![]() |
1
1
1
View Ratings |
Rate It
By Cheryl Biren-Wright (about the author) Page 2 of 3 page(s)
Were Rep. Andrews’ remarks partisan rhetoric or sincere warning? If it is the former, we may have stumbled upon a new low in partisan politics. If the latter, the question should be what is he going to do about it. Caution and Reminders Upon his return from Israel this summer, Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen warned of opening up a "third front" in Iran. He added, "Just about every move in that part of the world is a high risk move." Furthermore, Dr. Thomas Fingar, Deputy Director of the NIA and Chair of the NIC reaffirmed in a keynote address two weeks ago what was stated in the November NIE on Iran that "work on the weaponization portion of the program was suspended."
Congressional Inaction and Reaction
If Rep. Andrews stands by his ‘Gulf of Tonkinize’ claim then he should be taking the proper steps to prevent what could be a catastrophic event. Unfortunately, the staffers in Andrews’ DC office are adept at reciting "we can’t speak for the congressman." Numerous attempts at clarification have been ignored.
Meanwhile, a controversial resolution on Iran, H. Con. Res. 362, continues to gain support. Despite sponsorship withdrawal by five House members (Reps. Danny Davis, Steve Cohen, Thomas Allen, Wm. Lacy Clay and John Lewis), there are presently 271 cosponsors. Three other cosponsors (Reps. Robert Wexler, Barney Frank, and Jackie Speier), have called for a change in specific language.
This non binding resolution, demands that the President prohibit the export of refined petroleum products to Iran and impose stringent inspections on persons and transport entering and departing Iran. In addition, it prohibits all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating a suspension of Iran’s nuclear program from international movement.
A related bill introduced by Senator Evan Bayh (R-IN) now with 50 cosponsors has been referred to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Contained in both resolutions are whereas clauses that are of questionable validity.
Should President Bush choose to rise to the occasion and act on the recommendations, a perfect storm for Mr. Andrews’ gloomy prediction may soon roll into the Persian Gulf.
Among the Key Judgments of the Nov. 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran is the statement "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program."
Before the NIE release President Bush, ratcheting up the rhetoric against Iran, invoked references such as "World War III." Never one to let 16 U.S. intelligence agencies get in his way, the president used the findings to boost his claim that Iran is a "threat to peace" adding "My opinion hasn’t changed."
Soon, the media and many members of Congress fell in line creating an opening for those hell-bent on opening up that third front.
Two weeks ago, John Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the UN spoke to Pepe Escobar of the Real News. Regarding the November NIE, Bolton said, "Look, the NIE has been effectively repudiated by the intelligence community. It's as dramatic a reversal as I've ever seen. I don't think there's any doubt in most people's minds that Iran continues to pursue a nuclear-weapons capability, and I fear that they have achieved all of the scientific and technical knowledge that they need to have a deliverable nuclear weapon. So we're at a very critical point in dealing with Iran, and our options are quite limited."
Tell that to Dr. Fingar, Mr. Bolton.
Perverse Legislation
Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Prevent a war with Iran
Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
View Authors' Articles |
| 2 comments |
Want to post your own comment on this Article?
|
||||
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |