Pelosi, Bush, Congress, Iran, War

[MsMagnificent]

I just read in someone's comments (not on this site) that 'Nancy Pelosi is the one who removed an amendment from the Defense spending bill requiring the President to get approval from Congress before invading Iran', and this 'was done at the request of AIPAC, after attending their conference'.

On one of the DU boards discussing this issue at the time I had asked, along with other posters same queries, Why this was done and by Whom
Nothing.

I did a search 'Pelosi Bush Iran Congress' and this did not come up on DU. I did a search on the web and it does indeed appear to be real.

Was this known? If so, why was it ignored here of all places?

I'm extremely confused... does anyone know what the story is here?

[Redstone]

1. Maybe because it never happened?

Redstone

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Double T]

8. It does appear to be real..............

no wonder bush and pelosi are picnicking together.

[acmavm]

2. No, but I'm sure as hell bookmarking this thread so I can check back and

see if anyone does have some info on this.

If that is true, Pelosi needs to go.

[Sparkly]

3. Did the person making that claim have a link backing it up? nt

[MsMagnificent]

9. No

but I posted some links I found above.

[GeorgeGist]

4. I found this on Think Progress

Pelosi promises vote on Iran war measure.

House members this week removed language from the Iraq spending bill (which was passed by committee yesterday) that would require President Bush to get congressional authorization for any war against Iran. But CQ reports:

On March 13, the same day House Appropriations Chairman David R. Obey, D-Wis., said he had removed the Iran provision from the draft war spending measure, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., quietly promised Appropriations Committee Democrats that she would soon bring the measure up as a stand-alone bill, said James P. Moran, D-Va., who attended the meeting in Pelosi’s suite

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/16/pelosi-promises-vote-on-iran-war-measure/

[Independent_Liberal]

5. If it came from Tom Flocco, that wouldn't surprise me. He makes shit up all the time.

[april]

6. I hope this is wrong info..

[MsMagnificent]

10. And so it dies... but one last question

Did Nancy Pelosi ever give the WHY of 'Impeachment being off the table', or was that put out as a proclamation for the edification of us (we?) riff-raff who dared to desire those in this administration to be held to the the same Rule of Law that any other American would be held to;
as if they were somehow equal in the eyes of the law?

I never heard an official explanation of Why.
I've heard such things like 'time constraints' et.al. bandied about but never anything seemingly official...

[slipslidingaway]

11. Kucinich at the South Carolina debate, is he lying???

http://kucinich.us/node/4415

"When you consider that last month the Congress took out of the Iraq Supplemental appropriation a provision that would have required congressional approval of a military attack on Iran, Senator Obama's faulty analysis and his mischaracterizations license an attack. This is the same kind of disastrous, faulty thinking that led us into war against Iraq and raises serious questions about Senator Obama's judgement on matters of national security."

[MsMagnificent]

13. I think he's our only hope

But he appears unelectable, at least for POTUS.

Why?
Not tall enough? Not good looking enough? Not beer-drinkable-with? Not charismatic? (which Ms. Hillary isn't either, but she's got the big dog behind her so gets quite a bump just being so closely associated).
Actually *gasp* speaks the Truth?!


I'll bet 100-1 that there would be no way Lincoln could be elected in these times.
Gangly, homely, weirdo wife... nope, no way.

What is wrong with the American people?
With this kind of behavior, do we indeed get what we deserve? --which isn't much.


BTW -- I HAD posted links found on Google (post number 7) but they were taken down
I don't know why... wrote and asked, maybe I'll find out :shrug:
If somebody knows the reason, would they please tell me?
I'm assuming one of those links included one of those few he-who-must-not-be-named here on DU (or I'd post the names of the authors).
I remember writing the mod's and asking who's banned from being mentioned here just so I was aware and wouldn't mention them ever, but they wouldn't even tell me.
How is one to know? Strange.

[slipslidingaway]

16. Agree, I think he is the only hope for a real change in direction.

In regards to post #7, I'm almost afraid to say anything :(

Going back to the Iran provision in the supplemental bill guess we'll never know for sure who it was exactly that won that battle and whether or not there were outside influences.

Trying to Stay Out of Iran

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070423/corn

"Some Democratic legislators were looking to cut Bush off at the pass. "Once burned, shame on you; twice burned, shame on me," says liberal Representative Jim McDermott. But as John Larson, vice chair of the House Democratic caucus and co-sponsor of a similar Iran measure, recalls, "A funny thing happened on the way to the forum." The Iran provision was pulled out of the Iraq bill.

Appropriations Committee chair David Obey, who had drafted the Iran provision, had an explanation for disappointed fellow Democrats: He had concluded that it was poorly written and Bush could easily circumvent it. But several conservative Blue Dog Democrats had complained about limiting Bush's options regarding Iran, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, looking for votes to pass the Iraq War spending bill, decided to appease them. (Her calculation paid off: The bill passed on a 218-to-212 vote.) Days after the Iran measure was yanked, an upset McDermott spoke at a meeting of House Democrats. "We have to make a decision," he recalls saying, "whether to leave this guy with a blank check." Pelosi promised they'd have the chance to vote on the issue."

[slipslidingaway]

12. Dems Abandoning Stance Against Iran War

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/13/dems-abandoning-stance-against-iran-war/

"Top House Democrats retreated Monday from an attempt to limit President Bush's authority for taking military action against Iran as the leadership concentrated on a looming confrontation with the White House over the Iraq war.

Officials said Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other members of the leadership had decided to strip from a major military spending bill a requirement for Bush to gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran.

Conservative Democrats as well as lawmakers concerned about the possible impact on Israel had argued for the change in strategy.

Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks is equally mad and wants names. He got them, too:

UPDATE — We now know the leader of the pack. Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.) led the charge to kill off the Iran provision."



From the C&L link above where they mention Allen Boyd 'leading the charge' to kill the Iran provision, not sure if anyone contacted him or not.


Securing Iraq Votes, One at a Time
House Democratic Leaders Methodically Build Support for War Plan

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 11, 2007; A06

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/10/AR2007031001300_pf.html

"Through closed-door meetings, pep rallies, private phone conversations and horse trading, Democratic leaders are moving outward from the 180 solid votes in the party's political center to win the votes on the party's left and right that will be needed to pass the bill later this month.

For Nadler's vote, it meant a provision for enforcement. For the backing of Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), it was language prohibiting an attack on Iran without congressional authorization...

The cajoling will continue tomorrow as lawmakers return to Washington and the legislation is readied for markup later in the week. But there are roadblocks: Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.) said some conservatives are withholding their support until the language McDermott wanted is removed."



Yahoo link is no longer active, here is the USA Today link.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-03-14-1716691145_x.htm

"The Iran-related proposal stemmed from a desire to make sure Bush did not launch an attack without going to Congress for approval, but drew opposition from numerous members of the rank and file in a series of closed-door sessions last week.

Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said in an interview there is widespread fear in Israel about Iran, which is believed to be seeking nuclear weapons and has expressed unremitting hostility about the Jewish state...

Several officials said there was widespread opposition to the proposal at a closed-door meeting last week of conservative and moderate Democrats, who said they feared tying the hands of the administration when dealing with an unpredictable and potentially hostile regime in Tehran."

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. Here is more info

I write about both this and the lack of support Webb is getting in the Senate on the same measure in a blog I did:

"Dems divided over requiring approval for attacking Iran" Huh?!?
http://www.aleftturnforclark.com/2007/04/dems_divided_over_requiring_ap.html

One source link is to a story in "The Hill" that talks about both:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dems-divided-over-webbs-proposal-requiring-approval-for-attacking-iran-2007-04-17.html


The following coverage has more details about Pelosi's role:


Dems abandon Iran war authority provision
Test vote on Sept. 1, 2008 Iraq withdrawal scheduled for Thursday

Updated: 10:07 a.m. ET March 13, 2007

WASHINGTON - Democratic leaders are stripping from a military spending bill for the war in Iraq a requirement that President Bush gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other leaders agreed to remove the requirement concerning Iran after conservative Democrats as well as other lawmakers worried about its possible impact on Israel, officials said Monday...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17590680/

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. I also posted my blog about this at DU in April by the way

I think 8 people commented besides myself:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3229030

And I assure you that was not the only time I wrote about Democrats becoming enablers of the next war same as they were of the last one. Most DUer's, outside of a number of Clark supporters who have been talking about the threat of war with Iran constantly for over two years now, just haven't been making this a priority. Lieberman's call for bombing Iran is finally making some activists wake up and smell the dark roast esspresso.

