Pelosi spiked Iran bill

[SergeyDovlatov]

http://www.nolanchart.com/article4069.html

Congressman Ron Paul charges that Pelosi "deliberately removed" part of a bill, which would have blocked the U.S. from attacking Iran without approval from Congress, at the behest of AIPAC.

...

The Democrats finally win the election in 2006,and it was a mandate, the Republicans get thrown out what's the first act that Pelosi does? There was a supplemental bill that had a bill of ours we had gotten put in, and the bill said you shouldn't need a bill like this! it said, you can't go to war with Iran without getting approval from Congress. And she removed it, she removed it deliberately. And then, the astounding thing is, they asked her why, and she said the leadershiip 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." (1)

...

Wash Post:

Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi received a smattering of boos when she bad-mouthed the war effort during a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and the Democratic leadership, responding to concerns from pro-Israel lawmakers, was forced to strip from a military appopriations measure a provision meant to weaken President Bush's ability to respond to threats from Iran.

...

Asia Times:

In March 2007, the US Congress was trying to attach a provision to a Pentagon spending bill that would have required President George W 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. Congressman Dennis Kucinich said this was due to AIPAC.

[ORDagnabbit]

1. Pelosi needs to be removed and replaced with a real democrat

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. Amen!!

I am so over her. What a disgrace she is!!

[lovuian]

64. Democrats kick this woman's butt out you have enough votes

to do it the Republicans will help

Pelosi needs to get ready to go to Jail for Obstruction of Justice and Collusion

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emmanuel are next in line

[derby378]

25. What is this "line" you speak of?

The nomination of Obama over Clinton proves that there is no "line" except for the one we allow to exist. Recalibrate your expectations and speak out.

[Greyhound]

33. Bingo! We seem to just blindly accept that we have no say or choice in these matters.

The result of sloth and ignorance.
:thumbsup:

[Major Hogwash]

18. Or a hat rack, you know, something useful at least part of the fucking time.

An umbrella can, you know, where they store umbrellas.

A doorknob. I'm sure there is a door out there that will need one eventually.

A door stop. Now, that might come in handy to keep the door opened once in awhile when they are in the back rooms making all of these secret deals.

[newmajority]

28. AIPAC needs to be removed and replaced with

doing what is in the best interests of THIS country, and the AMERICAN people.

[New Dawn]

29. Agreed.

She does not have a spine.

[PBS Poll-435]

50. Just as soon as her "club" is dissolved.

:rofl:

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sunnyshine]

3. I'm not surprised by this at all. Nancy and George - sitting in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g!

These kids have no clue how to run a free nation, and they still need to be potty-trained on foreign policies.:hurts:

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ColbertWatcher]

5. Ron Paul said Nancy Pelosi did what now?

LOL, just kidding, I don't care what Ron Paul says.

Thank you for the laugh!

[stimbox]

6. Congressman Dennis Kucinich said this was due to AIPAC.

Dennis Kucinich said it too.

[ColbertWatcher]

7. Link or it didn't happen. n/t

And by link I mean legitimate news source.

[stimbox]

12. Legitimate? Isn't that a bit subjective?

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JF03Ak01.html

[SergeyDovlatov]

15. How about the nation article about it?

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=174804

Unfortunately, Pelosi is so desperate to advance her flawed spending legislation that she is willing to bargain with any Democrat about any part of the proposal.

Under pressure from some conservative members of her caucus, and from lobbyists associated with neoconservative groupings that want war with Iran and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC), Pelosi agreed on Monday to strip the Iran provision from the spending bill that has become the House leadership's primary vehicle for challenging the administration's policies in the region.

One of the chief advocates for eliminating the Iran provision, Nevada Democrat Shelley Berkley, said she wanted it out of the legislation because she wants to maintain the threat of U.S. military action as a tool in seeking to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. "It would take away perhaps the most important negotiating tool that the U.S. has when it comes to Iran," explained Berkley.

The problem with Berkley's "reasoning" -- if it can be called that -- is this: Nothing in the provision that had been included in the spending bill would have prevented Bush from threatening Iran. Nothing in the provision would have prevented war with Iran. It merely reminded the president that, before launching such an attack, he would need to obey the Constitutional requirement that he seek a declaration of war.

[ColbertWatcher]

35. Yes, The Nation is legit.

I was, however, hoping to get a link that Kucinich did what some are claiming he did.

This link doesn't say that.

[stimbox]

49. try this one...

http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/publish/article_835.shtml

[chill_wind]

53. Congressman Michael Capuano. Ooops. n/t

[chill_wind]

9. The Nation ( John Nichols) 3-13-2007

"Pelosi's Disastrous Misstep on Iran"

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=174804

[chill_wind]

16. NYSun (3-14-2007)

Democrats Retreat on War Funds
Engel Emerges as Key Hawk

WASHINGTON —

Two Democratic congressmen from New York City quietly intervened with the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, to preserve President Bush's authority to use military force in the gathering showdown with Iran

(...)

The showdown among the Democrats, first reported by the Associated Press, discloses the fragility of the party's 233- to 201-seat advantage over Republicans in the House of Representatives. Five House sources yesterday said the language barring the president from expanding military actions into Iran was initially added as an inducement for the more left-wing Democrats to support the funding bill that some argued had too many exemptions for allowing American soldiers to stay in Iraq.

But the effort to bring in the left flank backfired. Ms. Pelosi faced new opposition by the conservative "blue dog" Democrats and the informal caucus of Jewish members who have traditionally held more hawkish positions on the security of Israel, which Iran's president has vowed to wipe off the map.

"I think frankly the Iranian regime is a dangerous regime," said Mr. Engel, who threatened to vote no on the bill if it included provision tying the president's hands on Iran. "The only way they will respond in a moderate way will be through pressure. While I do not support any military action against Iran, I do believe everything needs to be on the table in order for them to calculate that they have to modify their behavior."

(...)

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/democrats-retreat-on-war-funds/50391/

[Sunnyshine]

17. Disastrous indeed. This is from 2007, does it still apply or has this been revised?

One of the chief advocates for eliminating the Iran provision, Nevada Democrat Shelley Berkley, said she wanted it out of the legislation because she wants to maintain the threat of U.S. military action as a tool in seeking to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. "It would take away perhaps the most important negotiating tool that the U.S. has when it comes to Iran," explained Berkley.

The problem with Berkley's "reasoning" -- if it can be called that -- is this: Nothing in the provision that had been included in the spending bill would have prevented Bush from threatening Iran. Nothing in the provision would have prevented war with Iran. It merely reminded the president that, before launching such an attack, he would need to obey the Constitutional requirement that he seek a declaration of war.

By first including the provision and then removing it, Pelosi and her aides have given Bush more of an opening to claim that he does not require Congressional approval.

Now isn't that special.

[Summer93]

10. U.S. laws

The President cannot take the nation to War without the approval of Congress. Well, there is a new exception, according to this OP, now AIPAC would get in the middle when it comes to Iran. Who is actually considering going to war the U.S. or Israel? Israel has the troops, jets and money to do the job. Why does the U.S. have to be involved at all? Oh, I don't know.....:sarcasm:

I don't believe that war will solve anything. It just causes crises and costs too much money and lives. Will it ever be possible for two cultures to accept each other?

[crimsonblue]

11. I don't understand how Dubya can claim a mandate after 2000

but yet Pelosi is refusing to utilize the CLEAR mandate given by the American people in 2006 to bring our troops home, and clean up Washington. Dumnya or someone must have some scary dirt on her to make her such a wimp (no sexism meant, just lack of spine implied).

[chill_wind]

13. The Hill (3-20-2007) Jonathon E. Kaplan. Pelosi used implied threat of committee seats.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/its-tough-to-get-218-votes-so-speaker-gets-tough-too-2007-03-20.html

[chill_wind]

24. Link edit and snippets (The Hill)

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is holding the implied threat of lost committee seats over the heads of Democratic Caucus members who may vote against her $124 billion Iraq war supplemental bill.

Faced with the possibility of losing the first really big vote since taking majority control in the November elections, Pelosi is talking tough to wavering lawmakers and isolating those opposed to the bill.


(...)

She has been hardest on members of the Appropriations Committee and her fellow Californians who oppose the measure. The Speaker pointedly reminded Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), a leading opponent of the bill, that she had appointed her to the Appropriations Committee, three Democratic lawmakers said.

The message was simple, the lawmakers said: Pelosi could also remove Lee from the panel.

During a meeting last week with appropriators, Pelosi reminded them that serving on the panel was a privilege, admonishing lawmakers from safe districts who feel they have the luxury to vote how they want without consequences — as opposed to Democrats elected in swing districts who do not, a Democratic appropriator said.

Liberal Democrats also feel that House leaders have tried to isolate them as a power in the caucus. Some have complained that Democratic leaders accommodated the wishes of conservative Democrats in the legislation, but neglected liberals.

In particular, House leaders removed a provision requiring President Bush to seek congressional approval if he attacked Iran. Blue Dog Democrats wanted the provision stripped from the bill.

When the Appropriations Committee considered the spending bill, Lee was the only anti-war speaker and she spoke last before the House called a vote.

more...

link from The Hill

[chill_wind]

19. So..... is this where we stand-- S. Res 356 -- a dead bill with 13 cosponsors??

Updates? Anybody? There have to be.

S. Res. 356:
A resolution affirming that any offensive military action taken against Iran must be explicitly approved by Congress before such action may be initiated.

Sen. Richard Durbin show cosponsors (13)

Introduced Oct 25, 2007
Scheduled for Debate -
Voted on in Senate -



"This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills go first to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate. The majority of bills never make it out of committee. Keep in mind that sometimes the text of one bill is incorporated into another bill, and in those cases the original bill, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned. "


Last Action: Oct 30, 2007: Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S13571-13572)

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=sr110-356

[slipslidingaway]

43. From May 2007...

I thought there was a vote in the House sometime after Pelosi's promise, but I am unable to find it.

:shrug:

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/house-dems-indicate-they-are-more-united-on-iran-legislation-2007-05-15.html

"...House Democratic leaders initially attempted to insert Iran language in their now-vetoed Iraq supplemental bill, but abandoned the plan after some New York Democrats, including Reps. Eliot Engel and Gary Ackerman, balked at the language...


After striking the language, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) promised several members, including Reps. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), and Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.), that she would allow for an up-or-down vote on an Iran amendment, though it is unclear which amendment or amendments will be voted on.

In the 109th Congress, Iran amendments offered by DeFazio and Hinchey were easily defeated.

But a new amendment by Rep. Robert Andrews (D-N.J.) could attract the most votes. His measure would prevent funds authorized in the bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from being obligated or expended to plan a contingency operation in Iran..."

[chill_wind]

47. Thanks. Carol Ong (Iran Policy Analyst at the Center for Arms Control

and Nonproliferation) blogged about all of this too at the time.

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

http://irannuclearwatch.blogspot.com/2007/03/pulling-of-iran-language-not-so.html

"Congressional sources say she is attempting to finesse the move by saying that the language will be placed in some other piece of legislation. However, it is unclear which legislation, who will sponsor and when the vote on it would take place."

They need to get it done!

[slipslidingaway]

48. And thank you for the additional link :) n/t

[Catherina]

20. Wow. Just wow n/t

[D23MIURG23]

21. From the title I thought I would get to praise her.

WTF?!

What has gotten into her since becoming speaker? I feel like the Nancy Pelosi with whom I used to be familiar got sucked into another dimension and replaced by a alien doppleganger from the planet Lieberman.

[seafan]

22. Just another reason Pelosi should be stripped of her position as Speaker.

March 13, 2007: Dems Abandon War Authority Provision


More from The Hill on the stripped Iran authorization provision



The cold, harsh truth.

[lovuian]

65. dems need to call for a vote and kick her out this is the LAST

straw

this Democratic party has been infiltrated with traitors such as Lieberman and Now pelosi

Sell Outs Sell Outs Sell Outs

disgusting

[Hydra]

23. Bad when our party makes Ron Paul look like the sane one n/t

[Occam Bandage]

26. ...do we have a sane perspective on this, or

are we going to have to rely on Ron Paul's take?

[D23MIURG23]

27. Posts 12 and 9 contain links documenting Pelosi's behaviour.

This isn't a question of Ron Paul's opinion.

[newmajority]

30. Well, going by the articles quoted above it's been confirmed.....

...by everyone from The Nation to the NY Likud Sun. And that's about a wide of a range of perspectives as you're going to find in the press.

Ron Paul's been pretty much right when it comes to the insane Likud-driven foreign policy this country has been dragged into in recent years. He's also right about so called "free" trade. Not a lot else though.

All the same it is embarrassing that certain Democrats are on the DEAD WRONG side of this issue, and they don't even see why that should be a problem. No Democrat should be to the right of a Libertarian wacko like Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan on foreign policy (or anything else, for that matter). But that's what AIPAC, PNAC, and the DLC have done to us. :(

[lastliberalintexas]

34. Not quite

"insane Likud-driven foreign policy this country has been dragged into in recent years."

I personally hate it when people accuse posters of anti-Semitism based on specific criticisms of someone like Netanyahu or something similar, but that part of your post is close to being awful. It implies that the "Jews are running things in DC", when in reality what we have is a mutually beneficial relationship among right wing war mongers in DC and Israel. Israeli politicians and Jews in general are not telling us how to run this country, it just so happens that the interests of the psychopaths in charge in both countries dovetail so that our countries are pursuing the same goals.

Our foreign policy is Likud driven only to the same extent that Israel's foreign policy is republican/neocon/PNAC driven.

[Zhade]

36. Um, Likud does not equal all Jews.

There's nothing at all anti-Semitic about the post you replied to - nothing.

[lastliberalintexas]

40. Correct, but the Likud party doesn't control DC either

Right wing war hawks of several different religions do. No reason to bring Likud into it, unless one also wants to discuss the neocons all over the world.

[newmajority]

41. Well.... your last sentence is more accurate than you realize, even if you didn't intend it that way

The Likud assholes in Israel and the PNAC assholes in this country are the same exact people. Perle, Feith, Wolfowitz, Wuermser and others associated with PNAC wrote a manifesto in the mid-90's for the incoming Netanyahu Likud government of Israel just before they began the PNAC project itself.

That document was called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" and much like the PNAC manifesto that would follow, it called for the removal of Saddam Hussein, and also mentioned attacks on Syria and Lebanon.

I never said, nor did I even imply that it was "the Jews". Not "the Jews" in the US or even "the Jews" in Israel. Joe Lieberman supports this sick agenda, Bernie Sanders obviously does not. Nor does Russ Feingold. And I would bet money that most Jews - American, Israeli, or otherwise - would be a lot closer to Russ and Bernie than they would Holy Joe, PNAC, and Likud.

The real problem is just a handful of paranoid, genocidal fascist assholes on both sides of the planet who have dragged both Israel AND the US into their delusional nightmare.

[lastliberalintexas]

42. Actually, that is how I meant it

Right wing war mongers in control of both countries, and they all come from a very small circle of the elite. And while I did not think you were personally anti-Semitic, I just didn't like the implication that the Likud party alone is driving our government into the ditch. I'm sure it was an oversight that you forgot to blame the republicans and other neocons in addition to the Likudniks, that's all.


And unfortunately, those paranoid, genocidal fascist assholes control more than just the US and Israel. :(

[SergeyDovlatov]

62. Well said! n/t

[Octafish]

31. Don't worry. It will be a short war.

And the most profitable yet.

[readmoreoften]

51. War against Iran will be short?

How's that???

(or is this sarcasm i detect?)

[Octafish]

57. The crazy reichmonkey voiced: ''Money trumps peace.''

It's beyond sarcasm. It's past irony. We're talking pure pathos here, my Friend!



