portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

imperialism & war

Why did Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Lynn Woolsey,John Conyers support Bush's lies on Iran?

H. Con. Res. 341: condemning the Government of Iran for violating its international nuclear nonproliferation obligations and expressing support for efforts to report Iran to the United Nations Security Council

Nays: Kucinich,Paul,Stark,Mcdermott
The emperor has no clothes!
The emperor has no clothes!
Kucinich: House Bill Undermines Efforts For Peaceful Resolution To Iran Nuclear Situation H. Con. Res. 341 Will Undermine Efforts by Russia To Seek Peaceful Resolution To Standoff; Puts US On Dangerous Path

Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH), Ranking Member of the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, issued the following statement today on H. Con. Res. 341:

"This bill undermines efforts towards a peaceful resolution of Iran's nuclear ambitions, and puts the United States on a dangerous path that could lead to war. This bill, and the debate in the House, have an eerie resemblance to similar debate and resolutions that led to the misguided and ill advised war in Iraq.

"This bill scuttles the only possibility for a peaceful resolution of this crisis. Namely, the offer, by Russia, to enrich uranium for Iran to use in its nuclear power plants. Iran would not operate any enrichment processing facilities of its own, and therefore would not have the ability to make isotopes of uranium suitable for weapons. This is the essence of a resolution offered by Russia to avert the crisis. This is the only diplomatic option available to us today.

"Moreover, there is no imminent threat of Iran building a nuclear weapon. This past summer, a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear capabilities was released showing that Iran was 10 years away from building a nuclear weapon. This estimate represents a consensus among the U.S. intelligence agencies.

"The Security Council option, favored heavily by the bill, thinly veils the route to a military confrontation with Iran.

"The Administration, covered by this bill, is leading this country to take military action against Iran. Make no mistake, that is the US program at the UN, just as it was prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

"If you think Muslim reaction to a political cartoon is bad, what do you think reaction will be when the US is attack Iran while it occupies Iraq?

"This is a dangerous and deadly course the United States should not embark upon."  link to kucinich.house.gov

"Fool me once shame on...shame on you, fool me...can't get fooled again"

Bush may be able to fool congress twice, but the American people aren't that stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Because 19.Feb.2006 00:00

Nona Bow

they represent the capitalist class interests...

Yes they are. 19.Feb.2006 00:14

Commienokaze aka Commie Bastard

American people do not have a brain between the lot of them. Just watch them let it happen again.
Next, war against Iran. Maybe nukes.
Next, escalation. Middle East engulfed in conflict.
Next, global war, nukes. War within the continental U.S.
Next, the world against U.S.
Next, a new species evolves to replace humans.

Iran theocrats represent interests of the working class? 19.Feb.2006 11:20

Tiny Satan

This congressional act (341) is only an expression of support for the U.N. and treaties under U.N. administration - not for Bush and a preemptive air strike. Everyone accepts the IAEA report on Iran and that they are in violation of treaty obligations. Conyers, Woolsey, Waters and Lee obviously have been sold on the idea that the U.N. Security Council can forestall a military confrontation and will prevent Bush from acting unilaterally in a "preemptive" air strike.

All the 'progressives' (as they call themselves) are agreed on opposition to Bush and to a preemptive air strike - but most of them think that the IAEA referral of the question to the Security Council will work against a U.S. preemptive air strike. Kucinich and others think that the IAEA referral should be held up while Iran and Russia work out an arrangement. Kucinich is joined by two other 'progressives' - and by Ron Paul, who is about the last remaining of the old Republican nationalists representing the capitalist class of the U.S. against the interests of global capital.

Should the working class be more supportive of the neo-bourgeois govenrments in Iran and Russia than of the entrenched representatives of global capital (the E.U. and U.S./U.K. coaltion)? The counter-revolutionary regressive government of Russia today no more represents the interests of the working class and of socialist revolution than does Iran's theorcratic (fascist) government of state-capitalism!

If we could bring Trotsky back from the grave what would he say other than that the working class everywhere needs to unite in a world revolution of the workers. Although Trotsky was willing to join with the Social Democrats in Germany in an attempt to prevent the Nazis from gaining power, he did not support either side in World War II.

For our opposition to the wars of neo-colonialism, this #341 is a minor question of tactics. The important point is to avoid taking sides with any of the factions of capitalism and regression.

I am interested in what the World Socialist Web Site has to say about this fissure in the capitalist world - between the Great Satan of global capital and the Little Satan of counter-revolutionary Islamism.