You may also be interested in this Diary that I posted on Kos yesterday:

“If we want a war with a billion Muslims we can probably have one.” - Wes Clark
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/23/133937/363

It got over 350 comments. More activists are starting to pay attention to the threat of war with Iran. Hopefully we still have time to do something about it.

[slipslidingaway]

18. FWIW... Report: IAF preparing for Iran strike

Thanks, will read your DK diary later.

I could care less about houses and haircuts at this point, the possibility of an air strike on Iran is a bit more important to me.


http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1182409614270&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

"The Israeli Air Force (IAF) has been training on long-range flights, including refueling in mid-flight, in preparation for potential strikes against Iranian nuclear targets.

The training program has been taking place for some time but has only been released for publication Friday, the Ma'ariv daily reported."


“Leave Us Alone,” Iranian Reformers Say

http://www.progressive.org/node/4253

“Democracy cannot be imported, nor can it be given to a people by invading their nation, nor by bombing them with cluster bombs. It must be indigenous,” says Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian human rights advocate who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003.

“Iranians will not allow a single U.S. soldier to set foot in Iran,” declares Ebadi, and this is a woman who has been imprisoned by Iran’s hardliners and is constantly harassed for her work on behalf of political prisoners...

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. "I could care less about houses and haircuts at this point"

Exactly. The potential for true disaster flowing out of a U.S. attack on Iran is of a magnitude few have bothered to really contemplate. These campaign "blips" truly pale by comparison. There is still massive denial going on about what is and is not realistic to worry about. I think you will like the kos Diary - it confronts the worst case scenario and explores why it is not so improbable.

[slipslidingaway]

20. Great diary and if Iran is attacked no doubt we will see more

terrorist activities here and in Europe. As recent articles have pointed out Iraq has been an ideal training ground for terrorists, both in terms of urban combat and 'training' against the best military in the world.

The issue of starting a larger war that will be difficult to remove ourselves from is exactly what many neocons desire and unfortunately there are too many willing to follow them down this path :(

Seeking to avoid a confrontation with Iran should be a top priority, happy to see you received many replies on DK.

Prepare for the worst and hope for the best.:toast:

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. We need to be at least as active as the war hawks

They are trying to ride fears of a nuclear armed Iran into another war. We need to warn people what the real consequences of an attack on Iran are likely to be. Four out of the five of my most recnet Kos Diaries. You can find them on my Kos home page:
http://www.dailykos.com/user/Tom%20Rinaldo

[slipslidingaway]

22. Thanks! n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. I screwed up my post but you still got it, lol

It was too late to edit when I figured out that a few words got dropped. I meant 4 out of 5 of my most recent kos diaries dealt with preventing war with Iran. I guess it wasn't so hard to figure that out from context.

And thank you for keeping this issue alive on DU recently.

[slipslidingaway]

24. lol and I read it correctly, thank you! n/t

[slipslidingaway]

17. Thanks, there are several bills or amendments which seek

to clarify an attack on Iran, unfortunately they keep getting pushed to the rear :(

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/house-dems-indicate-they-are-more-united-on-iran-legislation-2007-05-15.html

"House Democratic leaders initially attempted to insert Iran language in their now-vetoed Iraq supplemental bill, but abandoned the plan after some New York Democrats, including Reps. Eliot Engel and Gary Ackerman, balked at the language...

After striking the language, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) promised several members, including Reps. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), and Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.), that she would allow for an up-or-down vote on an Iran amendment, though it is unclear which amendment or amendments will be voted on...

But a new amendment by Rep. Robert Andrews (D-N.J.) could attract the most votes. His measure would prevent funds authorized in the bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from being obligated or expended to plan a contingency operation in Iran...

“I think it is more imperative than ever,” said DeFazio. “There are ongoing assertions from the Bush administration that either the Iraq authorization or the 9/11 authorization allows the president a free hand in Iran… Dick Cheney is starting to beat the war drum.”
DeFazio, together with Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Hinchey, offered an Iran amendment while Hinchey also offered separate language."