Skip to main content

This is a follow up to an opednews article (1) requesting folks call their Congressmen to demand legislation requiring Bush to get specific Congressional authorization for an attack on Iran.  Since then, on 6/2/2008, H Con Res 362 was introduced.

This bill specifically states it does not authorize the use of force but then demands the President blockade Iran.  The bill has 208 cosponsors as of 6/24/2008 and may be voted on in the coming week.  

The bill states the following, "...Whereas nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran:  Now, therefore be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), that Congress... (3) demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program..."

See the bill at:  http://www.thomas.gov/...
The Senate version is S.RES. 580.  

Interpretation:  The bill specifically claims to not authorize force but then "demands" an embargo.   This is a contradiction.  I believe it’s intentional, obfuscating game playing.  It gives cover to war democrats.  How do you enforce an embargo without force?  You don’t.  Also, the bill "demands the President initiate international effort to immediately and dramatically increase... pressure on Iran... by...prohibiting... imposing..."  It states that the way the President must initiate international effort is by imposing the embargo.  It does not call for an international embargo.  The unilateral embargo is to initiate the international effort.  Without prior international sanction, it will be an act of war.

FYI - I called the alleged liberal Representative Robert Wexler to chastise him for sponsoring this legislation.  His assistant claimed the resolution specifically precludes force and is meant to increase pressure on Iran to cease enrichment.  I told him the "demand" for an embargo, which must by definition include force, would be reasonably construed by the military to authorize force in spite of the obvious contradiction.  This bill coupled with the defeat of the DeFazio amendment (2), current authorizations for the war on terror, the Senate designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, may all combine to give the military the reasonable belief that Bush can attack Iran without specific Congressional authorization.  Mr. Wexler voted for the Iraq war, against the DeFazio amendment, and supports this war resolution.  Henry Waxman has the same voting record and also cosponsors this bill.  
 

Call your Congressmen at (202) 224 3121:

Tell him you strongly oppose H.Con.Res. 362 and S.Res. 580.

Tell him, if he voted against the 5/16/2007 DeFazio amendment (See 2 below), his vote was against the Constitution and Un-American.  

Tell him, even if he would support an attack, Congress must pass legislation this summer requiring Mr. Bush to get specific Congressional authorization for an attack on Iran.  

Tell him, however else we may disagree, let us agree to Support the Constitution.

(1)  5/27 article on opednew.com "House Un-American Activity"
http://www.opednews.com/...

(2)  5/16/2007 DeFazio amendment (H.Amdt.187) to H.R.1585 - The amendment required Bush to get Congressional approval for an attack on Iran.  
http://thomas.loc.gov/...

Check to see how your Congressman voted on the DeFazio amendment at:  http://clerk.house.gov/...

Next War, Civil War – Stay out of Iran
Keep the Kitty Hawk out of the Persian Gulf.  

Originally posted to John F Scanlon on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 03:16 PM PDT.

Tags

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Yes (9+ / 0-)

    I believe it’s intentional, obfuscating game playing.

    This bill is intentionally crafted to lead to completely different ends, depending on how you interpret it.  

  •  How many criminal acts can Bush get Congress (5+ / 0-)

    to sign on to before he leaves office? Looks like plenty.

    When a government violates the unalienable rights of the people, it loses its legitimacy.

    by Rayk on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 03:21:09 PM PDT

  •  we're going to war with iran (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pompatus, corvo, jgilhousen, forgore, soms

    i think congress knows it, and is producing some political cover(as said in the diary) so democrats can look good to their constituents without saying they are soft. man, this is bad news....

    •  this bill (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MKSinSA, jfromga

      actually can be seen as a "cut off" against an act of war...iow, it is saying loudly that other avenues are available which would make the use of force even MORE criminal.

      People need to calm the f down and think.

      •  Way too much evidence to "Calm down" (7+ / 0-)

        I actually think it is quite insane that there is so little attention to this possibility

        Green light may be in place, Best article i have seen from an experienced CIA professional:
        http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/...

        The newest member of the Joint Chiefs, New Air Force chief miliatry office - Gen. Norton A. Schwartz is the champion of nuclear preemptive strike authorization in 2005.
        Nuclear preemptive strike = insanity

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

        Israeli Ministers Mull Plans for Military Strike against Iran
        http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/...

        Jim Webb: ‘People In The Administration’ Would Like To Strike Iran Before Leaving Office
        http://thinkprogress.org/...

        Also those two lefties Richard Clark and Chuck Hagel believe its possible.

        How hard would it be for Iran to hit some of Saudi Aramco's five domestic refineries, at Riyadh, Ras Tanura, Rabigh, Yanbu' and Jiddah? Seems like one hit storage tank would set off a chain reaction. Given the scale of these operations a hit could close gas stations in the US

        thanks to all who keep writing on this - When they threaten war, I've learned to take them seriously
        thanks for your diary

        •  Iran won't hit the Saudis.... (0+ / 0-)
          They'll throw everything they have at Israel, and try to coordinate with domestic elements in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, And Lebanon, and Central Asia (Uzbek) to shake up stability in the entire region.

          They'll actually probably wait to retaliate in order to see what the initial Russian/Chinese reaction is. If Iran retaliates against U.S. troops, regional governments, or Israel, they'll be backed by either Russia or China or both.

          I think U.S./Israeli and Pakistani planners are hoping that during this moment of hesitation, as violence will spike in Lebanon, Syria, Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan, if enough targets can be hit then they can be effectively neutralized. My main concern is an Iranian or Pan-Arab sponsored sleeper cell in a western nation (Europe, U.S.) which is waiting for open conflict.

          Truth is, Iran would rather fight by proxy instead of risking open conflict. This is what they've done for 20 + years and is all they really know.

          •  maybe (0+ / 0-)

            we realy don't know, wouldn't you agree that cuting the oil would be the weapon that would hurt the west the most ? If so, why are you sure they won't us it ?  

            •  Iran can "cut the oil" (0+ / 0-)
              Without hitting the Saudis. Any conflict is going to drive up the price and cut the supply chain. You can believe Venezuela's not going to be cooperative and that other OPEC nations are going to go into $$$ mode, fast. Russia would be the major economic factor during any crisis, since it supplies oil and natural gas to the EU vis a vis cheap production and refinement facilities in Eastern Europe and Central Asia (where most of the people are sympathetic to the Iranians)
      •  thank goodness somebody else (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        another American, pooh74

        finally said it.

        What part of :

        demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran

        sounds like a unilateral embargo or even a blockade in violation of international law.

        Not 48 hours ago everyone was rejoicing that tough diplomacy, sanctions and working through the states with ties to N. Korea helped get the announcement that the N. Koreans were abandoning their nuclear program.  Everyone pointed out how N. Korea proved it was more effective to use diplomacy rather than force.

        Then a non-binding resolution, not a bill, not a law, not an authorization to use force is put forward that tells the President that Congress expects him to negotiate on a multilateral basis (ie, with our allies, not against them) to obtain tougher sanctions to get Iran to drop its nuclear program.

        This is not a call to war or encouragement for a US strike or even a US encouragement to Israel for a strike.

        Its like people in the threads that pop up several times a day are sure that a significant portion of the House is engaging in Bush speak, including people such as Wexler who have been outspoken against Bush to the point of supporting the impeachment efforts.  

        There may indeed be those in the administration looking for any excuse to attack Iran, I don't read that into this resolution.  It says the opposite.  It says this time, use real effort in diplomacy.

        •  this part... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          artisan

          (3) demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program..."

          that part. that's an illegal blockade if we enforce it. without a UN Security Council resolution, it is an illegal and will most likely be considered as an act of war by Iran...

          any blockade may be in fact intended to be bait...

