Outgoing Congressman Michael McNulty, co-sponsor of a resolution that takes a tough stance on Iran, said he now wants to alter the wording of the resolution to avoid any room for confusion as to the use of military force against the Middle East nation.
The change comes as he and freshman Congresswoman Kirstin Gillibrand, D-Hudson, of the 20th Congressional District, are being called on by Women Against War to remove their sponsorship of the resolution.
The group says the resolution being supported by the two Democrats calls for a blockade of Iran and could result in a direct military confrontation with the country. McNulty told Spotlight Newspapers last week he does not intend to remove his name as a sponsor and that Resolution 362 calls for economic sanctions if Iran does not comply with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty it has ratified.
`It’s a resolution to place pressure on Iran to suspend their nuclear enrichment activity,` McNulty said. `A number of people have characterized this as a blockade. It’s a legislative vehicle; it’s not a binding law, it will not be something sent to the president to sign.`
This week, on Monday, Aug. 4, McNulty sat down with the activist group and announced afterwards that he wants the clause calling for a possible blockade to be removed.
`We don’t believe military action is appropriate and why leave any room for confusion,` McNulty said. `We certainly didn’t want to give the Bush Administration anything that could lead to a possible war.`
After his meeting with Women Against War, McNulty said he has assurances from one of the resolution’s chief sponsors, New York’s 5th District Congressman, Gary Ackerman, D-Queens, that the language would be changed.
`I met with Gary Ackerman last week and told him that I understood what his intentions were, but some of the language could be misunderstood by others and I said we need to get that language changed,` McNulty said. `What I am confident about is that the resolution will not come up with the current language.`
These types of resolutions are referred to as `a sense of Congress,` or an opinion that urges actions or issues.
Maud Easter, a spokeswoman for Women Against War, said the strong language used in the current resolution is eerily familiar to that used before the Iraq invasion and that she doesn’t want to see another war.
`This is very poignant for McNulty. He voted for the authorization that gave Bush the green light to go to war with Iraq and subsequently said he made a mistake and apologized and I respect him very much for that,` Easter said. `We don’t want him to, and don’t really think he would want to, make the same mistake again.`
After McNulty announced that he wanted to change the resolution’s wording, Easter said, `We were very happy and so pleased he had the courage to do this.`
The resolution doesn’t use the word blockade, but states that economic sanctions could be imposed through the use of search and detainment.
`Whereas the November 2007 National Intelligence Estimate reported that Iran was secretly working on the design and manufacture of a nuclear warhead until at least 2003,` the resolution states, `but that Iran could have enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon as soon as late 2009.`
In order to curtail Iran’s nuclear activity the resolution `demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating.`
McNulty said he understood the group’s concerns but that there is a clause in the resolution that states, `Whereas nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran.`
The congressman said Resolution 362 is meant purely as a diplomatic measure to deal with Iran.
`It doesn’t mention anything about a blockade. I’m supporting the clause that says there will be no military action,` McNulty said. `There’s a natural skepticism about the Bush Administration, which I share.`
McNulty said he is against Iran having nuclear capability.
`Prohibiting Iran from having a nuclear program is a good thing,` he said. `This is a nuclear non-proliferation resolution.`
Easter said she didn’t trust the original resolution wouldn’t set the stage for a military conflict with Iran.
`I think it’s a contradiction of terms, I mean it requires the president to set up this blockade,` said Easter. `That clause is in ignorance of international law because this would be seen as an act of war.`
Easter and other members of Women Against War met with McNulty’s chief of staff in Albany on Thursday, July 31, and with McNulty in person on Monday, Aug. 4, after he returned from Washington, D.C. The group said they are also arranging a meeting with Gillibrand.
McNulty promised to get a copy of the newly worded resolution to Women Against War as soon as he gets one, which the retiring congressman said should be finished by Congress’ next session beginning in September.
Seven candidates are vying for McNulty’s seat and there will be two primary elections, both Republican and Democrat, on Tuesday, Sept. 9. [See related story, page 10.]
To read Gillibrand’s take in the neighboring 20th District, read the article on www.spotlightnews.com.
“