Reply With Quote
the only meaningful pre-war words, and Randian Paul knows it full well, is who will get the business and how many $10Bs the MIC will suck out H-A pockets.
well probably postpones is the better word
They tried to pull a fast one and got burned
http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-con...ll-118887.html
Rand Paul blocks Iran sanctions bill
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) blocked an effort Tuesday to quickly pass a bipartisan bill imposing tough sanctions on Iran, demanding that Congress make clear that the United States is not rushing into another war.
"Our young men and women, our soldiers, deserve thoughtful debate," Paul, the tea party freshman with libertarian leanings, said on the floor. "Before sending our young men and women into combat, we should have a mature and thoughtful debate over the ramifications of war, over the advisability of war and over the objectives of war."
Paul wants Senate Democrats to allow a vote on his amendment that says that nothing in the measure "shall be construed as a declaration of war or an authorization of use of force against Iran or Syria."
the only meaningful pre-war words, and Randian Paul knows it full well, is who will get the business and how many $10Bs the MIC will suck out H-A pockets.
I think it's pretty obvious that a sanctions bill is nothing Paul is pissing his pants about.
as usual El Che will have to educate the lackluster posters:
here is what the bill wants:
- Extends U.S. sanctions to Iranian Energy Joint Ventures
- Codifies and Expands Sanctions on Suppliers to Iran’s Energy and Petrochemical Sectors
- Applies mandatory U.S. sanctions to Iranian Uranium Mining Joint Ventures
- Expands Current Sanctions Menu to Senior Corporate Officers of Sanctioned Firms
- Accelerates and Expands Efforts to Target Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)
all Rand Paul wants is to add a sentence to the end of the bill “…nothing in the Act shall be construed as a declaration of war or an authorization of the use of force against Iran or Syria.”
thank you Rand Paul for saving the world
thank you Rand Paul for saving the world
Per usual, nothing happened the way you are trying to spin it
Rand Paul proposes actually following the Cons ution on the Iran issue:
Senator Rand Paul Calls the Question on War with Iran
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert...b_1386042.html
Before we have a war with Iran, shouldn't the Senate and the House have at least one debate and vote on it? Isn't that what the Cons ution demands? Isn't that what is demanded by the War Powers Resolution (which, despite its name, is binding law)?
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul thinks we should have the debate right now.
On Tuesday, Sen. Paul took to the Senate floor to oppose unanimous consent of a new Iran sanctions bill so he could introduce an amendment that would ensure that nothing in the act shall be construed as a declaration of war or an authorization of the use of force against Iran or Syria, and affirm that any use of military force must be authorized by Congress.
The latest Iran sanctions bill is being pushed at a very sensitive time: in the next few weeks, talks with Iran about its nuclear program are supposed to resume. Clearly, some people in Washington want to undercut President Obama ahead of those talks, restricting his ability to participate in an effective diplomatic process that would de-escalate tensions (and lower gas prices), and some of the Republican drive for new legislation on Iran is clearly motivated by this.
In particular, Senator Lieberman wants to add the Graham-Lieberman-AIPAC-Netanyahu so-called "resolution about containment being an unacceptable policy" as an amendment to the sanctions bill.
Lieberman "US" senator
If war is what is being talked about, shouldn't we have an open debate? Why should this just be a conversation between AIPAC lobbyists and Members of Congress? Shouldn't the broad American public have a say? Isn't that what the Cons ution and the law demand?
When Sens. Graham and Lieberman brought forward their bill, Senate Democrats asked that it include language affirming that nothing in the bill authorized the use of military force. Graham refused.
Now Senator Rand Paul is coming forward with exactly the same idea. Shouldn't those same Senate Democrats support their own idea?
"So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.
The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."
-- George Washington Farewell Adress 1796
weird. is Paul trying to help Obama? his party must be pissed.
I thought this move was to undercut Obama diplomatic channels
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...senate-on-iran
Likewise, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has reportedly asked her Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov in New York on Monday to tell Tehran that it has a single chance to solve the conflict peacefully by making progress in the talks with the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China, and Germany. Clinton asked that Lavrov make clear that an attack will occur on Iran’s nucear facilities within months otherwise.
Observers note that it does not take much discernment to detect warmongering in those assertions.
In the meantime, it appears that Reid will not get his way with the sanctions bill. And Paul is not the only member of the Senate who wants to offer an amendment to the legislation, though his appears to be the only amendment offered in order to avoid war at this time. Lieberman and Graham wish to add a resolution that stands opposed to containment, while Republican Senator Mark Kirk wants an amendment to the bill that actually contains even more expanded sanctions against all Iranian banks.
Lieberman, Graham and Kirk and why not Mccain should be charged with treason
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