          --poligirl

          "Hope has two beautiful daughters. Their names are anger and courage; anger at the way things are, and courage to see that they do not remain the way they are."

          by poligirl on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 05:53:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  and this is also part of the resolution (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            poligirl

            Whereas as a result of Iran's failure to comply with the mandates of the United Nations Security Council, taken under Chapter VII of the United Nations' Charter, the international community has imposed limited sanctions over the past 2 years that have begun to have an impact on the Iranian economy;

            so if we are to lead an international effort to strengthen economic and  political sanctions having acknowledged the imposition of previous sanctions that are 'limited', and for also pointing out that there are incentives to be offered by international community members if the Iranians complied with the current requests of the UN, why do you immediately jump from sanctions to blockade and an act of war.

            If Bush wants to attack, its not likely he cares if Congress passes anything.  In fact, he's said he doesn't need anything from Congress.

            I'd be more worried about what Cheney, McCain and Lieberman say than a resolution calling for multilateral diplomatic efforts.

            •  the language in the resolution that i... (0+ / 0-)

              highlighted above is tantamount to a blockade. a blockade is only legal if sanctioned by a UN Sec Council res under Chap VII Section 41.

              also there is language in the resolution saying that it is not to be construed as a use of force auth... but the language of number three is unmistakably a blockade.

              and language, especially in law, is extremely important... the blockade language should be stripped - then i for one will feel better...

              W doesn't want a war auth. and i'm not saying that the res can be construed as a war auth. but it nonetheless does "demand" that one of the things W do is instigate a blockade, which unless he gets a UN res for, will be an illegal "act of war".

              if Bush wants to go to war with Iran - he will find a way... you are right, he'll do it no matter what, but he will exhaust every CYA avenue for it first... and all the better if he can get the Dem Congress to shoulder some of any blame that may come his way...

              --poligirl

              "Hope has two beautiful daughters. Their names are anger and courage; anger at the way things are, and courage to see that they do not remain the way they are."

              by poligirl on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:41:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  language in the law is important (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                poligirl

                but there are rules to construe all the words, so don't leave out "initiate an international effort, etc.," between demand and refined petroleum,

                in addition, to refuse to export, ie, control one's internal trade decisions, is not a blockade.

                Inspection borders on blockade, but blockade generally includes stopping all ingress and egress, not just inspecting for contraband that is already part of a UN sanction.

                Again, if we read all the words and give them ordinary meaning, this is not a demand that the President immediately impose a blockade.

                It is a demand to negotiate with the international commmunity, more sanctions, including voluntary decisions that mean that far fewer goods flow into Iran, but not by way of blockade.  It would be harsh, cause great suffering on innocent people, but it is not a call for violation of international law.

                •  well... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  jfromga

                  Again, if we read all the words and give them ordinary meaning, this is not a demand that the President immediately impose a blockade.

                  you are right, but given what this administration does with the wording of resolutions (look at the Iraq AUMF for instance which called for all diplomatic avenues to be exhausted first) i wouldn't even give them any opening to interpret anything...

                  look again at the exact wording of 362:

                  the language:

                  demands that the president initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program..."

                  it's urging the president to initiate what is tantamount to a blockade, regardless of how many other countries he can get to do it with him. they all need a UN Sec Council resolution to legally do any of "by prohibiting" actions...

                  and why is this necessary anyway? seems that the president is already doing what's called for in it, so why even take that chance?

                  seems like it would be a better idea for Congress to draft a resolution that "demands" the president immediately present his case to the UN Security Council and ask for resolution to do said actions in the name of our and Israel's national security interests...

                  but everyone knows that he's never gonna get one of those resolutions... they would never give it to him in light of the info in last year's NIE.

                  --poligirl

                  "Hope has two beautiful daughters. Their names are anger and courage; anger at the way things are, and courage to see that they do not remain the way they are."

                  by poligirl on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:25:47 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  because the one thing (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    poligirl

                    that Bushco is clearly refusing to do is use diplomatic channels.  He has ignored two very deliberate invitations to negotiate, one direct through a message to the Secy of State that she somehow missed and another public invitation at the UN.

