Another Congress member backs off Iran resolution

(6:30 pm – promoted by ek hornbeck)

Does public pressure, personal contact with legislators, and protest matter in shaping public policy? After eight years of Bush and Cheney many might say no, our voices and opinions are ignored in Washington.  But read on.

Today’s exhibit: Representative Jan Schakowsky, Democrat of Illinois.  She appears to have had an awakening. As we used to say, she has had her consciousness raised.

Last month, as antiwar groups focused on preventing a war with Iran, former Milwaukee mayor John Norquist and his wife Susan Mudd, now living in Schakowsky’s district, wrote her about a House resolution threatening a blockade of Iran, which many believed could lead to all-out war.  .

Schakowsky is an antiwar Democrat who opposed the Iraq war resolution and was a founding member of the Out-of-Iraq Caucus. But she is one of 220 House co-sponsors of the resolution on Iran, of which Council for a Livable World says:

… it clearly risks sending a message to the Iranians, the Bush Administration, and the world that Congress supports a more belligerent policy toward, and, potentially, belligerent actions against, Iran. In our view, H. Con. Res. 362 in no way furthers our diplomatic efforts or those of our European allies and should be abandoned.

Her reply to Norquist begins by defending her record and her sponsorship of the resolution:

I have consistently and vehemently opposed any move toward armed conflict with Iran, and I have cosponsored legislation favoring diplomatic and political solutions to address ongoing U.S.-Iranian tensions…

   H. Con. Res. 362 is not a declaration of war against Iran. Instead of advocating military pressure, this resolution calls on the President to use economic, political, and diplomatic pressure to avoid further confrontation with Iran.  One reason that I support this legislation is that it brings together 220 cosponsors, representing a wide cross-section of political views, in emphasizing that U.S. policy should focus on economic and diplomatic solutions, not military action.

    In addition, this resolution emphasizes the importance of an international effort to address the Iranian issue.  I am a strong proponent of diplomatic engagement and this legislation specially “demands that the President initiate an international effort” – not take unilateral action.  The United States is not the only nation that would face a threat if Iran developed a nuclear bomb, and it is vital that we work in cooperation with other members of the international community to address the crisis.

    While I believe that H.Con.Res. 362 offers a peaceful option to resolve a growing international crisis, I respect your concerns regarding a provision that has been read by some as allowing a military blockade to be initiated.  I have contacted the original sponsors of this resolution, Congressmen Ackerman and Pence, and they have made it clear that a naval blockade or any other use of military force was not their intent in writing this resolution.  

After all of that defensive language comes the bottom line:

I have urged them and the House leadership to delay any action on this bill. It is important that no action occur that can be interpreted by the Bush Administration as a signal for military action, even if that is not the intent of the provision.

She didn’t go as far as Missouri’s William Lacy Clay, who withdrew his sponsorship, but clearly was re-thinking the resolution after some constituent contact.

All the more reason to keep the pressure on.