In Praise of Barney Frank's Flip on the Iran Blockade Resolution

It's amazing how many people who should know better get sucked in by the corporate media's obsession with "flip-flops." The corporate media love this frame, because if someone said last year that two and two is five, and today they say it's four, you can nail them for "flip-flopping" without exposing yourself to criticism by trying to verify how much two and two is.

But it's not obvious why anyone else should buy into it. If a politician had a bad position, and they've changed that to a good position as a result of public pressure, that's a good thing, and we should sing their praises, in the hope that they will be joined by others. Come on over to our side. You'll be much happier over here.

As Keynes said: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"

Let us therefore praise Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts.

Frank is one of more than 200 Members of the House of Representatives who have co-sponsored a resolution (HConRes 362) heavily promoted by AIPAC that effectively calls for a blockade of Iran, an act of war.

But when peace activists complained, he did something that, to my knowledge (and I eagerly look forward to being corrected), none of those other Members of Congress have done.

He publicly admitted that he was wrong.

Last week, Frank told the Northampton Massachusetts Valley Advocate:

"I'm all for stricter sanctions against Iran, but the blockade part goes too far... I'm going to call the sponsors and tell them I'm changing my vote."

In a letter to an activist from Peace Action, Frank wrote:

I thank you for contacting me about language in the resolution regarding Iran that calls for a blockade of its naval activity. I agree that this should not be our policy, and I regret the fact that I did not read this resolution more carefully. I'm going to consult with the authors to see if a change can be made that would omit this language, and if they are unwilling to do that, I will make very clear my disagreement with this in the most appropriate form. I am grateful to those who called this to my attention. I apologize again for not having read this more carefully.

I do support sanctions against Iran and I disagree with those who think that sanctions are inappropriate. I believe that sanctions appropriately done can have an impact on the behavior of countries whose behavior ought to be changed. The fact that our European allies, and even Russia and China, have agreed with us on the sanctions I think is a testimony to the legitimacy of this approach. But I repeat that I do think we should have a very clear distinction between sanctions and military action or the threat of it, and the blockade clearly falls on the wrong side of that line, so I will be making clear my opposition to that.

This country urgently needs more Members of Congress like Barney Frank, who are willing to state forthrightly that they made a mistake. You can ask your Representative to stand with Barney Frank here.

UPDATE: Rep. Robert Wexler also says the Iran resolution must change, in a Huffington Post blog here.

Comments

[mamajama]

Please don't let us get fooled again into war.

Not again with the fake nuclear intelligence. Not again with our atomic energy experts on the ground telling us the facts, and the media and administration ignoring or changing these facts. Read Sahimi's piece of two days ago:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/muhammad-sahimi/how-to-convince-your-cong_b_111121.html

Not again with the wimpy Democrats, shaking in their boots that someone might call them "soft on terror", voting blindly for bills they don't even bother to read. Barney Frank, by the way, is not a Democrat. He is an Independent, and thus possibly insulated against some of the more craven Democratic practices.

Seymour Hersch, in his NYT piece, said that Cheney has had operatives on the ground in Iran for a year or more, targeting (read targeting and terrorizing) individuals who may provide a "justification" for war. These people are provocateurs. Bush & Cheney, oilmen to the end, pursuing their interests.

If the harbors are blockaded, Iran would rightfully see it as an act of war. I wonder what the USA would do if a foreign country blockaded its harbors?

Please write to your representatives in Congress. Please be loud. Be heard. Please let's not be fooled again.

[earthwealth]

Thank you Honorable Rep. Barney Frank for your courageous move. You are a true patriot. We need more politicians like you. Perhaps you would like to know that economical sanctions mainly have been hurting average Iranians families mostly not the Iranian Government. Its impact has been heavily felt in over all health and well being of most Iranian children. The main reason Russia, Europe and China are going along with most but not all sanctions is that they are given choices of military actions or economical sanctions. In order to avoid military action, they go along with economical sanctions. Please do not use them as a reason to support your conclusion. Since after some study you already have come to a different conclusion, please go one step further and look into the actual impact of the economical sanctions against Iran. Perhaps you would come to a different realization to further advance your accomplishment.

[meanguy]

yeah, it's always 'courageous' to cave in to the demands of left wing activists during a re-election campaign...

[earthwealth]

Iran must be sanctioned because:
1. In 1953 Iran set up a coup and changed our democratic elected government of Dr. Mosadegh.
2. When Iraq attacked us, Iran fully supported this war and provided Iraq with military, political and WMDs. Our 1000+ WMD victims are still in their hospital beds for the world to see.
3. In July 1998, Iranian Navy shot down our commercial plane while flying legally over OUR Persian Gulf. Only 100 out of 300 bodies were recovered from water. The executer of the mission received an honorably medal.
4. Has been involved in many covert missions in our country targeting some ethnic groups for uprising., sabotage and mercenary activities, explosions in mosques and military bases.
5. Has attacked and occupied two of our neighboring countries and spread their large navy including carriers and nuclear submarines on our shores.
6. Has been threatening us by initiating and supporting numerous economical sanctions and constantly repeating the phrase "all options are on the table".
7. With 6000+ nuclear warheads had made threats to many countries that have no nuclear arsenals.
8. Has installed and supported many dictatorial regimes around the world.
9. In 1988 when four Iranian diplomats were kidnapped and still held in captivity by Israelis, they immediately attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.
10. In 1998, when Taliban beheaded 11 Iranian diplomats sent to Afghanistan by Iranian government to initiate diplomacy, Iran immediately attacked Afghanistan with nuclear weapons.

[Argente]

No surprise about Barney. He's one of the few independent thinkers in that pusillanimous body.

The most aggravating thing about HCR 362 is that the Dems cannot find the fortitude to close the wallet unequivocally on Bush (6 mos. remaining and an approval rate in the toilet) with respect to military action against Iran. This is an especially pathetic performance, among many, given that this is only a non-binding resolution and, as Rep. Wexler reported yesterday, they can't even get it out of committee.

Forget about putting an honest-to-god bill on the floor and at least an attempt to pull together an override. At this point, Bush's pathetic approval rating is leaps and bounds ahead of that of the Dem. Congress. What I can't figure out is why it's greater than zero.

[JNV]

"Mistakenly" approving a blockade of Iran? And some wonder why Congress' s approval rating is less than Bush's.

[nellieh]

Santions against Iran are futile. Diplomacy as an equal would be more effective than telling them if they don't comply we'll beat their asses. Sanctions? With the oil they have they may sanction us someday. Do you think China will go along with that? They will buy all the oil Iran has. If they don't India will. We are having petroleum problems now. What do you think they will be like when the sanctions begin? We have been sanctioning Cuba for damn near 50 years and they haven't capitulated. They are only a country with a political bent toward communism. Iran is a country the size of ours with RELIGIOUS nuts at the top loaded with oil money.. Guess who drove planes into the Twin Towers, The Pentagon and into the ground in Pennsylvania. Religious nuts. We keep hearing about moderates in Iran. Where are they. Sanctions will be a joke. Saddam sold oil against sanctions and some Americans were involved. The United Nations Secretary General's son was involved. If there is easy money to be made with sanctions you know the "oil men" will be involved.

[RobinLandseadel]

. . . .and eventually we will be buying that oil in the form of products from Wal-Mart and elsewhere.

[rmreddicks]

Perhaps Rep. Franks should state exactly what behaviors of Iran he wishes to change.

We all are pretty aware that no congressman (or senator) reads the bills they vote on. They rely on their staff to keep them aware of the contents. Very few bills are written by congressmen or senators. They are written by staff and/or lobbyists. Oddly(?), when a mass of citizens propose a bill to a representative or senator such is rarely heeded. Of course we can only give so little whereas lobbyists can give so much.

[scooperss]

Do any members of congress read what they are going to vote on? Who does read these bills? Glad he changed his mind after being informed what the bill wad BUT he should have read it in the first place.

In fact ALL congressmen should read what they're going to vote on. I think the people are more informed than they are.

[HypocrisyAlarm]

Perhaps an examination before votes is in order. No representative/senator may vote on a bill if he/she scores less than 90% on a test about the contents of the bill. Of course, how can a congressperson find the time to actually read the bills with all that fundraising and those television/radio appearances?

Regarding the bill itself, a naval blockade is a supremely bad idea. Since I cannot trust any of the nations with nuclear weapons, particularly the US, Russia, China, and Israel, I don't want ANY country to have them. I can, nevertheless, understand Iran's position. They find Israel's nuclear weapons a threat and wish to have a counterthreat. If Mexico developed a new, devastating weapon, the US would be busting its rump to copy it or steal it, and the US would feel more than justified in so doing. Further, Iran IS a sovereign country and takes no more kindly to pressure from outside than Americans do. Can you imagine the uproar in the US if the world embargoed the US until she destroyed all her nuclear weapons? How dare THEY tell US what to do!! Lastly, Iran has had wars with Iraq, but I don't recall Iran attacking other countries in the region. Israel, on the other hand, has attacked MOST of her neighbors at one time or another -- some quite recently -- and has illegally occupied lands outside her boundaries for forty-one years. I'm no fan Iran, but I can appreciate its motivations.

[RobinLandseadel]

"Perhaps an examination before votes
is in order. No representative/senator
may vote on a bill if he/she scores less
than 90% on a test about the contents
of the bill. "

I understand that there are over 600 pages in the original version of :

http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

. . . .and you know the only Congressperson to read it in its entirety
was Senator Russ Feingold:

http://www.archipelago.org/vol6-2/feingold.htm

[ScottCandage]

I respect for Rep. Frank for changing his vote once he realized what was in the bill he sponsored. I would have full respect for him if he actually knew what was in the bill he originally sponsored.

[demfriend]

While I admire Mr Frank for many reasons the blockade will happen with Iran doing it the way we are going. As long as Mccain makes infamitory "jokes' and statements about killing the Iranian people there is a problem and it is Macinbushes mouth. A war is made based on words first then shots fired. Our troops int he middle east don't deserve to die over words out of macs mouth.

[meanguy]

if a war starts, it won't be over mccain's jokes, but over iran's 'crazy as an outhouse rat' leadership deciding to attack either israel or our ships or both...and it won't last long

[Viper]

Funding covert activties in another country is also an act of war.

Assasinating their elected President in 1954 and installing a dictator is also an act of war.....

Invading a soveriegn nation that has not attacked you and with no immenent plans to so .. is also an act of war... just ask the Japanese...

Might as well do the Blockade... its a little late to worry about doing the right thing.

Regards

[edtastic]

There was a debate going on about this resolution on the DailyKos. Some people called the posters anti Semites and dismissed it as anti Israel garbage. At least now I realize the threat was real and people were right to be outraged at the Democratic congress selling out America for AIPAC once again. I wonder what kind of weapons do the Pro Israel lobby have in their arsenal to create such a disciplined atmosphere. It was bad enough we got sold down the river on the Iraq, war resolution, but to get the congress to put a naval blockade on Iran? For the sake of America how can we run our country this way, having the loyalties of are legislator being manipulated for the benefit of a foreign country via a powerful lobby no one even dares to question. Whose America is this?

I would like to see more articles about this resolution on Huffington Post, I have faithfully read everyday for months and I have not seen anything else. Perhaps it slipped by me, I hope we confront war mongers on the left and right side of the aisles we will have to pay dearly if they succeed in their efforts.

[InjunTrouble]

If AIPAC is lobbying hard for any legislation, you can bet your bottom dollar that the legislation is not in the interest of the US or even of the rest of the world.

AIPAC is a fifth column operating in the US for the sole benefit of Israel.

These people are traitors who would sell their country down the river, if it means getting a tiny bit advantage for Israel. We need to get rid of them, once and for all.

[PKSSK]

Frank and Wexler are prime examples of US representatives who have the character and integrity to take a stand they believe is best for our country, not foreign political action committees. Another US rep that follows in their footsteps is Bill Delahunt, who is also a man of great integity.