If he did, it's a meaningless crumbs.
You can bet your sweet retirement that had every other Senator voted no, Bayh would have voted yes. This is going to be another bi-partisan war. We need all the war supporters out. OUT!
CDI Praises Passage of Senate Resolution on Iran:
And Bipartisan Action to Condemn Rigged Elections
The Coalition for Democracy in Iran
Press Release - March 8, 2004
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 8, 2004 Washington, D.C. --
The Coalition for Democracy in Iran (CDI) praised the passage of a Sense of the Senate resolution (S. Res. 304) condemning the recent sham elections in Iran and calling for the United States to advocate democracy in Iran.
The resolution, which was offered by Senators Sam Brownback (R-KS), Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-DE), Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-SD) and Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT), was approved unanimously.
The resolution tracked an earlier Senate version, S. Res. 302, authored by Senator Brownback and
co-sponsored by Senators Evan Bayh (D-IN), Norm Coleman (R-MN), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Saxby Chambliss (D-GA), Michael DeWine (R-OH), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT), and Ron Wyden (D-OR).
The resolution states that it is the policy of the U.S. that –
1. The United States should not support the elections in Iran;
2. The Unites States should provide support to Iran and the Iranian people; and
3. The United States should advocate a democratic government in Iran that will
restore freedom to the people of Iran, abandon terrorism, protect human rights, and live in peace and security with the international community. The CDI applauds this forthright resolution, which condemns the fraudulent elections and calls upon the U.S. to support the establishment of a democratic government in Iran.
The CDI also notes the strong bipartisan support it received, and welcomes the co- sponsorship of the Ranking Democratic Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Democratic Leader.108th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. RES. 304
Expressing the sense of the Senate that the United States should not support the February 20, 2004, elections in Iran and that the United States should advocate a democratic government in Iran that will restore freedom to the Iranian people and will
abandon terrorism.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
February 12, 2004
Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. BIDEN, and Mr. DASCHLE) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of the Senate that the United States should not support the February 20, 2004, elections in Iran and that the United States should advocate a democratic government in Iran that will
restore freedom to the Iranian people and will abandon terrorism.
Whereas there is a long history of mutual affection, appreciation, and respect between the people of the United States and the people of Iran, including the incalculable efforts by the United States in providing
humanitarian, financial, and technological assistance to help the people of Iran;
Whereas the people of Iran have shown support for decency and freedom, and solidarity with the United States, including the demonstration of such support through candlelight vigils attended by the youth of Iran in the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks upon the United States;
Whereas the Council of Guardians is a 12-member unelected body that has arbitrarily disqualified thousands of candidates, including sitting Members of the Parliament of Iran and members of the reformist movement;
Whereas the elections scheduled to be held on February 20, 2004, in Iran are fatally flawed;
((gee, all this care about Persian elections and so little about ours!))Whereas the brave efforts of the people of Iran to promote greater democracy and respect for human rights are being thwarted by the actions of the Council of Guardians;
Whereas the blatant interference of the Council of Guardians in the electoral process ensures that the elections scheduled for February 20, 2004, will be neither free nor fair; and
Whereas the circumstances in Iran clearly call into serious question whether pro-democratic reform within the regime of Iran is possible: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) the United States should not support the elections in Iran scheduled to take place on February 20, 2004, as such elections stifle the growth of the democratic forces in Iran and do not serve the
national security interest of the United States;
(2) the support provided by the United States to Iran should be provided to the people of Iran; and
(3) the policy of the United States should be to advocate a democratic government in Iran that will restore freedom to the people of Iran, will abandon terrorism, will
protect human rights, and will live in peace and security with the international community.
http://www.c-d-i.org/pr/2004-03-8.shtmlSee how many CDI-loving PNACers you can spot who were very pleased with Evan Bayh and the other neoliberals!
Individuals Expressing Support for The CDI
Hon. Frank Gaffney
Hon. Jack Kemp
Dr. Michael Ledeen
Mr. Bruce McColm
Dr. Joshua Muravchik
Ms. Danielle Pletka
Dr. Rob Sobhani
Prof. Raymond Tanter
Hon. James Woolsey
http://www.c-d-i.org/supporters.shtml===
(snip)
Not having its own intelligence-gathering infrastructure, Feith’s office relied on fabricated information supplied by Ahmed Chalabi, an Iraqi expatriate who led the Iraqi National Congress (INC). In 1998, Chalabi’s group was funded by the Iraq Liberation Act, a congressional initiative that was backed by neoconservative institutions such as AIPAC, CSP, Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).
(snip)
In early 2002,
Leeden, along with Morris Amitay, a former AIPAC executive director as well as a CSP adviser, founded the Coalition for Democracy in Iran (CDI) to build congressional and administration support for Iran regime change. AIPAC and CDI helped ensure passage of recent House and Senate resolutions that condemn Iran, call for tighter sanctions and express support for Iranian dissidents.
The
CDI includes members of key neoconservative policy institutes and think tanks, including Raymond Tanter of the Washington Institute for Near East Affairs (WINEA) – an off-shoot of AIPAC – and Frank Gaffney, president of CSP. In the ’90s, Feith served as the board chairman of CSP, whose slogan is "peace through strength," and where Woolsey currently serves as co-chairman of the advisory committee. Other neoconservative organizations are represented in the coalition by more than one member include AEI and Freedom House.
Rob Sobhani, an Iranian-American, who like Ledeen and other neoconservatives is a friend of the
Shah’s son Reza Pahlavi, is also a CDI member. CDI expresses the common neoconservative position that constructive engagement with the Iranian government – even with the democratic reformists – is merely appeasement. Instead, the United States should proceed immediately to a regime change strategy working closely with the "Iranian people." Representatives of the Iranian people that could be the front men for a regime change strategy, according to the neoconservatives, include, the Shah’s son, Reza Pahlavi (who has also cultivated close ties with the Likud Party in Israel), the Iraq-based guerrilla group Mujahadin-E Khalq (MEK), and expatriate arms dealer Ghorbanifar.
(snip)
Meyrav Wurmser said:
"Our fight against Iraq was only a battle in a long war. It would be ill-conceived to think we can deal with Iraq alone. We must move on, and faster." http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2320===
The website run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq recently linked to
photos of Benador that, said website contributor Drew Hamre, were "apparently taken at a meeting that included: US Senator Joseph Lieberman... anti-Arab ideologue Daniel Pipes (director of the Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum), and -- inexplicably -- Reza Pahlavi, the former Crown Prince of Iran. Adding absurdity to inexplicability," Hamre added, "the photos are posted on the vanity website of a Philadelphia-area realtor active in Middle East politics." (View the photos here.)
((photos have since been yanked but I had linked them at DU several times last year; if I can find copies, will post later))Since the beginning of August, Michael Ledeen, one of Benador's clients, has written 6 columns in the National Review about Iran -- most of them urging the Bush Administration to rally around the opposition forces and add Iran to the list of future (not too distant) targets.
In a September 1, 2002, piece for the Wall Street Journal titled
"The War on Terror Won't End in Baghdad," Ledeen threw Iran into the preemptive strike mix, writing:
"this is not just a war against Iraq, it is a war against terrorist organizations and against the regimes that foster, support, arm, train, indoctrinate and command the terrorist legions who are clamoring for our destruction. There are four such regimes: in Iran, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia." (snip)
http://www.workingforchange.com/printitem.cfm?itemid=13915==
Ms Benador has been busy networking on the political-social circuit, too. Although details are scarce, the website of Bob Guzzardi, a Pennsylvania property man and Israel enthusiast, shows photographs of a jolly party attended by Ms Benador along with Senator Joseph Lieberman, Representative Joseph Hoeffel, Daniel Pipes (the bete noire of American Muslims) and Reza Pahlavi, the pretender to the throne of Iran.
(snip)
"It is no surprise that Reza Pahlavi, son of the late Shah, has arisen seemingly out of nowhere to become the leading opposition figure, not only among Iranians in Los Angeles, but among Iranians still living under the mullahs in Tehran."
Those words were written by Michael Rubin, who has also promoted the idea that ex-crown prince Hassan of Jordan might become king of Iraq.
Mr Rubin, a Benador client and once a prolific article writer, has been silent for several months. This, Ms Benador's website explains, is because he is "currently on assignment as an Iran and Iraq adviser in special plans at the Pentagon, and will be unavailable for public appearances until October 2003".
Still, there are plenty of others to fill the gap while Mr Rubin hatches his special plans. The Benador website lists
more than 220 published articles, including 50 in the National Review, 42 in the Washington Times,
37 in the Washington Post, 18 in the National Post, 17 in the Wall Street Journal,
15 in the Los Angeles Times, eight each in the New York Post and
the Jerusalem Post, and six in the New York Times. (snip)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,901982,00.html====
Ok, so I drifted a little, but you see where this is going. WAR. A bi-partisan war planned long ago and Evan Bayh involved up to his neck in leading up to this war and the Iraq war so his no vote is bull-shit.
====
The stark contrast between statements delivered this week by former President Bill Clinton and Democratic Leadership Council chairman Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) underscores that the Democratic Party is split wide open on the most pressing issues of the day: the issues of war and peace, and whether the United States will remain a Constitutional republic or seek to become a sick-joke version of the Roman and Napoleonic empires. Due to the fact that
former President Clinton's remarks were largely blacked out of the thoroughly corrupt U.S. media, while Bayh's threats received wide publicity, it is critical that the basic facts be presented through the campaign and independent press of Lyndon LaRouche, so that leading political circles around the globe have an accurate assessment of the level of political warfare, occurring in the United States, as the result of the disastrous policy course adopted by the Bush Administration. A parallel policy battle has also erupted inside the Republican Party, involving the political circles of former President George H.W. Bush.
President Clinton's remarks were delivered at an April 15th New York City conference of the Conference Board, a prestigious business forum, before an audience of at least 300 people. The former President sharply criticized the Bush Administration's "paradigm shift" since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, warning that the United States cannot "jail, kill and occupy all your adversaries." The former President accused the Bush Administration of telling the rest of the world "to go to Hell." He said that the Bush Administration was practicing poor decision-making, noting that, "when people are under stress, they hate to think ... when they most need to think." Former President Clinton stated that chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix had requested more time to continue the work of his inspectors, and that in time, Clinton believed, Iraq would have been fully disarmed -- without the use of military force. The Bush Administration would not bend, and instead, decided "We are going to do it now, and if you don't like it, we'll get even with you when it's over."
The next day, the New York Times, while not mentioning a word about former President Clinton's speech, published interviews with several Democratic Party candidates and elected officials, commenting on the Iraq war. Sen. Evan Bayh delivered a blunt warning to fellow Democrats that there would be no toleration for any attacks on President Bush over his Iraq war. "There is no question that the President has been strengthened at least in the short run," Bayh told the Times. "If people can't envision a candidate as their commander-in-chief in a dangerous world, they're not going to listen to you. The threshold has now been raised, and we need to nominate someone on those grounds." "Equivocating about whether Saddam's departure is a good thing or not," he added, "doesn't help the Democratic Party." Bayh speaks for the organized crime-contaminated DLC of Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), which threw its support to the Bush Administration's illegal preventive war against Iraq.(snip)
http://larouchein2004.net/pages/pressreleases/2003/030418brawl.htm
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
