Only 2 votes against this???

[slipslidingaway]

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll513.xml

"BILL TITLE: Calling on the United Nations Security Council to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the United Nations Charter because of his calls for the destruction of the State of Israel"


Who objected?

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/23816

"There is reasonable doubt with regard to the accuracy of the translations of President Ahmadinejad's words in this resolution. President Ahmadinejad's speeches can also be translated as a call for regime change, much in the same manner the Bush Administration has called for regime change in Iraq and Iran, making this resolution very ironic," Kucinich said.

Kucinich attempted to insert into the Congressional Record two independent translations of the speech from The New York Times and Middle East Media Research Institute, which contain significant differences in the translations of the speech compared to the resolution before the House. However, Members objected formally and the attempt was blocked.

"When I learned of these translations, I felt obligated to bring it to the attention of the House. It seems that much has been lost in translation. Members have a right to know of the translations and the refusal to permit them to become a part of the Congressional Record does a disservice to Members."

[frogcycle]

1. Silly Dennis

he thinks that actual facts have any place in a jingoistic autocracy

[slipslidingaway]

2. This is amazing considering there have been other articles

disputing the translation.

[tbyg52]

3. It's a runup to bomb, bomb Iran

I called my rep and yelled about it, for all the good it will do.

[slipslidingaway]

5. At least they know you are watching. nt

[TwilightGardener]

4. Nobody wants to be on the wrong side of Israel--

that may have more to do with the huge landslide than simply trying to build a case against Iran.

[slipslidingaway]

6. That may be true but only 2 votes, also curious to know who

objected to the other translations being put into the record and their reasons.

[GeorgeGist]

7. That pretty well sums up ...

the total number of Progressives in the House.

[slipslidingaway]

8. Would not label Ron Paul a progressive, but at least he is able

to see through some of the BS and vote accordingly.:)

[Vickers]

9. I like Kucinich more and more each day.

I know it's shallow, but GAWD I wish he looked like Gregory Peck. :(

[slipslidingaway]

11. He might as well :) n/t

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

19. They're not as dissimilar as you think:

[SOS]

10. This is the Congress that ignored

the mass murder in East Timor for 24 years?
The Congress that didn't lift a finger as Indonesia slaughtered 200,000 Catholic East Timorese?
The Congress that supplied the weapons used to carry out out the genocide?

Their "concern" is nothing more than pathetic, pandering hypocrisy.

[slipslidingaway]

13. The more I learn the more disgusted I become...

;(



http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB62/

"The Indonesian invasion of East Timor in December 1975 set the stage for the long, bloody, and disastrous occupation of the territory that ended only after an international peacekeeping force was introduced in 1999. President Bill Clinton cut off military aid to Indonesia in September 1999—reversing a longstanding policy of military cooperation—but questions persist about U.S. responsibility for the 1975 invasion; in particular, the degree to which Washington actually condoned or supported the bloody military offensive. Most recently, journalist Christopher Hitchens raised questions about the role of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in giving a green light to the invasion that has left perhaps 200,000 dead in the years since. Two newly declassified documents from the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library, released to the National Security Archive, shed light on the Ford administration’s relationship with President Suharto of Indonesia during 1975. Of special importance is the record of Ford’s and Kissinger’s meeting with Suharto in early December 1975. The document shows that Suharto began the invasion knowing that he had the full approval of the White House. Both of these documents had been released in heavily excised form some years ago, but with Suharto now out of power, and following the collapse of Indonesian control over East Timor, the situation has changed enough that both documents have been released in their entirety.

Other documents found among State Department records at the National Archives elucidate the inner workings of U.S. policy toward the Indonesian crisis during 1975 and 1976. Besides confirming that Henry Kissinger and top advisers expected an eventual Indonesian takeover of East Timor, archival material shows that the Secretary of State fully understood that the invasion of East Timor involved the "illegal" use of U.S.-supplied military equipment because it was not used in self-defense as required by law."


The Indonesia/East Timor
Documentation Project

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/indonesia/index.html

"Report: U.S. Arms Helped Indonesia Attack East Timor," Washington Post, January 25, 2006

"New documents expose US backing for Indonesian invasion of East Timor," Agence France-Presse, December 2, 2005

"Thirty Years After the Indonesian Invasion of East Timor, Will the U.S. Be Held Accountable for its Role in the Slaughter?" Democracy Now!, December 7, 2005

"Files show complicity on Timor," By Donald Greenlees, International Herald Tribune, December 1, 2005

"Documents show Britain covered up murders of 5 journalists in RI's 1975 invasion of E. Timor," Associated Press, December 1, 2005

"Government lied to cover up war crimes in 1975 invasion of island," The Times (UK), November 30, 2005

"Declassified U.S. Papers Spark Indonesian Rebuke," Washington Post, July 18, 2004

"US 'concern' over West Papua," The Australian, July 14, 2004

"U.S. Sacrificed Papua to aid Suharto," Asia Times Online, July 14, 2004

"U.S. backed sham referendum in Indonesia's Papua province, documents show," Associated Press, Saturday July 10, 2004, 1:02 PM

[Atmosphere]

12. They're just trying to keep their jobs

Unfortunaly that's how our political system works, if you do anything at all to slightly get on Israel's bad side you're probably not going to get elected to office again. Most of the members of congress probably know that Ahmedinijad never said he wants to "wipe israel off the map"

[slipslidingaway]

14. That may be true, but it does not mean we need to support them.

[LeftishBrit]

15. He would like to get rid of 'the Zionist regime' - that means get rid of Israel

So I can see wanting to get him censored by the UN for incitement - IF they're also going to censor loads of other people for incitement and *action*.

I don't agree with all this exceptionalism, where Ahmadejinad is treated as something uniquely bad, while loads of other leaders are literally getting away with murder! But let's not whitewash Ahmadejinad either. He's a pretty nasty man - and so are lots of other leaders.

[Atmosphere]

17. The US got rid of Saddam Hussein's regime ...

did they get rid of the Iraqi people ? Well bad example but you know what I mean. The only thing Ahmedinijad called for a was a change in the Israeli government. The same way Communism was defeated he believes that Zionism will be defeated.

Israel wants Iran taken out, and by way of our government they're going to get their wish. It's that simple. The same thing happened with Iraq and Saddam, everyone knows it was never about Al Qaeda or WMD's.

[LeftishBrit]

18. Yes - but that doesn't make it right

The US got rid of another country's government and replaced it by a US puppet regime, and caused, and are still causing, a lot of bloodshed in the process.

It's one thing to oppose the Israeli occupation, but *any* Israeli government, even one run by Peace Now, would be 'Zionist' in the sense of wanting an independent Jewish state to continue to exist. Getting rid of 'the Zionist regime' = getting rid of the Jewish state; which presumably means that most Jews in Israel would at best have to leave, and at worst be slaughtered.

Bush and Cheney DID forcible regime change with the accompanying slaughter; they didn't just talk about it; so Congress should consider impeaching them before going after any other country's leader! In fact, I think they should be sent to The Hague, along with their poodle Blair.



However, that doesn't mean that pre-emptive war and forcible regime change are acceptable actions by any leader.


ETA: No, it isn't about Al Quaeda or WMD; nor is it about Israel. It's all about oil and American imperialism. And Blair going along with American imperialism, as the next best thing to running an empire of his own as he might have done 100 years ago.

[LeftishBrit]

16. And when will there be a similar congressional vote against Bush and Cheney?

Impeachment begins at home!

[some guy]

20. Dennis Kucinich

and Ron Paulk were the two votes against.

There was a thread Thursday or Friday and someone posted the roll call.

on edit, not the roll call, but a post saying those two were the ones who voted against.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2887994&mesg_id=2889694

[slipslidingaway]

22. At the time I could not find the vote and when I did was shocked

that there were only two no votes :(

[SergeyDovlatov]

21. statement on the house floor about this bill

Statement on H Con Res 21

June 20, 2007

Madam Speaker: I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. This resolution is an exercise in propaganda that serves one purpose: to move us closer to initiating a war against Iran. Citing various controversial statements by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, this legislation demands that the United Nations Security Council charge Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Having already initiated a disastrous war against Iraq citing UN resolutions as justification, this resolution is like déja-vu. Have we forgotten 2003 already? Do we really want to go to war again for UN resolutions? That is where this resolution, and the many others we have passed over the last several years on Iran, is leading us. I hope my colleagues understand that a vote for this bill is a vote to move us closer to war with Iran.

Clearly, language threatening to wipe a nation or a group of people off the map is to be condemned by all civilized people. And I do condemn any such language. But why does threatening Iran with a pre-emptive nuclear strike, as many here have done, not also deserve the same kind of condemnation? Does anyone believe that dropping nuclear weapons on Iran will not wipe a people off the map? When it is said that nothing, including a nuclear strike, is off the table on Iran, are those who say it not also threatening genocide? And we wonder why the rest of the world accuses us of behaving hypocritically, of telling the rest of the world “do as we say, not as we do.”

I strongly urge my colleagues to consider a different approach to Iran, and to foreign policy in general. General William Odom, President Reagan’s director of the National Security Agency, outlined a much more sensible approach in a recent article titled “Exit From Iraq Should Be Through Iran.” General Odom wrote: “Increasingly bogged down in the sands of Iraq, the US thrashes about looking for an honorable exit. Restoring cooperation between Washington and Tehran is the single most important step that could be taken to rescue the US from its predicament in Iraq.” General Odom makes good sense. We need to engage the rest of the world, including Iran and Syria, through diplomacy, trade, and travel rather than pass threatening legislation like this that paves the way to war. We have seen the limitations of force as a tool of US foreign policy. It is time to try a more traditional and conservative approach. I urge a “no” vote on this resolution.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr062007b.htm

[slipslidingaway]

23. Nothing to argue with in that statement, thanks n/t