Pat Leahy is furious at the administration

[cali]

over their position on the land mine treaty. Not only is this in published reports but I heard it at Thanksgiving dinner today from someone who spoke to him privately about it.


Leahy Hits U.S. Refusal to Join Landmine Treaty

WASHINGTON, Nov. 25 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) is sharply critical of the Obama Administration's decision, announced Tuesday by the State Department, to decline to join the international treaty to ban anti-personnel landmines, a weapon that kills or maims thousands of civilians each year.

"This is a default of U.S. leadership and a detour from the clear path of history," Leahy said in a statement. "The United States is the most powerful nation on earth. We don't need these weapons and most of our allies have long ago abandoned them. It is a lost opportunity for the United States to show leadership instead of joining with China and Russia and impeding progress. The United States took some of the earliest and most effective steps to restrict the use of landmines. We should be leading this effort, not sitting on the sidelines."

For two decades Leahy has been the leading U.S. officeholder advocating an international ban on the use of anti-personnel landmines. Leahy's groundbreaking legislation, including the world's first export ban on landmines, was a catalyst in launching the treaty effort.

The Vermont senator said the Obama Administration's review of the earlier decision to stand apart from the treaty "can only be described as cursory and half-hearted."

<snip>

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/leahy-hits-us-refusal-to-join-landmine-treaty-73532782.html

[jenmito]

1. Clarification:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=18366

[cali]

2. They back pedaled. A little.

And Senator Leahy is furious.

[sandnsea]

4. Kelly made the statement last week

So now he's had to issue a statement that his first statement was wrong. That's more than backpedaling a little, that's a major blunder by someone at State. Heads are rolling and I hope Leahy keeps the pressure on until the treaty is signed.

[pscot]

10. Heads are rolling?

Whose heads? Kelly's head? This sounds like the Afghan business all over. First the leak, then the strong dnial from the administration, then we're thinking about it, and now it looks like the original leak was essentially correct. We'll see.

[vaberella]

6. How do you know they backpedaled when there are tons of misinforming informants running around?

I'm getting really tired of this. Most of the statements are not coming from the WH, except the one Jenmito just posted and are coming from unnamed sources who may be real or not. Even Gates says that he's ready to fire people when he finds out who's "leaking" crap to the press.

[sandnsea]

13. Here's the original press conference

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2009/nov/132362.htm

After the official statement, which sort of looks like the one you've got posted, he answered questions and said:

"Yeah, I’m not sure about that, but we made our policy review and we determined that we would not be able to meet our national defense needs, nor our security commitments to our friends and allies if we sign this convention."

That's where all the hoopla came from. But now it looks like the White House is saying he spoke out of turn there and no decision has been made and the review continues.

[JoeyT]

23. Yeah, they should stop leaking to the press and stuff.

Looks like the campaign promise for the most transparent government in recent history is being upheld, but only because they can't stop it.

[roguevalley]

17. as well he should be. Landmines are an abomination.

[sandnsea]

3. Ah. good. Kelly spoke too soon earlier

Somebody at State must have pushed the landmine info out but when the Administration got a hold of it, they pulled it back. Good. We need to sign the landmine treaty and I hope they do it.

[vaberella]

7. Too much leaking sandandsea----too much damned leaking by misinformed informants. n/t

[sandnsea]

9. It was a press conference

Kelly said there was a review of our use of landmines, and the treaty, and the US wouldn't sign. The answer was in direct response to a previous inquiry so he had to have made a point to get the info. But looks like they weren't done or State has a different view than the WH.

[Better Believe It]

12. Anything other than notarized statements by President Obama are not to be believed!

[rateyes]

5. I wonder what he will do about it.

[cali]

8. what can he do about it other than speak out?

[snake in the grass]

11. Pat the Jellyfish will be sending in a...

...strongly worded letter of disapproval very soon. We can all sleep tight after that.

[rateyes]

14. He is a member of a group called the Senate who are supposed

to provide checks and balances on the administration, isn't he? In fact, I think he chairs the SJC.

[cali]

18. and? how does that make it possible for him to force the administration

to sign onto the treaty?

[rateyes]

19. I didn't say "force."

But, I do imply pressure.

[HughMoran]

15. Good

This whole leak, then restatement etc. is just not working. Sign the ban.

[704wipes]

16. probably manufactured in TX

couldn't possibly close a munitions plant down there...

[ShortnFiery]

20. Anyone who Darth Cheney would tell to "go fuck yourself" has my respect.

Checks and Balances baby! :evilgrin:

Bless Pat Leahy! :patriot:

[Vidar]

21. Good for Leahy & shame on Obama,

[ClarkUSA]

22. What's the "shame" in the WH postponing a final decision pending a thorough review?

I suppose you're ashamed of Bill Clinton because his final decision was to reject signing the Land Mine Ban for his entire two terms in office.

:shrug:

[cali]

24. I thought it was despicable of Clinton not to sign the ban

it is despicable. And the vast majority of nations have signed it.