« Honesty in Taxes | Main | Hardballin' »

September 28, 2007

Lessons Not Learned

It's worth pointing out that Lieberman and Kyl's amendment designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group, and thus putting us on the path to war with Iran, got more Democratic votes than the 2002 resolution authorizing George W. Bush to invade Iraq. Five years after the start of the Iraq War, after seeing all of George W. Bush's deceptions and mismanagement, after seeing our forces chewed up and our prestige shredded, you might imagine Democrats would be reticent to allow any steps towards a confrontation with Iran, particularly under this president. But quite the opposite: 29 Democrats voted to go to war with Iraq. Five years later, 30 voted to push us towards war with Iran. They are still cowards, and they have still learned nothing.

September 28, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

Can't help but wonder how much AIPAC had to do with this. Perhaps it's time someone did a little more work to expose the arm-twisting.

Posted by: Salt Water Sound | Sep 28, 2007 11:19:16 AM

could any democrat please explain to me, in my naivete, why hillary clinton is the front-runner?

Posted by: jacqueline | Sep 28, 2007 11:21:19 AM

"They are still cowards, and they have still learned nothin"

Amen, bro!
Yes, the news from congress have been so discouraging recently, it throws liberals into depression because obviously all the efforts of 2006 have been useless...
|-(

Posted by: Gray | Sep 28, 2007 11:24:44 AM

Agree AIPAC probably had a lot to do with it. If its bad and its oriented towards the middle east you can usually find them involved. Worst lobby group ever.

And I like the angry side, Ezra! Good to just call them what they are: cowards. If not worse.

Posted by: greg | Sep 28, 2007 11:26:03 AM

"could any democrat please explain to me, in my naivete, why hillary clinton is the front-runner?"

Hillary Clinton is the front-runner because corporate media is saying she is the front-runner!

This has been another shameless plagiarism of the popular series "simple answers to simple questions".
Hat tip to Atrios.

Posted by: Gray | Sep 28, 2007 11:27:29 AM

They are still cowards, and they have still learned nothing.

You're still assuming they have the same values as you and are timorous in defending them. I think it's long past time to seriously consider the possibility that they like war just as much as Republicans.

Posted by: Antid Oto | Sep 28, 2007 11:32:20 AM

I read the amendment. While there's no doubt in my mind that the intentions of the writers is to further the cause of war with Iran, the amendment itself bears no comparison to the authorization to go to war in Iraq. It simply doesn't grant Bush the authority to go to war. That's a pretty monumental difference.

"could any democrat please explain to me, in my naivete, why hillary clinton is the front-runner?"

She's experienced, connected, and smart. She has gravitas. We know her. I say this as an Obama supporter. Personally, I fear that Edwards will appear too weak and liberal to win the general election, and it's too early to tell for sure how Obama will turn out as a candidate.

The big downsides of Hillary are that she's too polarizing and too hawkish. The former is the major reason I'm supporting Obama, but the latter is important, too. I think Hillary supporters are counting on her not initiating stupid wars even though she has gone along with one.

Posted by: JewishAtheist | Sep 28, 2007 11:36:56 AM

Even though this is just a sense of the Senate resolution, I see no difficulty for Cheney using this under the AUMF for beginning the bombing campaign.

Posted by: Sachem | Sep 28, 2007 11:37:57 AM

"i think Hillary supporters are counting on her not initiating stupid wars even though she has gone along with one."

??????????????????????????

Posted by: jacqueline | Sep 28, 2007 11:44:19 AM

How are you getting to 30? I see 29 Democrats voting yes, 19 voting no, and 1 not voting. Are you counting Lieberman as a Democrat?

Posted by: KCinDC | Sep 28, 2007 11:45:03 AM

Yeah -- he caucuses with us, and counts as one of the Dems who voted for the 2002 resolution.

Posted by: Ezra | Sep 28, 2007 11:48:09 AM

Even if I assume your assumptions are correct ( that this resolution grants the ability to attack Iran, that, that attacking Iran is not justified, etc) your argument that one act of military action was "unjust" so any future military actions are " unjust" is knee jerk partisian politics.

If you're going to say we shouldn't attack Iran stick to the merrits of this particular example or come out as a pacifist who opposes all wars.

Posted by: Phil | Sep 28, 2007 11:54:53 AM

rhis is the kind of evidence i am using to determine that war with iran is a done deal, just as iraq was inevitable in 2002

if bush/cheney are unstoppable, a decision to move the country into 1967-69 levels of dissension/confrontation during a war that may even be more troubling (bad economy, worse wingnuts, weaker military, more difficult battlefield) than vietnam would be very serious indeed

i am not saying opposition would be wrong, just that it must be very serious. cynthia mckinney has quit the democratic party. the democratic party will not lead the
nation into the low-level civil war of the 60s, as it did not 40 years ago. y'all can each decide how to react to that

no caps, bad grammar and typos...sorry broke left arm

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Sep 28, 2007 11:56:55 AM

"Personally, I fear that Edwards will appear too weak and liberal to win the general election"

Imho it's not that he looks too weak and I actually think his liberal stance is working for him (the middle class longs for someone standing up for their interests). His weak point is the total lack of experience in leadership (that's true of Obama, too, of course). It would be much better if he not only would have been Senator, but also Governor. Or at least CEO of a successful corporation...

Posted by: Gray | Sep 28, 2007 12:04:18 PM

Then read my blog, Phil, where this was addressed in detail.

Posted by: Ezra | Sep 28, 2007 12:18:36 PM

Phil, there's little point in saying, "ok, we were bamboozled with Iraq, but THIS TIME, with Iran, things will be different," unless the pro-Bush loyalist faction within the Republican party has gone through some sort of ideological sea change and makes a formal mea culpa.

We do need to start out with a presumption of opposition to these military designs on Iran because the attack-Iran faction is so lacking in credibility. You might as well argue that Charlie Brown needs to evaluate whether he should kick the football on the merits of Lucy's current argument rather than using past experience as a guide.

Posted by: Tyro | Sep 28, 2007 12:28:49 PM

"We do need to start out with a presumption of opposition to these military designs on Iran because the attack-Iran faction is so lacking in credibility."

EXACTLY, Tyro! Voting YEs to that stoopid Lieberman bill makes it look as if the administration really made a solid case against Iran. Well, they haven't. The so-called evidences they presented were even less conving than Powell's spreadsheet. But Lieberman acts as if it's crystal clear that Iran is behind everything insurgent in Iraq. Those Dems who supported his view with their vote made a huge idiotical mistake that will coem back to haunt them.
Really, they learned nothing from the debacle of the Iraq vote.

Posted by: Gray | Sep 28, 2007 12:38:06 PM

'Cowed'..., 'cowards'..or...
They all work. [And while I'm in the farmyard.]
"A pig by any other name is still...".

[let's just quit with euphemisms.
Diplomacy will take a hit...
but since it is diplomacy
It will find a way.]

Posted by: has_te | Sep 28, 2007 12:59:18 PM

This post fails to deal with the fact that a full 10 of the Democrats who voted for this resolution voted against the Iraq war back in 2002.

I understand the case that this resolution is tantamount to an invitation to war with Iran, but not everyone agrees with that case. Obviously these 10, who had the good judgment to doubt George W. Bush back in 2002, don't agree with it. Maybe their judgment turned bad, or maybe some people are just overreacting to this particular resolution.

Every so often, there's a bill or resolution that can be characterized as saber-rattling towards Iran, and the blogosphere goes nuts because they guarantee this means we will be bombing Iran next week and the Democrats are a bunch of enablers. Might happen this time, but it hasn't happened so far, and there's been an awful lot of crying wolf.

Posted by: Steve | Sep 28, 2007 1:02:26 PM

I understand the case that this resolution is tantamount to an invitation to war with Iran, but not everyone agrees with that case

At the very least, everyone has to admit that this resolution gives the administration cover, if it does so happen that they decide to attack Iran. They now have a handy little syllogism they can employ against any Democrat who voted for it:

1. We are engaged in a War on Terror.
2. You yourself admitted that Iran is a terrorist state.
3. THerefore, we are/should be at war with Iran.


Posted by: Jason G. | Sep 28, 2007 1:59:41 PM

They are still cowards, and they have still learned nothing.

Er...no. They are doing exactly what they want to do, and the people who have learned nothing are to be found closer to home, so to speak. To be fair, the system has been designed to exclude alternatives, but denial isn't going to make a bad situation better.

Posted by: RLaing | Sep 28, 2007 2:36:43 PM

??????????????????????????

You and me both, jacqueline.

Posted by: Uncle Kvetch | Sep 28, 2007 2:42:44 PM

"i think Hillary supporters are counting on her not initiating stupid wars even though she has gone along with one."

??????????????????????????

Why the ??s? Do you think Hillary would have invaded Iraq if she were president in 2003? I don't.

Posted by: JewishAtheist | Sep 28, 2007 3:16:24 PM

"Do you think Hillary would have invaded Iraq if she were president in 2003? I don't."

Regarding her recent hawkish remarks, I'm not at all sure that Clinton wouldn't start a war with Iran if someone (cough Is cough rael) would publicly make a phony case that the Ayatollahs are the root of all terror.
:-/

Posted by: Gray | Sep 28, 2007 3:25:42 PM

why the ??????

i dont know how truly machiavellian people think, so i have no clue what she would do.. especially when she is supposed to be politically brilliant, and has already shown grave lapses in judgement.
i think that is part of her problem now.

politics and special interests make strange bedfellows.

Posted by: jacqueline | Sep 28, 2007 4:14:16 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.