Fix HCR-362

Here's something from the "issue I should have been following" file -- it seems there's a measure working its way through the congress, House Concurrent Resolution 362, that, though non-binding, could be construed as expressing the sense of the congress that the president ought to use military force against Iran. Specifically, force to impose a blockade on Iran -- an act of war. The folks pushing the resolution deny that this is their intent, but they also seem disinclined to modify the language. Now Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) who was originally one of the cosponsors of the bill has a HuffPo item urging that the resolution by altered or rejected.

This all comes to me via Justin Logan who sensibly asks why Wexler was cosponsoring it in the first place (answer: because the decision to sign on to non-binding resolutions is often made thoughtlessly and at a relatively low level of a legislative operation), which is of course a good point, but still it's good work on Wexler's part to turn around here and draw some attention to the problem.

Comments

The resolution is still in the Foreign Affairs Committee. It has 231 co-sponsors. MY is right that most of those signed on without really thinking it through. The best thing for the Democrats to do would be for Pelosi to convince Chairman Ackerman to sit on the measure and not have his committee consider it. That way, it dies and no one loses face by having to withdraw their support.

Posted by Claudius | July 10, 2008 10:21 AM

could be construed as expressing the sense of the congress that the president ought to use military force against Iran

Do words have independent meaning?

If the people who sign on to the language agree that it is not intended to advocate use of violence, how could anyone believe that it does, if fact, advocate violence?

And since it has no legal effect - being non-binding and all - the extent of its effect is as a signal of the intent of those who sign on to the resolution. Since those people have clarified that their intent is not to advocate violence, I don't see how it could ever have the effect of signalling anyone's intent to advocate violence.

Posted by Al | July 10, 2008 10:40 AM

Please, no more fig leaves for this administration.

"Sure we blockaded Iran, escalated violence, and managed to get us into yet a third simultaneous war, but the House supported my actions."

--George W. Bush, Nov. 16, 2008

Posted by LFC | July 10, 2008 10:49 AM

Al, let's get Congress to sponser a resolution denying you food along with the means for anyone including yourself to gain access or deliver food to you. It is the written sense of the Congress that the President should pursue this policy. Then get everyone to emphatically state it isn't their intention that you starve. Of course you'll concur at that point no one in Congress means you any ill will. Right?

Posted by steve duncan | July 10, 2008 11:10 AM

Yglesias once again proves to be a fraud journalist.

This Bill was written by AIPAC and that is the reason so many Reps signed on immediately.

The large amount of Reps backing this bill is not due to it's "non-binding" status, total bullshit. If it was for a "non-binding" resolution for the eradication of welfare or abortion, there would not be 200 plus co-sponsors.

The large support for this bill is due to The Israel Lobby. Get some balls and report the truth.

Posted by del | July 10, 2008 11:20 AM

The self-proclaimed anti-war movement is an obstacle to a pacific resolution of this crisis, to the extent that it portrays Iran as behaving reasonably. The regime is not behaving reasonably: it is deceitful, it is fiercely antisemitic, and it explicitly anticipates the extinction of a member state of the UN. We can't and mustn't accommodate this.

Posted by burning flock | July 10, 2008 1:11 PM

The self-proclaimed anti-war movement is an obstacle to a pacific resolution of this crisis, to the extent that it portrays Iran as behaving reasonably. The regime is not behaving reasonably: it is deceitful, it is fiercely antisemitic, and it explicitly anticipates the extinction of a member state of the UN. We can't and mustn't accommodate this.

Posted by burning flock | July 10, 2008 1:14 PM

burning flock, is it illegal or in violation of any treaties to think or speak in a manner giving evidence you are antisemitic? If this is so in some societies should those laws be duplicated in the United States?

Posted by steve duncan | July 10, 2008 1:55 PM

Matt: "This all comes to me via Justin Logan..."

If you'd read my emails sent to you every night, Matt, it would have come to you a hell of a lot sooner.

That said, about time you noticed this. I've only been bitching about it in posts here for the last two weeks.

And Del is right - this is entirely AIPAC-sponsored legislation. That has been admitted up front. Once again it's been proven that AIPAC can command the actions of a majority of the US Congress, no matter how insane the results for US national security.

Moron Al might try reading Wexler's HuffPo post - he's one of the co-sponsors of the bill and HE doesn't like it because it precisely allows Bush to both initiate an act of war and then claim Congress supported the resulting war. This is even more blatant than the AUMF.

Burning Flock: You're full of shit. It has never talked about "the extinction" of Israel, except as a Zionist state as opposed to a Palestinian state.

I repeat my points from an Iran thread yesterday. There are thousands of Jews living in Iran, they support Iran (if not the mullahs), and they have a minister in the Iranian parliament. They are not persecuted at all - which makes hash of your "fiercely antisemitic" crap.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 10, 2008 6:14 PM

"Iran has never talked about "the extinction" of Israel," (Hack)

"Ahmadinejad’s statements have also been reviewed by experts on the Middle East and the Persian language.
Michael Axworthy served as the Head of the Iran Section of Britain’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 1998-2000 and then subsequently as a lecturer at the Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies at the University of Exeter. He clearly rejects the notion that Ahmadinejad has been mistranslated and misinterpreted: “The
formula had been used before by Khomeini and others, and had been translated by representatives of the Iranian regime as ‘wiped off the map.’ Some of the dispute that has arisen over what exactly Ahmadinejad meant by it has been rather bogus. When the slogan appeared draped over missiles in military parades, that
meaning was pretty clear.”50 Viewed in context, the statements of Iran’s leaders and, in particular, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad constitute incitement to genocide of the people of Israel. They are alarmingly similar to the coded statements
of incitement that preceded the Rwandan genocide of the Tutsis in 1994,51 and should therefore alarm all
peace-loving peoples."

http://www.jcpa.org/text/ahmadinejad2-words.pdf

___________

"there are thousands of Jews living in Iran.... They are not persecuted at all" (Hack)

"In a 1979 meeting with five of the Iranian Jewish community leaders, Khomeini summarized his position on the local Jews in one of his quintessentially coarse one-liners: “We recognize our Jews as separate from those godless Zionists.” The line has served as the regime’s position on the Jewish minority ever since. So important were these words that they were painted on the walls of nearly every synagogue and Jewish establishment the day after the ayatollah spoke them.

It did not prevent Jews from being relegated to second-class citizenry, nor did it enable them to thrive in post-revolutionary Iran. But it recognized the legitimacy of the Jewish existence in Iran and allowed the community to live on, albeit extremely restrictedly."

http://www.forward.com/articles/13602/

Posted by burning flock | July 11, 2008 10:16 AM