According to Congressional Quarterly, some of the same Democrats most vehement about ending the Iraq debacle are resisting denying the President unilateral authority to go to war in Iran. The hypocrisy is astounding.
As everyone knows, House and Senate Democrats are trying to put together an Iraq war spending bill that will pressure the President to bring the troops home sooner rather than later. There is a general consensus on most issues relating to Iraq. However, the authoritative Congressional Quarterly daily report reveals today that some Democrats are fighting Speaker Pelosi's language which would prevent the President from going to war in Iran without the approval of Congress. Simply put, Pelosi wants to avoid a repeat of the Iraq experience in Iran. For Dems, this is a no-brainer, or so one would think.
But, according to CQ some of the same Democrats most vehement about ending the Iraq debacle are resisting denying the President unilateral authority to go to war in Iran. The hypocrisy is astounding. It is worth noting that the AIPAC conference begins in Washington this weekend with thousands of citizen lobbyists being deployed to Capitol Hill to deliver the message that Iran must be dealt with, one way or another.
This battle over the Pelosi language is part of the overall Iran effort.
And you thought it couldn't happen again!
Content of CQ report follows.
Iran Language Draws Opposition as Democrats Near Agreement on Supplemental
CQ TODAY -- March 8, 2007
By Jonathan Allen, CQ Staff
Hawkish pro-Israel lawmakers are pushing to strike a provision slated for the war spending bill that would, with some exceptions, require the president to seek congressional approval before using military force in Iran.
The influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee also is working to keep the language out, said an aide to a pro- Israel lawmaker.
The language is likely to spark an internal battle among House Democrats, some of whom fear an expansion of the Iraq War into Iran and others who are wary of sending a signal to Tehran that Congress wants to take the use of force off the table.
Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois predicted that the language would ultimately not be included in the supplemental on the House side, although it is favored by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.; John P. Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee; and some Jewish lawmakers.
Emanuel said opposition could extend beyond pro-Israel lawmakers. “‘Keep this all about Iraq’ is the view,” he said.
But a Democratic leadership aide said there are no plans to remove the provision.
“There’s heat,” the leadership aide acknowledged. “We’ve heard their concerns, but we think it’s likely to remain on the bill.”
But, according to CQ some of the same Democrats most vehement about ending the Iraq debacle are resisting denying the President unilateral authority to go to war in Iran. The hypocrisy is astounding. It is worth noting that the AIPAC conference begins in Washington this weekend with thousands of citizen lobbyists being deployed to Capitol Hill to deliver the message that Iran must be dealt with, one way or another.
This battle over the Pelosi language is part of the overall Iran effort.
And you thought it couldn't happen again!
Content of CQ report follows.
Iran Language Draws Opposition as Democrats Near Agreement on Supplemental
CQ TODAY -- March 8, 2007
By Jonathan Allen, CQ Staff
Hawkish pro-Israel lawmakers are pushing to strike a provision slated for the war spending bill that would, with some exceptions, require the president to seek congressional approval before using military force in Iran.
The influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee also is working to keep the language out, said an aide to a pro- Israel lawmaker.
The language is likely to spark an internal battle among House Democrats, some of whom fear an expansion of the Iraq War into Iran and others who are wary of sending a signal to Tehran that Congress wants to take the use of force off the table.
Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois predicted that the language would ultimately not be included in the supplemental on the House side, although it is favored by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.; John P. Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee; and some Jewish lawmakers.
Emanuel said opposition could extend beyond pro-Israel lawmakers. “‘Keep this all about Iraq’ is the view,” he said.
But a Democratic leadership aide said there are no plans to remove the provision.
“There’s heat,” the leadership aide acknowledged. “We’ve heard their concerns, but we think it’s likely to remain on the bill.”
Homepage:
Comments
Display the following 2 comments