|
||
Iran Resolution Must Change
Over the past several weeks, there has been a growing debate in Congress, the blogosphere and throughout the media about a controversial non-binding resolution (House Concurrent Resolution 362), which expresses the sense of Congress regarding the threat Iran's nuclear pursuit poses to international peace, stability in the Middle East, and the vital national security interests of the United States.
This resolution's introduction and the subsequent debates that have taken place across the country have come at a time when the United States faces grave security challenges. It also comes at a time when Congress and the US must be especially careful -- given the monumental foreign policy failures of President Bush -- and remain vigilant in deciding which direction to take our nation, especially as it relates to our policy in Iran.
In the coming weeks, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, of which I am a member, may vote on House Concurrent Resolution 362. Given my growing concerns regarding this resolution, including its failure to advocate for direct American engagement with Tehran and open language that could lead to a US blockade of Iran, I will lead an effort to make changes to this resolution before it comes to the Foreign Affairs committee for a vote. Despite being a cosponsor of this resolution -- these changes will ultimately determine whether or not I will continue to support H. Con. Res. 362.
My rationale for originally supporting H. Con. Res. 362, which currently has 230 cosponsors, was to urge the Bush administration to pursue a policy to place additional economic, political and diplomatic pressure on Iran as part of an international endeavor to prevent Tehran from moving forward on its nuclear program. Given my intense distrust of President Bush and his administration's disastrous foreign policy record, I also sponsored legislation (H. R. 3119), which if passed into law would prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran unless authorized by Congress and prevents the president from unilaterally going to war.
It is still my belief that it is in America's strategic interest to use strong diplomacy and directly engage Iran in order to prevent the Iranian government from developing nuclear weapons and to avoid a third regional war. However this diplomatic surge will only be successful if the US takes the lead role along with our European allies in directly engaging Iran. American engagement with Iran must be done from a position of strength and with sufficient leverage. In this vein, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman recently pointed out in a May 2008 article, "When you have leverage, talk. When you don't have leverage, get some -- by creating economic, diplomatic or military incentives and pressures that the other side finds too tempting or frightening to ignore. That is where the Bush team has been so incompetent vis-à-vis Iran."
It should have been an American representative last week along with European Union High Representative Javier Solana sitting down with Iranian leaders and offering an incentives package as part of an international effort to suspend a key part of Iran's nuclear program. It is my goal to add language to H. Con. Res. 362 highlighting a more effective American strategy that calls for direct engagement with Tehran for the purpose of thwarting Iran's nuclear weapons program and ending its support for international terrorism.
It is clear that despite carefully worded language in H. Con. Res. 362 that "nothing in this resolution should be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran" that many Americans across the country continue to express real concerns that sections of this resolution will be interpreted by President Bush as "a green light" to use force against Iran.
The language that is most disconcerting in the resolution is the third resolved clause, which demands that the president initiate among several things an "international effort to impose stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran."
I firmly believe it was not the intention of the authors of this resolution to open the door to a US blockade or armed conflict with Iran. However, I fully understand and share the American public's mistrust of President Bush and his administration, which has abused its executive powers, willfully misled this nation into a disastrous war in Iraq and disturbingly continues to beat the Iran war drum.
To that end, I am not willing to leave even the "slightest crack" open for this president to unilaterally set this nation down another disastrous path of war in Iran. It is unacceptable for Congress once again to leave the door open for President Bush to exploit -- as he did when Congress authorized the use of military force against Iraq in a 2002 resolution. I believe it is essential that Congress remove the language in H. Con. Res. 362 that could lead to president Bush's unilateral imposition of a blockade on Iran.
We are in a unique moment in American history because the misgivings about the Bush administration's intentions and policies run so deep that the President is not trusted to carryout security policies that are in the best interest of our nation. As we debate H. Con. Res. 362, it has become clear that Congress must counter the Administration's tendencies of preferring armed conflict over diplomacy, and we must make every effort to change the text of this resolution. The stakes are too high for Congress to kowtow to this Administration; therefore, I am preparing to offer amendments to H. Con. Res. 362 and articulate a responsible policy that places America in the strongest possible diplomatic position to thwart Iran's nuclear program and the difficult security challenges we face.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Congressman Wexler, thank you for taking the initiative on this. While over 200 of your colleagues seem to have very short memories, you at least don't rubberstamp something this administration might abuse.
I have an issue with the whole resolution. Don't we already have sanctions against Iran? If they aren't working, what good are more sanctions? I think this resolution will only make Iran more bellicose. (Especially if they will no longer be able to get American cigarettes!)
Bush claims he's trying diplomacy. Does anyone in Congress know what that means - i.e., does the administration talk to anyone in Iran, or to a surrogate? I don't believe Bush is trying to avoid a confrontation. He's trying to provoke Iran into doing something stupid, just as he wanted to provoke Saddam into breaking international law so we could invade.
It is amazing that we need a resolution to say what the Constitution already says: Congress appropriates the money for war. I'm not sure if it's possible to write a resolution that Bush can't misinterpret. Wexler, I think you're great, but let's face it, if Bush wants to go to war he can.
Representative Wexler, you are my hero. I was surprised when I saw your name as a cosponser, and felt let down, but now I know your heart is in the right place. Thank you.
Personally I think a vote on a resolution like this is WRONG.
If the vote fails (which it probably will and wexler should know this) bush will accept this as a tacit approval from congress to go to war with iran. The warmongers aren't going to vote against war and neither will some of the DINOS.
Thank Goodness for Robert Wexler!
Bush is going to pursue a military solution regarrding Iran, congersss or no congress. And what are you gonna do? The Dems will trip falling all over themselves to support it rather that appear "soft" Impeachment is "of the table," Dems got no balls. Even if you did you would never muster the 2/3 to convict. So the unitary executive can do as he damn well pleases so liberals go Dick Cheney yourselves.
I agree
Congressman Wexler, I hope that you do read responses to your Blog or at least your staff reads them for you. I have been around democratic politics for a long time and I have learned that “you can full some of the people some of the time but not all the people all of the time”. For the sake of this republic this great words should be written in gold and be installed first and foremost above every entrance to the US Congress since you and the rest of your 634 club members forget this words all of the time.
In this Blog you are stating that your rational was Tom Friedman’s point in NY times that you should negotiate when you have leverage his inspiration was the reason you sponsored this new war resolution HR Con 362 to give leverage to Bush and Cheney so they can negotiate with Iran from point of strength. How ironic it is that this exact argument was the same rational in the House and Senate for passing the H.J. Res 114 Iraq war resolution that authorized the Iraq war with the help and inspiration of who else Tom Freidman and the rest of the media propagandist who like the old aluminum siding salesmen were sent to close the deal with the US public. I hope you and the rest of the Dome Club Members know what your first war authorization bill has done to us, Iraq the world and the global economy.
I could solve the Iranian nuke problem from my easy chair in upstate New York.
"Hell-o, Iran - hi, it's Pam calling - how 'ya doing? Listen, I was thinking, if we got our 150,000 boots off the ground in the Middle East, would you cool it with the nukes?"
"Hey, girl - good to hear from you! Sure, no problem. As long as your not in our neighborhood, threatening to kill us, we'd be down with that in a nano second."
"Deal!! I'll call the lunk heads on Capitol Hill - they've been busy fighting their way out of a paper bag and making up bogey men to scare each other, but I'm sure I can get their attention."
"Hell-O, Capitol Hill? Hey, it's Pam. You characters could f*uck up a wet dream, ya know that? I took care of the Iranian thing - just call Petraeus and tell him to start packing."
Zeeesch!
We gotta stop referring to the "left" side of the aisle and the "right" side of the aisle - lets just call them dumb and dumber!
Rep. Wexler,
When are you and the other remaining democrats going to toss out the little (r)'s that lead your caucus out on their collective immunized 4th point of contact?
"To that end, I am not willing to leave even the "slightest crack" open for this president to unilaterally set this nation down another disastrous path of war in Iran."
Apparently, Congressman Wexler hasn't been paying attention. Short of arresting Bush and Cheney, there ain't a damn thing he or anyone else can do to stop them. Now, pass the illegal wiretap, please...
In light of Obama's apparent desertion of progressive principles, is anyone interested in a "Draft Wexler" movement at the Dem convention?
yes thats right, and why dont we just hand the bloody presidency to the republicans while we're at it?
What difference is there between a big R and a little r?
See I'm an American first.
Then I'm a democrat.
I'm beginning to think 4 years of McSame with an overwhelmingly large democratic legislature might not be such a bad idea.
I would hate to hand a rubber stamp to anyone.
My issue with Mr. Obama is and has always been the "inexperience" Anyone can write flowery prose, and tell you nice things. It's what they do that's important. Not what they say. We did not have enough of a "history" on Mr. Obama, to see what he would truly do.
Look at GW. Regardless of how he got in the office, large numbers of people did indeed vote for him. Twice.
When he ran in 2000 he was a "compassionate conservative". He was going to "bring respectability" back to the White House. He would not turn to a policy of "nation building". In '04 is was all fear all the time. "We'll keep you safe. They won't".
Obviously what people say does not necessarily indicate what they'll do. Even if they tell you directly: I swear I will not ... Words are meaningless. Action is the only true measure of a person. Some famous guy once said "By their actions will you know them".
A overwhelming dem majority could and probably would keep McSame in check for 4 years. Would they do the same for Mr. Obama? I do not want anymore "unitary executives". I don't care if they have a D or an R in front of their name.
The wording of the Resolution leaves the impression that another "blank check" has been written to the Bouncer-in-chief. If fact, his account is closed with many of us because of his lack of honesty.
Congress gave him a whole book of "blank checks"
So far he has cashed over 4,000 of them
Surely Americans know that "the fix is in", just as it was, as evidenced by the so-called Downing St memo, for the unnecessary war of choice in Iraq. But, the unknown is how far it will escalate. Of course, the NeoCons that will bring us another unnecessary war of choice do not care. Their children will not be in the fight, and they have enough money to live with $10/gal (or more) gasoline. Only fools will rush in looking for WWIII.
Thank you Rep. Wexler. Bush should not be trusted with anything. After 9/11, he had the opportunity to unite the US and the rest of the world in a fight against terrorist groups. Instead he told Americans to go shopping while he unilaterally invaded a country that had NO TIES to the attacks. There's nothing lower than a neo-con.
Representative Wexler,
I have just watched a large number of Democrats vote to expand and legalize warrantless spying on Americans and to end our chances of finding out who in the current administration ordered the telecoms to break the law.
I have watched the Democrats promise to get us out of Iraq only to continue funding the war without demanding a timetable for our exit.
I have watched Nancy Pelosi actively protect this president and his vp actively suppressing efforts to begin impeacment hearings, supported in her efforts to suppress impeachment by Reid, Hoyer and Conyers.
Today we were told in no uncertain terms that our Constitution is just, as Bush put it, a GD piece of paper that is meaningless. While I always feel that you are sincere and I applaud your efforts I believe our government is a sham, a horse and pony show that pretends that we, the people, matter.
Years ago Cheney decided we were going to bomb Iran. The lies and propaganda are being spread and fed by MSM and government representatives. Regardless of your efforts I believe that Israel will bomb Iran using weapons we have given them. This will be done because law has not applied to our government officials.
Good luck with all your endeavors.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
