Hearings on the Chicago Iran Resolution

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

Posted May 13, 2008 | 01:41 PM (EST)




The proceedings begin with a press conference at City Hall, followed by the actual hearings.

Press Conference

10:41 Alderman Joe Moore, sponsor of the resolution opposed to a US military attack on Iran and urging the US to engage in diplomacy.

5 years ago the council made history passing a resolution against war in Iraq.

Sadly our leaders did not take heed. Now most observers agree the war was a horrible mistake.

Now more than 4000 dead, tens of thousands wounded, more than a million Iraqis killed or wounded.

History is repeating itself. The Administration is beating the drum of war, despite the Iran NIE.

As in the runup to war in Iraq, basing the threat on unsubstantiated information.

Some would argue that this is not Chicago's business. But it is definitely Chicago's business. It's Chicago's neighborhoods which will suffer.

Chicago will once again lead the nation as a city for peace.

10:45 Scott Ritter

It makes me angry when I hear that it's not the business of local representatives. It's absolutely the business of local representatives. We must stand up against the rush to war, not based on appeasement, but based on reality. I thank Alderman Moore for leading this initiative.

10:51 Mearshimer: Attacking Iran is not going to prevent from getting nuclear weapons. If you continue to threaten Iran, certainly if you attack Iran, then they are definitely going to get nuclear weapons to prevent themselves from being attacked again.

Second: Iran will retaliate. Iran will go to great lengths to make our life even more difficult in Afghanistan and Iraq. It will be relatively easy for them to do so. It is certain that more Americans will die, and those will become lost causes for certain. So if you want to save American lives, make sure that the US does not attack Iran.

10:59 Professor Norma Moruzzi
I travel regularly to Iran, most recently last year. This morning I received an email from Iran about the Chicago City Council hearings. This underlines the importance of this effort. People in Iran are watching.

Every time the US ramps up tensions, it hurts those on the ground who are working for human rights, reducing the space for them to operate. No one I know in Iran favors any kind of US military attack. Nothing helps the current government more than threats from the United States. If Iran is attacked, Iranians will rally around the flag. We need to change this policy both in the interests of Americans and the interests of Iranians.

11:04 Stephen Kinzer:
One: this has become a real possibility.

Two: This would be a disaster.

Three: There is an alternative. Direct, unconditional, bilateral, comprehensive negotiations. Which has never been tried. It would be the height of immorality not to pursue this. Iran and the US have common interests, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan. Break out of the prison of illusions. Of course there are no guarantee this will work. But on the brink of crisis, it is folly not to at least a try

11:09 Michael Lynn: Why did we take this to the council? Because Washington isn't listening.

11:11 Question: Are we still on the brink of war?

Ald Moore: After the NIE came out, dispelling a lot of the bad information. I thought perhaps this resolution might not be necessary. But now again we see the same drumbeat of war, the same drumbeat of war as before Iraq.

Question: What's the evidence that an attack still on the table?

Ritter: Listen to the Bush Administration. They're saying over and over that it's still on the table. This is not a war of national security. This is a war of choice, at a time and place of the President's choosing. So the President has to build the case of war. Of course they have to move forces into the region at the same time as they build the case for war. Fortunately they've had problems with their case for war. Note they're not talking about Iran nuclear anymore. That dog won't hunt. But now it's about Iraq, blaming Iran for the problems in Iraq. Ask the Pentagon to deny the war plans they're preparing. Ask the Reps and the Senators why they're not holding these hearings.

Question: Why are you confident that the Chicago City Council will pass this resolution?

Answer: We passed a resolution against the Iraq war. And we were totally vindicated by events. I have talked to many of my colleagues, and overwhelmingly they have told me they intend to vote for the resolution.

11:47 The actual hearings commence.
Ald Moore: 5 years ago the Council passed a resolution 48-1 against the invasion of Iraq. We did so because the case had not been made. Because Chicagoans would give up their lives. Because our tax dollars would be diverted from our needs at home.

The Administration did not heed our resolution. We did not act in isolation. 300 cities and towns did so. New York, Los Angeles.

It appears that history is repeating itself, the sabers are rattling again. But now it's Iran. We see faulty information being used to make the case for an invasion or some kind of military action.

We are aware of the threats Iran may pose. But war should be the last resort, not a first resort. And our government should exhaust diplomacy.

Some say we should not involve ourselves in matters of war and peace.

On the contrary. It is our business. It is our sons and daughters. It is our tax dollars.

Chicago taxpayers alone have sent over 5.4 billion to wage war in Iraq. That's almost equal to the entire budget of the city. That's 108 million dollars for each of the city's 50 wards. Imagine what we could have done with that money.

That's why we're doing this, why we're gathered here, why Chicago must again lead as a city for Peace.

12:08: Alderman Jackson. I support this resolution. The dismantling of the office of public diplomacy indicates how this administration has not placed a premium on diplomacy. Of course we should exhaust diplomacy before contemplating any military action. We have to be very careful after what has happened, it would be irresponsible to trust information coming from the Bush Administration, from the CIA. My brother served in Desert Storm. He is still suffering the consequences of that war. As a family we take this very seriously and that's why I signed on to the resolution. We have to do everything possible to avoid another war.

12:15 Alderman Lyle: We got a lot of criticism 5 years ago, we were called unpatriotic. But we were right. If we pass this resolution, hopefully other cities will do the same. Not only does the war impact our community, it also impacts those of us who would like to travel to other countries. We have always taken up issues besides collecting the garbage. We spoke out in support of the anti-Apartheid movement. We've always been out there.

12:20 Ritter. To those who are concerned about the threat to Israel: I am a friend of Israel. I worked in Israel, trying to protect Israel against the threat of missiles raining down on Israeli cities. And that's one of the reasons I'm here, to turn the US away from a policy that will guarantee that missiles rain down on Israeli cities.

I'm concerned that people say that they know things that they don't know. We know that Iran has an enrichment program. The question is how should we should deal with that. Should we launch a pre-emptive strike, pushing them into a corner, making it more likely that they will pursue a nuclear weapon more vigorously in the future. Or shall we pursue real diplomacy.

When we're talking about whether Iran is a threat to the United States that would justify a US military attack, we're not talking about the relationship of Iran to Hezbollah in Lebanon. That is not a threat to the United States. The question is what the evidence is that Iran is a threat to the United States.

Our role in a democracy is not to take the statements of our government or any government at face value. Our role is to challenge.

12:35 Ritter: (in response to a question). To say that Iran is trying to undermine the Iraqi government is self-contradictory. Because the leaders of the Iraqi government are very close to Iran. Iran loves the government of Iraq. I do believe there are relationships with special forces. I think we should use Iran's influence, like happened in Basra. It wasn't Maliki sending in the Iraqi army. It was Iran brokering an agreement.

 
Comments
0
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

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

View Comments:
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in  or  Connect