Some time ago, during one of my many rants about Maria Cantwell’s vote to authorize military action in Iraq, someone suggested to me that the time to ask her about how she would vote for that kind of thing should have been in 2000 before she was elected to the Senate. Well, not realizing that Senator Cantwell was clairvoyant, it never entered my mind that she could tell me about an invasion that would be some three years away. As for the Patriot Act, it also never entered my mind that any Democrat would be so quick to vote away our civil liberties. Having learned from my mistakes, I decided that, with all the noise the Bush Administration is making about Iran, I should ask Sen. Cantwell how she feels about the situation in that country and if she would support a pre-emptive strike there. As it turns out, someone has already begun that ball rolling for me. What follows is the response from Sen. Cantwell to a constituent’s question about the recent Seymour Hersch piece on the run up to pre-emptive action in Iran. (It is Hersch’s conclusion that the Bush Administration is already in the planning stages of a pre-emptive strike against Iran.)
*********************************************************************************
Dear Mr. Eachus,
Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns for the development of nuclear weapons in Iran. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.
As you may know, international nuclear inspectors continue to monitor whether Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Such a program would be in contravention to the nuclear non-proliferation agreement that Iran has signed. In November 2004, the countries of Britain, France, and Germany negotiated an agreement with Iran, in which Iran agreed to cancel its nuclear programs. Unfortunately, Iran has recently backed away from its commitments. The International Atomic Energy Agency has reported that Iran is accelerating its nuclear fuel enrichment activities and has failed to comply with international nuclear inspectors. Specifically, Iran began resuming uranium conversion in August 2005 and then announced its intentions to begin research on enriching uranium in February 2006.
On March 29, 2006, the United Nations Security Council issued a Presidential Statement on Iran’s nuclear programs requesting that Iran suspend its uranium enrichment programs within 30 days and cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Although I continue to support efforts to engage the Iranian government in constructive cooperation and dialogue that will encourage Iran to become a peaceful and responsible member of the international community, we simply cannot allow any government to development weapons of mass destruction.
Given Iran’s unwillingness to suspend its nuclear programs, I co-sponsored legislation introduced by Senator Rick Santorum that would hold the current Iranian government accountable for its threatening behavior. If enacted, the Iran Freedom and Support Act (S. 333) would continue U.S. imposed sanctions, controls, and regulations relating to Iran’s weapons of mass destruction until the President certifies to Congress that Iran has permanently dismantled its weapons programs and committed to non-proliferation. The President would also be given the authority to aid foreign and domestic individuals or groups financially or politically that support democracy and advocate for non-proliferation in Iran. In addition, this legislation would amend the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 to impose sanctions on any individual or group that provides Iran assistance in acquiring or developing weapons of mass destruction.
At this time, S. 333 is awaiting further review by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Please be assured that I will continue to monitor this situation closely.
Sincerely,
Maria Cantwell United States Senator
***********************************************************************************
Considering that we are still living under the Bush Regime, and knowing what they did with the last resolution involving one of Bush’s so-called Axis of Evil countries, I am deeply concerned that Senator Cantwell would still be so trusting of them to do the “right thing.” I mean let’s consider what we know and some of the lessons learned through the invasion of Iraq.
To begin with, even though Bush, Cheney, Condi, and Rummy told us that Iraq was the greatest threat to the United States, we have learned that they posed no threat not only to us but to hardly anyone else. Now they tell us that Iran is the greatest threat to the United States and yet our own State Department says that IF they were attempting to create a nuclear weapon, they are at least 10 years away from accomplishing that.
The resolution to authorize the use of force in Iraq was based solely on George Bush’s judgment that Iraq had not disarmed and he had to act to protect America. Senator Cantwell was amongst the group that trusted that judgment. 23 Democratic Senators, including Patty Murray, did not trust that judgment. Guess who was right. The act - S.333 - that Senator Cantwell has co-sponsored with Rick Santorum (a model of moderate virtue) bases the ending of sanctions and controls on when “the President certifies to Congress that Iran has permanently dismantled its weapons programs and committed to non-proliferation.” This president has already proven he either has no clue when that happens or simply lies about it.
