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.
Flake? There's someone in Congress with the last name of Flake? What, this is the poster child for what Congress is made of?
This is a talking point of Iraq detractors. It is also untrue.
Saddam's Terror Training Camps
Saddam Hussein: Secularist? (a blog, but with direct quotes from relevant sources)
Secular Baathist/Islamic extremist divide overcome repeatedly in Iraq
SADDAM HUSSEIN: A HEAVY HITTER IN THE TERRORIST BIG LEAGUES -- [FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DISPATCH, NOV. 5, 1990]
Compared to the Taliban, the Vatican is secular.
Hussein didn't get religion until he could smell the hangman's noose. Before then he tightly controlled it like all good little dictators and communists.
“You seem to forget that our founders didn’t want any entangling alliances...”
The short of it is, Israel attacking Iran (and vice versa) directly affects our interests. Period.
You are confused...again.
Bush was asked a question about the decision of Columbia U. to invite the Iranian NutJob to speak there. You’re trying to quote his answer to that question (doing an incomplete and misleading job of it, but trying).
This thread here is all about a vote in the House on a resolution to condemn the Iranian Nutjob and his regime and to impose more penalties on them. The fact that it was brought up at this time when people are focusing on the guy’s speech at Columbia might be what has you confused. Because President Bush has led the fight in the world to impose harsh economic punishment on the Iranian Nutjob’s regime. He is the one who has said, repeatedly, and tried to get the world to help him back it up, that this regime cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons.
Yet you confusingly post that the President thinks that the Iranian Nutjob is OK? That is bizarre
Man, I honor your service, as my father and uncles all served in the US Military, but you need to get your facts straight on an issue before going off on President Bush, or anyone else.
I think the dims are scared that about am-nut-job parroting their talking points. They’re trying to distance themselves. If he had come off any less whacky than he did, they’d have sponsored a bill applause for the “poor misunderstood” sponsor of terrorist.
It'll be tomorrow night. We're having our Kiwanis Golden K installation banquet. I'm going on the board so have to be there. How's a double Maker's Mark sound? Don't worry, Julie's driving.
The Board for Kiwanis...
You’ll need a double if your club is like mine here...
Nah, we're a great group of old codgers. We meet every Thursday for breakfast with meeting. Well over 60 members in our chapter, and growing. And we put a lot of $ back into the community in projects, grants and scholarships. Check us out at RochelleKiwanisGoldenK. The News, Photos & Sponsored Programs pages would be on topic.
It specifically rules out the use of military forces against Iran.
SEC. 102. PEACEFUL EFFORTS BY THE UNITED STATES.Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the use of force or the use of the United States Armed Forces against Iran.
I don't really see this bill as anything more than empty rhetoric calling on the US to use toothless international bodies to condemn Ahmadinejad.
I bet that has him shaking in his slippers.
Why am I reminded of the Hans Blix scene from Team America?
Soldier: Poi ta? [Kim turns to face him] Pa chin! Peya Hans Brix poge tode ka. ["Sir, Hans Blix is here from the United Nations"]
Kim: Hans Brix? Aww no! Oh, herro. great to see you again, Hans.
Hans Blix: Mr. Il, I was supposed to be allowed to inspect your palace today, and your guards won't let me in to certain areas.
Kim: Hans Hans Hans, we've been through this a dozen times! I don't have any weapons of mass destruction, okay Hans?
Blix: Then let me look around so I can ease the UN's collective mind.
Kim: Hans you're breakin' my balls here, Hans, you're breakin' my balls!
Blix: I'm sorry, but the UN must be firm with you! Let' me see your whole palace, or else!
Kim: Or erse, what?
Blix: Or else we will be very, very angry with you, and we will write you a letter telling you how angry wie are.
Taking the military option off the table, yeah, that'll teach Ahmadinejad and the mullahs.
It's nice to see that you're a master debater.
Has Ronpaul finally strapped on a set of water skis and jumped the shark? Time will tell. (But the answer is YES.)
}:-)4
I don't know why Paul voted against it but I probably would have voted against it too since it specifically takes the military option off the table and for its reliance on international bodies.
But that's just me. I mean did you expect Lantos to write a bill that actually DID something against Iran?
I doubt most of the posters have read the bill.
I would like the president to hold a press conference laying out Iran’s offenses against the US. I read articles here and there about them shelling Kurdish Iraq, about Iranians supplying weapons to Iraqi factions, but the funny thing is that if these are true, they merit a presidential response. They are serious.
The president needs to “sanctify” these accusations with an assertion, an offer of proof, and an explanation of their significance and the consequences they impel us to. Otherwise it is just government through drive-by media — sound and fury signifying nothing.
Ditto for the non-binding let’s talk tough resolution, which seems like 465 would-be Secretaries of State spouting off.
Imagine a corrupt, Impeached and disbarred president, accused of rape, who paid off settlements for sexual harassment charges, sitting back in the White house.
A complete statement by Paul for why he voted against the bill was posted early in the thread by Freeper SJackson.
Paul said among other things that he was afraid the resolution was a forerunner or pretext for war with Iran (which Paul has repeatedly spoken against...he thinks we should leave that part of the world and try to get along with Iran...and don’t ask me to prove that with a quote. I have heard him say it in debates and I understand he has said it in interviews and other venues, but I’m not going to research it for you).
You say you would vote no because it took the military option off the table.
DUH.
I bask in the deliciously unintentional irony of your comment.
That’s perfect.
You mean like the entangling alliance with France that won us our independence?
Funny the "founding fathers" felt so strong about entangling alliances that they didn't even bother to prohibit it in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
Seemed to have worked.
I’m still here...
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.