Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Resolution 580

I give you my word right now: If Barack Obama supports Senate Resolution 580, I will shut down this web site and cease to support him in any way.

Resolution 580, for those of you who are not familiar, is a non-binding measure that has gotten little media attention. But it is a big deal. The resolution calls for sanctions and a U.S. naval blockade against Iran - tantamount to a declaration of war. It is being heavily pushed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Does anyone doubt that if George W. Bush decided that he wanted to start a war with Iran before he left office, this resolution would be all the justification he would need? reports that the House of Representatives version of 580, Resolution 362, will likely come up for a vote next week.

From The Iran Nuclear Watch Web site writes, “According to the House leadership, this resolution is going to ‘pass like a hot knife through butter’ before the end of June on what is called suspension – meaning no amendments can be introduced during the 20-minute maximum debate. It also means it is assumed the bill will pass by a 2/3 majority and is non-controversial.”

Preventing war with Iran is the issue in this election. Do you want gas prices to stop rising? Do you want taxes not to go up? Do you want the economy to recover? Do you want some of the civil liberties that Bush has taken away to come back? All of these things will be impossible if the U.S. goes to war with Iran ( has even more reasons that this war would be disastrous, if you need them).

According to the Center for Nonproliferation Studies: "An attack on Iranian nuclear facilities in Bushehr, Arak, and Natanz, could have various adverse effects on U.S. interests in the Middle East and the world. Most important, in the absence of evidence of an Iranian illegal nuclear program, an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities by the U.S. or Israel would be likely to strengthen Iran's international stature and reduce the threat of international sanctions against Iran. Such an event is more likely to embolden and expand Iran's nuclear aspirations and capabilities in the long term."

I haven't seen anything in the media about Obama's position on Resolution 580. The resolution has 19 cosponsors, Democrats and Republicans, and thankfully Obama is not one of them (neither is John McCain, surprisingly). But after his sorry performance before AIPAC earlier this month, I am a bit wary. I called and emailed Obama's Senate office today inquiring about his position on the resolution, but I haven't gotten a response yet. I'll let you all know if I hear back. Don't let me down, Barack.


Jake Featherston said...

I kinda doubt Obama will support this, but then I have a hard time believing Congress would pass it at all, and it sounds like its a done deal that they will, amazingly (well, its not that amazing, but it should be). If Obama does support it, I'd support your decision to take this blog down. I'd still consider him preferable to McInsane, but not enough to warrant anyone's vocal support.

Patrick Buchanan and Ralph Nader are both fond of referring to Washington, D.C. as "Israeli-occupied territory." If Resolution 580 passes, then I'd have to say they've been proven correct.

Mark said...

I really hope you're right about Obama, Jake.

As for Washington being "Israeli-occupied territory" - I think it's more accurate to call it "AIPAC-occupied." Many politicians in Israel are far more reasonable than this bunch of warmongers.

Anonymous said...

Does any thinking person doubt at this point that the USA is Israeli Occupied Territory?

DJK said...

He'll probably just vote PRESENT.

DJK said...

Write you back?? and take a principled stand on something substantive?? Don't hold your breath.

Anonymous said...