Know your BFEE: Money Trumps Peace. Always.

[Rocky2007]

32. WELL, ISN'T THIS SPECIAL!!!! Pelosi on their side???

We know that Bush and Cheney are into controlling the world. Big money talks, right? This is what Iraq has been all a bought --MONEY and CONTROL of the world.

Why is impeachment off the table??

Could it be that Pelosi is part of the "Loyal"? She has money and power ----- Seems to me that Pelosi just might be part of the problem!

The underground movement of this group is limitless with a longing to be the supreme controllers.

Democrats need to take a stealth look around and into the shadows.

I'm not liking what I'm seeing.

Would love to know what you all think!

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[davidinalameda]

38. isn't this from a libertarian website

and from the sound of it, it seems anti-Semitic as well

we're blaming everything on the Jews?

[chill_wind]

39. We cited other more mainstream sources. n/t

[davidinalameda]

45. do they "blame" AIPAC as well?

[slipslidingaway]

46. This is from The Hill...

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/house-dems-indicate-they-are-more-united-on-iran-legislation-2007-05-15.html

"...The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), an influential group that advocates strong U.S. ties with Israel, lobbied heavily to remove the Iran provision in the supplemental, arguing that the measure would weaken President Bush’s attempts to dissuade Iran from developing nuclear weapons..."

[cui bono]

54. You could read them and find out...

:hi:

[slipslidingaway]

44. This issue was discussed here last year, see one DU link below.

It is being mentioned again because Ron Paul commented on it recently at a conference.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3332312#3332331


Kucinich also made reference to it during a debate last year.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

52. Sounds like the fine folks over at AIPAC...

...got their way again -- surprise surprise.

[deacon]

55. Nancy W. Hastert. n/t

[deacon]

56. "Jellyfish" will give a pass to bush on FISA next too. Her M.O. n/t

[leveymg]

58. I'll be the contrarian here. The measure wouldn't have passed.

What if that amendment had been roundly rejected by Congress under AIPAC pressure?

Look at the lop-sided endorsement of Kyl-Lieberman.

The argument being made by AIPAC and others is that Iran will cave under further threats and sanctions, and that is the only way to avoid an actual war. I don't believe that for several reasons, but a number of Congressmen and other Washington worthies have swallowed it.

If the amendment went ahead and failed, that might have been characterized by the Administration as a go-ahead for use of force again Iran with Congressional authorization. Pelosi is trying to pull-off a dangerous balancing act that gets us to January without another war.

[chill_wind]

59. There's another possible interpretation of that, though.

Putting it in, then backing down and stripping it back out amplifies even more, could be seen as even more surrendering of Congress's own sense of authority and reinforced validation of Bush's that he could later point to: It's a message to the neo-cons and to Bush that says "We thought about it but no. Never mind. We'll trust you as we always have to do the right thing and come to us." It renews and ampliflies his own definition of unlimited war powers.

[dorkulon]

60. Predictably wussy Dems.

Add this story to that one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3470034&mesg_id=3470034

...and I've had about enough. The basic problem with our gov't today is not the criminal Bush administration, but Congress's refusal to hold them accountable. Frankly, the Democrats don't deserve to win more seats. The two-party system needs to be destroyed.

[babsbunny]

61. Keith Olbermann will report this!

Please, if you know how, send this to KO.

[progressivesm]

63. Pelosi and the warmongers

this decision to squash the potential of bringing back a constitutional war declaration is evidence that the Democratic establishment is pro-war. Hillary voted for the war and its continued funding. Obama may have spoken out against the war at first, but he has voted for all of Bush's war funding requests since he came to the Senate. the best way to stop the warmongers is to cut their funding. The only Democrats in this race who were consistent anti-war candidates were Kucinich and Gravel. Unfortunately the voters had the wool pulled over their eyes. The US military spending accounts for 48% of total worldwide military spending. and the next 45 countries combined after the US don't add up to what the US spends on military. And based on Obama's votes thus far to continue to fund the military industrial complex, this isn't likely to end anytime soon.