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 ...
Uuhhh..yea, Ben.
You’re right, Ben. (she says as she smiles and pats him on his head and gently nudges him to go play outside with the other children)
But, Ben can browse the internet and objectively report who is supporting the treaty and who is opposing.
So, let's first turn to Joe Biden, the majority committee chairman, the gatekeeper. Since he, as a minority committee member, was a strong supporter of the treaty in the last Congress, we can safely assume that it will easily get a hearing. But, Biden has many and bigger fish to fry so he will be a while getting to it. Plus he knows it has political value to the dems in that it is a thorn underneath the saddle for the GOP and a source of dis-unity. Minority leader Reid was strong supporter and Majority leader Reid will support it also.
OTOH, the NSA is pushing hard, but Bush and many other pubs are hoping Biden doesn't get around to it until after the next Prez gets elected, and she can get blamed for it.
The problem any loyal American conservative would have with your sources is that they are either federal government (could we possibly trust them any less) or others who think the UN is just fine and national sovereignty along with the rest of the Constitution is outmoded and should be discarded. And I'll take Gaffney any day over your other Washington heroes.
Travis has a particularly appropriate word for people who line up on your side of this and similar issues. A harsh word, perhaps, but quite accurate.
You're nothing if not consistent.
Let me suggest to you that those career military men supporting the treaty are more loyal Americans than you are. You wouldn't be a pimple on their ass.
Time to eat me.
“Has Bush completely sold out? How does he even maintain a 25% approval rating?”
Because of ‘Republicans.’ And I don’t mean conservatives, or liberals, or moderates, or any other possible philosphical designation... People who are only Republicans for the heck of it, and will support for and vote for any Republican, no matter who, for the heck of it. Cuz it’s just a big sporting event to them, doesn’t matter what the teams stand for as long as theirs wins. Which is how RINOs keep getting elected, and Giuliani remains frontrunner.
You may notice that there is a large cross-over between those that still strongly support Bush and who strongly support Giuliani. There’s nothing wrong, I suppose, with just being a Republican and automatically supporting Republicans, it’s just frustrating to those of us who would like to see something better.
It's obvious to me which way you lean on this issue. imo that is.
What's next, Rove is a magnificent bastard and this is all part of his master plan?
This country is being sold out from under us for the greater good..........
Agree.
You're nothing if not consistent.
Agree again.
That's just what they're trying to do-gobble us up.
So if you want to call the admiral un-American and accuse him of trying to destroy America, have at it.
Let me ask you one question, Ben.
You don't think our military is one worlder driven? NAU or NAI, which ever phrase makes you more comfortable. At least the higher ups in the military that is.
You mean those "career military men" who serve at the pleasure of the Commander-in-Chief and must do as they're told? Those career military men, Ben? God, you really are clueless if you think that kind of coerced endorsement counts for anything.
And, Ben, as we have previously established,"You wouldn't be a pimple on their ass of any loyal American conservative."
Are you trying to say that these military supporters of the treaty opposed it until Bush became prez?
I guess it will come as a surprise to you that General Pace was a key note speaker on Jan. 29, '07 at The North American Forum meeting in Canada, iirc. Just a sec let me find it.
(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released documents obtained November 2006 under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) from U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM). The documents concern the participation of NORTHCOM Commander, Admiral Timothy Keating, NORTHCOM Political Advisor Deborah Bolton, and Plans, Policy & Strategy Director Major General Mark Volcheff in a meeting of the “North American Forum” at the Banff Springs Hotel in Banff, Canada on September 12-14, 2006. A similar request for records concerning forum participation by then-Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and his entourage is still pending with the Pentagon.
The records include: 1) Proposed comments for Admiral Keating’s speech to the North American Forum; 2) Presentation outlines with handwritten marginal notes and comments from Ms. Bolton; 3) Policy papers; 4) Biographic sketches of participants; and, 5) Notes from Major General Volcheff.
The North American Forum presentations discussed immigration and border enforcement; full economic and energy integration including infrastructure and transportation; a North American investment fund; and common customs and duties. The idea of a carbon tax was raised as a means to combat so-called global warming. References to the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) occur throughout the documents.
The notes for the presentations document the need to overcome popular opposition to North American integration: “To what degree does a concept of North America help/hinder solving problems between the three countries?…While a vision is appealing working on the infrastructure might yield more benefit and bring more people on board (‘evolution by stealth’).”
“It is not encouraging to see the phrase ‘evolution by stealth’ in reference to important policy debates such as North American integration and cooperation,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “These documents provide more information to Americans concerned about the Security and Prosperity Partnership. The more transparency, the better.”
Did you catch that? Evolution by stealth!
As you may(or should) know, the opposers say that because of existing treaties and international law, coupled with the fact that the US has the world's strongest navy, we don't need LOST.
Obviously the USN enjoys being the strongest, but they certainly don't want to be in a position in which their casual activity is dependent on gun-boat diplomacy, or having to shoot their way out of a dispute.
This is where the opposers get very illogical. They say that if the US signs the treaty, many countries will try to be un-cooperative with the US. But they ignore the reality that without the treaty, these same many countries, knowing that the US will not have recourse afforded by the treaty, will go beyond being un-cooperative to being provactive towards the USN's casual activity.
The Straits of Hormuz will be a point of contention for decades, and given the projections, the Formosa Straits will eventually be more sensative than it is today. The treaty covers military activity in 136 straits around the world, many of them controlled by tin pots.
I don't mean to criticize you and others, but you are not very well informed and you have allowed yourself to be mis-informed.
While you like to point to meeting in Crawford in 2005 when the three presidents announced SPP, you are ignoring the fact that Secretary Rice spent a week to 10 days in Mexico, prior to Crawford meeting/announcement, in which she worked out the details of SPP with key members of the Mexican Congress.
While you like to mistakenly say that Bush is trying to implement SPP only on his authority, the reality is that, within a few days of the 2005 meeting/announcement in Crawford, legislation authorizing North American Perimeter Security was introduced in the both the US Senate and House.
You may think it is odd or ominous that the US military is involved in all of this, but if the US is going to exercise suzerainty over Mexico and Canada, and if the US is going to assume authority over Mexico's and Canada's external and internal security, the US military will play a significant role in that.
I am not in favor anything advocated by the UN. LOST will force the United States to abide what this gaggle of third world losers want, regardless of the merits. Surely you must know this. So tell me, what is there in the UN record that makes you believe our country well be treated fairly by these thugs?
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.