On September 26th, Senator Clinton voted for the Kyl-Lieberman
Amendment, which designates the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist
organization. She was the only Democratic Presidential candidate who voted
for the resolution.
"This isn't our present policy of keeping the military option on the table. It is, for all practical purposes, mandating the military option."
-Senator Jim Webb
Comments from Registered Members | (Register or log in to make your comment.) | sleepy 2008-01-09
great piece | Duke 2007-11-26
Whoops.
Anyway, the piece says Gen. Patraeus is the only to state the Revolutionary Guards are in Iraq. Even if they've left -- as Sen. Webb so graciously pointed out -- they WERE THERE, and they've left some wonderful parting gifts.
Long story longer, pointing out Hillary's waffles is one thing, using that to further shoot the Bush administration's dead horse is another. C'mon guys, get real. I don't mind a good, hard look at news (it's why I'm here), but you'd make bad poker players. You're not bluffing anyone. Too many "tells" as to what hand you're really holding. | Duke 2007-11-26
Unbelievable. I had hoped there would be some element of neutrality here, but I can almost feel the geeky student newspaper kids' disappointment when cute little Hillary decides to ditch her column dissing football goonery on campus and go to prom with a jock. "Aw, why'dja do it, Hill?" It's so "After-School Special".
It's also so full of the old left-leaning hindsight on Iraq, playing the same Six Degrees of Dick Cheney game to say in less than the year he has left, Bush will have organized and enacted a military solution to overthrow a relatively stable, very entrenched and militarily-enabled Iran. I don't even think Cheney's that stupid. Iran has an actual Air Force, for starters. I'm not sure Bush could pull the trigger on a bunker buster for those Iranian "nucular" plants because his successor would have to deal with the fallout.
Conveniently, Gen. Patraeus is noted in the report as the only evidence of Revolutionary Guard involvement in Iraq. Never mind the mun | jimmie 2007-11-18
The sound bite news that is responsible for her expansive coverage is always talking about her great financial backing. When we are told she is leading in financial contributions, think about that. How does one lead in large financial contributions? Corp support, so, same ole, same ole....I will never vote for her...never... | David 2007-10-30
At 4:39 try "violent" instead of "voilent". :) | Roger 2007-10-26
Very good. I knew I didn't like Clinton but I didn't know why, it was just a feeling, but now I know my instincts were right and backed by facts. Thanks for providing those facts. | steve 2007-10-20
you people vote for that woman and you might as well buy a gun and shoot yourselves. | Marco 2007-10-18
FYI i hope she doesn't | Marco 2007-10-18
The sad part is she is going to win the election. If for some miraculous reason she doesn't I'll donate 100 bucks a week to this site for six months (blow my party money out the window) God i hope she does try to answer this questions id love to see her try to dig herself out. | Tim 2007-10-16
Clinton's record speaks for itself. She's a Vichy-style traitor and will always ride the winds. All the frontrunners, excepting Kucinich, are ambitious, cowardly liars. | Len 2007-10-16
While I too liked the general format you have used, inreality, you will get an extremely canned response. (If you get any at all.)
One of the issues I would like to see addressed is the insistance of the corporate media on only covering the "top tier" candidates in their reporting and poll standings. It is rampant on both sides. Even when there is extremely good news about one of the others, the style is slanted.
Example: "Romney loses in NV straw poll." instead of: Ron Paul blows Romney away in NV straw poll 2 to 1"
Is there a directive from the top of the corporate ladders. Are they all hoping to just chase the 2nd tier away? | Hal 2007-10-15
Sorry, I did not watch the word limit.
This piece seems to borrow the "Murrowesque" style. I just saw "Good Night and Good Luck" about CBS's Edward R. Murrow fighting the corruption of the McCarthy regime in Congress in the 1950's. Murrow's team blew the recorded rhetoric of the Senator right back at him and then challenged McCarthy to defend himself. This is essentially what you are doing here, too.
This is truly uberjournalism. If Paul and TRN team plan to follow in Murrow's footsteps, then you have a HUGE fan right here!
Don't ever stop. Not ever. | Hal 2007-10-15
First of all, the format of this piece reminds me of documentary-style films for some reason; I liked it.
I wish the Professor's credentials were spelled out a bit more only because I am not familiar with either him or his organization. I suspect others might not be, but then, I am not up on all the politics involved. This is not a criticism necessarily and I don't expect news outlets to explain every last detail.
I wonder if there is a way to make links available in a separate panel so that more information about a story's characters and organizations could be found quickly. Some of these could be links to appropriate web sites, but others could be links to other TRN stories covering those persons/organizations in detail. Just a thought.
I was a bit confused by Webb's remarks. Mostly, he seemed to be against the amendment. But at one point, it seems like he was almost swallowing it. That's just my way of interpreting it I guess.
I love the way you presented thi | Bill 2007-10-15
Good luck waiting for Hillary to respond to this embarrasing series of questions, the answers to which clearly show her to be a "player" in the corrupt system, and an opportunist whose values are all over the place. |
TranscriptPAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR: On September 26, the U.S. Senate, by a vote of 76 to 22, passed the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, which labels the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. Many people, including leading Democrats and Republicans, say this resolution could be used by the Bush administration to justify military action against Iran.
(CLIP BEGINS)
U.S. Senate, September 25, 2007
SEN. JIM WEBB, (D): Categorizing this organization as a terrorist organization, this isn't our present policy of keeping the military option on the table. It is, for all practical purposes, mandating the military option. This proposal, Mr. President, is Dick Cheney's fondest pipe dream.
(CLIP ENDS)
JAY: So, Senator Clinton, here's our first question. You voted for the Senate resolution that was used by President Bush to authorize the Iraq war. Here's what you think of that vote now.
(CLIP BEGINS)
Meet the Press, September 23, 2007
SEN. HILLARY CLINTON, (D): Obviously, if I had known then what I know now about what the President would do with the authority that was given him, I would not have voted the way that I did.
(CLIP ENDS)
TEXT ON SCREEN: Question # 1: Now that you know now what you didn't know then, why did you vote to provide President Bush with a pretext for another war? Question # 2
JAY: Senator Clinton, you were the only Democratic Presidential candidate who voted for the resolution. Here's how you defended your vote.
(CLIP BEGINS)
Democratic Presidential Debate, September 26, 2007
CLINTON: ... the Revolutionary Guard in Iran is that it is promoting terrorism, it is manufacturing weapons that are used against our troops in Iraq, to put some teeth into all this talk about dealing with Iran. We wouldn't be where we are today if the Bush administration hadn't outsourced our diplomacy with respect to Iran and ignored Iran and called it part of the Axis of Evil.
(CLIP ENDS)
Here again is Senator Web.
(CLIP BEGINS)
WEBB: The Revolutionary Guards are part of the Iranian government. If they are attacking us, they're not a terrorist organization: they're an attacking army.
(CLIP ENDS)
We asked Professor Randall Hansen if one can focus on the Revolutionary Guard without implicating the Iranian government itself.
PROFESSOR RANDALL HANSEN, MUNK CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES: No, I think it's impossible to declare the army of any state a terrorist organization without declaring the state a terrorist organization as well.
TEXT ON SCREEN: Question # 2. Didn't this resolution declare the entire Iranian state as terrorist? Doesn't this echo the “axis of evil” rhetoric that you have condemned? Senator Clinton, Question #3.
JAY: According to the amendment, the fundamental reason for declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization is that it's accused of supplying weapons to Iraqi militias who are using these weapons to kill American troops. The primary proof given in the amendment is a statement from General Petraeus.
(CLIP BEGINS)
C-SPAN broadcast, September 10, 2007
GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS, MULTINATIONAL FORCE IRAQ COMMANDER: It is increasingly apparent to both coalition and Iraqi leaders that Iran, through the use of the Quds Force, seeks to turn the Iraqi special groups into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests and fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq.
(CLIP ENDS)
JAY: After General Petraeus' testimony in front of Congress, Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker wrote,
(TEXT ON SCREEN)
A former high-level C.I.A. official said that the intelligence about who is doing what inside Iran 'is so thin that nobody even wans his name on it.'
Here's what Senator Webb said about the issue:
(CLIP BEGINS)
WEBB: General Petraeus said the Quds Force, we believe, by and large, those individuals have been pulled out of the country, as have been the Lebanese Hezbollah trainers that were being used to augment that activity. Maliki said there used to be support through borders for these militias, but it has ceased to exist.
(CLIP ENDS)
TEXT ON SCREEN: Question # 3. Given that the intelligence leading to the Iraq war was manipulated in favor of a war policy, why do you believe this intelligence now? Senator Clinton, Question # 4.
JAY: You said this resolution only empowers economic pressure on the Revolutionary Guard, and that's what its sponsor, Senator Lieberman, says as well.
(CLIP BEGINS)
U.S. Senate, September 26, 2007
SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN, (ID): This sense of the Senate calls on the administration to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard corps as a terrorist organization, allowing us to exert economic pressure on those terrorists who also do business to stop them from killing Americans.
(CLIP ENDS)
While references to direct military action were negotiated out of the bill, Senator Lieberman and Kyl's real intent was expressed in the original draft. Here's what it said:
(TEXT ON SCREEN)
“(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the voilent [sic] activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran...”
Kyl - Lieberman Amendment
(H.R. 1585 / No. 3017)
It says in point number four,
(TEXT ON SCREEN)
“(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments...”
These paragraphs were struck out to make the resolution appear less overtly a call for military action. But the intentions of the framers of this resolution is clear. The history of this amendment comes out of Senator Kyl and Lieberman's involvement in an organization called the Committee on the Present Danger. This group includes former CIA chief James Woolsey, representatives of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Heritage Foundation. Many of the groups members were signatories to the Project for a New American Century's open letter to President Clinton in 1998, which called for the use of military force against Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein. The same group released a document in 2000 calling for the projection of American military power around the world, and stated that, quote,
(TEXT ON SCREEN)
“The process of transformation... is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor.”
Project for a New American Century
(September, 2000)
This was written before 9/11. The Committee on the Present Danger openly advocates not merely economic pressure but regime change in Iran. And the honorary co-chairs of this group, Senators Kyl and Lieberman—
So, Senator Clinton, our final question [Question # 4]: Why are you supporting an amendment drafted and backed by the same political forces that pushed Americans into the Iraq war and continue to advocate an increased use of military force?
Once again, Senator Clinton, we'd love to interview you and ask these questions directly. If you'd like to take us up on our offer, you can contact us through our website at therealnews.com.
TEXT ON SCREEN: Five days after voting for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment and receiving widespread criticism, Senator Clinton signed on to Senator Webb's motion to prohibit aggressive military operations in Iran without specific congressional authorization (Bill S.759). The bill has not left the Senate Foreign Relations Committee since its initial proposal in March of 2007. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution already states that only Congress can declare war.
DISCLAIMER:
Please note that TRNN transcripts are typed from a recording of the program; The Real News Network cannot guarantee their complete accuracy. | |
You must log in as a registered user to save articles, or to view articles you have saved. Not a registered user yet? Register Here  
|
