Letters to the Editor
Jim White
Published Letters: 1093 Editor's Choice: 15
-
pantanal
[Read the article: The endless, meaningless blather from the Washington establishment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Maybe, just maybe, we can draw the line at the "treaty" you mention that our psychopath in chief wants. From his speech last night:
This vision for a reduced American presence also has the support of Iraqi leaders from all communities. At the same time, they understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic, and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency. These Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America. And we are ready to begin building that relationship -- in a way that protects our interests in the region and requires many fewer American troops.
From the US Senate website on treaties:
The Constitution gives the Senate the power to approve, by a two-thirds vote, treaties made by the executive branch.
The Senate has rejected relatively few of the hundreds of treaties it has considered in its history. Many others, however, have died in committee or been withdrawn by the president rather than face defeat.
Some presidents have found it helpful to include senators in negotiating treaties in order to help pave the way for later Senate approval.
The requirement for a two-thirds vote ensures that a treaty will need bipartisan support to be approved.
The Senate may also amend a treaty or adopt various changes, which may lead the other nation, or nations, to further negotiate the treaty.
Oops, maybe I cut off the block one paragraph too soon:
The president may also enter into executive agreements with foreign nations that are not subject to Senate approval.
Never mind. Just change "troops" in the last sentence of Bush's statement to "Senators" and you probably come closer to his meaning.
-
Heading off to the peace bus in a few minutes
[Read the article: The endless, meaningless blather from the Washington establishment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Marching tomorrow in Washington. I know the mood on this and related threads over past few days has been pessimistic regarding our ability to make a real difference in Bush's war plans. Thinking on this, I keep hearing the lyrics of a Martina McBride song over and over:
This worlds gone crazy
And it's hard to believe
That tomorrow will be better than today
Believe it anywayWe need to beieve that we can make a difference.
For 3780 US troops killed in Iraq, we have to believe it.
For 27,767 US troops injured in hostile action, we have to believe it.
For hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed, we have to believe it.
For millions of Iraqis displaced from their homes, we have to believe it.
I had hoped bebop-o would end his Canadial excursion in time to join us. He would make a powerful speaker for those gathered. From his post just upthread, though, looks like he's still up north.
-
Is this another MIers two-step? (and OT Iraq development)
[Read the article: Michael Mukasey's role in the Jose Padilla case]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn's post:
While Kristol thinks the choice is a good one, many other right-wing Bush supporters do not, based on their hope for more partisan figures (such as Ted Olson), the childish concern that Chuck Schumer and Nan Aron approve of Mukasey, as well as some prior judicial rulings they dislike.
If Kristol feels the need to "get out front" on uniting the neocons behind Mukasey, is this simply a case of putting out the potential "compromise" candidate, only to see him shot down by the extreme right wing who only will settle for an ideologue? Note that the "left" (translation:rational) was justified in calling for Miers' rejection on the grounds that she was too much of a Bush insider, yet her nomination was withdrawn only because she wasn't a "true conservative" (translation:batshit crazy).
Similarly, Glenn points out that Mukasey showed some spine in rejecting some of the most extreme Bush policy, but goes along with other aspects of authoritarianism. Any concerns from the "left" on this issue will be totally dismissed, as were those on Miers, but should the "true conservatives" push on the issues Glenn highlights on Mukasey, his nomination will last only a few days, as did Miers'.
The net result of that, of course, as several posters have pointed out, leaves us with the entirely unpalatable Clement in charge while Bush continues to dissemble.
OT:AP is reporting that the Iraqi Interior Ministry is revoking the "license" for Blackwater to operate within the country. If Iraq did manage to pull this off in a permanent manner, it would seem to me that there is no way our occupation could be sustained.
The revocation is in response to an incident in which 8 were killed an 13 wounded after gunfire erupted surrounding a US State Department convoy that was in the vicinity of an explosion.
Interior Ministry spokesman:
"We have canceled the license of Blackwater and prevented them from working all over Iraqi territory. We will also refer those involved to Iraqi judicial authorities," Khalaf said.
And from the Prime Minister:
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki late Sunday condemned the shooting by a "foreign security company" and called it a "crime."
I find this move especially interesting because the incident occurred in a primarily Sunni neighborhood. Is this an example of the Iraqi government finally finding the ability to function in an autonomous manner to allow the Shia Prime Minister to condemn attacks on Sunni citizens?
Link to article:http://tinyurl.com/2ptwu8