PDA

View Full Version : LIEberman Tries To Give Chimpy Iran War OK



LoungeMachine
09-25-2007, 06:28 PM
The Huffington Post



Another Lieberman Amendment to Push Us Towards War with Iran?
Posted September 25, 2007 | 11:05 AM (EST)



The Senate is scheduled to vote as early as today on an amendment that, if passed, would dangerously escalate the U.S. conflict with Iran, adding to the escalation by the Bush Administration in recent weeks. Again recently U.S. forces have arrested Iranian officials in Iraq even though these officials were in Iraq at the invitation of the supposedly sovereign Iraqi government. As Katrina vanden Heuvel noted yesterday for The Nation, Americans overwhelmingly oppose the use of military force against Iran. But by voting for this amendment, the Senate could move us closer to another disastrous war.

The Kyl-Lieberman amendment would put the Senate on the record supporting the "use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq," including military force, to "combat, contain, and roll back" Iran's influence in Iraq. Such provocative language would be construed as support for war with Iran. It would also be construed as support for provocative actions that could act as a trigger for war.

By approving this dangerous amendment, the Senate would also be endorsing the aggressive step of designating part of Iran's military a "terrorist organization." The Washington Post reported in January that skeptics in the intelligence community, State Department and Defense Department worry this step "could push the growing conflict between Tehran and Washington into the center of a chaotic Iraq war." The text of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment is here:

The Bush administration and its allies have kept up a steady drumbeat of unproven allegations that Iran is arming insurgents in Iraq. The sponsors of this amendment recite those allegations as if they were fact, ignoring the fact that they haven't been substantiated, in order to establish them as "true by repetition." But by stating that the goal is to combat Iran's "influence" in Iraq, the sponsors of this amendment show what it's really all about. Lieberman, like Bush, wants to put American lives at risk for the goal of constraining Iranian political influence in Iraq, a goal in which the overwhelming majority of Americans have no stake, certainly not a stake worth a single American life.

Instead of military confrontation, we need real diplomacy with Iran - where the United States is prepared to make concessions in return for Iranian concessions, not the fake diplomacy we've seen so far where you have a meeting in which you just pound the table so that later you can say that diplomacy didn't work.

Call (202-224-3121) or write your Senators to ask them to oppose the Kyl-Lieberman amendment on Iran.

Warham
09-25-2007, 06:38 PM
Don't you like your Democratic senator from Connecticut, Lounge?

FORD
09-25-2007, 06:59 PM
The "Gentleman" from the Likud party of Connecticut no longer maintains the pretense of being a "Democrat" as of the 2006 primary (which he lost).

It's just too bad that CT didn't have a law, as many states do, that says the loser of a primary cannot switch parties and run for the same seat in the general election in that same year. If that had been the case, we would be rid of this treasonous bastard. :(

BITEYOASS
09-25-2007, 07:52 PM
But..But how are we gonna start the apocalypse if we don't let Lieberman have his way? "SARCASM"

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mjMRgT5o-Ig"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mjMRgT5o-Ig" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Warham
09-26-2007, 07:45 AM
"He's a traitor!"

"Now you will die!"

"Power! Unlimited Power!"

hehe

FORD
09-26-2007, 04:39 PM
http://soundsofthecinema.blogspirit.com/images/medium_liebermanpalpatine.2.jpg

Nickdfresh
09-26-2007, 06:57 PM
After he gets fried by his own finger-lightening, he looks more like Cheney...

FORD
09-26-2007, 09:25 PM
The fucking piece of shit passed. Likud/AIPAC attack on Iran is now imminent :(

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (Kyl Amdt. No. 3017 as Modified )
Vote Number: 349 Vote Date: September 26, 2007, 12:44 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 3017 to S.Amdt. 2011 to H.R. 1585 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008)
Statement of Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding Iran.
Vote Counts: YEAs 76
NAYs 22
Not Voting 2

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs (Traitorous Warmongering Pieces of Shit) ---76

Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD) (go back to your coma, Tim! )
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (Likud-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
Martinez (R-FL)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA) - Oh Jesus Christ!! :rolleyes:
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR) - Uh, Gordon? I thought you woke up to this shit??
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA) - ditto what I said to Gordon Smith
Whitehouse (D-RI)


NAYs (a sensible American vote) ---22
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)


Not Voting (Chickenshits)- 2
McCain (R-AZ)
Obama (D-IL)

Warham
09-27-2007, 07:46 AM
Obama probably missed that vote on purpose. He doesn't want to be saddled with a voting record.

Steve Savicki
09-27-2007, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by FORD
It's just too bad that CT didn't have a law, as many states do, that says the loser of a primary cannot switch parties and run for the same seat in the general election in that same year. If that had been the case, we would be rid of this treasonous bastard. :(
What caused him to switch sides anyways?

LoungeMachine
09-27-2007, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by Steve Savicki
What caused him to switch sides anyways?

um, he lost.

He was never much of a Dem, anyway.

Just another reason Gore should never had to rely on Florida.

Had he picked another runing mate, and had Bill stump for him, it would have been a fucking blowout.

LIEberman couldnt even hold his own with Darth Cheney in a fucking debate. :rolleyes:

Much of our ills for the last 7 years can be put directly on LIEberman's shoulders, and Gore for that matter. :mad:

knuckleboner
09-27-2007, 02:56 PM
i'm still not worried about a military attack on iran. we shot our load with iraq.

it would be death to the republicans in 2008 (and beyond) for certain if we get involved in yet another mid-east conflict, especially one that looks just like iraq did.

furthermore, justifying it by a, "THIS time, a pre-emptive strike is necessary!" line will be viewed as the U.S. simply being the boy who cried wolf(owitz).


i'm fairly certain that we're just trying to rattle our sabres here in order to try and convince iran that they still need to watch their step.


but in the end, at most, the U.S. would do a one-time airstrike on a particular facility, or more likely, acquiese to israel's strike on that facility.

but full-fledged air campaign? no way. ground troops in iran? completely out of the question. U.S. invasion to establish regime change in iran? not at all possible.

LoungeMachine
09-27-2007, 03:11 PM
I hope you're right, but.....

If Cheney was runing, I'd believe you.

These tools have NOTHING to lose at this point, and have a serious hard-on for Iran.

It's their final shot at it, too.

I put nothing past these criminals at this point.

In the meantime, we drink!!

:gulp:

Steve Savicki
09-27-2007, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
um, he lost.

He was never much of a Dem, anyway.

Just another reason Gore should never had to rely on Florida.

At least Gore fought back the proper way - the truth.

Warham
09-27-2007, 03:51 PM
The truth?

LoungeMachine
09-27-2007, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by WAR
The truth?

It's Steve, WAR.....

Just nod and move on....

Warham
09-27-2007, 05:45 PM
Mmm hmmm.

Good idea.