Letter from Senator Murray re: Iran

[chknltl]

"Dear Mr. (chknltl):

Thank you for contacting me regarding U.S.-Iran relations and your concerns about possible U.S. military action against Iran. I appreciate hearing from you on this important matter.

I share your concern about the Bush Administration's rhetoric arguing for military confrontation with Iran. While I am very concerned about the Iranian government's violation of human rights, support of terrorism, threats against Israel and its neighbors, and continued withholding of information regarding its nuclear ambitions, I believe that diplomacy and targeted sanctions are the right way to deal with the Iranian regime. This approach is supported by the recent intelligence report that stated that Iran most likely halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

During consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008, I voted in favor of an amendment offered by Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Senator John Kyl (R-AZ) that recognized the destabilizing role Iran plays in Iraq. I did so only after working with my colleagues in the Senate to remove inflammatory language about using force against Iran; the amendment passed by a 76-22 margin.

Some have interpreted my vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment as support for an unilateral, pre-emptive military attack on Iran. Nothing could be further from the truth. To emphasize that point, I cosponsored S. Res. 356, introduced by Senator Durbin (D-IL), stating that offensive action against Iran would require explicit Congressional authorization. I also joined Senator Webb (D-VA) and 30 other Senators in a letter to President Bush that states clearly to the President that no congressional authority exists for unilateral military action against Iran.

During this Congress, I have supported efforts to maintain effective sanctions against the Iranian government and allow Americans to take their investments out of Iranian companies and companies that do business there. I believe that we must recognize and address the negative role that Iran's government plays in the Middle East by utilizing the diplomatic tools available to us to the practicable extent possible.

Please know that I share your concerns about U.S. relations with Iran and will continue to closely monitor developments in Iran and the Middle East. As the Senate addresses this and other issues, I will keep your thoughts in mind.

Again, thank you for writing me and please keep in touch.

I hope all is well in Tacoma."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I like Senator Murray and will continue my support for her. My only big issue with her so far is related to the impeachment of the bush crime family. She supports Senator Clinton and I support Senator Obama, I take NO issue with that at all.

OTOH:
THE first paragraph of her response to me is bothersome. Iran seeks stability for both of its neighbors, Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran has even aided America in the fight against the destabilization of Afghanistan and arguable aided us in Iraq as well, (teaming up with Al-Sadr to broker cease fire and showing support for Maliki). OTOH the bush gang wants us to believe that Iran is the scourge of the Middle East, they WANT to start a fight with Iran. (Iran does have all that nice oil...sadly it mostly goes to China and Russia and Japan)

When Senator Murray mentions Iran's human rights abuse, does she mention human rights abuses which are ongoing in other countries worldwide? She must surely be greatly concerned for the Tibetian Monks! She must surely be concerned about Zimbabwe! She must surely be concerned about Darfur!
Sadly I have gotten no response on those issues from her.

When Senator Murray mentions Iran's support of 'terrorism', is she meaning the terrorists who are out to destroy democracy in America or is she referring a support for those 'terrorists' who want the American backed oil thieves out of Iraq? I want the American backed oil thieves out of Iraq, does that make me a terrorist??? We have seen time and time again where the bush gang has tried to paint Iran as the ant-farm of terrorists...I am bothered by Senator Murray passing this meme along.

When Senator Murray mentions Iranian threats against Israel, is she concerned that Iran is able to back those threats up??? Does she think that the Iranians army is about to invade Israel? Is she fearful that Israel can not take care of itself??? Is she fearful that Iran will build a nuke and stick it on a scud missile and launch it at Israel all the time knowing that the retribution from Israel's well stocked nuclear arsenal would turn pretty much all of Iran into glass minutes later? Sounds like more of that same bush meme to me.

When Senator Murray mentions Iran's withholding info regarding their nuke development is she concerned because the internal affairs of the Sovereign nation of Iran is supposed to keep America apprised of it's internal affairs? Who died and made America the judge and jury and 'deciderer' when it comes to Iran building it's own energy programs? If Iran wants nuclear energy why is it up to ANYBODY other than Iran to decide if Iran can or can not do this? What if Iran decided America should not have nuclear energy plants and decided to launch an Iranian Air-Force strike to take our plants off-line? Pretty damned arrogant of them wouldn't you say? Well why then do we think that it is OK to be the bully and tell Iran what it can or can-not do?

I am at least glad that she favors diplomacy when it comes to Iran...that is light-years better than what bush or mCcain wants.

[rhett o rick]

1. Good post. I especially agree with your paragraph:

"When Senator Murray mentions Iran's withholding info regarding their nuke development is she concerned because the internal affairs of the Sovereign nation of Iran is supposed to keep America apprised of it's internal affairs? Who died and made America the judge and jury and 'deciderer' when it comes to Iran building it's own energy programs? If Iran wants nuclear energy why is it up to ANYBODY other than Iran to decide if Iran can or can not do this? What if Iran decided America should not have nuclear energy plants and decided to launch an Iranian Air-Force strike to take our plants off-line? Pretty damned arrogant of them wouldn't you say? Well why then do we think that it is OK to be the bully and tell Iran what it can or can-not do?"

Or what if China, Russia and Europe decided that nuc capability in the hands of America is a threat to world peace. Actually with Bush/Cheney i believe it is.

[chknltl]

2. Thank you for that

I agree, China, Russia and Europe may indeed be forced into a coalition against the neo-fascist bullys that have taken over our country. With our military so devastated and our economy so equally devastated it may be the step that they are forced to take! We are not quite there yet, an attack on Iran might get us there though.

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

3. Study cold war

over across the pond they seem to love to be critical about America,s policing .France and England are not as of yet ready to do it.The cost is high.And I would not ever view Iran in the world of the here and now as though it is just some country looking to find sources of energy. There are in fact seventeenth century buffoons that are all insane running that country. Or those buffoons want to put Iran back into the seventeenth century. That all has to do with what Dangerous Dick Chaney calls greater complications that we don,t know about or understand .What we do know is that freedom isn,t free. What they should be telling us all about ,is what those greater complications are. But for some reason they either cannot or will not.

The guy that died was the Shaw of Iran.
He ruled at a time when Iran was a friendly place.
If you had ever been there I mean.I know when I was there it was a very friendly place.

[ConsAreLiars]

4. The people of Iran were friendly to Americans and other foreigners even after

the US overthrew a democratically elected government and installed a fascist regime with a notorious secret police and torture agency (SAVAK) to support the Shah's dictatorship/monarchy. They are still as friendly and empathetic today. I was there then, and if you had been there before or after the Shah you would have encountered the very same hospitality. The fact that they were ruled by a psychopathic money-grubbing elitist at that time and acted humanely says something about the people, but nothing about the Shah. See the US today for another case in point.

I would be safer visiting Iran today than than Iraq which is governed by the US, and probably safer than taking a trip to Chicago. Of that there can be no doubt. The Shah was a monster. The US/CIA murdered a progressive populist to bring him out of England and put him in power. The current regime is just a reactionary example of blowback, bu8t the people of Iran will always be, essentially, our brothers and sisters.

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

5. Yes I am completly aware

the shah got out of Iran with all the money.And I was in college durning the Iranian hostage crisis.
That should tell you something about time frames.Befor college the shah and durning the hostage crisis.But I was also in Arabian golf.Just a bit of a different set of rules. Actually I was all over the Middle east and Africa. I don,t have any misconceptions.And I don,t think it is as safe as you will want to believe. I think you know that what I see as a male in Iran is not what you can see in Iran as a female.If you are a female,I am guessing. And I know you know how that means.I was there as a man of war. But it was a diplomatic mission.We were traveling with a appointed military ambassador,in fact he waved his military magic wond across the crew and proclaimed the we the crew are all ambassadors,the commandors authority came by authorization of the president of the United States signed by Richard Nixon Who was military commander and chief armed forces.. i,ll bet Bush wishes he had himself a magic wond like that! But like he said ,it,s a different world today than it was back in 1973.!

It is also different for the 1.5 millon Muslims in England ,maybe there are more than that. it,s been more than two hundred years since I have revisited England. If you are Iranian,you might just know how that means! I just may vist,or maybe I won,t,it depends really,yes I think so.I really should take a look, or maybe I don,t want to,indeed,how very confusing!

[rhett o rick]

6. Good moring Mr. Jet. May I call you Desk? I also am from Washington the State.

What did you think of Sen Murray's letter?

Have you read Ken Follett's "On the Wings of Eagles"? If so what did you think about it since you were there about that time.?

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

7. Good evening !

Good to see such fine posting! And yes you may and do feel free to do so!
You may recall the saying as it goes-Think global act local-Peter Paul And Mary.
I think it would make a right fine open topic.

And I will think about it ,than let you know.

[Upton]

8. Murray may favor diplomacy

but the candidate she has endorsed, Hillary Clinton, has talked about nuking Iran. It would be interesting to ask her how she can reconcile the two.

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

9. I think about that too

And I think about nuc weapons a lot. When I was on a submarine I thought about it very much ,and much more at the weapons station.That,s where all the bombs are stored.It,s a truth and it,s a inescapable reality.You cannot run from it or hide.And you do not really have any solutions to offer ,you only have questions. What better time to think positive about your questions than election year. But where are your solutions? You have none ,you just don,t approve.Obama right? I really don,t think so.

Obama doesn't get it
Hillary does
Get it right
Hillary for president

[Upton]

10. I'll tell you one thing

I don't approve of... that's nuking or even threatening to bring destruction of that magnitude down upon another country. Since you're a Hillary supporter you apparently have no problem with that concept, well I do.

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

11. Than what you are saying

is that even when the global community has used up all channels and avenues of diplomatic ways and means producing no positive results ,you say wait and see what happens because you think the oil mongers see it as a oppertunity to get control. You really do believe Obama's bull shit.

And what is really going on in the world of wepons of destruction ,well, that's way,way out there.

Obama is a elitist just like Nixon was.
And I wouldn't believe a word he says.

Obama doesn't get it ,Hillary does.
Get it right ,Hillary for president.

[Upton]

12. Give me a break

you mean like when "the global community has used up all channels and avenues" in Iraq, a war your queen voted for I might add. Bush, McCain and the Republicans don't subscribe to real negotiation and apparently Clinton doesn't either. Thankfully, Obama brings something new to the table as there isn't a dimes worth of difference between McCain and Clinton when it comes to foreign policy. There are 3 choices in the upcoming election, a Republican, a Republican lite and Obama, a real Democrat.

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

13. I'll give you one and go ahead a take another

Obama's got nothing. That's what is so funny. A real Democrat (?) That's original 'I'll give you that. I'll bet his policies are too! By the way, where does Obama store or hide all of his originality! It seems he has nothing new or original available for your reading pleasure! And it seems he's got no answers to give on the road either! Is that what you call real! Or is it just too close to call!

Excuse me ,the other guy Rossi, he,s moving forward ,I got to stay ahead of that. Did I say the other one.Ohooop,s! I mean the republican Obama!No -Noooo, I meant the republican Rossi is up to something and I must find out what he's up to! Is it latter or the alligator!

[rhett o rick]

14. She shares our concern and will continue to closely monitor. I feel so frigging much better.

"Please know that I share your concerns about U.S. relations with Iran and will continue to closely monitor developments in Iran and the Middle East. As the Senate addresses this and other issues, I will keep your thoughts in mind."

While the world goes up in smoke, she will be sharing concern and monitoring development.

Sorry Patty, "sharing concern" when the Bush/Cheney criminals are in charge isn't enough.

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

15. Just because Iran is ratteling it's saber

That's no reason to go off on Patty.

[rhett o rick]

16. In the past seven years the criminal admin has all but totally destroyed this nation

with little or no resistance from the Democrats. Now it appears that the madmen running our government are going to attack Iran. This may be the last straw that totally destroys this country. I would hope that our Democratic representatives and Senators were working full time trying to stop this madness. Initiate legislation, hold press conferences etc. But no, they are sharing our concern and going to monitor the situation.

I feel strongly about this impending attack on Iran. If our Congress can't stop it, it will be the proof that we no longer have a Constitutional Democracy.

Patty please speak out at least. Have a news conference and tell the world that you, yourself strongly oppose preemptive attacks on Iran.

Looks to me like the Democrats in Congress are going to let us down big time once again. Maybe a coup is in order.

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

17. Do you know anything about the Iranian hostage crisis?

And what was going on ten tears before that and than some?

[rhett o rick]

18. Is your point that there is no use trying to stop it? nm

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

19. That is not the point

watch Iran means watch it close.