-Caveat Lector-
Begin forwarded message:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: July 18, 2007 7:10:42 PM PDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Getting Rid of Hitler Only Narrowed the Field to THOUSANDS
of Hitler-Wannabes
A gentle reminder to anyone who mistakenly believes that, come
2008, after Bush, Cheney, et al., have (God willing) departed from
the scene, "we the People" can relax and go back to "business as
usual," working within the existing "two-party" system in which the
Nazi --er, Republican-- Party is essential.
Bush is NOT the disease, nor is Cheney, they're just its most
dramatic symptom. There's only one cure for the cancer that
ravages our body politic and it requires surgical removal ... I've
said it before and I'll say it again -- the Republican Party must
be outlawed as a criminal organization.
If the Republican Party wins even 30% of the vote in 2008, that's a
warning to all lovers of liberty that it's only a matter of time
before America suffers another, possibly even worse, coup d'etat.
Republicans block Senate's Iraq withdrawal plan
http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/19/1982143.htm?section=world
Republicans have blocked a plan to bring some US troops home by the
end of April. (File photo) (Reuters: Goran Tomasevic)
President George W Bush has escaped a Senate showdown over Iraq
with his war policy intact, after Republicans blocked a bid by
Democrats to force most US troops home by the end of April.
After an ill-tempered and rare all-night debate, Mr Bush's party
frustrated the latest drive by majority Democrats to mandate troop
withdrawal timetables, despite growing unease among Republicans
over US strategy.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made a personal appearance on
Capitol Hill as the vote approached, shuttling between meetings
with law-makers, in an apparent bid to bolster the Republican vote.
Senators voted by 52 to 47 to move to a final vote on the measure,
well short of the 60-vote super-majority needed for the bill to
proceed.
Only four Republicans deserted Mr Bush and voted with the
Democrats, meaning a bigger revolt, which had seemed possible last
week, did not materialise.
The measure would have required a troop withdrawal to start within
120 days, and for most combat soldiers to be out of Iraq by April
30, 2008.
Remaining US troops in Iraq would have had a limited role: battling
terrorists, protecting US personnel and installations and training
Iraqi troops.
A similar bill has already passed in the House of Representatives,
and Mr Bush has vowed to veto it.
-------------------
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jun2007/repu-j07.shtml
Republican presidential candidates back nuclear strike against Iran
Thu, 07 Jun 2007 08:52:00
By Patrick Martin
Nine out of ten candidates for the Republican presidential
nomination explicitly or tacitly supported a US attack on Iran
using nuclear weapons, in response to a question at Tuesday night’s
nationally televised debate in New Hampshire.
Despite the extraordinary character of these declarations —giving
support to the first use of nuclear weapons in war since Hiroshima
and Nagasaki, 62 years ago— there was virtually no US press
coverage of these remarks and no commentary on their significance.
While the Republican candidates sought to present the military
action as a limited one against Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons
facilities, calling them “tactical nuclear strikes,” no one should
misunderstand what this means. The use of nuclear weapons, in
whatever form, against a densely populated country of 75 million
would be an act of mass murder.
These comments reflect the derangement and depravity of
considerable sections of a ruling elite which believes it must make
a “success” of its occupation of Iraq, even if it requires
“doubling its bet” and attacking another major country in the
Middle East — one which is three times larger than Iraq and with a
long history of struggle for independence and against colonial-
style rule.
The initial exchange came about half an hour into the debate, which
was broadcast on CNN and moderated by CNN anchorman Wolf Blitzer.
After some initial discussion on the Iraq war, in which nine of the
ten candidates vowed to persevere in the effort to control the oil-
rich country, Blitzer asked Congressman Duncan Hunter of
California, former chairman of the House Armed Services Committee,
about recent talks between US and Iranian officials in Baghdad. He
asked Hunter whether it was correct to negotiate with Iran, given
Iran’s alleged efforts to develop nuclear weapons. When Hunter
endorsed the talks, Blitzer followed up with this question:
Blitzer: If it came down to a preemptive US strike against Iran’s
nuclear facility, if necessary would you authorize as president the
use of tactical nuclear weapons?
Hunter: I would authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons if
there was no other way to preempt those particular centrifuges.
Blitzer then turned to former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who
currently leads in opinion polls of prospective Republican primary
voters.
Blitzer: What do you think, Mayor? Do you think if you were
president of the United States and it came down to Iran having a
nuclear bomb, which you say is unacceptable, you would authorize
the use of tactical nuclear weapons?
Giuliani: Part of the premise of talking to Iran has to be that
they have to know very clearly that it is unacceptable to the
United States that they have nuclear power. I think it could be
done with conventional weapons, but you can’t rule out anything and
you shouldn’t take any option off the table.
The same question was then posed to former Virginia Governor James
Gilmore, and to former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, the
candidate with the most backing from Wall Street and other
financial interests.
Gilmore criticized “the desire for Iran to dominate that portion of
the world,” adding that while he supported negotiations with Iran,
“We’re also going to say that having a nuclear weapon is
unacceptable. They need to understand it. And all options are on
the table by the United States in that instance.”
Questioned by Blitzer, Romney used the same formulation.
Blitzer: Governor Romney, I want to get you on the record. Do you
agree with the mayor, the governor, others here, that the use of
tactical nuclear weapons, potentially, would be possible if that
were the only way to stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb?
Romney: You don’t take options off the table.
These four candidates were the only ones directly asked the
question, but five others—Senator John McCain, Senator Sam
Brownback, Congressman Tom Tancredo, former Wisconsin Governor
Tommy Thompson, and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee—had
ample opportunity to object or to distinguish their positions from
this endorsement of mass murder.
Only one candidate chose to do so, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas,
the former Libertarian presidential candidate. Paul, a conservative
politician who articulates the isolationist strain in American
bourgeois politics, is a critic of the Iraq war. He finally
addressed the issue of using nuclear weapons an hour after it was
raised, in response to a question from a college professor in the
audience, who asked what each candidate thought was the most
important moral issue facing the country.
Several of the Republican candidates gave predictable responses,
citing abortion and the “right to life,” a right which they are not
prepared to concede to the people of Iraq, Iran or any other
country that stands in the way of American imperialism. Congressman
Paul’s response is worth quoting, since it demonstrates how far the
“mainstream” of American bourgeois politics has gone in embracing
mass killing as an instrument of state policy.
Blitzer: Congressman Paul, what’s the most pressing moral issue in
the United States right now?
Paul: I think it is the acceptance just recently that we now
promote preemptive war. I do not believe that’s part of the
American tradition... And now, tonight, we hear that we’re not even
willing to remove from the table a preemptive nuclear strike
against a country that has done no harm to us directly and is no
threat to our national security!”
These remarks were greeted with considerable applause, an
indication that even among self-identified rank-and-file
Republicans there is growing unease over the escalating militarism
of the American ruling elite.
But in the corporate-controlled US media, there was little or no
commentary about the endorsement of a nuclear strike against Iran.
CNN, which broadcast the debate, reported it in passing, and cited
only Congressman Hunter’s support for the use of tactical nuclear
weapons.
The Washington Post reduced the issue to a single clause of a
sentence towards the end of its report on the debate, in which, it
claimed, McCain, Giuliani and Romney “each had moments in which
they shined.” The Post reporters did not say if they thought that
Giuliani’s and Romney’s support for possible nuclear strikes on
Iran was such a moment.
The entire treatment of the subject was limited to the following:
“The candidates said they would not remove the option of using
nuclear weapons to prevent Iran from obtaining such weapons, and
they also fielded questions about abortion, religion, health care
and global warming.”
The rest of the mainstream press did not even report this
endorsement of an unprovoked US nuclear attack on Iran. The New
York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press,
Bloomberg News Service, ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox News all said nothing.
There is no politically innocent explanation for this silence. One
can only imagine the howling in the American media if a prominent
official figure in China had threatened the use of nuclear weapons
against Taiwan, or if a candidate to succeed Vladimir Putin in
Russia had called for nuclear strikes against one of its pro-
Western neighbors.
Outside the United States, the significance of the threats of
nuclear attack on Iran was widely recognized. The British news
service Reuters led its report on the debate with the Iran
comments, under the headline, “Republicans: Iran Must Not Have
Nuclear Arms.” The lead paragraph begins: “Republican candidates
for US president agreed on Tuesday that Iran must not develop
atomic weapons even if a tactical nuclear strike is needed to stop
it ...”
The Israeli daily newspaper Ha’aretz also took note, commenting,
“One of the more memorable statements was made by former Governor
Jim Gilmore, who said that all options were on the table in dealing
with Iran, including the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons.”
The bloodlust expressed in these remarks is not limited to the nine
Republicans on the stage in New Hampshire. Prospective candidate
Fred Thompson, the former senator from Tennessee, gave a television
interview immediately after the debate in which he solidarized
himself with the call for a preemptive strike against Iran’s
nuclear facilities.
As for the Democrats, nearly all of the party’s presidential
candidates, as well as the entire congressional leadership, are on
record in support of escalating the US campaign of diplomatic
pressure, economic sanctions and military saber-rattling against
Iran, aimed at preparing public opinion in the United States for a
new and even more terrible slaughter in the Middle East.
---------------
Perception is the key in dealing with terror
By THOMAS BEAUMONT
REGISTER STAFF WRITER
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/
20070708/NEWS09/707080343/1001/NEWS
July 8, 2007
... Image, more than policy differences, distinguishes the
Republican presidential candidates' approach to fighting terrorism,
the biggest concern to GOP activists planning to attend Iowa's
leadoff caucuses.
Nearly all the GOP candidates in the crowded 2008 field support
President Bush's position that Iraq is the focal point of the U.S.
effort to fight Islamic terrorism, although cracks are starting to
appear in their devotion.
The Des Moines Register is exploring the candidates' positions on
issues most important to Republicans in advance of the Iowa GOP's
straw poll on Aug. 11 in Ames.
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani hopes his association with the
aftermath of the 2001 attacks on the city give him a leg up with
caucusgoers, while Sen. John McCain is betting his military
background and staunch support of Bush's Iraq plan give him an edge.
But Iowa GOP activists and national scholars say the perception of
toughness is more important than direct experience dealing with
terrorism, a sentiment borne out in a recent Des Moines Register poll.
"I want someone who is willing to make a tough decision he thinks
is right, even if it's not necessarily popular," said Vickie
McElhiney, an undecided GOP caucusgoer from Long Grove. "I think
there is more than one candidate out there that's willing to make
that decision."
Some candidates disagree about the finer points of the Bush
administration's anti-terrorism strategy, such as the use of
controversial interrogation techniques on suspected terrorists.
Giuliani, Romney and others support interrogation techniques
endorsed by the Bush administration that include methods some
opponents consider torture.
But McCain, a former Navy pilot who spent five years in a
Vietnamese prison, opposes the enhanced interrogation methods,
including "water-boarding," which simulates the effect of drowning.
Loyalty to Bush's larger terror-fighting approach also could erode,
should the revolt by Republicans in Congress and the rising death
toll of U.S. troops in Iraq continue, experts say.
Subtle differences in the candidates' terminology suggest they want
to frame the issue in their own terms, not Bush's.
Giuliani has replaced the term "war on terror" with "the
terrorists' war on us."
McCain, an Arizona senator, says he prefers to call the fight "the
struggle against radical Islamic extremism," similar to former
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's term, "the struggle against
radical jihadism."
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee refers to Iraq as "a battle" in
the war on terror, rather than the center.
U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas disagrees with Bush's premise that Iraq
is the "central front in the war on terror," a claim the president
has made since September 2003, six months after the war began.
Giuliani agrees with Bush that Iraq ought to be the focus, but
stops short of accusing the administration of forsaking the hunt
for terrorists elsewhere.
"I think you have to guard against it being the sole focus,"
Giuliani said about Iraq in a Des Moines Register interview.
