Dems poised to kill Iran Resolution in House

Democratic leaders have stepped back from supporting a non-binding resolution on Iran. They did so on the pretext that the resolution called for a blockade of Iran and that such a blockade of Iran would be an act that could lead to war. This is a clear misreading of the resolution which expressly states that "nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force".
One of its two drafters , Representative Gary Ackerman has addressed critics (which include the Barack Obama activist group Code Pink which actually protested in front of Ackerman's home) of the resolution in the past: “The whole idea that the resolution calls for a blockade can only be sustained by a determined refusal to read the resolution, or to accept the plain meaning of the words within it,” Ackerman said. The only way to find the term “blockade” in the resolution, he added, is “by the amending power of imagination alone.”

The other chief sponsor is Congressman Mike Pence (R-Indiana) who also denies that the resolution calls for a "blockade" 

The two Congressmen wrote a "Dear Colleague" letter that circulated to their fellow Congressmen in June that sought to clarify the issue:
 These assertions are absolutely false and, frankly, utter nonsense," Ackerman and Spence wrote. "The resolution states plainly and distinctly that "nothing in this  resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran;" the economic sanctions the President is urged to seek are explicitly placed in an international context; and the methods contemplated for achieving these sanctions are no different than those currently being employed to implement existing UN Security Council sanctions on Iran, namely enforcement of export controls by UN member states within their own borders."
 The full text of the letter can be found here:

Nevertheless, Democrats have pulled their support for the measure. Early signs of this prospect appeared a few months ago when Congressmen Barney Frank (D-Mass) and Robert Wexler (D-Florida) pulled their support, justifying it with the same specious reasoning involving the so-called "blockade" problem. This is particularly notable in the case of Wexler, for he is the major surrogate for Barack Obama-tirelessly and relentlessly promoting him as a man who would help secure our ally, Israel. The fact that Wexler would, with alacrity, back away from a measure to constrain Iran calls into doubt the veracity of his claims regarding the level of support Barack Obama would show towards our beleaguered ally. Barack Obama calls him self-repeatedly-a "stalwart friend of Israel" who believes its "security is sacrosanct" ( another phrase who uses repeatedly).

Will the Senator, now the leader of his party, send a message to his fellow Democrats in the House asking them to reconsider their opposition and asking them to look at the facts? Don't bet on it. In this case, "stalwart friend" and "security is sacrosanct" are "Just Words" after all.
What does this reversal in the House portend, especially in light of the Sarah Palin invitation to the New York City Iran rally being withdrawn? Clearly, Democrats are being driven by groups such as Code pink and J Street which proudly boasted of its role in driving Palin off the stage in New York City. Lest we forget, J Street has many people on its board who have ties or/and are supported by George Soros-an early and generous supporter of Barack Obama.
Democratic leaders have stepped back from supporting a non-binding resolution on Iran. They did so on the pretext that the resolution called for a blockade of Iran and that such a blockade of Iran would be an act that could lead to war. This is a clear misreading of the resolution which expressly states that "nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force".
One of its two drafters , Representative Gary Ackerman has addressed critics (which include the Barack Obama activist group Code Pink which actually protested in front of Ackerman's home) of the resolution in the past: “The whole idea that the resolution calls for a blockade can only be sustained by a determined refusal to read the resolution, or to accept the plain meaning of the words within it,” Ackerman said. The only way to find the term “blockade” in the resolution, he added, is “by the amending power of imagination alone.”

The other chief sponsor is Congressman Mike Pence (R-Indiana) who also denies that the resolution calls for a "blockade" 

The two Congressmen wrote a "Dear Colleague" letter that circulated to their fellow Congressmen in June that sought to clarify the issue:
 These assertions are absolutely false and, frankly, utter nonsense," Ackerman and Spence wrote. "The resolution states plainly and distinctly that "nothing in this  resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran;" the economic sanctions the President is urged to seek are explicitly placed in an international context; and the methods contemplated for achieving these sanctions are no different than those currently being employed to implement existing UN Security Council sanctions on Iran, namely enforcement of export controls by UN member states within their own borders."
 The full text of the letter can be found here:

Nevertheless, Democrats have pulled their support for the measure. Early signs of this prospect appeared a few months ago when Congressmen Barney Frank (D-Mass) and Robert Wexler (D-Florida) pulled their support, justifying it with the same specious reasoning involving the so-called "blockade" problem. This is particularly notable in the case of Wexler, for he is the major surrogate for Barack Obama-tirelessly and relentlessly promoting him as a man who would help secure our ally, Israel. The fact that Wexler would, with alacrity, back away from a measure to constrain Iran calls into doubt the veracity of his claims regarding the level of support Barack Obama would show towards our beleaguered ally. Barack Obama calls him self-repeatedly-a "stalwart friend of Israel" who believes its "security is sacrosanct" ( another phrase who uses repeatedly).

Will the Senator, now the leader of his party, send a message to his fellow Democrats in the House asking them to reconsider their opposition and asking them to look at the facts? Don't bet on it. In this case, "stalwart friend" and "security is sacrosanct" are "Just Words" after all.
What does this reversal in the House portend, especially in light of the Sarah Palin invitation to the New York City Iran rally being withdrawn? Clearly, Democrats are being driven by groups such as Code pink and J Street which proudly boasted of its role in driving Palin off the stage in New York City. Lest we forget, J Street has many people on its board who have ties or/and are supported by George Soros-an early and generous supporter of Barack Obama.