M.J. Rosenberg reports on his site on a scary piece of legislation coming up in the House tomorrow. At the behest of AIPAC; and you know it will go through overwhelmingly, because of the power of campaign contributions:
On Tuesday, the House of Representatives is slated to vote on a resolution designed to tie the president’s hands on Iran policy. The resolution, which is coming up under an expedited House procedure, was the centerpiece of AIPAC’s recent conference. In fact, 13,000 AIPAC delegates were dispatched to Capitol Hill, on the last day of the conference, with instructions to tell the senators and representatives whom they met that supporting this resolution was #1 on AIPAC’s election year agenda.
Accordingly, it is not particularly surprising that the resolution is being rushed to the House floor for a vote, nor that it is expected to pass with very little opposition. Those voting “no” on this one will pay a price in campaign contributions (the ones they won’t receive) and, very likely, will be smeared as “anti-Israel.” That is how it works.
Most of the language in H. Res.568 is unremarkable, the usual boilerplate (some of it factual) denouncing the Islamic Republic of Iran as a “state sponsor of terrorism” that is on the road to nuclear weapons capability.
The resolution’s overarching message is that Iran must be deterred from developing weapons, a position the White House (and our allies share). That is why the sanctions regime is in place and also why negotiations with Iran have resumed (the next session is May 23).
But the resolution does not stop with urging the president to use his authority to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. If it did, the resolution would be uncontroversial .
But there is also this: The House “urges the President to reaffirm the unacceptability of an Iran with nuclear-weapons capability and opposition to any policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to the Iranian nuclear threat.”
Think about that.
The resolution, which almost surely will pass on Tuesday, is telling the president that he may not “rely on containment” in response to “the Iranian nuclear threat.”…
[T]he “no containment” idea is absurd and reckless.
Imagine if President Kennedy had been told by the Congress back in 1962 that if the Soviet Union placed missiles in Cuba, he would have no choice but to attack Cuba or the USSR. If it had, it is likely none of us would be around today.
I think you took a bad call here Philip with JFK comparison.
JFK did not need the Congress to tie his hands on that matter AFAIK.
He did attack Cuba by imposing a naval blockade which is a clear and direct act of war.
For him containment was not an option hence the blockade and the willingness (or such an appearance ) to follow through on it and all that followed…
Insane, that’s all I can say.
Congress absolutely is pushing a war for Israel.
Boggles the mind doesn’t it..that the US congress works for a foreign power and a fifth column in the US in exchange for money. No denying it.
Just boggles the mind.
If it weren’t for all innocent dead that would occur in this I’d say go ahead…bring us Americans to our knees for Israel, destroy the economy, put us in debt for centuries, make it so bad we have no recourse but to burn this corrupt government to the ground, make an example of these traitors and start over.
That would be better than a slow death Palestine style.
And Iran as a signatory to the NPT has the right to enrich uranium up to 20%. While Israel continues to refuse to sign the NPT and has massive stockpiles of nuclear biological and chemical weapons that continue to be a threat to peace in the middle east. People around the world are sick and tired of these huge double standards. And the US congress will roll over to Israel and the I lobby and bark while undermining US national security via inflammatory legislation like this
On “barking” Mika and Joe Scarborough were “barking” for Israel this morning on Morning Joe. They had the mayor of Jerusalem on. No mention of E Jerusalem belonging to the Palestinians and illegal housing. Mika and Joe got on bended knees barked and kissed the Mayor of Jerusalem right on his behind.
Is AIPAC good for the Jews?
No.