This from Sam Smith at
Progressive Review. If you don't get Sam's undernews wire you should. I do not always agree with Mr. Smith, but, he is an honest player who has been writing since 1964.
GREAT THOUGHTS
"I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."--John Edwards, CNN Late Edition, Feb. 24, 2002
DEMOCRATS SUPPRESS THEIR ANTI-WAR MINORITY
http://insider.washingtontimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20040710-113547-1423r
STEVE DINAN, WASHINGTON TIMES - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's campaign headed off a showdown in the party platform yesterday over Iraq, convincing rival Dennis J. Kucinich's supporters not to demand withdrawal of U.S. troops or the establishment of a Department of Peace. Saying party unity is more important than particulars, delegates agreed to forgo amendments on Iraq, a broader call for same-sex unions and a stronger endorsement of Palestinians' rights.
Bye Bye Miss American Pie! IMHO both Kerry and Edwards should stand down and let a true Democratic ticket win this November. It was obvious to all that Kerry was the annointed one back in 2002 when he ran virtually unoppossed for re election. In 96 he had a heated close battle with then Governor Weld. The campaign highlighted Kerry's career of shady backroom deals and bribe taking.
Kerry then took a bribe from AIG's Hank Greenberg a Bush Pioneer to seed his Presidential bid. He then jumped in bed with Rand Beers a career spook whose Plan Colombia is responsible for the deaths of thousands and is generally considered a horrible disaster.
The GOP picked this ticket for us and now we are stuck with these unamerican warmongers who would sacrifice the lives of children for a few votes.
Sickening:
At the G8 summit in Georgia, the US president reaffirmed his desire to see widespread democratisation across the Middle East. Originally proclaimed at the National Endowment for Democracy in November,[i] this project has also been supported by the Democratic contender, John Kerry.[ii] It is clear not only that the American political establishment is lining up behind the idea that a radical transformation needs to occur in the Muslim world, but also that Washington has managed to get the rest of the industrialised world to support the project.[iii] This, in turn, spells the restriction of true democracy for a huge swathe of the world's population.
The French managed to insert[iv] a reference to the need for "reform in the region" to "go hand in hand with ... a just, comprehensive, and lasting settlement to the Arab- Israeli conflict, based upon U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338" (paragraph 6). Jacques Chirac also stressed his view that any such plan must be based on "a scrupulous respect for the independence and the diversity of the countries of the region", a pious wish. In both its and amended forms, the plan has met with wide opposition in the Arab world: Egypt and Saudi Arabia, two of the largest which are covered by the initiative but which are alarmed by its potential implications, declined invitations to the summit, while Tunisia, the current president of the Arab League, also refused to attend.[v]
Despite this opposition, it seems inevitable that the Americans will press ahead with the plan regardless. There have already been several statements by key NATO insiders about the need for the West to extend its influence on what is now labelled the "Greater Middle East", a term which includes the whole Muslim world from Morocco to Pakistan, and leaving out only Indonesia and Malaysia. Whether or not Western leaders resolve their differences over the deployment of NATO in Iraq, it is already clear that the Atlantic alliance is being primed to extend its influence deep into the Middle East, and that this on the agenda for the NATO summit to be held in Istanbul at the end of this month.[vi]
As often happens, this plan has been already mooted by insiders who are in the know. In particular, two articles have appeared recently, which outline it. Will Marshall of the Democratic Leadership Committee in Washington DC has written in the in-house magazine, NATO International, that the Middle East should be NATO's new "central front". Marshall, who presents himself up as a Democrat answer to the neo-conservatives[vii] and whose publications mirror those of the Project for a New American Century, is a leading theoretician and advocate of aggressively interventionist US foreign policy. He argues that NATO needs to define a new "mission" or else its member states will drift apart politically, and that this should involve "defending our common security interests and liberal values against the new totalitarianism brewing in the Greater Middle East." Indeed, he seems to think that NATO can actually govern the entire region, for he states not only that "NATO should develop the capacities that will allow it to strike pre-emptively at nuclear facilities in countries that flout international non-proliferation norms" but also that it "could take a more active part in stemming conflicts and reinforcing political settlements in the region. It could provide security guarantees to facilitate a negotiated, two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A new Palestinian state would need help in disarming Hamas and other terrorist groups, while Israel would need reassurance that it would not have to bear the burden of protecting its citizens alone."[viii] The prospect that NATO should take on some of the tasks of the Israeli Defence Force is hardly likely to win over Arab opinion in its favour.
http://www.sandersresearch.com/Sanders/NewsManager/ShowNewsGen.aspx?NewsID=654
Do you realize we have two lawyers running for office. Ever read what these idiots voted for in the IWR?
Some might ask how George W. Bush's war against Iraq is different from other U.S wars. Congress has not declared war since World War II. While some of the U.S. military actions since that time have received the equivalent of a congressional declaration, others have not. There have been other violations of the War Powers Clause of the Constitution.
But today we face an extraordinary moment in United States history. The president of the United States launched a premeditated, first-strike invasion of another country, the likes of which this nation has never before seen. This massive military operation sought to conquer and occupy Iraq for an indefinite period of time. This was not a random act of raw power. It was the first salvo of a new and dangerous U.S. doctrine, a doctrine which advocates the unprovoked invasion and occupation of sovereign nations. This new doctrine threatens to destabilize the world, creating a new world order of chaos and lawlessness.
Now more than ever, the Constitution and the rule of law must apply. And, now more than ever, the truth must be told. The first lie about the Iraq war was not that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or ties to Al Qaeda. The first lie told to the American people is that Congress voted for this war.
In the midst of the rushed congressional debate in October 2002, U.S. Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W. Va.) warned that the resolution under consideration was unconstitutional. "We are handing this over to the President of the United States," Byrd said. "When we do that, we can put up a sign on the top of this Capitol, and we can say: 'Gone home. Gone fishing. Out of business.'" Byrd added: "I never thought I would see the day in these forty-four years I have been in this body... when we would cede this kind of power to any president."
The Iraq war is in direct violation of the United States Constitution. The president and the members of Congress who voted for that October resolution should be held accountable for sending this nation into an illegal war.
It is time to hold up the Constitution to the faces of those who dare to defy it. It is time to demand our country back.
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9843
Iraq is planned failure. What we got is what we planned for. Total chaos, so here comes Negroponte, CIA, NATO and a ticket of spineless cowards to usher in conscription on the heels of this unforgivable treasonous breach of our constitution.
The lie must not stand.