Lawson for Congress

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JULY 17, 2008

CONTACT
Linda Williams
919-481-1177

RALEIGH – Today, North Carolina Congressional candidate William “BJ” Lawson condemned House Concurrent Resolution 362 as “lunacy masquerading as policy.”  H. Con. Res. 362 is a bipartisan proposal which demands that George W. Bush impose a blockade of Iranian land borders, ports, and airways, which would effectively shut down the entire country of Iran.  The enforcement of this proposal is illegal and would be a declaration of war under international laws.

Lawson said, “In October 2002, actions similar to H. Con. Res. 362 led to the war in Iraq, and Congress, both Democrat and Republican, seem determined to make the same mistake again.  In 2002, the argument could be made that the evidence as presented inferred that Saddam Hussein may have weapons of mass destruction, even though this turned out to be incorrect.”

“This time, however, all evidence is to the contrary.  In December 2007, even our own intelligence agencies stated with high confidence that Iran’s program intending to transform raw materials into a nuclear weapon has been shut down since 2003.”

Lawson went on to say: “It is no surprise that confidence in Congress is at an all time low of 9%.  Our elected officials seem more interested in pushing through legislation like this at the behest of special interest groups, lobbyists, and foreign sovereign nations such as Saudi Arabia and Israel rather than what is in the best interest of our own citizens.  The proposed blockade of Iran is not in the best interests of the United States or the Middle East.”

Lawson continued, “Even if there was a valid reason to attack Iran, we currently have an ongoing war in Afghanistan and in Iraq, and our military are already vastly overstretched.  The possibility of preemptively opening a third front, for no reason, is at best irresponsible, and at worst criminal.”

“A blockade of Iran would also lead to an unprecedented rise in the cost of oil.  The removal of Iran’s four million barrels of oil per day from the market would inevitably lead to a scramble by China to secure much needed fuel for its economy.  The only people to benefit for this action would be oil companies and the people heavily invested in them.  If Congress is really so blind to push through this legislation, then maybe it’s time for them to lead from the front and give our soldiers a well-earned rest.”

Dr. William “BJ” Lawson is running for Congress in North Carolina’s 4th Congressional District.

###

In a followup to this press release, it appears that we have some encouraging news regarding our posture towards Iran:

PARIS — The Bush administration is considering establishing an American diplomatic presence in Iran for the first time since relations were severed during the 444-day occupation of the American Embassy in Tehran nearly three decades ago, European and American officials said on Thursday.

The idea would be to establish a so-called interests section, rather than a fully staffed embassy, with American diplomats who could issue visas to Iranians seeking to visit the United States. But the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity under diplomatic rules, cautioned that the idea had not been approved by the White House and could be delayed or blocked by opposition within the administration.

Talking with other nations and encouraging greater person-to-person contact is good policy, and in our national interests. Personal relationships are a first step towards greater mutual understanding.

I always use labels with caution, as one label may mean one thing to one person but something completely different to another person.

Last week I thought a lot about labels after a certain e-mail went out that recklessly used the term “true Republican.”

What is a “true Republican”? If only we could ask Senator Robert Taft.

Robert Taft was a Republican U.S. Senator from 1939 to 1953. He was the leading opponent of the New Deal in the Senate and led The Conservative Coalition in opposing it. He was also a leader of the Old Right-wing of the Republican Party. The Old Right were staunch non-interventionists.

His nickname? “Mr. Republican”.

But when you consider Taft’s non-interventionist views, is it possible that if “Mr. Republican” were alive today he’d be accused of not being a “true Republican”? There’s no doubt in my mind.

Imagine that: someone sending out an e-mail attacking Robert Taft, one of the most prominent figures in Republican Party history, for not being a “true Republican”. So here’s the question: who’s really the “true Republican” and who’s not? Who’s out of step with the Republican Party and who’s not?

I’ll leave those questions for the reader to answer, but it should be noted that non-interventionism within the Republican Party did not die with Robert Taft. In fact, the Republican Party has traditionally been the non-interventionist party. This was the case throughout the 20th Century.

It was Eisenhower who ran on ending the Korean War and did so when he became President. It was Nixon who was elected to end the Vietnam War.

In the ’90s it was Republicans who condemned U.S. intervention into Somalia and Clinton’s interventions and nation-building around the world, especially in Kosovo.

Even as recent as in the year 2000 non-interventionism was a key part of the Republican platform when then-Governor Bush ran on a platform of non-interventionism and no nation-building, and attacked Al Gore for the interventionism and nation-building of the Clinton Administration.

Here’s what he had to say on the subject in the second Presidential debate of the 2000 election that took place between him and Al Gore on October 11th, 2000:

MODERATOR: The use of the military, there — some people are now suggesting that if you don’t want to use the military to maintain the peace, to do the civil thing, is it time to consider a civil force of some kind that comes in after the military that builds nations or all of that? Is that on your radar screen?

BUSH: I don’t think so. I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I’m missing something here. I mean, we’re going to have kind of a nation building core from America? Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war. That’s what it’s meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops.
…

I’m going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the exit strategy obvious.

Even John McCain, who recently said we might be in Iraq for “maybe 100 [years],” had this to say about U.S. intervention in Somalia in 1993:

There’s no reason for the United States to remain [in Somalia]. The American people want them home. I believe the majority of Congress wants them home. Our continued military presence allows another situation to rise, which could then lead to the wounding, killing or capture of American fighting men and women. We should do all in our power to avoid that. What should be the criteria is our immediate, orderly withdrawal. And if we do not do that and other Americans die then I say that the responsibilities for that lie with the Congress who did not exercise their authority under the Constitution. For us to get into nation-building, law and order, etc., I think, is a tragic and terrible mistake.

In the end, there is no denying that non-interventionist views have long been part of the Republican Party platform. They are deeply rooted within the Republican Party. They were the views of Robert Taft and they are the views of B.J. Lawson.

There’s also no denying that interventionist views have long been part of the Democratic Party platform. It started with Woodrow Wilson, who proclaimed that we should make “the world safe for democracy,” and continues to this day.

One must conclude that any Republican who promotes an interventionist foreign policy has accepted the Democratic party’s historic foreign policy, and has more in common with Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, than Robert Taft, “Mr. Republican.”

So who’s the “true Republican”?