| Author | Message | | Alpha | |  | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Anglo Thug | | Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:38 pm Post subject: |
| | Quote: | | You live in denial of that like you live in denial of Ron Paul's overwhelming rejection by the Republican party |
I doubt anyone denies the Republican Party has rejected Ron Paul's policies and beliefs overwhelmingly. This is to be expected considering Ron Paul is running on what was once understood to be a genuine Republican platform. But the Republican Party has turned back to its early communist principles. And so Ron Paul is on the outside, issuing reminders about how things used to be or were supposed to be. This is why he's not only rejected but hated. You've no doubt noticed, some so-called Republicans have spent more time (all their time) campaigning against Ron Paul than hammering their supposed ideological opponent the Democratic Party. Somebody is afraid the mist will clear and show the Republicans up for what they are, communists. Big government, attrition of rights and privacy, an economy based on war, an expansionist foreign policy, rigged elections, a declining moral standard, these were all accusations once leveled at the Soviets. Now such charges sit very neatly at the heart of the Republican Party. Ron Paul has the guts to say as much. Our commies in Republican costume don't like it. No surprise, who likes being exposed as a cuckoo?
Wonder if this is why so many VOTERS have overwhelmingly rejected the Republican Party?
_________________
Please sign the petition to prosecute War Criminal Tony Blair | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 8:41 pm Post subject: |
| Even Michael Scheuer (who used to head up the Bin Laden unit for the CIA) basically endorsed Ron Paul in the following youtube video (of course the fifth columnist Israel first crowd doesn't like Ron Paul!):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAehMPVFFE0
Michael Scheuer (former head of CIA Bin Laden unit) was on Bill Maher. He said:
" Israel is not worth an American life or an American dollar." and
"Our unqualified support of Israel has brought the US a great deal of pain and increasingly dead Americans, fighting wars that are not ours to fight." and
" America is fighting a war that does not exist -- our politicians have lied to us-it is not about hating freedom, womens' rights etc.---it is about our policies in the Middle East ."
Additional at the following URL:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/08/05/the-gorilla-in-the-room-is-us-support-for-israel.php | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 10:21 pm Post subject: |
| The following conveys how Ron Paul is the only anti-war candidate as all the other ones are owned by the pro-Israel lobby to include Hillary and Obama:
If you wanna the war to go onna then vote for Obama!
Commentary by Bob Witanek bwitanek@... http://EndOccIraq.org
Respond and discuss at http://antiwar2008.blogspot.com or at:
http://Yahoogroups.com/prowarobama
send to prowarobama-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Notwithstanding support he is receiving from Amiri Baraka, Ted Glick, Move On and various national figures known to travel in anti-war circles, Obama’s position on Iraq is far from anti-war. While he states he is anti-war and that he has always been against the war, a careful examination of his stated position on his campaign website as well as scrutiny of his voting record proves otherwise. Keep in mind also that during election time, politicians pander, they all do – so even what he is promising now is suspect and is inconsistent with his own history in the senate, let alone that his position supports permanent occupation of Iraq and implies support for permanent bases in Iraq. His position is hardly one that merits support nor is it one that should earn his candidacy support from anti-war activists at all.
Does Obama Ever Intend to Get the US Out of Iraq?
In a word, the answer is NO! As part of Obama’s Iraq war plan, taken directly from his campaign site, he states:
“Residual Force to Remain: Under the Obama plan, American troops may remain in Iraq or the region. These American troops will protect American diplomatic and military personnel in Iraq, and continue striking at al Qaeda in Iraq. If Iraq makes political progress and their security forces are not sectarian, we would also continue training the Iraqi Security Forces. In the event of an outbreak of genocide, we would reserve the right to intervene, with the international community, if that intervention was needed to provide civilians with a safehaven.”
He does not state how many troops will remain or for how long. The assumption is that he means indefinitely or he would have stated a time frame. He calls it a “residual” force, a force that would stay resident or remain as occupant . . . the occupation continues indefinitely under Obama in his very own words.
Before he gets to the point of admitting that his plan is for permanent occupation, which means permanent US bases in Iraq, he talks of a his plan to “begin redeploying American
troops from Iraq:”
“The withdrawal would be strategic and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Troops would be removed from secure areas first, with troops remaining longer in more volatile areas. The drawdown would begin immediately with one to two combat brigades redeploying each month and all troops engaged in combat operations out by the end of next year.”
