Based on the recently submitted and very likely to pass House Resolution 362, many on the extremist fringes of both the right and the left are announcing in dire (or hysterical) tones that we're on the verge of war with Iran.
They're calling the resolution the "Iran War Resolution" and yammering about how it was authored by AIPAC (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee) and is all being done on behalf of the evil Zionist oppressors in what ought to be a free, Islamosocialist Palestine. They claim that it's going to be used as a secret authorization for military action against Iran to launch us into the ultimate Neocon-inspired war of international imperialism, or some such claptrap.
Among the most outspoken opponents of the bill is the increasingly shrill and irrational Representative Ron Paul who has apparently completely abandoned his Republican roots to become the voice of the anti-war left and the anti-Israeli John Birch Society. Paul announced on the floor of the House, "I cannot believe it, that we may well be on the verge of initiating the bombing of Iran," and went on to ask: "Where do we have this authority? Where do we get the moral authority? Where do we get the international legality for this? Where do we get the Constitutional authority for this?"
What Rep. Paul and other opponents of the resolution seem not to have done is to actually read the document. It is not a declaration of war or even an authorization for the use of military force. It's basically just a list of bad things Iran has done, coupled with a very weak call for diplomatic and economic sanctions. It doesn't even have the weight of legislative authority because it is only a 'sense of the house' resolution which is rather like a public press release from Congress. It doesn't say one word endorsing military action, deploying troops, bombing anyone, or even flying over Iran and thumbing our noses at them from an F-15.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Judy P
Dave, you are becoming more increasingly shrill and irrational with every blog post.
2 - Dave Nalle
Sorry if it seems that way, Judy. Perhaps I'm just a bit frustrated with the raging idiocy of the body politic and the constant lies and distortions from extreme partisans. If those things don't bother you then just sail on obliviously.
Dave
3 - buzzy bop
"The only thing it really does is tell Iran that the Congress is serious about getting them to behave like a halfway civilized nation..."
If Iran were ever to model itself on the barely civilized US we'd really be in serious trouble.
4 - SAS
No war with Iran. The Iranians have suffered enough due to US foreign policy, with their nascent democracy in the 1950s being sabotaged by the US's overthrow of the Mossadegh, with the support for the Shah's repression, the material support for the invasion by Saddam Hussein in the 1980s and the shooting down of a civilan airliner by the US in the 1988. Stop this madness NOW.
5 - Dave Nalle
SAS, the 'nascent democracy' was on the way to turning into a communist puppet state and the 'shahs repression' was a renaissance of education, cultural growth and economic opportunity for Iran.
Since the removal of the Shah Iran has slid farther and farther into darkness and oppression, turning from being a leading light for modernization and reform in Islam to becoming a force for destruction and extremism.
The main failing of the US is not intervening more directly so that when Iran made the transition from the Shah to democracy it might have avoided sliding into the cesspit of religious extremism and theocracy.
Dave
6 - JollyRoger
You, sir, are a liar.
H. Con. Res. 362 clearly states the following:
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress...
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...
Now, if you cannot understand what it means to 'prohibit the export to Iran all refined petroleum products,' 'impose stringent inspection requirements' on goods going in or coming out of Iran, and to prohibit international movement of Iranian government officials, then you sir are a complete idiot.
Your claim that this is meaningless because it is just a resolution is another nugget of the obtuse sort. Congress only passed a resolution to go to war with Iraq. Furthermore, it was only a 'sense of the Congress' resolution that gave Bush the power to declare the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.
This is a blockade measure pure and simple. The clause that says the resolution does not authorize force is a non sequitur; if there is to be physical interference of Iranian commerce, that is ipso facto authorization of force.
7 - Pablo
Great post Jolly. I would remind Dave, that the AUMF (Authorization to use Military Force in Iraq) was also a Resolution bucko.
8 - Dr Dreadful
"We attacked Iraq in 2003 because we knew Iran was too much for us to take on then"
Oh, I see - nothing to do with national security or self-defense or anything like that, then. Good to see we're finally all on the same page.
9 - Dave Nalle
Jolly, Pablo. Perhaps you should not post on topics where you are fundamentally ignorant.
There's more than one kind of resolution. I made clear the difference in the article AND provided a link to documentation explaining the nature of a 'sense of the house' resolution, yet STILL you seem not to be able to grasp the concept.
