The bill, introduced in January 2005, looked like it was buried in the House International Relations Committee. But lo! after 15 months, the committee reported it out last Tuesday; and, last Wednesday, it passed as a suspension by a vote of 379-21, R241:6, D182:15.

Ma Pelosi voted for the bill. Whoda thunkit.

Now the bill itself doesn't bang the war drum: indeed, in §401(b), it says

Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the use of force against Iran.

Of course, this is a threat: why would you put a provision like that in a bill if one could not fairly adopt the construction mentioned?

(I don't recall one in the Schiavo Circus Act of 2005, for instance.)

And, it says: Next time, buddy!

I recommend a scan of the debate which includes a copy of a letter from the USS Nicholas Burns of the State Department (H1766 of the Congressional Record) which says (in part):

We have serious concerns about this proposed legislation, particularly Title II, which would amend the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA). These provisions would impair our ability to continue working closely and successfully with our allies to deal with the threat that Iran poses.

  The Iran issue is sensitive and critically important. The September 24 IAEA resolution, tabled by the EU-3 (Germany, the UK, and France), was an important step forward. We are going to have to continue working with our international partners to isolate Iran and to build and maintain an international coalition to ensure that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapons capability. In doing so, the President needs the flexibility that HR 282 would impede.

So, they've finally made it - Top of the world, Ma! The House Dems are officially bigger warmongers than the Bush regime.

Only on paper, you'll be relieved to know.

Because the other thing to note is the role of the terror group known as the MEK. Who are on the State Department's terrorist organizations list, but with whom some elements of USG have been playing footsie for some time.

Like, for instance, Bush himself. And elements of the US intelligence community, which showed such sterling judgement in the runup to the Iraq war, I seem to recall.

And they are - or at least were - pretty popular beneath the Capitol dome, too.

A 2003 Hill piece says that

Despite its terrorist designation, the group has amassed powerful allies on Capitol Hill, including Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), chairwoman of the International Relations Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia.

Ros-Lehtinen has written a number of letters in support of the group, both public and private, urging the State Department to remove the MEK's terrorist designation. Her most recent public letter was a Dear Colleague released last November.

Ros-Lehtinen said her support remains unchanged. "It's a confusing time right now," she said. "We have to sort out the facts. It's too premature to say what the facts are. Not everyone who speaks for a group represents that group."

Ros-Lehtinen referred further questions to her staff director, Ylem Poblete, who said there is "no change" in the congresswoman's backing of the MEK.

You won't be fainting at the news that the main sponsor of HR 282 was - La Ros-Lehtinen...

It's déja vu all over again from the Bush regime, don't you think?

And, on the current showing, the Dem performance, under No Complaints Nancy, will also be a rerun.

Perhaps, if the above-mentioned gofer is lurking over here, he might care to give us a steer. (Pause for hollow laugh.)

Update [2006-4-29 13:37:14 by skeptic06]:

Just thought I'd remind myself of the Dem pledge on Iran in Real Security.

This is it:

Redouble efforts to stop nuclear weapons development in Iran and North Korea.

Pretty much a blank check for whoever's in charge of the elected branches.

Dems hanging loose, going with the flow. No lines in the sand, no strings and no connections.

Just like LBJ, they are determined to rebut the weak on national security charge - and they don't mind starting a war that kills tens of thousands of Americans to do it.

Or - at the very least - they don't want to be seen to get in the way of such a war.

Rank cowardice and greed for power, of course. But is it smart politics? I'd like to see the focus group evidence...