The Talk Radio News Service

The Talk Radio News Service is the only information news service dedicated to serving the talk radio community. TRNS maintains a Washington office that includes White House, Capitol Hill and Pentagon staffed bureaus, and a New York office with a United Nations staffed bureau.

← The President talks about staying strong and keeping the White House Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) says Bush administration acts in “secrecy” at a subcommittee hearing on Iraq →

House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight holds a hearing on Iraq “Declaration of Principles”

February 8th, 2008 by Staff · No Comments

Chairman Bill Delahunt (D-Mass) discussed the “Declaration of Principles” issued by the Bush administration on November 26th, 2007. He expressed disappointment with the administration over the declaration, saying that details of the document were kept secret and worried that it suggested an indefinite military presence in Iraq. He said that administration officials declined three separate invitations to speak before the subcommittee regarding the declaration and that the only official to discuss the declaration was Secretary of Defense Robert Gates during a hearing two days ago.

 

Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) said that he has been a strong supporter of the Iraq war since the invasion but he mimicked Delahunt’s message saying that the administration’s unwillingness to cooperate with Congress “breeds mistrust” in Washington and with Americans. He said that the administration may have good intentions but that the “cloak of secrecy” surrounding discussion of the declaration “undermines the success to implement the strategy.”

 

Michael J. Glennon, professor of international Law at Tufts University spoke before the subcommittee saying that the declaration was “ambiguous.” He said that it could be construed to imply a longterm military presence in Iraq and that under the constitution, the President must seek Congressional approval before enacting such provisions.

Digg This [?]

Tags: News/Commentary

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment

Note: clicking "Submit" signals acceptance of the comment policy printed below.

Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.

As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")

Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.

And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.

Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.

Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.

And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.