| TheTip.org |
| Polls | Members | Refer | Forums | Write for TheTip! | Home | Impeach Bush |
Impeach George Bush
Feinstein Excuses - Why did I betray my constituency?
Feinstein, after having blatantly voted against what her constituency wanted, has once again insulted us with an "I know better" appology.
Source: TheTip, 2002-10-23
Candidate: Diane
Here's the text from her press release. The main points:
1) She knew what her consituency wanted.
2) She voted against what they wanted.
3) She voted for WAR with Iraq on the President's terms, with no sense of wrong-doing.
Other democratic senators did not do this, she could have joined them and held true to her constituency, but didn't.
On Oct. 11, I cast one of my most difficult votes as a U.S. senator when, in an effort to compel Iraq's disarmament of weapons of mass destruction, I voted to authorize the president to use force against Iraq.
I did not come to this decision easily: I strongly oppose a pre-emptive, unilateral strike against another sovereign state.
But as a member of the Intelligence Committee, I have, over the past several months, read, heard and questioned the analyses of many experts; reviewed intelligence materials; studied histories of Iraq and Saddam Hussein; and talked to experts at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna in an effort to define the level of threat Iraq presents to the United States and to American interests abroad.
Ultimately, I could not escape the fact that Hussein possesses and manufactures biological and chemical weapons, has used those chemical weapons, and, unless stopped, will most certainly use them again.
Furthermore, although I believe Hussein does not possess nuclear capability today, he is on his way, and could achieve it in as little as one year. That will dramatically increase his power, with potentially catastrophic consequences.
I do not support a pre-emptive unilateral strike. That is why I voted for the Levin amendment, which confined use of force to U.N. action. This resolution, however, was defeated 75 to 24 in the Senate.
After this vote, the only way to express my support for disarmament backed by force was the modified Bush administration proposal, known as the Lieberman- Warner resolution. This resolution is more restrictive than the original one sent to Congress by President Bush. The original resolution would have authorized a sweeping use of force whenever or wherever the president deemed necessary -- literally any place on Earth.
Fortunately, the Bush administration has moved away from a pre-emptive use of force. Beginning with his address to the United Nations on Sept. 12, the president has urged a more conciliatory approach, working with our allies and through the United Nations. This new approach -- a willingness to work multilaterally -- was a key and critical shift in the Bush administration's policy.
And since that time, Secretary of State Colin Powell has been working in earnest to produce a more robust U.N. Security Council resolution aimed at compelling Iraqi compliance. And -- repeatedly now -- the president has stated that "we will lead a coalition."
The final Lieberman-Warner resolution does not grant a sweeping use of force. Rather, it confines use of force to Iraq, calls for the Bush administration to exhaust multilateral and diplomatic efforts before resorting to force and gives Iraq the option of complying with the 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions it has defied since 1991, or face the consequences.
But remember, seven years of arms inspections in the 1990s failed because of Hussein's manipulation and prevarication. Without credible force backing arms inspection, I believe a new round of inspections would fail again.
In my view, the resolution, which the Senate approved by an overwhelming and bipartisan vote of 77 to 23, is more likely to prompt action by the United Nations to compel Iraqi disarmament. The reason? Because if the United Nations does not or cannot compel Iraq's disarmament, then the United Nations says to the world it is unable to enforce its mandates and it becomes a "paper tiger."
Given these facts -- and knowing how easy it is to transfer a fatal biological agent like anthrax or smallpox, or to move a fatal chemical compound such as sarin or mustard gas to kill thousands in the United States or elsewhere -- I voted yes. I did so with the hope that the United Nations will rise to the challenge and launch a search-and-destroy mission, using force only if necessary, to rid Hussein of weapons of mass destruction.
And I did so with the trust that the Bush administration will keep its word and forge the coalition it has pledged.
Add a comment to this Message in our Forums.
While you're at it, check out our forums too!
User Originated Comments:
From: mike halvorsen
2007-06-13 00:00:00
i recieved a 5 page letter from fienstien
supporting the majority of the countries antiwar
feelings & the importance of not funding the
war...then she votes for the unrestricted war
funding bill. we need a new senator who listen to
the people.
From:
1999-11-30 00:00:00
respectfully disagreeing with you, just off the
top i can list four reasons why she needs to
replaced:
she voted to sell medicare
downstream, being one of the first democrats on
board to vote for the putrid medicare reform
bill.
her husband's contract in
iraq.
as evidenced in the article
above, she's a devoted hawk.
she called
the lecher packwood, who made a second career of
sexually har-ssing young interns, "a giant of a
man" upon his leaving, after he was rightfully
outed from office; certainly making her unfit to
represent the young daughters of
citizens.
lastly, on a subjective note,
i see a heartless glint in her eyes similar to a
number of other thugs in dc.
From: D Peterson
1999-11-30 00:00:00
feinstein is representing all the people of
california, not just the democrats. i think she
is on the right side of the majority of the people
on this issue.
From: D Peterson
1999-11-30 00:00:00
feinstein is representing all the people of
california, not just the democrats. i think she
is on the right side of the majority of the
people.
From:
1999-11-30 00:00:00
couldn't a pistol,that was used to kill a few
thousand people, be considered a weapon of m-ss
destruction?
Related News
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
owned by TheTIP.
[ Skip Next | Next | Random Site | List Sites |Previous ]
NEWS | ACTION | RESULTS | POLLS | MEMBERS | SEARCH