Iran Freedom Support Act to Pass US Senate with 21 Democratic Cosponsors

Thank you to the WhatReallyHappened reader who has alerted me to the fact that Rick Santorum has already introduced the “Iran Freedom Support Act” in the US senate and with 58 cosponsors the vote is only a formality. It turns out we have 21 democrats to thank for this act’s easy passage and wouldn’t you know it the AIPAC
website has the list of cosponsors. The following Democrats COSPONSORED this bogus legislation including the infamous Barbara Boxer, known as the only Democrat in the senate to stand up for democracy when challenging the election November 2004.

Daniel Akaka (HI)
Max Baucus (MT)
Evan Bayh (IN)
Barbara Boxer (CA)
Maria Cantwell (WA)
Kent Conrad (ND)
John Corzine (NJ)
Mark Dayton (MN)
Byron Dorgon (ND)
Richard Durbin (IL)
Dianne Feinstein (CA)
Tim Johnson (SD)
Herb Kohl (WI)
Mary Landriew (LA)
Carl Levin (MI)
Joe Lieberman (CT)
Lincoln Blanche (AR)
Barbara Mikulski (MD)
Ben Nelson (NE)
Bill Nelson (FL)
Debbie Stabenow (MI)
http://benfrank.net/blog/2006/05/04/iran_freedom_support_act_to_pass_us_senate_with_21_democratic_cosponsors/

house already passed it...
House votes 397-21 for “Iran Freedom Support Act”
http://benfrank.net/blog/2006/04/27/iran_resolution_democracy_sanctions_progressive_caucus/

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

sounds too familiar

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

nt

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

It had conditions which weren't met, but it authorized war if they were.

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

http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

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

Been there, done that. The wheel keeps turning round and round. More death. Hurray!

and most people do support freedom for Iran. What is so wrong with this?

And how will it be achieved? Are you serious?

What would you have Democrats do? Vote against something titled the "Support Freedom in Iran" Resolution? Yeah! Like that wouldn't bite Democrats in the A$$ this fall.

None of the frickin Congress people read the crap their voting on. Do you expect the American people to take a three hour break from the NBA finals, or American Idol to read what's in this resolution?

Vote against this and you'll see nothing but millions of 30 second ads run in every "blanking" district, for every "blanking" seat from Senator to Dog Catcher that will have nothing but a black and white picture of the Dem candidate, scary music, and a sinister voice over that simply says; "so and so voted against Freedom in Iran", then bright sunshine, streaming flags, and cute smiling white children with a freindly voice over saying; "Rebuplican so and so supports Freedom".

It's a blanking useless piece of legislation that is designed for one reason, and one reason only. Its a transparent attempt to give the Repukes a hammer to hit Democrats over the head with this fall. That's it.

Coming from Santorum, you know it's crap.

It would be like the Dems being in power, and submitting a resolution that says "woman who are raped should not be forced to have the rapist baby", and calling it the "Freedom from Rape" resolution. How many Repub sponsors do you think that would get? Or would you expect them to come out in support of rapist?

Get a grip on how the game is played, or stand by for permanent minority status.

That doesn't mean that Dems can't get up and smack Santorum around a little bit about this rediculous waste of time and paper.

Fuck them all. Im so sick of these assholes I dont know where to turn.

“Pro-Israel lobbyists on Capitol Hill are cajoling members of Congress to support the Iran Freedom Support Act, which would expand the existing American sanctions on companies that invest more than $20 annually in Iran’s oil and gas sectors. The bill would tighten sanctions on companies that invest in Iran’s energy industry in the hopes of blocking money that could be used to produce nuclear arms.

The bill also provides for assistance to pro-democracy forces within Iran, and funding for independent media broadcasts to the country. The House of Representatives’ Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Florida Republican, and Howard Berman, a California Democrat, are sponsoring the proposed legislation. The sponsors of the Senate version are Rick Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican, and Evan Bayh, an Indiana Democrat.”

http://www.forward.com/main/printer-friendly.php?id=4004

The canary is dying.

NT

What is the purpose? What reason is there to have a resolution in the Congress of the United States by this title? What is in it that is the people's business?

can say they don't want to vote for that, but they already voted to support freedom in Iran peacefully.

