When I began this blog in 2001, I was appalled by President Bush's headlong rush to an illegal war (we were not in fact under attack). As time wore on and Bush began his assault on the Constitution and any people bold enough to criticize, I believed that "the republic is endangered more by actions of our own government than by those of any terrorist." With the election of a high-minded, compassionate, intelligent man like Barack Obama, my fears have ceased.
"Honor them with peace, not war"
United for Peace
Thursday, January 30, 2003
There are signs that leading Democrats in Congress are taking note of the many peace rallies around the country and re-thinking the knee-jerk support of the president that has characterized most of the discussion over the past year and a half.
The State of the Union address the other night showed how far out in left field Bush is. In addition to war mongering, he threw softballs at a host of other "initiatives," possibly in response to suggestions that he's a one-issue president. "If I can't fight it, I dont want to talk about it "might well be his motto.
Today's NY Times reports that Sen. Edward Kennedy D-Mass., introduced a resolution that Bush should not go to war without Congressional approval. He was quoted as saying that Pres. Bush had "totally failed to make the case that Saddam Hussein is an imminent threat to our security."
Senator Robert C. Byrd D-W.Va., proposed a resolution, calling for a vote in the United Nations Security Council before any attack.
Byrd was quoted as saying, "What concerns me greatly is that this president appears to place himself above the international mandates of the United Nations."
This is a serious concern. The UN Charter, to which we are signatories, bars unilateral attack. It permits self defense, but not preemptive strikes. As the late Sen. Paul Wellstone of Minnesota said, Saddam Hussein is a world problem and should be dealt with by the world, not the US alone. Listen to an audio clip of Wellstone's remarks to the Senate last September at the web site of Minnesosta Public Radio.
Copyright © 2001-03 Pam Shorey
(except the specific sources credited in quotes)
They've finally noticed
There are signs that leading Democrats in Congress are taking note of the many peace rallies around the country and re-thinking the knee-jerk support of the president that has characterized most of the discussion over the past year and a half.
The State of the Union address the other night showed how far out in left field Bush is. In addition to war mongering, he threw softballs at a host of other "initiatives," possibly in response to suggestions that he's a one-issue president. "If I can't fight it, I dont want to talk about it "might well be his motto.
Today's NY Times reports that Sen. Edward Kennedy D-Mass., introduced a resolution that Bush should not go to war without Congressional approval. He was quoted as saying that Pres. Bush had "totally failed to make the case that Saddam Hussein is an imminent threat to our security."
Senator Robert C. Byrd D-W.Va., proposed a resolution, calling for a vote in the United Nations Security Council before any attack.
Byrd was quoted as saying, "What concerns me greatly is that this president appears to place himself above the international mandates of the United Nations."
This is a serious concern. The UN Charter, to which we are signatories, bars unilateral attack. It permits self defense, but not preemptive strikes. As the late Sen. Paul Wellstone of Minnesota said, Saddam Hussein is a world problem and should be dealt with by the world, not the US alone. Listen to an audio clip of Wellstone's remarks to the Senate last September at the web site of Minnesosta Public Radio.
Palema
4:50 AM
Comments:
Post a Comment
Copyright © 2001-03 Pam Shorey
(except the specific sources credited in quotes)
|
|