Inaccurate headline 19.Feb.2006 18:07


Barbara Lee did not vote for this resolution - she answered 'Present'. Lynn Woolsey also did not vote for it - she was reported as 'Not Voting', meaning probably not in the House at the time of the vote. Cynthia McKinney and another well-known Democrat - Charles Rangel of New York - and PORTLAND'S OWN EARL BLUMENAUER were also listed as 'Not Voting'. Altogether 20 Democrats (most of them members of the Progressive Caucus) did not vote FOR the resolution, although only three Democrats actually stood up and voted NAY. Ron Paul was the only Republican voting NAY, but eight other Republicans were listed as 'Not Voting'. Maxine Waters and John Conyers did actually vote YEA.


BEEEE ESSSSS 19.Feb.2006 19:35


"Everyone agrees"??!

Show me the evidence for that whopper!

Everyone DOES NOT agree. As a matter of fact, the US doesn't have a shred of actual, substantive evidence against Iran -- unlike Israel, for example, which has never even signed the NPT, and by universal agreement is a nuclear proliferator par excellence with multiple warheads aimed at other countries.

The other members of "the nuclear club" have decided to go along with the US, not because there is an iota of evidence against Iran, but because they'd just as soon not antagonize the US gov't and are happy to keep the non-nuclear states under a perpetual Sword of Damocles of their own.

Here's what Cuba, a long suffering victim of US imperial antics, has to say in the matter:

Speech of the Cuban delegation for the Extraordinary Session of the IAEA's Board of Governors, called to review the implementation of the NPT safeguards agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran
By: Cuban delegation for the Extraordinary Session of the IAEA's Board of Governors on: 17.02.2006 [21:47 ] (130 reads)

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons has become a profoundly discriminatory instrument whose main purpose, today, is to protect the interests of the "nuclear club". To interpret its letter and spirit in an arbitrary fashion and to violate its provisions to incorporate new clauses which discriminate against our countries is simply inadmissible.

Mr. President:

On behalf of our delegation, I would like to begin by thanking the Secretariat for providing us with information on the topic in question.

The Cuban delegation wholly upholds the declaration made by the distinguished ambassador of Malaysia on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement.

Mr. President:

Under the pertinent safeguard provisions, developing countries have a recognized right to produce nuclear energy for peaceful ends and to undertake all of the activities which comprise the nuclear fuel cycle.

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons has become a profoundly discriminatory instrument whose main purpose, today, is to protect the interests of the "nuclear club". To interpret its letter and spirit in an arbitrary fashion and to violate its provisions to incorporate new clauses which discriminate against our countries is simply inadmissible.

The Board of Governors must therefore be resolute in opposing the efforts of nuclear powers that, for political reasons, seek to curtail the right of non-nuclear states to undertake the activities which make up the nuclear fuel cycle.

The nuclear powers that have turned this debate into the order of the day are the same ones that devote countless resources to making their nuclear warheads and missiles more accurate and deadly. They are the states that are in flagrant non-compliance with nuclear disarmament provisions, obligations that ought to be wholly met. They are, what's more, the states that made a failure of the recently held Conference for the Revision of the NPT.

The government of the United States has proclaimed and exercised its alleged right to unleash preventive and unilateral wars. Its new nuclear doctrine provides for the use of nuclear weapons on non-nuclear states or on supposed and undefined enemies.

Mr. President:

The Cuban delegation is aware that, on this occasion, we do not have a report on the Implementation of the NTP Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran to review, a report that will be made available to us at the meeting of the Board of Governors to be held next 6 March.

This extraordinary session of the Board of Governors has been called by a group of member states to analyze claims that the Islamic Republic of Iran has failed to comply with its Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. This is the same process we went through in August of last year.

As was then the case, this meeting has been prefaced by a brutal campaign designed to manipulate public opinion, undertaken by the transnational mass media that serve the interests of the same governments which have forced us to consider this issue.

As the facts show, however, what we are witnessing is not a failure to comply with the agreement, something no delegation has been able to substantiate, but rather the sovereign decision of the government of Iran to continue developing nuclear power for peaceful ends and to resume the activities it had voluntarily suspended in 2003 to bolster the confidence of member states and facilitate the negotiation process which was then underway.

Iran's right to resume its nuclear development program, a program with peaceful ends which the Iranian government has declared will be governed by strict IAEA safeguard provisions, is indisputable.

Invoking a selective and tendentious reading of these agreements, certain nuclear powers are telling us that under no circumstances should Iran be permitted to undertake activities related to the nuclear fuel cycle, including the enrichment of uranium and research and development work, because they "suspect" that these activities pursue non-peaceful ends.

