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
Submit your comments on this article
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Congress Denounces Iran's Ahmadinejad
2007-09-25
For some reason, this really surprises me... particularly as it comes from Lantos
It's either disapprove of Short Round or have the entire Dhimmicratic agenda cast into a light that the general public would grasp and understand at once, with deleterious consequences in November, 2008. It's one thing to advance the pomo-Dhimmi-socialist agenda by stealth, it's another thing to have someone shine a light on it ...
Congress signaled its disapproval of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with a vote Tuesday to tighten sanctions against his government and a call to designate his army a terrorist group.

The swift rebuke was a rare display of bipartisan cooperation in a Congress bitterly divided on the Iraq war. It reflected lawmakers' long-standing nervousness about Tehran's intentions in the region, particularly toward Israel—a sentiment fueled by the pro-Israeli lobby whose influence reaches across party lines in Congress. "Iran faces a choice between a very big carrot and a very sharp stick," said Rep. Tom Lantos, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "It is my hope that they will take the carrot. But today, we are putting the stick in place."
Unfortunately you don't think 'stick' when someone mentions Tom Lantos. Or Nancy Pelosi. Or Harry Reid (D-Saster).
The House passed, by a 397-16 vote, a proposal by Lantos, D-Calif., aimed at blocking foreign investment in Iran, in particular its lucrative energy sector. The bill would specifically bar the president from waiving U.S. sanctions.
Somehow I don't think George will mind.
Current law imposes sanctions against any foreign company that invests $20 million or more in Iran's energy industry, although the U.S. has waived or ignored sanction laws in exchange for European support on nonproliferation issues.

In the Senate, Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., proposed a nonbinding resolution urging the State Department to label Iran's military—the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—a terrorist organization. The Bush administration had already been planning to blacklist a unit within the Revolutionary Guard, subjecting part of the vast military operation to financial sanctions.

The legislative push came a day after Ahmadinejad defended Holocaust revisionists, questioned who carried out the Sept. 11 attacks and declared homosexuals didn't exist in Iran in a tense question-and- answer session at Columbia University.

The Iranian president planned to speak Tuesday at the U.N. General Assembly.

Lantos' bill was expected to draw criticism from U.S. allies in Europe. During a visit to Washington last week, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner told lawmakers that France opposes any U.S. legislation that would target European countries operating in Iran. He argued that such sanctions could undermine cooperation on dealing with Iran.
Posted by:Sherry

#4  Unfortunately you don't think 'stick' when someone mentions Tom Lantos. Or Nancy Pelosi. Or Harry Reid (D-Saster).

Um...."DIPstick"? Second only to "Dipshit" when I think of them
Posted by: Frank G   2007-09-25 18:12  

#3  Can we get a list of those who voted against this measure?
Posted by: Crusader   2007-09-25 17:42  

#2  Lantos used to be very good on the Soviets, and was something of a neo-con (though very liberal on domestic issues). The local reds and pinks (his district is just south of San Francisco) have hated him for decades.

I think he is breaking down in his old age, but he may still be good for something sometimes.
Posted by: buwaya   2007-09-25 15:51  

#1  Gee. Looks like the Dhimmicrats figured out how to vote. And more importantly, when.

And I don't see why France gives a $hit about whether we impose sanctions on countries for investing in Iran. They should have already figured out by now that propping up that regime is a bad idea. If necessary, that bill can be retooled to just bar investment beyond what is already committed.
Posted by: gorb   2007-09-25 15:34  

00:00