As President Obama Pursues Peace in Middle East, Peter Roskam Seeks Only to Fan Flames

On June 3, 2009, in Barack Obama, Foreign Policy, Iran, Iraq, Peter Roskam, Terrorism, Wingnuts, by RSR
1

Our suddenly fierce Congressman, Peter Roskam, today released a statement condemning President Obama for a suggestion that Iran might have a right to the peaceful development of nuclear power:

“President Obama’s recent comment in support of Iranian nuclear power is both shocking and reckless. Supporting Iran’s “legitimate [nuclear] aspirations” ignores all recent history and smacks of the same naive and misguided approach that allowed for North Korea to gain nuclear power – and now possess nuclear weapons. In a bow to our worst enemies, the President is showing a striking ability to imitate former President Jimmy Carter.

“In just recent memory, Iran has funded terrorist activities against U.S. troops and our allies, called for the destruction of both the U.S. and our strong ally Israel, and sought to systematically destabilize the Middle East and world. Does the President believe Iran wants nuclear power to do their part in combating climate change? Iran has made it abundantly clear what sinister plans they have with nuclear power – and both the U.S. and our allies have great reason to worry.

“There are few scenarios worse than Iran gaining nuclear power – and subsequently nuclear weapons – to threaten and potentially attack the U.S. and our closest allies. The President should immediately recant his support for Iranian nuclear power and consider better options to protect our nation, not endanger it.”

Before tackling Roskam’s statement, lets take a moment to refresh our memories as to how we got ourselves into our present position relative to Iran. President Bush and Vice President Cheney assumed office in 2001 determined to invade Iraq for the benefit of U.S. oil interests. So distracted were they by that project that they were unable to attend to warnings of an imminent terrorist attack on the United States.  Because of that failure to focus on the real threat, the United States suffered the worst terrorist attack in our history on September 11, 2001, at the hand of Jihadists based in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Reluctant to take on the terrorist where they were situated, members of the administration lobbied to invade Iraq instead because it would be easier. But wiser heads prevailed and the invasion of Afghanistan was initiated in late Autumn 2001.

But the administration was still obsessed with Iraq and its oil reserves and consequently began to fabricate evidence to suggest that Iraq posed a threat with its nuclear/chemical/biological weapons programs that no longer existed, having been dismantled after the Gulf War. We have learned recently that the administration went so far as to use torture, at Cheney’s insistence, to try and induce detainees from Afghanistan to give false confessions of a link to Iraq. They proceeded to lie to the American public and to the world to justify the invasion of Iraq, which they launched in 2003, and  which they told us would be a cake walk. Not so much a cake walk, however, that they didn’t have to redeploy resources from our operations in Afghanistan, where the terrorists were. Things predictably began to go badly in Afghanistan. But, on the brighter side, Saddam Hussein was captured and executed (although Bin Laden remained free) and a bloody civil war was provoked in Iraq, further distracting us from the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

So once President Bush had done Iran the favor of eliminating its only threat in the region, Iraq, what did he do? He began to threaten and posture against Iran, leading us to believe he was mad, and Iran to believe that an invasion was imminent. So it seems pretty natural that they would want to ramp up their nuclear weapons program as a deterrent to U.S. agression.

Meanwhile, President Bush continued his efforts to destabilize the region by totally ignoring the plight of occupied Palestine and maintaining a totally one-sided policy regarding Israel, failing to call our ally on its misdeeds. Neither did Bush in any way challenge our other good ally, Pakistan, home of nuclear proliferator A.Q. Khan who helped Iran get their nuclear program going, most probably with the complicity of the Pakistani state.

Through his lies and his arrogance Bush diminished the moral standing of the United States on the world stage. And by squandering resources in Iraq Bush piled up massive debt and limited our military’s ability to deal with real threats elsewhere. Both severely limited our country’s ability to cope effectively with whatever threat may be posed by Iran.

And you, Peter Roskam, our pissant chickenhawk neocon Congressman, you did not so much as emit a solitary squeak of protest at any of this, and therefore you are complicit in all, and not entitled to judge President Obama as he tries to find his way out of the mess that you left him.

As far as Obama’s statement is concerned, it was not anything like Roskam characterized it. Speaking to a BBC interviewer recently, the President said:

“Without going into specifics, what I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations. On the other hand, the international community has a very real interest in preventing a nuclear arms race in the region”

Earlier, in Prague, he had stated that his administration would “support Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy with rigorous inspections” if Iran proves it is no longer a nuclear threat.

Obama further stated his intention to pursue escalated action against Iran if it fails to enter into good faith negotiations with the U.S. over its nuclear program.

Obama is doing a good job in handling the multiple crises that the Republican administration left him. He has been firm without being aggressive, and he has attempted to open dialouge rather than resort to the bullying and name-calling of his predecessors. I appreciate that he has had the courage to confront our friend and ally Israel on the issue of settlements. This is a very strong and capable President.

Roskam’s statement is pure political posturing. He and his Republican colleagues don’t have a positive idea between them. They are just desperately seeking to swift boat Obama in a futile attempt to diminish his popularity and instill groundless fear amongst their constituents. They couldn’t care less about what is the best course for our nation. Theirs is not honest dissent. They present only complaints and no solutions.

I find Roskam’s use of Jimmy Carter’s name to smear Obama particularly loathsome. Jimmy Carter is a good and decent person, though perhaps he wasn’t our most politically astute President. If we’d all listened to Jimmy Carter 30 years ago we’d be in a much better position with regard to energy. Like Obama, Carter was left a mess in regard to Iran by his Republican predecessors who propped up the brutal Shah, provoking the revolution and the hostage crisis. Still Carter was able to free the hostages while Reagan claimed the credit. It was Roskam’s sainted Reagan who actually turned around and sold arms to Iran to finance his campaign of terror in Central America.

My advice to Roskam is that he stick to his principal project of lowering taxes for the wealthy and returning American workers to the 19th century. He should leave the chickenhawk stuff to his good buddy Dick Cheney.

cheney_roskam

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
 

Worried and Confused, Peter Roskam Adopts Obama as Running Mate

On October 21, 2008, in Congressional Elections, George Bush, Peter Roskam, Presidential Race 2008, by RSR
1

I haven’t found much time for blogging lately. I’m transitioning to a new role at work and when I haven’t been working I’ve been transfixed by the Presidential contest and our rapid descent into recession or worse. But when I saw this little ad on the Huffington Post today it shocked me into activity. Yes, Peter Roskam, desperate for your vote in what appears will be a Democratic landslide year, is attempting to ride Obama’s coat tails into a second term. And yes, this is the same Peter Roskam who is serves on John McCain’s Illinois leadership team. I nearly aspirated my Diet Pepsi when I saw this.

Apparently Roskam is not sure his nasty campaign of of character assaults against Jill Morgenthaler is going to fail in much the same way that John McCain’s nasty campaign against Obama is failing. Roskam would like you to believe that voting for both Barack Obama and himself would be a reasonable thing to do. It would not. Here’s my “voter guide” to explain why.

  1. Roskam is helping to lead John McCain’s campaign in Illinois. He wants John McCain to become President. He wants this because he and John want to do very different things than Barack Obama. They would like to see less rather than more regulation of the financial institutions that got us into such trouble during the “anything goes” Bush years. They want to privatize Social Security, turning what’s left of your retirement funds over to Wall Street, not because it’s good for you, but because its good for Wall Street. They want to abolish the minimum wage and regulations providing equal pay for equal work. They don’t like government regulation generally and would work against rules protecting workers from hazards in the workplace or protecting our environment for our children and our  children’s children. They want to continue the trend of redistribution of wealth that has taken place during the Bush years – taking more and more from the middle class and transferring it to the very wealthy. They will do this through regressive taxation – relieving large corporations and wealthy individuals of the obligation to pay their fair share, transferring that burden to the rest of us. They continue to embrace the failed “trickle down” theory of Ronald Reagan in spite of it’s obvious failure. They want to appoint extremist judges to the Supreme Court and take away every woman’s right to chose, banning abortion even when the life of the mother is at stake (you heard McCain say it in the last debate). They want to continue to undermine the religious freedom that we enjoy in this country by further eroding the wall of separation that has existed between Church and State since the foundation of our nation. They want to continue to allow big oil companies to grow richer at our expense by continuing our dependence on fossil fuels rather than implement strategies to conserve and develop alternative sources. And they would continue the Bush pattern of military aggression aimed at controlling the world’s scarce resources rather than engaging in cooperative action with other nations to solve the serious problems the world faces.
  2. Peter Roskam has not raised a single objection to all the many abuses of the Bush administration: the lies that were told to justify the ridiculous war against Iraq, the torture and illegal detention of prisoners, the illegal domestic spying, the outing of Valerie Plame, the politicization of the Justice Department, the Abramoff scandal, the looting by government contractors in Iraq, and on and on. By his silence, Roskam bears moral responsibility for all of them. Roskam is without a moral compass.
  3. Peter Roskam has done nothing in Congress except obstruct the efforts of the majority to tackle our problems. He has consistently used his vote to set up roadblocks to Democratic eforts to tackle problems such as the health insurance crisis, high energy prices, global warming, the shrinking middle class, and the plight of the poor. In order to succeed in office, President Obama will need legislator who will work cooperatively with him. Hyper-partisan Peter Roskam is not such a person.
  4. Roskam is insensitive to the needs of the poor and the middle class. He has consistently used his vote to aid the wealthiest americans and large corporations at the expense of the rest of us. On the basis of his voting record, Roskam was awarded the grade of F by themiddlelass.org and the grade of D by the Sargeant Shriver National Center on Poverty Law.
  5. Rather than use his vote to address the needs of his constituents, Roskam consitently votes for the benefit of large corporations. He has vote the U.S. Chamber of Commerce position 100% of the time. In return the the Chamber is running false adds, like the one below, claiming that Roskam is fighting for better health care. In fact, Roskam has voted multiple time against the expansion of the Children’s Healthcare Insurance Program and against parity in mental health benefits. Peter Roskam is an enemy of efforts to provide better healthcare to all Americans. He has demonstrated by his votes that he is only interested in protecting the pocketbooks of his corporate sponsors.

