It's Raining Nazis

Imperium doesn't suit us, never has.

Has it ever worked for anybody?

Has it ever worked for anybody?

Cookie, the Romans (27 BCE-1453 CE if you include the "Byzantine" phase) and the Ottomans (~1299-1923) did pretty well with it, to name but two. Of course, now isn't then and we're not them.

I just watched a really good post get eaten by the CGI script.....oh well

It had to do with the fact that full Iraqi sovereigny was NEVER on our to-do list.

As long as we acknowlege that, we can have meaningful debates about whether it's appropriate to extend Pax Americana to that section of the world.

But to pretend that that decision has anything to do with the will of the Iraqi people (or the American people for that matter) is to buy into an elaborate hoax.

It works Cookie, but only for so long. Is Joe saying we shouldn't have invaded Mexico? Cuz really I think the Mexican-American war has more parallels to the Iraq War than WWII.

If the Ottomans "did pretty well with it" then why are we still sweeping up the fragments of the shattered mess they left behind?

The only people who beleive that are people that WANT to believe it.

There's only two groups like that:

Dittoheads
Neconservatives

I think the point is that 'Imperium' ALWAYS seems to have a rather sucky ending...

A 'faux pas':

A third group.

Fox listeners

"Imperium doesn't suit us, never has."

Totally agree with you about Iraq, Joe. Also agree that we shouldn't be an imperial power.

But for better or worse, Robert Kagan has made a pretty good argument that imperium does suit us.

"It works Cookie, but only for so long. Is Joe saying we shouldn't have invaded Mexico?"

W would have been a Mexican.

WOW what a thought. What if Mexico...

It had to do with the fact that full Iraqi sovereigny was NEVER on our to-do list.

It was and is on our DO NOT list, from the outset. Cheney even remarked, before the invasion, that there were some candidates who would not be allowed to win leadership positions.

It really rankles to see news people and pundits repeat the big lie that this is about democracy and independence in Iraq. It is transparently false--complete inconsistent with the imperial aims of the project.

It's good to see Joe openly use the word "imperium." It's been avoided far too long. Note, though, that he's part of the Serious People who believe in a large US presence. Any plebiscite on the question of a continued American presence would be decidedly against.

Bases and oil contracts cannot coexist with representative government.

Cuz really I think the Mexican-American war has more parallels to the Iraq War than WWII.

Allawi has remarked that the proper parallel is the Philippines.

There should be an addendum to the Santayana "Forget history, repeat history" maxim: Those who keep making stupid correlations between the past and present are doomed to make tomorrow's stupid history.

53_3 - "W would have been a Mexican."

Not so. Contrary to carefully constructed myth, W was born in New Haven, CT, not in Texas.

I wonder if the Neocons at some point are going to run into Peak Nazi? (Darn, I wish I could link to the Poor Man Institute's Night of 1,000 Hitlers. Now they make you buy the book. Liberal Fascism indeed.)

Ralph:

Cr*p! My theory is in flames...

Joe,

Thanks for writing and posting about things other than book reviews, videos, gaffs, how hard your job is and press releases.

is it our goal now to leave as soon as we responsibly can or is it to stay indefinitely in a beachhead of American power in the center of the Middle East?

I vote for the former. Max Boot wants the latter. Obama and McCain divide on exactly these lines. Kinda convenient we have an election coming, isn't it?

Well, if he puts it like that, I guess it's a shame that the Iraqis can't vote in our election.

I think the war in Iraq is actually a unique case.

The reason I say this is because I've read the docmuments written by Perl, Wofowicz, and others over on the now defunct New American Century Project website.

It is clear from reading those that the Iraq was driven by several motivations, all pointing toward American hegenomy:

One was, of course, the removal of Saddam Hussein. Likely closely tied with this was the wish to give Israel a leg up in the ME. We've all discussed that.

Another was a desire to create a showcase for Neoconservative 'free market' ideology, and I think that it is this aspect of it that makes it so different from other wars. Most brushfire wars in the past were usually part of some definsive mechinations, but no aspect of defensiveness ever appears with respect to Iraq.

An example is the 'Domino Theory' which drove our increasing involvement in Vietnam, 'Manifest Destiny' for the Spanish American and MexAm wars, among others.

If the Ottomans "did pretty well with it" then why are we still sweeping up the fragments of the shattered mess they left behind?

We're not. We're sweeping up the mess the British and French left behind when they arbitrarily created the countries and placed pliable rulers in charge.

"..The Islamist radicals are a terrible danger.."
Should we understand that in the same sense as you would write "The christianist radicals are a terrible danger .." when referring to the likes of Rev Hagee, Pastor Parsley, the KKK,the Aryan supremacists, the radical conservatives etc?

"..continued U.S. presence marked by a gradual, responsible drawdown.."
Once we appreciate the transgression that is the issue then the course of swift action (and retribution) that responsible international community would call for under the circumstances becomes evident.
So, Joe Klein, do you appreciate that the aggression - that is, the invasion of Iraq - in search of Iraq's WMD was wrong/ illegitimate/ unacceptable/..?

[Or are you more interested in saving face?]

What I don't understand is why people continue to take folks like Max Boot and the rest of the neo-con crowd seriously. If these guys were baseball players, their collective batting average of .000 would have driven them out of even the minor leagues a long time ago.

Unfortunately, even with their abysmal record, the Neoconservatives own powerful properties on the beltway Monopoly board. The Weekly Standard, Fox News, AEI, a good chunk of the Washington Post editorial page, all sorts of think tank sinecures--they're not going away in the near future.

Well said, Joe.

Imperium doesn't suit us, never has.

The 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries with 253,288 uniformed personnel, plus an equal number of dependents and Department of Defense civilian employees... what would you call that if not Imperium? Franchising?

The 'faux' socialist are lead by the great and powerful, Oz....aka Obama!

Each war is unique in its own way, Joe Klien. It just happens that Islamic Extremists, not so much unlike our own Far Left Socialist Democrat Extremists, most of whom post comments right here on Swampland, are truly hell-bent on destroying America as we know it, and our American way of life.

We do need a gradual draw-down, not one that is abruptly ordered by a liberal President who has absolutely no idea about military strategy. Go even further, and a Presidential candidate who is totally clueless about much of anything shy of Black Liberation Theology which he spent 20+ years in the same pew exposing, but now denies.

I agree Joe, we need to bring our troops home. We will have our hands tied if Obama is elected, and I would rather our military men and women are here to defend us from our own extremists in our own country.

NO INTEGRITY - NO CHARACTER - NO EXPERIENCE

Just say NO to OBAMA!!!

For instance, today, the Washington Post publishes Richard Perle:

http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/06/26/why-is-richard-perle-still-published/

Why? Because it can.

Joe: what has happened to you? You have gone back to your calling: journalism. The rest of your Swampland posters play games with us. Haven't heard from KT here in a while. She is the other serious one.

Today's WashPost had its usual stable of Conservative writers and that noble son of Middle Amercia David Chosen by God Broder.

We have had a number of American soldiers killed in Iraq this week, but...wait...the surge has been a success.

Can we ever have an honest debate about Iraq and Afghanistan in the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On behald of the interents, I officially invoke Godwin's Law

That should have read "On behalf of the internets." Stupid overtime...

Max Boot is nuts. You can't compare occupation of Germany and Japan to Iraq. Please note that outside of the organized military, we never faced any hostility from the Germans or the Japanese. No militias, no "terrorists" (at least not large scale) and the Nazi regime was crushed. Clearly our occupation of Iraq resembles the Philipines. We occupied that country for 50 years and kept bases there for nearly 50 more.

McCain's idea of permanent bases is a bad one. Al Queda will just move to the horn of Africa and will a President McCain send 100,000 to Somalia? How can he when we have so many troops in the Middle East?

Bitter: KT's on vacation. She should be back next week.

JJ: the neocons continue to draw crowds because schmucks like Rusty/QH/obamish/M4A/texte and the rest of their small-minded, bigoted, fear-mongering coterie continue to eat it up. They're like the Taliban of America: radical, intolerant zealots. And dangerous when left unchecked.

But, of course, just as it's not fascism when Bush does it, and it's not un-Constitutional when Bush does it, it's not terrorism when Bush and the neocons do it.

I agree with Paul Daniel Ash - we've been an empire since WWII, if not earlier. It does suit us (unfortunately). It's just that we're running into the same problems other empires have had - PO'd barbarians at the fringes of our territories.

And bitterpill8 - KT is on vacation this week.

If you'll note, when the Roman and Ottoman empires went, the Romans and the Ottomans pretty much went with them.

Pretty high price for success, eh?

And anyone who thinks occupying present-day Iraq (with or without the temporary assent of a dubiously authoritative local "government") is like occupying postwar Germany must not have spent much time dodging bullets and shrapnel in the middle of a civil war. The surreality of that perception pretty well destroys the credibility of the entire argument.

> and will a President McCain send 100,000 to Somalia?

Any oil, there? Anything else of value? If not, don't count on it. Not enough potential ROI.

If you'll note, when the Roman and Ottoman empires went, the Romans and the Ottomans pretty much went with them.

Huh?

Niceguy/Cliff: thanks for the info: much appreciated. Take care.

> with or without the temporary assent of a dubiously authoritative local "government"

South Vietnam all over again?

You know, given our history over just the last 50 or so years, if I were a resident of some other country, I'd be constantly asking myself, "When are those Americans going to attack us?"

From an outside perspective, I'm afraid we must appear like bullies in need of a severe smack-down.

Mr. NG:

You are, no doubt, familiar with the Duchy of Grand Fenwick, which declared war on the US in the expectation of receiving the huge sums of foreign aid we give the nations we defeat.

Unfortunately for both parties, Grand Fenwick prevailed.

There's a lesson here, and if it were earlier in the day I could formulate it.

PDA:

The decline of the empires wasn't limited to the occupied areas.

Good post, Joe. And...Obama and anybody else opposed to the criminal invasion is not Chamberlain, and Bush is sure not Churchill. Different times, different circumstances, different paraminters. Bush and the neocons give me a good laugh when they compare current events to the WWII era...until I focus and realize that they believe their own b.s. which they wallow in.

FlownOver: No, I wasn't aware of that - slightly ahead of my time. Wikipedia is my friend, and I think I see your point.

FastEddie & Paul Dirks,

"the Romans (27 BCE-1453 CE if you include the "Byzantine" phase) and the Ottomans (~1299-1923) did pretty well with it"

"If the Ottomans "did pretty well with it" then why are we still sweeping up the fragments of the shattered mess they left behind?"

I wouldn't give the Romans a pass either. They are ultimately responsible for the Israeli-Palestinian mess we find ourselves in.

While we're on the subject of appeasement and Chamberlain and Nazis and all that, why doesn't anyone make the same comparison to Bush and NK? You know that if a Dem President had cut the same deal, that's what the neocons (and the just plain cons for that matter) would be screaming.

Malcolm, I'm surprised at you. It's not appeasement if Bush does it.

Clearly our occupation of Iraq resembles the Philipines. We occupied that country for 50 years and kept bases there for nearly 50 more.

Posted by fhmadvocat

I'm sorry, but this was a little before my time, so I have to ask - were they launching suicide attacks against our troops in the Philipines? Even for just the first few years of the occupation?

bitterpill8:
"..Can we ever have an honest debate about Iraq and Afghanistan in the land of the free and the home of the brave?.."
"Honest"? Maybe.
Which land are you referring to? The lands among whose leading citizens are "Not-going" GWB, "I-had-better-things-to-do" Cheney, and "Better-go-to-college" Clinton?
Or the lands that are also inhabited by the Indians in reservations, Africans in the ghettos/jails and the profiled Muslims?

Paul Daniel Ash:
"The 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries with 253,288 uniformed personnel, plus an equal number of dependents and Department of Defense civilian employees... what would you call that if not Imperium? Franchising?"

It may be noted here that USA maintains bases in most of the African countries including many that are referred to as "failed states". Despite decades of USA presence in those countries many of the economies are in depression and the lives of the natives becomes even more precarious by the year.
So much for the salutary 'reasons' for imperium fr the occupied.

Then also we should not forget that the "manifest destiny" 'reason' for the EU presence in Africa led to slavery and the very wealthy USA that we are proud of today. [Are Africans proud of it?]

It may be noted that for cases where the natives have exacted vicious retribution on the retreating invaders on their way out, that nation of invaders is,for a long long time afterwards, averse to future adventurism . For instance, the Romans in British Isles and the Germans/Japanese of WW2.
Now, about Vietnam ...

"EU" here means refers to European countries that were colonial powers.

Can I just say: thank god someone finally says this. All the debates about permanent bases and whether the US should stay in Iraq has been incredibly, incredibly arrogant, to say the least. It seems like less and less people are even pretending to care about what Iraqis want. It's a sickening trend.

> It seems like less and less people are even pretending to care about what Iraqis want. It's a sickening trend.

Oh, yeah. That. Well, as Rusty and the other R-wingnuts can tell you, they don't deserve to make their own decisions. It's not like they're truly human, you know. They're not Republican. Someone needs to tell them what's best, and that is, in a nutshell, to give their oil away to Big Oil, so Bush's friends can make record profits, over and over.

"It may be noted that for cases where the natives have exacted vicious retribution on the retreating invaders on their way out, that nation of invaders is,for a long long time afterwards, averse to future adventurism . For instance, the Romans in British Isles..."

The Romans didn't leave the British Isles until the empire was already collapsing elsewhere, thus preventing them from sending reinforcements to hold the territory. They didn't mount new military adventures after that time because the Roman Empire no longer existed. Moreover, they weren't driven out by "natives" but rather by invading Anglo-Saxon barbarians from Germany, the Netherlands, and Denmark. And actually, they had largely withdrawn, in 402 AD, because of troubles elsewhere in the empire, before the barbarian invasions really got into full swing in the late 5th c. I've never heard of any evidence of massacres of Roman soldiers in Britain.

I wouldn't give the Romans a pass either. They are ultimately responsible for the Israeli-Palestinian mess we find ourselves in.

How do you figure that? While the Romans persued a program to strip the Jewish state of its unique identity after the revolt of 66 AD, they were never really successful in ridding Palestina of Jews or a Jewish community. And the Romans certainly weren't responsible for rule of the Holy Land by Muslim Persians and Muslim Arabs that resulted in the creation of the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock. They had nothing to do with the horrors inflicted upon European and, to a lesser extent, North African Jewish communities by Nazi Germany. And it certainly can't be held responsible for the sins of the British who were hastily trying to rid themselves of their League of Nations mandate in Palestine. And they can't be held responsible for the actions of Israel's neighbors, who decided to violently resist the creation of Israel. And they can't be held responsible for the dual program of Arab leaders calling on Palestinians to flee their homes and Israeli militias driving Palestinians from their land.

So, I fail to see how the Romans can be blamed for events that unfolded after they were booted from the area by Arabs. The trajectory of the Holy Land has little to do with Roman rule and more to do with much more recent events - probably starting with the Crusades and culminating with the creation of Israel in 1949.

After the Bar Kochba rebellian was defeated in 135 AD the Romans expelled the remaining Jewish population of Judea and sent them into exile, where they settled in Eastern Europe and Spain.

"Modern historians have come to view the Bar-Kokhba Revolt as being of decisive historic importance. The massive destruction and loss of life occasioned by the revolt has led some scholars to date the beginning of the Jewish diaspora from this date. They note that, unlike the aftermath of the First Jewish-Roman War chronicled by Josephus, the majority of the Jewish population of Judea was either killed, exiled, or sold into slavery after the Bar-Kokhba Revolt, and Jewish religious and political authority was suppressed far more brutally."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Kokhba's_revolt

I agree with Paul Daniel Ash - we've been an empire since WWII, if not earlier. It does suit us (unfortunately). It's just that we're running into the same problems other empires have had - PO'd barbarians at the fringes of our territories.

...

Posted by Cliff | June 26, 2008 6:13 PM

I'll take "if not earlier," for $1,000, Alex.

Answer: this transaction was the acquisition by the United States of America of 828,000 square miles from the French in 1803.

What is the Lousisana Purchase?

I'm sorry, but this was a little before my time, so I have to ask - were they launching suicide attacks against our troops in the Philipines? Even for just the first few years of the occupation?

There was a decades-long period of guerilla resistance led by, I believe, the Huks.

Thanks for info on KT. Chokora: great observation.

Joe -

That was one of the best headlines in ages.

Thanks for taking on the neocons, who have destabilized the bulwark separating Iran from Israel. They have done more to endanger their beloved homeland than Osama bin Laden ever could!

You know I could really care less if the Neoconservatives want to start their own party and declare their ideals transparently. I do have a problem with them hiding their true intentions, influencing the press, and governing through lies and misspeak (this is exactly what the Nazis did, and it didn't happen overnight).

Sam Brownback was on the Senate floor today trying to beat the drums of war towards Iran. His argument: Do you want to see children die? Do you care about uranium? Do you want Americans to die? (we're not even allowed to see the coffins of Americans, and how many Iraqi children have died from U.S. weapons)

These are not arguments for war...they are fear mongering.

If a Muslim country 'liberated' Canada how many Americans would help our neighbors to the north; especially after FIVE years. How many Americans would be 'enemy combatants'? What if that Muslim country then turned its eyes on the U.S., wouldn't we start arming ourselves?

Does anyone believe the Germans were inherently evil? Do we all realize the Nazis were VOTED into power. That they took advantage of an 'economic downturn' to come to power through lies, fear, racism, and propaganda (sound familiar). Would there have been a difference if Germans had the internet?

What will the 'final solution' be to our extremist Muslim problem?

Good call Donut - I forgot about that whole "killing the Indians and taking their land" phase.

John McCain was the Neocon pick from the start!

The Nazis also used CORPORATIONS to cement their hold!

I checked out that Ross Perot site...nice charts, but he didn't explain how GWB ADDED 4 trillion to the debt.

One thing that glared out was where government taxes come from.

http://perotcharts.com/category/challenges-charts/page/20/

As small business owner's we have to pay 15% of our net business income to Social Security & Medicare (called self-employment tax, which most people pay half of this out of their checks, but we have to pay the employee and employer share of FICA). So if we net $50,000 we immediately owe the government $7,500, which leaves a family of four $42,500 to live on. Then they transfer $46,250 (only get credit for half of the self-employment tax)to our 1040 to see if we owe income taxes on that!

Look at how little the corporate share is! How many billions did Exxon alone make in PROFIT! I am so PI@@ED off! Spread the word.

I say a family of four because my oldest is just finishing up boot camp at Ft. Sill, and my 17 year-old is living with his father, but it's not like I don't try to help them out...so we're really talking about a family of six!

If the Ottomans "did pretty well with it" then why are we still sweeping up the fragments of the shattered mess they left behind?

Paul, I'd say 6+ centuries of empire probably constitutes a "success" as those things are defined. Notice that there aren't any Ottomans running around cleaning up that "mess" so, as far as the dynasty was concerned, I think they did pretty well for themselves.

I feel it is a sad and cruel irony that the modern day Nazi movement started with a 'liberal' Jewish people, but a spade is a spade...doesn't matter who's garden you're digging in.

This whole idea of 'victorian values', and the poor as immoral.

Is that why this country incarcerates more people than anywhere in the world?

Is that why we have an insane war on drugs?

Is that why we have this push for prayers and creationism in the schools? (when we should be teaching them SCIENCE, not morals!)

Is it why the press feels it's OK to 'spin' for the politicians instead of informing the masses?

What press wouldn't be ALL OVER the approval ratings this Congress and Administration have...why didn't the press call for impeachment when the horror's of this administration were found out?...why isn't the press up in arms over FISA? Oops, sorry there Mr. Klein we didn't intentionally listen in on you and your sources...besides it was an 'emergency'. FISA courts have approved warrants 99.9% of the time (only 5 denials out of over 18,000 requests in thirty years)

It was my understanding that Harry Reid would just come out and 'whack' Dodd & Feingold on FISA.

The press choose to ignore that there is a behind the scenes struggle between the PEOPLE of this country and their supposed representatives.

I learned about it on the INTERNET, not from CNN, and not from TIME.

I watched Cheney's Law on PBS; soon after I heard the government was threatening to cut off PBS funding. Will we ever see Fahrenheit 9/11, Crude Impact, or Who Killed the Electric Car on network TV?

Note also that a good portion of the "mess" left when the Ottoman Empire was dissolved can be attributed to the European colonialists who tried to move in. The Ottomans, for example, had the good sense to keep "Iraq" split into three parts.

What's wrong with leaving now? What on earth are we going to accomplish in the next four years that isn't going to happen whether we're there or not?

The Iraqis have shown zero interest in stepping up and being accountable for their own country. Used to be we'd hear "wait six months" from you people. Now we're hearing "wait four years." How conveeeeenient. What happens in four years -- another presidential election?

No. No no no no no. OUT NOW. We are the problem, not the solution. Bring in the UN or NATO for peacekeeping. We are not occupiers, you are right, but as long as we are there we are making the situation worse, not better.

Joe is taking a pragmatic approach to Iraq -- he thinks there is a chance that it can further stabilize and that the US can play a constructive role in such stabilization. He may be right. He may be wrong. Since I'm a glass half-full kind of person, I would like to think there is a constructive role that can be played. NATO doesn't want to touch Iraq with a 1000 mile pole -- it's having a hard enough time getting its act together in Afghanistan. The UN is pretty much useless. The last thing it did kind of right was act as a forum for George H. W. Bush to put together the coalition to "free Kuwait". The UN can't even figure out Darfur. How is it supposed to figure out Iraq? Really?

If the US leaves, who is going to clean up the mess? The US broke it, so our country has an obligation to at least try to fix it as long as the Iraqi government says there is a constructive role for the US to play there. The mess won't go away just because we leave it behind. That's wishful thinking.

so our country has an obligation to at least try to fix it as long as the Iraqi government says there is a constructive role for the US to play there.

Last I heard, a lot of Iraqis were asking us to leave, and were pissed about our plans for long-term military bases.
Sounds like a perfect excuse to GTFO to me.

Last I heard, a lot of Iraqis were more scared of a post-US Iraq than they were pissed off about our plans. Things are not so simple.

Last I heard, a lot of Iraqis were more scared of a post-US Iraq than they were pissed off about our plans.

Evidence? Or shooting from the gut?

"Last I heard, a lot of Iraqis were more scared of a post-US Iraq than they were pissed off about our plans. "

Interesting-do you have a cite?

The statement that "Imperium doesn't suit us, never has" is ridiculous on its face. Laughable to anyone who's spent even a little time studying the expansion of the republic in the 19th century. Fer gawdsakes, the United States was created by treasonists/insurgents who chose to rebel and to defy their imperial overlords. But it was no revolution. They fought a war for independence from the British, but they also fought to be able to directly control the Empire for themselves. After all, they limited franchise rights to a small, elite number, they counted anyone with a drop of African blood as 3/5 human in the Consitution, and then they turned around and madly grabbed all the riches and resources they could from the indigenous peoples wherever they could. They and their descendents killed, intentionally or not, untold numbers of people, and permanently displaced the survivors, and finally paused long enough in the process to elect to herd them like some kind of sacred cattle onto reservations.

And no, I'm not just blindly spitting with rage here, don't misunderstand me. I'm only stating facts dispassionately. We are and always have been an Empire. Admit it, Klein, for once just admit it. The United States is and always has been and likely always will be an Empire, until it collapses, as it inevitably will. We just had a pretty large piece of the contienent to work with before we seriously started looking elsewhere for territory to acquire and plunder. Took a little break for the Civil War, and another lil' respite after WWI, but otherwise, we've been pretty much drunk on own binge of imperium for 205 years or so.

Yeesh. What the hell are you talking about, "imperium doesn't suit us"?

Klein - you're ridiculous sometimes.

EricaWA,
While I agree with much of what you say, I object to this:
"Is that why we have this push for prayers and creationism in the schools? (when we should be teaching them SCIENCE, not morals!)"

It's not that I'm for prayers and creationism in the schools, and certainly, as someone with an advanced degree in Physics, I'm appalled by the level of science illiteracy in the US, but we need to stop conceding to the wing nuts the idea that prayer in school or creationalism (!) has anything to do with morality. I'm all for teaching both science AND morality in schools.

BrooklynGurl,
The US does have an obligation to clean up its mess, but the situation has reached a point there where Iraq may be better able to proceed without the US's presence. And certainly, if the Iraqi people would prefer for the troops to depart, they should. Ultimately it comes down to (1) whether we've reached that point and (2) what the Iraqis prefer.

Donut,
How does restricting the right to vote, as it did in the Constitution, make the US an empire?

Donut,
How does restricting the right to vote, as it did in the Constitution, make the US an empire?
Posted by Malcolm | June 28, 2008 3:48 AM

I didn't really say limited franchise causes the United States to be an empire. I'm saying more that arguments and battles over who has the right to vote are a symptom of imperial systems. I think you'd be hard pressed to find an empire that maintains expansive and complete franchise rights to all subjects or citizens, for an extended period time. Internally, our elites have only flirted briefly with allowing full franchise rights to all Americans. After all, 40-some years ago, many African Americans were unable to cast ballots unencumbered in many states. 40-45 years is a drop in the bucket in the course of time.

Anyway, this is really kind of a tanget from the larger point I was making, so I guess I'm wondering why you focused on that one tossed off comment...

I'm sure you wish I would stop Joe, but I look at my children and wonder what do I say to them if I do not stand up for this now.

John 'the maverick' McCain was almost broke and out of the primary...so what changed?

How could Bill Clinton be impeached over a BJ (I believe the Senate would have removed him if not for the public outcry), and Bush is still President.

I don't know about your state, but in Washington the dems & repubs have been restructuring districts to limit competition (lots of uncontested races). Is this based on the studies saying Americans want bi-partisanship? (oops, sorry, Americans wanted ACTION, not bipartisanship).

The parties are also up in arms about Washington's top-two primary which would allow two dems or repubs to run against each other in the general election. (the parties wanted to be able to put an asterisk next to their choice, but was told no)

The Nazi's convinced Germans they needed to give up civil liberties. Small at first, and then they were convinced they NEEDED a dictator. During the biased coverage given in the run up to the Iraq war, I heard Americans saying, "turn the desert to glass," and "I don't mind giving up some of my rights if it means keeping me safe," and more recently, "you have nothing to worry about if you are doing nothing wrong." Tell that to the Canadian who was held, tortured, raped, and then let go without charge.

The Nazi's were masters at using the 'town-hall' type setting to make it appear Hitler had more support than he did.

Olberman claimed last night that Blackwater raided their own armory (in N.C.!), but it was reported in the press that ATF raided the armory. Which is true?

I'll leave you alone now Joe; if the people here haven't convinced you that the wolves are in the henhouse, then there is nothing more I can accomplish here.

I will add I really believe the Neoconservatives need to be exposed by Americans of Jewish descent. I can see how this thing could turn into a backlash against Jewish people, I wholeheartedly do not want that to happen, and they are the only ones who can weather being called anti-semites.

Posted on Obama blog

NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51

HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20

GLOBAL RESEARCH Article by Marjorie Cohn
"The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, signed on May 9, 2007, would place all governmental power in the hands of the President and effectively abolish the checks and balances in the Constitution.

"If a "catastrophic emergency" - which could include a terrorist attack or a natural disaster - occurs, Bush's new directive says: "The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government."

"What about the other two co-equal branches of government? The directive throws them a bone by speaking of a "cooperative effort" among the three branches, "coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers." The Vice-President would help to implement the plans.

"Comity," however, means courtesy, and the President would decide what kind of respect for the other two branches of government would be "proper." This Presidential Directive is a blatant power grab by Bush to institutionalize "the unitary executive."

"One wonders what Bush & Co. are setting up with the new Presidential Directive. What if, heaven forbid, some sort of catastrophic event were to occur just before the 2008 election? Bush could use this directive to suspend the election. This administration has gone to great lengths to remain in Iraq . It has built huge permanent military bases and pushed to privatize Iraq 's oil. Bush and Cheney may be unwilling to relinquish power to a successor administration."

Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and president of the National Lawyers Guild. Her new book, Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law, will be published in July.

M4V Converter free download center- ALL M4V conversion tools which help you feel free to convert M4V to MP3, AVI, WMV, MPEG, FLV, 3GP, WMA. And useful Guide on How to Deal with M4V files.
m4v converter
convert m4v
Ultra Quicktime M4V converter currently is the best M4V converter which can convert Quicktime movie M4V to AVI, MPEG, MP4, MPG, WMV, ASF and Vob. As we know Quicktime movie usually has the video formats of M4V, MOV, QT, MP4, and M4V, With this M4V Converter, you can feel free to Convert them all with fast speed and high output quality.
m4v to avi
m4v to wmv
With the fast and powerful QuickTime video decoder inside, Ultra QuickTime M4V Converter supports almost all MOV, QT, MP4, M4V files, even QuickTime Player has not been installed. Integrated High-speed MPEG-2 encoder which let you convert M4V to DVD-Video files(VIDEO_TS, AUDIO_TS) and VCD/SVCD , so you can burn VCD/SVCD/DVD disc easily from QuickTime files by using third-party buring tools. It is a software program for converting video formats at fast speeds and high quality. Very user-friendly interface and Quality Profiles.
m4v to mpeg
m4v to mp4

Easy Way to Cut Large Video Files into Small Clips with Video Cuttervideo cutterFLV Video Cutter3GP Video Cutter Ultra Video Cutter is a powerful video cutting tool. The main function of Ultra Video Cutter is to cut large video files into new video files, and also to join or merge multiple video clips into a large one. AVI Video CutterMP4 Video CutterDVD Video CutterDAT Video CutterVideo Editor
The program supports so many video formats including AVI, Divx, XviD, MPEG, WMV, ASF, RM, MOV, 3GP, MP4 formatsVideo MergerVideo JoinerVideo Splitter

العاب تلبيس زفاف
العاب سونك
العاب
العاب ماريو
العاب
العاب باربي
العاب مكياج و ميك اب
العاب طبخ
العاب تلبيس بنات
العاب ترتيب
العاب ديكور
العاب بنات
العاب اطفال
العاب كرتون
العاب سيارات
العاب اكشن
العاب ذكاء
العاب دراجات
العاب رياضية
العاب قتالية
العاب بازل و متاهات
العاب ورق
العاب تصويب ونشان
العاب حربية
العاب فلاش
العاب مغامرات
العاب تلوين
العاب عربية
العاب قص الشعر
العاب تلبيس فنانات و مشاهير celebrity

صور
فيديو
صور

اسلام تيوب
افلام
افلام و مسلسلات كرتون وانمى
افلام وفيديو العاب
دروس و شروحات فيديو
عالم حواء المراة
فيديوهات رياضية
مقاطع فيديو
يوتيوب

اعلانات افلام
اعلانات طريفة
اعلانات ميلودى
اغانى المسلسلات و الافلام
افلام اجنبى
افلام عربي
افلام وثائقية و تاريخية
مسلسلات

اغانى واناشيد اطفال
اناشيد طيور الجنة
توم وجيرى القط و الفار
كرتون كوكب زمردة سبيستون
مسلسلات كرتون mbc3

ادعية
القران الكريم
اناشد مشاري العفاسي
اناشيد احمد بو خاطر
اناشيد و اغانى اسلامية
برامج دينية
قصص الانبياء

اغانى
حفلات
سياسة و اخبار

العاب جديدة
العاب شمس اكشن
العاب شمس تلوين
العاب شمس فلاش
العاب شمس فلاشات مضحكة
العاب شمس دراجات و دبابات
العاب شمس طبخ
العاب شمس العاب
العاب شمس قتال و حركة
العاب شمس اطفال
العاب شمس تلبيس
العاب شمس عربية
العاب شمس براتز
العاب شمس سونيك
العاب شمس تلبيس افراح
العاب شمس مغامرات و الغاز
العاب شمس ذكاء
العاب شمس ميك اب
العاب شمس باربي
العاب شمس اولاد
العاب شمس قص الشعر
العاب شمس سيارات
العاب شمس كرتون
العاب شمس ورق
العاب شمس ترتيب غرف
العاب شمس ماريو
العاب جى سوفت
العاب فلة
العاب هانا مونتانا

العاب بنات جدة
girls games
العاب g9g
العاب براتز
العاب اولاد
hguhf
عيش سفارى
العاب تلبيس باربي
العاب براتس
العاب بنات شمس