Well-written, non-biased summary

This is a shameful resolution and you are right to question this "fire breathing liberal" phony Wexler on how he can possibly support it.  It's intent is to establish a naval blockade of Iran--for which the US has no authority (moral or otherwise).  Gilchrest is correct--this aggressive, provocative resolution will lead to a "Gulf of Tonkin" event to create war with Iran.  This time even Poland or Romania won't join a "coalition" blockade either.  

It's curious that, given the act-of-war language of this resolution and the overwhelming support of democrats, our media is silent on reporting the entire issue.  Why are Americans not being told that their elected representative is pushing for something no other country will support?  There would be zero support for this from Japan or China, Russia, India, Belgium, Canada, Taiwan, etc.  Where did this resolution come from?

 I don't believe that the language of this Resolution 362 comes from Mr Cheney as the rabbi Lerner suggests.  I wish you would further investigate to discover just where this resolution originated, who wrote this resolution, what group lobbied for it, etc.  I repeat, where did this come from?  

by Country M (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Tuesday, July 1, 2008 at 8:44:35 AM
 

lobbying

Thought I had included some of this in my article, maybe it didn't make it into the final cut (it's a rather lengthy piece as is), will have to go back and look.

But . . . AIPAC has certainly lobbied for this resolution. It is listed in their key legislation on their website. You can find more about that here . They have the .pdf of the letter by Ackerman and Pence, Take a Stand Against Iranian Bullying: Co-Sponsor H. Con. Res. 362 , along with the full text of the resolution also posted.

The first week of June AIPAC had their annual policy conference in D.C. It is my understanding that they lobbied hard for this resolution - 90 members of Congress signed on that week (although to be fair that was also the first full working week since it's introduction). Still, 90 in the first week or any week seems to be a lot.

But . . . that does not mean that it is not also trickling down from say. . . Dick Cheney. After all, a military conflict with Iran would fit quite nicely into his grand plan.

While Rabbi Lerner does comment on Cheney and the oil companies, a very valid conclusion in my opinion, he also said this which is printed in the article:

As it relates to members of Congress, Rabbi Lerner concludes, "The American Jewish Establishment, operating through AIPAC and many other sources, has aligned itself with this crusade of folly, first in Iraq and now in Iran. And, they have been able to call upon many of their supporters in Congress to do likewise."

Clearly, he is talking about lobbying here.

Thanks for reading and commenting.

by Cheryl Biren-Wright (29 articles, 29 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 435 comments) on Tuesday, July 1, 2008 at 1:47:41 PM
 

This is an incredible work

I'm very aware of how much time, sweat and heart you've put into this. It's part of the project we discussed and planned and if we're successful, the ripples will spread very wide and far.

I also want to give Rep. Wexler and his chief of staff a huge amount of credit for working with us on  this. My experience with this, including the conversations following the interview will ulitmately lead to me writing a number or articles on this. 

I'm guessing  that same will be true for you.

In addition, it's made it clearer to me just how challenging it is to be an elected official trying to represent all the consituent interests, trying to do the right thing and trying to hold on to the job.

We on the left are lucky to have Wexler and only short-sighted children will attack Wexler because of this one vote. Even our best allies, even Kucinich, even Sanders and Leahy and Feingold will not vote on all of our issues as we want them to.  That's reality. We have to keep working at moving them to support more of our issues, to see more of the light, but they also have to deal with real and imagined pressures their constituents, their staffers and advisors impress upon them. That's also what's happening with Obama right now.

I'm proud that OEN took a prinicilpled step towards taking the conversation to the next level. We're not done.  We didn't get all the answers we wanted. We didn't even get answers that were fully satisfying. But this is a further step than most of the broadcast media go. I believe we've very consciously set a precedent, an example of how other broadcast media people can respond. Read more about it in the article I'll be posting later today (with a link added here at that time.) I would have posted it yesterday, but I'm fighting a bug that put me in bed much of the day.

by Rob Kall (891 articles, 4057 quicklinks, 350 diaries, 1925 comments) on Tuesday, July 1, 2008 at 11:14:24 AM
 

Change the wording to prohibit a blockade

I too believe that the wording could easily lead someone like Bush to interpret the resolution to give him the right to blockade Iran. Did anyone ask Wexler HOW the shipments of refined petroleum would be kept from being delivered to Iran? Perhaps if the suggestion to change the wording were presented, Wexler would be able to support the resolution and still not take the chance that Bush would misuse it.

Leon

by Leon (7 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 29 comments) on Wednesday, July 2, 2008 at 12:43:54 AM
 

One of the best reporting jobs in OEN history, Cheryl

I have a hard time understanding why Wexler would join in such a questionable resolution, but who knows the heart of a politician?

