Foreign Policy

It is time for the United States and the United Nations to call Iran's bluff and impose strict economic sanctions if Iran refuses to meet an August 31 deadline for suspending its nuclear enrichment program. After 11 weeks of delay, Iran formally responded Tuesday to a United Nations incentives package aimed at persuading Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment.  Iranian officials offered what they called a "new formula" to resolve the dispute, but they repeatedly vowed to push ahead with their nuclear program.

I have closely monitored developments in Iran as a member of the International Relations Committee and the ranking member of the Terrorism and Nonproliferation Subcommittee. It is clear that the Iranian government has no intention of suspending enrichment by August 31, as required by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1696.

The Iranian tactic is always to offer a glimmer of hope that some settlement can be achieved, and threaten all kinds of counter-measures if sanctions are imposed.  For the past four years, Iran has played that game.  It is high time the Security Council and other concerned countries call their bluff unless Iran verifiably suspends enrichment efforts.

It is time for the Security Council to ready a package of tough economic sanctions should Iran fail to do anything short of a full suspension by August 31.  It also is time for the Bush administration to start using the tools at its disposal.  It is time for the United States to impose an embargo on all Iranian goods, punish any American companies with subsidiaries operating in Iran, and actually enforce the Iran Libya Sanctions Act by imposing sanctions on foreign firms which invest in Iran's energy sector.

The U.S. should remain ready to negotiate with the Iranian government, and we should be willing to offer improved relations with Iran should Tehran agree to abandon its nuclear weapons program and its support for terrorists.
At this point, however, Iran must be forced to take such discussions seriously.  Right now, it is just a game for them.  We should stop playing.

Earlier this year I returned home after serving in the U.S. Navy for 31 years. I decided to run for Congress because the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress are taking our country in the wrong direction. I firmly believe that national security begins at home with the health, education, economic, and defense security of our citizens — securities which have been severely eroded by the policies of this Republican Congress and Administration. I am running to reverse that erosion, and to help establish a new direction for our government and country.

I was extremely honored to be selected to address our nation on national security and world wide security issues. This shows that our message of change in the direction of our national security is one that has resonated in our district and is one that is recognized as resonating throughout America. I believe Iraq was a tragic misadventure and was not a clear and present danger. It distracted us from finishing the work needed to fully secure peace in Afghanistan and undermined our ability to focus on security issues elsewhere in the world. Having served as the first Director of ‘Deep Blue,’ the Navy’s anti-terrorism group after 9/11 and having commanded an aircraft carrier battle group of 15,000 men and women that conducted combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, I know from firsthand experience that we must address the global aspects of terrorism rather than remaining entrenched in Iraq. In fact, for just two days on what we spend in Iraq, we could have 100 percent screening of all air cargo. For five days in Iraq, we can have radiation detectors at all US ports. It’s clear now more than ever we need a change in Washington so we can once again be looked up to for our leadership in the world.

We need to pass the Senate immigration bill.  We have the votes to do it.  If Speaker Hastert decides to bring it up we can do it in a bipartisan manner.

Today the President vowed that the US troops will not leave Iraq during his presidency.  We need a change of direction, not a declaration for more of the same.  Rather than stay-the-course, we must insure our mission in Iraq is successful – and we can do this by:
·       Issuing an immediate declaration that the US will not maintain permanent bases in Iraq and will have no claim on Iraqi oil;
·       Putting the Iraqis on notice that they must decide their own destiny and give them a defined notice period for the Iraqi political groups to choose between compromise and conflict and put a working government in place, this will create a sense of urgency for the Iraqis to choose peace over civil war;
·       Providing full US political and military support during this notice period and implement a comprehensive political strategy to give each sectarian group a stake in a peaceful and stable Iraq.  Each group should have a stake in reconstruction contracts, oil revenues and have minority rights and veto rights;
·       Committing to the redeployment of US forces out of Iraq starting at the end of this notice period to be determined by our military leaders.  That period might reasonably be six, nine or twelve months -- anything shorter would not be reasonable given the task; anything longer is too indefinite.

My opponent, Rep. John Sweeney stands behind the President on his failed Iraq policy.  We have an honest disagreement on the most important challenge confronting our nation.  It is time for a new direction and real change.

I appreciate the efforts of the international community in working to bring peace to the Middle East but I believe the agreement which has been reached will not work. Any agreement that does not completely disarm Hezbollah and destroy their capability to rearm is destined to lead to more war in the future.

A UN force, or any peacekeeping force that does not fully disarm Hezbollah, or destroy its military capacity will only lead to more confrontation in the region, and possibly even lead to a more disastrous and wider war down the road. Only with the complete and fully-monitored disarmament and disbandment of Hezbollah can Israel and Lebanon live together as stable, peaceful and democratic neighbors.

Campaigning in my hometown of Syracuse and throughout the 25th District of New York has been one of the most valuable learning experiences of my life. I am thankful to have the opportunity to meet voters at parades, festivals, rallies and other community events and even more thankful to have the opportunity to hear from voters. Believe it or not, retail politics has become one of my favorite new pastimes. It allows me an opportunity to listen to the concerns of real people, not beltway insiders.

Day after day I’ve learned what voters want in their Representative. It’s rather simple actually. They want leadership. I firmly believe that no seat is safe in 2006. People are, quite frankly, fed up with a Congress they perceive to be doing absolutely nothing to helping make their lives better.

Voters in my district believe that we need new priorities in Iraq. Beltway pundits debate each other everyday as to whether or not we’re involved in a “civil war.

No amount of Republican spin will hide the following: nearly five years after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission gave the Republican-controlled government 5 "F's", 12 "D's", and 2 "Incompletes" for poor progress in terrorism prevention and readiness. In fact, just this weekend, the Republican Chairman of the 9/11 Commission said "We're not protecting our own people in this country. The government is not doing its job." Clearly the Republicans have been spending more time on rhetoric than producing results, whether it comes to port security, airline screening, or capturing Osama Bin Laden.

Democrats, however, have been fighting for tough, comprehensive policies that will protect America and restore our leadership in the world. Our Real Security Agenda provides a framework of forward-looking policies that addresses all aspects of our national security, from our homeland security to our energy security, and is a central part of how we plan to lead American in a new direction.

We're going to try to get this appropriations bill conferenced during August. Also, our strategic reserve is depleted, and if you don't have a strategic reserve of forces, then our troops are undeployable.

I was outraged when I saw that the DSCC released a video titled "Feel Safer?," intending to highlight the "gap between the GOP rhetoric and the GOP record on security."  It reminded me of when the DCCC released a fundraising video depicting flag-draped coffins and invoking 9/11, which they later pulled after Republicans and Democrats called for it to be taken down.

In this time of terrorist plots by Islamic extremists, the Democrats trivialize our national security.  They think this is a game.

Last week, America's counterterrorism efforts thwarted a plan to detonate passenger planes in mid-air across the U.S.  I encourage the Democrats to continue releasing these videos, which contradict national headlines and demonstrate their loose grip on reality.  With our nation in a war against Islamic extremists, it's good for the American people to consider 'WWPD' - 'What Would Pelosi Do?'

There appears to be a direct relationship between the increasing ugliness and immorality of this war and the extreme lengths to which Israel’s supporters will go to justify it.

This was brought home to me this week in three separate debates, one in print, two on television. What I clearly saw at work in these exchanges was how Israel’s apologists use verbal overkill paralleling Israel’s use of overwhelming military force. They will admit no wrong.  They attempt to bully opponents into submission.  They deny history and morality.  And, maybe most disturbing of all, they seek to present this war (as they have sought to present many of Israel’s previous wars) in exaggerated and near apocalyptical terms.

One of my antagonists, Abe Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League, objected to a piece I had written charging the Bush Administration with “criminal negligence, Read more...