Posted on 09/25/2007 11:12:13 AM PDT by MNJohnnie
WASHINGTON (AP) - Congress signaled its disapproval of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with a vote Tuesday to tighten sanctions against his government and a call to designate his army a terrorist group.
The swift rebuke was a rare display of bipartisan cooperation in a Congress bitterly divided on the Iraq war. It reflected lawmakers' long-standing nervousness about Tehran's intentions in the region, particularly toward Israel—a sentiment fueled by the pro-Israeli lobby whose influence reaches across party lines in Congress.
"Iran faces a choice between a very big carrot and a very sharp stick," said Rep. Tom Lantos, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "It is my hope that they will take the carrot. But today, we are putting the stick in place."
The House passed, by a 397-16 vote, a proposal by Lantos, D-Calif., aimed at blocking foreign investment in Iran, in particular its lucrative energy sector. The bill would specifically bar the president from waiving U.S. sanctions.
Current law imposes sanctions against any foreign company that invests $20 million or more in Iran's energy industry, although the U.S. has waived or ignored sanction laws in exchange for European support on nonproliferation issues.
In the Senate, Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., proposed a nonbinding resolution urging the State Department to label Iran's military—the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—a terrorist organization.
The Bush administration had already been planning to blacklist a unit within the Revolutionary Guard, subjecting part of the vast military operation to financial sanctions.
The legislative push came a day after Ahmadinejad defended Holocaust revisionists, questioned who carried out the Sept. 11 attacks and declared homosexuals didn't exist in Iran in a tense question-and- answer session at Columbia University.
The Iranian president planned to speak Tuesday at the U.N. General Assembly.
Lantos' bill was expected to draw criticism from U.S. allies in Europe. During a visit to Washington last week, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner told lawmakers that France opposes any U.S. legislation that would target European countries operating in Iran. He argued that such sanctions could undermine cooperation on dealing with Iran.
Thanks for posting those links! I actually thought Lee Bollinger did an awesome job in, er, introducing the scumbag from Iran. But, sniff, sniff, I see the libs did not like it...
Someone who questions that a dem controlled Congress, led by the asshat Lantos, would suddenly change their stripes?
***Ping the apologists.****
I don’t know how to ping supporters, let along apologists.
As an objectivist, this would be correct ONLY if Iran wasn't threatening us FIRST. Initiatory force is not ok, but retaliatory force is damn near MANDATORY. The good Doctor appears to be saying We are the initiators despite all evidence to the contrary.
This is why I support Duncan Hunter even though I do support much of the rest of Dr. Paul's positions on Domestic and Constitutional issues.
I appreciate your suspicion, and I harbor the same distrust, but a broken clock is correct twice a day.
How so? Would you have Ron Paul as an independent? Didn't work to well for the democrats, Joe lieberman is still kicking their asses........no common ground at all?
Lindbergh would be proud.
To compare Joe and RuPaul is the height of absurdity, given their diametrically opposed views regarding the war.
Joe Lieberman stayed in the center regarding the war and the party left him. RuPaul is busy galloping along side the Democrats in their antiwar stampede into irrelevance.
In other words, this one is so obvious that even a liberal California Dem get it. But RuPaul doesn't.
“Patented Paulistinian Response:”
Love it, simply love it.
True, but I also know how "RuPaul" votes on the Constitution.......he might be hardcore Libertarian, but I trust him with my 2nd Amendment vote as well. Throwing Ron Paul to the wind is stupid beyond belief...IMHO
Good grief ~ now what in the heck could have been “unconstitutional” in this that would make Paul stick to his “principles” and vote nay? Seriously - can an aPaulogista explain it to me? I’m pinging you, EEE, because I thought you might have an answer?
Bumping what you said, Larry.
He's thrown himself to the wind. We (and hopefully his constituents) are simply honoring his wackiness.
Let's see how the liberal california dem gets the next vote on the AWB......and let's see you dis Ron Paul then.....political expediency and conviction are two different things FRiend....
BAHAHAHHAHAHAHA.
What is the relevance of this statement? Non-sequitur.
BAHAHAHAHA — you guys are killing me this this thread!
Actually, I was pinging you as you seem to fit the apologist bill.
Not true, Paul has voted the Libertarian vote for many, many years. In the past, it generally followed the GOP....now the GOP dumps him...because...errrrr....welllllll, he's wacky. Damn, this party eats it's own.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.