David Addington, on the other hand, must be rolling around on the lawn, anticipating the delights of the ambiguity--inspection requirements on persons, vehicles, ships indeed. That's a doorway large enough for all the neocons to walk through without even touching.

Cheney, if he dares, will get his war out of Wexlers inattention to detail--nothing new there, sports.

by Jim Freeman (108 articles, 53 quicklinks, 224 diaries, 386 comments) on Tuesday, July 1, 2008 at 2:24:15 PM
 

thanks

thank you jim for your generous comment.

ah yes, mr. addington surely enjoys this kind of language. of course, if any legislation doesn't suit him perfectly he's always got a signing statement up his sleeve.

by Cheryl Biren-Wright (29 articles, 29 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 435 comments) on Wednesday, July 2, 2008 at 1:16:14 AM
 

But then again, it's those darn resolutions

So you’re confused about this resolution and its apparent ambiguity, eh?

These resolutions, perhaps because they don’t carry the weight of law, are not always accurate. The House International Affairs Committee has been pumping this stuff out regarding Iran since Henry Hyde took it over. Hyde was replaced by Tom Lantos who recently died.

Under Lantos the volume of Iran vilification died down a bit. Now, Rep. Ackerman is ramping up again. They are not inconsequential, though. Beyond the obvious, (I would disagree with the Rabbi) that this is an election year and AIPAC is pushing this thing for all it’s worth, these things are published and read around the world. And although most Americans who read the preambles take it at face value, those in other countries see the anomalies.

When I read the resolution preamble, the first thing that stood out to me was this:

“Whereas the IAEA has confirmed such illicit covert nuclear activities as the importation of uranium hexafluoride, construction of a uranium enrichment facility, experimentation with plutonium, importation of centrifuge technology, construction of centrifuges, and importation of designs to convert highly enriched uranium gas into metal and shape it into the core of a nuclear weapon;”

Is this true? Do you think the IAEA would casually report or fail to report an intention to “convert highly enriched uranium gas into metal and shape it into the core of a nuclear weapon”?

Rep Wexler’s insistence that the resolution does not authorize military action against Iran is a bit disingenuous. That phrase has been dumped into legislation and amendments to legislation that has aimed to move closer to allowing action against Iran since last year. The statement is only there to dissuade you from your valid concerns about this. Here are some examples:

http://theweekincongress.com/Member/FEATURES/CONGPOISE730.htm

If you look back a bit over past legislation (109th and 110th) you will see a repeated effort to give Congress’ encouragement of action against Iran. It was largely been a Republican effort but they have found significant support this year from the Blue Dog Democrats. It began in 2006 with a pretty ill fated effort to demonstrate that weaponry was entering Iraq from Iran. You might remember that things were pretty dismal in Iraq at the time and the Administration was beginning to blame the lack of progress on Iran and Syria. That effort was disputed by the media, but shortly after the drum beat began and was so successful that now it is considered fact that our problems in Iraq also stem from Iran’s involvement.

Don’t believe for a minute that this resolution is benign. If it wasn’t relevant, it wouldn’t be coming to the floor. We already have two carriers in the Persian Gulf, and the wording does absolutely describe a blockade. Trust your instincts

So, as the old saying goes, ‘If you find yourself facing a contradiction, check your premises.’ You might ask not “If Increased Sanction Resolution, 362, Could Give Bush License for a Naval Blockade Why Support It?” and ask instead “If it doesn’t give Bush license for a naval blockade, why support it?”

by Robert McElroy (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments) on Tuesday, July 1, 2008 at 7:06:04 PM
 

thanks robert

for your comments. actually, i'm not feeling a contradiction, though,  the title might suggest such. that was one of the questions we had for the dems who are forever criticizing george bush, yet are willing to support something like this. and, you're right about aipac as i mentioned in a comment above - there was a big push for the resolution during the first week of june.

by Cheryl Biren-Wright (29 articles, 29 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 435 comments) on Tuesday, July 1, 2008 at 7:25:53 PM
 

Naval blockade

In international law a naval blockade is considered an Act of War.  Are we really prepared for a real war?  Iran would be justified to attack any of our bases in Iraq or Afghanistan or any other "stan".  Don't think they wouldn't do it.  They sacrificed millions of people in their war against Iraq.  It would shutdown the Persian Gulf for an indeterminate time.  Even if we could protect the tankers the insurance rates would go sky high.  Our energy supplies would never be secure after that.  You think $140/barrel is high?  It could be the tipping point for a world war or Depression.

by Johnny E (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Tuesday, July 1, 2008 at 10:31:19 PM
 

This is so important.. Cheryl, can we get PDA to actively...

oppose this? There is nothing on their website. This can be because it has caught many people off-guard... or it could also be they don't want to embarrass people like Wexler??? In any case, i think PDA should again take a stand, even risking not pleasing their friends. It sure would help Congresspeople like Barbara Lee (she will vote against this) to have PDA oppose this... and many PDA people are not even aware of this resolution, so that makes it all the more important.

This resolution is so dangerous, i think, not because i believe that that it will immediately lead to the naval blockade it clearly calls for, but because i think its purpose is to get Iran to act... in a way that would provide a pretext for war. It won't come from this vote alone, but the accumalation of US policy as supported by the Bushboys and Pelosi and her crew of war supporters can lead the way to a very destructive outcome. If Iran becomes convinced that a military attack is inevitable, it may give up with trying to find a diplomatic solution... it may, for example, give up on trying to please arms inspectors.

As for Wexler's support of this, it is very unhelpful, it could lead to consequences, that can be really catastrophic, very different than he may want. It does not matter if he is a nice fellow or not. For example, I'm sure most of us have friends or family who have supported bush/cheney. Their many genuine good qualities did not make the consequence of their vote any less devasting. Wexler's good qualities does not change the possible consequences of this vote.

More info on 362...

http://stopaipac.org/iranresolution.htm

by Jim Harris (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Wednesday, July 2, 2008 at 1:22:06 AM
 

PDA

Good question. I haven't heard anything about a PDA stance on this. I'll see if I can find out. Thanks.

by Cheryl Biren-Wright (29 articles, 29 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 435 comments) on Wednesday, July 2, 2008 at 7:01:48 AM
 

Excellent Article

You know the old saying, "if it quacks like a duck." H.R. 362 quacks to high heaven as a war resolution. Why else would AIPAC support it? AIPAC and Israel have been pushing for a US war against Iran since not long after the invasion of Iraq. And why shouldn't they? They'd like us to knock off all of their sworn enemies in the region for them. Soon they'll have us invading Syria and Lebanon.

What we have here is an iron triangle of interests between neocons, big oil and Isreali hardliners working in concert. Those who support H.R. 362 are acting as pawns of each of those interests nomatter how artful their dodges (I mean explanations of their stances). I'm willing to risk that the fact that almost 1/3 of Mr. Wexler's constituents are Jewish has not escaped his attention. There can be no other explanation of his support for such a dangerously worded resolution.

H.R. 362 is an artfully worded war resolution to instigate an armed conflict between the US and Iran while claiming to authorize no such thing. There is no other way to read it. And for an elected representative to fail to acknowledge that fact is being disingenuous in the extreme nomatter if an R, D, or I follows his/her name.

This resolution quacks like a duck. If passed it will with all likelihood be signed and carried out by the Bush Administration before 2009. And it will be able to claim once again carte blanche to use military force against a sovereign nation without UN approval. Shame on those who support it.

by Sam Adams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 90 comments) on Wednesday, July 2, 2008 at 5:08:46 AM
 

And then there is Lebanon

You're pretty much on the mark, Sam. I'd add that it would not be likely the US would invade Lebanon--Israel has done a pretty good job of that over the past twenty years. The US foreign policy approach to Lebanon, after influencing the disassembling of the elected government that, in my opinion, was an incredible step forward in the region because the leadership revolved around Shiite, Sunni and 'Christian' representation. What Congress did do, however, was provide nearly $1 billion to Lebanon including $300 million for something in the bill called the Lebanon Project. Funds were also earmarked for ammunition to the Lebanon military who were fighting Fatah al Islam, an insurgent group claiming al Qaeda credentials although alQaeda separated itself from them, holed up in a Palestinian refugee camp. More was granted under our Foreign Military Financing Program allowing Lebanon to buy materiel from the US. Soon thereafter we sent FBI Director Mueller to Lebanon to consult with them about local policing.

For some reason US accusations about Syria never gelled as have those against Iran. Our big thing with Syria was demanding it police its Iraq and Lebanon borders to stop the alleged flow or arms or insurgents. (A bit Ironic we should make such a demand when we can’t control out own national borders). Besides, Israel already bombed a suspected reactor recently.

HCR 362 is, indeed, ‘quacking like a duck’. I’d note that the resolution would not be signed by the President as you suggested. Concurrent resolutions are something of a consensus from Congress. And because of that, it has, in my opinion, more significance as a motivator of foreign policy without it becoming law while giving signers the option of saying it gave no authorization if it becomes part of the President’s future actions.

by Robert McElroy (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments) on Wednesday, July 2, 2008 at 8:43:43 AM