House Resolution Regarding Iranian Election Protests
Jun 20th, 2009 by thatsElbert
June 19 the US House voted 405-1 for a non-binding resolution supporting the protests against what most believe to be a rigged election in Iran. The resolution also condemns the action of the Iranian government against the protestors. Reps. Howard Berman (D-Calif.) and Mike Pence (R-Ind.) drafted the resolution.
The resolution states:
Expressing support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law, and for other purposes. Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
(1) expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law;
(2) condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the Government of Iran and pro-government militias, as well as the ongoing government suppression of independent electronic communication through interference with the Internet and cellphones; and
(3) affirms the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections.
Regarding the resolution, Rep. Pense states:
I have said many times this week… that the cause of America is freedom. And in this cause the American people will not be silent. There is no intention here to pick sides in the Iranian election. There is an intention here, in a true spirit of bipartisanship, to allow the American people to be on the side of liberty and to be on the side of freedom.
This CNN report states President Obama’s response to the protests:
Obama has said he is “deeply troubled” by the violence, but he has avoided siding with Ahmadinejad’s opponents, telling reporters, “It is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran’s leaders will be.”
“It’s not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling, the U.S. president meddling in Iranian elections,” Obama said this week.
Mr. President, it is not meddling to show your support for protests and the free expression of the Iranian people. It is pretty clear that there is some issue with the election, thus the large protests. By showing support you would be affirming a God-given right to free expression, something we enjoy here in the States.
Mr. President, do you mean that you are fine with this whole crackdown on protestors? Do you mean that you are fine with the attempt to shut down communications with the outside world regarding this matter?
Most of us look at the Iranian government’s crackdown on protestors as a bad thing. If the Iranians want a nutjob like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to be their leader then so be it. Apparently a large number of voters there say there’s a problem with this election, and that Ahmadinejad rigged the elections. A recount would either affirm their charge or put to rest questions about the vote count.
If this is a test of Obama’s mettle, so far he’s failing.
(crossposted on That’s Elbert With An E)
I concur with the sentiment expressed by our leaders from both sides of the aisle. It reminds me that nearly 20 years ago that I cosponsored a resolution in the Student Senate at my college expressing solidarity with our fellow students in China a few months after T-Square. Would you believe that I received a visit from some members of a Chinese consulate in the region? It got picked up by the local paper and apparently it must have gotten in the AP mix. These guys were I believe stationed in Texas and came to Oklahoma with information to educate me.
I came back to my dorm room and found waiting outside Chinese government officials anxious to control the damage. They asked if I had consulted by neighbor who was a Chinese exchange student and a great friend. I told them the truth that I intentionally kept him out of the loop. That I love the people of China and hope for the best future for them. After about an hour of education, I told them I saw the complication of the issue and the disputed reports and agreed to withdraw my second resolution to the Oklahoma Intercollegiate Legislature which was the student representation of most of the colleges where I was a leader.
They said that my friend would be grateful and so would his family because they were all proud patriots of PRK. To which I replied that I have only heard words of honor regarding the PRK. I was given videos about the truth of Tibet and other issues of “misconceptions” which I donated to the library. They spoke with my friend privately and afterward he said that he was grateful for both my courage with the first resolution and my withdrawal of the second. There is more that I can’t really remember clearly except later that evening I whispered that one day the winds of freedom will not be contained. He smiled then tears started to form and he excused himself.
The fact that the PRK not only tracked down were I lived and spoke with me was not lost on me. It brought home to me how it must be to live in such a regime. My friend had family in the PRK who were being monitored, and he intended to return as he was under a student visa.
I can understand why the President is being careful about what he says. Anything he says will be used to show foreign agitation and a pretense for persecution of the traitors. I also understand that if we don’t shine the light of truth on those powers, then they will act with impunity.
That day my point was made and it got the attention of the PRK (I still don’t understand why.) If an insignificant person passing a resolution brought before an insignificant student senate can get their attention, the U. S. House and Senate can certainly make a difference. Sometimes different branches must play the good cop and others the bad cop. Sometimes we must be united in fact and appearance.
I applaud the effort and I will trust the President to do his job. I think the fact that protesters are being killed now brings this beyond an internal election issue. I am sure that the President will say more than we are disappointed. If he doesn’t, then maybe he is doing something bigger and better behind the scenes.
it is the communist/totalitarian way.
nothing is to small to react to.
“(Mr. President) . . Do you mean that you are fine with the attempt to shut down communications with the outside world regarding this matter? . . Most of us look at the Iranian government’s crackdown on protestors as a bad thing.”
Are you really insinuating the oppression in Iran is okay with the President? This is a time for unity in America. Cheap shots at our Commander In Chief only chip away at that unity.
Look at it this way – the revolt among the young voters in Iran finds inspiration in the words Obama delivered in Cairo a few weeks ago. Young Iranians are eager to do what we did in 2008. Vote out the old, vote in the young, the new. I think Obama has done his part encouraging the events now unfolding in Iran.
In Obama’s Cairo speech, he stated:
Obama keeps repeating his message about picking the outcome of an election. There is no one opposing that. Iran is not completely honoring “the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed.” That is what he needs to address here.
Reagan didn’t have a problem addressing similar issues with Poland. Why can’t Obama do the same? His silence on the issue speaks too.
Regarding “cheap shots”, I wasn’t making cheap shots. I was pointing out what his silence says. If you want cheap shots, rewind about 4-6 years and you’ll find all kinds of cheap shots directed at a President.
President Obama makes his views on basic human rights clear in Cairo and almost everyday in the news. Everybody knows what’s happening in Iran runs counter to every concept America stands for. What more is there to say?
The “Islamic Revolutionary Government” running Iran a direct result of Islamic radicals overthrowing the U.S. backed dictatorship in 1979. The U.S. is a major player from way back in the 1950′s contributing to the disfunction afflicting present day Iran.
The situation with Reagan and the Soviets and Eastern Europe during the Cold Was was a much more straightforward situation. The U.S. was never kicked out of Poland for setting up a brutal military dictatorship.
Words alone may be meaningless and even counterproductive. The USA gave a lot of encouragement to potential freedom fighters in Hungary before a certain uprising but when those Soviet tanks rolled in, we did nothing.
Covert action may be the only mode of response. Words of support for one faction could be taken as interference in the internal affairs of another nation and do more harm than good.
Elbert, think 123 and Art Downs have it about right.
Obama has identified the fact that it is in our strategic interest to meet with Iranian leaders in order to identify common ground and work on our differences. Since we do not know who will prevail, we cannot pick sides, as doing so might “do more harm than good”, as Art put it.
The House Resolution clearly states where America stands on this conflict. Even Henry Kissinger has praised Obama for his restraint.
Amazing how Kissinger is now a buddy to the faux progressives!
Obama has to calculate whether speaking out publicly in favor of the Iranian protestors would help them or hurt them. See, when you are the leader of the free world you have to think about things like that, unlike you neocon lapdogs yipping and biting his ankles.
faux progressives? we are all progressives now.
noman: I, for one, haven’t said anything to the contrary. All I said is that it is comical to see the Left diggin’ Kissinger b/c he, for once, agrees w/’em.
i too have been fantasizing about a covert weapons and communications program through Kurdistan and Western Afghanistan. I doubt that this administration will do it. I am not convinced that upping the rhetoric will strengthen the movement. I think helping to impose sanctions globally if they repress a general strike. The time is coming that we will have to cut or fish. I don’t think this is the time. We have to let the movement grow on its own. Otherwise it is like grabbing a baby bird out of the nest to feed it. The mother will smother it. If we want the Iranians to feed this movement, we have to allow it to be their movement. After that we can aid it.
Reagan didn’t have a problem addressing similar issues with Poland. Why can’t Obama do the same?
After 8 years of Bush, Obama has a lot of repair work to do on American credibility and perception of good faith. Right now Obama cannot hold America up as an example of good behavior in the Middle East – as Reagan was able to do for Eastern Europe.
I find it interesting when self-styled ‘activists’ display the extent of their ignorance by the mis-use of the term ‘neocon’ to anyone not to the left of Lincoln Chafee.
For those with a shallow depth of experience, the term was created (and used in a negative sense) by long-term conservatives who were afraid that some social liberals who had supported Reagan on National Security matters might try to use their influence in other areas to push the GOP to the left. Given the tenor of the times, any assistance was welcome from the likes of Jean Kirkpatrick.
Now the term is used rather sloppily for an attack on conservatives per se. The gratuitous use of the term in attempts at political discourse is as much a sign of ignorance as the gratuitous use of vulgarity.
Art – if the shoe fits…
As a Republican, I hope the term neocon disappears fast. For me, a neocon is sort of like a conservative with an obnoxious superiority complex who considers the opposition to be traitors.
“There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the
decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.
“All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: The United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will
stand with you.
“Democratic reformers facing repression, prison or exile can know: America sees you for who you are — the future leaders of your free country.
“The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: “Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule
of a just God, cannot long retain it.”
George W. Bush Jan 2005
Sorry, anoni, but George W. Bush is no model for nurturing international relations, let alone supporting those who are fighting to liberate their country. Instead, he was an interventionist extraordinaire, doing much more harm than good, a condition that President Obama is attempting to repair, quite well so far I would say!
“. . . to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of our world – our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand. To those who would tear this world down – we will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security – we support you.” President Barrack Obama November 2008
real reason why this is happening in Iran is because the people in Iran watched Iraq have 5 free and fair elections; they see Freedom next door and they want it too.
If the Mullahs lose power then no matter how the Leftists try to spin it they wont be able to hide the fact that the Bush doctrine worked and that going into Iraq and setting up a democracy in the heart of the Middle East changed the world and made it and the United States safer .
Militant Islam would die on the vine, Hammas and Hezbollah would crumble. Palestinians would have no choice but to seek peace; Kim Jong Il and Hugo Chavez would be left alone and twisting in the wind.
And after the dust settled there would be Berry 0bama, the one guy who “voted against the war in Iraq” (although he wasn’t actually someone who could have voted at the time).