Skip to comments.Iranian Alert - December 24, 2005 - Dems refuse to reveal who stopped pro-democracy Iran resolution
Posted on 12/25/2005 11:11:42 AM PST by DoctorZIn
Top News Story
Senate Democrats Soften Iran Resolution
BY BRIAN McGUIRE - Staff Reporter of the Sun
December 23, 2005
WASHINGTON - A Senate resolution condemning the president of Iran for anti-Semitic comments he made earlier this month is riling its Republican sponsors on Capitol Hill. They claim Senate Democrats forced them to strip language from the document expressing support for self-determination and a national referendum in the country.
Senator Santorum, a Republican of Pennsylvania, drafted the resolution after a December 14 speech in which Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the Holocaust a "myth" and suggested Israel be relocated to Europe, Canada, or Alaska. In its original form, the statement condemned the remarks, demanded an apology, and supported efforts by "the people of Iran to exercise self-determination" and hold a national referendum with oversight by international observers.
When Mr. Santorum moved to introduce the resolution last Friday, Senator Wyden, a Democrat of Oregon, registered an unusual objection. According to the Congressional Record, Mr. Wyden told Mr. Santorum on the Senate floor that he was objecting to the resolution because his Democratic colleagues in the Senate had asked him too. Mr. Wyden did not say who asked him to issue the objection.
"While I personally am vehemently opposed to the statements that have been made by the president of Iran," Mr. Wyden said, "I have been asked by the members on this side of the aisle to object, and I do so object."
Mr. Wyden's office did not return repeated calls yesterday to explain who suggested that he object to the Iran resolution or why he was chosen to register the complaint. And a spokesman for Mr. Santorum, Robert Traynham, said he did not know who raised the objection either. "We're still trying to see who those Democrats are," he said. An Internet blog devoted to promoting Democracy in Iran, "Regime Change Iran," detailed the flap over the resolution. It simply said that "Senate Democrats" objected to the resolution.
Confusion over Mr. Santorum's resolution was first evident when an aide to Senator Voinovich, a Republican of Ohio and a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said last Thursday that she thought the resolution had passed. When a reporter said it hadn't, the aide, Garrette Silverman, double-checked and discovered it was held up. Mr. Voinovich then issued a statement condemning Mr. Ahmadinejad's re marks as "shocking and disgusting."
The following day, Mr. Santorum introduced a revised resolution, absent the language calling for a referendum in Iran. Once it passed, he delivered a floor speech in which he condemned not only the comments of Mr. Ahmadinejad but also members of the Senate and others who have resisted a similarly strong condemnation of the remarks.
"We could not adopt tonight in the Senate the Senate saying to the people of Iran that we support efforts of self-determination and a national referendum that was free and fair," Mr. Santorum said. "That is, in my mind, a rather unfortunate occurrence. But I found, from my perspective, that it was so important to condemn these actions that we agreed to strike those two sentences from the resolved clauses. I don't necessarily understand why anyone would oppose either of those sentences, those resolved clauses. They state that we are for freedom and democracy for all people, including the people of Iran."
Disagreement over the proper response to Mr. Ahmadinejad has not been limited to Mr. Santorum's resolution. Senator Clinton, a Democrat of New York, last week criticized the Secretary of State Rice, for not issuing a formal response. Senator Brownback, a Republican of Kansas and a co-sponsor of Mr. Santorum's original Iran resolution, also asked the White House to step up its criticism of Mr. Ahmadinejad.
Ms. Rice denounced Mr. Ahmadinejad's comments in a radio interview on the "Sean Hannity Show" the day they were made.
DoctorZinFinally, the main stream media is noticing. Freepers, keep calling Chairman Lugar's office demanding hearings on Iran and call your democratic Senators asking them "who is responsible for removing the support for self-determination and a national referendum?" We need answers!
- IRIB News reported that Ahmadinejad criticized "suppressive nations" for suppressing "any voice under the pretext of maintaining freedom of expression and impose medieval values and manners in modern disguise on nations." The president then expressed his confidence that all kinds of oppression would come to an end once rule of Islam prevails in the whole world.
- Tom Porteous, Prospect visited Jamkaran, the site of a water well where the 12th and last imam of Shia Islam, the Mahdi, is said to have disappeared a little over a thousand years ago. He discussed Ahmadinejad (and his new leadership) believes that total chaos must be created in order to hasten the return of the Mahdi and the establishment of Islamic rule throughout the world. An interesting read.
- The Public Affairs Magazine reported that the week-long violence in Baluchistan is being blamed on Iranian intelligence and their Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
- News Max reported that Teresa Heinz Kerry says she is "outraged" that President Bush has been too easy on Iran.
- Xinhuanet reported that Russia will fully comply with a deal with Iran to supply it with the Tor-M1 air defense systems despite US objections.
- MosNews reported that Iran is interested in developing military-technical cooperation with Russia.
- Amir Taheri, The Jerusalem Post reminds us that Iran is not just Israel's problem.
- DEBKAfile reported that thousands of Sunni secular Shiite and Kurdish protesters took to the streets of Iraq Friday, Dec. 23, over what they called the biggest election fraud in Middle East history.
- Eli Lake, The New York Sun reported that the head of Iraq's election committee accused critics of the election of extortion.
- Iran Focus reported that Irans powerful Interior Minister said that the echo of Irans Islamic revolution could be heard in Iraq.
- Iran Focus reported that Irans new ambassador to IAEA submits credentials.
- Mark Heinrich, Reuters published their analysis on the showdown over Iran.
- Karim Sadjadpour and Ray Takeyh, The Boston Globe gave their interpretation of Iran's belligerent foreign policy toward Israel.
- And finally, The Times reported that the place Iranians call Weblogistan has grown this year from 5.4 million blogs to today to more than 23 million. The bloggers have proved so wily and hard to censor that the Iranian Government has even considered removing Iran from the internet entirely.
"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail DoctorZin
Join Us At Today's Iranian Alert Thread The Most Underreported Story Of The Year!
"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail DoctorZin
Maybe I'm stupid, but why didn't they leave the two clauses in and let the Democrats vote against it if they liked?
If it's some kind of arcane senate rule, how come the rules always favor Democrats, never Republicans? Couldn't the Republicans maybe learn to use the rules some day?
ping- so I can read it later.
Democrats soften resolution condemning Iran leaders' insane remarks.
Why am I not surprised?
Here we have one of the best opportunities to help change a tyranical regime from within since the Solidarity movement in Poland, so whose the Dim who shot it down? Or should the question be who is the Republican without a backbone who folded?
Exactly!! It would have been even better had the resolution gone down and the Dems voting against it identified.
Any of the 44 RATS could be likely suspects, since they're craven cowards who hope for our ultimate defeat, but this reeks of Ketchup Boy or the Witch. They simply doesn't have the cajones to come out in front and say it while looking ahead to 2008.
"Senator Clinton, a Democrat of New York, last week criticized the Secretary of State Rice, for not issuing a formal response."
The New Hillary.
"Maybe I'm stupid, but why didn't they leave the two clauses in and let the Democrats vote against it if they liked?"
You're not stupid; I had similar thoughts. I believe the point is that by having somebody object, that put the resolution into a new realm, where would take more time and energy to get it through.
In my mind, that does not excuse the Republicans from backing down once again.
Yet again, the Democrats demonstrate their misguided preoccupation with coddling terrorists by watering down this resolution. If they are not trying to hamstring our troops overseas, they are protesting/critizing the President on the WOT (latest attack on wiretaps), boasting about killing the Patriot Act, or fighting for rights for Al Quaeda....they are just traitorous bastards and cannot be trusted with national security.
"Headline "Senate Democrats Soften Iran Resolution" could have read: "Republicans Prove Democrats Really did Castrate Them""
The beauty of it is, the 1000+ FBI files and other dirt Hillary has on various Senators may have had as much to do with this castration as anything else. Now Hillary chastises the Republicans for not taking a stronger stand.
"Yet again, the Democrats demonstrate their misguided preoccupation with coddling terrorists by watering down this resolution."
I see it differently. I don't think the Dems are misguided but rather quite effective. Unfortunately, their goal is the destruction of America.
If there are Republican senators whose FBI files contain information so damaging that it can be used to blackmail them, I want them OUT OF THE SENATE, just like I wanted Dick Nixon out of the White House when he lied to me!
Just an educated guess..S*o*R*o*S
Gee...three guesses who...
The DemonRATs never fail to bend a knee to their evil Master! Nor can they resist calling evil good, and good evil.
More on Lugar and Soros. http://americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=2036
More on the hold. http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=4022