PDA

View Full Version : Did the U.S. Senate Just Authorize Force Against Iran? Glad we got the Dems in there


Nowisnotthetime
09/28/07, 11:18 PM
Senate Approves Symbolic Rebuke of Iran
How did your US Senators Vote?
Click here for the roll call.

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved a measure sending another rebuke to Tehran, this one aimed at sending a message to the Islamic regime to end military tactics targeting U.S. forces in Iraq.

The vote came one day after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told international leaders gathered at the U.N. General Assembly that Iran only seeks a peaceful nuclear program, and said that the conversation on the Iranian nuclear program “is now closed.”

The Senate, showing it was not convinced by Ahmadinejad’s proclamations, approved the nonbinding measure on a 76-22 vote. It was sponsored by Sens. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn.

The measure — an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill under consideration in the Senate — is in response to growing concerns over Iranian support for insurgent activity in Iraq. Military officials say Iranian weapons have been discovered in insurgent hands, and U.S. officials have captured agents with alleged Iranian ties.

The amendment calls on the State Department to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps as “a foreign terrorist organization.” The designation would allowed for more economic sanctions to be set against the country.

The measure’s opponents, which include Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., said the language is too open-ended, and could be construed as Senate authorization to use force against Iran.

One portion of the amendment reads: “It is the Sense of the Senate … that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies.”

“This proposal … is Dick Cheney’s fondest pipe dream. It’s not a prescription for success. At best, it’s a deliberate attempt to divert attention from a failed diplomatic policy. At worst, it could be read as a back-door method of … gaining congressional validation for action without one hearing or without serious debate,” Webb said Tuesday.

At the urging of Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, Lieberman and Kyl took steps Tuesday to remove the most controversial parts of their measure.

Lieberman said Webb was off-base on his interpretation of his proposal.

“Our colleague (Webb) has given the darkest possible interpretation … There is no intention of declaring war,” Lieberman said.

The House on Tuesday also passed a measure calling for greater economic sanctions against Iran. That bill, passed on a 397-16 vote, would block foreign investment in Iran, especially its energy sector, and would bar the president from waiving U.S. sanctions.

The motions out of Congress come on a highly anticipated week in which President Bush and international foe Ahmadinejad appeared at the same podium, only hours apart at the U.N.’s annual meeting on Tuesday. The drama also followed a contentious appearance by Ahmadinejad at Columbia University in New York.

On Tuesday, Bush announced new sanctions against the government of Myanmar and called on world leaders to fight oppression from contries like those of Iran. Ahmadinejad spoke at length about “arrogant powers” illegally imposing sanctions on his nation.

FOX News’ Trish Turner and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/26/4128/

awakenarogue
09/29/07, 01:14 AM
i'll have to take a look at this stuff a lot more tomorrow when it's not 3 am. but on first glance i don't find this surprising...

i don't think this signals that force will be used formally against Iran, especially in the face of the Iraq mess. i see this as an attempt to solve the problems that Iraq was supposed to solve. Iran wasn't isolated in the middle east, as initial plans would have accomplished through Iraq and the Syria. now the us is scrambling for ways to isolate Iran while being conscious of ability because of Iraq

awakenarogue
09/29/07, 12:05 PM
Split in Group Delays Vote on Sanctions Against Iran

UNITED NATIONS (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/united_nations/index.html?inline=nyt-org), Sept. 28 — The United States, Britain and France chose unity over speed and agreed on Friday to delay until November a United Nations Security Council (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/security_council/index.html?inline=nyt-org) vote on a third sanctions resolution against Iran (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iran/index.html?inline=nyt-geo).

The delay, a concession to Russia, China and Germany — the other three countries in the fragile coalition of six world powers that are seeking to rein in Tehran’s nuclear ambitions — came after a week of haggling on the outskirts of the General Assembly (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/g/general_assembly/index.html?inline=nyt-org). The six countries issued a statement advising Iran that a diplomatic offer of economic incentives remained on the table if Iran suspended its uranium enrichment program.

The statement said the six powers would complete the new resolution and bring it to a vote unless reports from the European foreign policy chief, Javier Solana (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/javier_solana/index.html?inline=nyt-per), and the International Atomic Energy Agency (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/i/international_atomic_energy_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org) in November “show a positive outcome of their efforts.”

Bush administration officials, who have been pushing diplomats to increase sanctions against Iran, said the move to put off a decision until November reflected the harsh realities of getting all six countries to speak with one voice. While officials from Britain, France and the United States were pressing for another sanctions vote right away, China and Russia in particular wanted to wait for another report from the nuclear monitoring agency.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/condoleezza_rice/index.html?inline=nyt-per), whose often volatile relationship with her Russian counterpart, Sergey V. Lavrov, erupted again this week as Russia refused to go along with immediate sanctions, sought on Friday to minimize the differences between their countries.

“We’ve made it very clear that we’ve always wanted to keep the two tracks under way,” she told reporters in New York. American officials routinely use the phrase “two tracks” to refer to both the sanctions and the negotiations with Iran. “We will be watching to see what progress takes place.”
But her deputy, R. Nicholas Burns, the top United States negotiator on the Iran issue, acknowledged that “the alchemy of this group is such that anything is going to be a compromise.” He took issue with the speech by Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/mahmoud_ahmadinejad/index.html?inline=nyt-per), before the General Assembly this week, when Mr. Ahmadinejad said that the nuclear dispute with the West, which believes that Iran is working on a nuclear weapons program, is now “closed.”

“I’m sorry, he was badly mistaken,” Mr. Burns told reporters during a news conference. “Here, he has six ministers saying so.”

Iran has maintained that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

Clearly, American diplomats were hoping for a bit more this week, but signs emerged early on that they would not get it. During a lunch of ministers from the Group of 8 (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/g/group_of_eight/index.html?inline=nyt-org) industrialized nations on Wednesday, Ms. Rice and Mr. Lavrov exchanged sharp words on the right time to push for more Iran sanctions.

One European diplomat who was present said that “it’s getting to the point that you can’t get any work done if those two are in the room together,” referring to Ms. Rice and Mr. Lavrov. The diplomat spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about tension between Ms. Rice and Mr. Lavrov.

Mr. Lavrov told The Associated Press after the lunch that he had strong words with Ms. Rice about whether the time was right for new sanctions when the International Atomic Energy Agency had struck an agreement with Iran about its past activities. Ms. Rice has been clear that she does not think much of the recent forays by Mohamed ElBaradei (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/e/mohamed_elbaradei/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the agency’s director, into the Iran negotiations, telling reporters on her airplane last week that the agency would be better off leaving diplomacy to diplomats.

Mr. ElBaradei reached an agreement in July with Iranian officials in which Tehran agreed to provide the agency with answers to questions about more than two decades of nuclear activity, most of it secret.

theESCO
09/29/07, 12:38 PM
war is peace?

Aether
10/23/07, 07:41 AM
Huckabee '08

SubrosaSeductiv
10/23/07, 10:43 AM
Great choices for year of 08'