Posted on 12/05/2010 1:13:20 PM PST by FS11
These articles describe the steps to legally remove BO.
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/06/how-to-start-and-lead-citizens-grand.html
http://standupamericaus.com/our-privilege-our-right-and-our-duty-civilian-grand-jury:33320
your links i’m very well aware of & support the’bam’s removal but you know as well as I do it will be shot down.
Glenn Beck covered all the connections last week on his TV show in great detail last week.
You're welcome to your interpretation. Mine, however, is different.
It appears to me that, on a number of occasions -- including both Yugoslavia/The Balkans and Iraq -- the "neocons" you love to hate, foresaw inevitable conflicts years in advance, proposed sound policies which would have substantially mitigated, and just possibly avoided, those conflicts, were either ignored, or their policies were imperfectly implemented and then rapidly sabotaged, leaving U.S. intervention as the remaining least bad option.
It's always better to help (or simply let) people solve their own problems, and this, not U.S. military intervention, is always the first "neocon" proposal. Problem is nobody ever listens to the neocons until it's too late for that.
Man, that is gooood spin.
Allow me to unravel it; IOW, they [the neocon warhawks] both predicted and created the outcome they desired? The truth is/was that in neither instance was US security truly threatened.
Sir, can you kindly inform me as to what "sound policies" the neocons proposed to Bill Clinton in 1995 and 1998 respectively, and the eventual justification requiring the drastic intervention of either military action, bombing and occupation?
I would, gladly, if you were worth the trouble. Or if there was any hope the discussion would be productive. Sadly, neither is the case.
But briefly, for the sake of lurkers...
What I had in mind in the case of The Balkans -- prior to Clinton, but rather under Bush Senior -- was the (neocon opposed) arms embargo. The breakaway Republics should have been allowed to arm themselves. The Yugoslav aggressions (initially successful, but predictably ill fated from the beginning) would have been suppressed much sooner, which in the end would have been better for Serbia/Yugoslavia as well.
As to Iraq, I had in mind the (neocon conceived) Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Unfortunately this was never seriously implemented, but instead systematically undermined and sabotaged by the very agencies (State and the CIA) which were charged with enacting it.
This was tragic. Under the act we could and should have had a viable, multi-ethnic, free Iraqi government in exile, based on Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, and a Free Iraqi Army, both operating in the Northern No-Fly zone.
At best, this would have sucked power and legitimacy from Sadam's dictatorship, such that he might have been overthrown or assassinated or, failing that, weakened to the point that he would have been forced to stand down when eventually confronted by the U.N. and the United States.
In the worst case, if this failed to prevent the war in 2003, you would still have had a free Iraqi division or so participating in the liberation of their own country, and a representative Iraqi government in waiting, to which sovereignty could have been transfered almost immediately.
It doesn't take much hindsight to envision the huge and beneficial difference those factors would have made.
>> The most stunning revelation here is the John Bolton actually writes for the Guardian...
And he leaked that himself nonetheless.
Apparently he's unhinged over the PNAC letters, probably due to the output of the Bertrand Russell "tribunals" and/or their N. American affiliates.
1997 : (THE THINK TANK PNAC IS FOUNDED ; COMMUNISTS ABROAD 'HAVE A COW'--See LEFTIST BRUSSELLS TRIBUNAL, ANSWER'S RAMSEY CLARK , JOHN CONYERS, HALLIDAY, ...) In the spring of 1997 the neo-conservatives Robert Kagan and William Kristol of The Weekly Standard founded 'The Project for the New American Century' (PNAC). The most distinguished signatories of the mission statement are Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Jeb Bush (George W. Bush's brother), Francis Fukuyama, and 'last but not least' Paul Wolfowitz, a former Professor of International Politics and former Dean of the Department of International Politics at Johns Hopkins University. Its current director is Gary Schmitt-----"THE PEOPLE VERSUS TOTAL WAR INCORPORATED" LOOKING BACK TO THE BRUSSELLS TRIBUNAL (Yokohama-testimony, 5th ICTI hearing June 6th 2004)http://www.icti-e.com/Lieven%20De%20Cauter.html
The communists having cows today are following these ghosts of Kwanzaas, Solstices, Equinoxes and Earth Days past:
NOVEMBER 1969 : (CITIZENS COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY (CCI) ARE FORMED IN RESPONSE TO THE CALL OF THE BERTRAND RUSSELL FOUNDATION IN NY --- SEE WPC {SEE IPS} , VVAW) In response to a public call from the Bertrand Russell foundation in New York, Jeremy Rifkin and Tod Ensign launch a new organization called Citizens Commissions of Inquiry (CCI) to publicize [my note: alleged]American war crimes in Indochina. ------ From WinterSoldier Timeline , http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=Timeline
********
In any case, the details I posted give the names of the antiwar groups Clinton was involved with in the UK. I came across some of these same groups when I was researching Kerry and the VVAW's dissemination of the "war crimes" propaganda put out by Bertrand Russell's International War Crimes Tribunal, which like Clinton's group in the UK was working in coordination with the Soviet-directed World Peace Council. 90 posted on 10/23/2006 5:33:45 PM PDT by Fedora | To 87
That was then... this is who they are now : (Note the hostility towards PNAC in some cases is coming from people who were on Saddam Hussein's oil voucher gift list):
JANUARY 2003 : (FRANCIS BOYLE & ANSWER'S RAMSEY CLARK PUSHING FOR IMPEACHMENT CHARGES AGAINST PRESIDENT BUSH IN EFFORT TO STOP WAR AGAINST BRIBE-DISPENSING DICTATOR SADDAM HUSSEIN ----see BERTRAND RUSSELL TRIBUNAL)
MARCH 1, 2003 : (CBS DISTANCES ITSELF FROM RAMSEY CLARK? - NOW CLAIMS RAMSEY CLARK ROLE IN SETTING UP DAN RATHER INTERVIEW OF SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS "OVERSTATED" --- See TANGMEMO/RATHERGATE, DAN RATHER'S PRIVATE PRISON SCAM, BERTRAND RUSSELL )
MARCH 21, 2003 : ('WAR ON CHENEY, RUMSFELD & WOLFOWITZ' : PUBLICATION OF SILLY-ASS PETITION AGAINST PNAC-- See ICTI, BERTRAND RUSSELL PEACE FOUNDATION, BRUSSELS TRIBUNAL {see RAMSEY CLARK, DENIS HALIDAY [UN Oil for Food official], HANS VON SPONECK [Denis Haliday's successor in the UN oil for Food program]},ECONUTS, GLOBAL WARMING SCAM ) "Let me [Belgian Lieven De Cauter] briefly evoke the history of our initiative. Just before the start of the war in Iraq a petition was launched. It was signed by some 500 artists, writers, intellectuals and academics. It called for moral and, if possible, legal action against the 'Project for the New American Century' and the authorities responsible for the war against Iraq. It was published on March 21st [2003] in two Belgian newspapers, De Standaard and De Morgen. It soon appeared that legal action was unlikely to succeed as the United States have consistently acted against any legal authority that would be liable to threaten them and still continue to do so. Hence the idea to set up a 'Moral Court' or 'People's Court' to condemn the new American policy as well as the think tanks behind it (the latter always remain beyond the grasp of legal action). A broad platform composed of several Belgian cultural organizations was created to carry out the petition's first proposal: to set up a Brussels Tribunal, after the historical example of the Russell Tribunal." -----"THE PEOPLE VERSUS TOTAL WAR INCORPORATED" LOOKING BACK TO THE BRUSSELLS TRIBUNAL (Yokohama-testimony, 5th ICTI hearing June 6th 2004)http://www.icti-e.com/Lieven%20De%20Cauter.html
JUNE 2003 end : (BERTRAND RUSSELL PEACE FOUNDATION CONFERENCE -- See BRUSSELS TRIBUNAL, 'WAR ON PNAC, CHENEY, RUMSFELD & WOLFOWITZ') "It soon appeared that legal action was unlikely to succeed as the United States have consistently acted against any legal authority that would be liable to threaten them and still continue to do so. Hence the idea to set up a 'Moral Court' or 'People's Court' to condemn the new American policy as well as the think tanks behind it (the latter always remain beyond the grasp of legal action). A broad platform composed of several Belgian cultural organizations was created to carry out the petition's first proposal: to set up a Brussels Tribunal, after the historical example of the Russell Tribunal. At a networking conference set up by the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation at the end of June 2003 in Brussels it was decided that a series of hearings would be held in different places all over the world, culminating in a final session in Istanbul. The Brussels Tribunal was the official opening session of the has become the World Tribunal on Iraq and of wich ICTI an integral part."------"THE PEOPLE VERSUS TOTAL WAR INCORPORATED" LOOKING BACK TO THE BRUSSELLS TRIBUNAL (Yokohama-testimony, 5th ICTI hearing June 6th 2004)http://www.icti-e.com/Lieven%20De%20Cauter.html
For some real fun look up the kook "Lieven De Cauter" to understand why Bolton and Cheney cause these people to derail.
Also note the Bertrand Russell letter [in which Milosovic's wanna-be attorney Ramsey Clark was also involved] came about the same time as this, or shortly after:
MARCH 11, 2003 : (DEMOCRAT US HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEEMEMBER JOHN CONYERS OF MICHIGAN CONVENES MEETING ON TRYING TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT BUSH WITH MORE THAN TWO DOZEN FAR LEFT LAWYERS TO CONSIDER HOW TO OVERTHROW THE PRESIDENT; ILLINOIS RADICAL FRANCIS BOYLE AND HIS ASSOCIATE WTC BOMBING/TUNNEL PLOT CONSPIRATOR SHEIKH OMAR ABDEL RAHMAN'S LAWYER, RAMSEY CLARK, ATTEND-- See CONYERS/CLARKCOUP ATTEMPT) --------Meeting Assembled By Conyers Mulls Seeking Bush's Impeachment Over Iraq , Drudge Report | Thu Mar 13 2003 10:30:03 ET | Drudgelink
We're already familiar with Conyer's affiliation with the al Arian family and other questionable things. Check out this Illinois lawyer Francis Boyle, though...
" For the good of all humanity America must be restrained. Time is of the essence!" -----Francis Boyle
Their big concern now is war on Iran, apparently.
Your almost as bad as my good friend Rabscuttle when it comes to John McCain.
Sheesh, have any other interests, except maligning John Bolton 24/7 on Free Republic like a Johnny One Note??
You must have known him somehow and he must have done something to your personally, career-wise, to be on such an exclusive FR bender about him like that.
Oh well, take care.
See you (invariably) on the next Ambassador Bolton thread (with not much more for you to add); but I am sure you will be there.
What I had in mind in the case of The Balkans -- prior to Clinton, but rather under Bush Senior -- was the (neocon opposed) arms embargo. The breakaway Republics should have been allowed to arm themselves. The Yugoslav aggressions (initially successful, but predictably ill fated from the beginning) would have been suppressed much sooner, which in the end would have been better for Serbia/Yugoslavia as well.
An arms embargo would have made sense. Interestingly enough, embargoes are too passive for neocon-globalists.
My original point - US security was not threatened, thus our intrusive snouts were not truly righteously authorized to indulge the neocon warhawks for the sake of "Nation Building." Our military does not exist to play World Cops. Exactly who was armed, was not relevant. The sovereignty of these breakaway republics was NOT our call; NONE of our business. Despite US and NATO meddling, this ill-advised military misadventure remains a dismal failure.
As to Iraq, I had in mind the (neocon conceived) Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Unfortunately this was never seriously implemented, but instead systematically undermined and sabotaged by the very agencies (State and the CIA) which were charged with enacting it.
Once again, here were US globalist-neocons in the early planning stages of "Nation Building" - which should have been of no consequence to the US - regardless of which over-funded alphabet intel agency undermined its implementation.
This was tragic. Under the act we could and should have had a viable, multi-ethnic, free Iraqi government in exile, based on Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, and a Free Iraqi Army, both operating in the Northern No-Fly zone.
Let's be honest, shall we? Iraq IS a disaster in any case. Such an "Iraq Liberation Act" is a misnomer - the Iraqi people and its tribal "multi-ethnic," multi-Muslim citizenry have been warring against each other for countless generations. They Sunni and Shia do not like each other and never will. Chalabi was a US hand-picked Iraqi "leader-in-name."
At best, this would have sucked power and legitimacy from Sadam's dictatorship, such that he might have been overthrown or assassinated or, failing that, weakened to the point that he would have been forced to stand down when eventually confronted by the U.N. and the United States.
Again, where is it written in the US constitution that the military of US is obligated to fight, bleed, and die as "Nation Builders", period? Where is it written that the US citizens are obligated to finance "Nation Building"? For that matter why should the UN have any obligation to "Nation Build"?
Even with Saddam, gone Iraq has been no better for it, nor will it EVER. A Muslim "democracy" is an impossibility.
In the worst case, if this failed to prevent the war in 2003, you would still have had a free Iraqi division or so participating in the liberation of their own country, and a representative Iraqi government in waiting, to which sovereignty could have been transfered almost immediately.
With all due respect, such a vision in Iraq was/is a pipe dream. These people are NOT Western in philosophy. They don't share our values. They are Muslim, of whom their Law is Sharia. The minute US forces (if ever) leave, the place is going to be a chaotic nightmare till another Strongman dictator re-takes the reigns.
It doesn't take much hindsight to envision the huge and beneficial difference those factors would have made.
What I imagine is an American neocon leadership which in hindsight had realized that a misadventure in Iraq would be a monumental miscalculation which not only destabilized Iraq and the region, but allowed Iran to build a nuclear arsenal because US resources were too stretched to pay closer attention or use our Big Stick.
No more CFRer calling the shots on international policies. If our interests are threatened, Americans shall have the right to respond or defend ourselves with every resource available; If fighting, we should have NO limitations on winning a war, and NO silly Rules of Engagement. Fighting, bleeding, and dying for other nations - it is morally wrong and too expensive.
I’ll catch up to you on the other side, AIT. Gotta hut the hay.
I would submit that any popularity of Bolton is based solely upon his aggressive rejection of the UN cabal and non-nonsense attitude in that venue - of which I too was a great fan.
It's not until one examines the history, policies, and positions of the man that you realize how truly pro-statist, elitist, and globalist he actually is. His positions in support of TSA groping techniques, membership in the CFR, and his respective endorsement of 1995 and 1998 unnecessary intervention in global affairs In the Balkans and Iraq make him loose cannon and his judgment questionable. I assume he wants to bomb Iran and NK into the Stone Age as well.
Several others I want to see [Bolton] in the Presidential race as a great foreign policy voice and dimension.
You are certainly entitled to your collective opinion - even if his "foreign policy voice" is rather boisterously loud and misguided.
Your almost as bad as my good friend Rabscuttle when it comes to John McCain.
I don't begrudge anyone's conservative opinion here, AIT. With respect to John McCain, IMO he's a RINO-globalist. I don't know what your "good friend" Rabscuttle's opinion is of the man.
FWIW, I respect your opinion very much and consider you one of the good guys here and a staunch conservative. We just disagree on the Bolton issue (and perhaps others with respect to foreign policy, I reckon.)
Sheesh, have any other interests, except maligning John Bolton 24/7 on Free Republic like a Johnny One Note??
Yes, I have many political interests. You've chosen to focus and obsess on this one particular issue.
See you (invariably) on the next Ambassador Bolton thread (with not much more for you to add); but I am sure you will be there.
Probably. Cheers.
Dont take it personally, but if you had been around here for a lot longer, you would have gotten a lot of this inside stuff, internal FR comraderie, and the like. But then that is understandable. Keep up the good work.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.