A 'sense of the house' resolution, unlike the AUMF or other resolutions which include appropriations or make law, is a specific type of resolution which does not require passage by both houses and does not get sent to the president for his signature. As such, under the constitution, it has ZERO legal standing. It's just a statement.
it was only a 'sense of the Congress' resolution that gave Bush the power to declare the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.
Incorrect. The executive branch can declare any group to be a terrorist organization without any urging from congress. That there was a resolution only encouraged them to do it. They could have done it on their own authority as thye have with many other groups, anytime they wanted.
Please, go read the Constitution and perhaps a book on our legislative process before sounding off like a pack of idiotic sheep.
Dave
10 - bliffle
Won't do any good to read the constitution (again) since GWB seems to consider himself above it.
We've seen GWB consider it OK to treat laws as he pleases.
11 - Pablo
Not according to Davey, I cannot recall ONE time where Dave said or implied that Bush has acted unconstitutionally, not surprising. Oh and Dave, under the USA Military Commissions Act, the prez can declare ANYONE a terrorist, and that includes YOU bucko.
12 - spinnikerca
If Congressman Paul's comments were shrill and irrational, why was the resolution modified? At least, looking it up on Thomas today, things Dr. Paul specifically called out, such as barring international travel to their officials, and inspecting every boat going into or coming out of Iraq, had been removed. There is still the general call for the President to act urgently to impose sanctions, specific serious financial sanctions, and a call to blockade 40% of the needed daily oil requirements of Iraq from being delivered.
One wonders what we would do to someone who did that to us?
13 - spinnikerca
Dang, those measures are only out of the Senate version. They are in the House version, still.
14 - El Bicho
"Perhaps you should not post on topics where you are fundamentally ignorant."
That's awfully ironic because after reading Seymour Hersh's piece in the New Yorker it sounds like we are already at war with Iran.
15 - Pablo
Dave ignorant? Cmon surely you jest. :)
16 - Cannonshop
Amusingly, I don't think it's going to happen, and here's why:
We didn't do it in 1980, or 1982, we didn't in 1987, we didn't go after them in 1991, 92, or 2002. The pretext just wasn't there, even if more folks in 2002 would have supported going into Iran than going into Iraq (a Hostage Crisis and two decades as the "Great Satan", plus Hezbollah, the Embassy hostage crisis, the bombing of the Marine Barracks in Lebanon by Hezbollah-sponsored group...)
It still hasn't been released publicly all the shit we sold Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, and he certainly had enough gas to gas the Kurds in '91 and '92, and when added to Clinton-Era statements about WMD and Inspectors being barred and resisted by the Iraqi government, the WMD issue was publicly credible-remember, lots of guys from my era got sick during Gulf 1 with mystery illnesses that the Pentagone was all too eager to pretend didn't exist.
But not once have we seriously gone after Iran, and Iran, unlike Iraq, openly sponsors international terrorist groups (Hezballah) that have targeted U.S. citizens, and has made no bones about their support for a radicalized islamic movement to topple the west-they don't even DENY IT.
Now, Iran wants "The Bomb", and we're still not going to do anything about that, and the reason is because of Domestic Politics-another front opening on "The war on terror" is a death-sentence for any U.S. political Party that tries it before Afghanistan and Iraq are fully over. The guys in D.C. aren't QUITE that stupid. (close, maybe, but not quite).
the U.S. isn't going to... at least, at first. the guys more likely to do something are the Israelis-their recent long-range-strike practices over the Med weren't for Western observer's benefit. If Iran gets "The Bomb" the first target's going to be Tel Aviv, not New York, and in spite of the collaborationist, appeasement-obsessed government in Israel (taking guidance from New York Liberals and Hollywood, no doubt), they aren't ENTIRELY suicidal, or so stupid they can't read the message being sent in the clear from Tehran.
The real question isn't whether it should happen, it's not a matter of some secret cabal in D.C. or the GOP, or the DNC, it's more a matter of whether or not they measure the ground-shock from the first bomb test at Livermore before the shooting starts.
17 - Ruvy
There has been an awful lot about Iran in the news, and I was going to write an article myself, but since Dave has beaten me to it, I'll content myself with a mere comment or two here.
I believe in the Prophecies of the Tana"kh as foretelling the future. Now, there is a condition that can cancel many of these prophecies, particularly the painful ones about death, earthquakes, war, etc. This condition is called repentance. It involves honestly asking, nay, begging G-d to forgive the immense amount of sin we humans have committed against Him. Based on my mere reading on the commenters here, this repentance is unlikely at all to happen.
