Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

lquadland10 (< 20)

Dangerous Crossroads: Congressional approval before attacking Iran is no longer required

Recs

12

July 08, 2008 – Comments (8) | RELATED TICKERS: FSLR , AUY , GLD

Free and just societies create opportunity for their citizens, and the United States is encouraged by the movement toward economic freedom we are seeing across the Middle East.

The World Bank reports that economic growth is strong and rising in the region.Saudi Arabia has joined the World Trade OrganizationJordan, Oman, Bahrain, and Morocco have signed free trade agreements with the United States

Ron Paul Claims Pelosi Spiked Iran Bill

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 5:07 PM

By: Rick Pedraza

Representative Ron Paul says House Speaker Nancy Pelosi removed a section from a bill passed by Congress which would have barred the U.S. from going to war with Iran without a congressional vote, claiming she did so at the behest of the leadership of Israel and AIPAC.

Paul, a former Republican presidential contender who formally removed himself from the party’s nomination race last week, makes the allegation on C-SPAN during a recently held foreign policy conference in Virginia.

Paul says Pelosi’s first act as House Speaker in 2006 was to “deliberately” remove a portion of a legislative spending bill which said the United States “can't go to war with Iran without getting approval from Congress.”

According to Paul, Pelosi and her allies in the chamber's Democratic leadership initially accepted the bill designed to outline an Iraq exit strategy, but during a revision of the legislation excluded the statement regarding the need for congressional approval of any military assault on the neighboring country of Iran.

“She [Pelosi] removed it deliberately,” Paul says. “And then, the astounding thing is, when asked why, she said the leadership in Israel asked her to. That was in the newspaper, that was in 'The Washington Post,' that she was asked by AIPAC and others not to do that."

Paul implies Pelosi, desperate to advance her flawed spending legislation, bargained away the proposal that would have been the House leadership's primary vehicle for challenging the administration's policies in the region.

According to John Nichols, who covered the story about Pelosi’s capitulation at the time for “The Nation,” Pelosi was "under pressure from some conservative members of her caucus, and from lobbyists associated with neoconservative groups that want war with Iran, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).”

Paul's allegation is corroborated by 'The Asia Times', which in another article published at the time says AIPAC was strongly against attaching "a provision to a Pentagon spending bill that would require President Bush to get congressional approval before attacking Iran. AIPAC was strongly against it because it viewed the legislation as taking the military option 'off the table.' The provision was killed."

The article also cites Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, as saying [Pelosi's] decision was due to AIPAC.

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved

8 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On July 09, 2008 at 12:19 AM, hall9999 (99.55) wrote:

  Dude, the U.S. is already barred from going to war with Iran without a vote from congress.  However, as this president (and previous presidents) has shown, the commander in chief doesn't need a declaration of war in order to conduct warfare.

Report this comment
#2) On July 09, 2008 at 12:42 AM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

hall9999 House Speaker Nancy Pelosi removed a section from a bill passed by Congress which would have barred the U.S. from going to war with Iran without a congressional vote  removed is the key point WW3 in Sept or Oct? Where do you think the country is ready for it. Hope you are not to old they will bring back the draft.

Report this comment
#3) On July 09, 2008 at 1:47 AM, AnomaLee (28.88) wrote:

Well, that ****ing blows. Especially, after reading this just earlier...

For the market... I'd expect crude to surge and stocks to drop. If that didn't happen I'd be stunned. I also expect some other military exercises to take place.


Iran test fires long and medium range missles
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran has test fired nine long- and medium-range missiles, including one which it has previously said could travel as far as Israel and U.S. bases in the region, state media reported on Wednesday.

The tests occurred at a time of increased tension between Iran and Israel over Tehran's disputed nuclear programme, which the West fears is aimed at making bombs. Iran says its nuclear program is only for power generation.


 

Report this comment
#4) On July 09, 2008 at 11:11 AM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

Yep, this is a sorry state of affairs we have let ourselves get into. Vote them all out and start over. No incumbents.

Report this comment
#5) On July 09, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Schmacko (79.83) wrote:

I'm sure the whithouse would've vetoed any bill that included a provision requiring congressional approval to take military action against a country.  Hall9999 is right thought, technically the US can't declare war on Iran without congressional approval anyway.  Presidents in the past (both democratic and republican) have gotten around this by saying things like airstrikes, cruise missile strikes, and even limited troop deployments don't need an official declaration of war to be ordered.  The bill was probably trying to close off this military action without war loophole thing. 

The draft won't be brought back unless something uber extreme happens... like foreign troops on US soil extreme.  Talking about the draft is political suicide and politicans like their jobs too much.

I've been telling my friends for a while now that all federal politicans should be drug and shot after their first term of service... I guess your vote them all out strategy is a more humane way of accomplishing the same thing.

Report this comment
#6) On July 09, 2008 at 1:47 PM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

Schmacko Thank you.     House Speaker Nancy Pelosi removed a section from a bill passed by Congress which would have barred the U.S. from going to war with Iran without a congressional vote.     The article also cites Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, as saying [Pelosi's] decision was due to AIPAC.   The bill was probably trying to close off this military action without war loophole thing.  Close off this military action????? Polosi just blew the door wide open (back in 2006) for Bush to be able to go to war without congress. “deliberately” remove a portion of a legislative spending bill which said the United States “can't go to war with Iran without getting approval from Congress.”   technically the US can't declare war on Iran without congressional approval anyway. Well due to the removal of that section TECHNICALLY Bush now can.     The draft won't be brought back unless something uber extreme happens  ... like foreign troops on US soil extreme.  How about another attack on another part of the country like 9/11?  Remember good old Chavez??? He stated that he would send people up through our southern border. We still have not secured the north and south boarders as well as ports.  Remember the pictures of the leader of Iran and Chavez arm in arm?  Would that be extreme enough for the draft if there were another bombing? How about IF.... Iran and Israel mixed it up and shots were fired?  I hope and Pray it won't happen.    I've been telling my friends for a while now that all federal politicans should be drug and shot after their first term of service... I guess your vote them all out strategy is a more humane way of accomplishing the same thing. I think I like your way better> lol

Report this comment
#7) On July 09, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Schmacko (79.83) wrote:

I'd have to read the actual draft bill, which I don't really have any desire to do... but I'm thinking this may be a semantics thing.  "Technically" only congress can declare war.  There should be no need to place a statement in a bill that says something like "president so in so can't go to war with country X without congressional approval" since this is already a congressional power.  Again though, presidents, especially recent ones, have engaged in military actions against countries without official declerations of war.  Which is why the War Powers Act came into being.  The War Powers Act requires the president to notify congress within 48 hours of taking military action... of course after 48 hours of military action a defacto state of war might exist whether officially declared or not.  I'm thinking this is what the statement in the bill, before Pelosi's intervention, was trying to prevent- military action other than "official war" (of which only 5 have existed in American history) taken without congressional approval.  So as of right now even without that clause Bush still can't "technically" go to war, but he can blow stuff up for 48 hours before reporting it to congress. 

Since that clause would've limited the president's ability as commander n chief I'm sure he would've vetoed the spending bill if it had stayed in.  I'm not saying that's good or bad, just that I don't think that bill, with that clause, was getting made into law if she had left it in.

Hugo Chavez is hilarious.  He's my favorite quasi-dictator.  He says a lot of stuff that makes no sense.  Venezuela has no force projection capability.  He would have to march his army through 7 countries (the logistics alone of that is unpossible for the venezuelans) to get up through our southern border.  There is no chance in hell of Colombia willfully letting a Venezuelan army march through it's soveriegn territory.  Zero.  I won't even bring up the other 6 countries.  On the assymetric side could Venezuela send agents into America to blow stuff up?  Maybe... I'm doubtful they're intel apparatus is up to that level of sophisitcation or has that much reach, especially if you're talking about a 9/11 scale attack.  I don't think direct attacks against the US are really even on the plate for Chavez though.  He wants to be a regional power and spread his bolivarian revolution ideologies more than I think he wants to directly attack us.  I also think he's mainly bombast.  He honestly needs the US to keep on doing whatever it is that we do so that he can keep calling us the evil empire and pretending like he is a champion of little nations.  When he sabre rattles and talks about war it's usually just to drum up support, I don't think the venezuelan people have any desire to actually fight anyone.  When he threatened war with Colombia earlier this year it was all propaganda and the rest of S.Am was like WTF over?

If Iran and Isreal trade shots my stocks will suck, but no it won't cause the draft to be re-instated.  It's an election year... if congress approved the draft being re-instated this year I bet every incumbant up for re-election would lose their office.  And there's really no way that would pass through the currently democratic majority congress anyway.  It goes counter to all the anti-war talk they've been spouting for the last few years.  Seriously, political suicide. 

 

Report this comment
#8) On July 09, 2008 at 6:40 PM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

Schmacko Thank you. I see your side.      could Venezuela send agents into America to blow stuff up? But what if he sends up agents from Iran?  Then what?      I don't think direct attacks against the US are really even on the plate for Chavez though. No I don't think so either but I do think he will be the middle man.     When he threatened war with Colombia earlier this year it was all propaganda and the rest of S.Am was like WTF over? I think that was to divert our attention from something else by our MEDIA CARTEL. Maybe it was  The World Bank reports that economic growth is strong and rising in the region.Saudi Arabia has joined the World Trade OrganizationJordan, Oman, Bahrain, and Morocco have signed free trade agreements with the United States  I don't know but time will tell.     if congress approved the draft being re-instated this year I bet every    no not this year give it a year or 2. If Bush gets his way then one day we will wake up and either Israel or Amer. will be at war. I hope I am Wrong.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement