Will Democrats continue to ignore the Bush war crimes committed during post 9/11 interrogations? Will Republicans continue to say that waterboarding is not torture?
The "torture memos" were released in 2009 by the Obama administration. These memos attempt to define torture as legal and necessary. In essence, they attempt to redefine the law to suit the Bush administration's purposes. George W. Bush has repeatedly said that torture is legal and that he had every right to allow these "enhanced interrogation techniques".
All the while, Philip Zelikow was publicly stating that he had circulated a memo in 2006 stating that the Bush administration techniques "should be considered 'cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment' within the meaning of Artical 16".
Zelikow was the executive director of the 9/11 Commission and was counselor to Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. He always opposed the torture memos and made his opposition clear to the administration.
In typical Republican deceptive style, the administration attempted to collect and destroy all copies of the Zelikow memo. Why? Because it proved that George W. Bush, Condi Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and other top officials knew that what they were doing was illegal and in violation of the Geneva Conventions. They were committing a war crime.
Rachel Maddow reminds viewers how far right the Republican party has moved. John McCain won his party's nomination and is clearly against torture of any kind while his opponents refuse to agree. Current GOP contenders, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, have both sided with the Bush administration on torture. Santorum even went so far as to say that Senator McCain, who was a tortured prisoner of war, "doesn't know how effective waterboarding...can be".
The Obama administration refused to prosecute Bush administration officials. In light of this new evidence, will they change their mind? Will flip-flopper extraordinaire, Mitt Romney, flip positions again and decide torture is evil so that he can criticize Obama for not taking the same stance?
After looking at Republicans covering evidence of felony Bush war crimes, reading the Geneva Convention of 1949, reading the torture memos, and reading Zelikow's 2006 memo—how could you even consider voting for a Republican?
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 162
The moment he joined al-Qaeda, he gave up his U.S. citizenship.
No, if you take a few moments and brush up on recent history, you would find that US Military forces forces captured Saddam Hussein, turned him over to the Iraqi interim government who convicted him and sentenced him to death by hanging for his involvement in the killing of 148 Iraqi Shiites in 1982.
"The moment he joined al-Qaeda, he gave up his U.S. citizenship."
More fiction. Anwar al-Awlaki never renounced his US Citizenship. There is no statute that disqualifies your citizenship based upon membership in an organization, no matter how abhorrent you may find them. As a US Citizen he was entitled to due process of law which is covered in the 6th Amendment. His son, also a US citizen born in Denver, was taken out the same way.
Seems like the progressives understanding of hypocrisy is on par with their understanding of the US Constitution and US law. You can't have it both ways Lora.
He's captured and put on "trial" for something that happened in 1982.
If Sadam can be put on trial 20 years later, Bush can certainly be arrested today.
One more thing...how many Gassed Kurds in a "false pretense?"
Way off...way, way off...
Yes, he was a bad person. Do you think they'd pick a Good Person for this precedent? Then they wouldn't have you to cheerlead for the murder of American citizens by government fiat.
Bush was awful. He won twice. Do you think this savage gutting of the Constitution, this horrible weapon, will never be in the hands of an administration you abhor? Can you tell me of one weapon in the history of the world that was never used?
But never on YOU. Why? There's laws? Not anymore, and that's on Obama.
Who will never prosecute Bush for war crimes, because he'd be next on the docket.
He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
Thomas Paine
US patriot & political philosopher (1737 - 1809)
No he did not Lora,
And if the U.S. government had not stripped him of his U.S. citizenship for his terrorist activities then they killed a citizen without trial or conviction.
We should all worry about that.
We should all worry about that.
The only people that need to worry are those who join extremist groups, carry guns and carry out crimes against the U.S. government. This guy was not a U.S. citizen. No U.S. citizen would do those things!
What a naive or stupid position to take, Mark-John.
Congress was voting based on the information given to them by the current administration. That would be George W. Bush and his minions.
We are Americans because we fight for our freedoms and we care about our rights. We don't just had over our principles because we are being bullied to do so.
Once you're down there, it's a hard climb to get back up again.
I don't know about that, Deidre.
Darth Vader was a good guy once too. When he crossed over, there was no going back. :)
Was that the right thing to do for our country at the tiime, we will never know. It would be my opinion, that President Obama was letting Pres. Bush and Vice Pres. Cheney off the hook as a means by which to heal deep wounds and ideological division created by the Bush administrations rush to war. However, if my assumption is correct, President Obama has failed miserably with his extended hand of kindness appraoch to working amicably with the Republican leadership.
The fact being, that instead of being greatful for the pass on crimes committed while in office and his extended hand of friendship, Republican politicians saw Pres. Obama's jesters as a demonstration of weakness and immediately went on the attack. That attack has continued and in fact, has increased throughout Pres. Obama's three years thus far in office.
The division of common ground within America's political minded society has widened. The voiced distain for another person's point of view on political issues has become far less than civil. Public discourse has become a virtual daily shoutfest of vitriolic madness, both here on Gather News and throughout all internet political debating sites. Political pundits and talk show entertainers have taken up the charge and as such, have become as manically distasteful in their daily frothing rhetoric as one can possibly be and still be within the law, albeit, far from remaining within the normal ethical and/or moral bounds of a sane society.
We will need more than "God Bless America" if this downward spiral within the morality in politics continues.
