SENSE OR NONSENSE?
“SENSE OF THE SENATE’S RESOLUTION ON IRAN”
A “SENSE OF CONGRESS” RESOLUTION IS A NON-BINDING STATEMENT RELATIVE TO WHAT THE SENATE AS A WHOLE BELIEVES ON A SPECIFIC SUBJECT. IN THIS CASE THE SUBJECT IS IRAN AND IN MY OPINION THE SENATE IS OUT OF ORDER WHEN WE ARE SEEKING TO REACH A DIPLOMATIC RESOLUTION TO OUR DIFFERENCES
The Sponsors of the bill were Senators Kyl from Texas a man with a mind-set that is a throwback to Rasputin, and Senator Lieberman who acts and votes like the Senator from Israel rather than Senator from Connecticut
Why would a sophisticated and educated state like Connecticut elect a hawk like Joe Lieberman to the U. S. Senate after the Democrats denied him his re-nomination to that seat in the last election? He constantly sides with the hawks of the Republican Party on the war in Iraq and now on the attempt by the neo-conservatives who want Bush to bomb the daylights out of the nuclear facilities (if such things, indeed, exist) in Iran.
We will recall that Bush openly stated in an interview sometime ago that be believes he was being called by God to wipe out the threat that Iran poses because he is the only president now or in the future with enough guts/balls to do it. If Bush is not humble, he is nothing. And who, by the way, has given Bush the idea he is God’s messenger and executioner on earth? With the evidence we have at had, either God is wrong on his Iraq call or Bush is wrong in his assumption that he is doing God’s work in Mesopotamia (Iraq).
A new book entitled The Evangelical President by Bill Sammons clearly identifies Bush’s religious connection to the right-wing of the evangelical arm of the Christian Church which also mistakenly believes itself to be the voice of God on earth. While the religious right represents only a small part (20%+) of the Christian community and is certainly not indicative of the theology nor the politics of the mainstream of American Christianity, Bush does not permit all the facts to interfere with his calling to bring democracy to the Middle East even it bankrupts our country and kills thousands more of our young men and women. He has been so persistently and prejudicially determined to complete this task he has put the burden of victory in Iraq squarely on the shoulders of Gen. David Patraeus. While the constitution dictates that the president will be Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and while Bush labels himself “the decider,” he hides behind the shadow of a military man defined by some as a military genius and has turned the decision-making dimension of Iraq over to this four-star general.
The General gave a fairly positive report to the Congress on the progress his “Surge” has enjoyed in Baghdad. He boldly stated that the number of military and civilian death are down in Baghdad, and that in some sections of the capital city, life has nearly returned to normal
Many journalists who live there and have been there for years simply do not agree. Michael Ware of CCN was one of the first reporters to call the conflict there a civil war.
He called out Senator John McCain who went to Baghdad for a few hours and declared we are winning the war. One reporter asked out from under what rock did McCain crawl to reach such an insane opinion.
The facts are that while the number of deaths are on the decrease in Baghdad where the bulk of our surge walks the streets and hunts down anyone who looks, or smells like an insurgent or a Shiite militiaman, there is a dramatic increase in killings and IEDs have killed more civilians and military that at any time in the war. In other words, the Sunnis, al Qaeda and the militia have just moved their forces to the remote areas of Iraq and away from Baghdad where the U. S. forces are enforcing a temporarily more peaceful environment. And if our troops remain there for years to come, I feel certain they can turn Baghdad into the haven of history it once embodied.
Many of us believe Patraeus to be a stand-in for Bush. After all he is military and military men is a place where privates or generals know how salute and say “Yes, Sir,” when ever their superiors asked them a question.
What I fear is that the militias, al Qaeda and sectarian guards are simply hiding out in their homes and shelters until the U. S. “surge” force is out of town to come back to the streets and finish the job we all know they are devoted to complete.
And now, as the Iran component of this conflict comes to the fore, forces both within the Pentagon, the White House and the neo-conservative movement are feeling their oats. They believe that Petraeus will bring Iraq to a place where the government, its army and police force will be ready to stand up and take charge of the security of the streets and allow the Iraqi people to resume their new life.
