U.S. House Votes Overwhelmingly for Iranian Resolution

[peaceandlove]

U.S. House Votes Overwhelmingly for Iranian Resolution

updated 2:55 p.m. EDT, Fri June 19, 2009

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a resolution Friday that says it supports "all Iranians who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties and the rule of law."

The resolution was approved by 405 lawmakers, while one -- Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas -- voted against it. Two others, Reps. Brad Ellsworth, D-Indiana, and Dave Loebsack, D-Iowa, voted "present."

In a statement on his Web site, Paul said he voted against the measure because he is "always very cautious about 'condemning' the actions of governments overseas."

"I have always hesitated when my colleagues rush to pronounce final judgment on events thousands of miles away about which we know very little," said Paul, who attracted attention last year during his unsuccessful bid for the Republican presidential nomination. "And we know very little beyond limited press reports about what is happening in Iran."

Excerpt:

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs defended the administration's approach this week, saying that Obama "believes that he's struck the right tone."

"I know some people agree with what Sen. McCain said. Some people agree with what other Republicans have said that's very much like the president's position," Gibbs said Thursday. "The president strongly believes that we should -- and have -- spoken out to ensure the demonstrators have the universal right and principle to demonstrate without fear of harm. But at the same time, we have to respect their sovereignty."

Continues: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/wire.php?view=5990

[peaceandlove]

Iran: What's Really Going On

By Justin Raimondo
Published 06/19/09

Amid all the internet brouhaha over events in Iran -- the "greening," so to speak, of the blogosphere -- what has been missed, so far, is the meaning and significance of the American response. On the surface, that response has been rigorously proper. In his most recent remarks, President Obama told reporters that it would be unseemly for the US to be seen as meddling in the Iranian electoral process.

This provoked a fusillade of self-righteous on the neocon Right: "He should speak out that this is a corrupt, flawed sham of an election," bawled John "Quick Draw" McCain. Unlike McCain -- whose tendency to go ballistic is inadvisable in general and impermissible in a US President -- Obama understands that a US government endorsement of the Green Revolution would be the kiss of death for Mousavi -- perhaps even in a literal sense.

"It's important to understand that although there is some ferment taking place in Iran, that the difference between Ahmadinejad and Moussavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised. Either way, we were going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighborhood and is pursuing nuclear weapons."

Very smart -- and so threatening in so many ways that it almost makes me pine for the good old days of the Bush era, when dumbness was de rigueur in Washington.

Continues: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/ar...cuss=1#discuss

[peaceandlove]

Ron Paul's Statement on the Iran Resolution, 6/19/09

Posted by Matt Hawes on 06/20/09 2:15 PM

I rise in reluctant opposition to H Res 560, which condemns the Iranian government for its recent actions during the unrest in that country. While I never condone violence, much less the violence that governments are only too willing to mete out to their own citizens, I am always very cautious about "condemning" the actions of governments overseas. As an elected member of the United States House of Representatives, I have always questioned our constitutional authority to sit in judgment of the actions of foreign governments of which we are not representatives. I have always hesitated when my colleagues rush to pronounce final judgment on events thousands of miles away about which we know very little. And we know very little beyond limited press reports about what is happening in Iran.

Of course I do not support attempts by foreign governments to suppress the democratic aspirations of their people, but when is the last time we condemned Saudi Arabia or Egypt or the many other countries where unlike in Iran there is no opportunity to exercise any substantial vote on political leadership? It seems our criticism is selective and applied when there are political points to be made. I have admired President Obama's cautious approach to the situation in Iran and I would have preferred that we in the House had acted similarly.

I adhere to the foreign policy of our Founders, who advised that we not interfere in the internal affairs of countries overseas. I believe that is the best policy for the United States, for our national security and for our prosperity. I urge my colleagues to reject this and all similar meddling resolutions.

The resolution passed 405-1.

SOURCE: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=20364

[Humble Janitor]

For a second, I thought they had voted to authorize war in Iran.

Damn though!

Thanks for posting this!

[peaceandlove]

Ron Paul discussing IRAN on Radio America 6-22-2009

Posted by T M W on 06/23/09 9:23 PM

Dr. Paul interviewed by Greg Corombos on Radio America for World Net Daily.

AUDIO (5:47): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUBovHj_vEQ

SOURCE and COMMENTS: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=20551

Very nice portrait of Dr. Paul on the screen.