If the Republicans continue their assault on Obama after November, you will be right in your assessment.
Why would the Republicans continue to assault and blame an ex-president??....That's a Democrat thing.......
That's called COMMUNISM. Look it up.
Deidre Kent Apr 7, 2012, 3:43am EDT
Look les fossum I don't care what my government wants to do with regards to reining in terrorist asswipes. I am perfectly happy with having my civil rights violated in the pursuit of my government hunting down and eliminating asswipe terrorists and I feel very sure every other red-blooded American feels the same as me. So get real. You are talking crap. The Bush policies are still in effect and being followed by Obama so what is your point?
What you describe here is communism. A willingness to give up your rights for the Government to take care of you.
Others have called Obama a communist. I was making the analogy that if you felt safe under Bush, he must govern like a communist.
You got that right, the 1% centers run this country and tell Congress what laws to pass and what proposed bills to reject. Been that way since Baby Bush took office.
I would like to know one time or more in recent history where aggressive torture techniques prevented something big in the way of terrorism. There was a reason for the old "You can catch more flies with honey" saying. Look at what U.S. military are taught to say when under duress of torture.
It is you who is not seeing things clearly, it is not Jeanne Clark, nor any of the others here on Gather News who have tried to make you understand that barbarism is barbarism, no matter who committes it. I say this, inasmuch as it would appear that you dismiss the fact that others besides you have also lost a relative, love one, friend, neighbor, associate and/or aquaintence in a barbaric manner as a result of, or during, a foreign war.
If you were my age, you would be more familia with the reality that there are few Americans alive today who have not lost someone they knew or loved in an inhuman manner due to such wars.
In opposition to your sentiments, I would ask the following; Would you have Americans employ gas chambers and/or death squads, simply because the evilness of the Hitler madmen did so all over Europe. Would you have Americans rape and murder women, children and the elderly simply because manical Japanese soliders did so in China. Would you have Americans murder millions of it's own people as did the Pol Pot regime did in Canbodia.
I have only listed a few senarios perpertrated in modern times by madmen and/or those who have no respect for human life. Believe me, there are dozens of more acts of pure evil, barbarism and savagery which has been committed throughout history. However, to list more would only be adding to the list of atrocities inflicted on humans which I have already noted and would serve no additional purpose.
I say all these things in hopes that you may see the error of your self made hell in which you are living with your assessment of a tooth for a tooth in the manner which one's evil has been visited upon you or yours.
True evil, which is what barbarism is, is not the American nor the civilized way to deal with such inhuman savagery. To do so only lowers one's self to the depths in which such evil is born, feeds and thereby exist. We as a civilized people will always be plagued with evil people as has been the case throughout history. However, as a civilized people we will always rise above such evil,not decend into it, in order that civility among the human race will remain the way of life.
Obama becomes the first U.S. President to hold press conference without any American Flags present
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981247553
Your two cents worth concerning our President has been heard, now please have some thoughts of your own. You know, the kind that you actually conceived yourself rather than those time worn repeated radio show entertainer's talking points.
As to the so-called "Bush Card" being used exessively by President Obama, well like it or not, facts are facts and claiming that such facts have no bearing on the present day problems and issues is nothing less than excusing the guilty party by attempting to pass the buck to his successor. It ain't gonna happen, President Bush royally screwed up this country and President Obama had nothing to do with it, but you claim he must take the blame, yeh right.
What you are trying to make us believe is, that Bush as the country's pitcher allowed 10 home runs in the first through the eight innings, but according to you, that has nothing to do with the score being 10 to nothing in the bottom of the nineth inning. Yeh, right again and I say, watch your step in the Bull Pen, there's piles of something smelly all over the place.
and she supported getting the intelligence to do that but doing so
legally.
In the 1st Bush term, 2001-2005, responsibility for
interrogation legality was not her responsibility and not her place to call the
shots. Her job was security and she pointed out, correctly, that we needed good
intelligence to be secure. It was the CIA that was so clueless and floundering,
whose cupboard was bare apart from the water-boarding kit. So no-one should dare
to try to push that onto Condi. It was not her responsibility. It was not her
"baby".
In the Bush 2nd term, when Condi had responsibility and power for
obligations under international treaty against torture, she supported, as best
she could, given that at the time a lot of this was secret, the championing of
an alternative legal viewpoint as regards enhanced interrogation techniques,
advanced within the Bush adminstration by her Counsellor at the state department,
Philip Zelikow.
So I'm not defending waterboarding or torture but I am
defending the American team as a whole and Condi's place in it as a team player,
even though yes maybe some members of the team did do wrong. If some did break
the law, if they sinned, Condi didn't in my opinion. She got on with her job to
defend the American people the best way she could.
If morning's echo says we've sinned ... just call me "Angel of the Morning".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WSnLS7ooaY
"Condoleezza Rice for President/VP in 2012/16.
Join this group of supporters from everywhere on the world wide web."
Rice for President Yahoo Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rice-for-president/
Condoleezza Rice for President/VP Video Playlist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5E9_BL7qLo&list=PLC88B108ED71F35D4&feature=plpp_play_all
Strange that you think it would be. Maybe that's your approach with ladies Scott H, to murder anyone who gets in your way? If so, how many have you murdered and how many women did you pull as a consquence of your crimes?
My approach is more humane. See my Condi videos in these channels.
riceforpresident http://www.youtube.com/user/riceforpresident
condiTV1 http://www.youtube.com/user/CondiTV1
GIULIANIvsRICE http://www.youtube.com/user/GIULIANIvsRICE
SuperCondi http://www.youtube.com/user/SuperCondi
WeLoveCondi http://www.youtube.com/user/WeLoveCondi
ElvisSingsCondi http://www.youtube.com/user/ElvisSingsCondi
DrCondiRice http://www.youtube.com/user/DrCondiRice
SecretaryRice http://www.youtube.com/user/SecretaryRice
Appearantly you are unaware that Gaddifi had a serious thing for the former Bush administration's Sec. of State, as it would appear, an affection which you also harbor.
BTW; I never said that Gaddifi had the affections of Prof. Rice, I only said that the two of you would be rivals for her affections.
Condoleezza Rice is the "most admired" woman by I think the last poll was 3% of Americans, 9 million Americans or something.
So we love Condi and frankly it is grotesquely insulting and offensive of you to single out Gaddafi who just so happened to have a crush on Condi but is much more famous for being a mass-murdering dictator and organiser of international terrorism and say those of us who love Condi are in any way like Gaddafi, comparable to Gaddafi or in any way in the same category as Gaddafi.
Again if you think Gaddafi could be a credible or plausible "rival" for Condi's affections it says much more about your attitude to American women of standing and high repute. It says that you think some dictator, some dog with a boner, somehow could in any way be a "rival" for a decent woman's affections. Do he could not!
Maybe that's your view of women? Maybe your mother has sex with animals and that's why you think the mad dog Gaddafi could be said to be a "rival"? After all, if your mother pops out the back for a quick shag from her pony maybe you see the pony as a rival for your mother's love and that's your view of women - they'll shag anything?
Are you getting a picture now of how offensive your comment is, not just to me, but to millions of Americans who love Condi and who don't welcome your comparison!
Back off now otherwise I will pull you to bits.
You my enamored, bewitched and bewildered friend, take your inner most personal feeling to seriously and expect others to view things which are important to you, as being just as important to them, sorry, that's not the American nor the sane way.
You need to lighten up before you blow a headgasket, it's not my fault how Gaddifi felt about your dearly beloved, Condi. Now get off the Condoleezza Rice kick and get back on the subject of the article up for debate.
Just for the record: I actually thought that Prof. Rice did as good of a job as one could expect an educated simi honest person to do while working for the G.W. Bush/D. Cheney partners in crime administration.
We who know what true love is differ from you on the question of whether a beast such as Gaddafi is capable of true affection to anyone or whether Condi could have delt with Gaddafi anyway but professionally as any diplomat would.
If you'd like to be my friend Scott, it must be obvious that you started out with the wrong approach.
Scott, it is indeed your fault that you compared me and by implication the millions of Americans and people throughout the world who admire or love Condoleezza Rice with that despicable dictator Gaddafi.
Our love and respect for Condi is not the same as Gaddafi's interest in her and if you concede that and apologise to all those you have insulted that alone is the route to friendship with me.
Be careful what you say regarding the most admired Condi Rice or this sick puppy,(Peter Dow) will in his words "pull you to bits" whatever that means in the English language.
BTW: Remember the kid on You Tube last year who ranted, raved, wailed, cursed and threatened anyone who would listen, about leaving his secret Love, Britteny Spears alone. This brain deficient secret stalker is really reminiscent of that kid, isn't he. I love the way he appoints himself the spokesman for in his words, millions of Condoleezza Rice admires.
It's a great country we live in, even for secret celebrity stalkers.
Those troglodytes are at best part of a party base which might be noticed in the primaries but who are speedily and unceremoniously dumped in the general election because no party leader needs the likes of them when rational people of independent mind are casting their votes.
The Neanderthals in the party base are always a liability to any party, but the lesser of two evils is for a serious politician to pander to the putrid and stinking base for a while, meaning none of it, because no person of right mind could think so low, to get the party nomination, then the cavemen are dropped like a toilet paper with shite on it when mature civilised people do their politics in the general election.
If you perceive R.F. as a President Obama supporter then do not for one minute think that President Obama truly thinks as would a low-life like him.
Rather do as I do and attack Scott H. and P.F. directly and personally for the low-life scum they are, unrepresentative as they are of their party leaders, unrepresentative of decent company even.
Take a lead from Condoleezza Rice. She reaches across the aisle and gains respect from people of goodwill of either party or of none.
Here Condi is commenting the time when Senator Obama's passport file was looked into in an unauthorised way.
Can Condi hold baby Obama's passport file tonight?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7bKs9aKD6I
Now that's grace. That's leadership. That's real politics.
In comparison all I have read here as a newbie are the words of offensive human vermin with no concept of respect or love for their fellow human being if he or she happens to be from a different party, different country or whatever.
Is this "gather" or "gutter" because the evidence I have seen so far is that only the microbes of the political gutter are to be found here?
Stop with the "logic" you are only providing another thing for the Republicans to hate , their cup already runneth over !!!
First off I must state that I will never be able to forgive myself, for responding directly to something you had to say here on Gather News. However, in this case, I just could not refrain from doing so.
Now to my question:
When a Troll such as Peter Dow of the Teapublican persuasion speaks condescendingly to, as well as chastises another Teapublican member such as yourself, as if he were your Cub Scout Den Mother, which he most assuredly did in his above post to you, please explain to we of the Liberal persuasion here on Gather News exactly how does it feels to be denigrated in such a childish manner by one of your own ???
In all honesty, this is one time when I am LMAO, for sure, for sure !!!
So I rise above partisan politics to support the best person for office - Condoleezza Rice.
I am an academic, a scientist, or would like to be, but I have been excluded from university life and therefore professional life where I stay because of my republican politics.
I'm not a conservative but a socialist. I support a welfare state and free state education, a national health service and out of work and sickness benefits including housing benefit meaning a right to have a home and the state pay the rent if you can't afford to pay it yourself.
I've never been a capitalist because I have never had enough money to play the capitalist game and don't think much of the rules when clever people with no money can't get anything done.
I've never voted in any US election.
If the above has confused the hell out of you it might clear things up for you if I mention that I am Scottish!
Peter Dow
Scottish republican socialist, author and protester (Video profile)
Scottish National Standard Bearer website
The For Freedom Forums
I love Condi yes but I am not soft in the head about her. Not like many Americans are soft in the head about Queen Elizabeth and whose dumb presidents even invite the Queen to the White House.
I'm a republican and that probably needs some explaining to Americans who whilst you do live in a republic, it is a republic that your Founding Fathers fought for hundreds of years ago and so genuine militant republicanism is fading from the collective American memory as what it is - an alternative, opposed and incompatible political philosophy to monarchism.
So Americans praise the founding fathers on the 4th July but most have lost any personal experience of what it was they were fighting for (government by "we the people") and against (government by a monarch).
With Rice and McCain however we see American leaders who have not lost touch entirely with the American revolution, who appreciate why America is exceptional, who are still signed up to much maybe even all of the republican mission.
In my and Condi's youth that mission had first on the agenda to win the ideological battle against communism.
I'm a socialist but a democratic socialist. The biggest enemy of a good society is a bad state, a corrupt and undemocratic police state or worse a secret police state. So my view of socialism puts the political freedom of the individual first as a founding principle for the construction of any state or government which is worth having.
In this century the battle for freedom and next on the republican agenda has been to fight against anti-democratic jihadists fighting for a global caliphate. Not quite ""mission accomplished" on that but we're well on the way to victory.
So I have a lot in common with Rice and McCain in terms of a world political vision but I am not a puppy when it comes to Queen Elizabeth and the United Kingdom. I am for a Scottish and / or British republic, and exiling or arresting the UK royal family.
So my hostility to any kind of diplomacy with the UK royal family is where I part company with today's American politics and indeed with every US president after Lyndon Baines Johnson who was republican enough never to have met with Queen Elizabeth. Nice one LBJ.
Anyway, I gave links to my website in my last post so if you want to know more about my non-Condi-specific politics you can read it there.
There are a number of members here on Gather News whom I feel are extremist in one way or another in their political ideology, personal attitudes, ethical standards and/or moral principles . However, after reading your last post to this article and rereading your prior post, there is little doubt left in my mind that you are without a doubt an asinine idiot, as well as a psychotic individual harboring deep seated mental problems.
I say this because, You continuously (although you seem not to realize it) espouse nothing but pure hate, anger and vitriolic nonesense against any and all people who you feel have in some way wronged you or who have failed to view the world through the disillusioned and distorted visions within your mind. (and, "NO" it doesn't take a PHD in psychology or in psychiatry to make such a determination, your mental problems are all to visible for everyone, but you to see)
Those within the human race who loose control of their mental faculties and the ability to reason and act appropriately in society, are usually confined to institutions for their's and the public's welfare. Unfortunately, a few, such as yourself, always seems to slip through the cracks of the healthcare system and remain at large for a time among the sane people within the community.
Hopefully in the very near future, for both your demented mental state of mind and the safety of those within the community in which you reside, you will soon be found and incarcerated for the welfare of all concerned. I say this not in sarcastic jest nor in retaliation for the attacks you made on my person and my family in your posted responses, but in honest concern for the present state of your mental health and the security of those to which you may come in personal contact with.
Introduction to Psychiatry: An Industry of Death
From viewing your personal video, which you requested that Gather readers do, it would appear that you are as I have previously said, a very mentally disturbed individual. A person living in a delusional world conjured up within dark depths of your own mind. Even the uniform which you wear in the video, appears to be some sort of made up attire by a person seeking statue, recognition and admiration among those with whom he comes in contact. The donning of such visually out of place clothing, for the purpose of achieving self recognition, demonstrates that you seek that which you feel you do not have. As with your abnormal infatuation with Prof. Rice, this is yet another sign of your delusional thoughts and loss of normal reasoning.
Throughout the video, you use pronouns such as, we, us, our etc. erroneously inferring to there being others in your protest group. However, nowhere in the video are you ever in the company of another person. At one point you are seen being escorted by two police officers, but never were you ever joined by another person nor do you join with any group of people. In point of fact, you are never supported nor accompanied by even one person with whom you came in contact. The video is of only you walking down a street where people are gathering and later standing alone within an enclosure. Totally being ignored by everyone who passes by.
It would appear from your video that you are the sole member of an immaginary group of Scotland political desenters. A single person rallying against the United Kingdom's Queen and/or Monarchy, while championing the establishment of a soverign nation for Scotland with it's own president. It would also appear that even your own countrymen find you to be an oddity of no substantial nor important consequence, inasmuch, as none seem to be coming to your aide nor to join and assist you in your one man anarchist endeavor.
Friendly advise, stick to politics in Scotland, I'm sure they are far less brutally savage than that which we have here in America.
This is further evidence of what I said earlier about most Americans being so remote from the context of the American revolution as to have "lost the republican plot" and who now bizarrely conserve the existing order of the monarchies of the world.
Republics, such as the USA or France or many others are not "anarchies" and they were not established by anarchists but by republican revolutionaries.
You are so far up the rectum of Queen Elizabeth Scott H that next you will be describing the USA's founding fathers as "anarchists" and ignoring 4th July to celebrate the Queen's birthday and which Americans get honorary knighthoods from the Queen instead.
I will leave it to a real American republican to call you "TRAITOR!".
Now that it's my turn to respond to your posted mentally ill rantings, am I suppose to get all flustered, brothered and bewildered over your childish raves and incoherent ramblings, or, am I expected to start cursing, frothing at the mouth and threatening you for being the total asinine idiot which you are.
Nah, I think neither will be my response, because it is quite evident that you are one sick puppy with a self induced psychotic temperment and not worth the extra effort nor the time. There will be no more exchanges between us, for I do not want to be responsible for your pending mental breakdown.
Suggestion; Go protest the Queen and be happy, American politics are none of your business nor concern.
For so long as the US keeps promoting Queen Elizabeth by hosting her and her family at the White House in contempt of the rights of the people of subjugated nations then who the US president is, is our politics too.
If we are not allowed our own president and America won't help us get our own president then your president is the president we have whether we like it or not.
When the Queen's state turns against the rights of the people, because in truth we HAVE no constitutional rights in a kingdom with a constitution from hell then we the people, over here, would rather have a US president who might think to defend us than a US president who couldn't care less.
Hence someone like Bush, Rice or McCain for whom the freedoms of the people of the world are a concern is the kind of US president we need rather than someone like Ron Paul who would leave us at the Queen's mercy.
Videos to make my points -
Me speaking straight to camera -
Hey USA! Why not help us get republics?
Condi meets the Devil Queen
Satire -
Queen Elizabeth in the USA. Captain Scarlet & the MYSTERONS
British TV reports South Park re: Queen vs The Republic
Yes a black person can be a traitor too, Colin Powell.
"Sir" Colin Powell - black traitor to the U.S.A.
Video description -
Royalist "Sir" Colin Powell - "... showed America there is nothing a black person cannot do" said the traitor Powell.
American TV network news last night reported President Bush awarding The Congressional Gold Medal to the Tuskegee Airmen, and not before time.
Now THAT'S a medal worth having!
So a good news story? Yes, but here is the grit in that oyster - speaking and correctly praising the black airmen along with the President was Colin Powell - a former general and Condoleezza Rice's predecessor as Secretary of State.
So where's the grit?
Powell has shown Americans that a black person like himself can be a traitor to the United States of America by assisting the enemy royalist-terrorist axis in the war in terror when he gave his treacherous support to the UK monarchy by accepting an honorary knighthood from Queen Elizabeth.
(The royalist-terrorist axis explanation wrote:
The incompetence and injustice of royalist rule in countries throughout the world, from the UK to Saudi Arabia, has a long history of provoking many terrorist outrages that would not have been provoked had good democratic republican rule replaced the royalist rule. So monarchies give rise to terrorism and this evil royalist-terrorist axis leads to all kinds of out-rages, like 9/11 which was carried out by mostly Saudi terrorists.)
In so doing, Powell was in effect telling black and white Britons (whose name isn't Windsor) that there IS something they cannot yet do - become head of state of Britain - because that position is reserved for the monarchy, this side of a republican revolution in Britain, a republican revolution which Powell has set himself against.
Well it is just as well that nowadays Condi has got better republicans than Colin Powell to watch her back. Better republicans who cannot be impressed with Colin Powell accepting an honorary knighthood from Queen Elizabeth and better republicans who are planning that Condi shall not make the same mistake.
A story goes that Condi had the good sense to ask that the oil tanker which was once named after her, should be re-named so as not to equate her name too closely with the "war about oil" accusations we sometimes hear.
The oil-tanker "Condoleezza Rice" was a honour which Condi returned, with all the grace you'd expect from a once competitive ice-skater.
To win the war on terror, entirely and convincingly, we are going to have to neutralise all the harm being done to international politics by the royalists and the terrorism royalist rule seems to provoke and that means getting a U.S. President of the most exceptional leadership ability.
That means we need a president with more insight than Eisenhower and Reagan - both only too keen to accept a honorary knighthood from the UK without thought to the long term harm to good republican government and peace in the world.
It means a president better than Colin Powell, who was considering a run for the presidency at one point. Colin Powell would have been as much a President as Eisenhower or Reagan, no question, but their slow-burning treason against the republic of U.S.A. is no longer tolerable when there is a war on terrorism to win.
It means a presidency of someone with the exceptional ability of Condoleezza Rice who would have the intelligence to see the down-side of an honorary knighthood and who would be smart enough to decline or return any such so-called "honour".
So there is one just person I know of who can guarantee a win in the war on terror - that would be a President Condoleezza Rice.
If Powell wishes to redeem himself in the eyes of republicans all he has to do is to return the honorary knighthood to the Queen, and let the world know that he has had second thoughts about accepting the knighthood.
Discuss this in the For Freedom Forums
Topic -"Sir" Colin Powell - black traitor to the U.S.A.
Poll - Should Colin Powell reject and return his honorary knighthood to the Queen?
Attention Americans! Who are your true friends? Not the Windsors!
For Freedom Forums Topic -"Sir" Colin Powell - black traitor to the U.S.A.
Would it be possible that you are a Ron Paul supporter, just curious.
The things I say about Bush are TRUTHS. Truth is not "bashing".
Attacking a President's religion when it clearly states in our constitution that there shall be no requirement of religion to serve this country is one of the single most absurd things I've ever witnessed as an American.
1. i am not a birther - tho as more and more things come out and he refuses to adrres them, i wonder about a few things - like the social security number and the fulbright grant.
2. dont care what religion he is, but he professes to be a 'christian' yet disavows the most basic of christians idealology - a personal relationship to allow the grace of Christ to save you - NOT a 'collective salvation'. so the problem is, he lied about it.
3. as he consatantly re-affirmns, he wasnt to redistriribute wealth, has taken control financially, politically and physically fo private business, including a health care act that is guaranteed (via simple mathmatics) to eliminate all private industry, creating a monopoly run by the government. all are indeed, socialistic activities. so by word and deed - he is a socialist, in spite of what he says.
I don't take anyone at their word. I had my own skepticism about Obama during the 2008 campaign. I had reservations as I was walking into the voting booth. I voted for him because the alternative, McCain might not have been so bad, but with Palin on the ticket -- there was no way I could vote for them.
Then I set about learning all I could about Obama. Read both his books. I saw the Reverand Wright's sermons that were online. I've read about his church.
Understand that Obama was born to a black father whom he hardly knew, he was raised by his white mother and white, somewhat prejudiced grandparents. He never fit in anywhere. He didn't fit in at school, at home. He even went by a "whiter" sounding name, Barry. When he came into his adulthood, he embraced his black heritage and was accepted finally. It makes perfect sense that he would choose to embrace Reverend Wright and the all black church in Chicago when you know his history.
After stumbling through life, he finally found a place where he was comfortable and those around him were also comfortable.
I've also read extensively about the Civil Rights era and I believe that black Americans have every right to distrust whites of that era. Reverend Wright is of that era.
1 - Given all that I have read, I do not believe he was born in Kenya. I believe he was born in Hawaii. The fact that he could have hidden that and become President is more troubling than finding out he was born in another country.
2 - Most importantly, our Constitution says religion is not a pre-req for becoming President. So, even if he were a Satanist. It doesn't matter. And he lied? All politicians lie. Lying about his religion is a small one. Lying about false intelligence to start a war is a big one.
3 - I also don't think he is a socialist. He has lived the life of underprivileged and privileged. He's seen both sides of the coin. I think his view is more educated and realistic than others. You view that as socialist. I view it as informed.
since it is your post and you see every response, and i want to see your views and have a chance to absorb them, i am moving my long comment to the bottom, so when you respond, i will at least know about it LOL
thanks
Bush committed war crimes that would have been prosecuted were we another nation. He also repeatedly violated the Constitution he swore to uphold. Did the Democrats press that? Pelosi gave him a pass with "impeachment is off the table." How about Harriet Miers and Karl Rove who refused to comply with a legally binding subpoena to appear before Congress. Democrats let that slide too. They are Republican-lite. The polarity is all rhetoric.
However, our system, even when it is working at it's worst , is still better than the next system working at it's best to be had anywhere in this world. So don't put it down, help make it better by electing better representatives and being active in local politics and national political issues. As a conserned citizen, your personal opinion is helpful.
Why wouldn't Holder prosecute.
housing, stock market, debt, unemployment, inflation - you name it - admin's along with congress have been where the seeds were created, that forced the problem.
and every time, the media is fed (by the politicians) thatit ws caused by wall street, the traders there, banks, corporations, the treasury, the frb, the sec, accountants - everyone the congress/admin forced the rules on - that is who i blamed.
like blaming the bagman, for running numbers.
I caught you, you commented.
And how about rendition? What if an American who was merely suspected of a crime against a foreign nation were to be kidnapped off the street in Cleveland or Topeka and flown to a third party foreign country where he would be tortured. -- Would that be ok?
Ironically this is the very reason we have a problem (to whatever real degree we do), with terrorism. The view most of the world has is that "we" are willing to torture or kill anyone who is merely SUSPECTED of terrorism or for something they MIGHT do in the future. To the rest of the world it's (a) the height of callous arrogance, (b) obnoxiously hypocritical, and (c) highly illegal and sometimes out and out murder.
It's one of the big reasons they "hate" (some of "them") us. They don't "hate our freedom," they hate our attitude and policies that directly affect their lives.
There is no excuse for terrorism, and those doing so should be pursued for the crime it is and punished accordingly, but we can't go around torturing and killing people over something they might do in the future. That's as insane as the "kill 'em all" attitude about eradicating "terrorists" in Iraq that Donald Rumsfeld famously issued the memo about suggesting that we're creating more terrorists than we eliminated. The fact that there were virtually no terrorists in the Iraq that was controlled by Saddam before we invaded further demonstrates the lunacy of our methods of dealing with the phoney "war on terror," which was basically the only way they could get public support for an attempt at oil control.
2. Because they ignore what "brains' depravation" is, they believe brains will then deliver any "non expected" truth or fact.
3. The torturer(s) ENJOY applying their own power, often proxy provided.
4. Any organization alike AlQeada reorganizes itself if a contact is lost after 3 hours. Therefore any information received after then is already obsolete.
IMO, BO believed that avoiding the criminal suits he would enjoy a cooperative right wing. A big error making him appear as a weak President.
#1 NONE of the people posting comment here have ever went through torture.
#2 Don't know but probably gets lots of questions answered
#3 yes proxy most likely rendition.
#4 Yes most likely true but government already knows that
BO was probably most happy to entertain the previous administration's policies since they were already in force and why should he change. Criminal suits? Ain't seen any yet? Makes everyone happy.
a) No info will be reliable if the interrogator is not aware of each and every details of the file.
b) If the interrogator is aware of his file only some details can be missing or to be confirmed WITHIN THE 7 HOURS FAR MAXIMUM FROM ARREST.
c) After such time period, all received information is "peanuts" because the organization has activated each and every "switch".
d) Entering into torture as the German did, just provide THE PLEASURE TO TORTURE and TO SHOW THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE IN CHARGE OF ACTING SO.
e) The torture system implies receiving new or unknown or already known information either before, either after the "harsh" treatment. Before because the "victim" is scared or after because the "victim" is exhausted. If scared, then the interrogator should be able to know if there is any lie; if exhausted the "victim" will always give the EXPECTED ANSWER. Quite useful isn't it?
I'm not so sure that "BO was probably most "happy" about this. IMO, he was quite "unhappy" to find so many files to deal with and his staff prepared a timing agenda according to his views.
Exactly right, Vic. This is the truth that the public ignores or denies. Tragically most Americans are ignorant of this, and are manipulated by simplistic slogans, propaganda and "patriotic" rhetoric.
Left and right is a sham. We're being crushed by a steam roller and we're laying there arguing about what color it is.
sorry i missed your response - wish there was a better way of being notified, without getting a notice on every single comment, with no clue who said it, to whom they said it etc.
amyway - my primary 'jist' of all of it - is that the policies he persues, the agendas he promotes are all in perfect sync with socialist economy objectives.
his views on these are certainly more trained (educated) than mine, but his are short sighted, they do not look at the long history of similar economic precedence, and analyze them. at every turn, every attempt, at big government controls, whether direct, outright, covert, political, financial, or thru public opinion - fails.
it is the very definition of socialist - the government exerting control over private industry - not just my opinion, but the the only logical defining of the events. he is certainly a progressive, which is simply a socialist with a "new and improved" brand name.
if you look at his major pushes - cap and trade, and the health care law, as well as his speeches, he is all about "redistribution of wealth", and government control of private industry. those are blatant socialistic platforms.
and yes all politicians lie - i am not so stupid as to not know that (not saying you inferred i am lol) - but to lie about something so trivial as his religion - why? why would he lie? to what end?
it certainly raises more questions on the "smell test" scale............
on the most minor point - as i think you know - i have never ever been a 'birther'. experts claim it is a fake, and experts claim it is not a fake - i am not an expert so i have no way to know who to believe.
i also tho, am exactly on the fence about the definition of 'natural born citizen' - i have read many articles, that argue both sides - again, beats me!
i do have major questions tho, on the social security number. i do have working knowledge of how they are issued, and the one he uses is highly questionable.
add in the fulbright scholarship that is indeed reserved for foreign students.
with all of thaty combined, it is impossible to not think that he has lied about his citizenship to someone - either now - or before.
and again why?
it is one thing to lie and say "i did not have sex with that woman".
but to lie about his own heritage, maybe his religion, and maybe the circumstances of his birth - plus we know for a fact he lied about his own deceased mother, which i personally find dispicable ............
so many questions, i wouldnt want him dating my daughter or son, let alone being the top man in the entire country.
I don't know about his birth certificate either. I do know that children born abroad to American citizens only need to file paperwork here in the U.S. and that child is an American citizen. (I know a couple who have had three kids born in Europe who are all American citizens. Their mother was born in Russia, their father is an American and they've lived abroad for years in Germany, France and Switzerland.)
So, Obama is an American citizen. As to the "natural born" -- if Obama were born in Kenya and he's not considered "natural born", then neither is Mitt Romney. Romney was born in Mexico. Has he produced a birth certificate?
I think the GOP aren't pushing the issue for that reason alone.
Even if he were born in Kenya, I cannot begin to think of any valid reason why he would use a phony social security number. I think that is another one of Orly's delusions. Her court case got dismissed because it has no basis.
I don't know why he hasn't released his school records. He must be within his rights to do so, and I kinda think he doesn't comply with all these requests just to keep the distractions going.
Why he wants to keep Americans distracted....that's the bigger question that nobody is asking. I don't know why. Perhaps to get things done. Perhaps something less desirable.
I found a document on snopes that shows Obama registered at his Indonesian school as being born in Honolulu, Hawaii. Why wouldn't she list Kenya on that form if he were really born there?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/occidental.asp
In one breath, birthers and anti-obama people say Obama is not so smart. He is not really responsible for say, killing Bin Laden.
And in the next breath, they give him all the credit in the world for being able to pull of the biggest scam in American history of becoming President as a non-U.S. citizen.
Which is it?
Is he controlling everything? Or nothing? Can't have it both ways.
Do he think he's a liar? I, personally, would say yes.
To what degree? Well, there are "levels" of lies in Washington.
Have his lies killed any Americans? Not that I am aware of.
Have his lies caused undo suspicion (and possibly valid suspicions in some cases)? Yes.
Did George W. Bush's lies get anybody killed? Absolutely. But he's a white, American citizen with family ties to a white, wealthy Republican family...so his lies are OK.
Does prejudice play into the questioning of every move Obama makes? Absolutely.
What lie did he tell about his mother?
Even with all the lingering suspicions, I feel like he is really doing what he thinks is best for America. Whether that's right or wrong remains to be seen. Time will tell.
I trust Barack Obama a hell of a lot more than I would trust any remaining GOP presidential candidate.
i know military kids are citizens, as you said, when their parents are, and the kids are born on 'american soil' which would include military bases etc. my nephew was born in newfoundland but off base - so he had a dual citizenship status, us by heritage, and canadian by birthplace - then at 18, he had to revoke one or the other.
the question raised on the definition - that yes, a citizen, but the "natural born" part, (some say) is defined as being both parents must be citizens.
as i said, i havent a clue what the correct definition is. there must be some distinction, or the owrds 'natural born' would not have been used there, and other places have it only say 'citizen'.
it isnt only orly (who i agree is pretty squirrely - hey i like that - squirrely orly! lol) there have been half dozen or so say they ran it thru the e-verify system and something wasnt right. i do know for a fact, that the numbers will tell you what state it was issued in, and his seems to have been issued from a state he never lived in.
as to this Does prejudice play into the questioning of every move Obama makes? Absolutely.
that is really an unfair copmment lora. there are many of us that are simply upset about his policies, that are heading to socialism - same things we didnt like about bush btw.
you probably have seen where i said many many times, that i think he is a total moron, with an extremly high level of training, polishing, refinement, and high-brow degrees. i think his memorization skills are off the charts. but he is a puppet - dont know for who - so as to the scam on his being qualified IF there is one, he didnt do it - it was done for him.
i would not doubt that he believes what he is doing is best for the country - because those ideas have ben drilled into him his whole life - there is no one he has ever been close to, that did not have great leanings towards socialist/communist philosophies.
and what worries me most, is will the damge be undone, before its too late?
his energy policies are causing closings of electricity plants all over the county - over 100 so far, and another 160 planned - and we simnply do not havbe the infrastructure to replace the energy production from any other source.
and his health insurance plan will force the bankruptcies of every private company currently providing the product. mathatically, there is no other possible consequence - and once they are all bankrupt, and government owned - how do you roll it back. england is struggling with that now. their pm has said he wants to re-privatize it, but the options are so limited.
his mother ....... he told repeatedly, that as she was dying in the hospiotal, she had to fight with her medical insurance comapny to get the doctors paid. bald faced lie. her 'fight' was with a disability insurance policy, that she signed up for after she was starting to get sick, and before she was in the hospital. like an aflack type policy. she wanted them to send her money directly and they refused, because she knew when she bought the policy. that has not one thing to do with her health care treatment, or her medical threatment expenses.
maybe its the little bit of country boy still in me - but you do not ever lie about your momma - especially for personal/political gains.
and tho i have said it many times - will say it again, didnt like bush, didnt like mccain - and not thrilled with romney .................... obama terrifies me, for the results his actions, and the actions of the last several presidents, will bring about in the next 4 to 10 years. the difference with him, is how fast it accelerates what was already started.
I know you can tell a social security number's state of origin...but I don't know what numbers go with what states.
The only reason I could think of why he would use a fake ss# is because of a criminal past, perhaps? But, that's a whole other issue. Like how did he avoid imprisonment? He left the country and came back with a fake ss#? And became POTUS with a fake ss#?! Hard to believe.
Orly is quite Squirrely. :)
As to my unfair comments about him being judged for his race, watch this video. Many of those Southern, conservative Republicans simply don't like him for that reason alone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IX6EgYQAoU&feature=youtube_gdata_player
i dont think for a second it is criminal past at all - he hung out with some unrepentant, and (questionably) pardoned criminals but ......? proves nothing. maybe simply a partially 'constructed' past - the only thing i can even imagine, is that maybe the fulbright grant, or something of that effect and needed a diff social to have seperation - but that is PURE speculation as to a reason.i dont remember the exact details, and no longer have the charts as i used to - but i am thinking the ss he uses is from conn. - and he never lived there .. or was it mass. .......... oh well - you get my point on it.
and not saying at all that there are not a few who are simply against him for racist reasons - but there are many more that simply hate socialistic trends, no matter what color, race, religion, creed or sexual preference the perpetrator has. so yes - it does permeate every thing he does "FOR SOME" - but honestly, i believe that is a tiny minority. or at least that isnt the reasons i have.
good discussion btw.