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 Israela 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 militarythe Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corpsa 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.
“Iran faces a choice between a very big carrot and a very sharp stick,” said Rep. Tom Lantos “D-CA
This puts Lantos at odds with his left-wing friends.
We've had very little of that. This year's president wasn't the most capable, but he was out for most of the year having suffered a stroke, the VP handling the job. The president's leadership was questionable at times, but little, if any, politics came into play.
As for government politics, we have a tacit understanding that its not a topic of discussion except between friends. It works. Anyway, the guys I sit with are mostly good Repubs, from what I can tell.
Actually, our weekly meetings are a lot of fun. And we have weekly golf and bowling leagues (in season) that draw good numbers. The fund raisers also get good cooperation.
Ok.
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 dont 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 Im not going to research it for you).
That's nice.
You say you would vote no because it took the military option off the table.
Yes I did.
Would you have voted for a bill that removes the military option from the President's arsenal?
Normally a bill like this would have been roundly condemned by FReepers. But I see that Paul Derangement Syndrome has kicked in and made any discussion of the actual bill nearly impossible.
There is no “sharp stick” in this bill. It is empty rhetoric.
Let me see you say
"It specifically rules out the use of military forces against Iran."
The Bill, the section from it you post:
"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 see no words like prohibit, deny, exclude or any synonyms...
This bill does not authorize military force, however no where does it say it will prohibit it in the future, not that it could or would.
Its a good statement and your boy voted against it. He even has said it was because he was afraid it would authorize a war...
Seems you and RP disagree...
Nice try though, fight to the last man and all that rot...
Roscoe Bartlett voted against?
Things like this always make me wonder what exactly was (written) in the resolution/law that was objectionable.
We have to admit, we don’t get the full story with things like this. A simple reprint of the item in question would solve alot of problems.
I wish I could say I was surprised. I mean the bill is nearly two pages long! /sarc
I would like the president to hold a press conference laying out Irans 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.
I agree totally. But unfortunately use of the bully pulpit has not been this president's strong suit.
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.
Exactly.
Ditto for the non-binding lets talk tough resolution, which seems like 465 would-be Secretaries of State spouting off.
Yep, the congressmen can tell their constituents they did "something." Too bad the "something" is really nothing.
But hey, at least it can be used by people here to bash Ron Paul. :rolleyes:
Yep.
You can’t script ‘kook’ you can only watch it unfold, or implode, as the case may be.
No, Jeff Flake (R) - AZ. also voted no.
This bill does not authorize military force, however no where does it say it will prohibit it in the future, not that it could or would.
The language of the bill as it stands keeps the President from acting preemptively with the military which would also include sending special forces into Iran to help any potential insurgent groups to bring down the mullahs.
You may be ok with that. I wouldn't be.
It'll be a cold day in hell before Lantos authors a bill authorizing the use of force in Iran.
What a flake.
By Paul’s standards Iran is already at war with Israel, Lebanon and Iraq
I wonder if killing our soldiers and attacking our facilities over the years means they’re at war with us too, as in the old days, or doesn’t that count?
Oh well, in the words of a supporter, that Ahmadinejad sounds like a pretty cool guy.
Ron Paul seems to be at war with anyone that doesn’t view the world the way Ron Paul decrees it to be....(chuckle)
‘Passed 411 to 2, Nays, Paul and Kucinich.’
As I’ve noted multiple times, Ron Paul is the GOP’s version of Dennis Kucinich....although I think Kucinich has better odds of gaining his party’s nomination, given how goofy the Democrats have become lately.
The language was in the bill itself so it would not be construed as authorizing force at this time. No where does it say to Bush “don’t do it” today or tomorrow.
Come on man, drop the pretension and the spin, it is way past foolish...
The language was in the bill itself so it would not be construed as authorizing force at this time. No where does it say to Bush dont do it today or tomorrow.
Come on man, drop the pretension and the spin, it is way past foolish...
There's no pretension to drop. If congress hadn't included that language then I'd agree with you.
As it stands now congress has said that force is specifically NOT authorized. That means if the President were to initiate force without further direction from congress it would be illegal. Unless you want to argue that the President has the authority to act where congress has specifically told him not to act.
And don't think for a second that if the bombs started dropping Iran the day after this passes that the Dems won't rush to court to get the President to stop based on the language of this bill.
But hey, it's ammo against Paul so everything's good. Even if that means you are supporting a bill that actually handcuffs the President.
Mean while back on Earth we know the bill has no reach beyond itself in that regard, and we will not risk the pulled muscles and torn ligaments you do in trying to defend Paul, who himself has said he feared it would actually "authorize" a war.
If you guys would just get the Paulinati HQ enlarged a bit you could have group meetings and get on the same page as RP. It would make for more effect arguments no matter how much stretching and bending you would have to do.
Meanwhile, damn the torpedoes...
LOL!
I’m not defending Paul. I haven’t on this thread. I’ve kept the discussion on the bill itself. But I guess you’d rather keep the derail going instead of facing up to the fact that you have just supported a congressman (Lantos) and his bill that will handcuff the president when it comes to dealing with Iran.
Way to cut off the nose to spite the face. :thumbsup:
Let me know when you’re ready to keep defending Lantos’ bill. I won’t be dragged into a meaningless debate about how Ron Paul voted on this bill.
There is no bill, this is a House Resolution. It is not intended to nor will it even become law, since it is not going to the Senate. Should your interpretation be correct, something I find very dubious, it would not matter, since a resolution of the House has no power whatsoever over the President’s actions.
(long time no see)
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.