Like many of you, I've been getting Russell Feingold fever these past few months. His censure resolution, his PATRIOT Act fight, his stand for equal rights for all citizens (support of marriage for gays/lesbians), his constant push against the administration over Iraq ... all these actions have made me believe he is the one.
Imagine my disappointment when I received this response to my weekend plea for him to rein in this administration's nuclear attack plans for Iran.
- more -
When I read
Seymour Hersh's recent New Yorker article about the Bush administration's plans for Iran (which might include a nuclear strike) and
the Independent's similar report, I emailed Feingold, asking him to DO SOMETHING.
Hersh warned of Bush's plans back in January 2005: "Bush has an aggressive and ambitious agenda for using that control--against the mullahs in Iran and against targets in the ongoing war on terrorism--during his second term." And anyone familiar with the the Project for the New American Century knows that the whole Middle East is a target.
With Israel's nuke program on the move and the U.S.beginning its own new nuke program it seems like it's time for a Russell Feingold moment, one person with spine standing up to stop the insanity (or at the very least urging support of a Middle East nuclear free zone.)
But, no. Here's what he wrote:
Thank you for contacting me regarding Iran. I appreciate hearing from you.
As you may know, Iran has been viewed by successive U.S. administrations as a threat to both the U.S. and our allies, particularly because of Iran's history of support for terrorist organizations and Iran's history of noncompliance with the requirements of global nuclear nonproliferation standards. Currently, U.S. sanctions ban or strictly limit U.S. trade, aid, and investment in Iran and prohibit selling technology or arms that could be used to intimidate their neighbors in the region. Sanctions also penalize foreign firms that invest in Iran's energy sector. I have supported these sanctions in the Senate, but unilateral U.S. sanctions do not appear to have altered Iran's policies.
The June 24, 2005, victory of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran's presidential elections has heightened concerns about future U.S.-Iran relations. A conservative, Ahmadinejad is a strong supporter of Iran's nuclear programs, and has strongly spoken out against the United States. In addition, the human rights record of Iran is abysmal. For many years, religious minorities in Iran, including members of the Baha'i faith, have faced discrimination and repression. The State Department's human rights report for 2004 stated that Iran's already poor human rights record worsened during the previous year. The U.S. and U.N. human rights reports cite Iran for abuses such as summary executions, disappearances, torture, and arbitrary arrest and detention. Iran has also been consistently criticized for suppression of political dissidents and violations of the rights of women.
The Department of State reported in August 2005 that Iran continues to be the most active state sponsor of terrorism in the world. Iran has opposed the U.S.-led Middle East peace process since its inception in October 1991. Iran also continues to provide material support to Hizballah in Lebanon and to Palestinian groups that oppose the Arab-Israeli peace process, such as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. All Iranian factions have publicly supported Palestinian violence against Israel since September 2000.
On August 10, 2005, Iran restarted uranium conversion activities at a plant in Isfahan. Uranium is converted, but not enriched, at Isfahan, which is the next step to eventual manufacture of nuclear weapons. In response to Iran's actions, on August 11, 2005, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) passed a resolution calling on Iran to suspend all uranium and nuclear activities. On September 19, 2005, the IAEA´s 35-member Board of Governors met, in part, to discuss the situation in Iran. On September 24, 2005, the IAEA adopted another resolution, finding that Iran´s failures and breaches constituted non-compliance and calling on Iran to return to the negotiating process.
In early January 2006, Iran restarted its nuclear energy program. The U.S., along with other permanent United Nations (U.N.) Security Council members France and Great Britain, expressed support for the IAEA reporting Iran to the U.N. Security Council for sanctions. The remaining two permanent members, China and Russia, have supported alternative efforts. On February 4, 2006, the IAEA voted to report Iran to the U.N. Security Council.
I remain deeply concerned about Iran's efforts to advance its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program and its potential to transfer WMD to extremist groups. For this reason, on February 14, 2006, I introduced S. 2279, the Iran and Syria Nonproliferation Enforcement Act, which would require sanctions on proliferators, extend sanctions to their parent companies, and increases the types of sanctions that apply to proliferators. By adopting this legislation, we would be sending a clear message to would-be proliferators that choosing to assist Iran in developing nuclear capabilities will mean they can not conduct business with the United States. This bill has been referred to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
I also co-sponsored a resolution introduced on January 27, 2005 by Senator Bill Frist (R-TN) that condemned Iran for violating its international nuclear nonproliferation obligations and supported efforts to report Iran to the United Nations Security Council. I was pleased that on January 27, 2006, the Senate passed this resolution by unanimous consent. You might also be interested to know that the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request limits funding to democracy promotion initiatives, increased television and broadcasting to Iran, and building networks of human rights and reformist organizations.
As a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, I will continue to monitor developments in Iran closely. Thanks again for contacting me. I encourage you to do so in the future regarding this or any other issue of importance to you."
I'm disappointed in this response. First he tells me lots of stuff I already know (typical politician letter.) And I agree that theocratic regimes are bad news. But there's no response to my concern that Bush is planning another "pre-emptive" attack, possible with nukes. (Hey, Dems, kiss that big November good-bye.) And, in the end, it seems to me what he is saying is, "I'm ok with Bush starting another war in Iran."
This is not a good start to a new century.
Am I wrong?