It is my opinion this is a fabrication not unlike the one these same people provoked prior to our preemptive invasion of Iraq. Then they were convinced that our soldiers would be met as liberators, the people would throw flowers at the feet of our soldiers and that a new democratic government could be in place in a matter of months. It is now 4 and a half years later, nearly 3800 American soldiers have been killed, nearly 30,000 wounded, we are spending $2-3 billion per week to fight the war and our deficit will hit $1 trillion before Bush leaves office.,
Further, our domestic agenda has fallen into crucial disrepair—our infrastructure is falling apart, our schools are in dire need of financial help, our medical system is in the dumpster, the cost of health care is coursing through the galaxy, gasoline is gushing through the ceiling, corruption in the Bush government has hit an all time high and nearly 80% of the American people want this war to end.
With all of this in mind, the Congress, first the House and last week the Senate passed a non-binding resolution expressing the “sense of the Congress” relative to Iran. Read some of the language from the Lieberman/Kyl Amendment:
General David Petraeus, commander of the Multi-National Force Iraq, stated in testimony before a joint session of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives on September 10, 2007, that ``[i]t is increasingly apparent to both coalition and Iraqi leaders that Iran, through the use of the Iranian Republican Guard Corps Qods Force, seeks to turn the Shi'a militia extremists into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests and fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq''.
Ambassador Ryan Crocker, United States Ambassador to Iraq, stated in testimony before a joint session of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives on September 10, 2007, that ``Iran plays a harmful role in Iraq. While claiming to support Iraq in its transition, Iran has actively undermined it by providing lethal capabilities to the enemies of the Iraqi state''.
The most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, published in August 2007, states that ``Iran has been intensifying aspects of its lethal support for select groups of Iraqi Shia militants, particularly the JAM [Jaysh al-Mahdi], since at least the beginning of 2006. Explosively formed penetrator (EFP) attacks have risen dramatically''.
The Report of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, released on September 6, 2007, states that ``[t]he Commission concludes that the evidence of Iran's increasing activism in the southeastern part of the country, including Basra and Diyala provinces, is compelling. . . It is an accepted fact that most of the sophisticated weapons being used to `defeat' our armor protection comes across the border from Iran with relative impunity''.
General (Ret.) James Jones, chairman of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, stated in testimony before the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate on September 6, 2007, that ``[w]e judge that the goings-on across the Iranian border in particular are of extreme severity and have the potential of at least delaying our efforts inside the country. Many of the arms and weapons that kill and maim our soldiers are coming from across the Iranian border''.
General Petraeus said of Iranian support for extremist activity in Iraq on April 26, 2007, that ``[w]e know that it goes as high as [Brig. Gen. Qassem] Suleimani, who is the head of the Qods Force. . . We believe that he works directly for the supreme leader of the country''.
Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, the president of Iran, stated on August 28, 2007, with respect to the United States presence in Iraq, that ``[t]he political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly. Soon we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course we are prepared to fill the gap''.
Ambassador Crocker testified to Congress, with respect to President Ahmedinejad's statement, on September 11, 2007, that ``[t]he Iranian involvement in Iraq--its support for extremist militias, training, connections to Lebanese Hezbollah, provision of munitions that are used against our force as well as the Iraqis--are all, in my view, a pretty clear demonstration that Ahmedinejad means what he says, and is already trying to implement it to the best of his ability''.
General Petraeus stated on September 12, 2007, with respect to evidence of the complicity of Iran in the murder of members of the Armed Forces of the United States in Iraq, that ``[t]e evidence is very, very clear. We captured it when we captured Qais Khazali, the Lebanese Hezbollah deputy commander, and others, and it's in black and white. . . We interrogated these individuals. We have on tape. . . Qais Khazali himself. When asked, could you have done what you have done without Iranian support, he literally throws up his hands and laughs and says, of course not. . . So they told us about the amounts of money that they have received. They told us about the training that they received. They told us about the ammunition and sophisticated weaponry and all of that that they received''.
General Petraeus further stated on September 14, 2007, that ``[w]hat we have got is evidence. This is not intelligence. This is evidence, off computers that we captured, documents and so forth. . . In one case, a 22-page document that lays out the planning, reconnaissance, rehearsal, conduct, and aftermath of the operation conducted that resulted in the death of five of our soldiers in Karbala back in January''.
The Department of Defense report further states, with respect to Iranian support for Shi'a extremist groups in Iraq, that ``[m]ost of the explosives and ammunition used by these groups are provided by the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force. . . For the period of June through the end of August, [explosively formed penetrator] events are projected to rise by 39 percent over the period of March through May''.
Since May 2007, Ambassador Crocker has held three rounds of talks in Baghdad on Iraq security with representatives of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress on September 10, 2007, with respect to these talks, stating that ``I laid out the concerns we had over Iranian activity that was damaging to Iraq's security, but found no readiness on Iranians' side at all to engage seriously on these issues. The impression I came with after a couple rounds is that the Iranians were interested simply in the appearance of discussions, of being seen to be at the table with the U.S. as an arbiter of Iraq's present and future, rather than actually doing serious business...Right now, I haven't seen any sign of earnest or seriousness on the Iranian side''.
Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress on September 11, 2007, stating that ``[w]e have seen nothing on the ground that would suggest that the Iranians are altering what they're doing in support of extremist elements that are going after our forces as well as the Iraqis''.
Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--
· that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;
· that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a
· Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;
· that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;
· to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;
· that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224; and
· that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.
I have included the entire text of the Lieberman/Kyl amendment for your consideration. There is a considerable amount of evidence from a number of different sources that would indicate that Iran has its nose squarely in the business of Iraq and that it intends to become a major player in Iraq just as soon as the U. S. leaves town.
Now here is the $64,000 question, is there anyone in town who did not know that with a democratic election in Iraq where the vast majority of the voters are Shiites that the Shiites will control every aspect of any Iraqi government that is elected—oil, boundaries, armies, police forces, revenues, etc. etc. etc.—that the Shiites will control it just like the Sunnis controlled it under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein? Is there anyone who does not believe that when that moment occurs that the new Shiite government will become the “Government of the Islamic Republic of Iraq?” Or something very close!
Is there anyone who believes that all of the money we have invested, all the soldiers that have been killed, all the soldiers that have been wounded and all of the Iraqi civilians who have been victims of the insane attempt by the Bush Administration to allegedly create a democratic model for the entire Middle East have done nothing less than turn Iraq into our country’s worst nightmare—an Islamic state with the rigidity of the Taliban and the Iranian government that makes women into second class humans, determines what education the youth of that nation will study and will treat freedom of speech, religion and press like the plague.
I happen to believe that the U. S. has one opportunity left and that is to diplomatically deal with Iran and to propose a package that is too good on which to turn their backs.
We can not get into a war with Iran—I do not care what Lieberman and Kyl say. Lieberman is doing the bidding of the weakened Israeli government who wants to see the U. S. wipe out Iran before we leave that part of the world and Iran becomes a real threat to Israel.
Kyl is too dumb to know what he wants except with the same cowboy mentality of George Bush he walks around with his gun half cocked.
Granted, we cannot stand there like a dummy and do nothing. But we can assemble our best diplomatic minds, appoint a bi-partisan committee to meet with Iran and work out the details of a deal that will make their mouths water.
We must begin with our strongest diplomatic brains and that does not include Condoleezza Rice. It might include Colin Powell, Bill Clinton, James Baker, George Mitchell, Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Lee Hamilton, and George Schultz to name a few.
Our armed forces are worn to the bone. We cannot afford to fight another enemy with boots on the ground. And besides that the American people will not tolerate another war with our Armed Forces and National Guard serving intolerable tours of duty.
Our national budget can not afford another lengthy and expensive conflict and our people are tired of the politicians saying we can not afford $35 billion for insurance for our children without insurance, but that we will gladly afford $190 billion for a war we have already lost.
There is no question that Bush has delayed confrontation with Iraq far too long. He missed his chance four years ago out of pure, unadulterated stubbornness and his innate lack of intelligence. Now he has no choice. War or bombing specified targets in Iran are not options.
Diplomacy—a massive and dynamic diplomatic effort is what is called for and called for now even as the Baker/Hamilton Report called for it urgently last year.
A Sense of the Senate resolution does not contribute to the diplomatic effort that must be launched. And while that proceeds, the Senate and the House should zip it.
10:43:37 PM 
|
