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.
.
