Over at the Atlantic blog, Marc Ambinder is discussing the Kyl-Lieberman amendment that urges the administration to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, and the kerfuffle raised by Senator Obama in the Manchester Union Leader over it yesterday. Senator Obama–desperate for a wedge issue with Democratic primary voters, it seems–has lately been trying to exploit Hillary Clinton’s support for the amendment (which, oddly enough, becomes “Lieberman-Kyl” rather than “Kyl-Lieberman” in his op-ed; hmmmm…). Specifically, Obama is arguing that the amendment is tantamount to an authorization for the use of military force–an interpretation that Ambinder rightly disputes:
Unfortunately, Ambinder also argues, bizarrely, that “to some proponents of Lieberman-Kyl who want to strike at Iran, the answer is yes”– the amendment can be interpreted as an authorization for the use of military force. We here at Worldwide Standard confess to a certain hawkish sensibility when it comes to Iran and its murder of our troops in Iraq, but to our knowledge, no serious supporter of the Lieberman-Kyl amendment has argued that the text authorizes the administration to strike at Iran. And in case there was any confusion on this point, here is Senator Kyl on 9/24 on the floor of the Senate:
Here is Lieberman on 9/25: “There’s no intention here to authorize the use of force against Iran. That the focus of this amendment is entirely on imposing economic sanctions against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.” Can Marc tell us exactly who these “proponents of Lieberman-Kyl” are, who believe that the amendment’s own drafters misunderstand its interpretation? Or was he just making this bit up?
