powell resigned i don't think that exonorates him more or less but it does show remorse.PLO....A just kidding. but i think W and his cronies are criminally neglegent in the iraq afghnistan debacle
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 11:32 AM, plainolamerican <[email protected] > wrote: > rice, like powell, is political history. > > they had the chance to do the right thing but allowed fabricated > neocon information to push the US into an invasion of the middle east. > > the sooner they are worm food the better off America will be > > On Jul 30, 9:26 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > Abortion, Religion, and the Presidencyby Laurence M. Vance > > Some Republicans have floated the name of Condoleezza Rice to be the > running mate of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney. > > Rice was a professor at Stanford before serving as the national security > adviser in George W. Bush’s first term and the secretary of state in his > second. During both terms, she was a leading voice for the war in Iraq. She > has since returned to Stanford. > > Rice received a standing ovation at last month’sweekend retreatfor high > dollar Romney donors. Charles Cobb, who served as U.S. ambassador to > Iceland from 1989 to 1992, said Rice was "spectacular" and described her as > a "very bright, sophisticated, articulate lady." > > In a recentsurveyby Fox News, Rice was favored by Republicans to be > Romney’s running mate. Next in line were Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov. Chris > Christie, and Rep. Paul Ryan. At the bottom of the pack were Gov. Bobby > Jindal, Sen. Rob Portman, and former governor and presidential candidate > Tim Pawlenty. These men – sans Christie – are considered by some to be > Romney’s "final five."Some conservativesare upset that Rice would even be > considered, not because she was a leading architect of Bush’s disastrous > foreign policy, but because she is "mildly pro-choice" on abortion. > > In a March 11, 2005interviewwith theWashington Times, Rice explained > why, as "a deeply religious person" she was nonetheless "pro-choice" on > abortion. "What is your thought on abortion?" a reporter asked Rice. She > replied:I believe – if you go back to 2000 when I helped the President in > the campaign, I said that I was, in effect, kind of Libertarian on this > issue, and meaning by that, that I have been concerned about a government > role in this issue. I am a strong proponent of parental choice – of > parental notification. I am a strong proponent of a ban on late-term > abortion. These are all things that I think unite people and I think that > that’s where we should be. I’ve called myself at times mildly > pro-choice.And then added:I am very comfortable with the President’s view > that we have to respect and need to have a culture that respects life. This > should be an issue pretty infrequently because we ought to have a culture > that says that, "Who wants to have an abortion? Who wants to see a daughter > or a friend or, you know, a sibling go through something like that?"And so > I am a – I believe the President has been in exactly the right place about > this, which is we have to respect the culture of life and we have to try > and bring people to have respect for it and make this as rare a > circumstance as possible.What I do think is that we should not have the > federal government in a position where it is forcing its views on one side > or the other. So, for instance, I’ve tended to agree with those who do not > favor federal funding for abortion because I believe that those who hold a > strong moral view on the other side should not be forced to fund > it.Riceclarified her position in an appearance on NBC’s "Meet the Press" > just two days later. Asked host Tim Russert: "You told the Washington Times > on Friday you were mildly pro-choice. What does that mean?" Said Rice: "It > means that, like many Americans, I find the issue of abortion very > difficult. I believe it ought to be as rare as possible. Nobody wants to > see anyone go through that. I favor parental notification. I favor a ban on > late-term abortion. But I, myself, am not a fan of having the government > intervene in the laws." "You would not outlaw it?" asked Russet. "No," said > Rice. > > I think it is virtually certain that Romney would never name a vice > presidential candidate who was not pro-life.He recently tolda town-hall > audience in Ohio: "I can assure you that even though I have not chosen the > person that will be my vice president, that person will be a conservative; > they will believe in conservative principles." Although conservatives are > low on principle these days, opposition to abortion is certainly still a > conservative principle. (Regarding Rice’s quip about being "libertarian on > this issue,"I recently arguedthat I see nothing libertarian about a woman > choosing to kill her unborn child for getting in the way of her lifestyle.) > > But should naming a pro-choice running mate be a reason to not vote for > Romney? The same question might also be asked concerning the view on > abortion of a presidential candidate. The Libertarian Party’s presidential > candidate, Gary Johnson, is pro-choice on abortion. Is that a reason to not > vote for him? (Obama and Biden are also pro-choice, but since I can’t > imagine anyone with half a brain voting for them, I will leave them out of > the abortion discussion.) > > The same type of questions might be asked when it comes to religion. For > the second time in less than a year, theGallup pollis reporting that a > majority of Americans (54 percent) would vote for an atheist for president. > This is the highest percentage since Gallup began asking the question in > 1958. The percentage then was only 18 percent. Inanother recent poll, less > than half of voters considered Obama to be a Christian. Romney’s faith has > likewise been disparaged because he is a Mormon. But is a candidate’s > religion reason enough not to vote for him? > > Although I am both pro-life and a conservative Christian, my answer to > all these questions is a no. > > Take, for example, someone else who is also pro-life and a conservative > Christian – Republican presidential candidate/hopeful Ron Paul. Here are > some of the statements he has made on the subject of abortion:The right of > an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of > liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong > commitment to this pro-life principle.In 40 years of medical practice, I > never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion > necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.I am also the prime sponsor > of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the > ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect > life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny > which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 > million of the unborn.Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious > sociopolitical problem of our age. The lack of respect for life that > permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our > careless attitude toward liberty. As an obstetrician, I know that partial > birth abortion is never a necessary medical procedure. It is a gruesome, > uncivilized solution to a social problem.I believe beyond a doubt that a > fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection, and that the right to > life is the foundation of any moral society.Andregardingfunding for Planned > Parenthood:I will veto any spending bill that contains funding for Planned > Parenthood, facilities that perform abortion and all government family > planning schemes. Like millions of Americans, I believe that innocent life > deserves protection and I am deeply offended by abortion. It is > unconscionable to me that fellow Pro-Life Americans are forced to fund > abortion through their tax dollars. As a Congressman, I’ve never voted for > any budget that includes funding for Planned Parenthood. Instead, I’ve > introduced the Taxpayers’ Freedom of Conscience Act to cut off all taxpayer > funding of abortions, so-called "family planning" services and > international abortionists.Dr. Paul has alsosaidof his personal faith:I > have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the > political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the > election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I > freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His > guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not > from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence > for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving > Creator.Now, if Ron Paul announced tomorrow that he was pro-choice and an > atheist, but that he had not changed any other of his views, I would > support him just as highly as I do now. Sure, I would be disappointed in > him, and so would many others, but it wouldn’t affect my unwavering support > for him because of his libertarian principles. > > But don’t we need pro-life Republican presidents so they can appoint > pro-life conservatives to the Supreme Court? You mean like Harry Blackmun, > the author of the Roe v. Wade decision, who was appointed by President > Nixon and confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 94-0? The Republican nominee > for president the last time was John McCain. If he was so pro-life then why > did he vote to confirm to the U.S. Supreme Court pro-abortion justices like > Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, and David Souter? Why did he consider the > pro-abortion senator Joe Lieberman for his running mate? Why has he voted > for Health and Human Services Title X funding for Planned Parenthood? > > And speaking of Planned Parenthood – the nation’s leading abortion > provider – here is ablog postI made on April 28, 2010:I have seen it > reported in several places that Planned Parenthood, one of the world’s > leading abortion providers, received government grants and contracts of > $350 million for fiscal year 2007-2008 and $337 million for fiscal year > 2006-2007. I verified this information for myself on thePlanned > Parenthoodwebsite. I also discovered that Planned Parenthood’s fiscal year > ends on June 30. This means that Bush the Republican was the president > during this time. But after doing a little digging, I also found out that > Planned Parenthood received government grants and contracts of $305 million > (34%) during fiscal year 2005-2006. During this time we not only had Bush > the Republican president but also a Republican majority in Congress. Yet, > Planned Parenthood was still funded. And we are supposed to take > Republicans seriously when they complain that Obama isn’t likely to appoint > an anti-abortion judge to the Supreme Court? Why wasn’t the Republican > Party that concerned about abortion when clinics affiliated with Planned > Parenthood performed 264,943 abortions in 2005?Some Republicansare still > wanting to continue Title X family planning funding and even worse things > like the United Nations Populations Fund (UNFPA) and international > population control through Medicaid and foreign aid programs. > > It is a myth that we need to put pro-life Republicans in office from the > president on down so they can use their power to try to limit abortions and > funding for abortions. Republicans have failed miserably to do either of > these things. > > Republicans need Roe v. Wade. Not because they want their wives and > daughters to have access to "safe and legal" abortions, but because they > need the promise of overturning it to sucker the "pro-life" faithful to > vote for them instead of those evil "pro-choice" Democrats. > > But even if a Republican president were solidly pro-life, appointed real > pro-life judges, and vetoed any and all funding for "family planning," that > in and of itself would not be reason enough to vote for him. We live in a > welfare/warfare police state where the Constitution is continually > violated, civil liberties are in grave peril, wealth is redistributed on a > grand scale, foreign policy is an abomination, and government spending, > regulating, and legislating are out of control. A pro-life president who > perpetuates these things is just as evil as a pro-choice president who does > so. Abortion is primarily a moral problem that can never be solved by > government. > > And it is also true that if a Republican president were pro-choice, that > in and of itself would not be reason enough to not vote for him. The > presidency pays well enough that we don't need to worry about him > moonlighting as an abortionist, although I’m sure he would have a lot of > customers in Washington DC since it hasthe highestabortion/birth ratio in > the United States. He couldn’t keep Roe v. Wade from being overturned by > the Supreme Court. He couldn’t further liberalize state abortion laws. He > couldn't legalize something that is already legal. He couldn't veto a > constitutional amendment banning abortion since such congressional > resolutions are not presented to the president for his approval. If a > pro-choice president actually manifested fidelity to the Constitution, > civil liberties, private property, individual liberty, peace, the free > market, and real limitations on the size and scope of government, he would > be infinitely better than the most ardent pro-life one. > > And the same goes for a president who was an atheist and not a Christian. > > The reason to not vote for Obama and Biden or Romney and any Republican > talked about as his running mate is because they are all socialist, > fascist, police statist warmongers, not because of the presence or absence > of any pro-life credentials.http://lewrockwell.com/vance/vance298.html > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at > http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
