Hillary Rodham Clinton: She never met a war against Muslims she didn't like, and you all better believe that

Agence-Vleeptron Presse begs your forgiveness for inviting you to read the entire sleep-inducing text of the Resolution about Iran which the US Senate passed on 26 September.

But whatever it says and whatever it means has turned into a big, nasty, loud fight and controversy, particularly between Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.

A-VP has an opinion about what the Resolution means. But we thought we'd take the astonishing step of actually republishing the text of the Senate Resolution, so you could read this Senatorial Sleep Aid for yourself.

First, we note Obama's position on the Resolution: Elsewhere. When the vote was taken, he wasn't present in the Senate and didn't vote. HOWEVER, he has since stated that IF HE HAD BEEN THERE, and IF HE HAD VOTED, he would have voted AGAINST the Resolution.

And that's important because Senator Clinton WAS there and DID vote. She voted FOR the Resolution.

Equally every bit as important as the vote Obama forgot to show up to cast is how I say I would have voted if I had been a United States Senator who showed up for work that day: I would have voted AGAINST the Resolution.

So if you are thinking: Who the fuck cares how Bob would have voted, he wasn't there and didn't vote? -- well, please do me the courtesy of thinking the same thing about Obama. Who the fuck cares how he now says he would have voted?

So in the controversy he subsequently cooked up,

"What he may say you needn't mind
From bias free of every kind ..."

(-- Gilbert & Sullivan, "Trial by Jury")

That leaves Hillary Rodham Clinton -- and a little gold star on her Permanent Record for showing up for work that day. She actually has a notorious penchant for avoiding and hiding from potential controversies, so this vote ran counter to her instincts.

Though it's quite possible she didn't realize when she voted that her vote could be an opponent's ammunition against her. It's quite possible she thought this Resolution -- a way of wasting the Senate's time that has utterly no legal authority or significance whatever -- was a public demonstration to show that she likes to wave the Red, White and Blue, eat a slice of apple pie, sing a few bars of "God Bless America," and say positive things about the institution of Motherhood.

It was also an opportunity to sign her name to a pretty fierce condemnation of the government of Iran. To someone who quite frequently seems to have No Brain, that would also have seemed like a No-Brainer. Iran this year is the member of the Axis of Evil all good, tough, patriotic Americans love to hate. Voting for this Resolution would have been a rare chance for Hillary Rodham Clinton to get a public pat on the head from the screaming mouths (their version of talking heads) at Fox News.

Clinton is under a lot of pressure right now to demonstrate to American voters how tough she'll be if she's elected president. This isn't a moment to show off her Mothering skills, this isn't a moment to Take a Village to Raise a Child.

This is the moment to show that the Democrats have a candidate as mean and tough and warlike as Rudy Giuliani, and that mean, tough, warlike candidate is mean, tough, warlike Hillary Rodham Clinton. She needs to show undecided voters that she can be as hair-trigger as Bush, she can be as hair-trigger as Giuliani, and most of all, she can be as reckless, bellicose and dangerous a Commander-in-Chief as any man; she may wear lipstick, but she can pick up the phone and order a military attack against Iran just as easily as Giuliani, Romney, Edwards, Obama, Fred Dalton Thompson, or McCain.

So how could she screw up by voting for a non-binding, meaningless Senate Resolution that says lots of vile, angry, saber-rattling things about the Islamic Republic of Iran?

Because there's a tsunami of voters -- Democrats and undecided voters -- who want to end the fucking Iraq War immediately, and demonstrated their wishes by voting, in November 2006, to end Republican control of both houses of Congress and transfer control to Democrats.

And her YEA vote for this Resolution signs her name to the political fast track toward a NEW WAR against Iran.

Hillary Rodham Clinton steps into this nasty mess with a Big Negative -- she voted to give President Bush authorization -- a blank check -- to invade Iraq in 2003. She's awfully sorry about that vote now. She's had to defend it many times in press conferences and public meetings. She blames it on the lies and misinformation from the Bush administration, and says she would have voted against the Iraq War authorization "if I'd known then what I know now."

She knew something very important about that Iraq War vote. She knew that, in the national hysteria that followed the 9-11 terrorism attacks, it would have been political suicide to make a public stand against Bush's war against Iraq. A very few lonely members of Congress voted against authorizing Bush's Iraq War, and paid for it by losing their jobs at the next election.

What she knows NOW about Iran, as the lame duck Bush White House blunders and rattles its way toward military action against Iran, comes from the same source as what she knew when she voted for Bush's Iraq War: The Bush White House, and a crowd of Bush flunkies and sycophants who are whipping the Fox News crowd into a War Froth against Iran. Once again, Hillary Rodham Clinton has caught Jingo Fever, and isn't smart enough or brave enough to step back from it and question the fuzzy cloud of White House accusations against the Axis of Evil, Islamic Iranian Branch.

This is not a moment for Hillary Rodham Clinton to ask tough questions about the sources of our intelligence about the government of Iran's actions in and affecting Iraq. Not if she wants to prove to the world that she can start a war as well as any man in Congress, as well as any man on the campaign trail, and as well as any man in the White House.

As Halloween nears, off goes the smiling, nurturing Child-Raising Motherhood Costume, and on goes the fierce glare of anti-Islam hate and the gleaming Amazon Armor and Sword. On goes the Margaret Thatcher mask. If America elects its first woman president, this is the moment on the campaign trail for Hillary Rodham Clinton to prove to voters she can be violent and reckless, to prove that she has the Fire in the Belly to order the deaths of thousands of foreign heathen devils -- and the deaths of thousands of American men and women in our military uniform.

Never mind Obama's critique of her vote. He forgot to show up that day.

What is extremely telling about the controversy is an on-camera public moment in Iowa last week when Hillary Rodham Clinton was incautious enough to let a few ordinary voters ask her some questions, and an Iowa man, Randall Rolph, asked her about her Senate Resolution Vote. Clinton was the only Democratic Senator running for president to vote YEA.

CLINTON: "[the question] you read to me, that somebody obviously sent to you."

ROLPH: "I take exception. This is my own research."

CLINTON: "Well then, let me finish."

ROLPH interrupted again and said that no one had sent him the question.

CLINTON: "Well, then, I apologize. It's just that I've been asked the very same question in three other places."

That's the Old Hillary, too, from the days of her husband's presidency and impeachment, when she blamed all his woes on a secret anti-Clinton right-wing conspiracy. She finds it unimaginable that ordinary voters might ask her tough questions about her War Talk and her War Votes. She finds it unimaginable that ordinary voters might not want her to be the next president. She recognizes that she faces opposition, of course -- but it's all professional and highly organized, it's all inspired by her Democratic opponents (like Obama), and if she gets the nomination, Resistance to Hillary will all be traceable to her Republican foe's well-financed Dirty Tricksters.

What ordinary American, what Jane or Joe, wouldn't love Hillary?

Well ... here's what she voted FOR in the U.S. Senate. It's written (by Joe Lieberman, among others) in a style of the English language that's both coma-inducing and incomprehensible.

But read it if you're tough. Is it Fast Track Authorization for Bush, in his final months, to order a military attack on "The Islamic Republic of Iran"?

Because if he does, when he does, and when he gets on television to explain his new War Against Iran to the American people, he'll certainly point to this Senate Resolution -- and to Hillary Rodham Clinton's YEA signature on it -- as proof that this was what Congress wanted him to do -- to open up a new military front against the Axis of Evil. He'll tell America he has Hillary Rodham Clinton's blessing -- just as he had it for the War on Iraq.

~ ~ ~

from The Congressional Record for the U.S. Senate

Offered: Sep 20, 2007
Sponsor: Sen. Jon Kyl [Republican, Arizona]

{co-Sponsor: Sen. Joseph Lieberman [Independent, Connecticut]}

September 26, 2007: Amendment SA 3017 as modified agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 76 - 22. Record Vote Number: 349.

Text of amendment

SEC. 1535. SENSE OF SENATE ON IRAN.

(a) Findings. -- The Senate makes the following findings:

(1) General David Petraeus, commander of the Multi-National Force Iraq, stated in testimony before a joint session of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives on September 10, 2007, that "[i]t is increasingly apparent to both coalition and Iraqi leaders that Iran, through the use of the Iranian Republican Guard Corps Qods Force, seeks to turn the Shi'a militia extremists into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests and fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq."

(2) Ambassador Ryan Crocker, United States Ambassador to Iraq, stated in testimony before a joint session of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives on September 10, 2007, that "Iran plays a harmful role in Iraq. While claiming to support Iraq in its transition, Iran has actively undermined it by providing lethal capabilities to the enemies of the Iraqi state."

(3) The most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, published in August 2007, states that "Iran has been intensifying aspects of its lethal support for select groups of Iraqi Shia militants, particularly the JAM [Jaysh al-Mahdi], since at least the beginning of 2006. Explosively formed penetrator (EFP) attacks have risen dramatically."

(4) The Report of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, released on September 6, 2007, states that "[t]he Commission concludes that the evidence of Iran's increasing activism in the southeastern part of the country, including Basra and Diyala provinces, is compelling. ..... It is an accepted fact that most of the sophisticated weapons being used to `defeat' our armor protection comes across the border from Iran with relative impunity."

(5) General (Ret.) James Jones, chairman of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, stated in testimony before the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate on September 6, 2007, that "[w]e judge that the goings-on across the Iranian border in particular are of extreme severity and have the potential of at least delaying our efforts inside the country. Many of the arms and weapons that kill and maim our soldiers are coming from across the Iranian border."

(6) General Petraeus said of Iranian support for extremist activity in Iraq on April 26, 2007, that "[w]e know that it goes as high as [Brig. Gen. Qassem] Suleimani, who is the head of the Qods Force. ..... We believe that he works directly for the supreme leader of the country."

(7) Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, the president of Iran, stated on August 28, 2007, with respect to the United States presence in Iraq, that "[t]he political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly. Soon we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course we are prepared to fill the gap."

(8) Ambassador Crocker testified to Congress, with respect to President Ahmedinejad's statement, on September 11, 2007, that "[t]he Iranian involvement in Iraq -- its support for extremist militias, training, connections to Lebanese Hezbollah, provision of munitions that are used against our force as well as the Iraqis -- are all, in my view, a pretty clear demonstration that Ahmedinejad means what he says, and is already trying to implement it to the best of his ability."

(9) General Petraeus stated on September 12, 2007, with respect to evidence of the complicity of Iran in the murder of members of the Armed Forces of the United States in Iraq, that "[t]he evidence is very, very clear. We captured it when we captured Qais Khazali, the Lebanese Hezbollah deputy commander, and others, and it's in black and white. ..... We interrogated these individuals. We have on tape. ..... Qais Khazali himself. When asked, could you have done what you have done without Iranian support, he literally throws up his hands and laughs and says, of course not. ..... So they told us about the amounts of money that they have received. They told us about the training that they received. They told us about the ammunition and sophisticated weaponry and all of that that they received."

(10) General Petraeus further stated on September 14, 2007, that "[w]hat we have got is evidence. This is not intelligence. This is evidence, off computers that we captured, documents and so forth. ..... In one case, a 22-page document that lays out the planning, reconnaissance, rehearsal, conduct, and aftermath of the operation conducted that resulted in the death of five of our soldiers in Karbala back in January."

(11) The Department of Defense report to Congress entitled "Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq" and released on September 18, 2007, consistent with section 9010 of Public Law 109-289, states that "[t]here has been no decrease in Iranian training and funding of illegal Shi'a militias in Iraq that attack Iraqi and Coalition forces and civilians..... Tehran's support for these groups is one of the greatest impediments to progress on reconciliation."

(12) The Department of Defense report further states, with respect to Iranian support for Shi'a extremist groups in Iraq, that "[m]ost of the explosives and ammunition used by these groups are provided by the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force..... For the period of June through the end of August, [explosively formed penetrator] events are projected to rise by 39 percent over the period of March through May."

(13) Since May 2007, Ambassador Crocker has held three rounds of talks in Baghdad on Iraq security with representatives of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

(14) Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress on September 10, 2007, with respect to these talks, stating that "I laid out the concerns we had over Iranian activity that was damaging to Iraq's security, but found no readiness on Iranians' side at all to engage seriously on these issues. The impression I came with after a couple rounds is that the Iranians were interested simply in the appearance of discussions, of being seen to be at the table with the U.S. as an arbiter of Iraq's present and future, rather than actually doing serious business ..... Right now, I haven't seen any sign of earnest or seriousness on the Iranian side."

(15) Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress on September 11, 2007, stating that "[w]e have seen nothing on the ground that would suggest that the Iranians are altering what they're doing in support of extremist elements that are going after our forces as well as the Iraqis."

(b) Sense of Senate. -- It is the sense of the Senate --

(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;

(2) that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;

(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;

(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, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;

(5) that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224; and

(6) that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.

[endit]