'Attack Iran' and AIPAC's infamous chutzpah (new US bill H.R. 1905 will forbid diplomacy)

[stockholmer]

http://current.com/1k56ikc

Wasting no time after its success in getting the administration to oppose Palestinian statehood at the United Nations, and still celebrating the UNESCO funding cutoff, AIPAC has returned to its number one priority: Pushing for war with Iran. The Israelis have, of course, played their own part in the big show. In the past few weeks, Israel has been sending out signals http://mediamattersaction.us1.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=0e7994932b5c293ad6e9e40d8&id=796e48a31e&e=e04febec32 that it is getting ready to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities (and embroil the United States in its most calamitous Middle East war yet).

snip

The House Foreign Affairs Committee hurriedly convened this week to consider a new "crippling sanctions" bill http://mediamattersaction.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0e7994932b5c293ad6e9e40d8&id=e3350abba9&e=e04febec32 that seems less designed to deter an Iranian nuclear weapon than to lay the groundwork for war. The clearest evidence that war is the intention of the bill's supporters comes in Section 601:

(c) RESTRICTION ON CONTACT - No person employed with the United States Government may contact in an official or unofficial capacity any person that -
(1) is an agent, instrumentality, or official of, is affiliated with, or is serving as a representative of the Government of Iran; and
(2) presents a threat to the United States or is affiliated with terrorist organisations.
(d) WAIVER - The president may waive the requirements of subsection (c) if the president determines and so reports to the appropriate congressional committees 15 days prior to the exercise of waiver authority that failure to exercise such waiver authority would pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States.

So what does this mean? It means that neither the president, the secretary of state, nor any US diplomat or emissary may engage in negotiations or diplomacy of any kind unless the president convinces the "appropriate congressional committees" (most significantly, the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which is an AIPAC fiefdom) that not permitting the contacts would pose an "extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States".


snip

[Javaman]

1. Wait, didn't a repuke rep finally relent in taking off her old on aid to the Palestinians yesterday?

I thought I read that.

[hifiguy]

2. AIPAC is one of the greatest threats

to US national security. Once again the tail is wagging the dog. Gads, I hate AIPAC.

[Blue_Tires]

3. any congresscritter voting for this should be on the front lines

in the first attack wave...there ought to be some kind of condition tacked on to the bill...

[Crop Circle]

4. Can they do that?

War with Iran risks WWIII as everyone here knows. I guess that'd detract people's attention from the economic catastrophe and OWS!

[stillwaiting]

5. "Vital national security interests of the United States" now clearly means

ensuring continued runaway profits for the MIC.

It's certainly not about the welfare and well-being of the American people and the economic interests of 99% of Americans.

15 days prior to exercise of the waiver = AIPAC's intentions are laid perfectly bare. They are psychopaths barreling us forward to a war beyond imagination. My God...

I wonder if the Cuban Missile Crisis would have resulted in all out nuclear war had this psychopathic law been in effect?

[nineteen50]

6. Them that control the information

control the decisions. Inequality of power.

[Freddie Stubbs]

7. The bill has 349 cosponsors

[Prometheus Bound]

8. This is ridiculous.