Quantcast

Flush Congress? YES or NO

DDogbreath 2012/05/20 17:28:53
Flush Congress now.
Congress is doing a fine job.
This is what I think about it.
You!
Add Photos & Videos
It appears that most of our Congress is
"bought and paid for".


Check out this article, and PAY ATTENTION to who the ONLY ONE that is actually standing up for us and the people and for liberty.

His Father taught him well.

AIPAC
Resolution Demanding War With Iran On House Floor Tomorrow





By M.J. Rosenberg



May 14, 2012 "
Information
Clearing House
"
-- On Tuesday, the House of Representatives is slated to vote on
a

resolution
designed to tie the president’s hands on Iran
policy. The resolution, which is coming up under an expedited
House procedure, was the

centerpiece
of AIPAC’s recent conference. In fact, 13,000
AIPAC delegates were dispatched to Capitol Hill, on the last day
of the conference, with instructions to tell the senators and
representatives whom they met that supporting this resolution
was #1 on AIPAC’s election year agenda.



Accordingly, it is not particularly surprising that the
resolution is being rushed to the House floor for a vote, nor
that it is expected to pass with very little opposition. Those
voting “no” on this one will pay a price in campaign
contributions (the ones they won’t receive) and, very likely,
will be smeared as “anti-Israel.” That is how it


works.


Most of
the language in H. Res.568 is unremarkable, the usual
boilerplate (some of it factual) denouncing the Islamic Republic
of Iran as a “state sponsor of terrorism” that is on the road to
nuclear weapons capability.


The
resolution’s overarching message is that Iran must be deterred
from developing weapons, a position the White House (and our
allies share). That is why the sanctions regime is in place and
also why negotiations with Iran have resumed (the next session
is May 23).


But the
resolution does not stop with urging the president to use his
authority to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. If it did, the
resolution would be uncontroversial .


But there
is also this: The House “urges the President to reaffirm the
unacceptability of an Iran with nuclear-weapons capability and
opposition to any policy that would rely on containment as an
option in response to the Iranian nuclear threat.”


Think
about that.


The
resolution, which almost surely will pass on Tuesday, is telling
the president that he may not “rely on containment” in response
to “the Iranian nuclear threat.”


Since the
resolution, and U.S. policy itself defines Iranian possession of
nuclear weapons as, ipso facto, a threat, Congress would be
telling the president that any U.S. response to that threat
other than war is unacceptable. In fact, it goes farther than
that, not only ruling out containment of a nuclear armed Iran
but also containment of an Iran that has a “nuclear weapons
capability.”


That means
that the only acceptable response to a nuclear armed or nuclear
capable Iran is not containment but its opposite: war.


Any doubt
that this is the intention of the backers of this approach was
removed back in March, when the Senate was considering new Iran
sanctions. Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Lindsey Graham (R-SC),
Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Bob Casey (D-PA) offered

their own “no containment” language
to the sanctions bill
and the Senate moved to quickly to accept it.


However,
amending a bill once it is already on the Senate floor requires
unanimous consent and one, and only one, senator objected. Rand
Paul (R-KY) said that he would oppose the containment clause
unless a provision was added specifying that “nothing in the Act
shall be construed as a declaration of war or an authorization
of the use of force against Iran…”


That did
it.


Neither
the Democratic or Republican leadership would accept that
(knowing that AIPAC wouldn’t) and Paul’s objection killed the
bill, for the time being. In other words, the purpose of “no
containment” language is precisely to make war virtually
automatic. Because Paul’s provision would thwart that goal, it
was unacceptable.


So now
it’s the House’s turn.


On the
substance, the “no containment” idea is absurd and reckless.


Imagine if
President Kennedy had been told by the Congress back in 1962
that if the Soviet Union placed missiles in Cuba, he would have
no choice but to attack Cuba or the USSR. If it had, it is
likely none of us would be around today.


Presidents
need latitude to make decisions affecting matters of national
security and, until now, all presidents have been afforded it,
as provided for in the United States Constitution. But, in the
case of Iran, the cheerleaders for war are trying to change the
rules. They are doing that because they understand that after
almost a decade of war, the last thing Americans want is another
one.


No
president is going to ask Congress to declare war, or even to
authorize it. Making war against Iran automatic would eliminate
that problem. (That is precisely Sen. Paul’s objection; he
believes that backing into war is unconstitutional. He recalls
the Gulf of Tonkin resolution of 1964 which led to ten years of
war in Vietnam and 50,000 American dead without a declaration of
war or even a specific authorization for war).


So
why would the House vote for a resolution like this?

The main reason is AIPAC.
It may be the only lobby pushing
for war with Iran but it also, by far, the most powerful foreign
policy lobby and also the one that sees to it that those who
play ball with it are rewarded and those who don’t are punished.

AIPAC has been pushing war with Iran for a
decade; it won’t stop until the missiles fly.


The other
reason is that the resolution is non-binding. Voting for it is
good politics but does not affect policy.


Believing
that is a mistake. An overwhelming vote for “no containment” may
not tie the president’s hands legally, but it does go a long way
to tying his hands politically. After all, Congress will be
expressing its clear (bipartisan) intent. A president cannot
easily ignore that.


Moreover,
the lobby is unlikely to stop with a non-binding resolution.
Once the House and Senate have passed that, the lobby will look
for an opportunity to make it binding. The goal is to take the
president’s discretion away from him because this president is
unlikely to choose war when there are other options available.


It is
those options that the lobby is determined to block. It remains
hell-bent for war.



POSTSCRIPT: It can’t hurt to call your House member at 202 225
3131 to tell him that you know about the vote on the AIPAC
resolution and will be watching. Assuming the House does not
duck for cover by passing this by voice vote, I will post the
names of the brave representatives who vote “no.”


M.J.
Rosenberg served as a Senior Foreign Policy Fellow with Media
Matters Action Network, and prior to that worked on Capitol Hill
for various Democratic members of the House and Senate for 15
years. He was also a Clinton political appointee at USAID. In
the early 1980s, he was editor of AIPACs weekly newsletter Near
East Report. From 1998-2009, he was director of policy at Israel
Policy Forum.
www.mjayrosenberg.com

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Kaimeso 2012/05/20 17:30:47
    This is what I think about it.
    Kaimeso
    +6
    Not "Flush", but arrest the entire crowd for corruption and treason.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Aksana 2012/05/21 15:38:07
    Flush Congress now.
    Aksana
    +1
    Flush it now
  • Farnsworth 2012/05/21 02:35:05
    This is what I think about it.
    Farnsworth
    +2
    Flush all dems and RINO's. Chance of that, slim to none
  • ur XLNC-PWCM 2012/05/21 00:03:27 (edited)
    This is what I think about it.
    ur XLNC-PWCM
    +2
    I voted FLUSH, but this says otherwise. Congress has been selfserving at least as long as the age of their retirement package
  • John Galt jr or Ron/jon 2012/05/20 23:50:34
    Flush Congress now.
    John Galt jr or Ron/jon
  • DDogbreath John Ga... 2012/05/20 23:55:51
    DDogbreath
    +1
    What a great Idea!

  • Stan Kapusta 2012/05/20 22:53:12
    Flush Congress now.
    Stan Kapusta
    +4
    Term Limits would correct this now and for future generations. Start by closing the senior citizen Senatorial nursing home. 2 4 year terms only for all.
  • Lady Wh... Stan Ka... 2012/05/21 11:20:57
    Lady Whitewolf
    +1
    2 terms of 4 years.... just like the president. Then go get a REAL job.
  • Stan Ka... Lady Wh... 2012/05/21 19:48:41
    Stan Kapusta
    +2
    Then our kids wouldn't put up with the same crap.
  • Lady Wh... Stan Ka... 2012/05/21 20:00:41
    Lady Whitewolf
    +1
    true that!
  • EdVenture 2012/05/20 22:25:29
  • Stan Ka... EdVenture 2012/05/21 23:56:23 (edited)
    Stan Kapusta
    +1
    I don't buy that for 1 second. Political Science Professors and i know those aren't the only ones who know the ropes. That's the whole idea. Stop the career politician period! it is detrimental to the existence of the U.S. All you end up with is a bunch of rich old men! With what we have now, a dysfunctional executive branch of government.
  • fortycal_sig 2012/05/20 22:19:16
    Flush Congress now.
    fortycal_sig
    +2
    Yeah, keep Rand Paul.
  • clasact 2012/05/20 19:31:40
    Flush Congress now.
    clasact
    +1
    I would be a good ideal to start over again.I find it funny that the most productive time in congeress was also Clintons first term as President because it was also over have of congresses first term but hey they soon learned where the money is and turned thier backs on the people as they have been doing for years
  • relic 2012/05/20 19:23:12
    Flush Congress now.
    relic
    +1
    Replacing every one of them may cause 4 or 5 good ones to lose their jobs. No more than that.
  • JohnT 2012/05/20 19:19:22
    Flush Congress now.
    JohnT
    +2
    Every last one of them. Then elect people with a two term limit good salary but no retirement and they pay for their own health coverage and no perks not even a stationary account. Just do the job and go home.
  • Wally-Molon Labe! 2012/05/20 18:59:16
    Flush Congress now.
    Wally-Molon Labe!
    +2
    The dog (not you Dog) and pony show put on by our spineless congress will achieve nothing. It is not supposed to. The traitor Panetta has already told congress to their faces that they are irrelevant. The UN decides what sanctions, what war and when.

