Republican Representative introduces bill requiring Congress to OK attack on Iran.

[Roland99]

Key part of the article deals with the 2nd half of the headline:

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Video_Recent_US_actions_could_signal_0112.html

In the U.S. House today, Republican Rep. Walter Jones (NC) introduced a resolution requiring the President "to receive congressional authorization to use military force against Iran," reports McClatchy Newspapers.

"The resolution requires that – absent a national emergency created by an attack, or a demonstrably imminent attack, by Iran upon the United States or its armed forces – the President must consult with Congress and receive specific authorization prior to initiating any use of military force against Iran," Rep. Jones said in a press release.

"Today, there is a growing concern – justified or not – that some U.S. officials are contemplating military action against Iran," Jones continues. "This resolution makes it crystal clear that no previous resolution passed by Congress authorizes such use of force. The Constitution of the United States declares that, while the Commander in Chief has the power to conduct wars, only Congress has the power to authorize them."

[BayCityProgressive]

1. GO JONES!

I can get behind this GOP bill!!!

[originalpckelly]

2. On this issue, this man has seen the light. Last year...

I remember he was the only person in the GOP to show up at a hearing about the war, which the Democrats held. He seems like one of the good ones, at least when it comes to this.

[NovaNardis]

6. See!

Not ALL Republicans are insane. There are about 15% that think Bush is bat-shit insane, like the rest of us do. It's only natural that some of them would be in office.

[Skittles]

24. if only 15% of them agree bush is insane

they still suck

[MoonRiver]

50. 15% and counting.

Those who want to survive politically will move to the other side of the isle. It's cynical, but I'll take their support to stop this cabal.

[ryanmuegge]

59. Well, the Republicans since Reagan and a little before aren't Republicans

Nearly all of them have strayed so much from their traditional principles that they are Republicans in name only. And, yes, 99.9% of them are evil and have an agenda of concentration of all power in the hands of economic elites and private tyrannies. Almost all of them DO stand for that, therefore 99% are fucking insane.

[bobbolink]

63. Welcome to DU, NovaNardis!

:toast:

Wouldn't that be cool if 15% are ready to vote for impeachment?!

:hi:

[Roland99]

7. I remember that hearing!

[Randy Ranger]

11. NOW THATS WHAT I CALL A BIPARTISAN BILL1

Every Dem had better get behind this one or be ready to explain them selves

[ClintonTyree]

34. Even our "Independent Democrat"....

Joe Lieberman? :eyes: Good luck there. Holy Joe has aligned himself with the neo-cons and he's not going to budge. He sees the entire "Bush doctrine" as beneficial to Israel. Sometimes I feel that Lieberman is more loyal to Israel than the United States, at least that's my impression.

[peacetalksforall]

43. He's Israel's man - right wing Israel. There are some who seek peace.

Right wing America and right wing Israel - war bound and bound by war and aggression.

[Faryn Balyncd]

56. Jones is an ally on MORE THAN THE WAR ...... On the Medicare Prescription.....

Jones is an ally on MORE THAN THE WAR ...... Yesterday, on the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007, Jones spoke these words passionately: (broadcast on C-SPAN, and available on page H445 of the Congressional Record.)

Mr. JONES of North Carolina:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4 , the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act, a bipartisan bill to allow the Federal Government to negotiate the best price on prescription drugs for our seniors.

The current Medicare prescription drug law prohibits the Federal Government from negotiating the best prescription drug prices for Medicare's 43 million beneficiaries.

Mr. Speaker, let me share with the House a practical example of how severe the problem of rising prescription drug prices is for our seniors. A woman from my district in eastern North Carolina saw her monthly prescription bill go from $6 per month to almost $60 a month. She spoke to a local TV station and said she would not have money for food if she had to pay that much each month. From $6 to $60 a month.

Mr. Speaker, the American people want us to pass this legislation. In a recent poll, 92 percent of Americans voiced their support for this bill. Ninety-two percent of the American people.

I have read reports that the President has pledged to veto this legislation. Sadly, yet again, the President is not listening to the American people.



Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill with support from both sides of the aisle and the support of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, it is time that this House listens to the American people, and it is time that this administration listens to the American people. And it is time for this House and the President to listen to this woman who represents millions of people across this Nation whose bill is going to go from $6 to $60 a month.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the House will pass this legislation, and I hope that we will have the number of votes to override the President's veto.



--------

(Deep links to the Congressional Record don't work, but you can go to Thomas http://thomas.loc.gov/ , then click on "Congressional Record" in the left sidebar, then, when the new page comes up, enter "h445" in Search, then click on page h445.)

Many conservatives, such as Walter Jones, have recognized that, on many issues today, historical conservatives have more in common with today's progressives than they with our "Unitary Executive" president, and his neocon, crony capitalist enablers. Some conservatives, such as Jones, are realizing that GOP crony capitalism is a poor substitute for the real thing, and is downright un-American.

Though such historical conservatives as Walter Jones (as well as many libertarians) have substantial differences with progressives, there are multiple areas of common ground: unending war, unrestrained executive power, the rule of law, the renunciation of civil liberties by today's GOP, the substitution of crony capitalism for true free Enterprise (to name but a few).

And, on some such issues, progressives have more in common with such historical conservatives, than with pseudo-centrist warmongers such as Joe Lieberman.

The support of such historical conservatives was, in fact, a factor in Webb's 7,000 vote victory, and consequently, in the control of the Senate.


* * * *


In the future, utilizing such common ground where it exists will be a factor, not only in the defeat of the Bushites, but in re-establishing American democracy, and the solidifying the new Democratic majority.

[ncrainbowgrrl]

65. and also on our side on CAFTA (n/t)

[porphyrian]

3. I'll kick that, even if I still don't trust republicans. - n/t

[Spiffarino]

19. Jones is one of the few we can trust on this issue

His district includes Fort Bragg, which is home to one heckuva lot of soldiers. They are his constituents and he looks after them. He may be silly (remember "freedom fries?") but he cares about those soldiers. He deserves credit.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

25. He made a 180 degree turn a couple of years ago

Jones regrets the Freedom Fries nonsense and actually gives a shit about the troops, unlike many in the GOP.

[jmowreader]

74. He's got a base in his district, but it's not Fort Bragg

Rep. Jones serves NC-3, which is the northern part of the NC coast.

His base is Seymour Johnson AFB in Goldsboro. He cares about Fort Bragg and Pope AFB, even though they're not in his district.

The congressmen serving Fort Bragg and Pope AFB (which lies right on the northern edge of the Fort Bragg cantonment area) are Bob Etheridge (NC-2), Mike McIntyre (NC-7) and Robin Hayes (NC-8).

[Spiffarino]

75. You're right. My mistake.

I thought his district was further south. There are so many bases on that side of the state. After seventeen years in the Western part the Eastern half still confuses me. The worst part is that my cousin still lives in Fayetteville. I should have asked him.

[Benhurst]

4. Good for him! NT

[SeattleGirl]

5. Wow!

That's great. I hope it passes with a large majority.

[drm604]

8. Let's hope it passes both houses with veto-proof majorities! n/t

[Junkdrawer]

9. There's a loophole big enough to sail an aircraft carrier through...

"absent a national emergency created by an attack, or a demonstrably imminent attack, by Iran upon the United States or its armed forces"

[Roland99]

12. Well, barring fake sat. photos like they used in 1991...

it's a pretty good start to keep their hands off the trigger for a bit.

[Junkdrawer]

14. I think they're putting a bunch of dominoes in place...

that "ends" with a massive conventional and nuclear attack on Iran. And the events will take place with startling rapidity when they start and will contain lots of justifications so that Congress will find difficult it to stop the madness. Lots of Rooks will be sacrificed in this chess game.

BTW: "Ends" is in quotes because, of course, such an attack will settle nothing.

[Roland99]

16. Bills like this can keep those dominoes from falling over.

[johnaries]

31. I AGREE! That "exception" fits perfectly.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3111547&mesg_id=3111547

Everyone write your Congressman - do NOT vote for this resolution unless that exception is REMOVED!

It's a trap, plain and simply.

[bananarepublican]

71. But what if the Iranians start killing incubator babies?

Saddam was accused of this as part of Poppy's run up to GWI. Thankfully, the level of scepticism within this country is at rarified atmosheric levels.

[BlackVelvet04]

13. That was pretty much what I was going to say and you beat

me to it. I would feel a whole lot better about it if that were removed.

[BR_Parkway]

33. Not a Trap - read the War Powers Act passed in the early 70's

this is consistent with what that law requires. What Jones is doing here is putting it into the law that the previous vote allowing Bush to attack Iraq does NOT include permission to attack Iran. This bill, along with the War Powers Act still allows the President to say "shoot back" if someone is shooting at us without his having to go to Congress and ask first, but he does still need to have it authorized within 60 days by Congress or stand down

Jones has done a huge about face on this whole issue/misadministration. He's always over at Walter Reed, I think he truly feels guilt over seeing what has been done to those kids for Bush's lies. He's trying set things right and apparently, trying to contain the Idiot in Cheif. His father was well known and well liked Dem here in the state and Jones is certainly the kind of Republican that we've been missing the past few years when the wingnuts took over.

It would be a big mistake to automatically assume that every person with an R behind their name is evil, just as it is for all the Freepi out there to assume that every Dem wants to snatch their babies from the womb, force them into a same sex marriage and tax them at 95% rates.

When the investigations happen and the public voice demands impeachment and removal - I have every confidence that Jones will vote the same way that we would.

[Roland99]

37. That's the part I liked. That the IWR did NOT authorize attacking Iran.

But it does leave the door open for a modern-day Gulf of Tonkin

[The Wizard]

38. Like intentionally blowing up an aircraft carrier

with a silk worm missile as a pretext for another war. Don't put anything past them. The Decider's reign is in its last throes. Like cornered rats, they are dangerous.

[uppityperson]

61. No, like proving it will happen. Like proving it was ok to bomb Somalia, or there were WMDS in Iraq.

[bananarepublican]

72. You should change your name to The Wise Wizard!

I agree 100%, "... you can't put anything past them".

[peacetalksforall]

46. You're right - it should say -

. created by an attack from Iran
. demonstrably imminent attack from Iran using nuclear missiles or devices
. demonstrably imminent attcck from Iran using nuclear missiles or devices on the United States

Way too broad - is the wording something that can be amended before the vote?

Or will that slow the momentum and stall it?

[uppityperson]

60. oh hell and damn them anyways. Why do they always do loopholes like this?

I want that part out. "demonstrably imminent attack"? No. No way.

[Jacobin]

76. Exactly. this is a fucking LICENSE to attack Iran W/O approval

Egads, people, read the goddamned thing

[eleny]

10. Reminds me of Watergate

Back when Republicans dealt with Nixon to stop him.

[clmbohdem]

26. That is what I was thinking

the past few days has been one Republican after the next jumping ship. I bet within a couple of months we will see Republicans calling for Impeachment.

[and-justice-for-all]

15. Congress will give this bill...

...A big "FUCK THAT SHIT!"

every DEM should wipe their ass with the bill and hand the bill back to'em as their answer.

[stevedeshazer]

17. Walter 'Freedom Fries' Jones

I never thought in a million years he'd be on my side of any issue.

[Spiffarino]

18. Representative Fries sees the light!

Section 1: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
- Article I of the United States Constitution

Bush/Cheney are screwed if this becomes law. If the two war-ons pull it off it will spark a constitutional crisis. The Constitution is crystal clear: Congress makes the law. Even the insane Reichwingers on the SCOTUS would have to walk away from the cabal on this issue.

[no_hypocrisy]

20. A good gesture, but I'm afraid it's closing the barn door after the horse

has run out. * already signed a note to himself on presidential stationary, authorizing him to bully, provoke, and persecute Iran in a variety of ways that will lead to Iran pushing back, and * claiming the right to "defend this country".

[no_hypocrisy]

21. A good gesture, but I'm afraid it's closing the barn door after the horse

has run out. * already signed a note to himself on presidential stationary, authorizing him to bully, provoke, and persecute Iran in a variety of ways that will lead to Iran pushing back, and * claiming the right to "defend this country".

[w4rma]

22. Very good. Pass this quickly. (nt)

[helderheid]

23. RIGHT ON!

[historicaljoe514]

27. bipartisanship?

The first signs in years? Amazing.

[MasterDarkNinja]

28. Wow, that's a brilliant idea!

I just hope that the loophole in it 'The resolution requires that – absent a national emergency created by an attack, or a demonstrably imminent attack' doesn't end up becoming it's undoing if it's passed. We all know how Bush tried to make the American people think that Iraq was getting ready to nuke us, if he wants a war with Iran then he'll try to lie us into it.

[johnaries]

29. WAIT! The "fine print" is scaring me.....

I've already expressed that I'm afraid that Bush is moving forces into the gulf under the guise of "wargames" to goad Iran into an "attack".

Look at this bill again:

"The resolution requires that – absent a national emergency created by an attack, or a demonstrably imminent attack, by Iran upon the United States or its armed forces – the President must consult with Congress and receive specific authorization prior to initiating any use of military force against Iran,"

So, Congress must approve action unless our armed forces are attacked or threatened. Actually, isn't that already the case? And, if we are "attacked" or threatened, can it be intrepreted that this wording would give Bush the authority to act WITHOUT Congressional approval?

As the Trojas say, Beware of Greeks bearing gifts...

[lonestarnot]

36. Me too!

This freak should never ever be provided with any wiggle room. Snakes can writhe through the smallest of small holes.

[yojon]

41. I wonder if the loophole is intentional

They will have a bunch of aircraft carriers parading around the Gulf with large red targets on the side sending out morse code messages "Come on, make my day" in Farsi. They will raid every Iranian consulate this side of the border and maybe a little on that side of the border. * will moon Amidi Najad on their holy day. They they will feign surprise when the war-like Iranians attack.

[johnaries]

57. I think it is intentional. I think it's the whole reason for this resolution.

In essence, it gives Bush authority to strike without Congressional approval if he creates a Gulf of Tonkin incident.

I think you're absolutely right.

[Styve]

78. The Jones Resolution is a Rovian ploy!!

The whole Jones resolution thing is bullshit, and it is just a way for the GOP to manipulate public perception of Bush's prospective response to a false flag event, and the imminent nuclear attack on Iran.

Read below, and you can see that, as noted above, the loophole is set..."absent a national emergency created by an attack, or a demonstrably imminent attack, by Iran upon the United States or its armed forces".

And how about the delineation of the applicable Constitutional requirements, which they plan to "heed", only by creating the "national emergency" which would allow Bush to forego consultation with Congress?!?!

These thugs should hang in the public square!!

S
-------------

Rep. Walter Jones (NC) introduced a resolution requiring the President "to receive congressional authorization to use military force against Iran," reports McClatchy Newspapers.

"The resolution requires that – absent a national emergency created by an attack, or a demonstrably imminent attack, by Iran upon the United States or its armed forces – the President must consult with Congress and receive specific authorization prior to initiating any use of military force against Iran," Rep. Jones said in a press release.

"Today, there is a growing concern – justified or not – that some U.S. officials are contemplating military action against Iran," Jones continues. "This resolution makes it crystal clear that no previous resolution passed by Congress authorizes such use of force. The Constitution of the United States declares that, while the Commander in Chief has the power to conduct wars, only Congress has the power to authorize them."

[rodeodance]

45. big loophole for bush to waltz through

[NYC Liberal]

53. The first part is iffy, the second part shoud DEFINITELY not be there:

"demonstrably imminent attack"

Yeah, just like they "proved" Iraq was an imminent thread, when in fact it wasn't And they fooled a lot of people (apparently in Congress, too.)

Too easy to get thru.

[johnaries]

58. Yep, and notice how it particularly points out threat to our troops.

This language is too carefully orchestrated. This is dangerous.

[uppityperson]

62. seems redunant to me, no loophole.

[johnaries]

64. How so?

:shrug:

[uppityperson]

66. can't bush already attack if our armed forces are attacked/or immeinently?

Can't he already do this?

Ah, looking and musing, not just the military but the USA. I have been confused on this thread. Let's see if I can get it together coherently.

I thought he could attack if the military were attacked (hence no loophole). If he feels USA is threatened, he can attack without approval and I disagree with that (loophole).

