WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2007

Dems Put Conditions On Iraq War Funding

Majority Leader: Democrats Will Not OK War Money Unless Bush Agrees To Bring Troops Home

  • Photo Essay Week In Iraq Photos

    A daily diary with scenes of the latest attacks and snapshots from the effort to rebuild a nation.

(AP)  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday that Democrats will not approve more money for the Iraq war this year unless President George W. Bush agrees to begin bringing U.S. troops home.

By the end of the week, the House and Senate planned to vote on a $50 billion measure for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill would require Bush to initiate troop withdrawals immediately with the goal of ending combat by December 2008.

If Bush vetoes the bill, "then the president won't get his $50 billion," Reid told reporters at a news conference.

The leader of the House of Representatives, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, made a similar statement last week in a closed-door caucus meeting.

Tough rhetoric does not necessarily foretell another veto showdown with Bush on the war. Similar legislation has routinely fallen short of the 60 votes needed to overcome procedural hurdles in the Senate. It is possible the upcoming bill will sink, in which case Democrats would probably wait until next year to revisit the issue.

But their remarks reflect an emerging Democratic strategy on the war: Force congressional Republicans and Bush to accept a timetable for troop withdrawals, or turn Pentagon accounting processes into a bureaucratic nightmare.

If Democrats refuse to send Bush the $50 billion, the military would have to drain its annual budget to keep the wars afloat. Last week, Congress approved a $471 billion budget for the military that pays mostly for non-war related projects, such as depot maintenance and weapons development.

The tactic stops short of blocking money outright from being used on the war, an approach that has divided Democrats and fueled Republican criticism that Democrats are eager to abandon the troops. But forcing the Pentagon into a painful budget dance to pay for the wars spares Democrats from having to write a blank check on the unpopular war.

"We will and we must pay for whatever cost to protect the American people," said House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. "But tragically, unfortunately, incredibly, the war is not making us safer."

In a recent letter to Congress, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England warned that the Army was on track to run out of money by February.

Fast Fact

If Democrats refuse to send Bush the $50 billion, the military would have to drain its annual budget to keep the wars afloat.

England also said that without more money the military would eventually have to close facilities, layoff civilian workers and defer contracts. Also, the budget delay could disrupt training efforts of Iraqi security forces and efforts to protect troops against roadside bombs, he said.

"The successes they (the troops ) have achieved in recent months will be short lived without appropriate resources to continue their good work," England wrote in a Nov. 8 letter.

A White House spokesman said Bush would veto any legislation that sets a timetable for troop withdrawals.

In a speech on Tuesday, Bush said Congress should not leave for a holiday recess at the end of December without passing a clean war spending bill.

"We don't need members of Congress telling our military commanders what to do," he said. "We need our military commanders telling us what to do so we can win the war against these extremists and radicals."

Congressional Republicans said they would back the president.

"It's very clear that the American people want us to succeed," said Sen. Jon Kyl, a Republican. "They would like for our troops to be able to come home, but not in a losing cause."

The House was expected to vote as early as Wednesday, with the Senate following suit by the end of the week.

The bill is similar to one Bush rejected in May. Unable to muster the two-thirds majority needed to override the veto, Democrats stripped the timetable from the $95 billion bill and approved the war money without restrictions.


© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx
Add a Comment See all 128 Comments
by megaprophet November 15, 2007 6:59 AM EST
RON PAUL WILL RESTORE U.S. SOVEREIGNTY
All of the trade deals and world government organizations, which all of the presidential candidates support (except Ron Paul), such as the ICC, NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA, are all a major threat to our nation''s sovereignty. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites. The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals. Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get a prescription to take herbs and vitamins. The WTO has forced Congress to change our laws to meet their needs, and not our own. If anything, the WTO makes trade relations worse by giving foreign competitors a new way to attack U.S. jobs. The NAFTA superhighway, being built by a Spanish company, is just one part of a plan to erase our borders and create the North American Union, a single nation State like the EU, out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new, unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under the NAU scheme. There won''t be any borders anymore, or a free America. Our limited, constitutional government will be gone forever. Let''s not forget the UN either. It wants to impose a direct Carbon Tax on us. Ron Paul successfully fought this move in Congress last year, but if we are going to stop ongoing attempts of this world government body to rule over us, we need someone in the White House who knows how to say "No." We must withdraw from any organizations or treaty that infringes upon our nation''s sovereignty.
Reply to this comment
by megaprophet November 15, 2007 6:56 AM EST

