AIPAC resolution demanding war with Iran on House floor

[chilcutt]

On tuesday, the House of representatives is slated to vote on a resolution designed to tie the Presidents hands on Iran policy.
The resolution which is coming up under Expedited House Proceedure was the centerpiece of AIPAC's recent conferance. In fact, 13,000 AIPAC delegates were dispatched to Capitol Hill, with instructions to tell the Senators and Representatives whom they met that supporting this resolution was #1 on AIPAC's election year agenda.

www.informationclearinghouse.info

[Botnst]

I tried reading the source. Couldn't do it.

[Txjake]

"The other reason is that the resolution is non-binding. Voting for it is good politics but does not affect policy."

meh, another pile of steaming dung from the people who think everything is a vast right wing, pro corporate conspiracy. Just as bad as the tinfoil hat black helicopter crowd....

[Honus]

Originally Posted by Txjake

"The other reason is that the resolution is non-binding. Voting for it is good politics but does not affect policy."

meh, another pile of steaming dung from the people who think everything is a vast right wing, pro corporate conspiracy. Just as bad as the tinfoil hat black helicopter crowd....

What do you mean? This resolution comes from AIPAC, hardly an anti-right-wing group, so I suppose you are referring to the people who have expressed alarm about the resolution. If so, I still don't follow you. The resolution is non-binding, but it certainly is newsworthy, isn't it?

[MS Fowler]

Non-binding means, "doesn't really mean crap".
If you really mean something, make it law--or at least make the effort.

[Honus]

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Non-binding means, "doesn't really mean crap".
If you really mean something, make it law--or at least make the effort.

Then I guess you don't think Congress should waste its time passing a budget. It's nothing more than a non-binding resolution.

I see no problem with Congress going on record with its view on a particular issue. They do it all the time. In this case, I disagree that it "doesn't really mean crap" that a majority of the House of Representatives agrees with zealots who think that we might need to go to war with Iran. If that's not newsworthy, then I don't know what is.

[t walgamuth]

Seems like a bad idea calculated to create more trouble for the President to deal with.

[Botnst]

Oh pshaw. IN an election year?

Just as he wouldn't return the favor.

[MTI]

Speaking of Legislative Time Killers - 28 to 1 Vote By Lousiana State Senators

The measure already passed the state house.

[Yak]

Originally Posted by chilcutt

On tuesday, the House of representatives is slated to vote on a resolution designed to tie the Presidents hands on Iran policy.
The resolution which is coming up under Expedited House Proceedure was the centerpiece of AIPAC's recent conferance. In fact, 13,000 AIPAC delegates were dispatched to Capitol Hill, with instructions to tell the Senators and Representatives whom they met that supporting this resolution was #1 on AIPAC's election year agenda.

www.informationclearinghouse.info

Found the article. Can't say it means much. I didn't know what AIPAC was, and the author never said, so I'd have to conclude the article was written for a select audience who already had their minds made up about the issue.

Presidents ignore non-binding resolutions all the time. Most Americans do, too. The people who care are politicians who need to bluster in order to get campaign contributions or not appear "weak on Iran." That's about all the resolution means.

But I have to say whoever wrote the contentious sentence needs to work on her grammar. I've read it a half dozen times and can't figure out what it means. Is the President supposed to reaffim his opposition to a containment policy after Iran gets a nuke? Is he supposed to oppose the policy? I mean, if the words are that important, shouldn't they be clear?

In other ceremonial, non-binding voting:

WASHINGTON -- A ceremonial vote over whether to end subsidies to major oil companies failed on Tuesday, with 45 Republicans and three Democrats voting to continue the tax incentives to the five largest oil companies.

And

Republicans will offer a ceremonial vote on their own on Wednesday, when the Senate will vote on a bill to expand offshore drilling. That bill, offered by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is also expected to fail.

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by MTI

Speaking of Legislative Time Killers - 28 to 1 Vote By Lousiana State Senators

The measure already passed the state house.

Hey! Yer getting personal!

[cmbdiesel]

Originally Posted by MTI

Speaking of Legislative Time Killers - 28 to 1 Vote By Lousiana State Senators

The measure already passed the state house.

Free Sean Peyton!!

[Botnst]

If Sean Penn could play guitar Eric Clapton would have called him god.

[chilcutt]

Originally Posted by Yak

Found the article. Can't say it means much. I didn't know what AIPAC was, and the author never said, so I'd have to conclude the article was written for a select audience who already had their minds made up about the issue.

Presidents ignore non-binding resolutions all the time. Most Americans do, too. The people who care are politicians who need to bluster in order to get campaign contributions or not appear "weak on Iran." That's about all the resolution means.

But I have to say whoever wrote the contentious sentence needs to work on her grammar. I've read it a half dozen times and can't figure out what it means. Is the President supposed to reaffim his opposition to a containment policy after Iran gets a nuke? Is he supposed to oppose the policy? I mean, if the words are that important, shouldn't they be clear?

In other ceremonial, non-binding voting:



And

Thank you for helping to navigate through all of the words. I was struck by the fact all of these politicians/lobbiests etc.. are actually being fed by the American tax dollar to be up there on Capitol Hill discussing so many issues.
At least this was a learning experiance for you in terms of now knowing what AIPAC represents.

[Jim B.]

Originally Posted by MTI

Speaking of Legislative Time Killers - 28 to 1 Vote By Lousiana State Senators

The measure already passed the state house.

Maybe they should worry about being the armpit of the U.S. Corrupt, dirty, unhealthy, obese, drunk and stupid are just a few of the issues that Louisiana’s legislature should focus on