Paul Claims Pelosi Spiked Iran Bill

[Electro]

Republican or Democrat, they just can't get their heads beyond "wars for Israel". The door is now wide open for Bush or McCain to unilaterally attack Iran with no resistance from Congress. This would take the heat of the Dems just a little bit, such that we couldn't come back and quiz Hillary on why she voted for war with Iran, for example.

Representative Ron Paul says House Speaker Nancy Pelosi removed a section from a bill passed by Congress which would have barred the U.S. from going to war with Iran without a congressional vote, claiming she did so at the behest of the leadership of Israel and AIPAC.

Paul, a former Republican presidential contender who formally removed himself from the party’s nomination race last week, makes the allegation on C-SPAN during a recently held foreign policy conference in Virginia.

Paul says Pelosi’s first act as House Speaker in 2006 was to “deliberately” remove a portion of a legislative spending bill which said the United States “can't go to war with Iran without getting approval from Congress.”

According to Paul, Pelosi and her allies in the chamber's Democratic leadership initially accepted the bill designed to outline an Iraq exit strategy, but during a revision of the legislation excluded the statement regarding the need for congressional approval of any military assault on the neighboring country of Iran.

“She [Pelosi] removed it deliberately,” Paul says. “And then, the astounding thing is, when asked why, she said the leadership in Israel asked her to. That was in the newspaper, that was in 'The Washington Post,' that she was asked by AIPAC and others not to do that." [....]

Paul's allegation is corroborated by 'The Asia Times', which in another article published at the time says AIPAC was strongly against attaching "a provision to a Pentagon spending bill that would require President Bush to get congressional approval before attacking Iran. AIPAC was strongly against it because it viewed the legislation as taking the military option 'off the table.' The provision was killed."

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/paul ... 05652.html

[The Collective.]

If Lisbon is magically ratified, can Ron Paul be the European President?

[fergalr]

Between the Constitution and the War Powers Act, a Congress with political will can stomp on a President hard enough, in that regard. Though, to be frank, there's no harm having all options on the table and for the Iranians to realise this.
There cannot be a nuclear Iran. It would destabilise the ME worse than a dozen Israels.

[Universal_001]

She also helped pass a new FISA act, which grants retroactive immunity to phone companies who ILLEGALLY spied on US citizens, all this at the request of the president....

and she was supposed to be the most Liberal speaker in decades? member of the progressive cacus?
No wonder congress has a 14% approval rating.

[youngdan]

She ran the election of 2006 on the promise of impeachment and ending the war. Next morning she announced that impeachment was off the table.

[Universal_001]

She ran the election of 2006 on the promise of impeachment and ending the war. Next morning she announced that impeachment was off the table.

She NEVER promised impeachment.

[youngdan]

She didn't but these were the two everriding issues in the election which led to the dem gains. After the election neither were acted on and after the next election the war will not be stopped either.

[Fear Dorcha]

Between the Constitution and the War Powers Act, a Congress with political will can stomp on a President hard enough, in that regard. Though, to be frank, there's no harm having all options on the table and for the Iranians to realise this.
There cannot be a nuclear Iran. It would destabilise the ME worse than a dozen Israels.

The leading cleric in Iran says that nuclear weapons are anti-islam? We know that he is taken seriously in Iran and that the clerics hold ultimate power there. Why is it as so hard for you to have a little bit of trust? The only countries beating this particular nuclear Iran drum are countries that have and continue to attack other countries, unlike Iran of which it is commonly accepted to never have done. And don't bother with your "they're supplying hezbollah, hamas etc", how many countries, paramilitaries etc has the "west" been supplying over the years. Who is the most destabilising influence in the ME in recent history? Certainly not Iran and anyone with half a brain knows that.

[gendjinn]

Don't forget that Bush recently authorized the transfer of nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia. I haven't seen the details of the tech transfer and whether SA will be developing their own enrichment program or not. I do know that many of those accusing Iran of wanting nuke tech to develop a bomb rather than their stated claim of electricity generation claim that a country with such large oil reserves doesn't need nuclear as an energy source.

Sooooo, if you have oil and therefore only reason you could possibly want nuclear tech is to get the bomb where does that leave the Saudis? Are the US really giving Saudi the bomb? It makes (insane) strategic sense. Remember that Hussein's Iraq was the balance of power in the ME prior to Gulf War I - they were a Sunni bulwark against Iran as well as a counterbalance to Israel. When the US took them out in 92 the US became the de facto holder of the balance of power in the region. Bush two has ************************************ that up royally and has created a new Shia state which has closer ties to Iran than the Sunni states of Jordan, Syria, Saudi, etc. It'll be interesting to see if this development pushes the Sunni states to make peace with Israel and unite against the "common foe" Iran.

[Thac0man]

Sooooo, if you have oil and therefore only reason you could possibly want nuclear tech is to get the bomb where does that leave the Saudis?

Wiiiiith an open, transparent civilan nuclear program that is fully complient with the IAEA?