I have attempted a de-confusion in the comments, but since I'm not sure it will be noticed, I'm attempting a trackback.
Senator Liebermann offered an amendment to a Defence Spending Bill that calls Iran to task for supporting militia in Iraq that are killing members of the US Armed Forces.
The amendment as originally offered can be read as an implicit authorization to the President to use force against Iran.
However, contra RJ Eskow, Liebermann's language is not what the Senate passed 97-0 (and that is what has Digby confounded that the Democrats would hand the President a "loaded gun"). There were at least two crucial modifications to Liebermann's amendment before it passed. You can look it up in the Congressional Record (look for CR S9001-9002). Here is briefly what they are:-
First, this following clause was added to the end of the Lieberman amendment:
" (d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of Armed Forces against Iran."
Second, a clause was amended to read
" (1) the murder of members of the United States Armed Forces by a foreign government or its agents is an intolerable and unacceptable act against the United States by the foreign government in question; and"
(compare with the original Lieberman language
" (1) the murder of members of the United States Armed Forces by a foreign government or its agents is an intolerable and unacceptable act of hostility against the United States by the foreign government in question; and"
)
----- The answer to Digby's confusion is that Liebermann's amendment was defanged and then passed unanimously.
5 comments:
I hope there were more ammendments than those two, otherwise it's hardly "defanged." Even if it expressly disavows military action against Iran, it gives the administration a club to hit the Democrats with. Look. You've agreed Iran is purposefully killing American troops, now what are you going to do about it?
--Rick Taylor
Rick, I trust Senator Feingold, and on this he writes on dailykos.com
" Lieberman amendment (15+ / 0-)
While I don’t agree with Senator Lieberman when it comes to Iraq, his amendment having to do with Iran offered yesterday was not controversial because it basically just required a report on Iran’s role in Iraq and any responses by the US government.
by Senator Russ Feingold on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 01:29:57 PM PDT"
I hope you're right. I still think the text of that amendment is alarming, in repeating unsubstantiated propoganda that Iran or it's agents are "murdering" US troops. I don't trust Democrats ever since the majority of them voted to give Bush power to conduct a disastrous war in Iraq in 2002 (and Reid was one of them).
--Rick Taylor
I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so.
http://www.cqpolitics.com/2007/07/liebermans_new_party_line.html
"Lieberman presented it as a consensus proposal. “Whether you are for or against the war,” he said on the floor, “I hope we can all find common ground in making this statement.” They almost could: It was adopted, 97-0. But Republicans immediately sought to put Democrats on the defensive. At a news conference with Lieberman and GOP leaders, South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham said, “If you believe that everything in Sen. Lieberman’s amendment is true, how could you engage in a strategy that would at the end of the day allow Iran to be successful?”"
I still disagree - the President didn't gain anything from the Lieberman amendment; and the Republicans will use anything to "put the Democrats on the defensive". The correct riposte is "Anyone who did not know that at the outset, that replacing Saddam by anything but another Baathist in Iraq would lead to a great expansion of Iranian influence, and thus "Iranian success" should not have had any say in US foreign policy."
Post a Comment