Holy Cow! Dems strip language that would require congressional approval to strike Iran!!!

[hang a left]

By Christian Bourge and Peter Cohn CongressDaily March 13, 2007

House Democratic leaders bowed to pressure from conservative members of the party Monday, stripping language that would have required congressional approval for President Bush to invade Iran from a $124.1 billion supplemental spending plan provided to the House Appropriations Committee.

Opposition to the Iran language from conservative Blue Dogs had threatened to sink the spending plan, which had already divided the Democratic Caucus and faced strong Republican opposition and a threatened White House veto.

snip>

I can't access congressdaily because I am not registered. Maybe someone can help.

I found the story at www.firedoglake.com

[hang a left]

1. either I missed this story during the day and it has been discussed or my subject line

didn't transmit to the community what the post was about. So I will kick one time.

[ThomWV]

28. Congress isn't in session. So how and on what Monday did they do this?

[valerief]

2. No surprise. I'll bet they fire the starting gun. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

3. The Brave Sir Robin Congressional Democrats

Bravely bold Sir Robin rode forth from Camelot
He was not afraid to die, O brave Sir Robin
He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin

He was not in the least bit scared to be mashed into a pulp
Or to have his eyes gouged out and his elbows broken
To have his kneecaps split and his body burned away
And his limbs all hacked and mangled, brave Sir Robin

His head smashed in and his heart cut out
And his liver removed and his bowels unplugged
And his nostrils raped and his bottom burnt off
And his penis...

Brave Sir Robin ran away
Bravely ran away, away
When danger reared its ugly head
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin

[WTF cubed]

10. Thanks for that. Manny. Monty Python pretty much sums it up.

This makes me ill.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Why at this point this is the lesser of two evils

I am oh so disapointed with the leadership... even if the blue dogs don't surprise me

They'd be moderate republicans over two decades ago

[Dhalgren]

6. A lot of them are closer to "moderate" Republicans right now.

Bush-Democrats, the shame of the Party...

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Yeah but if I say this too loud the party loyalists

will jump on my throat doncha know?

Majority, what good is a majority if they fold on core issues like clockwork?

[Warren Stupidity]

24. I'll fight you with all I've got -

on other issues - on this we agree 100%. What good is a majority when one third of it votes with the War Party?

[cascadiance]

29. The key difference between "moderate" Republicans and "moderate" Democrats...

... is that moderate Republicans are "allowed" to vote with Democrats on what corporations consider inconsequential issue for their agenda.

Democrats are "allowed" to vote with Democrats on what corporations consider inconsequential issue for their agenda.

Oh wait... That's the same thing. Basically the "moderates" on both sides only vote with Democrats on inconsequential issues and on the core issues that affect corporations like the war, keeping the corporate serving Bush in charge, etc. they have to vote the corporate way with Republicans!

The difference is that Republican "moderates" serve their own party on important issues (basically to serve corporatist agenda), and Democratic "moderates" only serve their party when issues aren't important!

This is why we are losing folks, and why we need to kick these so-called "moderates" to the curb in the primaries next election. NO MORE DLC!!! Republicans need their moderates to carry forth their agenda. Democrats DON'T need these kind of poisonous characters.

[yurbud]

23. they'd be to the right of Ike

[Dhalgren]

5. When you've got Bluedog Democrats, who needs Republicans.

We should stop calling them "Bluedogs" and start calling them "Bush-Democrats", because that is what they are. They are snakes in the grass. They are going to kill the Party, because it is hard for a lot of people to see any difference between these "Democrats" and their Republican fellow-travellers...

[Bongo Prophet]

17. "Bush-Dems" is a better term, I agree! A more clear term than bluedog.

Since it more directly describes the problem, at least for now and immediate post-Bush years. It invokes all of the pnac AND Godwinger BS of Bush with all the negative connotations. (and corresponding approval ratings)

[rodeodance]

7. i recall this. It was the day the Bluedogs, for me. registered.

[LSK]

9. welcome to 5 months ago?

