Iran - H. Con. Res. 362 and S. Res. 580

[slipslidingaway]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3524081&mesg_id=3524081

[peacebird]

1. 4,110 US dead so far, and almost 30,000 wounded.... and Congress is putting forth bills supporting

attacking Iran?
My - how *special*....

http://icasualties.org/oif/

[slipslidingaway]

2. It's really sad that so few are willing to challenge the direction

in which we are headed.

:(

[sinkingfeeling]

3. I posted this 3 days ago and nobody here cared. Had 1 response.

[slipslidingaway]

4. Did not see your post or maybe I did and just had time to give

it an R???

If there is additional information in the thread would you post a link here?

The Congress forum could be a great place to track pending bills and consolidate any threads that relate to them. What would be most helpful is if that the Congress forum was part of the "Big Forums" list and was automatically displayed on everyone's page. Several months ago I made these suggestions in GD, but that thread also had few replies.

I made a weak attempt to do that with the Terrorism Prevention Act and the FISA bill, if the topic comes up again then one can easily point to the thread in this forum or have readily available links for others.

What really needs to be done is to make our voices heard in the beginning and not wait til the last minute.

Not sure why we are not paying attention to what Congress is saying about Iran, we definitely should be and the threads should not be sinking or slipping.

:)

:hi:

[slipslidingaway]

5. Rep. Gilchrest (R) speaks out against H Con Res 362

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/77531&id=8594968

"Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak today on Resolution 362 that is circulating in the House and its impact on policy in the Middle East.

As a result of Resolution 362 and its tightening of sanctions on Iran in a more broader way, will that have a positive impact on America's policy in the Middle East? Will it have a positive impact on the politics in the Middle East? Will it have a positive impact on Iran as far as the conflict between our two nations is concerned?

I will say, in my judgment, Mr. Speaker, that Resolution 362 will exacerbate, make much more difficult, the problems in the Middle East, the relationship of Iran with its neighbors in the Middle East, and the relationship of Iran with the United States, and the relationship of Iran with the country of Israel. Let me try to explain why.

If we look at the Middle East right now in a very objective fashion, what is going on in the Middle East right now?

The geopolitical balance of power in the Middle East right now is fractured. We are focusing on the conflict in Iraq. We need as a Nation to focus objectively on the Palestinian-Israeli question, to resolve that issue, to reduce the number of recruits for al Qaeda and the Taliban.

We need to understand that Saudi Arabia, a Sunni country, does not want Iraq, a Shia country, to become an Iranian satellite.

We need to understand that Iran, who lost more men dead in a conflict with Iraq just a few years ago than we lost in World War I, World War II, Korea, and Vietnam combined, wants to have some influence in the Middle East and certainly with what will go on in Iraq.

What will influence the direction the Middle East will take in the decades to come? There is violent conflict there. There is political conflict there. There is mistrust in the Middle East.

Let me use a quote from Sam Rayburn, former Speaker of the House. ``Any mule can kick a barn door down, but it takes carpenters to rebuild that door and that barn.''

We need carpenters. We need diplomats. More conflict, more restrictions, more sanctions is going to further exacerbate the problem in the Middle East and its relationship with the country of Iran.

One other quick comment. Iran is not an Arab country. Iran is a Persian nation that speaks Farsi, that does not speak Arabic. It is a nation of Shias with their own brand of Islam.

Knowledge and an informed policy in the Middle East, a surge of diplomacy, can make a key difference. Let me go back and express some precedence of the past about diplomacy and where it worked.

When Nikita Khrushchev said he was going to bury the United States, what was Eisenhower's response? He invited Nikita Khrushchev to the United States to tour the Nation, and it began to lessen the conflict between the two countries.

What did President Kennedy do when there were deployable nuclear weapons in Cuba aimed at the United States? He negotiated his way out of that conflict and saved a catastrophe.

What did Nixon do after Mao Zedong said it would be worth half the population of China being destroyed if we could destroy the capitalists in America? What did Nixon do? He had a dialogue. He went to China.

What happened when we did not have a dialogue, some understanding of Ho Chi Minh? A million people died.

Today in the Middle East we certainly need a strong military, we need a strong intelligence. But the aspect that is missing in the Middle East is what Eisenhower said was so critical in foreign policy; that is, consensus and dialogue.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of Members in this house that have started a long time ago, a couple of years, beginning a dialogue with the Iranians. Just last fall, 58 Members of this House on both sides of the aisle signed a letter to the parliament in Iran asking for a parliamentary exchange; 58 Members of Republicans and Democrats. That letter was hand-delivered by some of us in Lisbon to Iranian parliamentarians. They took it to Iran. And what is their response to us? They want a dialogue.
There are members of the Iranian parliament that want a dialogue. Consensus and dialogue.

We need more carpenters. Vote against Resolution 362."

[slipslidingaway]

6. Are Congressional Democrats Leading Us to War With Iran?

Thread here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3534545&mesg_id=3534545

Direct link to article

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/27/9928/

[slipslidingaway]

7. Iran strike in the air as US and Israeli military chiefs meet

Thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3530770&mesg_id=3530770

Article

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23917181-2703,00.html

Iran strike in the air as US and Israeli military chiefs meet
Martin Chulov, Middle East correspondent | June 25, 2008

[slipslidingaway]

8. H. Con. Res. 362 & S. Res. 580 - Links

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hc110-362

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=sr110-580

You have to click on the Thomas site link on the left to see the updated list of cosponsors.

[slipslidingaway]

9. About 'Sense of Congress' Resolutions

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/senseof.htm

"They do not make law and are not enforceable...


"Sense of" resolutions are typically used as:

...On foreign affairs: a way to express the opinion of the people of the United States to the government...

Although "sense of" resolutions have no force in law, foreign governments pay close attention to them as evidence of shifts in U.S. foreign policy priorities..."

[slipslidingaway]

10. H.R. 6198 [109th]: Iran Freedom Support Act

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-6198

"To hold the current regime in Iran accountable for its threatening behavior and to support a transition to democracy in Iran."

Introduced Sep 27, 2006
Passed House

Sep 28, 2006
Passed Senate Sep 30, 2006
Signed by President Sep 30, 2006



H.R. 4655 <105th>: Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h105-4655

"To establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq."

Introduced Sep 29, 1998
Scheduled for Debate Oct 2, 1998
Passed House

Oct 5, 1998
Passed Senate Oct 7, 1998
Signed by President Oct 31, 1998

[slipslidingaway]

11. Preparing the Battlefield - Seymour M. Hersh

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh

[slipslidingaway]

12. Hersh interview on Democracy Now

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/30/hersh_congress_agreed_to_bush_request

[BeHereNow]

13. Bookmarked for all the asshole naysayers- I want to bring this up later...

When all the dumb fucks who say this attack will not
happen- I think this thread will come in handy, later.
Thanks slislidingaway.
EXCELLENT links and thread.

BHN

[slipslidingaway]

14. Just saw your post and you are welcome, some say the House

vote will take place next week. I've already called, emailed my Reps. and I am sure that will help.

[slipslidingaway]

15. Tracing an Iran Oil Blockade Meme

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/05/8371_tracing_an_iran.html

Posted by Laura Rozen on 05/30/08

"On Wednesday, Wall Street Journal opinion editors proposed a plan for a naval blockade on Iran of refined gasoline imports. But they don't say where they got the idea.

The Journal:

The Administration would do better to withdraw from this international charade and consider means by which the mullahs might be persuaded that their regime's survival is better assured by not having nuclear weapons. A month-long naval blockade of Iran's imports of refined gasoline – which accounts for nearly half of its domestic consumption – could clarify for the Iranians just how unacceptable their nuclear program is to the civilized world.

Here was Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz in January explaining the idea of thirty year Israeli intelligence veteran Shmuel Bar:


Dr. Shmuel Bar, a researcher at the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center and one of the discussion's initiators, believes that the U.S. can still prevent Iran from reaching the next stage in its program of nuclear development. In place of economic sanctions imposed by the UN, which he feels are ineffective, he proposes imposing a naval blockade on all refined petroleum products imported to Iran.

Sound familiar?


...On its face while not as overtly militaristic a proposal as air strikes, which some hawks advocate, such a blockade may constitute the kind of provocation that would force international conflict just the same -- which may be some of its proponents' intention. (It may also constitute an act of war.) Worth observing how the blockade idea has worked its way into Washington's public policy discourse, and paying attention to see if becomes a more frequent talking point in right leaning national security circles in coming months."

[slipslidingaway]

16. Gareth Porter discussing the Iran Resolutions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3G_S-LyA_Y

Thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3564340

[slipslidingaway]

17. John Bolton wanted Iran to pull out of the NPT

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mjSwO54p_YQ

[slipslidingaway]

18. Venezuela agrees to sell gasoline to Iran

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSDAH32095820070703

"Venezuela has agreed to sell gasoline to Iran, which last week launched a delayed fuel rationing scheme, Venezuela's energy minister said in remarks published on Tuesday.

"Yes, the Iranians have asked to buy gasoline (from us) and we have accepted this request," Rafael Ramirez told the Sharq newspaper in an interview.

"I can not give you more information," he said, when asked how much fuel Iran would purchase.

The minister accompanied Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on an official visit this week to the Islamic Republic, which despite its huge oil reserves imports 40 percent of its gasoline needs as it has a shortage of domestic refining capacity..."

[slipslidingaway]

19. An Open Letter to Barack Obama on Iran

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ObamaIran/index-1.html

"Dear Senator Obama,

We the undersigned may have different views on U.S. foreign policy with respect to Iran. We all, however, are deeply concerned about the stories in the press in the past few weeks suggesting that the Bush administration might be considering a military strike on Iran, that it might give a green light to such an attack by Israel, or that it might engage in other acts of war, such as imposing a blockade against Iran.

We welcomed your stand against the war on Iraq in 2002. And we were encouraged by your early campaign statements emphasizing diplomacy over military action against Iran. Today, you have an opportunity to forestall a repeat of the tragic Iraq war. We hope you will use that opportunity.

We agree with the conclusion of Muhammed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, that "A military strike ... would be worse than anything possible. It would turn the region into a fireball..." A military attack, he said, "will mean that Iran, if it is not already making nuclear weapons, will launch a crash course to build nuclear weapons with the blessing of all Iranians, even those in the West." (Reuters, June 20, 2008.)

We don't know, of course, whether an attack on Iran is in fact being considered, or if there are serious plans to initiate other acts of war, such as a blockade of the country. But we call on you to issue a public statement warning of the grave dangers that any of these actions would entail, and pointing out how inappropriate and undemocratic it would be for the Bush administration to undertake them, or encourage Israel to do so, in its closing months in office.

An attack on Iran would violate the UN Charter's prohibition against the use or threat of force and the Congress's authority to declare war. Moreover, the public right to decide should not be foreclosed by last-minute actions of the Bush administration, which will set U.S. policy in stone now.

We were heartened by your earlier comments suggesting that an Obama administration would act on the understanding that genuine security requires a willingness to talk without preconditions (something Iran has offered several times to no avail), and that threats and military action are counterproductive. We hope you will follow through on these commitments once in office, but also that you will speak out now against any acts of war by the Bush administration.

Sincerely,

(organizations listed for identification purposes only)

Michael Albert ZNet
Cathy Albisa exec. director, National Economic and Social Rights Initiative
John W. Amidon U.S. Veterans for Peace
Stanley Aronowitz Professor of Sociology, Graduate Center, CUNY
Rosalyn Baxandall Distinguished Teaching Professor, SUNY Old Westbury
Phyllis Bennis Institute for Policy Studies
Stephen Eric Bronner Professor (II) of Political Science, Rutgers University
Charlotte Bunch exec. director, Center for Women’s Global Leadership, Rutgers Univ.
Noam Chomsky Institute Professor (retired), MIT
Ray Close retired CIA Middle East specialist; Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
Rhonda Copelon Professor of Law, CUNY Law School
Hamid Dabashi Professor of Iranian Studies and Comparative Literature, Columbia Univ.
Lawrence Davidson Professor of Middle East History, West Chester Univ.
Ariel Dorfman author
Stuart Ewen, Distinguished Professor, Hunter College & the Graduate Center, CUNY
John Feffer co-director, Foreign Policy in Focus
Bill Fletcher, Jr. exec. editor, BlackCommentator.com
Libby Frank Women’s Internat’l League for Peace & Freedom, Philadelphia
Arthur Goldschmidt Professor emeritus of Middle East History, Penn State Univ.
Tom Hayden author
Doug Henwood Left Business Observer
Doug Ireland journalist
James E. Jennings exec. director, U.S. Academics for Peace
Nikki Keddie UCLA (emeritus), historian, Iran specialist
Janet Kestenberg Amighi v.p., CDR (sponsor of Holocaust child survivor research)
Rabbi Michael Lerner chair, The Network of Spiritual Progressives; editor, Tikkun mag.
Mark LeVine Prof. of Modern Middle Eastern History, Culture and Islamic Studies, U. Cal., Irvine
Manning Marable director, Center for Contemporary Black History, Columbia Univ.
David McReynolds former chair, War Resisters Internat’l
Rosalind Petchesky Distinguished Prof. of Poli. Sci., Hunter College & the Graduate Center, CUNY
Rachel Pfeffer interim exec. director, Jewish Voices for Peace
Katha Pollitt writer
Danny Postel No War on Iran Coalition, Chicago
Matthew Rothschild editor, The Progressive magazine
Stephen R. Shalom Prof. of Poli. Sci., William Paterson Univ.
(Rev.) David Whitten Smith Univ. of St. Thomas, Minnesota (emeritus)
Meredith Tax writer; president, Women’s WORLD
Michael J. Thompson editor of Logos
Chris Toensing editor, Middle East Report
Cornel West Professor, Princeton University
Stephen Zunes Professor of Politics, Univ. of San Francisco

[slipslidingaway]

20. Deconstructing the Anti-Iran Resolutions

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/sahimi.php?articleid=13104

by Muhammad Sahimi

"The U.S. House of Representatives is considering a resolution (HR 362) that calls on the Bush administration to take strong action against Iran, including a naval blockade of its ports. A similar resolution is being considered by the Senate (SR 580). The two resolutions are supposedly non-binding. They also mention explicitly that they are not granting the Bush administration any authorization to stage military attacks on Iran. Their language, however, is warlike. In particular, a naval blockade of Iran's ports is certainly tantamount to a declaration of war.

One would expect that, on a matter as crucial as dealing with an important and influential Islamic nation such as Iran, especially after all the lies and exaggerations that were sold to the public in order to justify the invasion of Iraq, the resolutions that are being considered would speak the truth about Iran. That is not the case, though. Both resolutions are replete with factual errors, exaggerations, half-truths, and even outright lies. Below, actual sentences from the two resolutions are in italics; my analysis follows in normal text..."


(Muhammad Sahimi, professor of chemical engineering and materials science and the NIOC professor of petroleum engineering at the University of Southern California, has published extensively on Iran's nuclear program and its political developments."

[slipslidingaway]

21. HR 362 and the Alarming Escalation of Hostility Towards Iran

Thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3585457&mesg_id=3585457

Direct link to article

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/08/10204/

[slipslidingaway]

22. Ackerman - U.S. Policy Towards Iran and H. Con. Res. 362

http://www.house.gov/list/press/ny05_ackerman/PR_070908.html

July 9, 2008

"(Washington, DC) - U.S. Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY), the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, today delivered the following opening statement on H. Con. Res. 362 during the Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on U.S. Policy towards Iran.

“Thank you Mr. Chairman for calling today’s hearing. I want to welcome Undersecretary Burns back before the committee although I’m sure we are happier to have him back than he is to be back.

Mr. Chairman, in a region that contains crises of varying degrees everywhere you look, Iran still stands out as a significant threat to regional stability and U.S. national interests. It’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, its desire to interfere with and undermine legitimately elected governments in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories and its arming of Shia militias in Iraq or warlords in Afghanistan all speak to the need for the international community and the United States to confront Iran’s regional ambitions in a significant and coordinated way.

That’s why, last year, the House has passed legislation to tighten sanctions on Iran’s oil sector and to encourage divestment in companies that do business in Iran. These efforts are designed to convince Iran to abandon both its efforts to develop nuclear weapons and its support for terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. In short, sanctions measures are an attempt to avoid war, not to start it.

So it is with puzzlement that I find that some have described a non-binding resolution that I have introduced, along with Mr. Pence and cosponsored by a majority of the House, urging the President to “increase economic, political and diplomatic pressure on Iran.” They describe that as a resolution declaring war and calling for a naval blockade. Nothing could be further from the truth or my intent. So I’d like to take this opportunity to clarify what H.Con.Res. 362 does and does not do.

First, it is a concurrent resolution. As my colleagues know, it doesn't get presented to the President, and it doesn't get signed, and it thus does not either become law or have the force of law. It's the sense of Congress. Assertions that the resolution constitutes a declaration of war are just absurd.

Second, the final whereas clause of the resolution states as explicitly as the English language will allow "Whereas nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran.” Since a naval blockade is by definition the use of force, the language of this resolution renders the prospect of a naval blockade simply out of the question. This resolution should not be the straw man that some would seek.

Third, the resolution calls on the President to "initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran.” To point out the obvious, there is no mention of military pressure, much less a blockade and the effort the President is called upon to make is international and diplomatic, not unilateral and military.

Fourth, the resolution calls for the President to seek the international community's support for an export ban on refined petroleum, not a blockade. Iran does not export refined petroleum products, it imports them. Therefore an export ban on refined petroleum would be enforced by customs inspectors and export administrators on the territories of the exporting nations, not in the Persian Gulf. This method is already in use by the international community, including the United States to enforce the four existing UN Security Council resolutions imposing sanctions on Iran.

Fifth, the resolution calls for the President to seek the international community's support for inspections of everything going into or coming out of Iran. This step, like the petroleum export ban, neither mandates nor requires a naval blockade to be put into effect. The inspections called for would be done at ports of embarkation and disembarkation, not by blockade.

Lastly, Mr. Chairman, the whole idea that the resolution calls for a blockade can only be sustained by a determined refusal to read the resolution, or to accept the plain meaning of the words within it. Put simply, the only way to find a blockade or a declaration of war in the text of H.Con.Res. 362 is to insert them by the amending power of imagination alone.

I thank the Chairman for calling today’s hearing and I look forward to listening to our witness.”

The witness for the hearing was William Burns, Under Secretary for Political Affairs at the U.S. Department of State."

[slipslidingaway]

23. Retired Military Leaders Oppose Provocative House Resolution

on Iran


http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0711-04.htm

"Three retired military leaders sent a letter to lawmakers urging them to abandon a resolution currently making its way through Congress that might lead to a blockade or the use of force against Iran. The retired military leaders say H.Con.Res. 362 is “poorly conceived, poorly timed, and potentially dangerous.”

The full text of the letter – signed by Lt. General Robert G. Gard, Jr., U.S. Army (ret.); former Assistant Secretary of Defense Dr. Lawrence J. Korb; and Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan, U.S. Navy (ret.) – is available online here...


The military leaders cite language in the resolution demanding the President initiate an international effort “prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran,” as particularly concerning. The retired military leaders believe that implementation of inspections of this nature could not be accomplished without a blockade or the use of force...

The letter concludes that while H. Con. Res. 362 as a concurrent resolution does not have the force of law, it clearly risks sending a message to the Iranians, the Bush Administration, and the world that Congress supports a more belligerent policy toward Iran..."