July 19, 2007

• Recent developments that you may not be aware of

  Here's what your Bush administration, with the partial complicity of a Democrat-controlled Congress, has been up to recently.  Since it appears that the Congress is not going to impeach Bush and Cheney, we Americans may as well bend over and kiss our collective asses good-bye.

  [1] SENATE: CORNYN AMENDMENT - ENDLESS WAR IN IRAQ

  On July 17 the Senate passed the Cornyn Amendment.  It is a "sense of the
  Senate" resolution that Iraq not become "a failed state and a safe haven for
  terrorists." Introduced by Republican John Cornyn (R-TX), the Amendment was
  immediately given a strong endorsement by Sen. Carl Levin and was supported by
  all leading Democrats (Clinton, Obama et al.). The final vote was 94-3, with
  only Robert Byrd, Tom Harkin, and Russ Feingold voting "no."

  The much-touted Levin-Reed "withdrawal" amendment, which failed the next
  day, said the administration shall begin a "reduction of the number of Armed
  Forces in Iraq beginning not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment
  of this Act and shall complete the reduction and transition to a limited
  presence of the Armed Forces [sic] in Iraq by not later than April 1, 2008." But
  it also listed as one of the continuing missions even after that date, "Engaging
  in actions to disrupt and eliminate al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations in
  Iraq."

  Since the administration says that all its actions in Iraq are against
  terrorists, such actions are supported by the Cornyn Amendment and included in
  the exceptions of the so-called withdrawal amendments, like
  Levin-Reed.

  Meanwhile, there has been talk of a vote to "deauthorize" the war
  (including by Byrd and Clinton). Of course all the original rationales for the
  war have evaporated, so rescinding the original authorization might make sense. 
  The Cornyn Amendment reauthorizes the war under a new rationale -- preventing
  Iraq from becoming "a safe haven for terrorists." And the Democrats have signed
  on.

  Furthermore, if Iraq "must not become a failed state," U.S. troops must
  stay in Iraq until it is stable and can defend itself -- a prescription for
  indefinite occupation, endorsed overwhelmingly by the Senate.

  [2] ADMINISTRATION: LETTER TO CHAIRMAN LEVIN - VETOES ON IRAQ *AND
  IRAN*

  On July 10 the administration sent a long and little-noticed letter to
  Senator Levin (D-MI), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The
  letter begins with a threat to veto any changes to the military tribunals and
  the MCA (especially "habeas corpus provisions"), "which passed with a bipartisan
  majority last fall." It goes on to say that Bush will veto any and all measures
  put forth by Congressional Democrats limiting the Iraq War.  It also says that
  the White House will veto any measure that would tie its hands on *Iran* --
  including on military action inside that country.

  The Democrats are comfortably aware that they can affect the war positively
  only with a veto-proof majority.  And they have forsworn (as Durbin did
  yesterday) the negative route of simply not voting funding. Unless they do that,
  they can proclaim that they want to end the war (as Durbin did) without having
  to do it.

  The Iran section of the letter says the White House will veto any
  Congressional effort to either "direct or prohibit" any military, intelligence
  or diplomatic action regarding Iran. (They figure they've got the money,
  especially for naval and air strikes.)

  Here's what the administration is ruling out for Iraq:

          "The Administration strongly opposes any provision
  that sets an arbitrary date for beginning the withdrawal of American troops
  without regard to the conditions on the ground or the recommendations of
  commanders. Precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would not bring peace to the region
  or make our people safe at home. Withdrawal could embolden our enemies and
  confirm their belief that America will not stand behind its commitments. Setting
  a date for withdrawal is equivalent to setting a date for failure and could lead
  to a safe haven in Iraq for terrorism that could be used to attack America and
  freedom-loving people around the world. It is likely to unleash chaos in Iraq
  that could spread across the region. In addition to infringing on the
  President's constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief, the provision would
  require a precipitous withdrawal of troops that itself could increase the
  probability that American troops would one day have to return to Iraq -- to
  confront an even more dangerous enemy. If the President were presented a bill
  that includes such provisions, he would veto the bill."

  And then there's this on Iran:

          "The Administration strongly opposes amendments to
  the bill that to restrict the ability of the United States to deal effectively
  with the threats to regional security posed by the conduct of Iran, including
  Iran's efforts to develop nuclear weapons. The Administration also notes that
  provisions of law that purport to direct or prohibit international negotiations,
  covert action, or the use of the armed forces are inconsistent with the
  Constitution's commitment exclusively to the presidency of the executive power,
  the function of Commander-in-Chief, and the authority to conduct the Nation's
  foreign policy. If the bill were presented to the President with provisions that
  would prevent the President from protecting America and allied and cooperating
  nations from threats posed by Iran, the President's senior advisers would
  recommend he veto the bill."

  [3] EXECUTIVE ORDER --

  Bush signed an executive order while the Senate Democrats were playing
  please-don't-throw-me-into-that-filibuster-briar-patch.  It's about United
  States citizens who act against the war in Iraq:

          July 17, 2007

          Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain
  Persons

          Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq

          By the authority vested in me as President by the
  Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the
  International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et
  seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA), and
  section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

          I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of
  America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national
  security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence
  threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote
  economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian
  assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the United States to
  take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in
  Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of
  August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order
  13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004. I hereby
  order:

  Section 1. (a) Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3), and
  (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), or in regulations, orders,
  directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and
  notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior
  to the date of this order,

          ...all property and interests in property of the
  following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the
  United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of
  United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported,
  withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the
  Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of
  Defense,

          (i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk
  of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect
  of:

                  (A) threatening the peace or
  stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or

                  (B) undermining efforts to
  promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide
  humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;

          (ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or
  provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or
  services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose
  property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order;
  or

          (iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted
  or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person
  whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this
  order...

  http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html

  Will we see federal police (FBI, Treasury) going after the property of
  anti-war groups on the grounds that their activities "pose a significant risk of
  ... an act or acts of violence that have the purpose *or effect* [good
  intentions don't matter] of ... threatening the ... stability of ... the
  Government of Iraq [by withdrawing US troops?] or undermining efforts to promote
  ... political reform in Iraq" [guess whose efforts]?

  • 11:55 am
  • 16 Comments