Will atheists like Dave, Clavos, Dan Miller or Chris Rose repent to a G-d they don't believe exists? I doubt it. Will others, whose beliefs are less clear to me do such a thing. Well, I honestly do not know. But based on the commenting I find here, I honestly doubt it as well.
So, resolution or not, there will be war of one kind or another with Iran in the not too distant future. And all the other lovely stuff predicted by the ancient prophets of my people will also come true as well.
With that pleasant thought, I leave you for now....
18 - Dave Nalle
That's awfully ironic because after reading Seymour Hersh's piece in the New Yorker it sounds like we are already at war with Iran.
That's not what I get from the Hersh article. Just presenting Bush with options for military action doesn't mean we're actually at war. The Pentagon does that all the time. Making scenarios is what they're all about.
For the most part Hersh is just joining in the alarmism, IMO.
I do think we might eventually bomb Iran, but I'd lay money that it will be under president Obama.
Dave
19 - Ricky
Ahhh, those Jewish laddies are at it again! Woo for America, the Israel-Firsters are out in force in the media trying to start another war in Iran! People losing homes, economy falling apart, gas at $4 and all our congress can do it pass one stupid bill after another for Israel. Lets hope Israel or the Neocons attack Iran. I love chaos and when gas is at $9 a gallon or more....there will be unimaginable chaos in America. Who will the media look to blame for it..
20 - Ralph
It seems that the evangelicals followers of John Hagee and the extremist elements of the Isreali government are using religion to justify another war. AIPAC paid for this resolution ...er, i mean Blockade (act of war) and both Dems and Reps are equally guilty of backing this bill despite the American public not wanting a war..much less ANOTHER war. CNN today is reporting that GW Bush funded 600MM in covert operations in Iran by signing an executive "finding". AIPAC needs to be reminded they are US citizens and should put America first not Isreal.
21 - Dave Nalle
Prodding the anti-israel zombies is almost as much fun as tweaking the Paultards.
Dave
22 - Ruvy
I find the remarks of the anti-Israel zombies rather amusing, most of the time. It's rare that these zombies ever have their facts straight. What is usually most bothersome about them is how they can't even spell "Israel". I'll grant that it is sometimes painful looking at signs or menus here in Israel in what purports to be "English". But natives here have an excuse. They are writing in a foreign language that uses funny letters and goes the wrong way altogether - and has ridiculous spelling rules to boot!
The "nativist" types posting on BC don't have that excuse. They're just plain ignorant.
23 - Dr Dreadful
I'll grant that it is sometimes painful looking at signs or menus here in Israel in what purports to be "English".
Hmm... I'll ask my friend Maggie - who visits Israel frequently with her church - if she remembers seeing any gems. She's quite an afficionado.
I've heard that China is also a goldmine for such 'Engrish' - alas, I have yet to visit the place. But Argentina - especially outside Buenos Aires - is a veritable goldmine of them. I remember especially fondly a menu offering 'main curses' and another describing spaghetti bolognese quite accurately, if unappetizingly, as 'tomato sauce with little bits of meat'.
I'm going to Peru in September and look forward to what they have to offer...
24 - Miriam
I guess the biggest problem we have is how the House and the Senate is completely hijacked by AIPAC of sorts. Very few patriots work in both houses. When Jim Moran (A Patriot) dared to speak of this issue, he was immediately called anti-Semite, a "hater of Jews", was openly condemned by his colleagues , etc.. AIPAC arrogantly believes that this is not the United States of America, but rather the United states of Israel! All American lives are worthless to them only the Israelis matter! And in effect they openly sacrifice our tax dollars, our stability, our integrity, our lives, and our children's lives for Israel(One of the most irresponsible and aggressive nations in the Middle East). My daughter has to sit in classes with 60 other children, while billions of dollars worth of arms get sent to Israel Free of Charge every year, since they are after all our friends! Tell me something is it our friend or our Master!! And these resolutions, H.Con.Res.362, the Senate companion is S.Res.580, floating in Senate and House, these senators who do they work for me or Israel?! And when these backdoor provocations of war, create wars, who will truely fight these wars, the Israelis,AIPAC, or my brother, sister , sons and daughters? It is just outrageous and shameful!
25 - Lucy
Dave, if you are correct, then please explain away these two articles