                    Refusing to export is not a blockade. Its not even tantamount to a blockade (and its not convincing to argue on the one hand that precision in the use of language is important and then wave the other hand and go well, it would be tantamount to one to refuse to export, which isn't even in the same category as physically compelling any transit in or out of a country).  We refused to export goods to certain countries during the cold war all the time.  No country is compelled to sell its goods beyond its borders by international law.

                    Countries may refuse entry to foreign persons, that is not a blockade.

                    The inspection issue is the closest to a blockade. And I haven't gone to look at the old UN sanctions, but they may include inspection rights.

                    As for going to the UN, someone has to do the homework and build concensus first, it didn't work when they said go to the UN before.

                    Its also a non-binding resolution, an unsolicited expression of, I know you didn't ask, but let me tell you what I think.  It isn't telling the president to do what we all know the president wants to do, start a war.  

                    As for Iran, I think they worry more nations than just the US and Israel.  An eventual case might be made for increased sanctions.  Agressive diplomacy may actually be of benefit.  The NIE is balanced against the international atomic watchdog group that does have its suspicions based on certain actions of Iran to refuse full information.  They don't say that Iran is actively working on a bomb, but they aren't sure that Iran isn't pursuing undisclosed avenues that bring them closer to being able to go back to work on a bomb.

                    •  export "to" not export "from"... it's not... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      jfromga

                      a call to stop Iran from selling its products, it's preventing Iran from importing any refined petroleum products. physically. by "stringent inspections". regardless of whether the country exporting to Iran wishes to do so.

                      and yes, i am aware it is a non-binding resolution as all "sense of the congress" resolutions are.

                      and i don't see the conflict of language in this:

                      (and its not convincing to argue on the one hand that precision in the use of language is important and then wave the other hand and go well, it would be tantamount to one to refuse to export, which isn't even in the same category as physically compelling any transit in or out of a country).

                      further:

                      Countries may refuse entry to foreign persons, that is not a blockade.

                      IF the country refusing the entry is the country that the person is seeking entry to. Which means that Iran has every right to refuse anyone entry. we, nor any other country, absent a UN resolution, do not have the right to restrict movement of anyone of another country to and from a third country.

                      but i'm sure you are the expert and know better, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

                      --poligirl

                      "Hope has two beautiful daughters. Their names are anger and courage; anger at the way things are, and courage to see that they do not remain the way they are."

                      by poligirl on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 10:19:50 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  yes its export to (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        poligirl

                        really I could read that much

                        'prohibit export to' speaks to the decision of the country sending out the product.  That is not tantamount to a blockade.  The US can pass a law prohibiting anyone in the US from exporting to Iran.  Great Britain, Germany, etc. can all do the same. That is not a blockade.  But it is clearly prohibiting export to Iran.  

                        And again, the refusal to allow entry into a country by that sovereign on a voluntary basis is not a blockade.  Nothing in the language of the resolution is suggesting that the US do this unilaterally or with force, it specifically excludes use of force  (using a warship to stop another ship on the high seas is force).

                        The closest it comes to something that may be illegal is inspection.  But again, I haven't read the UN sanctions but it wouldn't suprise me if there were inspection rights tacked on.

                        Exagerating the purpose of the resolution, ignoring the clear indications that not force, but international diplomacy and cooperation are to be sought, doesn't address the more real threats being issued directly by the administration.   If the administration was looking for a fig leaf, there wouldn't be calls for cooperation with the international community, etc.

                        •  not necessarily... (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          jfromga

                          If the administration was looking for a fig leaf, there wouldn't be calls for cooperation with the international community, etc.

                          sure the admin would... simply because it makes them appear to everyone to be seeking diplomacy and this administration's all about show... not to mention that politics is all about perception...

                          and of course everyone can pass laws to not export - obviously that's not a blockade... it's the "stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran" part that concerns me most...

                          believe it or not - i have an education in not only poli sci (with emphasis on Amer gov't and Int'l relations), but also in the Middle East, so i am far from stupid. i also am well versed in the law though not formally educated and do read legislation and congressional record frequently, lest you think i am pulling this crap out of nowhere...

                          i developed my opinion from several different things including the reading of 362, the opinion of a former CIA agent, the reading of the UN Charter Ch VII articles, as well as statements by Ehud Olmert, John Conyers, and the Director of the IAEA. that's in addition to other articles, including academic ones. you can read my research here. It's the 3rd measure I wrote about.

                          on its face, it may look benign, but with the W administration - i just don't afford them the trust you do. the will interpret anything congress gives them they way they see fit, as seen with the flagrant (and constitutionally questionable) signing statements by George W.

                          if indeed the "stringent inspections" are built in already to a UN resolution, and given that Bush has very publicly been discussing "diplomacy" regarding Iran with the European powers who seem to be in agreement, then why is 362 necessary? and why is AIPAC pushing it so hard? and why did Olmert say what he did? (cuz clearly, Iran hasn't been falling into any psyops trap...)

                          if in fact there's absolutely nothing to worry about with it - why is 362 even necessary? think about that... why?

                          i'm tired, so i may not answer you back til tomorrow...

                          --poligirl

                          "Hope has two beautiful daughters. Their names are anger and courage; anger at the way things are, and courage to see that they do not remain the way they are."

                          by poligirl on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:51:07 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  because Bush won't negotiate (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            poligirl

                            won't respond to calls in the UN and others in the international community to try negotiation before he chooses force.

                            I do not trust the Bush administration.  I don't even trust Congressional democrats all that much.  But I do trust that this resolution is virtually meaningless.  The real issue is how far Bush will go alone for a second time.  That I fear.  Calling for him to talk to allies and other big time players on the security council may slow him down if he has to answer the resolution publicly.  I don't trust the press to force him to do it.  So again, its meaningless, a gesture, not a mandate or a roadblock.

                          •  well, judging by W's very public wooing of... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            jfromga

                            the major European leaders a couple weeks ago regarding the topic of getting tougher on Iran and knowing that they strongly prefer diplomacy to force, i would say W's already publicly showing a want for aggressive diplomacy at least outwardly. i believe all of those leaders have come out in support of the way Bush is handling Iran. So there's no need to urge him to do what he already seems to be publicly doing.

                            and since (even in your own words) it's meaningless, and a gesture, and not a mandate or roadblock, Congress doesn't even need to make it. it's nothing that is necessary - it's a meaningless gesture. and they especially don't need to make it while this administration is in office. cuz if anyone is going to misconstrue a non-binding resolution like 362, it's this administration. they've proven time and again that they will take the mile when given an inch. so let's not give them the inch. it's not necessary.

                            also, i have no problem with the resolution if the Congress removes or changes the inflammatory and questionable language portion of # 3.

                            --poligirl

                            "Hope has two beautiful daughters. Their names are anger and courage; anger at the way things are, and courage to see that they do not remain the way they are."

                            by poligirl on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:11:50 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  but they pass these things all the time anyway (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            poligirl

                            honor somebody's uncle, have national nobody's ever heard of that day, etc.   That's why its on the suspension calendar with no debate.  Because its meaningless.

                          •  i know they do. matter of fact, they usually... (0+ / 0-)

                            pass several of these a day. most of course, like you noted are in honor of somebody's uncle's dog walker or some disease etc... the only similarities between 362 and those honorary resolutions is that they are non-binding. none of them have quite a call to action in them...

                            and this one has gained a lot of cosponsors just in the past couple of weeks. and that worries me a bit... AIPAC's lobbying Congress hard for this and Olmert has been lobbying BushCo.

                            W - when he doesn't like something the Congress sends him - he just issues a signing statement that disregards part or all of whatever the legislation is that has just been passed. that's not what signing statements were historically meant for and is flirting with (if not outright) being unconstitutional.

                            That said - what makes you think that W won't look at this non-binding resolution and thinking "ok, Congress backs ramping up against Iran (they agree with me)"

                            Not that i think he'll take it as an excuse to do any bombing - he's not that stupid. but i can certainly see him saying we're gonna ramp it up because it's necessary, the UN won't do anything about it with teeth (translation - Russia won't go for a refined petroleum embargo and they have veto power), and the Congress agrees with me. That is BushCo logic.

                            and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who desperately needs some kind of popular support in his country right now (he's pretty much their Bush at this point and they have elections next year), may very well take any blockade-style ramp up as an act of war. Rally round the flag boys...

                            i'm not saying either dictator will, but i certainly could see it happening. it is within the realm of possibility. that's why just because they pass a million honorary resolutions a week, Congress should let this one die.

                            it's on the suspension calendar because it's still in Committee, which is about the only good thing i can say about it...

                            if Congress wants to go ahead and honor Bush for beginning a diplomatic route in light of his recent trip - that's great - i'm all for that honorary nonbinding resolution! If every member of Congress wants to sign on as a cosponsor - great! but they need to keep this thing in Committee and not let it see the light of day on the floor. and i've let them know that and i hope others will too. you can never be too careful with the Bush Admin (or Congress for that matter...)

                            --poligirl

                            "Hope has two beautiful daughters. Their names are anger and courage; anger at the way things are, and courage to see that they do not remain the way they are."

                            by poligirl on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:01:27 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  it was about three weeks (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            poligirl

                            ago the stories started circulating that Rice ignored the request from Iran to talk, and the offer to have an international coalition run the enrichment program was floated at the UN.  Also a little over a month since the Cheney visits and the warnings about big war plans, prepare Saudi Arabia for fall out etc.   About six weeks or so since Carter came back from his unauthorized trip and said Hamas wanted to talk.  And now Israel is talking some too.

                            So maybe those messages are just coalescing so that Congress feels like now is the time to put out their own its time to talk message.

                            Diplomacy consists of carrots and sticks.  Iran needs to feel pressure, because the messages are mixed about how honest they are being about their program.  I don't think its what Bush or Gates or Cheney says it is, but they wouldn't be the first to pursue a bomb in secret.  Again, as North Korea shows, diplomacy is good.  This is asking for very similar and admittedly harsh measures.  Its not asking for Bush to go it alone on a preemptive military strike.

                          •  sure, and i'm glad Congress is paying... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            jfromga

                            attention. 362 was introduced May 22nd, so it may very well be simply reactionary...

                            So maybe those messages are just coalescing so that Congress feels like now is the time to put out their own its time to talk message.

                            but the least they could do is strip out the small portion of the language which could possibly be misconstrued... it would still be a strong statement for diplomacy without that language... and they can strip that and it would take away all the concern that anyone has with this resolution... it's the language that could be misconstrued that is causing the controversy. it's simple - remove it... if they want someone to rewrite it - i'll do it... it's not that difficult just to leave out or reword that language...

                            i can't you're arguing that the language should be left in...

                            Its not asking for Bush to go it alone on a preemptive military strike.

                            i never said that 362 was. never. never ever ever. i've even pointed out that it contains a specific clause that states that it is not to mistaken for a use of force auth.

                            but i don't think Bush will strike Iran preemptively. I don't. he doesn't want a war auth and he won't try to get one. i think he wants Iran to make the first move and he and Israel may do what they can to provoke it. i think he's looking for a Gulf of Tonkin incident. that's what i think...

                            i just don't want Congress to in any way shape or form do anything that even may give him an inkling of an idea that they approve of anything that could possibly be construed as a blockade by anybody. it's not necessary.

                            i don't think in a million years that Bush would preemptively strike Iran... he knows that's how he gets viewed as the bad guy... not sure how you got the idea that i think that he would...