If it were up to me, Congress would explicitly prohibit an attack on Iran, but it's not up to me.

Same type of statements and so forth preceeding the eventual regime change in Iraq policy and ultimately, the IWR. As far as using the MEK and other various terrorist groups in Iran, sanctions, and such, is judged by most in the world as working to provoke war (and in some instances is).

and blivet** would just "signing statement" himself right around it.

ARRRGGGHHHH

We need to start with Boxer and find out WHY she is supporting this crap.

what right do we have to be 'spreadin freedom'?

The Democrats expect us to do whatever we can to get them elected so that when they have control of congress they will hold Bush accountable but is that really the case? Nancy Pelosi who ‘leads’ the Democrats in the House isn’t really interested in impeachment

“We want oversight and checks and balances,'’ Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said she told the caucus. “That certainly isn’t being done in this Congress (under Republican control). Impeachment was never her interest.'’….In a memo sent to supporters this week, Pelosi stressed her priorities in the new Congress if Democrats win — raising the minimum wage, implementing all recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission, cutting subsidies for oil companies, reducing student loan rates and making prescription drugs more affordable.

Those are all great issues to look at if if we didn’t have a governnment sending our troops to commit war crimes in illegal wars and threatening to do more of the same. But that doesn’t seem to bother the democrats in congress very much because most of them just voted for the “Iran Freedom Support Act” including John Conyers who we are expecting to hold Bush accountable come November? Barbara Boxer, another progressive ‘leader’ is cosponsoring the act in the senate and with 21 democratic cosponsors it is sure to pass. Not only are the democrats letting Bush off the hook, they are continuing to enable him.

Most other ‘democrats’ do not support impeachment. With a clear majority of the American people supporting impeachment, the ‘democrats’ are worried about the 30% backwash coming out in droves to support Republicans in order to defend Bush. So what if they did? That is only a small percentage. Why would anyone cater to the backwash? True patriotic Americans, both Democrats and Republicans, have had it with this regime. Why is anyone worried about the last few delusional followers of Bush?

I am a democrat, not a green....but this guy says it well...

senate candidate Rae Vogeler(WI)
“If the history of the Iraq conflict tells us anything, it is that the results of regime change in Iran will be disastrous,” Vogeler said. “The U.S. economy will slide deeper into debt and possibly recession. The Middle East will slide further into chaos. The U.S. will be further isolated internationally. There will be greater anger among 1.2 billion Muslims from the Middle East to the South Pacific. Oil prices will continue to skyrocket. There will be more pointless death and destruction.”

“I am very concerned, perhaps more than our current administration and Senator Kohl, about the dangers of nuclear proliferation,” added Vogeler. “The U.S has more nuclear weaponry than any other nation. We have ten thousand nuclear war heads and Iran has none. Let’s stop nuclear proliferation by beginning to disarm here at home.”

“Sanctions on Iraq destroyed millions of Iraqi lives,” added Vogeler. “Economic sanctions are the ultimate weapons of mass destruction and the first strike in almost any war.”

but what percentage of the vote is Vogeler expected to get? 10%, 15%, 18%?

I'm not trying to pee in your Wheeties, but we have to be realistic. Today, whether we like it or not, is the age of the "short attention span". If you can't do a 30 second ad, the American people, or at least a majority that will get back the House and Senate, will not listen to you.

By all logic and reason, John Kerry should have beaten George W. Bush like a "red-headed stepchild". The biggest mistake of his entire campaign was the statement "I did vote for it, before I voted against it?" IMHO, that cost Kerry enough votes to lose the election.

If you took the time to do some research about the vote he is talking about, his answer made perfect sense. He voted for the resolution, but when it came back up, the funding for our troops was going to corporations like Haliburton, and he voted against it.

The reason for his vote didn't matter, because all that the American people that could not pull themselves away from Desperate Housewives for more than 30 seconds heard was John Kerry (in his own words) saying "I did vote for it, before I voted against it". It became a joke, and a perfect vehicle for the opposition to label him as a "flip-flopper".

Take that to the bank. The destruction of America was brought to you, in part, by a 2 second statement.

I just like what he has to say

WAY more important than this Truthout stuff.