Up on my refrigerator I have a political cartoon of some months back entitled "The Washington Follies". In the first frame, Bush is shown on the telephone talking to his version of Goebbels, Karl Rove: "Karl" he says, " after Iraq they'll never elect a Republican in '08." Karl replies: "Threaten Iran. Talk about World war III."
George says: "But everyone knows Iran has stopped developing nukes."
Karl replies: "We never let the truth stop us before."
And so it goes. fortunately, we have John Conyers, who is not going to go gently into that goad night. Read what Senator Conyers has to say in recent correspondence about and with the not-so-honorable president:
From: The office of House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, Jr.
May 8, 2008
Join Me in Calling on President Bush to Respect Congress' Exclusive Power to Declare War
Dear Democratic Colleague:
As we mark five years of war in Iraq, I have become increasingly concerned that the President may possibly take unilateral, preemptive military action against Iran. During the last seven years, the Bush Administration has exercised unprecedented assertions of Executive Branch power and shown an unparalleled aversion to the checks and balances put in place by the Constitution's framers. The letter that follows asks President Bush to seek congressional authorization before launching any possible military strike against Iran and affirms Senator Biden's statement last year that impeachment proceedings should be considered if the President fails to do so.
I hope that you will join me in calling on the President to respect Congress' exclusive power to declare war. To sign the letter below, please contact the Judiciary Committee staff at 225-3951.
Sincerely,
John Conyers, Jr.
Chairman
May 8, 2008
The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing to register our strong opposition to possible unilateral, preemptive military action against other nations by the Executive Branch without Congressional authorization. As you know, Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power "to declare war," to lay and collect taxes to "provide for the common defense" and general welfare of the United States, to "raise and support armies," to "provide and maintain a navy," to "make rules for the regulation for the land and naval forces," to "provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions," to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia," and to "make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution ... all ... powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States." Congress is also given exclusive power over the purse. The Constitution says, "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law."
By contrast, the sole war powers granted to the Executive Branch through the President can be found in Article II, Section 2, which states, "The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into actual Service of the United States." Nothing in the history of the "Commander-in-Chief" clause suggests that the authors of the provision intended it to grant the Executive Branch the authority to engage U.S. forces in military action whenever and wherever it sees fit without any prior authorization from Congress. In our view, the founders of our country intended this power to allow the President to repel sudden attacks and immediate threats, not to unilaterally launch, without congressional approval, preemptive military actions against foreign countries. As former Republican Representative Mickey Edwards recently wrote, "[t]he decision to go to war ... is the single most difficult choice any public official can be called upon to make. That is precisely why the nation's Founders, aware of the deadly wars of Europe, deliberately withheld from the executive branch the power to engage in war unless such action was expressly approved by the people themselves, through their representatives in Congress." [1]
Members of Congress, including the signatories of this letter, have previously expressed concern about this issue. On April 25, 2006, sixty-two Members of Congress joined in a bipartisan letter that called on you to seek congressional approval before making any preemptive military strikes against Iran. [2] Fifty-seven Members of Congress have co-sponsored H. Con. Res. 33, which expresses the sense of Congress that the President should not initiate military action against Iran without first obtaining authorization from Congress. [3]
Our concerns in this area have been heightened by more recent events. The resignation in mid-March of Admiral William J. "Fox" Fallon from the head of U.S. Central Command, which was reportedly linked to a magazine article that portrayed him as the only person who might stop your Administration from waging preemptive war against Iran, [4] has renewed widespread concerns that your Administration is unilaterally planning for military action against that country. This is despite the fact that the December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003, a stark reversal of previous Administration assessments. [5]
As we and others have continued to review troubling legal memoranda and other materials from your Administration asserting the power of the President to take unilateral action, moreover, our concerns have increased still further. For example, although federal law is clear that proceeding under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) "shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance" can be conducted within the U.S. for foreign intelligence purposes, 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(f), the Justice Department has asserted that the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping in violation of FISA is "supported by the President's well-recognized inherent constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and sole organ for the Nation in foreign affairs". [6] As one legal expert has explained, your Administration's "preventive paradigm" has asserted "unchecked unilateral power" by the Executive Branch and violated "universal prohibitions on torture, disappearance, and the like." [7]
Late last year, Senator Joseph Biden stated unequivocally that "the president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran, and if he does, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, I will move to impeach" the president. [8]
We agree with Senator Biden, and it is our view that if you do not obtain the constitutionally required congressional authorization before launching preemptive military strikes against Iran or any other nation, impeachment proceedings should be pursued. Because of these concerns, we request the opportunity to meet with you as soon as possible to discuss these matters. As we have recently marked the fifth year since the invasion of Iraq, and the grim milestone of 4,000 U.S. deaths in Iraq, your Administration should not unilaterally involve this country in yet another military conflict that promises high costs to American blood and treasure.
Sincerely,
John Conyers, Jr.
Chairman
Now go to:
alerts@truemajority.org
and watch the video. Bush's would-be successor, John (Madman) McCain made my blood run cold when during a speech he launches into a few bars of The Beachboys "Barbara Ann" with "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran -- and then laughs. HE laughs!
This world is Mad -- and getting madder by the day.
Speaking of John McCain, there was a time when I had a modicum of respect for the man. After all, he spent a long time at the Hanoi Hilton during the Viet Nam years.
But has war taught him anything at all????
Obviously not.
Now he does not want to lend any support to the American youth who are braving gun fire, rocket propelled grenades, and road side bombs in such a useless cause,
His latest stance?
What's McCain Have Against Education Benefits for Veterans?
By David Lightman
McClatchy Newspapers
Tuesday 13 May 2008
Washington - The "Post 9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act" sounds like the kind of rally-round-the-flag plan that John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton all could embrace.
Instead, it's become one of the starkest dividing lines between McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, and his likely Democratic opponent.
The bill, which the House of Representatives is expected to debate as soon as Thursday and the Senate could take up next week, would increase education aid to all military members who've served on active duty since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The House version has 294 co-sponsors; the Senate bill has 58.
Obama and Clinton are co-sponsors, and in West Virginia on Monday, Obama outlined the differences between himself and McCain. The Arizona Republican, said Obama, thinks the bill is "too generous. I could not disagree with him more."
McCain countered that the bill is misguided because it doesn't encourage soldiers to re-enlist. (AND GOD KNOWS, WE NEED THAT YOUNG MEAT TO STAY IN THE GRINDER)
Under the proposal, all veterans, including those who served in the National Guard or Reserve for at least 36 months since the attacks - not necessarily consecutively - could get full in-state tuition, regardless of cost, as well as some money for books, fees and a stipend for living expenses. Certain grants also could be provided for those who attend private colleges.
The program would replace the 23-year-old VA system, which provides about half the average cost of tuition.
Chief sponsor Sen. James Webb, D-Va., a highly decorated Marine in the Vietnam War, called the plan an easy vote.
The Pentagon, he said, has "done a very good job managing the career force. It's not done a good job in terms of helping people transition back into civilian life."
Obama agreed, saying the bill affords "a real chance to afford a college education." Backers of the bill maintain that the cost of college has soared in recent years, and the current benefit isn't sufficient.
McCain, a former Navy pilot and Vietnam POW, has joined Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and others to push an alternative that would make it easier to transfer education benefits to spouses and children and to provide more generous education benefits to personnel who serve for 12 years or more.
McCain's monthly education benefit, which would be available to any active-duty military personnel, regardless of when they began their service, would also rise to reflect increases in college costs.
The benefit would be based on the average cost of public colleges and universities across the country, which is $1,500 a month.
That sum, plus other government-sponsored grants, Graham maintains, would cover most, if not all, of the cost of college.
In addition, the McCain-Graham bill would provide $500 a year for books and supplies. And after 12 years in the military, the benefit would gradually rise to $2,000 a month by 2011 - a way of encouraging people to remain in the service.
Webb's plan has no such provision for longevity, though veterans would have up to 15 years after they leave active duty to use their benefit. Under Graham's plan, they'd have up to 10 years.
The transfer and longevity provisions, supporters argue, are crucial ways of encouraging people to stay in the military, and they have strong support from the Pentagon.
"Transferability supports military families, thereby enhancing retention," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in a letter to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., recently.
The Webb bill, Gates suggested, wouldn't encourage retention.
"This is not World War II we're fighting. This is not Vietnam," Graham said. "This is a global struggle with an all-volunteer force. And anything we can do to help retain people, I think, would be great."
But that's the point, Webb argues: This isn't like past wars. He estimates that roughly three of every four Marines and Army personnel leave after a single four-year enlistment - the people, he says, who "answered the call" and should be rewarded.
Webb is at the forefront of a parade that includes not only the Democratic presidential candidates, but also a lot of key members of Congress and veterans' groups. Last month, they rallied in front of the Capitol, where backers wore buttons saying, "Leave No Veteran Behind."
"This legislation is wise," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "It has consensus. It brings us together in a bipartisan way."
Not so, said McCain. "There are fundamental differences," he said at the time.
Key Provisions of the Bills:
The Graham-McCain bill:
As of October, education benefits for active-duty military personnel, regardless of when they began their service, would increase from the current $1,100 a month to $1,500 to cover the average cost of a four-year public college, plus $500 annually for books and supplies.
Benefits would increase gradually to $2,000 per month by 2011 for members on active duty for at least 12 years.
Education benefits for National Guard and Reserve members called to active duty since Sept. 11, 2001, would increase from $880 to $1,200 a month.
National Guard and Reserve members who've been in the Selected Reserve for 12 years or more and who continue to serve could receive as much as $1,600 a month by 2011.
Veterans could transfer education benefits to spouses and children. After six years of service, a member could transfer up to half of his or her benefits; after 12 years, he or she could transfer all of them.
The Webb bill:
All members of the military, including members of the National Guard and Reserves, who've served three to 36 months of active duty, not necessarily consecutively, beginning on or after Sept. 11, 2001, would be eligible for new education benefits.
They'd get "some amount of assistance proportional to their service for 36 months," which equals four academic years.
Veterans could receive benefits "up to the cost of the most expensive in-state public school, plus a monthly stipend equivalent to housing costs in their area." Some tutorial assistance and books would also be covered.
People whose service ended before Sept. 11, 2001, would remain covered under the current system.
And so goes the Washington Follies.
__________________________________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment