Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Congress Denounces Iran's Ahmadinejad [Ron Paul moves to the left of Kucinich; votes nay]
Breitbart.com ^ | 09-25-07

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.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 110th; 911truther; ahmadinejad; ahmadinepaul; ahmadmanjad; blameamerica; congress; holocaustdenial; iran; iranianshrimpfarm; isolationistfreak; libertarians; modsatitagain; mysticherb; needsthorazine; notsofreerepublic; paul; paulistinians; paulrulesondomestic; randpaultruthfile; ronpaloftherunt; ronpaul; ronpaultruthfile; sanctions; sparkabowl
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520521-540541-560 ... 581-589 next last
To: ksen
Well if that’s what I, or anyone else, did, I would give you the win there ksen.

As I have stated before it is not the man, not Lantos, we are in support of, but the bill, as written. It was a good measure even if Paul had written it, and I would still back it. It was at least something.

I really cannot see you leap in logic, mainly because it doesn’t connect in reality. The bill says nothing about the use of force outside its own parameters. It is a simple statement that the bill itself does not authorize any military actions, only diplomatic and economic ones. This makes it hard to misconstrue as a authorization of force as written. There is no future prohibitive language, it does not say the President cannot act, but the bill does not tell him to act with force with it’s passage. It in no way limits his options.

As far as "debating" Ron Paul and his stance, his no vote goes to the heart of the matter as it pertains to the general opposition to his candidacy. It further puts him astray of the general consensus in this party and movement.

As far as your support or non support on this thread, well, I'll give you an attaboy and a nice try, but you have to be kidding, you defend him just with your presence.

521 posted on 09/26/2007 7:12:04 AM PDT by ejonesie22 (I don't use a sarcasm tag, it kills the effect...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 519 | View Replies]

To: Lucius Cornelius Sulla

You are correct, I have been using the wrong term myself. Got caught up in the fun.

Point still stands, it prohibits nothing, even in it’s own language.


522 posted on 09/26/2007 7:13:49 AM PDT by ejonesie22 (I don't use a sarcasm tag, it kills the effect...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 520 | View Replies]

To: ksen

Actually, I see it is a bill, since it is to prohibit certain expenditures. However, as others have stated, saying force is not authorized is not equivalent to saying that force is prohibited.


523 posted on 09/26/2007 7:18:14 AM PDT by Lucius Cornelius Sulla (IF TREASON IS THE QUESTION, THEN MOVEON.ORG IS THE ANSWER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 519 | View Replies]

To: Lucius Cornelius Sulla

It looks like it was a bill...

I hate the way they term things in congress, it makes it hard to know what the SOBs are upto at times...


524 posted on 09/26/2007 7:20:51 AM PDT by ejonesie22 (I don't use a sarcasm tag, it kills the effect...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 520 | View Replies]

To: Lucius Cornelius Sulla

Never mind, you saw it as well...


525 posted on 09/26/2007 7:21:12 AM PDT by ejonesie22 (I don't use a sarcasm tag, it kills the effect...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 523 | View Replies]

To: rmlew

Is Flake gunning for Paul’s VP nomination? :)

}:-)4


526 posted on 09/26/2007 7:31:53 AM PDT by Moose4 (Ron Paul is like a beautiful plate of food ruined by a cow patty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 457 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22; Lucius Cornelius Sulla
(Hey LCS, long time no write!)

I understand the point you both are making. But tell me what you think the congressional Democrats are going to do should President Bush start bombing Iran or carrying out covert missions in Iran if they have a law that says:

Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the use of force or the use of the United States Armed Forces against Iran.

You know that they will run out and find themselves a Clinton appointed judge and have the action(s) stopped and tie it up in court because they can say that they didn't authorize the use of military forces in any capacity. And in fact took the pains to point it out in the text of the bill.

I agree that this could be changed with another bill authorizing force. But as this stands I see it as a weapon to be pulled out when action is eventually taken against Iran.

527 posted on 09/26/2007 7:34:29 AM PDT by ksen ("For an omniscient and omnipotent God, there are no Plan B's" - Frumanchu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 522 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

Ron Paul and his supporters are a bunch of Nazis.


528 posted on 09/26/2007 7:41:36 AM PDT by bmwcyle (BOMB, BOMB, BOMB,.......BOMB, BOMB IRAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ksen
Possible, but it would be a big stretch.

They put it in the bill for the a similar reason, so Bush would not read it as an authorization. Not that he needs it.

The congressional Republicans, despite their current level of worth, would not have backed it if they thought it had that much power. They have been very sensitive on limiting the options. Even Hunter signed it, so it must have passed a reasonably good smell test.

529 posted on 09/26/2007 7:42:19 AM PDT by ejonesie22 (I don't use a sarcasm tag, it kills the effect...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 527 | View Replies]

To: bmwcyle

Well let’s not get carried away.

The Nazis actually won an election...


530 posted on 09/26/2007 7:46:58 AM PDT by ejonesie22 (I don't use a sarcasm tag, it kills the effect...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 528 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22

I’ll be happy to be wrong about my assessment. And you’re right that since Hunter signed on it’s probably not as bad as I think it is.

Oh, and I don’t have as much faith in the courage of congressional Republicans these days as you do. But I’m cynical by nature.


531 posted on 09/26/2007 7:50:02 AM PDT by ksen ("For an omniscient and omnipotent God, there are no Plan B's" - Frumanchu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 529 | View Replies]

To: bmwcyle

BTW sweet bike, and good choice of manufacturers...


532 posted on 09/26/2007 7:51:49 AM PDT by ejonesie22 (I don't use a sarcasm tag, it kills the effect...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 528 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22; All
I found Ron Paul’s alternative to this bill. Earlier this year he sponsored a bill, co-sponsored by his buddy Kucinich that called for us to begin dialog with Iran and Syria. (I left his spelling errors in)

H. CON. RES. 43

January 23, 2007

Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, Mr. GILCHREST, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, and Mr. TAYLOR) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that the President should implement Recommendation 9 of the Iraq Study Group Report.

Whereas immediately after the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, the Government of Iran signaled to the United States a willingness to cooperate in the effort to find and capture the perpetrators of that attack;

Whereas immediately after the United States invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Government of Iran sent a message to the United States Department of State proposing a broad dialogue with the United States, suggesting a willingness to cooperate on nuclear programs, accept the State of Israel, and terminate Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups; and

Whereas the President of the United States recently praised the work of the Iraq Study Group, stating that the administration, `benefitted from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton’: Now, therefore, be it:

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the President of the United States should implement Recommendation 9 of the Iraq Study Group Report, which states: `Under the aegis of the New Diplomatic Offensive and the [Iraq International] Support Group, the United States should engage directly with Iran and Syria in order to try to obtain their commitment to constructive policies toward Iraq and other regional issues. In engaging with Syria and Iran, the United States should consider incentives, as well as disincentives, in seeking constructive results.’.

533 posted on 09/26/2007 7:55:13 AM PDT by mnehring (!! Warning, Quoting Ron Paul Supporters can be Hazardous to your Reputation !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 532 | View Replies]

To: ksen
Oh, you are over estimating my faith as well. But then somethings become obvious even to the blind.

As far as authorization, do you think Bush is going to let a little bill get in his way when the heat is on...

If you notice he’s more an ask forgiveness rather than permission type guy in these cases.

534 posted on 09/26/2007 7:55:34 AM PDT by ejonesie22 (I don't use a sarcasm tag, it kills the effect...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 531 | View Replies]

To: ksen
Unless you want to argue that the President has the authority to act where congress has specifically told him not to act.

It doesn't "tell him not to act", it merely states that nothing in the bill is to be construed as an authorization. As commander-in-chief, the President has the power to order an attack without an authorization from Congress.

535 posted on 09/26/2007 8:02:39 AM PDT by VRWCmember (Fred Thompson 2008! Taking America Back for Conservatives!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 516 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22
Side note, finding something interesting. Remember the big flack over Paul voting against giving Reagan the Medal of Freedom because it wasn’t Constitutionally authorized to Congress to do such.

Well, it seems that Paul had no problem co-sponsoring similar bills for:

H.RES.501 : Commending Craig Biggio of the Houston Astros for reaching 3,000 base hits as a Major League Baseball player and for his outstanding service to baseball and the Houston, Texas, region.

H.RES.145 : Recognizing the public service of Archbishop Patrick Flores.

H.RES.585 : Honoring the extraordinary life of legendary reporter, television personality, international humanitarian, and Houston icon Marvin Harold Zindler

That’s just this year..

536 posted on 09/26/2007 8:08:32 AM PDT by mnehring (!! Warning, Quoting Ron Paul Supporters can be Hazardous to your Reputation !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 534 | View Replies]

To: ksen

The President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed forces. The Congresses sole power is to grant or withhold funds. Even the War Powers act of 1973 gives the President full power to act for 30 days without Congressional Approval. None of the presidents since that time have accepted the restrictions of that Act. There is considerable legal precedent that any restrictions the Congress tries to put on the authority of the president in this area are without effect. The Supreme Court has never upheld such restrictions. I expect that, in the unlikely case that the Congress should attempt to prohibit the President from acting in what he considers necessary militarily, and passes it over his veto, he would ignore it.


537 posted on 09/26/2007 8:11:00 AM PDT by Lucius Cornelius Sulla (IF TREASON IS THE QUESTION, THEN MOVEON.ORG IS THE ANSWER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 527 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling
...Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, Mr. GILCHREST, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, and Mr. TAYLOR...

Wow, what a lineup.

538 posted on 09/26/2007 8:11:33 AM PDT by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 533 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22
Oh I’m sorry, they are Jew hating Nazis.
539 posted on 09/26/2007 8:13:10 AM PDT by bmwcyle (BOMB, BOMB, BOMB,.......BOMB, BOMB IRAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 530 | View Replies]

To: bmwcyle

Much better, but the will still not win an election;-

Much better. Of course the Paulinati will still not win an election.


540 posted on 09/26/2007 8:15:40 AM PDT by ejonesie22 (I don't use a sarcasm tag, it kills the effect...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 539 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520521-540541-560 ... 581-589 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson