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.

← Bond: We owe those who protected us Three biggest reasons for homeless veterans →

House hearing focuses on relocating displaced Iraqi refugees

May 1st, 2008 by Staff · No Comments

The House Foreign Affairs Committee, Middle East and South Asia Subcommittee, and the International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight Subcommittee held a joint hearing entitled, “No Direction Home: An NGO Perspective on Iraqi Refugees and IDP’s (internally displaced persons).” The hearing examined whether or not the United States should accept Iraqi refugees into our nation, or if we would instead be better off making IDP’s stay in Iraq to help with the nation’s rebuilding efforts.

The members of Congress responded in ways that often conflicted with one another at the hearing. Some congressmen, such as Chairman Gary Ackerman (D-NY), called the President’s response to relocating displaced Iraqi’s “pathetic,” saying that the United States should accept Iraqis searching for homes. Other members of Congress, like Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), felt that the Iraqi government should begin to take accountability for rebuilding their country, which should start with the people “above the bloodshed,” like the refugees.

Ackerman said that the problem of how to help displaced refugees is just at the “tip of the iceberg.” While the Bush Administration had targeted to resettle 12,000 Iraqi’s to the United States this year, only 2,627 had been admitted as of March 31, far short of the government’s, perhaps lofty, expectations.

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.