Are Congressional Democrats Leading Us to War With Iran?

[Echo In Light]

Are Congressional Democrats Leading Us to War With Iran?
by Sarah van Gelder

Until recently, the power struggle within the Bush administration over whether to attack Iran seemed to be going badly for the hawks. Their disastrous record in Iraq coupled with flimsy arguments for attacking Iran meant they were gaining little support. But now it appears congressional Democrats may be riding to the rescue of those pushing for war.

In the fall of 2007, top Bush administration officials began stoking up the rhetoric about the danger of Iran and its nuclear weapons program. But then the National Intelligence Estimate came out showing that efforts to develop nuclear weapons were dropped in 2003, in large part because of international pressure. Wow — diplomacy does work!

Claims that Iran was arming insurgents fell apart due to flimsy evidence — weapons that were supposedly supplied by the Iranian government appear to have been purchased on the open market or acquired through means other than official Iranian support.

So with the case for attacking Iran in tatters, why are congressional Democrats taking up the cause?

House Resolution 362, sponsored by Rep. Gary Ackerman, a New York Democrat, is moving quickly through the House. The resolution urges the Bush administration to prohibit the export to Iran of refined petroleum products, impose “stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran,” and to prohibit all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program from travel outside the country.

Imposing “stringent inspection requirements” would amount to a naval blockade, many believe, and thus constitute an act of war. At the very least, it would be perceived by Iranians of all political persuasions as a hostile act, further marginalizing moderate voices, unifying the country behind the most belligerent leaders, and bolstering the argument of those within Iran who are pushing for the rapid development of nuclear weapons as a defense against U.S. attack.

Why are 96 House Democrats (along with 111 House Republicans) co-sponsoring this resolution? Aren’t these the Democrats who rode into majorities in both houses on public revulsion against war in the Middle East?

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/27/9928/

[mmonk]

1. I was planning to write a large scale book on what has happened

to the US in the 21st century along with the underpinnings, but there already is plenty out there already written by people who are better writers than I. So I've actually been thinking about writing a book on the Bush Democrats, Do you think people would be interested in such an expose'?

[readmoreoften]

27. Yes

[mmonk]

29. Thanks for your reply.

I appreciate the feedback.

[leftchick]

2. Pentagon making case against Iran to congress

watch congress give dick and AIPAC their WWIII....


http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=61805§ionid=351020101


Sat, 28 Jun 2008 15:43:42
A DoD report released to Congress ahead of a vote on extreme punitive measures on Iran accuses Tehran of assisting Afghan insurgents.

In its first ever Report on Progress toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan to the US Congress, the Pentagon claims it has 'evidence' of Iranian involvement in the war-torn country.

"There is evidence that the insurgency ... has been provided with lethal aid originating in Iran since at least 2006," says the report.

It is 'unclear what role, and at what level the Iranian government plays in providing this assistance', the 72-page document adds.

Iran, however, says it has helped in the reconstruction of Afghanistan and has played only a constructive role in the country.

The release of the report comes ahead of a vote on the imposition of harsher US sanctions on Iranian banks, the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) and any energy companies that have invested $20,000,000 or more in the Iranian petroleum or natural gas sector in any given year since the enactment of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996.

If the bill passes, US President George W. Bush will also be urged to gain world support to prohibit the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products and to impose stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran.

Introduced by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and considered a tacit declaration of war against the Islamic Republic, the bill has seen opposition but may pass.



:nuke:

[Echo In Light]

3. Thanks for posting, leftchick

This thread will sink like a stone.

[mmonk]

4. Only if we allow it.

[leftchick]

7. It should be pinned

I can not believe how many are not hearing these war drums getting so loud! Ignorance is bliss I guess.

:scared:

[slipslidingaway]

5. K&R Also added a reference to this thread in the Congress Forum

Iran - H. Con. Res. 362 and S. Res. 580

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=308&topic_id=699&mesg_id=699

Thanks.

[mmonk]

6. Very good. We live in a dangerous period of history.

A war with Iran would effectively shut down the democracy movement in the US and probably would lead to catastrophic economic collapse if we aren't seriously on the outskirts of that scenario already.

[spanone]

8. after 8 yrs of bu$h* rule, it think their plan is to leave obama the worse clusterfuck possible

then in 4 years they will blame the disaster on the dems

[mmonk]

9. I don't think it's about a blame game, but rather remaking

the US.

[Echo In Light]

11. Yes, that was central to the Big Plans from the start {PNAC, Patriot Act, 00 "election," 9/11, etc}

It's a "Post 9/11 World." - or that's what the establishment powers want.

[slipslidingaway]

10. Agree, this would be catastrophic in a variety of ways :( n/t

[Hydra]

17. What democracy movement?

Our Reps are selling us down the river. They're just carefully playing us to keep us from striking/rioting/etc.

[slipslidingaway]

12. The American Elite Resolves on War With Iran - Chris Floyd

http://www.chris-floyd.com/content/view/1548/135/

"...The stated casus belli in the "Iran War Resolution" – which replicates exactly the bellicose intentions and deceptions of the Bush Administration – is Iran's "nuclear enrichment activities." This is presented as an unmitigated evil worthy of the most severe measures, including an act of war like a blockade. The truth, of course, is that these enrichment activities are entirely legal under international treaties governing nuclear proliferation, and are being carried out under the most extensive and stringent international supervision ever imposed on a nation, as Kaveh Afrasiabi notes in the Asia Times. Afrasiabi also details the rank falsehoods about Iran's nuclear programme, and the international inspection program overseeing it, that permeate the American media:
...."

[Echo In Light]

13. "bipartisan foreign policy establishment" - Twas ever thus

[slipslidingaway]

15. Yes :) n/t

[leftchick]

19. as usual Chris is spot on

and it is scary....

<snip>

We see this playing out again today, in the scary talk – and Congressional resolutions – damning Iran's "enrichment activities." What was true then is true now: there is literally nothing that Iran can do – or not do – to divert the American elite's desire to strike at their land and bring it under domination. And apparently there is nothing that anyone in America with any power or a major platform will do to stop it either.

Arthur Silber concludes his damning analysis of our unforced march to new horror with a heartbreaking quote from Martin Luther King Jr. Let it serve as the last word here as well; no one will put it better:

There is such a thing as being too late.... Life often leaves us standing bare, naked, and dejected with lost opportunity.... Over the bleached bones of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words: "Too late."

[slipslidingaway]

20. Agree and that is a great ending quote considering the

inaction and silence of our elected leaders.

:(

[Phred42]

14. The answer is that those 96 are not Democrats

They are, at best, Moderate Republicans disguised as Dems.
The disguise they use? They put a 'D' in front of their States initials. It's THAT easy to fool people.

The problem is that there really are NOT very many Democrats left in either house. Rove's "Permanent republican majority" is HERE- NOW!
The Democratic Party no longer exists.

Face it folks, the DLC and BlueDogs do not support Democratic ideals. They are Corporatists.

Glass-Steagall, NAFTA, GAT, WTO, Telecommunications Act, Destruction of the Constitution, etc. Are republican policies.

Want to know how many Democrats are left in the House and Senate?

The FISA Bill vote is a reasonable gauge.




"....Shame on me too"

[L0oniX]

16. Typical turn coats. They hold stocks in military industrial corporations.

War is for capitalism.

[Echo In Light]

22. Hence the ongoing National $ecurity State ruse

[Hydra]

18. I'm glad this is getting follow-up

I had trouble finding the articles about this yesterday to post to the "Most Important News of the Week" post by ColbertWatcher.

[Individualist]

21. DLC loves the military industrial complex

Damn every one of the subversives and their supporters. :mad:

[slipslidingaway]

23. Two Republicans that I know of have spoken out against this bill

Ron Paul and Wayne Gilchrest.

Gilchrest
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/77531&id=8594968

Paul
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/77531&id=8594991

[AntiFascist]

24. K&R, the only long-term solution is...

to get these Dems out of Congress. In the meantime, they need to be made aware that they are losing support.

[Douglas Carpenter]

25. skyrocketing oil prices are probably and ironically our best deterrent against this insanity

It is already predicted by perfectly credible analyst that oil prices could quite likely reach $200 per barrel before the end of the year.

If war drums for war start beating really loud and an attack appears imminent - oil prices will almost certainly surpass $200 a barrel very quickly; within days if not faster.

An actual attack will almost certainly send oil prices up to $300 per barrel - crippling the world economy.

____________________________________________-

"I think of war with Iran as the ending of America's present role in the world. Iraq may have been a preview of that, but it's still redeemable if we get out fast. In a war with Iran, we'll get dragged down for 20 or 30 years. The world will condemn us. We will lose our position in the world."

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Vanity Fair, 2006.

[leftchick]

26. where are all of the Recs???

Kick

[slipslidingaway]

28. 220 cosponsors in the House and 32 cosponsors on the Senate

bill.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/senseof.htm

"Sense of" resolutions are typically used as:

...On foreign affairs: a way to express the opinion of the people of the United States to the government of a foreign nation; and

..Although "sense of" resolutions have no force in law, foreign governments pay close attention to them as evidence of shifts in U.S. foreign policy priorities..."

[slipslidingaway]

30. Legislation already passed - H.R. 6198 Iran Freedom Support Act

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-6198

"To hold the current regime in Iran accountable for its threatening behavior and to support a transition to democracy in Iran..."


And just a reminder of this bill from 1998.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h105-4655

H.R. 4655 <105th>: Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

To establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.

[snappyturtle]

31. K&R Kick!

:kick:

[leftchick]

32. kick

.

[latebloomer]

33. K&R

Unbelievable- Actually, I wish it was!

[Echo In Light]

34. ...

:kick:

[slipslidingaway]

35. kick n/t