[Bicoastal]

30. This guy has come a long way from his awful "Freedom Fries" campaign.

Yup, that was him. He says now the whole thing was a terrible mistake and" if he knew then what he knows today," he wouldn't have voted in favor of the Iraq war.

It may or may not be worth mentioning the other Republican congressman in the "freedom fries" gambit was ex-rep, now-jailbird Bob Ney.

[LuckyX]

32. I blame the voters

I won't call them retards, I call them pure ass evil. Moneyists who fell for the Madison Avenue made for TV Cowboy with swagger and a rich Daddy. They allowed this to happen and since I am not a Christian I do NOT forgive them, for me they are accountable and will be held so.

[Yukari Yakumo]

35. Nice thought, won't matter.

Since when does Chimpy actually obey the rule of law?

[roguenkatz]

40. Exactly...

Two words: SIGNING STATEMENT!

[Toots]

39. Oh how quaint

The Constitution say.......Doesn't he know we have a Decider now? The Constitution says....:rofl: :rofl:

[Heywood J]

42. This bill needs a provision attached

"Violation of this statute is a high crime."

That way, even * can understand the consequences and implications, and there's no excuse.

[StrictlyRockers]

44. Good news! nt

[WiseButAngrySara]

47. Excuse me, but isn't this already IMPLICIT in the Constitution?

So this is a bill requesting that the President give back to Congress the Constitutional Authority that they already HAVE?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

48. Since Bush is running roughshod over the Constitution, reaffirmations like this are a GOOD thing,

IMHO.

[WiseButAngrySara]

52. Yes, I quess it's a good thing to make Congress look like

"Indian Givers" with our Constitutional Rights! We gave B* absolute power and sovereignty and now we want it back!

[Zhade]

68. Could we please not use a racist phrase like that?

I (and my relatives, I'm sure) find it extremely offensive.

I know you didn't intend harm, but that's a repugnant saying.

[WiseButAngrySara]

70. why I put it in quotes.. thanks for realizing I meant no harm.

Historically it has no justification whatsoever! I don't even know the origin of the phrase, but we all know what it means, and it has nothing to do with your relatives.

[peacetalksforall]

49. What we need is for some radio or tv network to have a

marathon anti-war weekend or week or month - play the music from Vietnam, show the documentaries and movies, interview the vets, show the Memorial

And intersperse it all with what we already have on Iraq and talk about what we don't have - no photos of our dead kids coming home. There are plenty of documenaries and some music and plenty of overpass signs and demonstration film.

Is there a station or network that could do this?

How about a weekend of programming and show it every weekend until those ships pull out and the nuclear missles of Israel and the U.S. are put away?

Iranians don't deserve this in spite of their leaders and radicals and radical murderers. Their little people don't deserve this just as we don't deserve our leaders, radicals, and radical murderers - the ones who send our kids to do it.

[leveymg]

51. They may just be able to craft a veto-proof resolutiion.

I wonder how many other Republicans would come on board with this?

[kitty1]

54. The imminent attack is easy enough to arrange. Rremember Aftghanistan

was attacked in October 2001 after having been planned out many months in advance. 9/11 just provided the catalyst to go in there and get the job done. For an Iran attack justification, all it would take is for a prearranged attack on a U.S. or British embassy to take place. Have all the bogus evidence come out to show that the bomb had Iran's fingerprints all over it, and presto you have motive to attack Iran.
It could be an Israeli building also, which is even more credible since the Pres stated he wanted Israel wiped off the map. The more destruction and atrocity involved, the better.

[orleans]

55. jeez...didn't they demonstrate an imminent attack on us by iraq with

all of saddam's wmds?

the loophole in this just encourages us to hit iran.

[Raydawg1234]

67. Bush will say that he has to attack Iran to protect the troops in Iraq

their logic will conclude that Iran's material support for insurgents consitutes an attack on American forces.

and then, anyone who opposes the attack on Iran will be portrayed as not supporting the troops.

Come on now, in their minds there already is an imminent attack.

[Rosco T.]

69. This man is an AMERICAN, a Republican, not a neo-con...

there is a difference.

[meuniermr]

73. Isn't this resolution non-binding..

which makes the whole bill much ado about nothing?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

77. Bush won't take any notice of this