A strange thing happened on the Senate floor December 16th, Senator Rick Santorum introduced Senate Resolution 337 which condemning the harmful, destructive, and anti-Semitic statements of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran. Ahmadinejad announced that Israel should be "wiped off the map” and that the Holocaust was a "myth.” The resolution passed unanimously. The strange thing was that his earlier try at such a resolution was held up due to Democrat objections. Why did they object to the earlier resolution? Because it had language supporting self-determination and a free and fair national referendum. The offensive clauses:
1. The Senate supports efforts by the people of Iran to exercise self-determination over the form of government of their country.
2. The Senate supports a national referendum in Iran, with oversight by international observers and monitors, to certify the integrity and fairness of the referendum.
Well, anyone can see why that’s offensive, it’s a call for Democracy! Why do the Democrats object to Democracy? They won’t say. They won’t even let us know which Democrats objected. When the first offensive referendum was brought to the floor Senate Democrat Ron Wyden said: "Mr. President, while I personally am vehemently opposed to the statements that have been made by the President of Iran, I have been asked by the Members on this side of the aisle to object, and I do so object." One lone voice wouldn’t be enough for the party to openly object to Democracy in Iran, this has to come from the leadership. Why they won’t come out in the open with who and why they objected I can only speculate that it’s because GWB is for it and their objections can’t be rationally defended.
5 comments:
You can not honestly believe that democrats are against democracy. Be careful or you might be grouped in the auspicious ranks of Ann Coultier counting yourself one among the many partisan pundits that pervade the internet decrying democrats' hatred of democracy. Let’s keep it civil now…
Ranked with Ann Coultier? That would be a bad thing? Since they aren’t saying what they object to I’ll admit that I made my own conclusions. What can’t be argued however is that they object to the Senate expressing support for Democracy in Iran and I find that objectionable.
Ann's one bitchy lady. But besides that, I'm a bit sorry to hear that support for the measure wasn't across both parties in the beginning. I'd like to see democracy in Iran. I can only speculate that objections were raised over concerns of not sounding too confrontational at a time when a more subtle approach might be necessary. I'd like to think that the administration is funneling money into democratic organizations and supporting such a movement in a clandestine manner. I'd rather see them spending money on that instead of throwing it away on buying contractors to pay off journalists in Iraq to print propaganda. I'm not against propaganda either. The administration just isn't very adept at keeping things like that a secret. What's with these contractors in Iraq? Are they all inept?
Kevin --
I don't understand why you're defending the indefensible. It's not the Senate's job to play diplomat--that role belongs to the State department.
And what's this got to do with contractors in Iraq?
Post a Comment