Senate to vote on Iran resolution on Wednesday

[Christian Liberty]

did you finally read the bill? because those are some pretty strong assertions you are making there.

I'm not talking about that other bill that Rand voted against. I'm talking about THIS bill. And yes, I read it in the OP.

 

[DylanWaco]

Still waiting for you to post the text of the resolution you keep referring to. Maybe I missed it?

AIPAC would have loved it if Rand voted against this resolution. It would create a nice news cycle for slamming him, particularly after his polling numbers have been climbing steadily.

You can call him a flip flopper if that's your argument but the rest of this thread is full of such hyperbole that it's impossible to take you seriously.

The AIPAC bit has to be consistent or it needs to be retired.

You can't argue "AIPAC would have lost there shit if he had voted no here!" when he voted no on the previous AIPAC written bill (and was the only one to do so) and when he went the way he did on Syria the day before this vote.

I understand that "he has to avoid the smear" is a convenient excuse for this vote, but it doesn't explain the previous vote, his stance against AIPAC hardline policy on Syria yesterday, et.

 

[devil21]

Rand may well oppose preemptive war, but he just voted for a resolution that justifies it.

Oh really? Far be it from me to defend Israel but the resolution says Israel's "self-defense", which implies defending oneself against an acting aggressor. Nothing about preemptive war to be found in this resolution. In fact, it says that the resolution is NOT an authorization for war, preemptive or otherwise. Why do you and TC keep repeating the same falsehoods in this thread???

Man up and vote principle. Don't vote for Rand Paul.

You're getting desperate. Im afraid to ask who you think is a better alternative at this point.

 

[Brett85]

Still waiting for you to post the text of the resolution you keep referring to. Maybe I missed it?

AIPAC would have loved it if Rand voted against this resolution. It would create a nice news cycle for slamming him, particularly after his polling numbers have been climbing steadily.

You can call him a flip flopper if that's your argument but the rest of this thread is full of such hyperbole that it's impossible to take you seriously.

This is a summary.


http://legiscan.com/US/bill/SJR41/2011

"Reaffirms that the U.S. government and the governments of other responsible countries have a vital interest in working together to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. Warns that time is limited to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. Urges economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran until it implements: (1) suspension of uranium enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and is in compliance with U.N. Security Council resolutions, (2) cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) concerning Iran's nuclear activities, and (3) a permanent agreement that verifiably assures that Iran's nuclear program is peaceful. Supports: (1) the P5+1 process, (2) the universal rights and democratic aspirations of the people of Iran, and (3) U.S. policy to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. Joins the President in ruling out any policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to the Iranian nuclear threat. States that nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war."

 

[cero]

I'm not talking about that other bill that Rand voted against. I'm talking about THIS bill. And yes, I read it in the OP.

good then how does this bill support sending thousands of men and women to go fight in Iran, if Israel attacks Iran's nuclear reactors?

 

[Brett85]

What I have trouble with some is they don't take into account Rand's body of work (his speeches, votes, etc.).

I do, and I'm not saying that I don't support Rand overall. I just think he made an absolutely terrible vote here, and I'm calling him out on it.

 

[Christian Liberty]

The wording there is tricky. I think you COULD use that to say the preemptive war is justified but its not as obvious as the one in the OP...

 

[Christian Liberty]

Primarily section 5, also section 8.

 

[cero]

The wording there is tricky. I think you COULD use that to say the preemptive war is justified but its not as obvious as the one in the OP...

could you please point me to the wording, and where the trickiness ensues... please

 

[devil21]

The AIPAC bit has to be consistent or it needs to be retired.

You can't argue "AIPAC would have lost there shit if he had voted no here!" when he voted no on the previous AIPAC written bill (and was the only one to do so) and when he went the way he did on Syria the day before this vote.

I understand that "he has to avoid the smear" is a convenient excuse for this vote, but it doesn't explain the previous vote, his stance against AIPAC hardline policy on Syria yesterday, et.

I still don't even know what this previous vote was on! STILL NO ONE POSTS THE TEXT! Did it say that the US can just go bomb Iran without Congressional authorization? Do you think AIPAC would be in a hurry to shout that from the rooftops to smear Rand for his vote? "Hey everyone, Rand Paul hates Jews because he didn't vote for carpet bombing Tehran without Congressional approval!"

