This is not good...

[dspectre]

I think you can connect the dots on this one....

http://digg.com/politics/Rothman_passes_anti_Ahmadinejad_resolution

http://www.politicsnj.com/rothman-passes-anti-ahmadinejad-resolution-9691

[LibertyEagle]

“wiping Israel off the map”

There is a dispute as to whether Ahmadinenutjob actually said this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5bEhN7_abc&eurl=

Don't worry. Dr. Paul will probably write an article about it.

[dspectre]

What makes this bad, is this is one step away from Iran attack. It's setting the stage for it.

[LibertyEagle]

Gotcha. I thought you were concerned as to how it would reflect on his campaign that he voted against it. Sorry.

[angelatc]

I saw an interview one night with an Iranian, who said that the people in Iran don't really like the guy, and they're starting to form groups to influence votes and take their country back. (Sound familiar?)

But they don't want help from us. Go figure.

[tacitt]

http://www.freecentury.com/2007/06/20/ron-paul-fighting-possible-war-against-iran-speech-on-h-con-res-21/

June 20, 2007

Madam Speaker: I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. This resolution is an exercise in propaganda that serves one purpose: to move us closer to initiating a war against Iran. Citing various controversial statements by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, this legislation demands that the United Nations Security Council charge Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Having already initiated a disastrous war against Iraq citing UN resolutions as justification, this resolution is like déja-vu. Have we forgotten 2003 already? Do we really want to go to war again for UN resolutions? That is where this resolution, and the many others we have passed over the last several years on Iran, is leading us. I hope my colleagues understand that a vote for this bill is a vote to move us closer to war with Iran.

Clearly, language threatening to wipe a nation or a group of people off the map is to be condemned by all civilized people. And I do condemn any such language. But why does threatening Iran with a pre-emptive nuclear strike, as many here have done, not also deserve the same kind of condemnation? Does anyone believe that dropping nuclear weapons on Iran will not wipe a people off the map? When it is said that nothing, including a nuclear strike, is off the table on Iran, are those who say it not also threatening genocide? And we wonder why the rest of the world accuses us of behaving hypocritically, of telling the rest of the world “do as we say, not as we do.”

I strongly urge my colleagues to consider a different approach to Iran, and to foreign policy in general. General William Odom, President Reagan’s director of the National Security Agency, outlined a much more sensible approach in a recent article titled “Exit From Iraq Should Be Through Iran.” General Odom wrote: “Increasingly bogged down in the sands of Iraq, the US thrashes about looking for an honorable exit. Restoring cooperation between Washington and Tehran is the single most important step that could be taken to rescue the US from its predicament in Iraq.” General Odom makes good sense. We need to engage the rest of the world, including Iran and Syria, through diplomacy, trade, and travel rather than pass threatening legislation like this that paves the way to war. We have seen the limitations of force as a tool of US foreign policy. It is time to try a more traditional and conservative approach. I urge a “no” vote on this resolution.

[JoshLowry]

But they don't want help from us. Go figure.

Stay out of entangling alliances. ;)

I don't think it's all the weird that they don't want our government 'helping' them.

That usually doesn't work out too well.

[LibertyEagle]

I think she was being sarcastic.