As I noted yesterday, the House voted 405-1 regarding Iran, H. Res. 560
Expressing support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law, and for other purposes.
Resolved, That the House of Representatives–
- expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law;
- condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the Government of Iran and pro-government militias, as well as the ongoing government suppression of independent electronic communication through interference with the Internet and cellphones; and
- affirms the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections.
I rise in reluctant opposition to H Res 560, which condemns the Iranian government for its recent actions during the unrest in that country. While I never condone violence, much less the violence that governments are only too willing to mete out to their own citizens, I am always very cautious about “condemning†the actions of governments overseas. As an elected member of the United States House of Representatives, I have always questioned our constitutional authority to sit in judgment of the actions of foreign governments of which we are not representatives. I have always hesitated when my colleagues rush to pronounce final judgment on events thousands of miles away about which we know very little. And we know very little beyond limited press reports about what is happening in Iran.
Of course I do not support attempts by foreign governments to suppress the democratic aspirations of their people, but when is the last time we condemned Saudi Arabia or Egypt or the many other countries where unlike in Iran there is no opportunity to exercise any substantial vote on political leadership? It seems our criticism is selective and applied when there are political points to be made. I have admired President Obama’s cautious approach to the situation in Iran and I would have preferred that we in the House had acted similarly.
I adhere to the foreign policy of our Founders, who advised that we not interfere in the internal affairs of countries overseas. I believe that is the best policy for the United States, for our national security and for our prosperity. I urge my colleagues to reject this and all similar meddling resolutions.
He has an excellent point in his second paragraph, but, unfortunately, I think he misses the point that there are moments in history when bold rhetoric, and even action, is called for. This is a historic chance to offer support for the hope and change that so many in Iran are looking for. Real hope and change. Reports state the more protests will go ahead today (and they are) despite the threats from the police. We can’t be everywhere, Ron, but, we can be there when something special is happening in the world.
Some of The Framers may have been reluctant to meddle in overseas affairs originally, yet, a more open and free, and less theocratic, Iran will certainly have the potential to be less of a national security threat. I doubt the Framers ever thought we would be the last of the world’s super powers, but, maulk happens. But, a good thing that humans are meddlesome. The United States has done some great good by meddling in the affairs of others. Some adventures in Europe during the first half of the 20thCentury come to mind. Ronald Reagan meddling with the Berlin Wall. Thomas Jefferson (a Framer) and the Barbary Pirates. Freeing 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, don’t forget, the US federal government meddling in the affairs of the individual states back in the mid-1800’s to stop a despicable practice. We do not call them States for nothing. Consider the phrase “Chief of State.”
The Gun Toting Liberal and The Moderate Voice agree with Ron. Wonkette disagrees with Ron. What’s your take? 
BTW, some great Green emoticons here.
