Last Wednesday, the House of Representatives voted 397-21 for the Iran Freedom Support Act. The mainstream press portrayed the bill as simply tightening sanctions against a renegade regime, but Dennis Kucinich, one of the 21 Congresspersons who voted against the act,
called it,
a stepping stone to war.
More after the break...
Ron Paul said the IFSA reminded him of the Iraq Liberation Act, the 1998 legislation cited repeatedly by the Bush adminstration as one of the grounds for the Iraq invasion. Both bills included language supportive of "regime change." The Iran act's goals include, "hold Iran accountable and
support a transition to democracy."
Rick Santorum has introduced a similar bill in the Senate. Ironically, the Washington Times reports today that the Bush administration "isn't too hot" on the bill. Perhaps it's the provisions that would "urge" oil companies to divest from Iranian operations.
It's no longer surprising that prominent Democrats are falling over themselves trying to appear hawkish on Iran. What is stunning about this development is the reaction--rather non-reaction--of America's antiwar movement. Cindy Sheehan expressed her outrage in a piece picked up on Buzzflash. Antiwar.com had an op-ed. Diarist Diane W. pointed to it on MyLeftWing.
Now there is nothing riskier than trying to prove a negative, so I won't make any hard and fast claims here, but it's difficult not to be struck by the lack of attention the passage of this particular bill has received from what I had considered the antiwar wing of the press and blogosphere.
Why hasn't this been a headline topic? I'll offer a few suggestions:
1) the Democrats and the left are split on Iran making it an uncomfortable topic;
2) Republican sex scandals are more fun to talk about;
3) Democratic Congressional leaders who post on dKos act as if it never happened;
4) it's really damned depressing to realize so few Dems represent an antiwar viewpoint
In all fairness, Tom Ball has provided some excellent coverage of the march to war against Iran, though he didn't feature the vote on IFSA. People like Tom are working hard to keep this issue before progressives, but I am somehow missing the level of interest and sense of urgency that this issue would seem to warrant.
Is there any antiwar movement left in America, at least one with enough critical mass to have a hope of heading off the next disastrous war? When only 21 House members vote against a bill laying the foundation for war against Iran, it looks close to hopeless. When the left doesn't immediately rise up in outrage against this betrayal, it looks even worse.
Since the Supreme Court ruled in Bush v. Gore, I have heard many on the left do their best imitation of Cubs fans pinning their hopes on next year. The litany of disasters that have occurred during that half-decade grows longer and now threatens to reach--if it hasn't already--a point of no return. Why spend so much time and energy working to elect people who, at the least, acquiesce in the commission of war crimes? What issue will ever be important enough to demand that Democrats stand up or lose your support?
I decided a year ago it was time to leave the U. S. It wasn't just that I perceived the Right to be ruthless and ready to institute a fascist state, but I had come to the point where it seemed to me that the Left was so ineffectual that it would never be able to halt the march to totalitarianism. I still hope that I am wrong , and that the American Left will rise up by the millions to stop a policy that will produce a destructive impact dwarfing anything since World War II.
Protests like the impromptu one at Stanford and the NYC march cause that faint hope to wax occasionally, but on the whole, this past week and the Iran Freedom Support Act remind me of "Wooden Ships" as I view this from Europe.