From his own mouth…Powell admits ..his speech was ‘painful’.
FORMER US secretary of state Colin Powell has said his UN speech making the case for the US-led war on Iraq was “a blot” on his record.
In the February 2003 presentation to the UN Security Council, Mr Powell forcefully made the case for war on the regime of Saddam Hussein, offering “proof” that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
The presentation included satellite photos of trucks that Mr Powell identified as mobile bioweapons laboratories. After the invasion US weapons inspectors reported finding no Iraqi nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.
“It’s a blot” on my record, Mr Powell said in an interview with America’s ABC News to be aired today.
What about the Iraqi Unions? remember what they did before?
Iraq’s other resistance
August 2003 oil workers’ unions organised a strike that stopped all production in southern Iraq for two days. The resulting bargaining power has been impressive, with the unions — which later merged to become the GUOE — successfully pushing for foreign workers to be replaced by Iraqis; the role of US companies in the reconstruction to be reduced; and wages to be raised to liveable levels..
Now they want to destroy them.. Unions About to Be Destroyed
The Bush administration has been actively hostile to the trade unions in Iraq– even keeping old Saddam Hussein laws in place to restrict union rights — but a new decree 875 by the new government promises an even worse crackdown or even elimination of labor union independence in that nation.
Jeff– “Translation — f### those sand fleas, they’re not worth one American penny.”
Exactly my point.
“It seems that everytime the US military makes a mistake, the blame goes directy to Bush and no other”
It’s not like I think Bush is directly responsible for things like Abu Ghraib. I know it’s the responsibility of those who perpetrated the act. The military is full of knuckleheads. I know because I used to like in a barracks full of them. They don’t take things seriously and idiotic pranks happen. What can you expect from people who are barely past high school. But there is plenty to blame Bush for, foremost in my mind being his ignorance of the Bill of Rights. If things like concentration camps, lying to the media, disappearance of citizens, contract abuse by Republican supporting corporations… and so on… doesn’t bother you, then there is very little hope of what I consider to be reason that I can expect from you.
“I’m sorry, but hasn’t every country on the planet done this…?”
But my point is, is it right? Is it the best example on how to function in international society that the US can demonstrate? The impression that GW presented to the world was that of a religiously motivated mad-dog bent on vengence. Whatever the truth of the matter is, we will never know.
“Wasn’t Saddam and his family offered Exile?”
When someone joins the Peace Corps, they are given cultural sensativity training. Many cultures have aspects where insult can be caused without intent, just by a gesture which means nothing in the US but in another country you could have just insulted someone’s lineage. I don’t think GW was culturally sensative or even gracious by American standards in his process to bring America to war with Iraq. There are stories of, and I can’t verify this because I wasn’t there, jarheads entering towns insulting Arab penis size over a loudspeaker. When things like this happen, you have to ask how many real insurgents were killed and how many needless mortal enemies did the US just gain? It would have been better in Saddams eyes, I think, if the US had stormed his house and put a bullet in his head than the disgrace that he is now suffering. One day we are putting Saddam into power and some day later we want his head on a platter. The US had no problem with Saddam’s “leadership style” until we decided he wasn’t favoring us enough. So the questions stand. Why war? Why now?
“That’s it boys….go heat up the ovens! It’s time to load up the boxcars and move’em out.”
You seem to think this occurance is impossible in America. You must live in one of those pockets of kindness hidden in various places in America. We already have concentration camps running and people being detained in underground prisons. Do they actually need to light the ovens before you’ll take notice? But, I’ll pose the question again. Was the US more like Hitler’s Germany now or before the war? Is there some reason you are unwilling to admit any comparison?
“Watch the following, this is what happened when Iraqis moved against Saddam.”
Heartbreaking.
Hank– “Is this…jewish history in the area?”
Am I supposed to feel bad for Jews? 90% of our aid going to the 16th wealthiest nation? Am I supposed to care who gains final ownership of Jerusalem? If I had my way, we’d solve the problem and turn the whole area into a radioactive dustheap. I know there was no Palestine before the Jews were sent back there. But what was everyone expecting? I think the Arab community made it abundantly clear that resurrecting Israel in that area was a bad idea. Were any other locations considered? I guess I don’t know everything about the situation, but I feel that it could have been handled better. After 50 years of antagonizing the Arabs, I guess I’m not too suprised that shit is starting to blow up in our cities.
“What is it…which really get on my tit?”
Are you going to burst a blood vessel? ;-)
“Was the US more like Hitler’s Germany now or before the war? Is there some reason you are unwilling to admit any comparison?”
“When did George Bush stop beating his wife?”
Was the US more like Attila the Huin’s Rome now or before the war? Is there some reason you are unwilling to admit any comparison?
Was the US more like Pericles’ Athens now or before the war? Is there some reason you are unwilling to admit any comparison?
“Am I supposed to care who gains final ownership of Jerusalem? If I had my way, we’d solve the problem and turn the whole area into a radioactive dustheap.”
I think we are beginning to get the measure of the man and his ideas…
What is the sound of one hand clapping?
“I think we are beginning to get the measure of the man and his ideas…”
Yes, everyone is debating whether war on Iraq is good and I am putting forth the idea that the US has more pressing issues to worry about. I also put forth the idea that Bush rushed to war needlessly and there were probably better ways to handle things. We can worry about whether tar and feathering or lynching is more appropriate for Bush later.
I am proposing that no matter what you think you know, you don’t have the whole story so there is no real way for you to be certain of what you think. And I feel good, because now people are doing more than just trying to shout each other down here. Maybe progress can be made.
My opinion on the war in Iraq is that I can’t find anything in the Constitution saying that the US government and taxpayers are obligated to secure freedom for Iraqis. Instead of securing my freedom here at home as the government should be (and indeed are doing the exact oppsite), they are quibbling over whether an indigenous population on the opposite side of the globe is or is not going to wear scarves on their heads or whatever the issue of the day is. The Iraqis can work all of this out for themselves without us making Halliburton shareholders more wealthy. By the way, are you affiliated with any corporation that is profiting from current hostilities in Iraq? It wouldn’t suprise me.
I don’t care how much you know about world history and this ancient regime and the other or what is, in your humble opinion, the optimum form of government. What you seem to know very little about is the US Constitution, the limits of government power in this country and the current abuse of those powers. And worse, you don’t care. With all due respect, you have burrowed your head so far up the butt of the Republican machine, that you will only believe something that has been cleared by them and when they do wrong, you expend great amounts of energy trying to make excuses for them. So go ahead, sit here and try to prove how much smarter you are than everyone else in your hostile and pseudo-intellectual way and when Rome burns, see how far your rhetoric gets you.
A good weekend to everyone and I’m out. Peace.
One of the main points of the Coalition entering Iraq to effect a regime change was to prevent Rome burning; or rather to contribute to the strategic deployment of forces in an area of the country’s vital interests which would prevent Rome (and its consitution) from being burnt at a later date.
That decision by the United States as member and leader of the Coalition may or may not prove in the light of history to have been effective. The purpose of the decision though, to prevent the burning of Rome by its enemies, is clearly within the responsibilities of the President of the United States, duly elected as he was by a majority of the people of the US, within Article. II.Section. 1. Clauses 1 and 8 fo the US Consitution. Furthermore, that decision, built on the Iraq Liberation Act signed into law by President Clinton in November 1998 adopting the policy to effect regime change in Iraq, was supported by the vote of the Senate and the House of Representatives exercising their constitutional power and responisbility to support or oppose the executive branch in its foreign policy and was indeed supported by the Democratic Party. The decision of the President was in other words constitutional and was furthermore supported by the overwhelming majority of the people’s representatives in Congress and in the political parties of the country.
So don’t try to wheedle your way into insinuating that there was some kind of a putsch going on here please.
P.S. “… are you affiliated with any corporation that is profiting from current hostilities in Iraq?” No.
Meanwhile, elsewhere in the Coalition:
“…And what celebrations there shall be! Her Majesty the Queen and Prince Philip will be dining with all the surviving First Sea Lords of her reign in the captain’s cabin of HMS Victory on Trafalgar Day itself, Friday, October 21, the same evening that literally hundreds of dinners, great and small, will be taking place up and down the country to toast the Immortal Memory of the greatest military hero of our long island history. That night there will hardly be a sober breath drawn by any Briton who has any patriotism in his soul, let alone any seafaring connections. Rum will be drunk by those who otherwise rarely touch the stuff.
Special Trafalgar exhibitions are being staged in the Norfolk Nelson Museum (Great Yarmouth), the Royal Naval Museum (Portsmouth), the Nelson Museum (Monmouth), the Maritime Museum (Bucklers Hard), the National Fishing Heritage Centre (Great Grimsby), and the Australian National Museum. Scores of conferences are being organized by Portsmouth, Greenwich, Exeter and Oxford Universities, the Institute of Historical Research, the Royal Society of Medicine, the 1805 Club, the Nelson Society, the Society for Nautical Research, the British Academy, and so on. A sequence of bell-ringing in churches will begin in New Zealand on Trafalgar day and will be taken up as dawn breaks in Australia, then South Afri– ca, then Gibraltar. The English-speaking peoples intend to celebrate this bicentenary with gusto.…”
http://newcriterion.com/archives/24/09/trafalgar-then-now/
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/091605.html
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell appears to have widened his credibility gap with his latest attempt to shift the blame for bogus evidence about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction onto mid-level intelligence analysts – and away from himself and other senior officials.
Our article put Powell’s blame-shifting in the context of his lifelong record of protecting his superiors and his own image. But one reader, Ava, took us to task for relying on ABC’s cleaned-up transcript of Powell’s words.
Disingenuous Defense
Other readers, including former CIA analysts, challenged Powell’s comments as disingenuous because they are certain the former secretary of state knew how thin the WMD evidence was at the time and how aggressively the administration was stretching it.
Indeed, Powell may have been one of the best positioned officials to know that the threat from Iraq was being exaggerated. In February 2001, Powell personally cited the effectiveness of the UN sanctions in crippling Saddam Hussein’s military capabilities.
After the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, however, the Bush administration began zeroing in on oil-rich Iraq as a target of opportunity. Whereas before, Powell and other officials downplayed the Iraqi threat; now they were playing it for all it was worth.
Cheney was drawing from alarmist intelligence being collected by a special Pentagon office established by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and staffed by neoconservative policymakers set on war with Iraq.
Resigned to War
But the evidence is clear that the die was cast for war by summer 2002. As the Downing Street Memo shows, all that was left was lining up public support.
In that climate, any scrap of information about Iraq’s WMD was scooped up by the administration and often passed on to the news media. For instance, when aluminum tubes were discovered heading to Iraq, one inexperienced CIA analyst came up with the dubious conclusion they must be for enriching uranium.
Nuclear experts, including those at Powell’s State Department and inside the Energy Department, concluded otherwise, that the tubes matched the requirements for conventional Iraqi rockets and weren’t suitable for nuclear enrichment. But the administration embraced the nuclear-tube argument.
Terror Ties
Having succeeded in planting this one bogus claim, the Bush administration went to work on another, that Saddam Hussein’s secular dictatorship was somehow in league with al-Qaeda, a group of Islamic fundamentalists who publicly had condemned Hussein.
By fall 2002, Bush had requested authority from Congress to launch a preemptive war against Iraq, but still had not ordered up a formal National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s WMD. So, Congress took the extraordinary step of requesting one directly from the CIA.
During the NIE process – despite the objections from the experts at State and Energy – Tenet defended the opinion of the inexperienced CIA analyst who had come up with the nuclear-tube theory.
In perhaps the most remarkable disclosure in the CNN documentary, the CIA may have prevailed in this key debate because the Energy Department had sent over the wrong analyst.
In other words, the U.S. government lurched down a course toward war rather than have someone stop the meeting and insist that the Energy Department send over the right briefer. An open-minded intelligence debate on war and peace would not have allowed such a bureaucratic snafu to play a decisive role.
State’s Skepticism
Still, with the dissenting views largely buried, the NIE helped secure congressional approval for Bush’s war plans.
UN inspectors also had returned to Iraq and were not finding evidence of WMD at sites that had been considered the most likely locations of weapons caches.
The crumbling evidence prompted the White House to dig up another questionable charge for Bush’s State of the Union speech in January 2003, that Iraq had sought enriched uranium in Africa. The claim raised more eyebrows among intelligence professionals.
By the time, Powell was assigned to make the case for war before the UN Security Council in February 2003, the secretary of state was among the growing list of officials nervous about the quality of the WMD intelligence.
Col. Larry Wilkerson, Powell’s longtime friend and chief of staff, told CNN that Powell was upset with the White House instructions about what to highlight in his speech.
The Speech
Powell also asserted that some of the WMD was in four bunkers observed by U.S. spy satellites. The proof that these were WMD bunkers was the presence of decontamination vehicles, Powell said.
At another point in his UN speech, Powell embellished on quotes pulled from intercepts of Iraqi conversations to make the words seem more incriminating.
Tubes, Redux
But Houston Woods, a consultant who worked on the Oak Ridge analysis of the tubes, later told CBS News that Powell’s presentation was misleading, since the nuclear experts, who were concentrated in the Energy Department, knew the tubes were unsuited for uranium enrichment.
UN inspector Allinson described the reaction of the UN team as it watched Powell’s much ballyhooed address.
Though many WMD experts didn’t buy the Bush administration’s case, Powell’s speech worked wonders with the U.S. news media. Almost across the board, American commentators and pundits – long enamored of Powell’s glittering reputation – hailed Powell’s evidence as overwhelming and unassailable.
Blindsided
To this day, Powell is still trying to make the case that he was blindsided by bad intelligence, the fault of some lower-level bureaucrats who kept the reality from Tenet, Bush and Powell himself.
Yet this case for Powell’s innocence is undercut further by the fact that some journalists and independent experts were challenging the WMD evidence months before Powell’s UN address – and were disclosing the pressure being brought on U.S. intelligence officials to toe the White House line on Iraq’s supposed WMD.
These contemporaneous articles also reported complaints from U.S. officials about administration efforts to squelch dissent and pressure analysts to produce intelligence reports that would support Bush’s case for preemptive war.
To believe Powell now – that he was oblivious to the doubts within the U.S. intelligence community – would require accepting that this knowledgeable secretary of state was unaware of disclosures in the news media as well as the internal dissension within the intelligence bureau of his own State Department.
It’s much easier and more logical to conclude that Powell did what he had done many times before – that he chose to do the bidding of his superiors and protect his status within the Washington power structure.
You probably didn’t notice LadyBird’s notice about posting the entire contents of articles and the copyright issues you could be generating for LadyBird.
Hank–
“One of the main points of the Coalition entering Iraq to effect a regime change was to prevent Rome burning; or rather to contribute to the strategic deployment of forces in an area of the country’s vital interests which would prevent Rome (and its consitution) from being burnt at a later date.”
So, your proposition is that it was OK to attack Iraq on the off-chance that they might have been a threat to us now or in the future. We know the WMD threat the administration presented was false and misleading now (we have to excuse the Democrats on that one, because you can’t make a rational decision based on misconception), so you must not be basing your rational on that situation. When you indicate “an area of the country’s vital interests”, you are refering to an oil rich area with which it was most expedient to create a subterfuge which would require us to be in the area for something other than oil. OK, so now what you are saying in this respect may be true and the situation in America is more dire than anyone is willing to admit with regards to our oil dependency. Is a nation’s failure to prepare for oil depletion a justifiable reason to attack another sovereign nation?
“So don’t try to wheedle your way into insinuating that there was some kind of a putsch going on here please.”
Who’s insinuating? ;-)
“P.S. No.”
K… just checking.
Jon, I said it was ONE of the main reasons and was adduced as an introduction to countering your assertion that there was nothing in the US constitution which permitted the action in Iraq. A nations’ vital interests are interests over which it will go to war because — they are vital. If interests are genuinely vital then subterfuge is necessary to protect them if the public has not done its homework on what and what are not such interests and what the concept of viatal interests implies. The USA, not my own country by the way, is a republic (albeit a corrupt republic) and is therefore led by representative government, not by the transient emotions of the people. Such subteruge, although regrettable, is the price which must sometimes be paid and of course must be watched carefully. To try to pretend, however, that government of a republic is not democratic unless it permits 100% disclosure of the reasons for which it acts and is never to use subterfuge to defend the vital interests of the country for which it has been given responsibility by the people seems to me to be misconceived. I suspect that the Iraq Liberation Act (November 1998) was drawn up by Congress and signed into law by president Clinton with very much the same interests in mind as president Bush held more recently, although the president in 1998, perhaps distracted by more personal interests, lacked the will of his successor to implement the policy which he was charged to administer and to defend the interests which he had sworn to uphold.
(P.S. Sorry, can’t do emoticons)
Hank– “there was nothing in the US constitution which permitted the action in Iraq.”
Actually, the war in Iraq wasn’t the entirety of the subversion of the US Constitution that I am talking about. Just from what you are saying, it seems that the US is free to make war on whoever it wants and whenever it wants with no reason and I find that troubling.
“If interests are genuinely vital then subterfuge is necessary to protect them if the public has not done its homework on what and what are not such interests and what the concept of viatal interests implies.”
Well, oil is definitely a vital interest. I agree with you on that. What progress could we have made in negating the oil threat, other than through occupation, with the hindreds of billions (trillions?) of dollars being spent to overthrow Saddam? I personally think one sniper round would have done the trick.
“The USA is a republic and is therefore led by representative government, not by the transient emotions of the people.”
Yes, but how has power in the US been capable of accomplishing that very feat? The US Constitution is supposed to limit government power to avoid the effect of transient emotions and the motivation of personal profit. It’s republican (*grimace* not to be confused with the fascist Republican party of the US) nature is to limit power and this is the feature which makes the US a republic and NOT a democracy as most people have been fooled into thinking. In what way has the federal power stucture wiped out limits to it’s own power using its own limited powers to do so? Why was this done? I can’t answer that last question myself, except to say that it is the nature of power to increase itself and enslave its subjects.
“Such subteruge, although regrettable, is the price which must sometimes be paid and of course must be watched carefully.”
Honestly, I think the US public deserves to suffer. It seems to be the only way to get them to stand up, shake off the malaise and take notice that other people exist in the world besides themselves. Regardless, its definitely wrong to make others suffer for our own laziness.
“To try to pretend, however, that government of a republic is not democratic unless it permits 100% disclosure of the reasons for which it acts and is never to use subterfuge to defend the vital interests of the country for which it has been given responsibility by the people seems to me to be misconceived.”
While the restiction of subterfuge is a weakness, it’s the rules of the game. If you can’t play by the rules of the game, your teammates shouldn’t have picked you for captain. Those are my tax dollars being blown and I want ALL the facts so I can make a proper decision. It’s a dangerous game we are playing with government right now and I don’t see the risk as being worth it.
“although the president in 1998, perhaps distracted by more personal interests”
Why does the conservative right keep doing this? It’s been happening for a long time and they are continuously allowed to get away with it. It has left this country far weaker than everyone thinks. I guess the Republicans realize that you can’t make as much money using peaceful means as you can with war. We need to remove the profit motive from our government decision-making process.
“the US is free to make war on whoever it wants and whenever it wants with no reason and I find that troubling.”
It is; that is one of the badges of “sovereignty”. Nobody said the US went to war for no reason and no one suggested, as you imply, that the US government went to war without a sense of responsibility.
“Well, oil is definitely a vital interest.”
The vital interests at stake in that extended Middle East area go well beyond sources of oil.
“the war in Iraq wasn’t the entirety of the subversion of the US Constitution that I am talking about.“
Well one thing at a time, ok?
“It’s republican (*grimace* not to be confused with the fascist Republican party of the US) nature is to limit power and this is the feature which makes the US a republic and NOT a democracy as most people have been fooled into thinking.”
I don’t think calling the republican Party “fascist” is at all helpful. I thought it was you on another thread a short while ago who was compaining about abuse of the word — when used by others of coirse. Study the story of the little boy and the wolf.
The US is a republican form of democracy. The means the people is sovereign but reposes confidence in its representatives’ judgment — for better or worse. (It is also a corrupt republic, but not totally corrupt or indeed largely corrupt and not unrepresentative or corrupt by the standards of most other governments.)
Nobody said you can’t fool all of the people some of the time or some of the people all of the time. Stop blaming the government; soveriegnty is with the people — “It’s a republic — if you can keep it”..
“If you can’t play by the rules of the game, your teammates shouldn’t have picked you for captain. Those are my tax dollars being blown and I want ALL the facts so I can make a proper decision.”
You get taxation with representation. That was what you were moaning about in 1776.
“Why does the conservative right keep doing this?”
Whuh?
By the way, I notice you did not engage on the Iraq Liberation Act…
Clinton launches withering attack on Bush on Iraq, Katrina, budget
Former US president Bill Clinton sharply criticised George W. Bush for the Iraq War and the handling of Hurricane Katrina, and voiced alarm at the swelling US budget deficit.
Breaking with tradition under which US presidents mute criticisms of their successors, Clinton said the Bush administration had decided to invade Iraq “virtually alone and before UN inspections were completed, with no real urgency, no evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction.”
The Iraq war diverted US attention from the war on terrorism “and undermined the support that we might have had,” Bush said in an interview with an ABC’s “This Week” programme.
Clinton said there had been a “heroic but so far unsuccessful” effort to put together an constitution that would be universally supported in Iraq.
The US strategy of trying to develop the Iraqi military and police so that they can cope without US support “I think is the best strategy. The problem is we may not have, in the short run, enough troops to do that,” said Clinton.
On Hurricane Katrina, Clinton faulted the authorities’ failure to evacuate New Orleans ahead of the storm’s strike on August 29.
People with cars were able to heed the evacuation order, but many of those who were poor, disabled or elderly were left behind.
“If we really wanted to do it right, we would have had lots of buses lined up to take them out,” Clinton.
He agreed that some responsibility for this lay with the local and state authorities, but pointed the finger, without naming him, at the former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
FEMA boss Michael Brown quit in response to criticism of his handling of the Katrina disaster. He was viewed as a political appointee with no experience of disaster management or dealing with government officials.
“When James Lee Witt ran FEMA, because he had been both a local official and a federal official, he was always there early, and we always thought about that,” Clinton said, referring to FEMA’s head during his 1993–2001 presidency.
“But both of us came out of environments with a disproportionate number of poor people.”
On the US budget, Clinton warned that the federal deficit may be coming untenable, driven by foreign wars, the post-hurricane recovery programme and tax cuts that benefitted just the richest one percent of the US population, himself included.
“What Americans need to understand is that … every single day of the year, our government goes into the market and borrows money from other countries to finance Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina, and our tax cuts,” he said.
“We have never done this before. Never in the history of our republic have we ever financed a conflict, military conflict, by borrowing money from somewhere else.”
Clinton added: “We depend on Japan, China, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, and Korea primarily to basically loan us money every day of the year to cover my tax cut and these conflicts and Katrina. I don’t think it makes any sense.”
Hank– “no one suggested, as you imply, that the US government went to war without a sense of responsibility.”
One thing everyone should have before going to war… a plan to win. Or at least some definition of winning. Going looting is no good when you haven’t figured out how you’re going to get away with the loot.
“The vital interests at stake in that extended Middle East area go well beyond sources of oil.”
Plutonium and oil are the greatest threats. Oil is being addressed, albeit by drastic measures, and plutonium is not. Other threats are secondary and minimal in comparison.
“Well one thing at a time, ok?”
It IS one thing. It’s all one thing. One thing called greed run amok.
Not if it’s used the way the right-wing conservatives use it in the pejorative. However, I am using it in the scientific manner indicating a desire to merge corporate and government power under an authoritarian regime. In other words, the shoe fits.
“I thought it was you on another thread a short while ago who was compaining about abuse of the word — when used by others of coirse”
You are so used to people like “them”, that you don’t recognize someone like me wander in. I have no problem with people using the word “fascism” as long as they use it properly. Most people don’t understand the concept of fascism and they apply the moniker to any authoritarian state. This is wrong-thinking. It has handicapped the US public from properly understanding the situation they are living under, which is fascism. You can apply other names as well, but I use fascism because I believe that corporate influence over government is worse in this nation than anywhere else.
“Study the story of the little boy and the wolf.”
Has nothing to do with whats happening here. If you don’t recognize the state of the US political system, than you’ve been fooled.
“The US is a republican form of democracy.”
No, it is a democratic republic. This is what you use when you are trying to protect people from those who would concentrate power and wealth into their own hands and use it to enslave the sovereign. The US citizenry is serf to the barony of wealth in the US and “the wealth entity” is using government power for the sole purpose of gaining more wealth.
“The means the people is sovereign but reposes confidence in its representatives’ judgment — for better or worse.”
No, it means that government power is directly limited by the Constitution and those limits have eroded over time. The drift of perception to the left or right has allowed government to take on far more powers than was ever intended. The Sovereign-State-Fed pyramid has been inverted and the sovereign has become the slave.
“It is also a corrupt republic, but not totally corrupt or indeed largely corrupt and not unrepresentative or corrupt by the standards of most other governments.”
Luckily, in the US, we have much higher standards than everywhere else and the Constitutional power can be used to destroy the corruption, weed out the subverters, and restore power to the US sovereign. But it’s not going to happen if people just keep chanting the Republican party mantras. Democrats either. Both sides have the citizenry in a trap. Both parties are conservative now and the Democrats are captulant to the Republican power structure.
“Stop blaming the government; soveriegnty is with the people”
I do blame the people. Of course, they are ultimately at fault. They did not endeavor to educate themselves in a way that they could understand what was happening to them and it is their (our) fault. But if we don’t act now, we could have some major problems on our hands.
“You get taxation with representation. That was what you were moaning about in 1776.”
There was more to it than that my friend. But, money IS a big motivator.
“Whuh?”
I was refering to the active subversion by the conservative right of the presidency while Democrats were in office over the past I don’t know how long.
“By the way, I notice you did not engage on the Iraq Liberation Act”
And I quote, “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq” I think we’ve gone a bit futher than “support efforts” at this point. *laf* ;-)
ILA’s provisions for support of the ousting of Saddam did not carry a provision for invasion and occupation of Iraq, nor the commandeering of oil. I don’t see it’s relevance here. One thing I do see is a much greater capacity for empathy from Clinton than Bush has ever demonstrated.
Michael– “Clinton launches withering attack”
It’s about time he retaliated after all the crap he has been put through.
“On the US budget, Clinton warned that the federal deficit may be coming untenable, driven by foreign wars, the post-hurricane recovery programme and tax cuts that benefitted just the richest one percent of the US population, himself included.”
Why worry about a little thing such as “fiscal responsibility”? Spend all you want, we’ll print more!
This world just needs a good ole fashion World War..aren’t we about due?
Can I be the one to push the little red buttons…? come on…please, can I be the one.
Clinton forgot to mention this…Click Here!
Jeff– “This world just needs a good ole fashion World War..aren’t we about due?”
A good friend of mine says, “The US is headed for a major corrective event.” In other words… run!
“Clinton forgot to mention this…Click Here!”
You sure love the scary propaganda films. You must have loved the “Grouchy videos”. ;-)
BTW… what the heck are you doing spending your time at a place called “republicanfilms.com”? I knew you leaned a little too far to the right to be a Libertarian.
Run hell!! When does the fun begin! ;-)
I have quite the collection…
When it comes to politicians foaming at the mouth with Iraq WMD talk, I have it all…
John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi…all the heavy hitters swearing that Saddam had WMD’s. Of course this is all “Pre-Bush” years. I’m actually making a WMD greatest hits movie now. I’ll make sure that it premiers here first. :-)
A friend of mine sent that to me. I personally like it so I can watch what everyone seems to be forgetting…That Bill Clinton told the World the same exact thing that George Bush told the world when it comes to the topic of Iraq and WMD“s. Pretty much word for word.
Jeff– “I have quite the collection…”
Of this I had no doubt. You must have some pretty cool nightmares. ;-)
“John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi…”
Any Richard Nixon? Ronald Reagan? Jimmy Carter? Those would be cool.
Jeff– “That Bill Clinton told the World the same exact thing that George Bush told the world”
Hey, maybe they were in collusion. Hmmmm… both rich… both white… both rednecks… might be some connection there. ;-)
Well, that’s your opinion ;-)
The first thing that I am is…me. I’m an independent thinker and always will be. That comes first before allowing myself to be labeled to any group. I’m to left in my thinking to be right and I’m to right in my thinking to be left. I’m actually pretty extreme in some areas, both right and left.
But I guess when it comes to democrats and republicans, I have a simple view. I dislike both…but I “really dislike” democrats. ;-)
LOL!! Execellent point!
LOL!!
ummmm.…yes, I do.…
Jeff– “Well, that’s your opinion”
opinion — n: a belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof
I think my opinion is well substantiated, which makes it an “educated opinion”. Huge difference. ;-)
“I’m actually pretty extreme in some areas, both right and left.”
Libertarian — n: someone who believes the doctrine of free will
The word you were looking for to describe yourself isn’t Libertarian… It’s “confused”. I can see how’d you make that mistake trying to make your disparate philosophies mesh. ;-)
Even though the Democrats have a better record of protecting civil liberties? What about Democrats don’t you like? What about Republicans don’t you like? What part of each party’s platform do you like? How much do you know about the philosophy of the Libertarian party? Like I said a couple of weeks ago, thanks for the votes, but you probably haven’t understood the point of the Libertarian party. I think if you put the time into understanding the belief, it will clear up the whole point of why someone is a Libertarian or not. There is logic behind Libertarianism and it stands to make the world a much better place.
Jeff– “ummmm….yes, I do….”
Do you have space to host them on your site? Would love to see them. :-D
No, I’m not confused at all. I very strong views and stick by them. If my views don’t agree with yours aren’t you then denying me of my free will to have them?
Like Waco or Ruby Ridge…? or are you talking about Elian Gonzalez kind of civil liberties…?
Bunch of whining welfare giving idiots. Keep the masses in your pocket by giving them welfare and the promises of more. Thus higher taxes to pay for the lazy. Also, Democrats are hell bent on taking away my 2nd amendment rights. Should I continue?
Big business…screw the little guy’s business. Religious crap interfering with government. Separation of church and state is quite simple, but somehow Republicans seem to forget this simple statement. Should I continue?
I’ll upload a few and let you know so you can download them. I have a ton of video stuff on my server, I need to do some spring cleaning first :-)
Here, I’ll leave you with a pretty funny video clip…I think it’s an insurgent training video clip…hehe..not! ;-)
Click Here!
Jeff– “I very strong views and stick by them. If my views don’t agree with yours aren’t you then denying me of my free will to have them?”
I would kill or die to defend your rights, but that still doesn’t make you a Libertarian, no matter how strongly you believe them. ;-)
“Like Waco or Ruby Ridge…? or are you talking about Elian Gonzalez kind of civil liberties…?”
I didn’t say “good” record, I said better. ;-) As in, disappearing people, sneek and peek searches and so on and so on. But, the Democrats are just as in on things as the Republicans are, so I’m not excusing them, just questioning your ideology.
“Thus higher taxes to pay for the lazy.”
True dat. But, Clinton was making progress on balancing the budget and he put a 5 year max limit on welfare. Which is why I say they are the conservatives. When you go further right still, then you end up in the realm of fascism, which is where the Republicans are now.
“Also, Democrats are hell bent on taking away my 2nd amendment rights.”
The current administration has violated the Bill of Rights more than any other in my lifetime. You are worried about one right when you have lost many. When are you going to use the second amendment for its intended purpose and go recover the rest of your rights? I am having a vision… I see Jeff… in a van… filled with explosives… following in Tim McVeigh’s footsteps.
“Separation of church and state is quite simple, but somehow Republicans seem to forget this simple statement.”
In fact they have not forgotten this. They are actively ignoring and subverting the separation of church and state and this is a very troubling aspect to their movement. You better keep your second amendment right ready, because it could come in right handy before too long.
“I’ll upload a few and let you know”
Cool… thanks!
“I’ll leave you with a pretty funny video clip”
People never cease to amaze me with the depths of their stupidity. I tremble at the thought of the “MTV2 generation” taking the reigns of power someday. ;-)