:shrug:

[DesEtoiles]

11. The house is not in session - this is an older story?

[Breeze54]

12. Why do you think we've all been so pissed off for so long?????

THAT'S ONE BIG REASON!!!

Are you going to DC on the 15th of September??

Be there or be square!!!!

"Time is short: The question is whether we have the will to act"

Help support the September 15th march in Washington

http://www.impeachbush.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5197

I am writing to you with the hope that you will help us organize and promote
the September 15th March in Washington DC. Thousands of Americans from around
the country will join together to demand the impeachment of George W. Bush and
Dick Cheney and insist on the immediate end to the war in Iraq.

September 15th is the date General David Petraeus is mandated to make a report
to Congress on the progress of the so-called surge. The eyes of the national
and international media will be focused on Washington DC at that time.

=========================

Saturday, September 15th

March on Washington

END THE WAR NOW!

Check out http://www.sept15.org/">Sept15th.org

[WillyT]

13. Nancy Is About To Be Set-Up By Her Own, If She Doesn't Start Kicking Some Ass !!!

:mad::nuke::mad:

[frazzled]

14. This is a story from last March

or did you not read the part about "a trip down memory lane"? It's a little late to be holy cowing.

[hang a left]

16. Nope

I still don't see it. Forgive the &^%$ out of me. I don't remember it. I read so much that it gets lost sometimes.

[AndyTiedye]

15. They Were Ordered to Remove that Language by AIPAC

It has happened again, and in the open. The American Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC) which heads a network of pro-Israeli lobbies, persuaded Congress to drop a provision which would have required President Bush to ask for Congressional approval prior to attacking Iran.

As reported in the May 16, 2007 issue of The Hill:

"The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), an influential group that advocates strong U.S. ties with Israel, lobbied heavily to remove the Iran provision in the supplemental, arguing that the measure would weaken President Bush's attempts to dissuade Iran from developing nuclear weapons."

This intervention by AIPAC to permit President Bush to act without Congressional debate was widely reported, as was AIPAC's earlier intervention with a supplemental budget bill.

In other words, a Democratic Congress elected to end the Iraq war has willingly given up its right (and responsibility) to engage in public debate prior to a new act of war against Iran, a sovereign nation. By voting to look the other way, Congress has left this war decision to the discretion of an unpopular president, who has already failed once.

http://www.counterpunch.org/khan05262007.html

[Richard Steele]

18. Funny, since the CONSTITUTION says only Congress can decide to strike anyone.

Not funny "ha ha".

[Thothmes]

27. Constitution

The Constitution gives only the Congress to declare War. However, look at the number of times U.S. Armed forces have been used against other nations without a formal declaaration of war by the Congress. In the 20th Century, Philipines, various South/Central American countries, Mexico, Korea, Vietnam,
Grenada, Iraq, all mauled by the armed forces of the United States, without a formal declaration of war.

[autorank]

19. Total bull shit. They're part of the killing machine. Shame on the blue dogs.

OK, let me get this straight. These Democrats want to give war monger, divorced from reality Bush the ability to start a war that will ruin the country. There's a word for that.

I'm getting really sick of these assholes screwing up the country, which is what they do. Golly gee, why would Congress approve a war? What a radical stance these dog fools take defying their Constitutional duty. It's reaching new levels of absurdity. I hope every one of them who supported this unconstitutional move loses in their primaries. Their constituents don't support a war with Iran, never. These Republicans in Democratic clothing have another motivation. Wonder what that is? Might have something to do with....nah....

Lets just say, the Constitution vests Congress with certain powers, one of which is declaring war. Just because Congress chickened out in Viet Nam, Gulf Wars I and II in exercising its power; and just because a bunch of know nothing judges appointed by know nothing presidents uphold that in court DOES NOT change the fact that it's unconstitutional to do this. These guys are not conservative, they're radicals who support tyrannical rule and a fucking insane president who wants to ruin the country by attacking Iran. Someone should call them out big time. The majority of Democrats are not behind this.

As far as I'm concerned and I think the founders who wrote the Constitution would agree - the Republicans who support this and anyone else is moving against Constitutional principles, they are opposed to the Constitution. Congratulations, you're put us all at risk.

[FourScore]

20. Thanks for posting this, hang a left . n/t

[The Backlash Cometh]

21. If this is true, they are truly worthless piece of shits.

Make no mistake. We have a neo-con problem in the Democratic Congress and I hope that the next presidential debate will clear up who has it worse than others.

[radfringe]

22. here we go again

Don't miss a toon - sign up for a FREE SUBSCRIPTION Radical Fringe on Comics Sherpa

[Poll_Blind]

25. k&r

PB

[leftchick]

26. they bowed to pressure from AIPAC

including Pelosi and Murtha.

<snip>

Some of this U.S. and Israeli rhetoric has been echoed by Democrats, particularly incoming Speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi. In 2005, she told a meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) that “the greatest threat to Israel's right to exist … now comes from Iran.” AIPAC has long been associated with some of the more extreme sectors of the Israeli political spectrum. The organization has been particularly aggressive in lobbying for war with Iran, a war that polls show the U.S. public strongly opposes.

The Democrats' close ties with AIPAC and the Israeli government are already causing problems. The Democrats won the election on a platform of getting the United States out of Iraq, but AIPAC and the current Kadima-Labor government strongly support that war.

Following an hour-long meeting with President Bush last week, Israeli Prime Minster Ehud Olmert told the press, “We in the Middle East have been following the American policy in Iraq for a long time, and we are very much impressed and encouraged by the stability” that the war in Iraq has brought to the Middle East.

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3771



Inside America's powerful Israel lobby
AIPAC's three-day summit included fiery evangelical oratory, adoration for Dick Cheney -- and new plans for going after Iran.

By Gregory Levey

Mar. 16, 2007 | At the annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee this week in Washington, a conservative Christian couple from eastern Tennessee told me that their son had decided to join the Israeli army. It was one of many surreal moments during the three-day gathering hosted by AIPAC, the lobbying group devoted to ensuring close U.S.-Israel ties that remains extraordinarily influential in Washington. "We just love God, and we just love Israel," the couple beamed, when I asked why they had come to the conference.

Amid an energized and at times almost circuslike atmosphere, just about everyone in attendance shared two main preoccupations: the 2008 U.S. presidential election and confronting Iran. And this year's conference saw record attendance: more than 6,000 people, coming from every state in the country and exceeding last year's crowd of around 5,000. Many of them were American Jews, of course, but the evangelical Christian community also made a strong showing. For those feeling apocalyptic about the turmoil in the Middle East, pastor John Hagee was there to greet them. Of the many prominent speakers at the conference, Hagee got one of the most enthusiastic receptions.

<snip>

Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has for some time been pushing for such efforts, and in a closed-door briefing during the conference he said that they could prove fatal to Iran: "Fewer and fewer companies will enter Iran. More and more will leave. Investment dollars and the technology it buys will dry up. The lifeline of a hated regime will be cut, its future imperiled."

In addition to the many panels at the conference, which often felt akin to pep rallies, delegates also attended "lobbying labs," where AIPAC staff schooled them on how to effectively persuade their congressional representatives to follow AIPAC policies. These sessions were not open to the media, nor even mentioned on the schedule of events distributed to members of the press. But AIPAC leaders repeatedly urged delegates to attend them. And on Tuesday, the organization deployed its army of lobbyists to push for new sanctions against Iran, which are contained in a new bill called the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, introduced by Democrat Tom Lantos and Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the ranking members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

When the thousands of lobbyists descended on Capitol Hill, they were greeted by nearly every U.S. senator and more than half the members of the House of Representatives -- approximately 500 meetings were held between AIPAC representatives and members of Congress on Tuesday alone. In addition to pushing for the sanctions plan, the goal was to showcase the strength of AIPAC and establish more ties for future communication and lobbying.

http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/salon061.html

[bigtree]

30. shocking that members of our party would legislate in the interest of a democratic ally

unbelievable :eyes:

[leftchick]

31. some ally

more like a 51st state only with more federal dollars than the other 50. :eyes: