Echo Chamber: Bush, Bolton and Gitmo
The Financial Times' lede says it all: NEW YORK - Bill Clinton has become the most prominent figure so far to add his voice to criticisms of the US prison camp at Guant?namo Bay in Cuba. It is interesting to ponder if this was Bill's opinion or something to clear the way for Hillary to speak... Or both?
More Gitmo, and a fine point. From Meet the Press on Sunday, June 19th.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to Guantanamo. In October--excuse me, December of 2003, "Sen. John McCain said he is concerned about the failure to move ahead with prisoners' trials at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. ...`These cases have to be disposed of one way or another. After keeping someone two years, a decision should be made.'" That was a year and a half ago. It's now been three and a half years. Should we close it?
SEN. McCAIN: I don't think necessarily. But I think the important thing is it's not the facility of Guantanamo, it's the adjudication of the cases of the prisoners who have been held there without trial or without any adjudication of their cases. So the frustration is not the fact we have a facility at Guantanamo, although that certainly becomes symbolic. The frustration is: What are we going to do with these people?
Late filing from Tom Curry of MSNBC tonight. Once again, we see a reference to Bush's power slipping. Mid terms are still more than a year away, but the problems are substantial. The poll numbers for Iraq are now 59-39 toward unfavorable; though what does it matter, "we broke it -- we bought it," as Powell said. The Dems, and Voinovich, have held on two calls for an up-or-down vote on Bolton. Privatized Social Security apparently is a no-go.
Will the Dems hold out, and force the issue? Perhaps they believe it's smarter to wrestle over Bolton (keep in mind Voinovich is also on their side.) Are they positioning for another compromise? Or will things blow up? It's hard to see a lot of heat coming in Mid 2005 about John Bolton. This may be AA baseball.
Aside: In 1941, FDR said the following of Social Security, and the concept of earning a dignified pension at retirement.
"With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program."
More Gitmo, and a fine point. From Meet the Press on Sunday, June 19th.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to Guantanamo. In October--excuse me, December of 2003, "Sen. John McCain said he is concerned about the failure to move ahead with prisoners' trials at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. ...`These cases have to be disposed of one way or another. After keeping someone two years, a decision should be made.'" That was a year and a half ago. It's now been three and a half years. Should we close it?
SEN. McCAIN: I don't think necessarily. But I think the important thing is it's not the facility of Guantanamo, it's the adjudication of the cases of the prisoners who have been held there without trial or without any adjudication of their cases. So the frustration is not the fact we have a facility at Guantanamo, although that certainly becomes symbolic. The frustration is: What are we going to do with these people?
Late filing from Tom Curry of MSNBC tonight. Once again, we see a reference to Bush's power slipping. Mid terms are still more than a year away, but the problems are substantial. The poll numbers for Iraq are now 59-39 toward unfavorable; though what does it matter, "we broke it -- we bought it," as Powell said. The Dems, and Voinovich, have held on two calls for an up-or-down vote on Bolton. Privatized Social Security apparently is a no-go.
Will the Dems hold out, and force the issue? Perhaps they believe it's smarter to wrestle over Bolton (keep in mind Voinovich is also on their side.) Are they positioning for another compromise? Or will things blow up? It's hard to see a lot of heat coming in Mid 2005 about John Bolton. This may be AA baseball.
Aside: In 1941, FDR said the following of Social Security, and the concept of earning a dignified pension at retirement.
"With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program."
posted by Bravo 2-1 at 9:45 PM
1 Comments:
i am happy you didn't refer to powell's comments as "the pottery barn rule." that fine retailer has no such rule.
Post a Comment
<< Home