The title above is a little bit misleading but I will try to get you there step by step. I sent a letter to the Senator to ask him to stop President Bush from bombing Iran. Below the fold is the text of his response and then the text of my follow up to him. Why should this interest you, the Dkos reader? Well I believe we should be talking to Republicans. This may or may not be analogous the United States talking to Iran. But I also believe that the US should be talking with Iran.
One of my Senators is Saxby Chambliss (R – Georgia.) You might remember him as the man who beat Max Cleland. Max Cleland was the target of the most vicious political attack I have witnessed in my lifetime. I have been a fan of Max Cleland since he was the Secretary of State of Georgia. So you might think then, that I have reason to hate or at least dislike Saxby Chambliss. Well I don’t because I have never met the man but you could say I don’t approve of his party’s campaign methods. And being that he sits on the Armed Services Committee and the Select Committee on Intelligence, well I just have trust that he is a responsible American who might be open to persuasion.
Being a voter in Georgia, I can’t say that I have always voted for Democrats. It is much safer here to be an independent, because I find that the party labels have little to do with how our politicians will vote. So one is best advised to take them one at a time. (You remember the old term "Dixiecrats"? Also, Georgia counts 6 among the 43 member Blue Dog Coalition. I think nine GA members voted for the "Protect America Act".)
Senator Chambliss is in the position to influence many minds on bombing Iran. And we truly don’t have time to replace him with somebody more to our liking. This immediacy was made clear by Hunter's diary yesterday. So its called playing the hand that you are dealt.
So here is what Saxby Chambliss said to me about bombing Iran:
Thank you for contacting me to share your concerns regarding Iran . It is good to hear from you.
As you are aware, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is trying to develop a nuclear program. He claims that this program will be for energy production; however, he has announced that part of his agenda is the destruction of Israel . This leads me to be lieve that Iran is intent on developing nuclear weapons which would make Iran one step closer to achieving its agenda. With the election of the Hamas militant group in Palestine , another group set on the destruction of Israel , the possession of nuc lear weapons by Iran poses a greater threat to not only Israel , but also the rest of the world.
I hope that through diplomacy, we are able to curb any attempts by Iran to develop a nuclear program. However, only when all diplomatic options are exhausted should military action be considered. Protecting our nation is a top priority of mine and you can rest assured I will continue my commitment to winning the War on Terror.
And here is how I responded:
Dear Senator Chambliss,
I really do appreciate this response to my concern about the US bombing or attacking Iran on Iranian soil. Now that I have a better idea of your position, I do have some thoughts that I ask you to consider. Please know that I represent no organization, nor is any part of my letter "canned." But I trust that you will still value my constituency.
Firstly, the power structure of the President of Iran is in no way analogous to the US President, and the decision on the part of Iran to pursue or not to pursue a nuclear weapon, is relatively independent of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. His agenda "the destruction of Israel" may be his own personal agenda and may or may not be that of the real decision makers in Iran. I think it is too easy to inflame emotions in all parts of the world using the crazy statements of Ahmadinejad. Also, there is a lot of current evidence that he is unpopular in his own country. Iran has regular elections and can replace him, which was not the situation in Iraq or Afghanistan, (nor for that matter, Saudi Arabia.)
For the US to encourage the moderates to replace Ahmadinejad, the exact wrong thing to do would be to attack them in any military way. I have seen no evidence of the diplomatic options that you hope are exhausted prior to a military attack. Can you tell me specifically, if and how you, as a Senator are requiring diplomatic efforts?
Concerning Hamas, there are many ways for Israel and its allies to improve that situation that does not involve our attacking Iran. This is a topic for a whole other conversation, but the threat of Hamas to Israel has to take a back seat to our own concerns for US security.
Concerning your dedication to winning the War on Terror, (which I know is sincere) I think that we have to be honest and realize that the Wahabi influenced terrorists should be more of our priority here. This emphasis on Iran is probably counter-productive to that priority. So I am not sure how attacking Iran is part of the War on Terror, if what you mean by that is our response to those that attacked us in 2001. I do know that there is a real threat if Iran becomes weaponized, but lets not lump this in with our response to the events of September 11, 2001.
I also have to point out that I do not see what the Congress is doing to prevent our Executive Branch from undertaking a military action against Iran before diplomatic efforts are "exhausted." So I do not rest assured. What specifically can you do to prevent an attack before you are sufficiently satisfied that diplomacy has failed?
Our civilian government has the duty to set policy regarding the use of the military, so maybe the opinion of the DOD is not relevant. However, there is a significant amount of reporting that the military is against any form of attack. Much of this is based on the idea that bombing various targets is not likely to be successful in actually destroying their capability to build a nuclear weapon. There is some logic that says it may speed up any program they might have. Recently, I hear some "opinion makers" diverting the purpose of an attack onto the Revolutionary Guard to avoid this criticism.
Before there is to be an action, it is the constitutional duty of the US Congress to declare war with Iran. Bombing or attacking in any way is an act of war. Please restore the proper place of the Senate and make sure that there is real consensus and consent before we attack Iran.
I cannot emphasize enough that a premature, unilateral or unauthorized attack is the most dangerous thing our country could do and I truly believe it would make us more unsafe, much less secure and certainly more divided as a people. This is not a situation that helps Israel either.
With the utmost respect, I hope that, though this letter may not be seen directly by Senator Chambliss, may his staff convey these questions and comments for his consideration. I have worked to make this as concise and convincing as I know how to do. I would be more than appreciative to receive a response to this letter.
Sincerely,
I will keep you posted if I get a response.
Oh I forgot the last step – Barbara Ann! Well you remember this old favorite don’t you? As pointed out at flipfloppers.org last month, John McCain had a terrifically different point of view in 2005. What I want to know is, what do we know to be different right now than in 2005? Will we have a public airing of this crucial intelligence before any bombing? And if not, can I trust the assurances of my Senator who is in the position to know?