|
|
|
|
|
| The United States is once again suppressing information that runs counter to invasion.
Posted: 12/5/2007 8:31:19 AM | . We have way too much on our plate right now with Afghanistan and Iraq; we do NOT need the added complication.
this true we do have alot on our plates that does not mean iran is longer a threat nor does that mean we can now act like the islmo-facist world doesnt exisist and they no longer want to kill by the masses. but i do agree as long as there not a threat right know then no war, war sould always be the abouslute last action | |
|
| |
| The United States is once again suppressing information that runs counter to invasion.
Posted: 12/5/2007 8:44:12 AM | Is it only me that gets the irony of this.
First, the term 'inteligence estimate'.....I won't touch the word inteligence (lol) but what the hell is 'estimate'?????? So if an 'estimate' told you WMD and you believed it, why would you ever support an opinion about another 'estimate' that the world is rosey. They are 'estimates', you don't bet the farm on them, and you wonder why your elderly get their pension money scammed away. | |
|
| The United States is once again suppressing information that runs counter to invasion.
Posted: 12/5/2007 8:49:42 AM |
A declassified summary of the latest National Intelligence Estimate found with "high confidence" that the Islamic republic stopped an effort to develop nuclear weapons in the fall of 2003
iam sure all the left wingers will say we told you say,the same way they said that about north keroa, how did that work out?? they alledged stop also right??? also theres a difference between abonding and halting a process, and nobody knows for sure, atleast nobody on this site!!!!!!!!! For me the bottom line is that for the life of me I don't get all this fuss about another country developing nuclear weapons.
As far as I know (someone correct me if I'm wrong), the US ...
**Is the only country in the world that has ever used a nuclear weapon against another nation ...
**Is the # 1 country in the world known for "Warmongering" and most likely to use a nuclear weapon given that we have a "trigger-happy cowboy" with an "itchy" trigger finger sitting on the button ...
**Is making no effort to halt production of their nuclear weapons ...
**Current leadership has repeatedly lied to the people about grounds for invading other countries and continues to do so (making us all look like the stupidest people on earth) ...
**Is the only country in the world currently invading other countries on false pretenses in order to greedily "harvest" that country's OIL ...
 | |
|
| The United States is once again suppressing information that runs counter to invasion.
Posted: 12/5/2007 9:09:43 AM | Is the only country in the world that has ever used a nuclear weapon against another nation
i guess that germany wouldnt have used them if we did not stop them,i mean there treatment toward the jews show us that there were decent people!!
**Is the # 1 country in the world known for "Warmongering" and most likely to use a nuclear weapon given that we have a "trigger-happy cowboy" with an "itchy" trigger finger sitting on the button
thats your opinion not a fact ,if hes so trigger happy , explain why he has not yet weve been at war for awile now,do you if consider a country like iran as a warmonger, when they stuff like wipe all the jews off the map, is that warmonger? or is that differnt because bush did not say it??
Is the only country in the world currently invading other countries on false pretenses in order to greedily "harvest" that country's OIL
if that is the case can you explain why the evil empire ( that america, but iam sure u know that ) is still paying over 3 dollars a gallon.
Current leadership has repeatedly lied to the people about grounds for invading other countries and continues to do so (making us all look like the stupidest people on earth)
once again thats your opinion not a fact, i dont think u need any body to help you,must be alot of kool-aid were you live,just keep blaming america for everything ,your right no other problems in the world just us, what a joke,and a unoriginal joke at that! | |
|
| The United States is once again suppressing information that runs counter to invasion.
Posted: 12/5/2007 9:40:52 AM | { QUOTE " Iraq was the party responsible for the gas attack, which occurred during the Iran-Iraq War. The war between Iran and Iraq was in its eighth year when, on March 16 and March 17, 1988, Iraq dropped poison gas on the Kurdish city of Halabja, then occupied by many Kurdish civilians (predominantly women and children), Iranian troops, and Iraqi Kurdish peshmerga guerrillas allied with Iran (throughout the war, Iran had supplied and protected the Iraqi Kurdish resistance).[citation needed]
The poison gas attack on the Iraqi town of Halabja, which was defined as an act of genocide by Human Rights Watch, was the largest-scale chemical weapons (CW) attack against a civilian population in modern times. It began early in the evening of March 16, when a group of eight aircraft began dropping chemical bombs, and the chemical bombardment continued all night. The Halabja attack involved multiple chemical agents, including mustard gas, and the nerve agents sarin, tabun and VX. Some sources have also pointed to the blood agent hydrogen cyanide.
