Olberman on Rumsfeld
For some reason I'm not a regular viewer of Keith Olberman, although I frequently find myself watching clips at Media Matters for America.
Here's what he said last night about Rumsfeld's latest speech attacking the critics of the war, all 150 million of us or so:
The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and
shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack.
Donald S. Rumsfeld is not a prophet.
Follow the link to watch the video.
Here's what he said last night about Rumsfeld's latest speech attacking the critics of the war, all 150 million of us or so:
The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and
shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack.
Donald S. Rumsfeld is not a prophet.
Follow the link to watch the video.
posted by Jack McCullough at 6:56 AM
3 Comments:
I really liked that Olberman editorial. When people like Rumsfeld and Bush and Cheney say ridiculous things it's important that people who can be heard respond.
By the way, I've just seen Ambassador Bolton say that unanimity is not required for the Security Council to act. Is this correct?
It is good to see someone with enough courage to call Rumsfeld on his rhetoric. Too bad most Democrats won't stand up to him like that.
Unanimity is not required in the Security Counsel but it is the preferred way of acting for normal governments. Unanimity among the permanent security council members is required for action, however.
From Wikipedia:
Decisions in the 15-member Security Council on all substantive matters—for example, a decision calling for direct measures related to the settlement of a dispute—require the affirmative votes of nine members. A negative vote—a veto—by a permanent member prevents adoption of a proposal, even if it has received the required number of affirmative votes. Abstention is not regarded as a veto. Since the Security Council's inception, China (ROC/PRC) has used 5 vetoes; France, 18; Russia/USSR, 122; the United Kingdom, 32; and the United States, 81. The majority of the USSR vetoes were in the first ten years of the Council's existence, and the numbers since 1984 have been: China, 2; France, 3; Russia/USSR, 4; the United Kingdom, 10; and the United States, 43.
However procedural matters are not subject to a Security Council veto. This provision is important in that it prevents the veto from being used to avoid discussion of an issue.
Post a Comment
<< Home