Robert Wexler & Barney Frank Say They Will Fight Against Iran Blockade Language
I'm hearing that that House Democrats are beginning to resist H. Con. Res. 362 which demands that the President take a more militant approach to Iran (as if President Bush needs encouragement along those lines).
The resolution was sailing along, picking up 230 co-sponsors along the way, when suddenly the netroots and various interest groups got wind of the fact that the resolution, as written, could be read as calling for a naval blockade of Iran i.e. war. (The Senate bill, drafted by Evan Bayh, eliminates the blockade language).
Resistance is now growing in the House with two co-sponsors of the resolution -- Robert Wexler and Barney Frank --saying that either the blockade language goes, or they do.
But beyond the blockade language, can someone tell me why any Democrat believes that George W. Bush's bellicosity should be encouraged? I mean, does he really need Congressional Democrats to tell him to be tough with Iran? Am I missing something?
What part of the Iraq war do these Democrats not get?
Comments (12)
Hum, Chris Shays isn't a dem, but Courtney is. I'n not their constituent, but I'll call anyhoo.
Thanks MJ. You are being a force for good. :D
July 11, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
This Resolution is the Iraq War vote all over again. The Democrats are giving Bush the political cover he needs to attack Iran.
Its frikkin mindless, they should burn in hell.
July 11, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amended post;
This Resolution is the Iraq War vote all over again, whether the Blockade language is in there or not. The Democrats are giving Bush the political cover he needs to attack Iran.
After giving Bush FISA, now this resolution, its frikkin mindless, they should all burn in hell.
July 11, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any Democrat so mindless as to even vote for something like this, let alone sponsor it, should automatically be defeated in November, even if that results in a Republican Congress. Anyone voting for that is demonstrating their total lack of the mental abilities needed to be a Congressman. In my opinion they should be declared insane and locked up.
July 11, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
hoppy,
Recently I've been thinking the Democrats should lose Congress for their irresponsible ways. I'd hate to have the Republicans in control again, but this Democratic party today needs to be punished and shown they can't take their supporters for granted.
They gave Bush the OK to go to war in Iraq, now they're back giving him the OK to go to war with Iran.
I am absolutely livid with this party.
July 11, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Time to start planning some primary challenges?
Part of the problem is the people who call the shots for the D's aren't the liberal wing of the party, it is the Blue Dogs. And all they need to do is vote with the R's and they effectively control the agenda. I think it is gonna be tough to get liberal D's elected in those Blue Dog districts...but at this point, what the hell, why not try?
July 11, 2008 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Libertine says;
"Part of the problem is the people who call the shots for the D's aren't the liberal wing of the party, it is the Blue Dogs."
Yep, the Blue Dogs intimidate the leadership, who have no spine to begin with.
I didn't expect much from Hoyer, but Pelosi is a major disappointment.
July 12, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read someplace (but don't really know) that many of the Dem co-sponsors of this nonsense are newly elected. In a way, it makes sense as a way to demonstrate their bonefides to AIPAC and it's highly doubtful that newbies would have any real idea about how dangerous the current situation in the ME is.
The fact that pro-Israel warhorses like Frank and Wexler are waking up to the fact that it's not very smart for Congress to promote an act of war against Iran is a start. When will Rahm Emmanuel get with the program?
I think these well-connected Hill veterans are also hearing some alarm from foreign quarters and US military/intel sources.
Despite the claims of John Bolton and other warmongers, our Arab allies do not want a war in their neighborhood. Well, maybe the "moderate" Saudis do, but they'd be the only ones in favor cause they know we'll protect 'em from Iranian missiles and don't worry much about their natives getting restless compared to other "moderates" like Egypt and Jordan.
Thanks for the update, MJ. Any positive sign at this point is welcome.
July 11, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The goes with my theory that many of these votes are totally fixed. My new Senator is a strong supporter of this bill, as if Minnesota was under imminent threat from Iran!
Are they just all totally bought?
July 11, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not really, mostly just scared. Aipac is pushing this one hard.
July 11, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly, though I do not disagree with the resolution, there is no need for it, and introducing just giives people like Mr. Rosenberg a chance to get on thir rhetorical high horses. Either Israel will attack or it won't. There is virtually no chance Bush will. If he were going to, it would have happened by now.
July 12, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
apacmember says:
"Frankly, though I do not disagree with the resolution, there is no need for it, and introducing just giives people like Mr. Rosenberg a chance to get on thir rhetorical high horses."
Kind of like the way Ahmadinejad's babbling gives the Bush gang and AIPAC reasons to get on their rhetorical high horses?
July 13, 2008 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink