Flush Congress? YES or NO
"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.
Resolution Demanding War With Iran On House Floor Tomorrow
By M.J. Rosenberg
May 14, 2012 "Information
-- On Tuesday, the House of Representatives is slated to vote on
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
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.
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).
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 .
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.”
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.”
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
that the only acceptable response to a nuclear armed or nuclear
capable Iran is not containment but its opposite: war.
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.
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…”
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
it’s the House’s turn.
substance, the “no containment” idea is absurd and reckless.
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.
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
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).
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.
reason is that the resolution is non-binding. Voting for it is
good politics but does not affect policy.
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.
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.
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.”
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
See Votes by State
News & Politics