I urge Obama voters who might seriously consider voting to re-elect Roskam to take a close look at his voting record. There’s lots of links here that can help you do that.Even the solidly Republican Chicago Tribune has endorsed Roskam’s opponent. Roskam has used his office to serve special interests rather than to serve the majority of his constituents. He does not deserve to be returned to Washington.

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
 

Peter Roskam Signs on to Preparatory Effort for War Against Iran

On June 22, 2008, in George Bush, Iran, Iraq, Peter Roskam, by RSR
0

Peter Roskam has signed on as co-sponsor to H. CON. RES. 362, a resolution intended to dramatically escalate tensions between the United States and Iran and take another step toward George Bush’s and Dick Cheney’s dream of yet another war, this one against Iran.

This resolution, if passed, would express:

the sense of Congress regarding the threat posed to international peace, stability in the Middle East, and the vital national security interests of the United States by Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and regional hegemony

Further provisions include:

  • Declaring that preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is vital to our national security interests and must be dealt with urgently
  • Urging the President to impose sanctions on banks and energy companies doing business with Iran
  • Demanding that the President initiate immediately and dramatically an international effort to increase pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend uranium enrichment activities by imposing a blockade
  • Urging the president to “lead a sustained, serious, and forceful effort at regional diplomacy to support the legitimate governments in the region against Iranian efforts to destabilize them, to reassure our friends and allies that the United States supports them in their resistance to Iranian efforts at hegemony, and to make clear to the Government of Iran that the United States will protect America’s vital national security interests in the Middle East.

All of this language, of course, is highly ironic, given that it is the United States that has disrupted peace in the Middle East through its unprovoked invasion and occupation of Iraq, and that the U.S. has been attempting to destabilize Iran for years, and that the U.S. Middle East policy is pretty much all about the U.S. maintaining hegemony in the region. The U.S. has been complicit in nuclear proliferation in the region and our “friend and ally” in the region, Israel, has been a nuclear power for years. If anybody poses a real nuclear threat of obliterating anyone else it is the threat that Israel poses to Iran. Israel has a right to defend itself. But does not Iran also have that same right? Iran has no history of aggressive war in the region. Both the U.S. and Israel do. Who is posing the real threat to peace and stability?

What this is all about mostly, is winning the U.S. election this fall, even if doing so has to mean armed confrontation with Iran, or at least threatening such confrontation.

Just as when Bush attacked Iraq, this build-up is all being based as an attempt to enforce United Nations resolutions. But the chief of the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency denies that there is any urgent danger. Mohamad ElBaradei told Al Arabiya television in an interview:

“I don’t believe that what I see in Iran today is a current, grave and urgent danger. If a military strike is carried out against Iran at this time … it would make me unable to continue my work,”

“A military strike, in my opinion, would be worse than anything possible. It would turn the region into a fireball,” he said, emphasizing that any attack would only make the Islamic Republic more determined to obtain nuclear power.

“If you do a military strike, it will mean that Iran, if it is not already making nuclear weapons, will launch a crash course to build nuclear weapons with the blessing of all Iranians, even those in the West.”

Just as in the case of the war against Iraq, Bush & Roskam & company are basing their campaign for a new war on lies. Iran has renounced the use of nuclear weapons as contrary to Islamic law and the United States’ own intelligence estimate concluded that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Despite this the United States has continued feeding the IAEA incorrect reports of nuclear sites.

Bush’s war against Iraq has brought the U.S. economic misery, cost thousands of young lives, and is rapidly leading us to $5/gallon gasoline. Meanwhile it has cost Iraq a million excess deaths due to violence, almost a third of them at the hands of the U.S. War against Iran will bring more of the same, and worse.

If you live in the 6th district and want to stop this chain of agressive wars, please contact Peter Roskam and demand he renounce his support for Bush’s new war against Iran. Roskam can be reached at his Washington office at (202) 225-4561 or in Bloomingdale at (630) 893-9670.

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • • • • • •
 

Jill Morgenthaler’s Interview on Public Affairs with Jeff Berkowitz

On May 10, 2008, in Congressional Elections, Jill Morgenthaler, Peter Roskam, by RSR
0

This is the first interview with Jill Morgenthaler that I’ve seen. I like her. She seemed a bit uncomfortable but quite intelligent and articulate.

Jill clearly states a number of positions: clear goals with time-line for withdrawal in Iraq; dialogue with Iran; supports the standards of “No Child Left Behind” but opposes unfunded mandates and vouchers; pro-choice, abortion a matter for a woman and her doctor to decide; favors civil unions but opposed to same-sex marriage; says she is a gun owner and supportive of individual right to bear arms but believes in sensible controls such as on armour-piercing bullets and assault weapons; favors tighter border security, especially on the northern border.

She seems to present a clearly positive alternative to Peter Roskam.

Jill committed to coming back on the program for a face to face discussion with Roskam if he will agree. How about it Peter?

Here’s a link to Jeff Berkowitz’s post about the interview.

And here’s one to Progress Illinois’ post about the interview.

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
 

Peter Roskam Fiddles with Pennies as War Bankrupts Country

On May 8, 2008, in Iraq, Peter Roskam, by RSR
0



Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)


Peter Roskam was proud today to trumpet his crowning legislative achievement, the pinnacle of his career in Washington, the introduction of H.R. 5512, the Coin Modernization and Taxpayer Savings Act of 2008. (Actually, he says the bill was passed but I don’t see that in my usual references today).

Now, as Roskam candidly relates on his House website, this was actually a Democratic bill that passed. But he had previously thunk up many of its important points in H.R. 4036, the Cents and Sensibility Act of 2007, which early readers of this blog may remember. Apparently, the House Democrats were too embarassed to pass a bill with such a silly name so they stole Peter’s ideas and put them in their own bill.

Peter’s idea is a decent one. It currently costs us 1.7 cents to manufacture a penny, which is, for the moment at least, valued at 1 cent. The bill provides for changing the weight and metallic composition of the penny to save us money in it’s production. Peter figures we can save 1 billion dollars… over the next 10 years.

The problem with this is that Peter is stopping up a leaky faucet when he should be attending to the Niagara falls that is the military occupation of Iraq.

The one billion dollars that Peter saves with his pennies over 10 years we spend on one bad day in Iraq.

So here’s the deal, Peter. We want you to stop screwing around and stop the fucking war. Bring our troops home and stop spending our hard-earned tax dollars to rain down death and destruction on people half way across the world, most of whom don’t have the wherewithal or even the desire to do us any harm.
And while you’re at it, we don’t want to you to build any fucking golf courses or shopping malls in the fucking Green Zone.

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
 

Guest Post: Iraq is the Crucial Issue

On March 2, 2008, in Presidential Race 2008, by RSR
2

[Editor's Note: What follows is a contribution from Marvin Sussman, an Elmhurst resident, like me, and a WWII veteran. Marvin is concerned that Democrat's will try to run this fall by simply trying to hang Iraq on Repblicans without offering a realistic alternative solution. He thinks that strategy will fail and I think he may be right. Here Marvin offers an alternative with the hope of inspiring a constructive discussion. He says his efforts to present his ideas to Jill Morgenthaler's campaign have, so far, not been met with a response. We think she might just see them here. Thanks, Marvin, for reading and contributing.] [Update 3/6/2008 - Please read Jill Morgenthaler's response following Marvin's post.]

It is absolutely certain that Iraq will be the determining issue facing Obama and McCain.

To win in November, Obama must be absolutely right on this issue.  It is not enough to hang McCain’s record around his neck.  Obama must present a realistic view of Iraq’s future.  He must show how he would leave Iraq with a semblance of long-term stability.

“If elected, I will do my best to bring complete independence to Kurdistan and to guarantee its security as a sovereign nation!  And I will do my best to separate the Sunnis from the Shi’ites and end their perpetual warfare!  I will ask the UN to hold independence plebiscites for each group.  When everyone has their own nation and their own government, the fighting will stop.  I will get all of our troops out of Iraq!”

That’s the kind of promise that will elect Obama.  But no important Democrat has yet seen complete partition as the only realistic and permanent solution to the Iraq crisis.  No, not Senator Biden’s “weak central government” that controls “only” the army and oil revenue!  Complete partition into totally independent nations!

(more…)

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
 
Page 1 of 212