~~~Are they scumbags playing politics with lives at stake, or are they noble statesmen, trying any method at their disposal to stop our warmonger president Bush from spending us into oblivion with this new Iraq funding bill? Or is it maybe a little bit of both?
One thing is for sure. They really know how to stretch the definition of the word "terror" to suit their needs...that's the part that makes my stomach turn. The lie in order to make it sound like attaching this hate crime legislation is appropriate in an Iraq war funding bill, because "both initiatives are aimed at combating terrorist acts."
What a load of horseshit.~~~
Thursday September 27, 2007
Senators today attached a measure to help US states prosecute attacks on homosexuals to an Iraq war funding bill, but opponents predicted their manoeuvre would fail. The bill is named for Matthew Shepard, a gay student who was beaten into a coma in 1998. He died five days later.
Attaching hard-to-pass legislation to must-pass bills, such as funding the war in Iraq, is a well-established strategy used by both parties, no matter who controls the chamber.
The senate agreed by voice vote - with no dissenting votes - to attach the provision. Supporters argued that writing violent attacks on gay people into federal hate crime laws is an appropriate add-on to legislation funding the war because both initiatives are aimed at combating terrorist acts.
"The defense authorisation is about dealing with the challenges of terrorism overseas ... This [bill] is about terrorism in our neighborhood," said Senator Edward Kennedy, the chief Democratic sponsor.
His Republican co-sponsor, Senator Gordon Smith, said "We cannot fight terror abroad and accept terror at home."
Opponents, citing Bush's earlier veto threat of the hate crimes legislation, predicted it ultimately would fail. "The president is not going to agree to this social legislation on the defense authorization bill," said Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican. "This bill will get vetoed."
The White House had no immediate comment. It has previously contended that state and local laws already cover the new crimes defined under the hate crimes proposal, and that there is no need to provide federal sanctions for what could be a wide range of violent crimes. The Senate attached similar legislation to the same authorisation bill in 2004, but it was stripped out in negotiations with the House of Representatives.