Feinstein’s soft on terror?
Posted by Moonage on 07 Sep 2006 | Tagged as: Legislative Process, National Politics, National Security
The big debate going into this November has been national security, defense, or just military in general. The Republicans have been telling people the Democrats are soft on war on terror, the Democrats keep saying the Republicans have failed in the war on terror. Now, I’m a person that usually dismisses the rhetoric and focuses on what is going on. This, is what is going on, as of yesterday. In the debate over the Defense Appropriations bill, Diane Feinstein offered this amendment to the bill:
SA 4882. Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. LEAHY) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill H.R. 5631, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes; as follows:
At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8109. No funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act my be obligated or expended to acquire, utilize, sell, or transfer any cluster munition unless the rules of engagement applicable to the cluster munition ensure that the cluster munition will not be used in or near any concentrated population of civilians, whether permanent or temporary, including inhabited parts of cities or villages, camps or columns of refugees or evacuees, or camps or groups of nomads.
What part of the war on terror has Feinstein missed? The whole planet has seen the numerous reports of how terrorist groups blend into the society of which they are terrorizing? Would a line of terrorists on their way to attack US interests be considered a "group of nomads" if they tell everyone they were not terrorists after they were attacked? Will the military have to make snap decisions on every single possible raid on terrorists or ask Feinstein whether a militia is a military target, temporary concentrated population, column of refugees, camp of nomads, or group of nomads? This legislation would have totally destroyed the US’s ability to go after any terrorist group since they are not considered a true national militia by any standards. They are all considered "civilians". Therefore, any attack on terrorist groups would have violated this amendment by Feinstein since she doesn’t even bother to define what is specifically a cluster munition.
Luckily, SOME people saw how incredibly stupid this amendment was. Namely, every single Republican. Fifteen Democrats saw how incredibly stupid this legislation was as well. And, here is the list of idiots who thought this was a good idea:
- Boxer, Barbara [D]
- Feinstein, Dianne [D]
- Carper, Thomas [D]
- Akaka, Daniel [D]
- Durbin, Richard [D]
- Obama, Barack [D]
- Harkin, Thomas [D]
- Mikulski, Barbara [D]
- Sarbanes, Paul [D]
- Kennedy, Edward [D]
- Kerry, John [D]
- Levin, Carl [D]
- Stabenow, Debbie Ann [D]
- Dayton, Mark [D]
- Baucus, Max [D]
- Reid, Harry [D]
- Menendez, Robert [D]
- Bingaman, Jeff [D]
- Conrad, Gaylord [D]
- Dorgan, Byron [D]
- Wyden, Ron [D]
- Reed, John [D]
- Johnson, Tim [D]
- Jeffords, James [I]
- Leahy, Patrick [D]
- Cantwell, Maria [D]
- Murray, Patty [D]
- Byrd, Robert [D]
- Feingold, Russell [D]
- Kohl, Herbert [D]
29 of those 30 people have one thing in common. When the Democrats protest they are not soft on terror this Fall, just look at the evidence and think about what could happen if they held the majority. Ask any military person you know what the ramifications of this bill would have in the field of action. You can’t get any softer on the war on terror than this scary bad piece of legislation.
1 Comment »
on 05 Jan 2009 at 11:50 pm 1.Moonage Political Webdream » Leon Panetta to head the CIA? said …
[...] Not to fear everyone said, Obama believes in a strong national security. That was said while Obama was signing onto legislation banning cluster bombs. Now, we get the icing on the cake, Obama is a assigning a man who once was the Director of the [...]