Senate votes 76-22 for war with Iran

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Everyone knows the true enemy of the US is the war-mongers in the Senate.  Everyone else (Russia, China, Iran, NKorea, etc) just wants to be our friends.   To bring peace to the world, it is going to take the disbanding of the US military and the acceptance of ecology as the our new religion.  In fact, if parents ate their own children, we could solve overpopulation and economic plight once and for all.  And we should take any wealth away those who have worked for it and give it to masses who untowardly wallow in a sea of wasted opportunity.   For Allah only knows that those who spend most of their free-time posting on an internet forum have the experience and moral clarity to lead this country.  Right?
 

[Eraserhead]

Wow I'm proud of the newbie Democrats on this one and I generally don't give these guys much credit but thumps up for Biden and Dodd.

Hillary Clinton will not be getting my vote in the general election if nominated.

[Eraserhead]

Also to all the people attacking Jfern, I think he understands this isn't an actual vote for war with Iran but this is one of the test balloons. The actual vote will probably occur in a few months and you can bet Hillary Clinton will be there to support it.

[Boris]

Everyone knows the true enemy of the US is the war-mongers in the Senate.  Everyone else (Russia, China, Iran, NKorea, etc) just wants to be our friends.   To bring peace to the world, it is going to take the disbanding of the US military and the acceptance of ecology as the our new religion.  In fact, if parents ate their own children, we could solve overpopulation and economic plight once and for all.  And we should take any wealth away those who have worked for it and give it to masses who untowardly wallow in a sea of wasted opportunity.   For Allah only knows that those who spend most of their free-time posting on an internet forum have the experience and moral clarity to lead this country.  Right?
 

lol

Also to all the people attacking Jfern, I think he understands this isn't an actual vote for war with Iran but this is one of the test balloons. The actual vote will probably occur in a few months and you can bet Hillary Clinton will be there to support it.

Dude, this doesn't mean anything. There's a huge difference in voting in favor of a "fuck you, Ahmadinejad," resolution and voting in favor of a resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iran. I doubt Clinton would vote in favor of such a resolution; she's hardly a 'warmonger,' merely an opportunist.

It's kinda equivalent to the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, which was supported almost unanimously by all Democratic legislators, most of whom would vote against the Force Against Iraq resolution five years later. The former served as nothing other as a) a statement condemning Saddam Hussein and b) a distraction from the Monica Lewinsky Scandal (it even prohibited the usage of military force to remove Hussein, which is a testament to how much meaning it had)

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Everyone knows the true enemy of the US is the war-mongers in the Senate.  Everyone else (Russia, China, Iran, NKorea, etc) just wants to be our friends.   To bring peace to the world, it is going to take the disbanding of the US military and the acceptance of ecology as the our new religion.  In fact, if parents ate their own children, we could solve overpopulation and economic plight once and for all.  And we should take any wealth away those who have worked for it and give it to masses who untowardly wallow in a sea of wasted opportunity.   For Allah only knows that those who spend most of their free-time posting on an internet forum have the experience and moral clarity to lead this country.  Right?
 

lol

Also to all the people attacking Jfern, I think he understands this isn't an actual vote for war with Iran but this is one of the test balloons. The actual vote will probably occur in a few months and you can bet Hillary Clinton will be there to support it.

Dude, this doesn't mean anything. There's a huge difference in voting in favor of a "fuck you, Ahmadinejad," resolution and voting in favor of a resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iran. I doubt Clinton would vote in favor of such a resolution; she's hardly a 'warmonger,' merely an opportunist.

It's kinda equivalent to the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, which was supported almost unanimously by all Democratic legislators, most of whom would vote against the Force Against Iraq resolution five years later. The former served as nothing other as a) a statement condemning Saddam Hussein and b) a distraction from the Monica Lewinsky Scandal (it even prohibited the usage of military force to remove Hussein, which is a testament to how much meaning it had)

The, they should have had a different type of resolution then. "Resolution to condemn Iran's crazy fundamentalist President for executing gays and denying the Holocaust" or something like that. They should not have had a resolution, however non-binding it may claim to be, to declare the Iranian military a terrorist organization (Congress already approved allowing Bush to go after the terrorists). I'm not defending the Iranian military.  Look at Gitmo. The US military qualifies as a terrorist organization.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

They didn't classify the Iranian military as a terrorist organization, they classified the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. There's a difference.

[SPC]

It would appear that Hagel and Lugar have learned their lesson from last time.

[Ebowed]

It would appear that Hagel and Lugar have learned their lesson from last time.

But Nelson and Bayh haven't.