Posted on 04/30/2002 4:05:47 PM PDT by RCW2001
Administration moving to block anti-Syria bill
The Bush administration is moving to block a bill that recommends sanctioning Syria for its continued support of terrorism and other bad behavior. It is the administration’s latest attempt in a series of efforts to block legislation being pushed by pro-Israel lobbyists.
Last Thursday, congressmen Eliot Engel (D-New York) and Dick Armey (R-Texas) introduced the bill. A similar version was introduced in the Senate.
Subsequently, Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs Paul Kelly wrote to Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Delaware) expressing the administration’s opposition to the bill. Biden, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, had sought the department’s opinion.
“The president and the secretary are in the middle of an extremely sensitive effort to bring down the violence, avoid the outbreak of regional war, and help the parties back on a path to comprehensive peace. If our efforts on both comprehensive peace and the war against terrorism are to succeed, the president and the secretary will need flexibility to determine what combination of incentives and disincentives will maximize cooperation and advance our goals,” Kelly wrote in a letter to Biden obtained by The Jerusalem Post.
“For this reason, we do not believe this is the right time for legislative initiatives that could complicate our efforts. The imposition of new sanctions on Syria would place at risk our ability to address a range of important issues directly with the Syrian government and render more difficult our efforts to change Syrian behavior and avoid a dangerous escalation.”
In the letter, Kelly pointed out that Syrian intelligence cooperation in the war against al-Qaida has “helped save American lives,” and that Secretary of State Colin Powell made clear during his recent visit to Damascus that “Syria’s support and safe haven for terrorist groups must end.”
The bill calls for a toughening of sanctions against Damascus if it does not end its support for terrorism, terminate its occupation of Lebanon, stop its development of weapons of mass destruction, and cease its illegal importation of Iraqi oil.
In the past week, administration officials have more broadly asked legislators to refrain from passing any legislation regarding the Middle East. In essence, the White House does not want to see any moves by Congress that can be construed as pro-Israel as it attempts to persuade Arab critics that it is still an honest broker.
Last week, in a private meeting with House leadership, Powell asked House Majority Whip Tom DeLay to withdraw a resolution he introduced expressing solidarity with Israel. Similarly, the administration is attempting to block legislation calling for sanctions on the Palestinian Authority if the White House is unable to determine that it is acting in compliance with signed accords.
The vote on the solidarity resolution, originally scheduled for yesterday, was postponed a few weeks because of White House pressure, one congressional staffer said.
“There is no more important time for the voice of Congress to be heard on matters of foreign policy than when critical decisions are being made. The bedrock support this Congress has for Israel is unwavering and will build momentum in the days and weeks ahead,” Rebecca Needler, a spokeswoman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, said.
Pro-Israel lobbyists said the delay in the solidarity resolution vote would enable more co-sponsors to add their names to the bill.
“The Bush administration may have convinced some members of Congress to delay legislation on the Middle East temporarily, but ultimately their voice will not be muted,” one pro-Israel lobbyist said.
“If the Bush administration does not want to hold Syria accountable for its roll in harboring terrorists, Congress must. There is no more important time for the voice of Congress to be herd on matters of foreign policy than when critical decisions are being made.”
It's not a simple world. Would that be Bushbots or Bush defenderbots?
But he does oppose, well, opposing terrorist states.
Go figure.
Could it be... election year spam? A chance to get face time?
We could fight every terrorist country and group simultaneously, but if we go that route it will cost more American lives. It is much better to use one against the other and fight them one at a time, when we set the place and time.
You have confirmed for the audience that you are a Nazi, an evil one, with all the Biblical significance thereof.
C A P I T A L
The Pentagon is effectively part and parcel of our capital. I understand that you do not value its significance or the lives lost therein but there are still some of us who do.
You are a disgrace to the lives and memories of brave American patriots. You should remove Navy Vet from your user name.
We used nuclear weapons against Japan. I support their use if necessary in this war. In WWII we called people like you traitors.
Here's something that elaborates on my Bush strategy opinion. BTW, which branch was it you served in, again?
LMAO. At least I have full control of my mental faculties.
First one to use the Nazi reference loses the debate. You lose. HAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA.
Perhaps you served in the Clinton Navy. I'm not interested in your offer.
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.