You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
US lawmakers seek to bar attack on Iran
2007-01-20
We had this yesterday, too, but it's worthy of at least a couple days' discussion.
A bipartisan group of lawmakers in the US House of Representatives pushed legislation on Thursday to prohibit a US attack on Iran without congressional permission. The effort, led by Rep Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican who in 2005 joined calls from many Democrats for a phased US withdrawal from the Iraq war, came as lawmakers voiced concerns the Bush administration might provoke a confrontation with neighbouring Iran. “The resolution makes crystal clear that no previous resolution passed by Congress” authorises a US attack on Iran, Jones told reporters, referring to the 2002 vote by Congress authorising the US invasion of Iraq.

The joint resolution would have to be passed by the House and Senate and signed by President George W Bush to acquire the force of law. It would waive the congressional authorisation only if Iran attacked the United States or its armed forces, or if such an attack was “demonstrably” imminent. So far, Jones’ resolution has 11 co-sponsors in the 435-member House.

At the White House, Bush, asked whether there were any US plans to take action against Iran, told Sinclair Broadcasting: “I have made it clear that if they’re moving weapons inside Iraq that will hurt the cause of democracy and more particularly hurt our soldiers, we’ll take care of business there. We’re not going to let them. I made that abundantly clear the other day in my speech.”

BushÂ’s comment echoed remarks last week when he accused Iran and Syria of allowing the use of their territory for launching attacks inside Iraq. The White House has since made clear the plan was to disrupt weapons supply lines inside Iraq and that the United States was not preparing for military action against Iran or Syria.

Rep Martin Meehan, a Massachusetts Democrat, said that while he did not trust Iran or its intentions in the Middle East, he also did not trust the White House. Meehan said the resolution on Iran was needed because the Bush administration had “lied so many times” in the run-up to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Posted by:Fred

#9  OP: Some have called for a Ron Paul/Tom Tancredo ticket. Paul's a little out there to me (Libertarian), but Tancredo's basically the only one calling the shots on illegal immigrations that EVERY farkin' citizen in the U.S. has asked for! I'm all behind him makin' a BIG fuss over illegal immigration.

And, I don't get why Walter ("Cooter" from Dukes of Hazzard fame) Jones is sponsoring this. I (somewhat) understand it in terms of the Constitutional aspect of declaring war, but we haven't done that *officially* since WWII, have we?
Posted by: BA   2007-01-20 20:55  

#8  I think it's about time to declare war on the idiocy that is Washington, DC. What is it with these idiots? Is there LSD in the local water supply? Is someone smoking pot commercially in the House and Senate office buildings, and pumping it through the ventilation system? This is just plain stupid, cubed.

Tom Tancredo's running for president. He's beginning to look more and more appealing with every word that comes out of DC. I know he doesn't have a snowball's chance, but at least he STANDS FOR SOMETHING, instead of standing AGAINST everything intelligent.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2007-01-20 15:18  

#7  Meehan said the resolution on Iran was needed because the Bush administration had “lied so many times”

...and you'd know lies when you saw them, wouldn't you Mr. Term Limits?
Posted by: tu3031   2007-01-20 12:00  

#6  From Docs link.

Although Iranian government officials said no negotiations with the U.S. had been scheduled, Mr. Bush described the talks as a “unilateral diplomatic initiative that will be under way before they know it.”

I really have to stop in at ScrappleFace more often.
Posted by: Mike N.   2007-01-20 11:57  

#5  Perhaps, W has reconsidered "Negotiating" with Iran (Aryan) after all.
Posted by: doc   2007-01-20 09:37  

#4  Don't do anything but they have no ideas on what should be done.

Oh, and by the way, the commander in chief can take any action deemed warranted short of declaring war. The CIC does need to go to Congress for a sustained war effort.
Posted by: Captain America   2007-01-20 01:18  

#3  This is the Donks idea of a preemption doctrine.
Posted by: Mike N.   2007-01-20 00:33  

#2  That's it in nutshell Joe.

The Democrats have bet their future on us losing, and losing big in the WOT. The more dead American soldiers for them to parade the better. They hope to win by showing the WOT as a disaster of epic porportions (and not by having any sort of plan themselves....).

They know that if Iran gets nukes and takes out Tel-aviv (which DinnerJacket has sworn he would do) they can simply blame bush'es failed policies.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2007-01-20 00:28  

#1  IOW, iff Radical Iran is acknowledged by the USA + many world nations as the principal sponsor/
broker of Radical Islamist terror, then the US Dems are agz stopping anti-US, anti-Western, + anti-Democratic, etc. Iranian ambitions as achieved = enhanced thru terror. The Dems are indir? contributing to the further endangerment of our troops while also for the prolongment of the sufferings of the Iraqi people thru Iran-centric, Iran-led, inter-Muslim sectarianism within Iraq. OH YEAH, THAT'LL HELP THE DEMS WIN THE WH IN 2008.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2007-01-20 00:12  

00:00