I also find it disingenuous that we (the world’s leader in the development and deployment of weapons of mass destruction) have a selective policy of who may and who may not engage in nuclear technology. The recent offer to share technology with India jumps immediately to mind. Then there is this strange relationship with another of Iran’s nuclear neighbors, Pakistan. We invaded Iraq because Bush said they had designs on making nuclear weapons and delivering them to Osama bin Laden. Neither thing was true. Pakistan –”our staunch ally in the war on terror”, on the other hand, already has nuclear weapons and, oh by the way, is the last known residence of Osama bin Laden. And then there is the matter of Iran’s other regional nuclear neighbor, Israel. Obviously, with no love lost between these two countries, whether you approve or not, Iran has an interest in at least projecting some ability to counter any perceived threat from the Israel. Come to think of it, I don’t believe we have ever required Israel to acknowledge the extent of their nuclear program.
I would like to think that Senator Cantwell might have learned something from her Iraq vote but, unfortunately, it appears that, for whatever reason, she seems to believe that saber rattling and pre-emptive punishments have permanently replaced diplomacy in the arsenal of the United States. While this philosophy fits in quite well with the Santorum-Bush-Rice crowd, it is far from what I believe our obligation is as the “last remaining super-power”.
So if there were any questions remaining about how Maria Cantwell views American foreign policy in light of her “no regrets” vote to authorize Bush to invade Iraq, I think her answer to the question of Iran sums it up for me. In Bush She Trusts.
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
Mike's Blog Round Up
48 minutes ago

5 comments:
Amen, Shue. This chick just doesn't get it. Either that or she's in the cabal with the rest of these baby-eating zombies. I am so sick of Democrats running around saying support Cantwell when she really isn't doing what it takes to win.
A real leader tests the pulse of the people, and goes hard and fast for what they want. This woman does what her staff and her lobbyist friends want, not what we the people of the State of Washington want. It's obvious what's wrong here, and I think it illustrates why multi-millionaires aren't always the best choice to represent our state in Washington.
On that note, I caught Darcy Burner on Equal Time (a local show out of Tacoma) and she was pretty lame. When I called to ask about Free Trade agreements, she went into a prepared speech about how we need fair trade, not free trade, but didn't elaborate on it at all. I think that we really need to stop nominating these frigging millionaires to do the peoples' business. Where are all the Dennis Kuciniches? Could public financing help us get candidates that aren't totally out of touch with ordinary Americans?
I'm in a local Democratic organization. Many of us are supporting Mark Wilson for U.S. Senate - he's running against Cantwell as a Democrat and he is against the war etc.
I've said that I can't support Cantwell because of the war.
There's no way Wilson will beat Cantwell in the primary. Many people in the local group will probably vote for her and maybe even work for her in November. They say that she's good on some issues (ANWR, the Enron mess), that we would stand to lose if McGavick were elected, and there's a chance the Dems might win back the Senate which would give them control of the committees and allow them to do investigations. One concrete difference between Cantwell and McGavick is that if the Rs keep the Senate and McGavick replaces Cantwell, ANWR will probably get drilled.
There is no way that we can get Maria to change her position on Iran. She is akin to Lieberman on many issues, is militaristic, defers to Bush on security and civil liberties etc. So there's no hope she'll do anything substantive to change, and she probably won't even do anything cosmetic to acknowledge our concerns.
I'm really tired of having progressives dilute whatever meager effectiveness we have by always supporting "Republican Lite" democrats. There's always some bogus excuse why we should - but sometimes the excuses are right. Bush is WAY worse than Gore or Kerry, and it was perfectly correct to vote for the "lesser of evils" in 2000 and 2004.
In 2006, if electing Maria plays a part in the Dems controlling the Senate, this will be a real difference.
But, if I am to support her, I want something in return - some chips I can cash in later. We progressives have been taken for a ride too many times and our "chips" are worth as much as the chips that come from cows.
I don't want to be spiteful but I do want to maximize progressives' effectiveness.
