (Rebecca - 9/26/2007 3:34:46 PM)
History will be kind to Webb. I'm not so sure about Obama. I noticed Hillary voted for this (not listed as a "no").


The Brakes are OFF -- Next Stop Iran? (Shawn - 9/26/2007 6:43:02 PM)
Despite the best efforts of Senator Webb and others, the proposed Kyl-Lieberman ammendment was amended, returned as amendment number 3017, and then passed 76-22.

These Democratic senators voted yea with the Republicans and seem to believe that an American empire, saber rattling, and threats of pre-emptive war against Iran are appropriate:  Akaka (HI), Baucus (MT), Bayh (IN), Cardin (MD), Carper (DE), Casey (PA), Clinton (NY), Conrad (ND), Dorgan (ND), Durbin (IL), Feinstein (CA), Johnson (SD), Kohl (WI), Landrieu (LA), Lautenberg (NJ), Levin (MI), Lieberman (CT), Menendez (NJ), Mikulski (MD), Murray (WA), Nelson (FL), Nelson (NE), Pryor (AR), Reed (RI), Reid (NV), Rockefeller (WV), Salazar (CO), Schumer (NY), Stabenow (MI), Whitehouse (RI)

This paragraph was added near the end of the revised amendment:

"Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated on September 16, 2007 that "I think that the administration believes at this point that continuing to try and deal with the Iranian threat, the Iranian challenge, through diplomatic and economic means is by the preferable approach. That the one we are using. We always say all options are on the table, (italics added to emphasize a regurgitated Bush line) but clearly, the diplomatic and economic approach is the one that we are pursuing."

The following Democratic senators refused to vote for "Cheney's pipe dream" as Senator Jim Webb of Virginia so aptly put it, and "read as a backdoor method of gaining Congressional validation for military action."  I congratulate the following Senators on their vote: Biden (D-DE), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Brown (D-OH), Byrd (D-WV), Cantwell (D-WA), Dodd (D-CT), Feingold (D-WI), Hagel (R-NE), Harkin (D-IA), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Kerry (D-MA), Klobuchar (D-MN), Leahy (D-VT), Lincoln (D-AR), Lugar (R-IN), McCaskill (D-MO), Sanders (I-VT), Tester (D-MT), Webb (D-VA), Wyden (D-OR)

Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Barack Obama (D-IL) did not vote.

Why would Democratic senators vote for anything Lieberman proposes?  Senator Dick Durbin's vote is personally very disappointing and dismaying. Senator Reid's vote once again proves that he continues to fail Democrats as Senate Majority Leader. Senator Clinton seems to once again strap on her six guns; she's tough don't you know.



According to Josh Marshall... (Lowell - 9/26/2007 7:40:16 PM)
...of Talking Points Memo, "It appears that much but not all of the offending language was removed, particularly the part that more or less authorized war against Iran and all its proxies."

Here is a PDF file of the marked up version that was approved.



Worst part is still there (KCinDC - 9/26/2007 10:00:05 PM)
That's fine, but the worst part is still there: the recommendation that Bush classify the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group. It's unprecedented to declare the military of another country to be a terrorist group. Are we now going to simply declare all our enemies (or "enemies") to be terrorists and somehow use that as a loophole to avoid adhering to any rules concerning them?

Declaring the Iranian military to be terrorists, and to be aiding Iraq, obviously gives Bush all the authorization he needs to attack Iran under the existing AUMF without any need to go back to Congress. I fear a lot of senators are going to be sorely regretting this vote before long.

It's insanity, and I can't understand why more Democrats wouldn't listen to Webb, especially when Hagel and Lugar voted no. How can you be afraid of being smeared as a terrorist lover when you vote the same way Lugar does?

And Shawn, you have an error in the comment above. Lieberman is not a Democrat.