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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
Never mind, you saw it as well...
Is Flake gunning for Paul’s VP nomination? :)
}:-)4
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.
Ron Paul and his supporters are a bunch of Nazis.
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.
Well let’s not get carried away.
The Nazis actually won an election...
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.
BTW sweet bike, and good choice of manufacturers...
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.’.
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.
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.
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..
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.
Wow, what a lineup.
Much better, but the will still not win an election;-
Much better. Of course the Paulinati will still not win an election.
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.