Comments on: Van Hollen cosponsors Iran blockade bill

By: Takoma Park Impeach Bush & Cheney

Takoma Park Impeach Bush & Cheney — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 20:51:43 +0000

[...] warming, and to some extent on the storm clouds gathering for a possible Iran war; as I noted at the time, I first learned about the execrable H.Con.Res.362 bill demanding a blockade of Iran via a press [...]

By: newsrackblog.com » » Gordon Clark (Green-MD-8) on Congress and impeachment

Sun, 13 Jul 2008 08:00:50 +0000

By: Impeaching Bush/Cheney may Be the Only Way to Stop WW III « The Bush/Cheney Impeachment Papers

Tue, 01 Jul 2008 19:02:02 +0000

[...] exactly been making the night news: there’s a bill encouraging the US to blockade Iran which newsrackblog’s Thomas Nephew, who discovered this, likens to “waving a red cape in front of a bull in a china [...]

By: Nell

Nell — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:16:36 +0000

Oh, you’re right; this issue is one of Webb’s strongest points. He and Lugar clearly were hoping to get Adm. Fallon before the Armed Services Committee to bust holes in the propaganda about ‘Iran sponsoring attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq’, but Fallon was bounced as CENTCOM chief in favor of Petraeus before that could happen.

He won’t co-sponsor, and I’d expect he would vote ‘no’ if it comes to a vote. Which I hope it doesn’t…

By: Thomas Nephew

Thomas Nephew — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 03:02:19 +0000

A blockade is traditionally considered an act of war.
…explaining, I suppose, why they tiptoe around calling it that, and do the general “weenie warmongering” Nell speaks of. Like Bush and torture, they want all the “conveniences” of the act without any of the inconveniences of calling it by name.

how such a “blockade” would be considered if it were happening anywhere near the US.
Well, that would be different because ~~we would never just attack some other country with no good reason~~… oh wait. ~~We would never secretly develop a nuclear weapon and use it~~ …never mind.

By: Laura

Laura — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 02:44:17 +0000

We don’t need to think twice about how such a “blockade” would be considered if it were happening anywhere near the US. The arrogance of this move is overwhelming.

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 23:30:46 +0000

A blockade is traditionally considered an act of war.

By: Thomas Nephew

Thomas Nephew — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 21:52:39 +0000

I know you’re down on Jim Webb, but I recall he was pretty good about saying what all could go wrong in the Persian Gulf; I remember getting this vivid impression of carrier groups inching their way around in a tight space like SUVs in an underground parking garage. I know they can defend themselves pretty well, but you’d think we’d all agree picking *another* fight right now is the last thing we need.

I assume Webb’s not one of the cosponsors on the Senate side … good, he isn’t (only 18 cosponsors in the Senate, says govtrack). Evan Bayh (D-IN) is the principal sponsor there.

By: Nell

Nell — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 21:29:35 +0000

This is seriously bad news; I’ve tried to talk about it in a couple of comment sections, to no effect. Weenie warmongering at its worst. In one breath: we demand a naval blockade of the Straits of Hormuz. In the next: but we’re not authorizing the use of force.

Riiiiight. Because Iran’s response to an act of war might well be the very “provocation” the Cheneyites have been seeking for so long. And then it’s on.

The list of co-sponsors is sickening. This is such irresponsible crap.