                            and i appreciate and have enjoyed the civil and intellectual discourse we've had here... and i'm gonna mojo you for it (you don't have to return the sentiment, no worries...)  :D

                            --poligirl

                            "Hope has two beautiful daughters. Their names are anger and courage; anger at the way things are, and courage to see that they do not remain the way they are."

                            by poligirl on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:38:55 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  no problem (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            poligirl

                            its not so much you said preemptive strike as others in the other diaries over the last few days.  Just a very natural reaction given what Bush has done, but still over the top in my view.  I'll go back and look, I don't believe my congressman has signed on so I can't ask him (he's too red, he'd want language that was worse not better).

                          •  i agree we do need to make sure it's not... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            jfromga

                            hysteria like we've seen in some of the diaries...  that's one of the reasons I researched it in the first place... :D

                            i wholeheartedly agree, we don't need the paranoia, we just need to be alert...

                            --poligirl

                            "Hope has two beautiful daughters. Their names are anger and courage; anger at the way things are, and courage to see that they do not remain the way they are."

                            by poligirl on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:56:31 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

  •  an embargo (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MKSinSA, jfromga

    is not an act of agression perse...also, getting international help to pressure Iran through diplomacy is a good thing.

    I think even liberals can agree that a nuclear Iran is not a good thing.  I will probably get flamed for this.

    •  And also... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      forgore
      An embargo would just aggrandize Russia by forcing Iran to send it's oil North instead of East or West (In U.S. occupied territory)

      Day 1: Israel launches strikes, the Marines and Navy "happen" to be in Hormuz to seize the straits and secure the oil tankers. U.S. backed insurgents in Iran (Khuzistan) begin to put pressure on Iran's military along the Iraq border.

      Day 2: Iran retaliates against insurgents along the Iraqi border and against oil tankers in the straits and possible against Israel. The U.S. takes control of Iran's air space and launches strikes against AA targets while Israel "secures" Lebanon against Hezbollah.

      Day 3:???

       

    •  Yes it is. (8+ / 0-)

      Consider for one nanosecond how you would respond to an embargo of the US. (There's certainly plenty of justification.)

      The bill authorizes actions clearly recognized in international law as acts of war.

      Sick of candidate diaries? Kasama!
      "Tell no lies. Claim no easy victories" -- Amilcar Cabral

      by Christopher Day on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 03:41:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Then the oil embargos of the 70's (0+ / 0-)

        were an act of war against the west.

        Can't have it both ways.

        •  No (0+ / 0-)

          The refusal to sell to a country is different than interdicting commerce by others as is clearly authorized in this legislation.

          There is a continnum that exists between the mildest embargoes and the severest blockades. OPEC never threatened the overseas freedom of movement of US officials or attempts to interfere with US imports and exports with non-OPEC countries.

          Sick of candidate diaries? Kasama!
          "Tell no lies. Claim no easy victories" -- Amilcar Cabral

          by Christopher Day on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:47:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  absolute nonsense (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      truong son traveler, poligirl

      an embargo is not an act of agression ?

      You are talking about forcfully stangling thier econcomy, such actions would make war an eventuallity if we are not aleady on this path

      •  An embargo? not necessarily. (5+ / 0-)

        But a blockade is an open-and-shut act of war.

        Which is pretty much what the House resolution is calling for.

        •  OK (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          corvo, poligirl

          The action of prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products would forcfully stangle thier econcomyis and be an act of war

          •  Well, yes and no. (0+ / 0-)

            If we got everyone to agree not to export refined petroleum products to Iran, no.  But if we forcibly prevented ships from delivering such, most definitely yes.

            Embargoing South Africa, for example, wasn't an act of war; it didn't stop other nations from trading with that country.  (Same goes for Cuba now.)  Blockading their harbors would have been.

            Note that this doesn't mean I necessarily support any such embargo.  I really see no reason for one.

          •  Again, this then brings up the oil embargoes (0+ / 0-)

            of the previous generation.

            Why are you so aggressively against our doing to them, what they did to us?

          •  and we cannot legally do this without a... (0+ / 0-)

            UN Security Council resolution.

            --poligirl

            "Hope has two beautiful daughters. Their names are anger and courage; anger at the way things are, and courage to see that they do not remain the way they are."

            by poligirl on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 05:55:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  This was done years ago when (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        statistic

        Iran nationalized their oil. This was during the time when the democratically elected government of Mossadegh was in power in Iran. Iran wanted an increase in the share of their own oil wealth from 20% to 50% from the oil that Great Britain was taking from Iran. The Brits refused. After nationalization the Brits and their pals the Americans began a total economic blockade of Iran which led to hardships and with CIA help finally brought down the government and we installed our man, the Shah, who opened up Iranian oil access once again.

        When the Shah began building nuclear power plants he planned to purchase reactors from France and Germany and pissed of his masters greatly. The US and Britain withdrew the support of the Shah and supported the Ayatollah Khomeini who replaced the Shah and canceled the orders for the nuclear reactors.

        This is simply a repeat of history. We are still trying to gain access to Iranian oil and the Iranians are resisting. It's little more than that. We'll use whatever it takes to get to that oil. Propaganda, coup, regime change, blockade, assassination, CIA involvement or military attack.

        The end justifies the means for the Cheney gang and for many in congress as well.

        "Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control people..." Henry Kissinger

        by truong son traveler on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 05:07:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Now just wait... (0+ / 0-)

          We withdrew our support of a dictator, and that makes us bad?

          •  He was indeed a dictator (0+ / 0-)

            but that didn't bother us at all because he allowed us to access to his country's oil. It was when he began the process to make Iran independent of US and British economic and technical support by setting out to build an infrastructure based on nuclear power, and the fact that he had the nerve to order reactors, I believe 53 of them, from France and Germany - rather than the US, that lost him our support.

            Our support of the Ayatollah didn't turn out so well either.

            Dictators are no problem as long as they support our national interests. Saddam was the same. He was our boy when he was fighting Iran. He became a bad boy when he would not allow us access to his oil.

            "Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control people..." Henry Kissinger

            by truong son traveler on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 05:18:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  He lost our support (0+ / 0-)

              because the only way left to support him would have been to give him troops.  And since the Revolution was already underway, it would have been very dangerous for us to have interjected ourselves into a losing battle.

              He was toast, we moved on.

  •  Obviously this bill... (5+ / 0-)
    Is a clear statement by the Congress. The message:

    "The Congress refuses to make a decision about conflict with Iran and authorizes the president to do nothing or anything to check Iran's progress towards nuclear weapons."

    This is Congressional bureaucracy at it's finest. Defined = rule by nobody.

     

  •  And this: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MKSinSA, ArtSchmart
    "(2)  5/16/2007 DeFazio amendment (H.Amdt.187) to H.R.1585 - The amendment required Bush to get Congressional approval for an attack on Iran"

    Would be Unconstitutional. I'm surprised he didn't attach one of his signing statements to it but then again he doesn't really have to. It is established precedent that the president can defend the country if he perceives an imminent attack. He can also move troops anywhere he wishes and if the troops happen to be attacked during routine patrol/exercises (Gulf of Tonkin, anyone), then what?

  •  Who is saying it will be voted on within a week? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MKSinSA, ArtSchmart

    It has yet to even be scheduled a committee hearing, last I checked.

    It's a neighborly day in this beautywood. Relentless!

    by ablington on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 03:42:53 PM PDT

  •  my question is; (0+ / 0-)

    when will we get the damn draft back?

  •  Bayh is the Sponsor of (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    poligirl

    the senate version S. RES. 580 which has 27 co-sponsors already with several Dems in that list.

    House version has 208 co-sponsors.

    There are some differences between the two versions:
    house
    senate
    (check the wording of the end of the two texts) but they could use parliamentary methods to shuffle things up.

    Please consider helping retire Gilda Reed(D-LA-01)'s campaign debt by contributing here. Thanks!

    by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 05:04:20 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site