Kucinich calls Iran Freedom Support Act a "steppingstone to war"

[Tanyah]

It is "a steppingstone to war," said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, during the debate over the so-called Iran Freedom Support Act, and if this vote is any measure of the degree of congressional opposition to the looming prospect of war with Tehran, then we have a lot to worry about.

Only 21 members of the House stood up against the overwhelming bipartisan wave of support for the bill, which would impose economic sanctions on the Iranians – and openly proclaims the goal of effecting "regime change." Rep. Ron Paul, a Texas Republican, said the bill reminds him of a 1998 congressional resolution – the Iraq Liberation Act – that paved the way for the Iraqi debacle. Yet most of the "antiwar" contingent in the House of Representatives caved and voted in favor, including Democrats John Conyers, Maxine Waters, Jack Murtha, Bernie Sanders, Barbara Lee, and Lynn Woolsey.

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8914

[High Plains]

1. Kucinich is correct. Correct and lonely. What a shame.

[bananas]

2. And people still doubt it.

Even on DU.

[Tanyah]

3. no one wants to believe it

It is just so hard to fathom how many are corrupt in congress.

I can make no other sense of this.

[Tanyah]

4. Another weird thing is...

no blogs in the progressive community are covering this.

First it was on benfrank.net, now Justin Raimondo but no one else.

Where is PDA, Will Pitt, Truthout, Brad Blog etc on this issue? Does Cindy Sheehan know what is going on?

I even posted this story on DU last night and it was on the greatest page with 9 votes when I went to bed, but this morning it had been removed completely.
:shrug:

[bananas]

5. Welcome to DU!

antiwar.com is a banned source.
Not sure why.
This thread will probably get deleted too.

[Tanyah]

7. thanks

antiwar.com is banned?
:shrug:
now that is weird

[Heywood J]

16. At least the article

you linked to the first time doesn't seem to be a terribly credible source. It was much better to hear it from Kucinich directly, rather than to read bits and pieces of it, in something full of logical fallacies like "everyone knows" and that reads like an emotional diatribe. Thanks for posting the backup link to his own site.

[Ms. Clio]

6. DK will always be my hero

shame on John Conyers, whom I still adore.

[Tanyah]

8. Full Kucinich statement

I just found this...

I rise in opposition to HR 282, the Iran Freedom and Support Act, which sounds a lot like the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Overall, this bill seriously inhibits the ability of the U.S. government to use diplomacy, the strongest and most rational tool we have to resolve the situation regarding Iran’s nuclear program. Instead, this bill sets our country on a path to war with Iran. You can be sure that the government of Iran will also view it that way.

First, the bill makes it official US policy to impose international sanctions through the UN Security Council for Iran’s “repeated breaches” of its nuclear nonproliferation obligations. This sounds eerily familiar to actions pursued in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, and which, as we now know, were ultimately for appearance only. Similarly, advocating international sanctions against Iran through the Security Council is for appearance only. This Administration has made up its mind that it wants to attack Iran. There is evidence that the US military is already inside Iran. (Seymour Hersh piece in New Yorker, April 17th; CNN’s interview with expert Ret. Lt. Col. Sam Gardiner, April 14th). Including this section in the bill is simply an attempt by Congress to cover the President’s back in the face of the international community with respect to Iran. Hasn’t this Congress learned yet that this Administration is not to be trusted?

Second, HR 282 also promotes regime change in Iran - as opposed to behavior change - as a solution to the standoff regarding Iran’s nuclear program. By advocating regime change, we indicate that our priority is not in fact to encourage Iran to adhere to its NPT obligations, but to remove the leadership in Iran even if the leadership were to make some concessions. This communicates to the world community that to the US, Iran has passed the point of no return, which completely undermines efforts toward diplomacy and negotiations. Furthermore, while this bill makes a point of not authorizing use of force in Iran, be assured that this is a stepping-stone to authorizing the use of force, which is exactly what the Iraq Liberation Act was.

Third, HR 282 supports anti-government advocates in Iran promoting regime change. This is highly problematic. While an important amendment offered by Congressman Blumenauer was adopted into this bill during markup, to prohibit U.S. assistance to groups that are on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations, or have been on that list for the last 4 years, there are ways around this. For example, according to a Newsweek article from February 14, 2005, the US has been recruiting individuals from the MEK, a group currently labeled as “terrorist” by the State Department, who have agreed to form a new group with the same mission of the MEK: regime change in Iran. These individuals have been conducting military activity in Iran with the United States’ support. I just want to remind everyone that the MEK was the group responsible for the U.S. Embassy takeover in Tehran in 1979. The MEK also had a camp in Iraq where Osama bin Laden’s first fighters were reportedly trained. The MEK also trained and supported Taliban fighters. Now we’re recruiting help from members of the MEK, which makes a total mockery of this so-called “War on Terror.”

Fourth, HR 282 states that it is US policy to focus attention to stopping cooperation between Iran and Russia, China, and Pakistan. Considering that Russia and China have the strongest leverage with Iran, yet are also opposed to Iran’s violations of its NPT obligations, the US should try to work with Russia and China to find a joint path of diplomacy - not isolate Russia and China. In the end, we are only isolating ourselves and setting our country on another unilateral path of war.

Our troops already overextended and in a vulnerable position next door in Iraq. Starting a war in Iran is the last thing we should be doing. I urge you to vote against this dangerous bill, which is nothing more than a stepping-stone to war.
http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=42687

[Tanyah]

9. Anyone else want to recommend this?

one more vote for the greatest page...

There has got to be something we can do to force congress to start doing their jobs! Whatever happened to integrity?

[leftstreet]

11. I recommended your new thread

:hi:

I can't remember, but I don't think the link on this thread is allowed at DU. I could be wrong though.

[Tanyah]

12. thanks

I am sure that DU doesn't want to censor posts? What is up with that? Aren't we the anti-fascists?

[Squatch]

10. Here we fucking go again.

Broad bipartisan support, followed by a blitzkrieg war, followed by a doomed SASO plan, followed by senators on both sides distancing themselves from their decisions to support military action in the first place.

[Tanyah]

13. Why Why Why

Why don't they hold him accountable for the last freakin war he started
:banghead:

[Tanyah]

14. the hypocrisy is astounding

"Iran represents a threat to nothing and no one but Israel, and everybody knows it. It is likewise universally acknowledged that the one Middle Eastern power we definitely know to be in possession of a substantial nuclear stockpile is Israel."

[Douglas Carpenter]

15. this bill certainly sets off alarm bells

by Juan Cole; March 18, 2006

link: http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9929

snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms and committed Iran to remaining a nonnuclear weapons state.

(Note: Grand Ayatollah Khamenei is the Chief of State and He ALONE has the final say in matters of the Iranian state and the final religious authority over the vast overwhelming majority of Iranian Shiites. Here is an official website that explains the Iranian government:link: http://www.parstimes.com/gov_iran.html
This is the statement regarding Ayatollah Khamanei's fatwa which comes from the website of the Islamic Republic of Iran – link:
http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-236/0508104135124631.htm )


snip:"Tehran denies having military labs aiming for a bomb, and in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program."

snip:"it is often alleged that since Iran harbors the desire to “destroy” Israel, it must not be allowed to have the bomb. Ahmadinejad has gone blue in the face denouncing the immorality of any mass extermination of innocent civilians, but has been unable to get a hearing in the English-language press. Moreover, the presidency is a very weak post in Iran, and the president is not commander of the armed forces and has no control over nuclear policy"

snip: "in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program. The U.S. reaction was a blustery incredulity, which is not actually an argument or proof in its own right, however good U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton is at bunching his eyebrows and glaring."
snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms."
_____________________

Former Sen. Sam Nunn suspects that the Bush Administration's real goal is regime change.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/18/ywt.01.html

snip : "NUNN: But the administration is torn between conversation about regime change in Iran and diplomacy. And that means that the allies and the people you need to help you don't get a clear message about where we are on Iran. If we're really for regime change and if that's being actively pursued, then it's very hard to sit down with someone and talk with them if you're actually trying to kick them out of office."

Scott Ritter goes a bit farther:

Scott Ritter's interview at at San Diego CityBeat:

http://www.sdcitybeat.com/article.php?id=4281

snip:"The Bush administration does not have policy of disarmament vis-à-vis Iran. They do have a policy of regime change. If we had a policy of disarmament, we would have engaged in unilateral or bilateral discussions with the Iranians a long time ago. But we put that off the table because we have no desire to resolve the situation we use to facilitate the military intervention necessary to achieve regime change. It’s the exact replay of the game plan used for Iraq, where we didn’t care what Saddam did, what he said, what the weapons inspectors found. We created the perception of a noncompliant Iraq, and we stuck with that perception, selling that perception until we achieved our ultimate objective, which was invasion that got rid of Saddam. With Iran, we are creating the perception of a noncompliant Iran, a threatening Iran. It doesn’t matter what the facts are. Now that we have successfully created that perception, the Bush administration will move forward aggressively until it achieves its ultimate objective, which is regime change."
____________________________

US refuses to discuss Iran's nuclear plans in face-to-face talks on Iraq

Jonathan Steele in Baghdad and Julian Borger in Washington
Tuesday April 18, 2006
The Guardian

link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1755750,00.html

Although the US is resisting pressure to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions through direct talks with Tehran, rather than sanctions or military strikes, it still intends to meet senior Iranian officials for discussions on Iraq at which it will demand an end to Iranian meddling, according to Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador in Baghdad.
He is to head the US team at face-to-face talks, which will be the first formal diplomatic meeting between the two countries since the Islamic revolution in 1979 and are expected to open in Baghdad shortly.
______________________



http://www.dontattackiran.org

[lovuian]

17. Kucinich has been a foreteller of the future Get ready for WWIII

Dennis was onto this cabal from the get go!!!

I want him for President!!!

[lovuian]

18. kick

:patriot: