“If we do (attack) it is going to be a disaster,” the Congressman told the Alex Jones show this Thursday.

“I was astounded to see on one of the networks the other day that the debate was not are we going to attack? but are we going to attack before or after the election?” Paul continued.

The Congressman recently voiced his concern over House Congressional Resolution 362 which he has dubbed a ‘Virtual Iran War Resolution’.

“If that comes up it is demanding that the President put on an absolute blockade of the entire country of Iran, and punish any country or any business group around the world if they trade with Iran.” Paul told listeners.

Experts have predicted gas will rise to $6 per gallon if the resolution passes, Paul believes that may happen anyway just by anticipation.

“The frightening thing is they say they are taking no options off the table, even nuclear first strike.” The Congressman stated.

Paul believes from talking with his contacts in and around Congress that a strike on Iran has already been green lighted.

“That is my sense because the Democratic leadership in the House are proposing no resistance whatsoever, we saw this when a supplemental bill came up and the President asked for $107 billion for the war, the Democrat leadership gave them $162 billion.

It is still totally bewildering to me when I see men and women in the Congress that I know and like doing this just to get along. Most of them will say “I agree with you on all you say but the Iranians are bad people and they might attack us some day… I hear members of Congress saying ‘if we could only nuke them’.”

Really is sureal.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/…

Over at TPMCafe, M. J. Rosenberg points our attention to two pieces of legislation winging their way through the House and the Senate The matching pieces of legislation declare the sense of the House and the Senate that “preventing the Government of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability, through all appropriate economic, political, and diplomatic means, is a matter of the highest importance to the national security of the United States and must be dealt with urgently” and call for President Bush to

initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program

Now, as Rosenberg reasonably concludes from reading the legislation, this sounds an awful lot like a blockade, which I’m pretty sure (I’m not a lawyer) qualifies as an act of war under international law. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which reportedly has been pushing the legislation through the House and Senate, replies to Rosenberg by asserting that

AIPAC supports sanctions on Iran and favors a voluntary international effort lead by the United States to stop selling Iran refined petroleum, not a blockade. Iran is highly vulnerable to such pressure. Sactions are the best way to persuade Iran to stop it’s pursuit of nuclear weapons capability. To suggest that AIPAC supports anything but tough economic sanctions on Iran is totally false…

I’m confused. The legislation calls for “prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran.” Now, what sort of mechanism would police such a “prohibition?” If the shipment of refined petroleum products to Iran has been “prohibited,” and a tanker sails toward it anyway, what happens? Who will be enforcing the “stringent inspection requirements on all person, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran?”

I don’t know if I prefer the open warmongering to the hidden type. I suppose I like the honesty. It can make pointing it out easier at times.