"There's been so much attention paid to Iraq that I'm concerned
that we're not paying enough attention to Iraq in a broader picture."
Giuliani's call for staying "on offense" against terrorism includes
willingness to use military force and Bush administration tools,
such as the expanded investigation powers contained in the 2001
Patriot Act.
McCain has said repeatedly during the campaign that terrorism is
"the transcendent issue" facing the nation, and if the United
States leaves Iraq too soon, al-Qaida cells operating out of Iraq
"will follow us home."
Forty percent of likely Republican caucusgoers identified terrorism
as extremely important in the Register's May Iowa Poll. No other
issue ranked more important to Republicans.
Yet neither McCain's emphasis on rooting out al-Qaida in Iraq nor
Giuliani's claim of having "the most experience in dealing with
terrorism" seems to give the candidates an advantage among this key
voting bloc.
Romney was the top choice in the poll, receiving support from 30
percent of likely GOP caucusgoers, followed by McCain with 18
percent and Giuliani with 17 percent.
Romney ranked highest - with 32 percent - among the subset of poll
respondents who rated terrorism as extremely important. McCain had
support from 19 percent of that group, with Giuliani at 14 percent.
The poll's findings have not stopped the candidates from trying to
make terrorism a defining issue.
McCain said his military experience and 20 years on the Senate
Armed Services Committee give him unparalleled credibility on
terrorism.
"I think I certainly have the knowledge and experience, and
involvement with these issues," McCain said. "Whether that is
enough to qualify me in the eyes of the voters is something we'll
have to find out."
Romney, a former one-term governor, has promoted a multipart policy
that calls for increasing the size of the military and improving
relations with Islamic nations. He also supports doubling the
capacity of the facility holding suspected terrorists at the U.S.
Naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Romney dismissed the notion that the pressure was greater for him
to demonstrate proficiency on terrorism-related issues than for
Giuliani or McCain.
"People in Iowa get a much closer look at people running for
president than those who just see debates and 30-second ads. They
get a sense of whether somebody understands an issue in some depth
or doesn't," Romney said.
Romney touted his overseeing of Massachusetts' homeland security,
including during the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston,
and organizing security for the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics in
2002, when he was president of the organizing committee.
Other candidates also assert their background studying terrorism.
Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback is a member of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee and a subcommittee on terrorism.
Former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore was in office when the Pentagon,
in Arlington, Va., was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, and is chairman
of a national homeland security council.
Tommy Thompson, the former governor of Wisconsin, talks about his
time supervising the federal Office of Emergency Preparedness when
he was secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.
Teresa Sloan of Blakesburg cited Giuliani's association with Sept.
11, 2001, as the main reason she had considered supporting him in
the caucuses. But Giuliani's position supporting abortion rights
has discouraged her, she said.
"I did appreciate and admire his leadership during the attacks of
9/11, but there are other issues I disagree with him on. Not that
they trump terorrism and homeland security, but I disagree with him
strongly," said Sloan, who's now leaning toward Brownback.
James Lindsay, a leading scholar on the politics of national
security, said Giuliani and McCain get no bump from their direct
experience because all the candidates talk tough on terrorism and
generally align with Bush, who gets high marks from Republicans on
handling terrorism.
"The public doesn't have well-formed views of how actually to
translate toughness into action," said Lindsay, director of the
Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law at the
University of Texas at Austin. "In some sense, it's just a box they
want checked."
A candidate's ability to project strength on an issue is more
important than experience, undecided Clarion Republican David
Miller said.
"President Bush didn't have any experience. Neither did Ronald
Reagan," said Miller.
Miller is leaning toward Romney, but is also interested in former
Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, an actor whose roles have included
military and government leaders.
Texas' Lindsay said Thompson, like Reagan, could be seen as a
strong leader, despite having less experience with terrorism than
some of his would-be opponents.
"His movie roles have created a certain image," Lindsay said of
Thompson. "And image matters an awful lot in politics. People
interpret what you do, give meaning to what you do, through what
their basic gut-level understanding is of who you are."
Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.
www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/
<A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
