Posted on 06/11/2007 9:29:54 AM PDT by processing please hold
Finally, on May 15, 2007, President Bush publicly urged the Senate to “to act favorably on U.S. accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea during this session of Congress.” He said that joining “will serve the national security interests of the United States, including the maritime mobility of our armed forces worldwide. It will secure U.S. sovereign rights over extensive marine areas, including the valuable natural resources they contain. Accession will promote U.S. interests in the environmental health of the oceans. And it will give the United States a seat at the table when the rights that are vital to our interests are debated and interpreted." His support, along with that of the Pentagon and State Department, as well as the Navy and Coast Guard, has created the political space to secure the support of 75 to 85 senators—far more than the 67 needed for accession.
(Excerpt) Read more at fpif.org ...
>>>he will breathe new life into the old United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
The ‘breathe new life’ is a play on words. The quotes in this above posted article are from revisions that were requested support of.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1848366/posts?page=12#12
"Kerry as the ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Oceans, Fisheries and Coast Guard, warned that provisions of the treaty must not limit the United States' ability to pass laws in its own interests. "Congress must also be assured that we will have the flexibility to enact protections here at home in the absence of international action, or that are more stringent than those that can be agreed upon internationally," he said in a statement published with the committee's report.
On security issues, Kerry said, the treaty "strikes a careful balance between the rights of free passage and the ability of coastal states to protect their borders." He said the United States must ensure that ratifying the Law of the Sea Convention "will not interfere with our ability to protect our ocean borders from terrorist threats."
If a ratification resolution passes the Senate Environment Committee, the Law of the Sea Convention goes to the full Senate where approval of a treaty requires a two-thirds vote in favor. The House of Representatives does not vote because it has no constitutional authority over treaties.
The 14th Meeting of States Parties to the Law of the Sea Convention is scheduled from June 14 to 18, in New York.
I just read it. Looks like the Senate is about to make a really BIG mistake. And the Navy is going along with this garbage?
Wow. Admiral Halsey is spinning right about now.
What else is left? I can’t think of anything off hand.
Has Bush completely sold out? How does he even maintain a 25% approval rating?
Lessons learned: Do not nominate sons of politicans. Name recognition is not the only attribute to qualify as President. People without life experiences and challenges can be easily manipulated to change position.
Has Bush completely sold out? How does he even maintain a 25% approval rating?
Lessons learned: Do not nominate sons of politicans. Name recognition is not the only attribute to qualify as President. People without life experiences and challenges can be easily manipulated to change position.
Thanks for the link, bookmarked.
The Navy can't take another position than the President's. It's a ruse. The President gets people to support the treaty because "the Navy supports it." But there is no way the Navy could come out against it.
The joke is always on us, and frankly, I’m damned tired of it.
>>>>...he stated Reagan liked LOST, except for 1 provision, and he (Reagan) ensured the US adhered to all the other provisions of the treaty even though we didn’t sign it. The author went on to say that *provision has since been fixed* and there were several valid reasons this treaty was good for the US Navy.
The fix:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1848366/posts?page=12#12
See post 12.
Which is why I posted barf-0-rama. To show how the other side thinks.
Bushbots and NWO supporters.
He still has the tax-increase card he hasn’t played.
Or, he could start pushing for Reparations.
Are you kidding? If you want to lie down with leftists, there’s a million different kinds of fleas you can pick up.
We bitched about the shamnesty bill and got it voted down. Bush revives it. It's an uphill battle for us all the way to the top.
I’m not sure you followed.
The quotes from this article that are being attributed to Bush supporting LOST were made in Bush requesting the democratic senators to support the revisions to LOST.
He didn’t support LOST as a stand alone. He wanted it revised. See post 27.
Is it really all neocons, or just Bush and his friends?
I’m asking because I don’t know, not to argue with you.
If you want to read about what the media doesn’t tell you in reference to Amnesty, see my posts added to this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1837121/posts
Last Stand for American Sovereignty
I wonder what Duncan Hunter thinks of this bill?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.