What took them so long? The Revolutionary Guards have been committing atrocities for almost 30 years now. It'll probably take twice that long to finally deal with Iran in the only manner they seem to understand.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at September 28, 2007 7:52 AM

Iraq is one thing. The misunderstanding of Islam and of Iraq, the dreamy belief in the possibility, and benefit to Infidels, of bringing "freedom" and "democracy" to "ordinary moms and dads," the inability to recognize that Iraq is only one, and hardly the very important, theatre in the counter-Jihad (Western Europe is far more important, and the instruments are the Money Weapon, Da'wa, and demographic conquest, and seldom terrorism), and to work toward a result that weakens the Camp of Islam, the timidity and sentimentalism that prevents policy-makers even from hinting that such a result is best achieved through withdrawal because Sunnis will never acquiesce in their new diminished role and Shi'a never give the Sunnis quite what they demand, and this continued, possibly low-level battle, will affect Sunni-Shi'a relations in Pakistan, Lebanon, Yemen, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia, and that whatever further squandering of men, money, and materiel takes place inside Iraq, it will be not that of America but of various Muslim neighbors.

But Iran is quite another. The experience in Iran has insured, thank god, that there will not be any more "bringing of democracy" to a Muslim state (but it could be brought to Myanmar, it could be brought to the southern Sudan). No land invasion is needed. There are ways to inflict great damage on Iran's nuclear project from on high.

And such an attack is best achieved during a Time of Troubles in Iraq, not a period of calm, when Iran will have its hands full worrying about spillover effects, in Khuzistan (where the Arabs can get restless, or have their restleness increased), in the Kurdish areas of northern Iraq, and among the Baluchis and even Azeris.

Observing the fissiparousness next door, these non-Persians, who constitute half the population of present-day Iran, could permanently unsettle the Islamic Republic. The constant threat of dimidiation, in population and land area, followed by demise, may be enough to cause Iranians to view the nuclear project not as a source of national pride but a grave danger to the continued existence of their country, especially if the Arabs of Khuzistan (containing most of Iran's oil), Baluchis, Kurds, and even Azeris start to ActUp, start to MoveOn.

Posted by: Hugh at September 28, 2007 7:53 AM

"The Qods force is a special unit of the Revolutionary Guard Corps and considered the most elite unit. There are varying estimates of its strength but it is in charge of Teheran’s support for groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas"

....hmmmm, Qods units have been training Muslim militants in tactics to be used in Iraq...

.....Qods documents have been found by US forces in Iraq...

.....Suspected Qod members have been captured in Iraq....

.....Qods units have been involved in the transportation and delivery of shaped explosives to Iraq...

.....Qods leadership is very independent of the Iranian ruling government....

.....Qods units maintain working relationships with many Muslim terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hizbollah.....

....Qods recruits many foreigners for duty in Iraqi terror squads....

....Qods units get priority weapons delivery from Russia, China, and NOrth Korea....

....Qods units are terrorist units.....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at September 28, 2007 8:03 AM

The Qods force is a special unit of the Revolutionary Guard Corps and considered the most elite unit

Elite in terms of their abilities to supply IEDs? The best in the world at beating up on women who dare to show their hair, or anyone who dresses in 'western' style? Yes, very elite indeed.

Posted by: Jesus Worshipping Zionist at September 28, 2007 8:07 AM

I just went to the site of those voting for and against the resolution and then sent an e-mail to Richard Luger (R) asking him why he voted against!

Posted by: TeachESL at September 28, 2007 8:19 AM

"78-22"

Who were the 22? And what did they say in explaining their vote?

Posted by: Hugh at September 28, 2007 8:27 AM

I see that Obama and McCain didn't bother to vote.

Anyone know why?

Posted by: scribe10 at September 28, 2007 8:27 AM

scribe10 said:

I see that Obama and McCain didn't bother to vote.

Anyone know why?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Oh I dunno, let me guess:
stated reason - I had to take the kids to school.
real reason - not sure how this would affect my presidential candidature so i rather err on the side of caution and not vote.

Posted by: 2pacshakur at September 28, 2007 8:35 AM

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (Kyl Amdt. No. 3017 as Modified )
Vote Number: 349 Vote Date: September 26, 2007, 12:44 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 3017 to S.Amdt. 2011 to H.R. 1585 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008)
Statement of Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding Iran.
Vote Counts: YEAs 76
NAYs 22
Not Voting 2
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Alphabetical by Senator Name Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Barrasso (R-WY), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Brown (D-OH), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Dole (R-NC), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Nay
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Nay
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting
McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Nay
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Nay
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---76
Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
Martinez (R-FL)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)

NAYs ---22
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Dodd (D-CT)
Feingold (D-WI)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)
Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 2
McCain (R-AZ)
Obama (D-IL)

Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Grouped by Home State Alabama: Sessions (R-AL), Yea Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Yea
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Yea
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Yea Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Yea Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Yea Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Yea Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Yea Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Yea
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Nay Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Yea
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Yea Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Dole (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Yea Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Yea Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Yea Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Yea Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Nay
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Nay Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Nay Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Find out about congressional voting with this How to guide.

Use this guide to help you find the full text of recent bills and resolutions on the Web, or order them from the Senate or House Document Rooms, or you can find them in a library.

You can access legislative information, by bill number or key words, from the THOMAS Web site. Information from the present back to the 93rd Congress (1973) is available on THOMAS.

The Votes page of the Virtual Reference Desk provides voting procedure information, research guides, and essays about historic votes.

The Votes category on the Statistics page features facts and figures about votes made by Senators.

Posted by: exsgtbrown at September 28, 2007 8:41 AM

the nays....20 dhimmicrats, 2 republicans....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at September 28, 2007 8:46 AM

The rationale apparently given for voting against this resolution does not withstand scrutiny. Unless it can be shown that the Pasdaran is not as described, is not a "terrorist group," then it should be labelled as such. That may permit the government to take measures against the group, and its supporters in this country, that it can not take without such a declaration. It is not, that is, a merely symbolic act, but has useful consequences.

Those who say that this "is one step toward attacking Iran" have not made, but merely asserted, their case. If such a measure makes it easier to go after the sources of financial and other support of the Pasdaran, and thereby more effectively put pressure on the Islamic Republic, this might lessen the likelihood of a military attack if the nuclear program can be stopped through other, less violent, means.

Posted by: Hugh at September 28, 2007 9:17 AM

I see that Obama and McCain didn't bother to vote.
Anyone know why?

Posted by: scribe10 at September 28, 2007 8:27

Obama doesn't vote on anything. So far he sat this one out, the one preventing the further smearing on Patreus and the "John Doe" provision, you know, minor stuff.

Junior Senator Obama's strategy is to not vote on anything so there is nothing to use against him. That and, oh, let's bomb Pakistan.

Choose your candidates wisely in 2008. For anyone wondering, Obama should not be considered at all.

Posted by: awake at September 28, 2007 9:25 AM

House, Senate call for Iran's Revolutionary Guards to be designated as a "foreign terrorist organization"

Good gawd!

Does this now mean we can no longer identify iran and their army as the enemy when they kill our soldiers?

Posted by: witness at September 28, 2007 9:42 AM

Waking Up - The Dream Act Expires - For Now

Posted by: Lumpy at September 28, 2007 10:06 AM

While the overreach in Iraq has done serious damage to the credibility of military deterrence, I think Hugh and Robert are correct to point out that Iran's nuclear "power" program doesn't need democratization to fix.
What's really happening is that many democrats don't want to use military force for any reason whatsoever, unless it's to bomb the Serbs, of course.
A little OT, but, from jpost.com:
New "morality police" has begun detaining Palestinians who eat or drink in public during the fasting month of Ramadan, a first in the West Bank where Muslim custom was always widely observed, but never before imposed.
The 12-member squad with special red badges appears to be an attempt by PA President Mahmoud Abbas's West Bank government to challenge the claim of rival Hamas, the ruler of Gaza, to a monopoly on religious righteousness.

Posted by: jewdog at September 28, 2007 10:33 AM

So the appeasers commies and socialists went for 'nay'.

What a surprise !

Like the view of Hillary positioning herself as a hawk (chickenhawk).

Will she finally own up to her true feelings and take on Bill ?

Ah, the love.

Posted by: dgene at September 28, 2007 10:54 AM

This is outrageously ridiculous. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards are to be treated as a separate "terrorist" organization? What does it take to declare war on an Islamic state that has been murdering Americans for decades and threatens to bring the civilized world into chaos ushered in with nuclear holocaust?

Don't act like this is some sort of victory, folks. The very notion that parts of the Iranian government should be separated from the rest so that we might avoid an actual war with Iran is dangerously stupid.

We are so damn weak. The rich are no longer fit to lead and I'm getting hungrier by the day for change. Something's gotta give.

Posted by: Foehammer at September 28, 2007 11:26 AM

"If such a measure makes it easier to go after the sources of financial and other support of the Pasdaran, and thereby more effectively put pressure on the Islamic Republic, this might lessen the likelihood of a military attack if the nuclear program can be stopped through other, less violent, means."
by Hugh

How much leverage does the US have in Iran, nearly thirty years after the revolution? What impact can we realistically expect to have on Iran's economy that would make the mullahs change course? What is this resolution but more hot air from the world's (self-proclaimed) premier debating society?

Either the people of Iran support this regime or they don't. Do those who claim a desire to be rid of it really mean what they say or can they be bought off with cheap gasoline at home and less money spent on foreign adventures? How many truly believe Iran has a right to nuclear weapons and that the US has no right to put a barrier in their way? Sure there are a few who really are willing to put their own lives on the line for freedom, but are their countrymen with them? Are they willing to put Islam on a second tier or do those who don't support the mullahs still want to see sharia everywhere? That they and we have a common foe is not enough. Allies became adversaries once the Germans and Japanese were defeated in 1945. Where do the Iranian people stand?

Posted by: PMK at September 28, 2007 11:35 AM

@PMK: Damn good questions.

Posted by: Foehammer at September 28, 2007 11:37 AM

I think Ahmadnutjob has already declared that the US Military is a terrorist organization. I believe that he said so this week.

Posted by: CTYankee at September 28, 2007 12:04 PM

... the dreamy belief that ...

Speaking of dreamy beliefs, isn't it about time that we acknowledge the obvious fact that Prez Mahmoud was indeed the leader of the Persian students who seized the American embassy in Teheran.

There are so many dreamy beliefs around Islam and Moslems nowadays, but this one begs for us to regain consciousness.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at September 28, 2007 12:16 PM

"I think Ahmadnutjob has already declared that the US Military is a terrorist organization. I believe that he said so this week.

Posted by: CTYankee"

and

Ahmadinejad calls Israel the flag of Satan

Posted by: exsgtbrown at September 28, 2007 12:28 PM

Pasdaran is an Islamic paramilitary/religious/revolutionary group. They are the backbone of Hizballah in Lebanon, for example. Pasdaran exists to aid Islamic supremacist groups worldwide and to bring about global Islamic governance. They consider themselves mujahideen. They have conducted "martyrdom operations" which we usually call terrorism.

The obsession with "terrorism" prevents people from seeing any picture, much less the big one.

Posted by: Beagle at September 28, 2007 12:29 PM

From the article:

“I have no intention of giving George Bush the authority to take the first step on a road to war with Iran,” said former senator and presidential hopeful John Edwards

I agree that Bush is not to be trusted, that Bush is not the one to lead the war against jihad. But to therefore refuse to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard as jihadists is smiting your own neck to spite your face.

In this vote and others, our putative "leaders" are beginning to be put to small tests. 76 made the cut this time. Soon the time for evasion, circumvention, and rhetoric will be over, and they will be required to act.

Posted by: special_guest at September 28, 2007 12:40 PM

That'll show 'em.

If Iran was already part of the "Axis of Evil," wouldn't that include their elite military units?

Like with Iraq, I expect a year or so of resolution after resolution after UN vote after solemn denunciation, laying the groundwork for jumping Iran.

Apparently we have proved that Iran is sending ordnance and "facilitators" into Iraq to kill Americans, not to mention shelling northern Iraq regularly and ever more deeply. Do we need a year's prelude of diplomatic bosh before throwing a punch?

Posted by: ChristianRepublic at September 28, 2007 12:41 PM

the amendment was criticized as helping lay the foundation for President George W. Bush to take possible military action against Teheran.

Its as if the Bush administration is sending American troops into an empty lot called "Iraq", where there are no hostile forces, and our troops are simply "dying in Iraq" (not being killed, mind you), and we are simply "wasting resources".

If a democrat shifts his gaze towards a horde of young arabs or Persians wearing Kaffiyas , holding AK-47's, and shouting "Allah Akbar" he will see right through them, as if they were transparent or didn't even exist.

Isn't killing our troops in Iraq, launching rockets into Israel, or building nuclear weapons a form of provocation? Isn't it Iran who is escalating the conflict?

In order to fit the Marxist paradigm of all conflicts being due to class warfare, Democrats and liberals must project onto the current conflict absolute innocence to any brown-skinned denizen of a third world country, and the guilty war mongerring onto the party of white people or Jews.

They just can't accept that non-white or non-jewish people can actually instigate conflict or commit acts of evil on their own.

Posted by: Jimmy the Dhimmi at September 28, 2007 12:55 PM

Well, it's about time that this congress finally calls those islamofascist inhumane bastards on the carpet, but I do wish to remind everyone that the congress before this one, under the control of the GOP, had the same option and did not exercise it.

And the revolutionary guard in Iran is no different today than it was 2 years ago.

Posted by: bonncaruso at September 28, 2007 2:14 PM

“I have no intention of giving George Bush the authority to take the first step on a road to war with Iran,” said former senator and presidential hopeful John Edwards

That would be John "War on Terror is nothing but a bumper sticker" Edwards?

If Edwards were elected, God forbid, he has proposed that we free all Guantanamo prisoners AND give them the right to sue the US Government for reparations!!!

Posted by: CTYankee at September 28, 2007 2:29 PM

EXCELLENCIES

I appreciate the opportunity to address the Senate. It has been proven through scientific analysis that belief in monotheism and belief in the writings of the prophet are the only true belief and that non believers should be confronted when they are encountered. I have proven this to a statistical certainty with the attached postulate and thesis statement with the attached charts and graphs recorded in the University of Iran bluebook. In my conversations with Senators Boxer, Kenedy, Biden, Representative Ellison and Kerry amongst many, they agree that the all volunteer-non-homosexual Iranian Guard is more virtuous than your Iraqi baby killing infidel US National Guard that are pursuing their modern crusade in Iraq.

I have provided pictures of the Iranian guard performing its chartiable activities, such as helping the Iranian free press remodel their printing presses, helping poor wormen that cannot afford enough material to sew a proper dress, helping storeowners to dispose of outmoded inventory (such as Bibles, computer internet modems, radios and tv's that receive non-appropriate stations, DVD's, CD's, and greeting cards), remodeling western style barber shops, providing dial a ride services to the abundent practicing Jews and Christians in Iran.
The Iranian Guard also provides help to our Kurdish friends, by remodeling their outmoded villages by the Iranian border. The guard also provides free or low cost "equipment" to those in the Iraqi automobile scrap metal business to reduce global warming by taking many large vehicles off the road.

I am concerned that the current vote to unfairly designate the Iranian Guard as a terrorist group will have a chilling effect on their ability to provide its charitable services. As you know the Guard depends on contributions from your constituents to continue to serve our clients. It will now become illegal for groups such as The Holyland foundation, CAIR, and Muslim aviation industry enthusiasts raise funds in the United States to provide contributions to fund the Guard's community service functions. Mr Hooper has expressed his outrage that your vote will cause more suffering in the middle east, and will more racial discrimination and oppression in the United States.

Sincerely,
Thug in Chief

(Note any resemblance/reference to any person living or dead is strictly a coincidence. The enclosed comments and references are strictly fictional and are to be used only for amusement purposes and parody)

Posted by: GrimReaperxxx at September 28, 2007 2:57 PM

The president of Iran has just given a invite to Bush to go to Iran, and give a speach at a University there.

If he goes, he would very likely not see home again, if he stays home, it will be used to show how the president of Iran is brave enought to enter the U.S. and give speaches, talk at the U.N., and return home. Somthing the west is afraid to do.

Another reason allowing him into the country was a bad idea.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at September 28, 2007 3:00 PM

(Hugh: great turn of phrase in your first post - you are de man. But watch it, you're talking like a conservative ! (lol))

Posted by: dgene at September 28, 2007 3:08 PM

I think this is simply pathetic. To me, this appears to be more appeasement on a different scale. I mean, they are ignoring the Iranian government who has control over this Quds force. The Quds don't jump without the Ayatollah saying so and you have the US calling a governments army a "terrorist organization" and not classifying the country as such.

The US appears to be doing everything it can to appease and avoid conflict with Iran, regardless if Iran is in a state of war with the US for decades or not.

Pathetic

Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader at September 28, 2007 3:46 PM

"If Edwards were elected, God forbid, he has proposed that we free all Guantanamo prisoners AND give them the right to sue the US Government for reparations!!!"

Edwards would probably represent the killers himself

Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader at September 28, 2007 3:50 PM

Heh, heh, heh - Foehammer is SO right. Why is part of the Iranian Government a terrorist entity? What about the rest? In WWII we could have battled the Gestapo and the SS, and left the rest of 'em alone. The concept that part of their government is ok is kind of like buying a gallon of beer with "only" a thimble full of piss poured into it.

Posted by: MP at September 28, 2007 4:33 PM

dgene:

"Like the view of Hillary positioning herself as a hawk (chickenhawk)."

Well Hillary is a hawk on foreign policy and that is to her credit.

You may not like her domestic agenda but in foreign policy she'll probably do as well if not better than Bush.

Posted by: scribe10 at September 28, 2007 4:51 PM

I'm tentatively moving towards endorsing Foehammer for President.

What is wrong with this country, that we meekly accepted the kidnappings of our citizens by the Iranian government in 1979; the murder of 241 service personnel in Beirut in 1983 by the Iranian proxy Hizb'ulah, as well as numerous other kidnappings and murders in Lebanon during the 1980's; the Khobar Towers bombing, which has been blamed on Iran (not that Saudi Arabia helped the investigation); and the murder of American service personnel in Iraq in a war to which Iran is not a party? I haven't even mentioned the two bombings in Buenos Aires during the 1990's, at the Israeli Embassy and a Jewish community center.

I thought those were acts of war. What would history have been like had we not replied to the Japanese act of war and the German declaration of war with our own declaration of war? How is it that we demean the lives of those murdered by Iran or its proxies by not avenging their deaths? After 28 years and hundreds of Americans murdered by Iran, what death toll is required in order to stir the sleeping giant into action? We have not lobbed even one pebble into Iran!

This is the same as the clever strategy employed by the "Palestinian"-Arabs in Israel: kill a few at a time, not enough to provoke a warlike response, just enough to demoralize and gradually wear down resistance over time. For goodness' sake - fight back!

Posted by: Surak at September 28, 2007 5:23 PM

"I'm tentatively moving towards endorsing Foehammer for President."

Surak,
I second that.

Posted by: PMK at September 28, 2007 6:54 PM

Put me down as a "YEA" also so that we can work this red tape and get down to business with Iran.

Posted by: champ at September 28, 2007 8:35 PM

....work THROUGH this red tape....

Posted by: champ at September 28, 2007 8:38 PM

This must be some Politicans way of distinguishing between the peace loving Democracy seeking Iranians from the more Peaceful Democracy seeking Iranians.

Just like the "Moderate" Democracy seeking Leadership conducted Nuclear work from Public View, verses the Current Crowd who just do the same thing Openly.

Does this mean that American Forces can conduct Counter Battery Fire against the Iranians firing into Iraqi Kurds?

We are so capable. The Iranian firing positions could be doomed to Paradise befor they even know if their own rounds landed.

So much that could be done and so few willing to do it. We could let the Iraqis pull the Lanyards. this way the Iraqis could be credited with the defence of their own borders.

What would the Iranians think when within 5 Minutes of the first Round leaving the Tube, all their guys are dead and the Equiptment trashed?

Posted by: flowerknife_us at September 28, 2007 10:51 PM

"Does this mean that American Forces can conduct Counter Battery Fire against the Iranians firing into Iraqi Kurds?"
Posted by: flowerknife_us

As a former crunchy, I'm lovin' the arty talk bro.

Posted by: Davegreybeard at September 29, 2007 2:03 AM

When the time's right..."and at a time of OUR choosing", being since they've already given us more than enough righteous/justifiable cause/reason to COUNTER-attack them in kind.

They're going to freak when they realize what "smart arty" will do...lol

Posted by: jcom972 at September 29, 2007 2:21 AM