H. RES. 568 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the importance of preventing the Government of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. Passed 401-11 By MJ Rosenberg: House Votes This Week to Tie Obama's Hands on Iran Excerpts: "The resolution, which is coming up under an expedited House procedure, was the centerpiece of AIPAC's recent conference. In fact, 13,000 AIPAC delegates were dispatched to Capitol Hill, on the last day of the conference, with instructions to tell the senators and representatives whom they met that supporting this resolution was #1 on AIPAC's election year agenda." "Those voting "no" on this one will pay a price in campaign contributions (the ones they won't receive) and, very likely, will be smeared as "anti-Israel." That is how it works." ... [Rosenberg should know] " the resolution does not stop with urging the president to use his authority to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. If it did, the resolution would be uncontroversial . But there is also this: The House "urges the President to reaffirm the unacceptability of an Iran with nuclear-weapons capability and opposition to any policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to the Iranian nuclear threat." Think about that. The resolution, which almost surely will pass on Tuesday, is telling the president that he may not "rely on containment" in response to "the Iranian nuclear threat." Since the resolution, and U.S. policy itself defines Iranian possession of nuclear weapons as, ipso facto, a threat, Congress would be telling the president that any U.S. response to that threat other than war is unacceptable. In fact, it goes farther than that, not only ruling out containment of a nuclear armed Iran but also containment of an Iran that has a "nuclear weapons capability." That means that the only acceptable response to a nuclear armed or nuclear capable Iran is not containment but its opposite: war." "..amending a bill once it is already on the Senate floor requires unanimous consent and one, and only one, senator objected. Rand Paul (R-KY) said that he would oppose the containment clause unless a provision was added specifying that "nothing in the Act shall be construed as a declaration of war or an authorization of the use of force against Iran..."..." "Neither the Democratic or Republican leadership would accept that (knowing that AIPAC wouldn't) and Paul's objection killed the bill (earlier in the Senate), for the time being. In other words, the purpose of "no containment" language is precisely to make war virtually automatic. Because Paul's provision would thwart that goal, it was unacceptable. So now it's the House's turn." "...the "no containment" idea is absurd and reckless....Imagine if President Kennedy had been told by the Congress back in 1962 that if the Soviet Union placed missiles in Cuba, he would have no choice but to attack Cuba or the USSR. If it had, it is likely none of us would be around today." "So why would the House vote for a resolution like this? The main reason is AIPAC. It may be the only lobby pushing for war with Iran but it also, by far, the most powerful foreign policy lobby and also the one that sees to it that those who play ball with it are rewarded and those who don't are punished." Does it concern anyone other than me that a foreign country is able to exert this much influence over us? To box us into a war? BRAVO RAND PAUL!