Letters to the Editor
Jim White
Published Letters: 1094 Editor's Choice: 15
-
Proxies on committee votes
[Read the article: Important day for FISA and amnesty]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Christy at FDL had this to say about proxies in Senate Committee votes:Based on the votes the last business meeting, there were proxy votes cast on the Mukasey nomination. So I think it is, indeed, possible to do so during a business meeting in the Senate.
In addition, there is much confusion on the thread at FDL concerning what has just happened in the SJC. Some are reporting that the bill was reported out of the committee without the section that includes amnesty, but others think that since Feingold's amendment failed, that article of the bill was not changed and so had no reason to be reported out.
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/11/15/fisa-bill-reported-out-of-sjc/#respond
Gosh, we're learning a lot of civics these days.
-
@kovie re Feinstein
[Read the article: Important day for FISA and amnesty]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I caught only a portion of the replay of the hearing, but at one point Feinstein made a fairly long statement that also included some reading. I got the distinct impression that she was struggling very hard to suppress tremors of some sort. Did you notice this? I don't remember hearing anything previously about her having problems of this sort.
-
Is there video of the speech?
[Read the article: Self-satire scales new heights]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm late to this party, but as I was reading the speech excerpts, like a couple of other commenters, I had definite flashes of Colbert. If there is video of this speech, someone could make a hilarious version of "The Word" with Bush's real actions regarding the Constitution coming up in the slides over his shoulder. Destined to be an instant YouTube classic.
-
Or, perhaps
[Read the article: Self-satire scales new heights]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Unpublican
All of the real activities for these characters are carried out in secret and the evidence is kept behind the firewall at all times. From Cheney's development of the energy policy to the endless supply of memos from the OLC, the actions are always hidden from public view and are thus unpublic. Of course, finally, with the staggering death toll and exodus of refugees, Iraq is the most tragic victim of being unpubliced by the unpublicans.
With apologies to ondelette who discussed publicy earlier.
-
Still laughing
[Read the article: Self-satire scales new heights]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I didn't have much time for the party yesterday, but those posts were lots of fun. My final entry, while we are stringing extra syllables together in the vein of RMP and ondelette (and a riff on Disney):
supercowerdangerificexpleallesd'ohshit
-
Tommy, Tommy, Tommy
[Read the article: The Tom Friedman of 2002 has not gone anywhere]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...some element of uncertainty, short of the lunacy card, is necessary for credible deterrence under certain circumstances.
See, that's the problem. As long as Cheney and/or Bush is involved, there is no uncertainty. Given a tool like the AUMF, they always will opt for war and the "glory" it brings to our righteousness.
Although I disagreed at the time, I partially understood those who thought that giving the authorization for the Iraq invasion was a reasonable move. The problem is that it would have been a reasonable move if morally upright and sane people had been at the head of the US government at the time. The reason that "old Europe" did not jump on this bandwagon was that they had independent intelligence operations and they could tell that Cheney was gaming the system by controlling the information that reached Bush and the American people.
Far from being the "last resort" that AUMF was meant to authorize, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were intent on using it as a tool to get into Iraq as soon as possible. The concept of deterrence was simply not to be found in their reasons for operating here.
And, oh yeah. The "nice words" and sanctions were working, you idiot. The WMD program put into place by the UN after the first Iraq war worked exactly as designed. Stockpiles were destroyed and new programs were prevented. Attacks on civilians also dropped off dramatically over time as other sanctions continued to put Saddam into a box from which he had no escape.
However, you have another point completely backwards. Only you and the 28%'ers could ever believe that Iraq has ruined the prospect for humanitarian intervention. Since the Iraq invasion was no such thing, it is simply irrelevant to the prospect for intervening when it is appropriate. You might want to check into what is happening in an area called Darfur to find just such an example and then do a little research to find that many people have been calling for an intervention there for some time. However, since no oil is involved there, the reasons for doing something are entirely humanitarian and therefore completely inaccessible to your excuse for a brain.
-
Okay, maybe I shouldn't have said idiot.
[Read the article: The Tom Friedman of 2002 has not gone anywhere]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But with over a million dead, four million displaced and violence dropping only because of de facto ethnic cleansing and overflowing detention facilities, I get a little worked up over the consequences of such "serious" talk.
Let's talk about Iran, then. Ironically enough, the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq actually did serve as a deterrent to Iran. In the spring of 2003, they approached the US through a Swiss diplomat and offered to put everything on the negotiating table: the nuclear program, sponsorship of terrorism, Israel's right to existence and all the other talking points. Bush not only told them to get lost, he even castigated the Swiss diplomat for relaying the offer.
A humanitarian who had just intervened on behalf of the Iraqi people would have been at the negotiating table in heartbeat. Sadly, "negotiations" in Bushspeak consist of placing all demands as preconditions, so we arrive at today.
Well, I tried. Only an idiot could believe that professional political analysis could suggest, even if half in jest, that Cheney has any future role in public affairs other than that of a defendant in a war crimes trial.