All right, everybody.
It's anti-war radio.
We're going to start off the show today with our first interview.
It's Barbara Lee.
She's a Democrat Congresswoman from California represents district nine.
Welcome to the show.
How are you doing?
Hi, glad to be with you.
Well, I appreciate you joining us this morning.
Uh, you will go down in history forever.
As long as mankind exists as a being the one member of Congress who was brave enough to say no to George W. Bush and his authorization to use military force after September 11th.
Um, I guess, first of all, I want to know how you found the courage within yourself to stand up to 300 million Americans on that issue and then secondly, uh, you know, what was it specifically that made you so determined to go ahead and vote?
No.
You know, that was a very terrible time.
Uh, people were, um, quite naturally in mourning, suffering.
Uh, we were all very sad and angry.
Uh, this is the first time such an attack had happened.
And so quite naturally, um, all of us, including myself was feeling the pain and feeling the suffering and, and the worry and the uncertainty about, um, what had taken place.
That was not the time three days after this horrific attack to pass a resolution.
And this resolution really gave, uh, not only president Bush, but now president Obama and any, any subsequent presidents, a blank check to use force.
And the way it was worded, it was against, um, any nation organization, individual president deems, uh, connected to nine 11 or Harbor and terrorist, the way it was written.
It was really, truly a blank jet check for, uh, a never ending war.
There's no way I could vote for that.
I mean, if you really care about, uh, stopping violence, if you care about, uh, addressing terrorism in a real way, if you care about our national security, uh, and if you care about trying to find ways to reduce tensions in the world, you don't pass a resolution that's going to, uh, create more anger, more hostility, and more violence, nor do you pass a solution, a resolution that gives the administration the authority to go into anywhere.
I mean, they use that as the basis for Iraq.
You know, if they wanted to go into Iran, they could, they could go anywhere they want to go as long as they can make the connection or try to make the connection between nine 11 and, and it's a stretch, it's a leap.
And there's no way, first of all, that, uh, we should grant any president the authority to go to war.
Congress has the constitutional responsibility to declare war.
If we're going to war, Congress should declare it.
You do not give the administration the authority.
And I just couldn't vote for that.
It was the wrong resolution at the wrong time.
And even though I knew it was going to be a horrible, the, the, um, impact in the fallout for me, uh, sometimes you have to take a stand and that's what I believe that moment called for.
And I think now in retrospect, many people are beginning to say, we didn't even have a debate.
Let's begin this debate.
I said, yeah, let's begin the debate we should have had, uh, in 2001.
Right.
Well, you know, even a peacenik like Ron Paul, who introduced legislation to a resolution of a letter of Mark and reprisal, the actual constitutional method for declaring war on a group that's smaller than a state.
And of course the house voted it down.
It didn't even make it through committee or anything, but then he gave in.
Like, uh, you know, I read an article one time, I think that said that you had some other members of the black caucus lined up and that you guys had all agreed that we're going to vote no on this.
And everybody gave in, but you Ron Paul gave in, everybody gave in, but you Barbara Lee.
And thank you for that.
People were, uh, it was a terrible time and it was just, uh, you know, members of Congress are also human beings.
And you know, the fact that members wanted to vote against it, but didn't, I think is unfortunate, but it also reflects the fact that they too were, um, angry and, you know, in essence went with the flow.
And sometimes my whole position was, and when I talked to members is that sometimes people want to see us lead and go in with the flow and following one's constituents.
Naturally, this is a representative democracy and we do try to listen to the voice of the people.
But every now and then you have to say, you guys elected me to lead.
I see something that, you know, is wrong and I'm going to come back and educate you why this was wrong and why I had to go against the tide.
And that's what I had to do.
Also, my district was not all the way there with me, but, uh, you know, that, that was a moment that, that, um, it was a very difficult moment.
And so members of Congress went with the flow.
Well, and they did too on Iraq as well.
And they continue to go with the flow when it comes to bombing Somalia or Yemen or Pakistan.
Uh, do you think that there's any progress being made in the house of representatives?
It sort of seems from here, like once a Democrat took over the white house, the entire anti-war movement, you know, in and out of power just basically vanished.
There's a lot of progress being made.
When you look at the fact that in this last supplemental, I offered, um, what I continue to offer in, on Iraq, the Lee amendment, what that amendment said was not one more dime of our tax dollars will go to pay for the combat operations in this war.
The only money we will appropriate will be for protecting our, our brave men and women and bringing them home and the contractors, not one more dime to wage war.
And believe it or not, I got a hundred votes on that.
So I think we've made a lot of progress.
Five years ago, a Lee amendment would probably get 15 votes.
We got a hundred votes.
Then when you look at this recently passed supplemental, which I've worked against very vehemently, I believe we got 114 no vote.
And so I see the opposition building.
And I think for the most part, the majority of the American people are war weary.
There are times where they know, and when you look at what's taken place, our occupation is creating the violence and the tension.
And so we have to remove ourselves from occupying a country before we could really move forward in any productive way.
And that's what we have to do.
We have to set a timeline and exit strategy and get the heck out and no, and no more funding for this.
Well, you know, I think you really hit on something important when you talked about, you know, being brave enough to take a stand.
I guess that's how I characterized your no vote in the first place, but I think it's pretty obvious that, you know, bravery is the right word for it.
And it seems to me like, well, I won't give this much credit to the president, but it does seem to me like the majority of even democratic politicians, never mind democratic voters are, they're against this.
The entire policy, the entire war on terror, really, they see right through it and they want an end to it.
And yet, I mean, Obama's really the best example of this, but I guess this goes for, for so many other members of Congress that they feel like they have to be tough by supporting a tough foreign policy, you know, that leaves people dead all the time, rather than, you know, being able to pick up that lesson from you, that actually you can show how tough you are and show how brave you are by being willing to withstand the pressure to grab for power by being willing to resist the temptation to go and seek revenge on those who may or may not have had anything to do with the attack on us in the first place there.
Well, that day is coming, I think.
Now, and I do have to say, I'm the daughter of a military officer.
My dad was in the military in three wars, 25 years.
And so I understand impossible situations that, you know, our government puts our young men and women in and they've done quite a job.
They've done everything they've been asked to do.
But it's time to really begin to say enough is enough.
And I think that more members of Congress are beginning to say that.
But let me tell you, it's up to the people in this country, because, you know, members generally respond to the way the wind is blowing.
And so we have to do a better job in organizing our base, organizing voters in all of these districts and making sure their members of Congress hear from them, because that's the way this operates.
If members don't hear from their constituents, they will continue to go with the flow.
So we have to accept some responsibility.
And I'm glad you're doing this show, because I'm going to encourage everybody to let your members know that in no uncertain terms, you know, elections, you know, every two years and they've got to get with the program in terms of coming up with an alternative foreign policy, a foreign policy that makes sense, that helps not only provide for our own national security, which, of course, removing our troops from combat operations in Muslim countries is key in that, but also help us figure out a way to seek peace, global peace and security.
And that's what we must do, recognizing that in doing that, our own interest will be, is at stake, and that's what we have to do.
I wonder whether you, whether in your experience on Capitol Hill, you think that the average member of Congress is even really interested in what's going on in the world, I mean, it seems to me from here, I'm way out on the other side of the continent, but it seems to me from here that most of these people are interested in what time is their next fundraising lunch and their next, you know, meeting with a lobbyist and whatever.
But if you actually tried to sit and have an intellectual discussion with them about even, you know, just policy, nevermind philosophy, it doesn't seem to me like many of these people are even really interested.
I mean, they seem like they probably don't even know, you know, geography, where the wars are, where we're fighting, that kind of thing.
And they don't seem like they really care.
No, they're very interested.
I'm on the Foreign Affairs Committee and on the Appropriations Committee.
I chair the Congressional Black Caucus, former co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, and we have hearings.
We have roundtables, discussions.
Last week, the Progressive Caucus held a hearing on Iran.
There was great turnout.
Members are concerned.
Some members may not have this as a priority, but I think, unfortunately, after 9-11, at least members became aware of the fact that there is a world out there.
And in fact, I have to tell you, when I was first elected to Congress in 98, I read somewhere where 60 percent of members of Congress then, that was in 98, did not have a passport, never had a passport.
And so in our own country, we've been pretty insular.
Our public schools have not taught us foreign affairs, international relations.
We really haven't seen this as a priority.
But I tell you, I think more members of Congress now are beginning to recognize that what happens, say, in the Sudan or in the Middle East or in Yemen, you know, or in Korea really affects us all here at home.
And so I think you see quite a bit of focus now on foreign policy.
Well, that's good.
I mean, that sort of makes it sound like at least they could be taught.
I mean, I remember there was an interview with Sylvester Reyes where, I mean, this man had spent years and years and years and years on the House Intelligence Committee.
And here he was becoming the chair of it due to the Jane Harman scandal there.
And she wasn't allowed to get the job.
And then I think it was Jeff Stein, the same guy that busted Jane Harman, asked Sylvester Reyes, so tell me about al Qaeda.
Tell me about Hezbollah.
And he didn't even know where Lebanon was.
He didn't know that Hezbollah was in Lebanon.
He didn't know that they were Shiites.
He didn't know that Osama bin Laden was a Sunni from Saudi Arabia.
He didn't know anything about the terror war at all.
And it had been years.
And he was the incoming chair of the committee.
So that's the kind of thing that makes me think that, you know, if I could round up some people and we could try to go have a meeting with our congressperson and maybe teach them some things and get them on the right page on some of this stuff, it wouldn't even be worth the afternoon.
Because I've got to say Chairman Reyes is doing a phenomenal job with the Intelligence Committee.
And I think if constituents met with their members of Congress, they would they would see how much they know.
Just bring a map.
That's all.
And what effective chairs that they are.
All right.
Now, pardon me, Congresswoman Lee.
I got to pick a fight with you now about Iran.
I saw on your Web site that you've introduced legislation to establish an envoy, reopen the embassy and I think reopen the embassy.
But anyway, attempt to reopen normal diplomatic relations with Iran.
And yet also saw that you abstained on some of the votes for crippling sanctions against Iran over their nuclear program, their non weapons program that they have there.
And I wonder how could it be that you would stand up to the war party on Afghanistan, on Iraq, on on virtually every issue and yet not on the the push for war, frankly, against this helpless nation state that's not even making nuclear weapons in the first place?
Oh, listen, you don't have to worry about picking a fight with me.
I can explain my position on that.
First of all, I think that we have to have a special envoy to Iran.
I think the diplomatic strategy has got to be beefed up and that we have to engage in a stronger and more formal diplomatic effort with Iran.
Secondly, I think, you know, I'm one who has been all my life for non proliferation and disarmament.
It doesn't matter where the nuclear weapons are being developed or not developed.
You know, I think that it's important that that the United States be on the right side of history, that I'd be on the right side of history calling for nuclear disarmament and non proliferation.
And I see that my support for sanctions in that context, because when you look at sanctions, hopefully that is a marker and we can put the administration in check in terms of any military solution.
And my bottom line is I do not want to see our country engaged in sabre, sabre rattling in a military confrontation with Iran.
And I think we have to do everything in the world that we can do to avoid military action, sanctions, diplomacy.
You know, we have to have a dual track.
But Miss Lee, I mean, I think in different circumstances, even you might argue that sanctions is another step on the path to war.
That's not an alternative.
But I'm not arguing that because I don't believe in this instance.
It is.
I believe that given the volatility in the region I've been to and I've been to Saudi Arabia, I've been to Oman, I was in the United Arab immigrants and I have a good handle on what's taking place over there.
And I tell you one thing, I'm very worried.
And I think that diplomacy and sanctions is the way to go.
I think that, you know, a military strike or any military confrontation can be prevented if a dual strategy of sanctions and diplomacy are engaged in.
OK, now I know you're real short on time, but I've got to stick with this point for one more second here.
And that is, you know, you talking and I completely agree with you about nuclear disarmament.
I see on your website here you've introduced a resolution to try to force America to live up to our end of the NPT, which means get rid of our 5000 hydrogen bombs at some point.
But it also means that we have to respect other countries signature to the NPT and their relationship with the International Atomic Energy Agency under that nonproliferation treaty.
And the IAEA continues to verify the non-diversion of nuclear material in Iran to any nuclear, any military or other special purpose.
There's no evidence anywhere in the world that even have a nuclear weapons program at all.
They have a perfectly legal, safeguarded program there.
They may be in violation of U.N.
Security Council resolutions over here, on the other hand.
But under the nonproliferation treaty, they're not in violation and they're not even making nuclear weapons.
So I don't know how sanctions I can't see how sanctions is a path away from conflict rather than toward it in this particular situation, ma'am.
Well, I guess I would say, you know, in working with the United Nations and with the U.N. on record in pursuing a strategy with Iran, I think the United States needs to be halfway, at least in sync with the U.N. for once.
I did not support the deal with India because, you know, the nuclear deal with India, because it was outside of the NPT agreement.
And so I think you have to really look at what is taking place in Iran.
And, you know, there are mixed messages coming from a variety of IAEA and other international organizations as it relates to nuclear, you know, the development of nuclear weapons.
But I think we need to err on the side of caution.
Sure, every country should have the right to, you know, develop their energy sector the way they want to do that.
But I am saying to you that I believe that whenever you have enough information where you believe that a country is on a track toward nuclear development of nuclear weapons, we have to do everything we can do to make sure that that does not happen.
And I am saying I think that if we engaged, like my bill says, in a special envoy to Iran, if we sit down and have some real discussions about how to move forward, I think then we can look at, you know, deemphasizing sanctions.
And certainly I think this would keep the military option off of the table.
And being on the Foreign Affairs Committee and having traveled in the region and understanding some of what's taking place, I tell you, I worry about what would happen if there were military action against Iran.
And I will do everything I can do to prevent that from happening.
All right.
Well, thank you very much for your time on the show today.
I really appreciate it.
OK, thank you, everybody.
That's Barbara Lee.
She represents California's ninth district in the U.S.
House of Representatives.
