Thanks for bringing this to our attention, MJ.

Can we agree that if Obama doesn't forcibly oppose this, that it doesn't fall into the category of acceptable compromises.

I know you want to win.

I'm shocked that you didn't draw a line at FISA.

But I know from reading you all these years that you draw a line at wars of choice.

I do believe, and hope I'm vindicated, that Obama does too.

I hate my Senator.

You guys ought to know by now that damn few House and Senate liberals ever resist the lobby on these issues. Some of them like Wasserman-Schultz et all are uberhawks and assume their liberal supporters neither know nor care.

It is not an "authorization" of war. The blockade it calls for is itself an act of war.

If the US goes to war with Iran, or if Israel attacks, the silence from most House and Senate liberals will be deafening.

This is not surprising to me though it is indeed of great concern.

What the hell is wrong with those people in Washington? Do they have no sense at all? Do they have no decency at all? do they have any morals? Do they understand that wars of aggression are prosecutable crimes for which they would clearly be complicit should they choose to vote for such an open act of aggression against a state the represents no threat whatsoever to the United States of America? do they understand that no good could possibly come from this sort of idiotic bellicosity? Are they all taking steroids and thus experiencing some collective bout of roid rage? What the hell is going through their minds?

Even if the nation of Iran developed and possessed a nuclear weapon, what realistically would the threat to the US be? Very small I would think given our massive deterrent let alone our ability to intercept and/or prevent any actin they might contemplate against us. Now coneivably Iran with such a weapon could be a threat, but it is not yet thus and is years from even hoping to acquire a weapon. Why on earth would these people being going so over the top? Something is clearly amiss.

Folks, these people are crazy to cosponsor shit like this. There is simply no justification for this kind of open warmongering. Something is very, very deeply wrong here friends.

1)Let it be known that this bill was introduced just before AIPAC's conference convened in DC.

2)Among AIPACs main strategies is to get people to cosponsor legislation and support sign on letters for the legislation they support--which this is.

3)This bill is perfectly timed to come up under "suspension" when:

a)Debate on bills is significantly limited and no amendments (e.g. limiting the bill's scope or intentions) can be introduced.

b) There is a general consensus that bills will pass with a 2/3 majority. In short, it is more than expected to pass.

This suggests that this is a very real problem (no amending) and is expected to pass. Further, this is a pet project/gift for aipac.

I would be very surprised to see the junior Senator from Illinois to actively oppose this. It would cause him great trouble shoring up Hillary's friends in the lobby. And,in light of his recent saber rattling and groveling on Iranian issues, it seems consistent with his current rhetorical framework.

Some may question the dire consequences of this bill, but having read a few bills in my day, this is not a comforting piece of legislation. As they say, watch this space.

What's wrong with war with Iran, or any Middle East Muslim country? Such a war might or might not be in the interests of the Unites States but it is in the interests of Jews everywhere, if it can be won.

Anti-Semitic Hate Speech in the Name of Islam

The claim is that this is a view held by a minority of Muslims, but it is a pretty weak claim and, in any case, that minority is politically powerful beyond its numbers.

Both the House and Senate are considering legislation that would put us in a state of war with Iran. Right now. ... The bill's "action clause" would put us at war with Iran by immediately imposing a blockade. ... Note: The blockade described in the bill is identical to the one JFK imposed on Cuba in 1962 which almost plunged the world into nuclear war. The huge difference is that we knew the Soviet Union had installed missiles in Cuba, 90 miles from Miami, and was about to equip them with nuclear war heads. A rather immense difference from the Iran situation today.

I thought that was a bit goofy, rather hyperbolic, and just plain alarmist.

1) MJ is conflating two definitions of "at war" when he really should know better. He's conflating acts of war under international law, with declaration of war within the US by Congress. It's an important distinction because Congress may authorize something like an embargo, which under international law might render us "at war" from an external perspective, HOWEVER the US Congress has not declared war, so internally we are NOT "at war" with and Congress may still tightly control what authorization is given the Executive. That's very important.

2) Obviously the Cuban Missile Crisis involved a possible nuclear exchange. That's not the case here, so even bringing it up seems rather hysterical. Iran will never use nuclear weapons (if even they had them) because it's a usually unspoken truth that Israel, the US, or even the EU would retaliate. Israel has a "second strike" capability.

3) In regards to embargos, "quarantines" and anti-proliferation, it gets rather fuzzy as to what constitutes acts of war under international law, and who can make that determination or what meaning it would have, if all the Security Council supports an action.

4) Iran is a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty. The UN has passed enforcement mechanisms for counter-proliferation.

5) We were technically "at war" with North Korea till 2007, and maybe still are under some definitions.

6) Under some definitions we're still "at war" with Cuba.

So, maybe the Chicken Littles should take a breath until we know is there's even a real development here. Try to keep powder, and undies, dry.

And for a little perspective, here's a search I did for past and present legislation containing "Iran + Proliferation." It's a long list, many proposing sanctions.

http://www.washingtonwatch.com/search/results/?cx=000879154386758315681%3Aszvmkys3nbo&cof=FORID%3A9&q=iran+proliferation&sa=go#914

war with Iran would be the crowning stupid achievement of a stunningly stupid administration. Amadinejad (I know that's not spelled right) has been taunting us for a long time to try to provoke a reaction, and the Cowboy-in-Chief is spoiling to give it to him.

meanwhile the Iranian people LIKE us and do not want to fight.

what would be the reaction if Iran really did "wipe Israel off the map," do you suppose? we'd wipe Iran off the map. Iran knows this. it's all posturing and dick-measuring IMHO.

This is the same flawed logic Bush used to attack Iraq. We will attack them, unprovoked, because of some actions they might or might not do in the future? And some of the D's buy into this tortured pretzel logic?

There is no justification, in terms of hostile actions being taken by Iran directly against the US (or even our allies), for attacking Iran right now. I don't want to see Iran go nuclear but them talking about it isn't justification for a US attack on them. It would be just another aggressive unprovoked attack by the US on a sovereign nation in the Middle-East. We have become a country that delights in war? War, by its nature, is evil and capriciously. It results in innocent civilians being killed in large numbers and the ones who are not killed end up living in poverty and constant danger. Wars of aggression have been denounced by every civilized nation on our planet. So that puts the US in which column on the "civilized vs. uncivilized" table?

I do believe in serving my country in the military or a civilian capacity. One, MY country. Two, not in stupid immoral wars based on lies.
And no war is worth taking the lives of any kids. Period. All kids are innocent.
One can only be cavalier about taking the lives of infants and kids if you have neither or if your nationalism trumps your fundametal humanity.
See the Holocaust.

OKay, so you came by your racial paranoia honestly. Glad to hear it.
Strange though to incorporate the same worldview that, for 2000 years, was the enemy of Jews everywhere. To each his own.
Just don't risk my kids in your wars.

Yo, offensive: I'm a veteran. Are you?

Interesting. Our most antiwar Presidents were veterans. Ike, the greatest general in our history, was antiwar as was Grant. In today's NYT, Richard Holbrooke reviews a new book on the Cuban Missile Crisis and says this:
"It is hard to read this book without thinking about what would have happened if the current administration had faced such a situation — real weapons of mass destruction only 90 miles from Florida; the Pentagon urging “surgical” air attacks followed by an invasion; threatening letters from the leader of a real superpower and senators calling the president “weak” just weeks before a midterm Congressional election.

"Life does not offer us a chance to play out alternative history, but it is not unreasonable to assume that the team that invaded Iraq would have attacked Cuba. And if Dobbs is right, Cuba and the Soviet Union would have fought back, perhaps launching some of the missiles already in place. One can only conclude that our nation was extremely fortunate to have had John F. Kennedy as president in October 1962. Like all presidents, he made his share of mistakes, but when the stakes were the highest imaginable, he rose to the occasion like no other president in the last 60 years — defining his goal clearly and then, against the demands of hawks within his administration, searching skillfully for a peaceful way to achieve it."

JFK was of course a veteran.

The people who drafted the Iran resolution I'm citing here are not veterans. They are neocons, armchair warriors, who are always ready to fight until somebody else's kids die. Not Kristol's or Bolton's or Krauthammer's or Feith's or Cheney's or Bush's or pretty much any of them. Where in God's name does anyone have the audacity to support wars that neither they nor their kin fight in. If anyone has any evidence that any of the architects of this war (and supporters of attacking Iran) have shed a tear over the 4000 dead Americans, post it. It's all fun and games for the neocons, as if the people they send to die are just dumb farmers or ghetto dwellers who are put on earth to serve their interests.

offensive says;

" Now he doesn't think his country is worth serving. Why should I apologize?"

There you go again.....I never said that. Now apologize for your misrepresentation.