Pet,
The Left Shue was one of the first blogs to endorse Mark Wilson's campaign for US Senate. He has also been endorsed by the Progressive Caucus of Snohomish County Democrats. The conventional wisdom is that he has no chance against Cantwell. This, of course, is the conventional wisdom being offered by the Cantwell camp in the hopes that it will keep the Progressives in line in September.
If you support Mark, then you should know that with Mark you get the same dedication to ANWR and Enron PLUS someone who truly believes that the neo-con war machine shoulld be rejected and not embraced. I believe that Mark can beat Maria in the primary if Progressives will only stand up for our shared values and remind our fellow Democrats that the reason for primaries is to define our values and beliefs.
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
I find your desire for peace in the world to be comendable. I share your concerns but do not read Maria Cantwell the same as you do.
For example, I had a chance to talk to Maria Cantwell when she visited the 46th L.D. convention last Saturday and in fact heard her say the opposite of your comment that she " seems to believe saber rattling and preemptive punishments have permanently displaced diplomacy in the arsenal of the US."
She told me that Bush's "saber rattling" and "threats to use nuclear weapons" in dealing with Iran were the opposite of what was needed. She stated that a concerted effort at diplomacy and talking with Iran should be used.
She is not the "Commander in Chief" and is not the one threateneing use of nuclear weapons.
From what I see of Iran, I do not feel comfortable extending nuclear weapons to them. You question the "selective policy of who may or may not engage in nuclear technology". It is really nuclear weapons technology we are talking about here. Do you feel we should also extend nuclear weapons technology to Hamas? They certainly feel a need to protect themselves.This becomes a very slippery slope.
The nuclear genie in our fractured world is a genie from hell. While I don't trust Bush in any sense, I also don't trust Iran. Iran is busy interjecting itself into Iraq and is certainly part of the cause of the turmoil going on there.
To Tahoma activist - I don't begrudge either Cantwell or Burner for their having made some money. They are both self made women and I commend them for that. They did not start out rich from parental handouts and worked to earn their money.
Also I don't believe that a "real leader takes the pulse of the people and goes hard and fast for what they want" Sounds to me like that would be a follower. Sometimes that may make sense but other times it doesn't. Besides is it really clear what the people want. They will tell you they don't want to pay taxes while at the same time complaining about why we don't have good schools or roads or parks.
Being an elected official is hard because you can't please everyone. Depending on how you phrase the same question you can get different answers.
To me the true test of an elected official is if you can get things done even when you are in a minority party. Democrats are currently a minority party.
If you look closely at Canbtwell's record you will see that depsite being in a minority party she still gets things done for the people of Washington state - whether its fighting for the sales tax deduction on you Federal income tax, or keeping oil tankers out of Puget Sound or fighting BPA rate increases or ENRON or ANWR. She does have a track record of getting things done.
Steve,
Thank you for your important comments. I can fully understand how we might come to differing views of Senator Cantwell and I respect yours.
My view is based upon actions such as the vote she already cast to allow George W. Bush and this untrustworthy administration sole authority to place our troops into harm's way. I no longer debate the merits of the vote because she has recently re-affirmed her vote with no regrets.
The fact that she has co-sponsored legislation with Evan Bayh, Joe Lieberman, and Rick Santorum, essentially placing the sole responsibility for determining Iran's compliance in not pursuing nuclear weapons right back into George Bush's hands speaks for itself. She has made some nice words since the subject of this legislation has come up but her name is still on it.
As for who we ALLOW to pursue what in the world, I am sorry but I believe that it has been this very hypocritical behavior that has placed us in the position we are in today. The United States has the largest stockpiles of WMD in the world and Bush is still requesting more. He treats the technology like some sort of candy to be handed out to those we like today or who can best line the pockets of his friends in the oil business. At what point do we practice what we preach?
I'm afraid that so long as Maria, Hillary, Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman, Evan Bayh, and the rest of the DLC crowd continue to stand with the neo-con view of national offense, they do not represent my values and do not have my trust.
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
Post a Comment