His so-called redeployment is conditional, or as he states, it would be “strategic and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Troops would be removed from secure areas first, with troops remaining longer in more volatile areas.” Read between the lines . . .that means if the so-called withdrawal plan can be interrupted by the following:
1. Decisions of “commanders on the ground”
2. Strategic concerns
3. Consultations with the Iraqi government (as if it has an independent will of its own.)
4. The failure to create “secure areas”
5. And the failure to eliminate “volatile areas”
An example as to what making any such withdrawal contingent upon the direction of “commanders on the ground” will mean can be seen currently. The Bush Administration has touted a supposed “draw down” of just some of the troops deployed during the “surge” escalation and now Defense Secretary Robert Gates is balking even at that miniscule reduction of combat troops, stating, “I think the notion of a brief period of consolidation and evaluation probably it makes sense….how brief will that be, that is one of the things we are still working out."
Obama’s conditions make his promise, which he states after mentioning all those conditions, that “ all troops engaged in combat operations (will be) out by the end of next year,” nothing more than a mirage. Since he will take his direction from commanders on the ground, his promise to begin the ‘draw down’ immediately and to redeploy one to two brigades a month and to get all troops engaged in combat “redeployed” (which is not the same as “out”) by the end of “next year” a political stump that leaves him all the wiggle room in the world to evade. His claims to be anti-war are pandering but without substance.
He also neglects to mention that any such “redeployment” whether it ever really happens or not will be accompanied by an increase in use of aerial bombardment of Iraqi targets. Rest assured that any civilian toll will be under the cover of “striking at al Qaeda” as it currently is stated when anyone other than a woman or child is killed by Americans.
Also, be aware that his promise of redeployment of troops in Iraq is a promise to *escalate* the US role in the war in Afghanistan. According to his own plan, “Barack Obama believes that we need to begin to end the war in order to finish the fight in Afghanistan. He would redeploy at least two combat brigades (7,000 personnel) of rested, trained American troops to Afghanistan to reinforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO’s efforts to fight the Taliban.”
He has also promised a greater role for the US military in Pakistan, with or without the approval of the Musharaf regime. In speeches made years before the current campaign, Obama threatened the prospect of military action against Iran.
The clearest way for congress to end the US war and occupation in Iraq is to withdraw the funding from the war. At no time during Obama’s tenure as a US Senator has he led an effort or demanded of his Democratic Party candidates that they vote against funding for the war. He promises to end the war after his election but he already has had the power to demonstrate leadership to oppose the war and he has not done so. He is and has been a leader of his party but has failed to show the leadership needed to get his partisans to vote as a block against funding for the war.
In fact, using this source: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490 , you will see that his voting record on Iraq is at best inconsistent, sometimes voting for funding and sometimes against and sometimes not bothering to make it to role call (not voting at all).
As the famous jazz standard put it, “It Don’t Mean A Thing if it Ain’t Got that Swing!” Obama makes a good speech, he hits a lot of high notes and can excite his audience. His promise of change and the prospect of electing the first U.S. president of African descent is alluring. However, our role must be to look at what he is truly offering and as for the war in Iraq is concerned, he offers more of it. We need to be clear in that fact. If you are basing your vote for Obama on what he plans to do in Iraq, then you are voting for continued U.S. war and occupation there, as well as for escalation of U.S. war in Afghanistan and possible incursions into Pakistan.
I continue to maintain that anti-war activists need to politically oppose the war and use their vote accordingly. The only way to do that is the complete rejection of the Democratic Party as the pro-war institution that it is. While much precious time has been lost, we need to re-orient ourselves and vote enmasse for candidates and parties which oppose the war from an anti-imperialist and anti-racist perspective. If we do not get it this time around, another 4 years of war, now administered by a Democratic Party regime, is what we will face. When will we ever learn?
On the other hand, as I entitled this article, “If you wanna the war to go onna, then cast your vote for Obama.”
Posted by Anti War Challenge 2008 at 5:00 PM 0 comments | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:54 am Post subject: |
| Email exchange with Donald Jones who is a retired consultant to the CIA, Janes and others:
From: "Donald Jones"
Subject: RE: Bush Won't Let Facts Stand in the Way of Regime Change in Iran
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 19:18:44 -0500
Bunker busters are fine if you hit the bunker. If you don’t they are irrelevant. They just make big holes and fill up with water. Nobody knows where the nuclear facilities are because nobody knows how the tunnels run deep under ground. What the CIA/NRO is seeing is what the Iranians want them to see. If the USAF attacks it will do so all by itself. If the Iranians attack the US army and the USAF does not respond adequately the army is going to be beyond pissed off. I think 300 top generals and Powell are meeting at the Army-Navy Country Club in Arlington and talking things over. I suspect Bush has worn out his welcome with the generals thanks to Wolfowitz and Perle. I think an Iranian attack in Iraq right now would wipe out the 160,000 soldiers we have there and the USAF wouldn’t do a thing to stop it. The Iranians have supersonic anti-ship missiles and could sink our carrier and cruiser forces in minutes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 6:56 PM
To: Donald Jones
Subject: RE: Bush Won't Let Facts Stand in the Way of Regime Change in Iran
Donald Jones wrote:
Colin Powell said we are not going to war with anyone. He is speaking for the generals. If Bush pushes it, he could get a military coup. He is pushing for a military catastrophe that the military won’t tolerate. He likes to blame the generals for disasters that he gets them into. They don’t like that. The generals detest Bush’s LZNP pals like Wolfowitz and Perle.
Don,
I have heard similar from a very valued contact/friend in D.C. in that Gates and Fallon will more than likely resign if the attack on Iran order were to be given. Keep in mind though that even Colin Powell has conveyed (for Washington Post editor Karen DeYoung's bio book about him) that the 'JINSA crowd' was/is in control of the Pentagon (via JINSA/PNAC/AEI associated Dick Cheney of course - see http://tinyurl.com/2b6p5k ) and the Air Force would more than likely carry out any order to strike Iran when it comes down from Cheney via Bush.
I was at 'meet and greet' with Senator Gravel in Los Angeles recently as he also mentioned that the Air Force (see http://tinyurl.com/2a6md6 ) is eager to carry out the mission (especially after the B-2s are finished having their bomb brackets modified in Palmdale to enable them to carry the new 30,000 pound bunker busters which are obviously intended for the Iranian nuclear facilities as they could easily be launched from Diego Garcia where their facilities are already being upgraded - see the following URL):
B-2s being fitted for Bunker Buster Bomb - delivery to Iran :
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2007/07/26/war-with-iran-real-risk-according-to-former-cia-operative-page-7.php
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 4:48 AM
Subject: Bush Won't Let Facts Stand in the Way of Regime Change in Iran
Bush Won't Let Facts Stand in the Way of Regime Change in Iran
http://tinyurl.com/yqqkoq
Donald Jones wrote:
If the USAF hits Iran, Iran will hit the US army in Iraq with 50,000 commandos plus 60,000 Iraqi Shiites. The army knows that and does not like it. The army is not going to invade Iran. The USAF can’t locate the nuclear targets. Iran has some very deadly weapons thanks to Russia. It can deploy 6,000,000 troops. The US couldn’t deploy more than 250,000 and that would take six months to do it. So, no wars with Iran. The next war may be between Powell, the generals, and the LZNP goons led by Bush.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 6:25 PM
Subject: RE: Bush Won't Let Facts Stand in the Way of Regime Change in Iran
Secret U.S. Air Force team planning Iranian strike (for Israel), led by Jews:
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/3717
Exactly right, Don... Look at what General (Ret) Jim David has to say via the following URL (he is a very valued friend who is mentioned on the cover of Paul Findley's 'They Dare to Speak Out' book which is shown in the margin of http://tinyurl.com/26jf4d ):
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2008/02/14/war-with-iran-real-risk-according-to-former-cia-operative-page-61.php
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Donald Jones
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 4:30 PM
Subject: RE: Bush Won't Let Facts Stand in the Way of Regime Change in Iran
Iran is not a terrorist nation to the Muslims. It is a terrorist nation to Israel and Bush. Terrorists to Israel are freedom fighters for Arabs. There are two points of view here. People need to keep their terminology straight. The term terrorist was coined by the Israelis to demonize the Palestinians. The Israelis were the ones who introduced terror into the Middle East, not the Palestinians.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush Won't Let Facts Stand in the Way of Regime Change in Iran
By James Harris
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/76699/ | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
