Posted on 06/19/2009 10:24:56 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
WASHINGTON (AP) - In the strongest message yet from the U.S. government, the House voted 405-1 Friday to condemn Tehran's crackdown on demonstrators and the government's interference with Internet and cell phone communications.
The resolution was initiated by Republicans as a veiled criticism of President Barack Obama, who has been reluctant to criticize Tehran's handling of disputed elections that left hard-liner President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in power.
Rep. Mike Pence, who co-sponsored the resolution, said he disagrees with the administration that it must not meddle in Iran's affairs.
"When Ronald Reagan went before the Brandenburg Gate, he did not say Mr. (Mikhail) Gorbachev, that wall is none of our business," said Pence, R-Ind., of President Reagan's famous exhortation to the Soviet leader to "tear down that wall."
Democrats, who are quick to voice their support for Israel anytime the Jewish state is seen as under siege, easily agreed to push through the mildly worded resolution.
Rep. Howard Berman, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and co-sponsor of the resolution, said "it is not for us to decide who should run Iran, much less determine the real winner of the June 12 election.
"But we must reaffirm our strong belief that the Iranian people have a fundamental right to express their views about the future of their country freely and without intimidation," added Berman, D-Calif.
Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., have proposed a similar measure in the Senate, although a vote was not certain.
The policy statement expresses support for "all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties and rule of law" and affirms "the importance of democratic and fair elections."
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Not his job. Foreign policy is the responsibility of the President.
Ron Paul is a sad, pathetic little man.
Thousands of supporters who helped birth the new Tea Parties and limited government movement says otherwise.
Congressmen conduct foreign policy now?
I don’t understand the point of saying anything or supporting anyone in the Iranian election. And I really don’t understand the “conservative” position of wanting the US to “do something” about this other than for the reason that Obama has been reticent about saying anything.
Let’s face facts: The current president of Iran is a nutjob. On that we can all agree.
So the guy that the kids in Iran are all supporting — is he some breath of fresh air for the west?
Hmmmm... no. Mousavi was Iran’s prime minister during the hard-line era of the 1980’s. OK, so he wants to get the Iranian morality police to lighten up - that’s nice. But it means nothing to people outside Iran. It means that young men might get some tail a tad more often without having to get their girlfriends beaten senseless or killed. And while that’s a nice, positive change, it has nothing to do with us.
Is Mousavi going to quit calling for death to Israel? Don’t think so. Is Mousavi going to be seen on TV saying friendly things about Jews? No, I don’t see that happening either.
Is Mousavi going to stop funding terrorists? Don’t know, but I seriously doubt it.
But let’s dream a big dream and say that this guy Mousavi is a positive change for the west. He’s up against an entrenched mindset that thinks that anyone who is even moderately friendly to the US is a zionist stooge. By giving him strong public support in the west, we just further entrench the hard-liners against Mousavi, not help him.
As a result, I don’t see any big win for the US to be opening up our national piehole on this issue. Are we going to aid the protestors? If there’s a position we don’t want to take, it is one of offering to meddle, even indirectly, in an election in Iran. We should try to convince the Iranian people that we meddled once with the Shah, we learned our lesson, and now their elections are totally theirs.
And as far as being “pro-democracy” in the mideast: Yea, that “democracy” thing has been working so well for us so far, hasn’t it? In Palestine and Egypt, it merely gave legitimacy to the hard-liners. So this “democracy” thing can cut both ways... there’s no guarantee that the people will vote in ways that work to our benefit.
If we want to play a card in the mideast, we should increase our efforts to help the Iraqi’s create a functional, sane state and let the results stand as testimony to what the US stands for.
Now that Republican Congressmen have suddenly found their testicles on this issue, please ask them to do this in opposing Obama's policies.
Exactly, so why is everyone getting worked up over him?
Yes, and it probably would not have happened as fast as it did without the French funding a war against us scant years earlier.
You know, the one where Geo. Washington gained his skill as a military commander? The French-Indian War?
The idea that the French were siding with us for our liberty is one of those cherished mythologies of the American nation. The truth is much less noble: The French were funding the colonies’ revolt because it was a nice proxy war against the English.
WWI would have ended in a stalemate among fading world empires had we not intervened. We were attacked on eve of WWII so your statement doesn't apply.
You'll have to remind me. When did Germany attack the US exactly?
That's what makes this thread so hilarious. FReepers are now on record of supporting, by proxy, basically an Iranaian version of Yasser Arafat. Remember Arafat also become a "moderate" in the 1990s. Or is that TINO? (Terrorist In Name Only). The Iranian people don't want freedom, they just want their chains loosened a bit.
Germany declared war on the U.S. shortly after Pearl Harbor.
—You Paulistinians are just like the people in that video where the elderly man was hit by a car and everyone stood around and did nothing because it wasn’t their problem.—
If the old man was hit by a car in Chicago, it’s our problem. If the old man was hit by a car in Tehran, it’s NOT our problem.
We are in a “nice proxy war” with the Iranian regime already. So why can’t we encourage those that oppose the enemy?
Don’t you want victory in the War On Terror?
Because to do so just gives strength to the enemy. This play is going to take a softer touch.
Yes, I do remember that.
Cue up to Who tune: “Won’t Get Fooled Again!”
They attacked US-flagged ships in the Atlantic in early 1942. This is an act of war.
But before that, Germany was operating a network of spies inside our borders. Go research “Duquesne Spy Ring.”
What ever happened to America being the land of the free and home of the brave?
You and Obamadinejad can go ahead and coddle tyrants with your despicable softer touch all you want. America is done with that.
Mr Khamenei, tear down this regime!
Yes, how convenient for FDR. After siting anxiously on the sidelines, itching to get in (as he actually should have been to come to the defense of allies), Germany acted the only way it could after Japan's "surprise attack" on the US.
But, in keeping with the intent of the thread, it was the Paulian-like isolationism that actually compounded and lengthened an already long and bloody war. FDR was right to want to get into the war earlier on. But, it was the old-style isolationism of the GOP that kept him from doing so. That was a mistake that cost tens of thousands of US and allied lives, not to mention the lives of perhaps millions of Jews, amongst others.
and now Ron Paul supportes will come to his defense saying something like “Dr. Paul is above all this stuff and believes government should only do what is stated in the Constitution and the Constitution doesn’t say anything about commenting on foreign elections therefore ...” or some such nonsense.
That's incorrect. He seems nice enough. He is a rules-based idiot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.