    I pity the sewer system that has to handle all these POS.
  • DDogbreath Wally-M... 2012/05/20 23:43:32
    DDogbreath
    +1
    Taking pity on a sewer system... Are you a plumber? LMAO
  • CrazyDeen0 2012/05/20 18:53:26
    Flush Congress now.
    CrazyDeen0
    +5
    Anyone thinking war with Iran is in America's best interest is completely delusional and should be on the front lines if war does come about. The whole notion of unconditional support for Israel should be met with the fact they are sacrificing American men and women for the sake of another country for nothing! Maybe they should shift the vote for war with Iran from congress to popular vote amongst the people??
  • Wally-M... CrazyDeen0 2012/05/20 19:06:21
    Wally-Molon Labe!
    +3
    The only interest served by war is that of the military industrial machine. War is for profit. All this sabre rattling over Iran MAY BE able to manufacture A nuclear weapon? They are on the hit list of the new world order psychopaths for one reason. OIL.

    I believe all American support for the terrorist country called Israel should stop immediately.
  • CrazyDeen0 Wally-M... 2012/05/20 19:09:07
    CrazyDeen0
    +2
    Here, Here I agree
  • Striker Wally-M... 2012/05/31 18:10:22
    Striker
    +2
    I suggest that Israel may be more terrorist because of all the $$ and weapons which America keeps giving it. That should stop.

    Who would want to live anywhere which is totally surrounded with the RadNuts of islam?
  • ticker 2012/05/20 18:53:18
    This is what I think about it.
    ticker
    +2
    not saying I'd start it but I really believe America is headed for a second civil war... makes me want to ETS so I'd be able to defend my family instead of a foreign country
  • Wally-M... ticker 2012/05/20 19:08:26
    Wally-Molon Labe!
    +3
    We have no choice. Either we fight tyranny and big brother or we get on our knees and say "Thank you may I have another."
  • ticker Wally-M... 2012/06/02 16:47:41
    ticker
    +2
    the world has become one giant catch-22
  • Waldorf 2012/05/20 18:40:54
    This is what I think about it.
    Waldorf
    +5
    I think candidates should not be allowed to accept contributions from any group explicitly representing the interests of a foreign government.
  • Wally-M... Waldorf 2012/05/20 19:09:17
    Wally-Molon Labe!
    +3
    Or any special interest group or corporation.
  • Lady Wh... Wally-M... 2012/05/21 11:21:42
  • Lady Wh... Waldorf 2012/05/21 11:21:47
  • ConLibFraud 2012/05/20 17:56:51
    Flush Congress now.
    ConLibFraud
    +5
    Hell yes! Round them up and put them all behind bars where they belong!!! Better yet, our military needs to give DC the middler finger and come home and rescue their country. They should just put a fence around DC and call it the National Penitentiary!
  • DDogbreath ConLibF... 2012/05/20 18:02:21
    DDogbreath
    +4
    BRILLIANT IDEA!

    brilliant
  • ConLibF... DDogbreath 2012/05/20 18:31:04
    ConLibFraud
    +3
    We The People need to start pleading to our military to come home and rescue their country.
  • Lady Wh... DDogbreath 2012/05/21 11:22:19
    Lady Whitewolf
    +1
    hate to say it but I can't disagree!
  • DeeB ConLibF... 2012/05/20 18:15:05
  • ConLibF... DeeB 2012/05/20 18:31:29
    ConLibFraud
    +2
    Love it!
  • DeeB ConLibF... 2012/05/20 18:43:44
    DeeB
    +2
    Thought you would! ;-)
  • Wally-M... ConLibF... 2012/05/20 19:10:41
    Wally-Molon Labe!
    +2
    I like idea also. That way we could stand outside the fence and take shots at them.
  • ConLibF... Wally-M... 2012/05/20 20:11:12
    ConLibFraud
    +2
    Anything that phucking moves!!!
  • Cliff 2012/05/20 17:54:04
    This is what I think about it.
    Cliff
    +3
    Get rid of the RINO's and liberals and we'll be fine.
  • ConLibF... Cliff 2012/05/20 17:57:42
    ConLibFraud
    +3
    Except for the Pauls ... isn't that all of them?
  • Cliff ConLibF... 2012/05/20 18:05:28
    Cliff
    +2
    One of them is severely in need of a rocking chair.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/04/19 01:56:40

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals