Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in “Day: February 16, 2007”

Vote in the House, vote in the Senate

Should be noted that while the overall House vote on Concurrent Resolution 63 - opposing an increase in troop deployment in Iraq showed a number of Republicans from around the country voting in favor, none of them were from the Northwest. The Northwest's House delegation voted on strict party lines, Democrats in favor, Republicans against.

(An asterisk here: Washington Representative Brian Baird, Democrat from district 3, did not vote. But given his earlier statements, there's no reason to imagine that he was torn; he likely would have voted in favor. So that means all nine other Democrats voted in favor, and all six Republicans voted against.)

The resolution itself, by the way, is short, and reads:

(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and

(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

There's the possibility that party split may be muddied over in the Senate. There, word has broken that Oregon Republican Senator Gordon Smith will vote for cloture, to block a possible filibuster of Senate consideration of the resolution.

A couple of weeks back, Smith took a lot of heat for opposing cloture on a Senate resolution on the same topic, developed in large part by fellow Republican John Warner.

On the border: We decide

Lewis Lukens
Lewis Lukens

Considering that Lewis Lukens is by occupation a diplomat - in his role as the U.S. consul-general now stationed at Vancouver, British Columbia - he used some words on Thursday that were remarkably guaranteed to outrage. They were provocative enough to almost seem intended to do so.

He was speaking on the United States side of the border at Bellingham, at the Western Washington University Border Policy Research Institute. The Institute's mission is to develop "research that informs policy-makers on matters related to the Canada-U.S. border," which is less than a half-hour away.

The subject of the moment is the "Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative" (WHTI), under which border crossings between the United States and neighboring countries will be tightened. In the case of U.S.-Canada crossings, that means among other things the impending requirement of a passport to cross. (At present, a valid driver's license is sufficient.)

Of the policy that has been in force for several generations, that of a relatively open border, Lukens' comment was that "We've been spoiled, there's no doubt about it." What exactly he means by suggesting that we've been "spoiled" by such good relations is unclear. How exactly should that change?

Not for him any further consideration of the matter: “Fighting WHTI is not going to help.”

Which sounds like this: Now, now, children. The decision's been made by the people who know best. Just sit down, keep quiet, get in line and don't question our wisdom. He may have some familiarity with the mindset; just prior to his posting at Vancouver, he was executive secretary at the U.S. embassy at Baghdad, where his job was "managing the office that served as the nexus between policy and management issues in Iraq.") Does he perhaps need a refresher course in where decisions ultimately are supposed to come from in a constitutional democracy - which is to say, not from the top?

The point here is not particularly arguing the border policy (is it necessarily irrational to require passports at any border? not necessarily) as it is to suggest that this is a reasonable topic of discussion, and that public servants have no business trying to shut down discussion of it by the people who pay their salaries.

And there is a reasonable argument here against WHTI.