A survivor described the attack: "I got some gas in my eyes and had trouble breathing. You always wanted to vomit and when you did, the vomit was green." He said he passed "hundreds" of dead bodies. Those around him died in a number of ways, suggesting a combination of toxic chemicals. Some "just dropped dead" while others "died of laughing." Still others took a few minutes to die, first "burning and blistering" or coughing up green vomit.[1]
[edit] Discovery
The first images after the attack were taken by Iranian journalists who later spread the pictures in Iranian newspapers. Some of those first pictures were taken by Iranian photographer Kaveh Golestan. Recalling the scenes at Halabja, Kaveh described the scene to Guy Dinmore of the Financial Times. He was about eight kilometres outside Halabja with a military helicopter when the Iraqi MiG-23 fighter-bombers flew in. "It was not as big as a nuclear mushroom cloud, but several smaller ones: thick smoke," he said. He was shocked by the scenes on his arrival in the town, though he had seen gas attacks before during the brutal Iran-Iraq war:[2]
It was life frozen. Life had stopped, like watching a film and suddenly it hangs on one frame. It was a new kind of death to me. You went into a room, a kitchen and you saw the body of a woman holding a knife where she had been cutting a carrot. (...) The aftermath was worse. Victims were still being brought in. Some villagers came to our chopper. They had 15 or 16 beautiful children, begging us to take them to hospital. So all the press sat there and we were each handed a child to carry. As we took off, fluid came out of my little girl's mouth and she died in my arms." QUOTE ENDS} From Wikepedia
Yes I do remember stories of Iraq having WMD`s . He used them too. Why we didnt push the UN to expand its mandate back in 1991 , and finish Saddam then is beyond me.
Iran? They dont seem to be a magor threat right now, but do support Terrorism . They should be watched and monitored very closely, mind you I think the Saudis are just as dangerous . | |
|
| The United States is once again suppressing information that runs counter to invasion.
Posted: 12/5/2007 11:47:47 AM |
Cheney's desire for a "clean" NIE that could be used to support his aggressive policy toward Iran was apparently a major factor in the replacement of John Negroponte as director of national intelligence in early 2007.
Partisan bullshit again. But...
The NIE coordinates the judgments of 16 intelligence agencies on a specific country or issue.
Negroponte quit because he couldnt get all 16 of those agencies on the same page...the same 16 that seems to lend clout to this report. Hell, they cant even agree among themselves, so where is the unanimous concensus in this report??
Concensus is standard protocol in virtually every other aspect of research - just ask the peer-review crowd. why then is it NOT the same here??
Since the NIE was 0 for 1, I would have delayed it too.
Negroponte’s office declined comment on why the director would cut short his service and move to a lower-ranking position. But people close to the director, who spent 37 years as a foreign service officer, said they believe he was not happy trying to better integrate sometimes-rivalrous organizations in a specialty outside his own.
He was probably the wrong man for the job, as usual. He basically was a career ambassador. | |
|
| The United States is once again suppressing information that runs counter to invasion.
Posted: 12/5/2007 12:59:13 PM | Pressure will remain on Iran. They (Iran) are using the new assessment as the defeatists in this part of the world are using it to weaken our resolve and awareness of Iran. As usual, the cowards want us to look the other way. To walk around with our hands up in the air as they do reveal themselves in threads after threads while brave ones secures their freedom to whine like hysterical women. Thank God they are in forums and not in government. Here's today's latest reaction of the new assessment from one of the Mainstream Media, the New York Times. The defeatists continue to ignore other nations opposition to Iran. They only express enmity with Americans. They (defeatists/liberals) hate the loud and opinionated defeatists Americans as well, not just the normal Americans. The beginning of this thread as usual, shows this person looses sleep and peace due to his hatred of Americans, whether they are leftist and defeatist as he is or not. He fails to attack in all his threads, particularly this one of the French, British and others supporting America and America's leadership in the world. Perhaps he is Hugo Chavez incognito, he seems to have many personalities in this site.
Monitoring Agency Praises U.S. Report, but Keeps Wary Eye on Iran
By ELAINE SCIOLINO
Published: December 5, 2007
“To be frank, we are more skeptical,” a senior official close to the agency said. “We don’t buy the American analysis 100 percent. We are not that generous with Iran.”
The official called the American assertion that Iran had “halted” its weapons program in 2003 “somewhat surprising.”
That the nuclear watchdog agency based in Vienna is sounding a somewhat tougher line than the Bush administration is surprising, given that the administration has long criticized it for not pressuring Iran hard enough to curb its nuclear program.
But the American finding has so unsettled governments, agencies and officials dealing with Iran that it has suddenly upended commonly held assumptions.
There is relief, as one senior French official put it, that “the war option is off the table.” There is also criticism and even anger in some quarters that the American intelligence assessment may be too soft on Iran.
Israel, for example, on Tuesday took a darker view of Iran’s nuclear ambitions than the American assessment, saying that it is convinced that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons and that it has probably resumed the weapons program the Americans said was stopped in autumn 2003.
The British government said the international community should maintain pressure on Iran over its uranium enrichment efforts. “It confirms we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons,” a spokesman for Prime Minister Gordon Brown told reporters. He said the American assessment had also shown that past international pressure on Iran had succeeded “in that they seem to have abandoned the weaponization element.” | |
|
| The United States is once again suppressing information that runs counter to invasion.
Posted: 12/5/2007 1:37:56 PM | I do not know if what I say belongs here.
What are we not being told? It not what the media is saying or the Gov'ts are telling us.
This goes for every nation.
Remember the first Gulf War. The media was so hyped on The US ans showing beach landings. Everyone thinking this is how the land war would start. Then bang way over on the other side the invasion moved ahead.
Remeber the rescue of Jessica. The US army was being held up because, The supplies were not keeping up with the invasion. Then you hear about her being resuced.
So this estimate has came out. What really are they holding back on? | |
|
| The United States is once again suppressing information that runs counter to invasion.
Posted: 12/5/2007 1:38:53 PM |
Is the only country in the world that has ever used a nuclear weapon against another nation i guess that germany wouldnt have used them if we did not stop them
when they stuff like wipe all the jews off the map, is that warmonger? It would be if it were true ... but most of us in here already know that statement has been proven "mistranslated" a number of times on any number of threads in here. It's OLD NEWS. MEMRI did a bang up job on that ... didn't they? Like most Neocon Rhetoric, I'm sure if it gets repeated often enough, some will do their best to perpetuate it, and then there will be folks gullible enough to believe it.
Is the only country in the world currently invading other countries on false pretenses in order to greedily "harvest" that country's OIL if that is the case can you explain why the evil empire is still paying over 3 dollars a gallon.
Current leadership has repeatedly lied to the people about grounds for invading other countries and continues to do so (making us all look like the stupidest people on earth) once again thats your opinion not a fact,
The Stupidest People On Earth
http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2007/09/the_stupidest_p.html
... Government has separated itself from us. It has abandoned the people and now seeks only to exert unlimited control over us, and to do with us as it will. Just as it can dismiss the law, it has dismissed the notion of the people being of consequence. This country has become their own property to do with as they choose, and we seem only to be standing in their way, along with our rights and the laws we once had that protected us.
Does anyone really believe that we willingly gave it all away believing it would make us safe? The painful truth of it is, that's exactly what we did. It could not be any more clear. Americans are the stupidest people on earth.
Becoming the Stupidest Country on Earth
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2006/02/becoming-stupidest-country-on-earth.html
I would greatly prefer to be able to ignore the following kind of story entirely. Unfortunately, as the article notes, "millions of Americans find evolution preposterous. Polls consistently show that roughly half of Americans believe the biblical account instead." There is no way to phrase this politely, so I won't even try: I continue to find it absolutely astonishing that in the midst of life in America today -- a life made infinitely better than in the past by medical advances, by technological miracles, and by countless improvements of all kinds, all of which are the result of applied science, which means the application of reason, facts and logic to every aspect of our lives -- so many Americans are determined to remain pigheadedly ignorant.
George Bush, stupidest man on Earth
http://bravesbeat.com/bravesjournal/warliberal/2006/08/george-bush-stupidest-man-on-earth.html
The Raw Story | Ambassador claims shortly before invasion, Bush didn't know there were two sects of Islam
This can't be real, can it? This sounds like a joke. Seriously, I think they did it on The Daily Show:
Galbraith reports that the three of them spent some time explaining to Bush that there are two different sects in Islam--to which the President allegedly responded, “I thought the Iraqis were Muslims!”
OT ...
Oh Dear ... let the "DUMBING" of America continue ...  | |
|
| The United States is once again suppressing information that runs counter to invasion.
Posted: 12/5/2007 2:44:11 PM |
Believe me, if Bush even "thinks" about getting into a war with Iran he will be personally hung from the nearest tree by an overwhelming majority of the American public.
If only that were the case , but somehow I doubt anyone could do anything thing about it. It's gone too far already,Impeachment is the only option. | |
|
| The United States is once again suppressing information that runs counter to invasion.
Posted: 12/5/2007 3:19:19 PM | i guess that germany wouldnt have used them if we did not stop them
Oh, oh, I know, I know the answer!!!
Red herring, one of the reddest of red herrings ever to grace the forums.
WTF! The US did not end up at war with Germany because they were or even might have nuclear weapons.
But hey, why let rationality and facts get in the way of a good red herring.
if that is the case can you explain why the evil empire is still paying over 3 dollars a gallon.
Oh, oh, I know, I know the answer!!!!
Another red herring.
It doesn't have anything to do with YOUR wallet. It is about strategic reserves and the wallets of the top 10 %. | |
|
| The United States is once again suppressing information that runs counter to invasion.
Posted: 12/5/2007 3:23:29 PM | Apparently some people on here have forgotten how many lives were probably SAVED by dropping the two bombs on Japan- how many more soldiers would have died had we needed to invade Japan??? Even after the two bombs, Japan hesitantly surrendered- this was something that was not taken lightly by the Japanese.
As for invading Iraq- I guess we need to wait to be attacked before we protect ourselves???? Logical thinking there, but then again look at who and what we are responding to.Yeah- impeach him, for protecting the country. The only thing more dangerous than a terrorist is the liberals and appeasers who protect and aid them! | |
|
| The United States is once again suppressing information that runs counter to invasion.
Posted: 12/5/2007 3:28:57 PM |
As for invading Iraq- I guess we need to wait to be attacked before we protect ourselves????
How in the Sam Hill was Iraq going to attack the US?
After 10 years of sanctions, they could barely feed themselves and you think it was about protecting the US from an Iraqi attack???
Dude, anyone making such a statement is the last person who should be questioning someone else's logic. | |
|
| The United States is once again suppressing information that runs counter to invasion.
Posted: 12/5/2007 3:33:46 PM |
As for invading Iraq- I guess we need to wait to be attacked before we protect ourselves???? Logical thinking there, but then again look at who and what we are responding to.Yeah- impeach him, for protecting the country. The only thing more dangerous than a terrorist is the liberals and appeasers who protect and aid them!
Oh my goodness.
Oh dear.
Do you know who supplied Iraq with the original weapons that may have had the possibility of causing damage? Cast your mind back to the great partnership of Ronnie and Maggie... Yep, twas them
The only thing that should have been done so long ago was to get Saddam out of power, if you speak to any Kurdish refugees (as i have quite a few times) they will tell you of the horrific things done by the order of Saddam to their families, friends, neighbours.
BUT this, as most sensible people know, isnt and will never be about protecting ourselves or saving lives. Iran and Iraq are situated where? In just about the most oil rich place in the world.
Deary me | |
|
| The United States is once again suppressing information that runs counter to invasion.
Posted: 12/5/2007 3:49:47 PM | Remember when Iraq had WMDs?
Yes I do remember I was in High school.
People seem to foget one simple thing, there were WMD's but know there isn't why is that bad that there isn't any.
If there were WMD's don't you think they would have used them on the troops and on America.
So I'm glad that there were no WMD's.
How many people are going to get fooled this time?
I will be fooled this time just like last time.
Iran is a problem, there don't like a lot of people including America, if someone doesn't like you should they be allowed to make WMD's
to use on everyone they hate ?????
Marry Christmas. | |
|
| The United States is once again suppressing information that runs counter to invasion.
Posted: 12/5/2007 3:53:34 PM | | Uhh, excuse me, Skippy, but don't count the U.S. people out just yet! Believe me, a majority of us are good and pissed off. We do see that our government - NOT JUST BUSH - but our ENTIRE government is the most ineffective that we've had in 40 years. We DO see the attempts at turning the North American continent into a mirror-image of the EU. I guarantee that the American public will not stand for it. You think that we're riled about illegal immigration? Wait till they try to soft peddle that one. It sounds to me as if you've bought in to all the uber-liberal, anti-American vitriol that's been spewed out and is so in fashion with the rest of the world. We're not gullible, we're not naive and I do believe that through our voting system, changes will be made for the better. | |
|
edisto
|
Joined: 9/11/2007
Msg: 68 | |
| The United States is once again suppressing information that runs counter to invasion.
Posted: 12/5/2007 7:34:29 PM |
Yeah- impeach him, for protecting the country
protecting the country??? iraq had no WMDs, remember? bin laden has never been "found", and it came out yesterday bush didn't even know about the NIE findings on iran (4 year old news) ...but what do you expect from a prez who sits for 7 minutes with a deer in the headlights stare after he hears our once great country was attacked - twice!!! 7 minutes we were without a leader after the worse attack on american soil took place, and his explanation of i didn't want to frighten the children is in itself insane, when he was needed most, our commander and chief was scared shitless!!!
The only thing more dangerous than a terrorist is the liberals and appeasers who protect and aid them!
you're saying that liberals are more dangerous than terrorists???
UNBELIEVABLE...................................................................................................... | |
|
| The United States is once again suppressing information that runs counter to invasion.
Posted: 12/5/2007 7:40:01 PM | Apparently some people on here have forgotten how many lives were probably SAVED by dropping the two bombs on Japan- how many more soldiers would have died had we needed to invade Japan??? Even after the two bombs, Japan hesitantly surrendered- this was something that was not taken lightly by the Japanese.
Why do people always seem to forget the the 220,000 people that were obliterated when the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ? And try not to forget that strangely the only ships left in pearl harbor were the old basically useless ships that were ready for salvage,why would that be? Same as this war.... Shock and Awe and much fore warning on 911. In the case of the towers beeing hit by terrorists the evidence is so rediclulously overwhelming against it that I'm ashamed to be living on the same continent with people who still believe a bunch of sand farmers with box cutters could over throw a commercial airliner , It's just too funny.
This in from msnbc , man is Bush coming across as a real moron lately or what ? He's starting to sound really desperate!
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/69617/ | |
|
| |
| The United States is once again suppressing information that runs counter to invasion.
Posted: 12/6/2007 4:08:33 AM | | I think the three posts before this one prove the lunacy of the left............One who denies the WTC was hit by terrorists- I guess the attack in 1993 was done by someone else too???? One who talks about our "commander and chief"- real bright person there. The third thinks its best to wait to be attacked before you do something about it- again very casual about the safety of a country he DOESNT even live in. Thanks, but we will handle our own security. | |
|
| The United States is once again suppressing information that runs counter to invasion.
Posted: 12/6/2007 5:20:07 AM |
I think the three posts before this one prove the lunacy of the left............One who denies the WTC was hit by terrorists- I guess the attack in 1993 was done by someone else too???? One who talks about our "commander and chief"- real bright person there. The third thinks its best to wait to be attacked before you do something about it- again very casual about the safety of a country he DOESNT even live in. Thanks, but we will handle our own security.
Way to actually talk about the subject instead of the poster Phil. | |
|
| The United States is once again suppressing information that runs counter to invasion.
Posted: 12/6/2007 6:01:35 AM |  I really need to answer all this Monday-morning quarterbacking/20-20 hindsight/backseat driving nonsense about American use of the Bomb in WW2.
The critics that speak of how "evil" the US was for using atomic weapons should be thankful they're not speaking German or Japanese right now. And that's not just sarcasm, hyperbole, or empty rhetoric, but a very possible alternative reality. In case you're not aware, Germany and Japan also embarked on their own mission to build a bomb during the war, and the allies had no concrete idea just how far along their programs were until the war ended.
I also suppose that, using the critics' logic, China is even "more" evil, since they were the ones that invented gunpowder, and as everyone knows that lead to weapons that have killed many more millions than Hiroshima and Nagasaki ever did.
I would also ask just how you would react if you were an American mother/father/sibling that had a loved one killed in the invasion of Japan (casualities were projected to be in the millions, soldiers and Japanese civilians alike), then found out later Truman could have used the bomb to end the war sooner? Can you even "imagine" the anger of the American public at the time??? Truman would have been hung in effigy (literally)!!  | |
|
| The United States is once again suppressing information that runs counter to invasion.
Posted: 12/6/2007 9:50:58 AM | I had posted this speech in another thread, but I believe that his words would
also be appropriate here. It's a long read but well worth the time spent. I highly recommend that all the apologists for Bush and Cheney read it carefully.
____________________________________________________________
By Daniel Ellsberg September 26, 2007 (Text of a speech delivered September 20, 2007)
*Daniel Ellsberg is author of Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers.
Editor's Note: Daniel Ellsberg, the former Defense Department analyst who leaked the secret Pentagon Papers history of the Vietnam War, offered insights into the looming war with Iran and the loss of liberty in the United States at an American University symposium on Sept. 20.
I think nothing has higher priority than averting an attack on Iran, which I think will be accompanied by a further change in our way of governing here that in effect will convert us into what I would call a police state.
If there's another 9/11 under this regime ... it means that they switch on full extent all the apparatus of a police state that has been patiently constructed, largely secretly at first but eventually leaked out and known and accepted by the Democratic people in Congress, by the Republicans and so forth.
Will there be anything left for NSA to increase its surveillance of us? ... They may be to the limit of their technical capability now, or they may not. But if they're not now they will be after another 9/11.
And I would say after the Iranian retaliation to an American attack on Iran, you will then see an increased attack on Iran - an escalation - which will be also accompanied by a total suppression of dissent in this country, including detention camps.
It's a little hard for me to distinguish the two contingencies; they could come together. Another 9/11 or an Iranian attack in which Iran's reaction against Israel, against our shipping, against our troops in Iraq above all, possibly in this country, will justify the full panoply of measures that have been prepared now, legitimized, and to some extent written into law. ...
This is an unusual gang, even for Republicans. [But] I think that the successors to this regime are not likely to roll back the assault on the Constitution. They will take advantage of it, they will exploit it.
Will Hillary Clinton as president decide to turn off NSA after the last five years of illegal surveillance? Will she deprive her administration her ability to protect United States citizens from possible terrorism by blinding herself and deafening herself to all that NSA can provide? I don't think so.
Unless this somehow, by a change in our political climate, of a radical change, unless this gets rolled back in the next year or two before a new administration comes in - and there's no move to do this at this point - unless that happens I don't see it happening under the next administration, whether Republican or Democratic.
THE NEXT COUP
Let me simplify this and not just to be rhetorical: A coup has occurred. I woke up the other day realizing, coming out of sleep, that a coup has occurred. It's not just a question that a coup lies ahead with the next 9/11. That's the next coup, that completes the first.
The last five years have seen a steady assault on every fundamental of our Constitution, ... what the rest of the world looked at for the last 200 years as a model and experiment to the rest of the world - in checks and balances, limited government, Bill of Rights, individual rights protected from majority infringement by the Congress, an independent judiciary, the possibility of impeachment.
There have been violations of these principles by many presidents before. Most of the specific things that Bush has done in the way of illegal surveillance and other matters were done under my boss Lyndon Johnson in the Vietnam War: the use of CIA, FBI, NSA against Americans.
I could go through a list going back before this century to Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus in the Civil War, and before that the Alien and Sedition Acts in the 18th century. I think that none of those presidents were in fact what I would call quite precisely the current administration: domestic enemies of the Constitution.
I think that none of these presidents with all their violations, which were impeachable had they been found out at the time and in nearly every case their violations were not found out until they were out of office so we didn't have the exact challenge that we have today.
That was true with the first term of Nixon and certainly of Johnson, Kennedy and others. They were impeachable, they weren't found out in time, but I think it was not their intention to in the crisis situations that they felt justified their actions, to change our form of government.
It is increasingly clear with each new book and each new leak that comes out, that Richard Cheney and his now chief of staff David Addington have had precisely that in mind since at least the early 70s. Not just since 1992, not since 2001, but have believed in Executive government, single-branch government under an Executive president - elected or not - with unrestrained powers. They did not believe in restraint.
When I say this I'm not saying they are traitors. I don't think they have in mind allegiance to some foreign power or have a desire to help a foreign power. I believe they have in their own minds a love of this country and what they think is best for this country - but what they think is best is directly and consciously at odds with what the Founders of this country and Constitution thought.
They believe we need a different kind of government now, an Executive government essentially, rule by decree, which is what we're getting with signing statements. Signing statements are talked about as line-item vetoes which is one [way] of describing them which are unconstitutional in themselves, but in other ways are just saying the president says "I decide what I enforce. I decide what the law is. I legislate."
It's [the same] with the military commissions, courts that are under the entire control of the Executive Branch, essentially of the president. A concentration of legislative, judicial, and executive powers in one branch, which is precisely what the Founders meant to avert, and tried to avert and did avert to the best of their ability in the Constitution.
FOUNDERS HAD IT RIGHT
Now I'm appealing to that as a crisis right now not just because it is a break in tradition but because I believe in my heart and from my experience that on this point the Founders had it right.
It's not just "our way of doing things" - it was a crucial perception on the corruption of power to anybody including Americans. On procedures and institutions that might possibly keep that power under control because the alternative was what we have just seen, wars like Vietnam, wars like Iraq, wars like the one coming.
That brings me to the second point. This Executive Branch, under specifically Bush and Cheney, despite opposition from most of the rest of the branch, even of the cabinet, clearly intends a war against Iran which even by imperialist standards, standards in other words which were accepted not only by nearly everyone in the Executive Branch but most of the leaders in Congress. The interests of the empire, the need for hegemony, our right to control and our need to control the oil of the Middle East and many other places. That is consensual in our establishment. ...
But even by those standards, an attack on Iran is insane. And I say that quietly, I don't mean it to be heard as rhetoric. Of course it's not only aggression and a violation of international law, a supreme international crime, but it is by imperial standards, insane in terms of the consequences.
Does that make it impossible? No, it obviously doesn't, it doesn't even make it unlikely.
That is because two things come together that with the acceptance for various reasons of the Congress - Democrats and Republicans - and the public and the media, we have freed the White House - the president and the vice president - from virtually any restraint by Congress, courts, media, public, whatever.
And on the other hand, the people who have this unrestrained power are crazy. Not entirely, but they have crazy beliefs.
And the question is what then, what can we do about this? We are heading towards an insane operation. It is not certain. It is likely. ... I want to try to be realistic myself here, to encourage us to do what we must do, what is needed to be done with the full recognition of the reality. Nothing is impossible.
What I'm talking about in the way of a police state, in the way of an attack on Iran is not certain. Nothing is certain, actually. However, I think it is probable, more likely than not, that in the next 15, 16 months of this administration we will see an attack on Iran. Probably. Whatever we do.
And ... we will not succeed in moving Congress probably, and Congress probably will not stop the president from doing this. And that's where we're heading. That's a very ugly, ugly prospect.
However, I think it's up to us to work to increase that small perhaps - anyway not large - possibility and probability to avert this within the next 15 months, aside from the effort that we have to make for the rest of our lives.
RESTORING THE REPUBLIC
Getting back the constitutional government and improving it will take a long time. And I think if we don't get started now, it won't be started under the next administration.
Getting out of Iraq will take a long time. Averting Iran and averting a further coup in the face of a 9/11, another attack, is for right now, it can't be put off. It will take a kind of political and moral courage of which we have seen very little...
We have a really unusual concentration here and in this audience, of people who have in fact changed their lives, changed their position, lost their friends to a large extent, risked and experienced being called terrible names, "traitor," "weak on terrorism" - names that politicians will do anything to avoid being called.
How do we get more people in the government and in the public at large to change their lives now in a crisis in a critical way? How do we get Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid for example? What kinds of pressures, what kinds of influences can be brought to bear to get Congress to do their jobs? It isn't just doing their jobs. Getting them to obey their oaths of office.
I took an oath many times, an oath of office as a Marine lieutenant, as an official in the Defense Department, as an official in the State Department as a Foreign Service officer. A number of times I took an oath of office which is the same oath office taken by every member of Congress and every official in the United States and every officer in the United States armed services.
And that oath is not to a Commander in Chief, which is not mentioned. It is not to a fuehrer. It is not even to superior officers. The oath is precisely to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States.
Now that is an oath I violated every day for years in the Defense Department without realizing it when I kept my mouth shut when I knew the public was being lied into a war as they were lied into Iraq, as they are being lied into war in Iran.
I knew that I had the documents that proved it, and I did not put it out then. I was not obeying my oath which I eventually came to do.
I've often said that Lt. Ehren Watada - who still faces trial for refusing to obey orders to deploy to Iraq which he correctly perceives to be an unconstitutional and aggressive war - is the single officer in the United States armed services who is taking seriously in upholding his oath.
The president is clearly violating that oath, of course. Everybody under him who understands what is going on and there are myriad, are violating their oaths. And that's the standard that I think we should be asking of people.
CONGRESSIONAL COURAGE
On the Democratic side, on the political side, I think we should be demanding of our Democratic leaders in the House and Senate - and frankly of the Republicans - that it is not their highest single absolute priority to be reelected or to maintain a Democratic majority so that Pelosi can still be Speaker of the House and Reid can be in the Senate, or to increase that majority.
I'm not going to say that for politicians they should ignore that, or that they should do something else entirely, or that they should not worry about that.
Of course that will be and should be a major concern of theirs, but they're acting like it's their sole concern. Which is business as usual. "We have a majority, let's not lose it, let's keep it. Let's keep those chairmanships." Exactly what have those chairmanships done for us to save the Constitution in the last couple of years?
I am shocked by the Republicans today that I read in the Washington Post who yesterday threatened a filibuster if we ... get back habeas corpus. The ruling-out of habeas corpus with the help of the Democrats did not get us back to George the First -- it got us back to before King John 700 years ago in terms of counter-revolution.
We need some way, and Ann Wright has one way, of sitting in, in Conyers office and getting arrested. Ray McGovern has been getting arrested, pushed out the other day for saying the simple words "swear him in" when it came to testimony.
I think we've got to somehow get home to them [in Congress] that this is the time for them to uphold the oath, to preserve the Constitution, which is worth struggling for in part because it's only with the power that the Constitution gives Congress responding to the public, only with that can we protect the world from mad men in power in the White House who intend an attack on Iran.
And the current generation of American generals and others who realize that this will be a catastrophe have not shown themselves - they might be people who in their past lives risked their bodies and their lives in Vietnam or elsewhere, like [Colin] Powell, and would not risk their career or their relation with the president to the slightest degree.
That has to change. And it's the example of people like those up here who somehow brought home to our representatives that they as humans and as citizens have the power to do likewise and find in themselves the courage to protect this country and protect the world. Thank you. | |
|
| The United States is once again suppressing information that runs counter to invasion.
Posted: 12/6/2007 10:00:39 AM | It's interesting that many people here seem unable to debate the actual topic, so they resort to logical fallacies like Ad Hominem attacks ("the lunacy of the left") and Red Herrings (WWII, Japan, Germany, etc ad nauseum).
Here's a theory. Maybe the intelligence community didn't want to get blamed again, like they were for the "failure" to find the original justification for the invasion of Iraq (WMD), so they produced an NIE that is as unequivocal as possible. Now it's impossible for Bush/Cheney to invade Iran claiming to stop a covert nuclear weapons program, and then blame the intelligence community (again) when/if no such program is found. | |
|
|
| Page 3 of 6
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
|
Home
login 
