Dems backing Bush's Iran blockade should expect to be "primaried" in 2010

Congress, including our own rep, Eliot Engel, is calling for BushCo to ban all exports of refined petroleum going into Iran to help stop its nuclear program. House Res. 362 sets up a naval and aviation blockade, which is internationally recognized as an act of war, in it's language. The bill states that there be "stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran."

Keep in mind that Iran, while having one of the world's largest reserves, relies on imports for more than 40 percent of its refined fuel.

Congress could not come to an agreement for desperately needed legislation in regards to climate change, the subprime loan crisis, and keeping Medicare affordable, so they just shelved the tough stuff and did what was easy for them. Our so-called Democratic leaders had no problems rattling their sabers again during an election period, even though there is no substance or justification for them to do so.

Yes, it seems that our Congressman, like others, seems more interested in making himself look "tough on terrorism" and getting elected than he is in doing the right thing. Again, Engel, who made a cold-blooded vote to authorize war with Iraq five years ago, hasn't learned from his previous mistakes.

Meanwhile, the same people and organizations that cautioned Congress about the dubious reasoning used in justifying the war with Iraq are now warning them about similar problems in this run-up to a war with Iran.

Gareth Porter, a historian and investigative journalist on US foreign and military policy analysis, says this resolution involves a series of charges about Iran's nuclear programs that are inaccurate. "They talked about 'covert, illicit' Iranian nuclear measures, such as importing centrifuges, manufacturing centrifuges. And things that are clearly not illegal under the non-proliferation treaty or under Iran's agreements with the IAEA," Porter says. Porter recalls that in 1982 and 1992, the Iranians declared their intention to master the nuclear fuel cycle and to have nuclear and uranium enrichment, and the IAEA publicly supported that.

But no, Congress isn't listening to the same sage wisdom that was offered five years ago. They are not listening to their constituents as poll after poll shows that the American public does not want to take an aggressive stance against Iran. Who is Congress listening to?

Congressional insiders credit America’s powerful pro-Israel lobby for the rapid endorsement of the bills. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) held its annual policy conference June 2-4, in which it sent thousands of members to Capitol Hill to push for tougher measures against Iran. On its website, AIPAC endorses the resolutions as a way to ''Stop Irans Nuclear Proliferation" and tells readers to lobby Congress to pass the bill.

AIPAC has been ramping up the rhetoric against Iran over the last 3 years delivering 9 issue memos to Congress in 2006, 17 in 2007 and in the first five months of 2008 has delivered no less than 11 issue memos to the Congress and Senate predominantly warning of Irans nuclear weapons involvement and support for terrorism.

Gustav Wynn, of OpEd News, also blames NORPAC, another pro-Israel lobbying group, for putting the pressure on Congress. Wynn says that NORPAC sent 22 busloads of their supporters to Washington, DC and flooded our Congress members with thousands of meeting requests on this issue. This helped get the bill fast-tracked through Congress while important domestic issues were shelved.

Any politician that can't learn from his or her past mistakes is worthless to me. Any politician that values the opinions of lobbyists over the opinions of his constituents is even more worthless. However, it's already too far into the election season to find a viable candidate to run in a primary against my congressman, and other real progressives from other districts are just as disappointed for the same reason.

However, this resolution, along with the recent FISA debacle, has inspired many of us to begin "blue-to-bluer" campaigns. Much like the way the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee releases it's "red to blue" list of top challengers for Republican-held U.S. House seats, many of us feel obligated to start a similar program for the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

This is our message to all the Blue Dogs and "New Democrats" out there: Keeping voting with the Republicans on the wrong issue and expect to be "primaried" in two years. And we're not talking about fanciful or Quixotic primary challengers, we're talking about using the netroots to run a national slate of well-known, progressive Democratic candidates to run against centrist Democrats that vote with the Republicans.

This year, our eyes is on the big prize, the White House, so we're spending all of our energy and resources getting Sen. Barack Obama elected. However, just wait until those midterm elections. You're going to see a flood of progressives coming out of the woodwork, going after the jobs of centrist Democrats.

These candidates won't win every primary, they won't even win a majority of them, but they'll take out a few wayward legislators. This Blue-to-Bluer campaign be enough to crush the DLC and to neuter the Blue Dogs. And that's precisely what legislators deserve that value lobbyists over constituents.

Another advantage of running primary challengers to centrist Democrats is to get them to change their votes. It's already worked:

[P]rogressives have utilized Democratic primaries as a means to successfully change Democratic behavior. So far this year, this strategy has worked in districts such as the Illinois 3rd where Dan Lipinski changed his vote on Iraq because of his primary challenger, the Iowa 3rd where Blue Dog Leonard Boswell has suddenly become a progressive on a range of issues now that Ed Fallon is running against him, and the Maryland 4th where Donna Edwards handily defeated the more conservative Al Wynn.

And Congressman Engel (NY-17), who prides himself in waiting for hours on the House floor to shake President Bush's hand (see photo above) should be concerned. He may be getting a free ride this year, but with this and his wrong-headed votes on Iraq, Teri Schiavo, the XM/Sirius merger, FISA, and his championing of Rev. John Hagee and a Columbian Free Trade Agreement, I guarantee a stiff challenge from members of his own party in 2010.