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.
And what’s sad, is Baghdad Jim still pulls in 79% of the votes in his very liberal Seattle district. Voting this way only solidifies his popularity.
Why would Rep. Flake vote against this? The rest are not a surprise except for Rep. Baldwin! Um...they execute homosexuals in Islamic countries, so why did you vote this way, Rep. Baldwin?
Like, I don’t get it dude?
Oh wait...
Nope, still nuthin’
Fred will be on Hannity in a couple of minutes talking about I’m-a-nutjob. Sorry for the short warning...I’ve been out most of the day.
If you had half a brain, you'd know that Ron Paul means that the only way he would condemn Ahmadinejad is with a Letter of Marque, you stupid idiots. It's the only way it can be done. Doing it any other way would upset the gold stand, you philistines. Gawd, I can't believe I have to share the same planet with you morons. You're all so stupid.
Now, leave me alone so I can finish watching this Star Trek rerun and get ready for my shift at Taco Bell. Geeeeeez.
Spark a bowl!
It's kind of late here.
That’s like harsh dudette!
I don’t get it?
Oh, yeah!
Nope, still nuthin’....
LOL!
Its good to see the House come together and denounce Iran and their crazed leader, Ahmadinejad, aka. Imamadman.
Its also good to see Ron Paul standing tall for a petty dictator. [/sarc]
Whats with Cong Jeff Flake? I thought he was one of the good guys.
You have those Paulistinians nailed.
Because Tammy is a mental midget.
He does not "appear with them." Period.
De-Nile seems to be their favorite river.
I voted against being in favor of the measure....
Geez, even the New England RINOs in Congress look like staunch conservatives next to this idiot.
Those Chinese are brilliant...
Ron Paul is like an attorney. A great attorney inteprets the meaning of the law based on current times to the judge & jury for the good of his client, and ultimately victory. A bad attorney simply gives the strict definition of the law and reads it verbatim from the textbook and such laws may have been crafted 50 years ago and therefore carry little influence in swaying the courtroom leading to defeat. That is Ron Paul, a bad attorney running for President. Do I admire his patriotism in general, despite being unaware this is 2007 and not 1975? Yes. Will I vote for him? No.
Ping the apologists.
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.