Sen. Conrad and the legislative issues of war and peace

Sen. Conrad and the legislative issues of war and peace

Congressperson Conrad is playing governmental issues with war. He has been since the war in Kosovo. President Clinton composed an op-ed in the New York Times on May 23, 1999. In that op-ed piece President Clinton gave the reasons why he thought it was vital to go to war in Kosovo. "The global group reacted at the outset with a contemplated impartiality that likened victimized people with aggressors; it emulated with tact and the organization of unarmed peacekeepers with the order, however not the methods, to secure regular folks." This is much like the circumstances in Iraq before the war. Nobody enjoyed Saddam Hussein's administration, however nobody did what's necessary to ensure the guiltless Kurds and different Iraqis that were being butchered by Hussein's administration (the mass graves that are continuously discovered now are a demonstration of that). President Clinton happened to say...

We can't react to such tragedies all over the place, yet when ethnic clash transforms into ethnic purifying where we can have any kind of effect, we must attempt, and that is unmistakably the case in Kosovo. Had we vacillated, the result would have been an ethical and key calamity. The Kosovars would have turned into an individuals without a country, living in troublesome conditions in a percentage of the poorest nations in Europe, overpowering new majority rules systems. The Balkan clash would have proceeded with uncertainly, representing a danger of a more extensive war and of proceeding with pressures with Russia. NATO itself would have been disparaged for neglecting to guard the very values that provide for it importance. The individuals who say Kosovo is so little it is not possible be of incredible significance overlook these straightforward certainties.

Hussein killed a huge number of individuals. Nobody was sheltered when he was in control. He and his associates were assaulting and tormenting any individual who even contemplated Hussein's administration. Absolutely if the ethnic purging in Kosovo was an ethical shock, the murdering going ahead in Iraq was a shock. Clinton said that if the US had done nothing, the clash could've spread into different ranges. Undoubtedly Hussein was a destabilizing constrain in the Middle East. The most fascinating quote is when Clinton said that if NATO had done nothing, its exceptionally reason would've been ruined. The UN Security Council made various resolutions that they declined to implement with respect to Iraq.

The circumstances in Kosovo was, from multiple points of view, the same as it was in Iraq preceding the war.

Representative Conrad "voted "Yes" on permitting all vital powers and different means in Kosovo."

Definitely, the measure of ground powers utilized as a part of Kosovo wouldn't liken to the sum utilized within Iraq, yet Sen. Conrad wasn't voting on simply airstrikes. He voted on utilizing "all important strengths."

So if Sen. Conrad was eager to place troops in hurt's route in Kosovo for benevolent purposes, then why wasn't he ready to help the war in Iraq? This is straight from his site...

Congressperson Conrad restricted the war in Iraq on the grounds that he didn't accept it was in the national security enthusiasm of the United States. He contended that the organization's first necessity should have been holding Al Qaeda and Osama canister Laden to record. They are the ones who assaulted the United States on September 11, 2001, not Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Notice to Sen. Conrad: Osama receptacle Laden had proclaimed war on the US before Kosovo and his partners in crime slaughtered Americans before Kosovo, so why didn't he restrict the war in Kosovo in light of the fact that container Laden had assaulted America, not anybody in the previous Yugoslavia? Since a Democrat was president. This likewise shows up on Sen Conrad's site...

While happy to see a merciless tyrant expelled from force, Senator Conrad stays worried that the Administration's concentrate on Iraq occupies from the more straightforward risk postured by Al Qaeda and proceeded with unsteadiness in Afghanistan.

Congressperson Conrad, wasn't Al Qaeda a more genuine risk to the US in the late 90s than Milosevic was? I'm not saying that the US shouldn't have made a move in Kosovo. Milosevic was an underhandedness man.

What I do have an issue with is that Sen. Conrad was ready to go to war against somebody who was abhorrent and conferring mass homicide (Kosovo), however would not focus on a war against somebody who was malevolent and submitting mass homicide (Iraq).

This partisanship from Sen. Conrad amplifies way past the ordinary divided wrangling that goes ahead in the Beltway. Representative Conrad was eager to put our troops in hurt's direction when a Democrat was in office, yet was hesitant to do likewise (under practically the same circumstances) when a Republican was in office. This is yet an alternate circumstance when Sen. Conrad puts his gathering in front of Americans.

After the Rhetoric

So after all of the rhetoric we find out that the Congress supports the war in Iraq. They realize that we have no choice but to win. FromFox News.

WASHINGTON - The House on Friday overwhelmingly rejected calls for an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq, a vote engineered by Republicans that was intended to fail. Democrats derided the vote as a political stunt. 

"Our troops have become the enemy. We need to change direction in Iraq," said Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a Democratic hawk whose call a day earlier for pulling out troops sparked a nasty, personal debate over the war.

The House voted 403-3 to reject a nonbinding resolution offered by the GOP calling for the military to pull out of Iraq.

So Democrats like Murtha can play politics with the war. But when it comes to a vote they realize that American's will never tolerate anything more than their rhetoric.

It reminds me of just last year. The ELECTION was pretty much a referendum on the war. GWB won with the largest vote total in history. He received the largest majority in 16 years. Things have not changed that much in a year.

North Dakota

North Dakota  is a state located in the Midwestern region of the United States, along the Canadian border. The state is bordered by Manitoba and Saskatchewan to the north, Minnesota to the east, South Dakota to the south and Montana to the west. North Dakota is the 19th most extensive, but the 3rd least populous and the 4th least densely populated of the 50 United States. North Dakota was created from the northern portion of the Dakota Territory and admitted to the Union on November 2, 1889, simultaneously with South Dakota.

The state capitol is located in Bismarck and the largest city is Fargo. The primary public universities are located in Grand Forks and Fargo. The U.S. Air Force operates air bases at Minot AFB and Grand Forks AFB.

For more than a decade, the state has had a strong economy, with unemployment lower than the national average, job and population growth, and low housing vacancies. Much of the growth has been based on development of the Bakken oil shale fields in the western part of the state, but it has also had growth in the technology and service sectors. Flooding in June 2011 has caused extensive damage to Minot and threatened Bismarck, the capital city.

Just a few notes on where Sen. Conrad is getting his money from

As of March 3, 2005...
Only about 2% of individual contributions of over $200 to Sen. Conrad come from North Dakotans. North Dakotans have only contributed $9,100 while Californians have given him $46,650. I'm not sure what this means but between now and the election I will be periodically researching and sharing the figures I find about the sources of Sen. Conrad's money.

Judicial Nominations Part II

I've been sent a couple good comments about my previous post that I'd like to address for everyone.

Anonymous said, "This looks like a poor survey. "Qalified Judge?" It's the senate's job to determine if they are qualified. You can get the responses you want, if you ask the questions the right way."

To that I would say...

The question is how many senators have to determine the qualification of nominees. And I do know that people can rig polls. The AARP has been doing it with social security.

Anonymous said, "Duty to vote? was an alternative response, "expected to block the nomination of a judge that they feel is not qualified?"

To that I would say...

Yes, they have a duty to vote. Let them vote. Why filibuster? If the Dems feel the judges aren't qualified, then vote against them. ELECTIONS MATTER!

Anonymous said, "Appy existing law? President Bush was looking for a judge to create law when he signed the Terri Shaivo bill."

To that I would say...

President was not looking for a judge to create law. He signed a law that allowed for the federal courts to look at the issue. When the federal court upheld the state court he let it be.

Anonymous said, "Politics out of the confirmation process? Well then you certainly couldn't have a politically elected president nominate or politically elected senators confirm judgeships. Or does this mean that you certainly wouldn't criticise Conrad for actions on judicial nominations because it's a nonpartisan action?

To that I would say...

President Bush is not acting as a partisan. He simply wants judges to use US law and US history and the US Constitution and the US Declaration of Independence to determine the constitutionality of laws. He doesn't want judges WHO ARE NOT ACCOUNTABLE to legislate from the bench, using laws from FOREIGN countries. Here is how screwed up it has gotten... (correct me if I'm wrong)... but we cannot execute minors for murder because they don't know what they're doing, but the courts have also ruled that minors are smart enough to get abortions without hearing any information if they don't want any... like I said correct me if I'm wrong. Also, the senate GOPers feel the same way. The only people who can make laws, according to our Constitution is the LEGISLATIVE branch... but then again... maybe the French constitution says something else.

Judicial Nominations

"A national, scientific survey of 800 registered voters reveals that an overwhelming majority of Americans believe that qualified candidates for our nation’s highest courts deserve and up or down vote in the in the US Senate. The survey further revealed that Americans want partisan politics removed from the judicial confirmation process and that our Judges should focus on applying existing laws and not attempt to make new law in the courtroom."

Highlights of the survey include:

* Eighty-two percent of voters agree that "if a nominee for any federal judgeship is well-qualified, he or she deserves an up or down vote on the floor of the Senate.
* By 78 to 12 percent, voters agree that Senators have a constitutional duty to vote on judicial nominations.
* Seventy-five percent of voters agree that "President Bush should keep his promise made during the campaign to nominate a U.S. Supreme Court justice who will apply existing law, not make new law.
* Overall, 67 percent of voters agree we should take politics out of the courts and out of the confirmation process.

Hey Sen. Conrad, Americans will not tolerate any attempts to stop votes on any judicial nominations. This will be a very interesting debate. I have no doubt that Sen. Conrad wants to filibuster, but it might cost him his seat. Make no mistake about it... if he slows down the nomination process I will let everyone know.

The Race Heats Up In MN

Check it out everyone. Excellant blog! Gary, Doug, and First Ringer tackle the 2006 Senate campaign in Minnesota. The Upper Midwest could gain 2 GOP seats in the senate. I'll be checking it out daily.