Showing posts with label senate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label senate. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Senate vote... a merry melody?

David Seaton's News Links
The other day I had to take our lovely Persian cat of fourteen years to the vet to be put down. Literally to put her "out of her misery" from kidney failure. It was something dreadful, but it had to be done.

I only bring this personal note up because that is what the Senate is doing with its vote on the war in Iraq.

Now, I am not not for a minute comparing the obscenely criminal war of Iraq with the beautiful creature I helped to die, but rather America's image of itself as a great and generous country filled with noble ideals... because that is what the Senate is putting out of its misery. The misery of Iraq will probably continue for many years to come. DS

Senate Supports a Pullout Date in Iraq War Bill - New York Times
Abstract: The Senate went on record for the first time on Tuesday in favor of a withdrawal date from Iraq, with Democrats marshaling the votes they needed to deliver a forceful rebuke to President Bush’s war policy.(...) “When it comes to the war in Iraq, the American people have spoken, the House and Senate have spoken,” said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate. “Now, we hope the president is listening.”(...) The outcome of the Senate vote took both parties by surprise. Republicans were stung by the defection of Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who has not supported a timetable for withdrawal before although he is his party’s most outspoken critic of the war in Congress. “There will not be a military solution to Iraq,” Mr. Hagel declared. “Iraq belongs to the 25 million Iraqis who live there. It doesn’t belong to the United States. Iraq is not a prize to be won or lost.” The Democrats also gained the vote of Senator Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat, who voted against a withdrawal date just two weeks ago. “People want our troops home,” Mr. Nelson said.(...) “This bill should be named the Date Certain for Surrender Act,” said Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican. “A second-year cadet at West Point could tell you that if you announce when the end will be, it’s a recipe for defeat.”(...) Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts and a war critic since the conflict began four years ago, said the combination of the House and Senate votes was momentous. He said it showed how far the Democratic Congress had come toward removing troops since the beginning of the year, adding that political and policy momentum was on their side. “Rather than continuing to defy the will of the American people and Congress by threatening to veto this legislation,” Mr. Kennedy said, “President Bush should put the Iraqis on notice.”(...) Three more Republicans who have expressed serious reservations about the course of the war — Senators Susan Collins of Maine, Norm Coleman of Minnesota and John W. Warner of Virginia — sided with their colleagues in trying to strip the timetable from the spending legislation. All three senators are facing tough re-election fights next year. Ms. Collins said she was more troubled by the requirement that the administration begin removing troops within 120 days of the legislation rather than the March 2008 deadline for having most of the military out. “I don’t think it is wise to have an abrupt withdrawal from Iraq,” said Ms. Collins, who said she was willing to wait until August to see if the continuing troop increase improves conditions there. “This doesn’t mean I support an unending commitment of our troops in Iraq. I don’t.”(...) Mr. Warner, who has criticized the administration’s conduct of the war, said he remained committed to changing policy in Iraq, but not by imposing Congressional timetables on American troops. “It would be the bugle of retreat,” Mr. Warner said. “It would be echoed and repeated from every minaret through Iraq: the coalition forces have decided to take the first step backward. We cannot send that message. Not at this time.” READ IT ALL

Saturday, December 16, 2006

What if terrorists destroy Washington? - Los Angeles Times

David Seaton's News Links
Americans love to frighten themselves, anything will serve for this purpose: cholesterol, spinach, Armageddon..you name it. This enjoyment of being worried sick about anything and everything is a famous, American national trait; like French women eating all they want and staying thin. So there is a tendency to discount American hysteria. But, in the case presented in the article quoted below, its author, Yale professor, Bruce Ackerman, is really on to something. Wiping out the US political class at one blow would be so devastating, would so surely lead to a military coup d'etat, that if Osama doesn't ever try it than HE is just another American neurosis. DS
Abstract: The news media, politicians and observers are scrambling to speculate on how Sen. Tim Johnson's (D-S.D.) medical emergency might change the composition of the Senate. But if the health of just 1% of one-half of one of the federal government's three branches can cause this much concern, what might happen in a real emergency? Specifically, imagine how the United States would react — or not — if terrorists succeeded in destroying Washington and, with it, all or most of the government. Chillingly, the Senate, which generated so much speculation this week, is actually in a better position to resume functioning than the other branches.(...) This isn't true of the House or the presidency. Under present House rules enacted in 2005, a tiny number of survivors could exercise power for months, even if they were formerly from the minority party. Moreover, their newly elected speaker could succeed to the presidency if an attack took both the president and vice president. Worse yet, the constitutional status of the speaker-turned-president would be problematic. The Constitution says a majority of each house "shall constitute a quorum to do business." It is a fair question whether the existing House rules, granting a rump the power to legislate after a terrorist attack, conform to this requirement. Under ordinary circumstances, we'd leave a question like that to the courts, but what if the Supreme Court were also swept away? Under existing law, the president has the power to give justices recess appointments that expire at the end of the congressional session. The acting president could well be in a position to pack the very court that would judge his or her own status. READ IT ALL