What they neglect to tell us, however, is that, for purely political reasons, the chief nuclear technology suppliers, those that today level these vehement accusations at Iran, denied Iran access to this technology, in violation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

This agency cannot act on the basis of "suspicions"; it must be presented with concrete evidence and facts. In the many reports on this subject that we have received from the Secretariat, the only recognized body that is entitled to provide us with this information, we have found not a shred of evidence or any assertion that proves Iran's nuclear program has anything but peaceful ends.

Facts which have been addressed by the Director General in his reports on the subject have deliberately been kept secret. These include:

The substantial progress that has been made towards clarifying the nature of Iran's nuclear program and the ever fewer matters pending review.
Iran's growing cooperation with the IAEA.
Iran's compliance with the Safeguards Agreement, the verification of all declared materials and the confirmation that these are not being used for illicit activities.
Iran cannot be forbidden to undertake activities that have peaceful ends because there exists the risk that they may have other ends, not when these are subject to strict IAEA safeguards. The international community recognizes the IAEA's safeguards system as precisely that mechanism which guarantees that nuclear programs are not steered towards military ends.

To accept this type of treatment would not only set down a very negative precedent in terms of international law, but also condemn our nations to kowtow to the nuclear powers that are producers of fuel.

Mr. President:

For no good reason and establishing a shameless double standard, these nations would submit Iran's peaceful nuclear program to the consideration of the Security Council.

For these reasons and in line with the principles we have always upheld, Cuba vigorously opposes any action aimed at using Iran's sovereign decision as a pretext to condemn this country and the attempt to refer this matter to the Security Council. This would create a situation in which the United States and its allies would have ample elbowroom to manipulate the facts and oblige the Council to arrive at decisions that would jeopardize peace.

Curiously enough, western powers have closed their eyes to Israel's nuclear program, whose military and offensive nature has been widely written about.

With impunity, Israel has ignored numerous calls on behalf of the international community to place it nuclear program under IAEA safeguards. But this is not talked about, debated or negotiated upon, and no concerted pressure is brought to bear on the IAEA in this connection. Why? Because Israel is the United States' main ally in the Middle East and enjoys the sacrosanct protection of the mightiest military power today and the silence of its main allies.

This is another case of what has rightly been called "nuclear hypocrisy".

Mr. President:

The United States has declared that a military action against Iran is not out of the question. Weeks ago, President Fidel Castro addressed the international community and world public opinion to denounce this and to warn of the danger of not mobilizing against this potential action in time. The Board of Governors is duty-bound to foresee the consequences of each and every one of its decisions with respect to this delicate situation. Any omission in the use of its powers or in complying with its obligations would entail a heavy burden of responsibility.

According to conservative estimates, more than a hundred thousand Iraqis and two thousand young US soldiers have died in Iraq. Fallujah and other cities have been razed to the ground. The country has been destroyed. Several generations of Iraqis have suffered incorrigible traumas.

Today, everyone knows that the president of the United States deliberately lied about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In this connection, numerous debates were forced into the Agency's agenda, only for the IAEA's well-founded and objective opinion to be ignored afterwards. The matter was referred to the Security Council and, when this body opposed the invasion, its decision was declaredirrelevant.

Today, some are surely suffering pangs of conscience for having kept silent, for having allowed themselves to be manipulated or for having had a na´ve perception about the consequences of their actions.

This is why today, when there is still time, as a participant in this meeting of the Board, Cuba warns all members of a potential US military action in Iran and calls on the IAEA, the United Nations, the international community and world public opinion to mobilize to prevent such an action and to preserve peace.

Cuba does not possess weapons of mass destruction, has declared it has no intention of developing them and has thus the moral authority to make this appeal. It has always been opposed to war. It has courageously faced a genocidal blockade that has lasted more than four decades and will not be intimidated by new and repeated threats of aggression.

Thank you very much.

 link to diplomacymonitor.com

duh 19.Feb.2006 20:37


The drums of war are beating loudly...Iran is a threat is all over the place...and these clueless congresspeople can't see that this is the first step?

!Give me a break!

Condi was quoted as saying "this helps us alot" Now do you really think she is trying to prevent war? This wouldn't even be an issue if these bastards weren't making it up all over again and it is so obvious...there is no excuse for them to go along with it.

No more War. 19.Feb.2006 22:27


Please stop the war in Iraq and please do not start a war with Iran. Please Mr. President of the United States of America.