> In a message dated 5/12/02 5:18:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
> > From: "Paul Tifford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > 
> > > Passage of any anti-ICC legislation at this point would be
> > > unnecessary and provocative, rubbing salt in the wounds of
> > > our allies, who already are frustrated by the Bush
> > > unsigning. Such unprecedented and reactionary decisions by
> > > US leadership undermine the essential alliances forged in
> > > the war against terrorism and anger voters who want to
> > > remain engaged in the international community.
> > > 
> > > This is the first time a treaty has been "unsigned" and by
> > > so the U.S. is turning its back to its closest allies and
> > > friends.  This creates a precedent that is contrary to U.S.
> > > national interests and will undermine the credibility of the
> > > signature of future United States presidents.
> > 
> =====
> Ahem! ... This Tifford must be living on another planet! Blaming 
> everything 
> on President Bush and never once mentioning the fact that the majority 
> of the 
> US Congress, both Republicans AND Democrats, are against this treaty and 
> have 
> been from the start. 
> Lawana


Right, Lawana. Under the US Constitution it is the US Senate, not the 
President, that has the final word on treaty ratification. Republicans 
AND Democrats overwhelmingly rejected the ICC, so it wouldn't matter if 
Bush fully supported it [which I'm happy to say he does not.] The US 
Senate is democratically elected by the citizens of each state, for the 
information of our overseas friends. Anybody out there opposed to 

Al Winslow

Check out http://clik.to/sf for other lists to join.


This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?b1dhdK.b1tdRU
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!

Reply via email to