Senate to vote on Iran resolution on Wednesday

[tsai3904]

The resolution was amended in a Senate Foreign Relations hearing in April (changes in bold). I'm thinking Rand had something to do with it and that he'll probably vote for the resolution.

S. RES. 65

Strongly supporting the full implementation of United States and international sanctions on Iran and urging the President to continue to strengthen enforcement of sanctions legislation.

SECTION 1. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

Congress--

(1) reaffirms the special bonds of friendship and cooperation that have existed between the United States and the State of Israel for more than sixty years and that enjoy overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress and among the people of the United States;

(2) strongly supports the close military, intelligence, and security cooperation that President Obama has pursued with Israel and urges this cooperation to continue and deepen;

(3) deplores and condemns, in the strongest possible terms, the reprehensible statements and policies of the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran threatening the security and existence of Israel;

(4) recognizes the tremendous threat posed to the United States, the West, and Israel by the Government of Iran's continuing pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability;

(5) reiterates that the policy of the United States is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon capability and to take such action as may be necessary to implement this policy;

(6) reaffirms its strong support for the full implementation of United States and international sanctions on Iran and urges the President to continue and strengthen enforcement of sanctions legislation;

(7) declares that the United States has a vital national interest in, and unbreakable commitment to, ensuring the existence, survival, and security of the State of Israel, and reaffirms United States support for Israel's right to self-defense; and

[Struck out->] (8) urges that, if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in self-defense, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence. [<-Struck out]

(8) urges that, if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self-defense against Iran's nuclear weapons program, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide, in accordance with United States law and the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence.

SEC. 2. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war.

 

[Warlord]

That's a lot better than I feared.

The worst thing this week out of that committee is going to be the arming and funding of Al Qeada and the Osama bin Laden brigades:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...d-Bob-Menendez-to-arm-Osama-bin-Laden-Brigade

 

[Brett85]

I hope he votes against it. We don't need yet another 80 page thread arguing about something Rand did.

 

[Sola_Fide]

#standwithIsrul

 

[Christian Liberty]

C'mon Rand, you can vote against this crap, and you should.

 

[Brett85]

This should be a vote that Ron's foreign policy group scores for their ratings, and Rand should lose points in the rating system if he votes for it.

 

[tsai3904]

I hope he votes against it. We don't need yet another 80 page thread arguing about something Rand did.

I think he'll vote for it given his support for sanctions on Iran, his statement about an attack on Israel is..., and the change that he made to the bill in (8).

 

[Brett85]

I think he'll vote for it given his support for sanctions on Iran, his statement about an attack on Israel is..., and the change that he made to the bill in (8).

This bill doesn't mention "an attack on Israel." The bill is stating that our government should help Israel carry out a preemptive attack against Iran.

 

[Sola_Fide]

This should be a vote that Ron's foreign policy group scores for their ratings, and Rand should lose points in the rating system if he votes for it.

Yeah. Going to be interesting to see how that plays out in the coming years.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

(1) reaffirms the special bonds of friendship and cooperation that have existed between the United States and the State of Israel for more than sixty years and that enjoy overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress and among the people of the United States;

I'm tired of being "forced" by congress. They should leave me out of their bullshit. They didn't ask me, nor do they care.

 

[tsai3904]

The bill is stating that our government should help Israel carry out a preemptive attack against Iran.

Now that you mentioned that, I re-read the change in (8) and noticed that the word "legitimate" was added before self-defense (most likely by Rand).

 

[PSYOP]

If Rand votes for the resolution I'm not voting for him in 2016. Period.

 

[Warlord]

This should be a vote that Ron's foreign policy group scores for their ratings, and Rand should lose points in the rating system if he votes for it.

I dont think he's worried too much about that.

A lot of the GOP base want war and that's who he needs to win over. Sad but true.

 

[tsai3904]

If Rand votes for the resolution I'm not voting for him in 2016. Period.

This is a non-binding resolution. He's already voted for sanctions. Wouldn't a vote for sanctions be worse than this non-binding resolution?

 

[Brett85]

I dont think he's worried too much about that.

A lot of the GOP base want war and that's who he needs to win over. Sad but true.

And I suppose the GOP war mongers are going to fund his campaign?

 

[Brett85]

I'm not going to criticize him until he actually votes for it. I'm holding out hope that he'll vote against it since he was one of the few Senators who didn't co-sponsor it.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

This is a non-binding resolution. He's already voted for sanctions. Wouldn't a vote for sanctions be worse than this non-binding resolution?

If they just wanted to give Israel a blow job, they could do that in private (on their own time and dime) and leave our country out of it.

 

[Warlord]

And I suppose the GOP war mongers are going to fund his campaign?

No but Rand has to look somewhat hawkish to your average USA, USA, USA pro-war voter in IA and SC.

 

[Sola_Fide]

A lot of the GOP base want war and that's who he needs to win over. Sad but true.

Then they are a bunch of murderers and you are a supporter of murder like them if you give consent to that type of thinking. Don't you see the evil of that?

 

[Brett85]

No but Rand has to look somewhat hawkish to your average USA, USA, USA pro-war voter in IA and SC.

He's already voted for sanctions. People can't claim that he just wants to "do nothing" and "allow Iran to get nuclear weapons" when he's voted for the sanctions.