I wish people would stop referring to a resolution that hasn't even been posted. I didn't say every resolution is offered for targeting purposes, just that some of them are. The one he voted against before may have actually been policy related while this one not. It's possible.

 

[Brett85]

I still don't even know what this previous vote was on! STILL NO ONE POSTS THE TEXT! Did it say that the US can just go bomb Iran without Congressional authorization? Do you think AIPAC would be in a hurry to shout that from the rooftops to smear Rand for his vote? "Hey everyone, Rand Paul hates Jews because he didn't vote for carpet bombing Tehran without Congressional approval!"

I wish people would stop referring to a resolution that hasn't even been posted. I didn't say every resolution is offered for targeting purposes, just that some of them are. The one he voted against before may have actually been policy related while this one not. It's possible.

Post #324 is a summary. I can try to find the entire text if you want.

 

[tsai3904]

Daniel McAdams' (Ron's foreign policy advisor) insight on the resolution:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/137889.html

 

[Christian Liberty]

Oh really? Far be it from me to defend Israel but the resolution says Israel's "self-defense", which implies defending oneself against an acting aggressor. Nothing about preemptive war to be found in this resolution. In fact, it says that the resolution is NOT an authorization for war, preemptive or otherwise. Why do you and TC keep repeating the same falsehoods in this thread???



You're getting desperate. Im afraid to ask who you think is a better alternative at this point.

It really doesn't matter. I'd sooner simply write down Laurence Vance's name simply to give the ultimate middle finger to the neocons. I hope we'll have a good enough LP or CP candidate I can vote for but if not I'd sooner write someone in than vote for Rand.

 

[devil21]

This is a summary.


http://legiscan.com/US/bill/SJR41/2011

"Reaffirms that the U.S. government and the governments of other responsible countries have a vital interest in working together to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. Warns that time is limited to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. Urges economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran until it implements: (1) suspension of uranium enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and is in compliance with U.N. Security Council resolutions, (2) cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) concerning Iran's nuclear activities, and (3) a permanent agreement that verifiably assures that Iran's nuclear program is peaceful. Supports: (1) the P5+1 process, (2) the universal rights and democratic aspirations of the people of Iran, and (3) U.S. policy to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. Joins the President in ruling out any policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to the Iranian nuclear threat. States that nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war."

Forget the summary. Here is the actual text.

http://gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112sjres41es/pdf/BILLS-112sjres41es.pdf

JOINT RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the nuclear
program of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Whereas, since at least the late 1980s, the Government of the
Islamic Republic of Iran has engaged in a sustained and
well-documented pattern of illicit and deceptive activities
to acquire nuclear capability;
Whereas the United Nations Security Council has adopted
multiple resolutions since 2006 demanding the full and
sustained suspension of all uranium enrichment-related
and reprocessing activities by the Government of the Is-
lamic Republic of Iran and its full cooperation with the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on all out-
standing issues related to its nuclear activities, particu-
larly those concerning the possible military dimensions of
its nuclear program;
Whereas, on November 8, 2011, the IAEA issued an exten-
sive report that—
(1) documents ‘‘serious concerns regarding possible
military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme’’;
(2) states that ‘‘Iran has carried out activities rel-
evant to the development of a nuclear device’’; and
(3) states that the efforts described in paragraphs
(1) and (2) may be ongoing;

Whereas, as of November 2008, Iran had produced, accord-
ing to the IAEA—
(1) approximately 630 kilograms of uranium
hexaflouride enriched up to 3.5 percent uranium-235;
and
(2) no uranium hexaflouride enriched up to 20 per-
cent uranium-235;
Whereas, as of November 2011, Iran had produced, accord-
ing to the IAEA—
(1) nearly 5,000 kilograms of uranium hexaflouride
enriched up to 3.5 percent uranium-235; and
(2) 79.7 kilograms of uranium hexaflouride enriched
up to 20 percent uranium-235;
Whereas, on January 9, 2012, IAEA inspectors confirmed
that the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran had
begun enrichment activities at the Fordow site, including
possibly enrichment of uranium hexaflouride up to 20
percent uranium-235;
Whereas section 2(2) of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions,
Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (Public Law
111–195) states, ‘‘The United States and other respon-
sible countries have a vital interest in working together
to prevent the Government of Iran from acquiring a nu-
clear weapons capability.’’;
Whereas if the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran
were successful in acquiring a nuclear weapon capability,
it would likely spur other countries in the region to con-
sider developing their own nuclear weapons capabilities;
Whereas, on December 6, 2011, Prince Turki al-Faisal of
Saudi Arabia stated that if international efforts to pre-
vent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons fail, ‘‘we must,
as a duty to our country and people, look into all options
we are given, including obtaining these weapons our-
selves’’;
Whereas top leaders of the Government of the Islamic Repub-
lic of Iran have repeatedly threatened the existence of the
State of Israel, pledging to ‘‘wipe Israel off the map’’;
Whereas the Department of State has designated Iran as a
state sponsor of terrorism since 1984 and characterized
Iran as the ‘‘most active state sponsor of terrorism’’;
Whereas the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has
provided weapons, training, funding, and direction to ter-
rorist groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Shiite
militias in Iraq that are responsible for the murders of
hundreds of United States forces and innocent civilians;
Whereas, on July 28, 2011, the Department of the Treasury
charged that the Government of Iran had forged a ‘‘se-
cret deal’’ with al Qaeda to facilitate the movement of al
Qaeda fighters and funding through Iranian territory;
Whereas, in October 2011, senior leaders of Iran’s Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force were im-
plicated in a terrorist plot to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s
Ambassador to the United States on United States soil;
Whereas, on December 26, 2011, the United Nations General
Assembly passed a resolution denouncing the serious
human rights abuses occurring in the Islamic Republic of
Iran, including torture, cruel and degrading treatment in
detention, the targeting of human rights defenders, vio-
lence against women, and ‘‘the systematic and serious re-
strictions on freedom of peaceful assembly’’ as well as se-
vere restrictions on the rights to ‘‘freedom of thought,
conscience, religion or belief’’;

Whereas President Barack Obama, through the P5+1 proc-
ess, has made repeated efforts to engage the Government
of the Islamic Republic of Iran in dialogue about Iran’s
nuclear program and its international commitments
under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons, done at Washington, London, and Moscow July
1, 1968, and entered into force March 5, 1970 (com-
monly known as the ‘‘Nuclear Non-Proliferation Trea-
ty’’);
Whereas representatives of the P5+1 countries (the United
States, France, Germany, the People’s Republic of China,
the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom) and
representatives of the Islamic Republic of Iran held nego-
tiations on Iran’s nuclear program in Istanbul, Turkey on
April 14, 2012, and these discussions are set to resume
in Baghdad, Iraq on May 23, 2012;
Whereas, on March 31, 2010, President Obama stated that
the ‘‘consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran are unaccept-
able’’;
Whereas in his State of the Union Address on January 24,
2012, President Obama stated, ‘‘Let there be no doubt:
America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nu-
clear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to
achieve that goal.’’;
Whereas, on March 4, 2012, President Obama stated ‘‘Iran’s
leaders should understand that I do not have a policy of
containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtain-
ing a nuclear weapon’’;
Whereas Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta stated, in De-
cember 2011, that it was unacceptable for Iran to ac-
quire nuclear weapons, reaffirmed that all options were

on the table to thwart Iran’s nuclear weapons efforts,
and vowed that if the United States gets ‘‘intelligence
that they are proceeding with developing a nuclear weap-
on then we will take whatever steps necessary to stop it’’;
Whereas the Department of Defense’s January 2012 Stra-
tegic Guidance stated that United States defense efforts
in the Middle East would be aimed ‘‘to prevent Iran’s de-
velopment of a nuclear weapons capability and counter its
destabilizing policies’’; and
Whereas, on April 2, 2012, President Obama stated, ‘‘All the
evidence indicates that the Iranians are trying to develop
the capacity to develop nuclear weapons. They might de-
cide that, once they have that capacity that they’d hold
off right at the edge in order not to incur more sanctions.
But, if they’ve got nuclear weapons-building capacity and
they are flouting international resolutions, that creates
huge destabilizing effects in the region and will trigger an
arms race in the Middle East that is bad for U.S. na-
tional security but is also bad for the entire world.’’:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives
1
of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2
SECTION 1. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
3
That Congress—
4
(1) reaffirms that the United States Govern-
5
ment and the governments of other responsible coun-
6
tries have a vital interest in working together to pre-
7
vent the Government of Iran from acquiring a nu-
8
clear weapons capability;

(2) warns that time is limited to prevent the
1
Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from ac-
2
quiring a nuclear weapons capability;
3
(3) urges continued and increasing economic
4
and diplomatic pressure on the Islamic Republic of
5
Iran until the Government of the Islamic Republic of
6
Iran agrees to and implements—
7
(A) the full and sustained suspension of all
8
uranium enrichment-related and reprocessing
9
activities and compliance with United Nations
10
Security Council resolutions;
11
(B) complete cooperation with the IAEA
12
on all outstanding questions related to the nu-
13
clear activities of the Government of the Islamic
14
Republic of Iran, including the implementation
15
of the additional protocol to Iran’s Safeguards
16
Agreement with the IAEA; and
17
(C) a permanent agreement that verifiably
18
assures that Iran’s nuclear program is entirely
19
peaceful;
20
(4) expresses the desire that the P5+1 process
21
successfully and swiftly leads to the objectives identi-
22
fied in paragraph (3), but warns that, as President
23
Obama has said, the window for diplomacy is closing

(5) expresses support for the universal rights
1
and democratic aspirations of the people of Iran;
2
(6) strongly supports United States policy to
3
prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of
4
Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability;
5
(7) rejects any United States policy that would
6
rely on efforts to contain a nuclear weapons-capable
7
Iran; and
8
(8) joins the President in ruling out any policy
9
that would rely on containment as an option in re-
10
sponse to the Iranian nuclear threat.
11
SEC. 2. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
12
Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an
13
authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war.
14
Passed the Senate September 22 (legislative day,
September 21), 2012.

So now let's determine just how different this really is.

 

[Brett85]

So now let's determine just how different this really is.

I think the point is that Rand doesn't vote a certain way on these resolutions for political reasons, as you and others seemed to be saying earlier. If he voted a certain way for political reasons, he would've voted in favor of the last AIPAC resolution, since he received a lot of criticism from AIPAC and other organizations for that vote. So the only conclusion that makes sense is that Rand simply didn't have any problem with the text of this resolution.

 

[devil21]

Biggest difference I note immediately is that the one Rand voted against has absolutely not a single mention of Israel in it. Maybe that's why AIPAC wouldn't use that as a smear since it's supposed to be about America "defending" from Iranian nukes and nothing whatsoever about Israel?

Hmmm.......

 

[Brett85]

Daniel McAdams' (Ron's foreign policy advisor) insight on the resolution:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/137889.html

That's a much harsher criticism of this resolution than I've made.

 

[devil21]

Awwww....I point out that the resolutions are completely different and the one Rand voted for today is likely a deliberate smear set-up attempt by AIPAC, all the loudmouth anti-Rand turbo posters get quiet? Well that's no fun. I like watching yall squirm.

Well played Rand. This guy is smart.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Biggest difference I note immediately is that the one Rand voted against has absolutely not a single mention of Israel in it. Maybe that's why AIPAC wouldn't use that as a smear since it's supposed to be about America "defending" from Iranian nukes and nothing whatsoever about Israel?

Hmmm.......

So he puts Israel first like everyone else here? No thanks...

Nehanyathu wants to get off our aid but we won't let them, imagine that. I think Rand Paul officially hates Iran more than Nehanyathu does (Arguably America too, by extension.)

That's a much harsher criticism of this resolution than I've made.

Daniel was completely correct. I mean, I suppose Rand COULD vote against the next one, but why would he? He'd tick off the precious neocons and he's already lost part of his father's base through his own idiocy.

Heck, I still don't know if he's being a moron or a genius. If he's willing to do whatever it takes to get in, distancing himself from us and his dad and becoming a mainstream Republican is probably wise. I just don't think we'll like what we see once he gets in.

Good luck guys, but Daniel McAdams hit the nail on the head on this one. Rand Paul cannot be trusted, end of story.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Awwww....I point out that the resolutions are completely different and the one Rand voted for today is likely a deliberate smear set-up attempt by AIPAC, all the loudmouth anti-Rand turbo posters get quiet? Well that's no fun. I like watching yall squirm.

Well played Rand. This guy is smart.

I was pro-Rand YESTERDAY. I wasn't anti-Rand. Rand LOST my vote.