Posted on 01/15/2014 5:28:17 PM PST by Nachum
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) triggered controversy with a fiery floor speech in the Senate on Tuesday night, accusing supporters of the bipartisan Kirk-Menendez bill on Iran sanctions of wanting "regime change" and declaring that "we cannot let Israel determine when and where the United States goes to war." The bill includes a provision offering support to Israel in the event of an Israeli pre-emptive strike on Iran.
Feinstein, who chairs the Select Committee on Intelligence and is considered pro-Israel, but her remarks, which echo those of anti-Israel critics, have provoked outrage. The Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) called on her to apologize, noting that the bill includes a proviso that: "Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act shall be construed as a declaration of war or an authorization of the use of force against Iran."
Adding that the Kirk-Menendez's bill's language on Israel is the same as that in another bill that Feinstein co-sponsored, RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks blasted Feinstein: "We are deeply troubled to see Senator Feinstein making such incendiary and inaccurate remarks on the Senate floor. We call on her to retract this reckless and false charge and apologize to her colleagues and to the millions of Americans who support a comprehensive, robust strategy to prevent the Tehran regime from obtaining a nuclear weapons capability."
In her speech, Feinstein said that "a vote for this legislation will cause negotiations to collapse," arguing that the six-month deal reached in Geneva and finalized on Sunday represented "the best opportunity in more than 30 years to make a major change in Iranian behavior." The deal provides some sanctions relief in return for suspending parts of Iran's uranium enrichment program and allowing limited international inspections.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
In short - and I’ll stop here - isn’t this a question of American sovereignty? I know there are a lot politicians - Republicans included - who don’t like nationalism, borders, and sovereignty. Ceding our war-making authority to other countries would be consistent with that perspective.
Defense against threatened nuclear annihilation may necessarily include
Hitting the enemy’s missile and/ or nuclear Bomb factories. There being no opportunity to protect yourself after the threatened nukes hit your cities. The problem isn’t this legislative bill one way or another. The problem is that Obama keeps protecting the Iranian nuke and missile arms buildup. All the while. Five years and running. And despite (many say because) USA is their announced number one target.
The problem isn’t this legislative bill one way or another.
Except the article that we’re posting about, is about this legislative bill. And this legislative bill has provisions that - while vague - can be interpreted as ceding America’s sovereignty over its military decision-making. That’s an important question that needs to be discussed, as long as the bill is being taken seriously by members of Congress.
Not IMHO. It is a question of an irresponsible statement by a politician who thinks they can get away with anything. Not one thought on the damage or repercussions of her words.
Israel has a duty to protect its citizens and we have the responsibility to protect ours. No one disputes our sovereignty, but these words are more likely to start a war and foment more violence against Israel than if she had been more careful. The nasty bombast that has come out of the mouths of the DemocRATs for the years I have followed them has grown to Soviet dimensions.
If there is a war to come, it is because these idiots laid the groundwork for it with their hubris.
There’s no declaration of war, just “should stand with Israel”, a phrase which is always a problem for Judeophobes and other Nazis and skinheads.
I agree with you. I don’t know what Feinstein’s motive was or even what she was saying, but by focusing on Israel she wasn’t making my point - that America has to make its own decisions on peace or war, and not delegate them to the leaders of any other country. The problem with the sanctions bill as currently written is that it has language that could be interpreted as such a delegation. Feinstein has zero concern about constitutionalism or sovereignty, witness her support for illegal immigration, so it’s not surprising she didn’t articulate a principled point in this case.
Apparently, they fell out of the guard tower...
There’s no declaration of war
No, but there’s what reads like a promise to provide military support if another country declares war. Same difference? It’s at least worth more discussion than it’s getting, because war is serious business.
No, they fell into the ovens trying to push extra bodies in. Kapos (Funktionshäftling or Lagerpolizist), just like George Soros.
The surrender document Lurch finalized with Iran guarantees war — that’s what needs the discussion, and the sanction bill is what is getting discussed, thanks to Feinstein, Buchanan, and the other Obama shills.
Stupid remark that proves she doesn’t know an enemy from a friend.
The cited language cedes no such powers to Israel or anyone else. The bill is However probably fruitless because the current occupant of the white but will not help stop the islamoNazi nukes. Nor defend America . Not help Israel. And the bill , for all its glorious pretensions and good intentions, can’t make him do anything. It merely appeals to what he should do. ( and As we have seen demonstrated numerous times these past five years anyway. .....Even if a law were to demand he do X Or Y, he has no respect for American law or for that matter America and our values as a nation. ). Be that as it may, either we take out those nukes or they will take us out. Bill or no bill. Iran has made this so crystal clear I think even our senators and Congresscritters may be able to understand. Some of them anyway. Ha. But it’s not at all clear they’re willing to interrupt all their graft and profiteering to do anything to even try to defend USA or prevent a major nuclear world war. Not while there’s $$ to be made , yes? Take care
Some seem to take issue with actually standing by one’s allies.
Amazing concept that.
How this evil-looking old hag manages to get elected and re-elected again is beyond me. He hubby must have a lot of money to buy votes.
So, how is the NATO mutual-aid treaty different than an agreement with just one country?
-PJ
NATO should have been seen as a temporary expedient to counter the one time special case of rampant communism facing a devastated Europe. Now the Soviet empire is gone as well as Europe’s period of recovery and the US should withdraw from NATO as it is the ultimate entangling alliance that George Washington warned us about.
No FReeper, it makes no sense at all.
She's right. Democrats want to leave that decision up to Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.
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.