WHO''S RON PAUL?
Ron Paul''s campaign has become a clearinghouse for voters like me who feel unrepresented by the Fascisct (globalist Republicans) and their Socialist comrades in crime (globalist Democrats). They''re actually one and the same. It''s all a phony, poorly staged left-right paradigm. Most people, though, are too distracted, dumbed-down, or outright brainwashed by mainstream media, which endlessly regurgitates scientifically-crafted streams of information aimed at keeping their eyes closed to the realities of the world around them, that they fail to recognize this. Those currently in power, and those being groomed to take [major] political power, are preselected by a "global elite," and whomever is eventually elected, will ultimately, serve their agenda, and not ours. People on the right and those on the left have many differences, maybe irreconcilable ones. But we have a lot of common beliefs too, and our numbers and anger are of a considerable magnitude. No matter what happens in 2008, I personally believe Ron Paul will influence the national conversation about how much power our government should have over our lives; how much liberty we should give up for security; and whether we should continue moving along our current path towards one world government. These are issues that, frankly, no one else is talking about as seriously and sincerely as Ron Paul. What''s for sure is that his growing army of supporters like me will be a force to be reckoned with in 2008.
Reply to this comment
by megaprophet November 15, 2007 6:54 AM EST
RON PAUL IS NOT YOUR FATHER''S REPUBLICAN
Ron Paul represents a different Republican Party from the one that Iraq, deficits and corruption have soured the country on. It''s ironic that other GOP candidates are scared to death of his message, because his positions are more conservative than theirs. Being anti-war; pro-life; pro civil liberties; pro Second Amendment; pro States rights; pro secure borders; and in favor of a sound economics policy IS TOTALLY CONSERVATIVE. The Republican party has "lost its way," Paul said during a recent GOP debate. Like the limited federal government principles espoused by Dwight D. Eisenhower, his school of Republicanism stands for a certain idea of The Constitution that much of the power asserted by modern Presidents has been usurped from Congress, and that much of the power asserted by Congress has been usurped from the States. Though Paul acknowledges flaws in both The Constitution (it included slavery) and The Bill of Rights (it doesn''t go far enough), he still thinks a comprehensive array of positions can be drawn therefrom: against gun control; for the sovereignty of States; and against foreign-policy adventures like the ones currently being played-out in the Mid-East. After ten terms of service as a U.S. Congressman, Ron Paul has demonstrated a consistent track record of adherance to The Constitution unmatched by anyone in either party. Ron Paul does not represent your Father''s school of political thought. He represents your Founding Fathers.
Reply to this comment
by megaprophet November 15, 2007 6:51 AM EST
RON PAUL IS THE NEW WAY
What we need is a President who will show us the way. Not the old way. Not the same way, but a NEW way. Think about this for a minute. What if we pulled all of our troops out of South Korea? They''ve been there for 50+ years. What if we quit worrying about Iran, but instead, realized that its having a nuclear weapon will not mean the end of the world? What if we pulled all of our troops out of the Middle-East, and brought them all home? What if we realistically addressed the National Debt, and paid attention to REALLY DOING SOMETHING about stopping illegal immigration? These are the ideas of Presidential candidate, Ron Paul. He''s a ten term Congressman and a physician who has delivered over 4,000 babies. He''s an intellectual who''s published four books, three of which are devoted entirely to sound economics and one to foreign policy. He was raised on a dairy farm in Pennsylvania as a pious Lutheran, but now he attends a Baptist church. Paul is given to mulling things over morally. Whenever he recollects the helicopter pilots he treated as an Air Force Flight Surgeon (Captain) during the Vietnam War, a war which he now says was "totally unnecessary and illegal," he laments, "They were gung-ho. I''ve often thought about how many of those people never came back." Candidates with the high level of personal integrity and proven track record of adherence to The Constitution, Congressman Paul has always demonstrated only come around once in a lifetime, if we''re lucky.
Reply to this comment
by megaprophet November 15, 2007 6:48 AM EST
CBS NEWS CONDUCTING RIGGED POLLS
Most people can see right through the prejudice CBS News obviously has towards Ron Paul. In the few times they''ve covered him at all, I''m suprised they didn''t have one of their graphics artists Photoshop some devil horns on top of his head in that worst ever photograph they always use of him. CBS obviously thinks that if they pretend Paul isn''t a top-tier GOP candidate, then their readers and viewers will eventually think so too. Whenever they are forced to do a story on Paul, because some other mainstream source is covering him for some reason, the fact that their editors work overtime to slant their stories in such a way as to either marginalize his accomplishment, or present Paul in the most negative light possible, is obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence. "What about their polls?," you ask? As far as the CBS News poll is concerned, they don''t even include Paul on the list of GOP candidates which pollees can choose from, and then afterwards, report to you that Paul doesn''t even rank in their final tally. Ron Paul is getting major grass roots support nationwide. He has over 62,380 meetup group members in 1,175 Groups from 1,004 cities nationwide, with another 7,197 people more folks just waiting to hear when a new meetup group will start-up near them. He''s won ALL of the viewer phone-in polls in ALL of the GOP debates he''s been in, and has raised more money ($4.2 million) in one day than any other GOP candidate ever. Go Ron Go!
Reply to this comment
by megaprophet November 15, 2007 6:45 AM EST
POLLSTERS ARTIFICIALLY SKEWING RESULTS
Ron Paul breaks fundraising records, wins phone-in and Internet polls, yet why are his national poll numbers so low? A Zogby pollee recently revealed what happened to him when he took part in their national, 2008 presidential election poll. Upon confirming Ron Paul as his choice for President, the poll then branched out into a myriad of bizarre and intrusive questions which would discourage most people from completing the process, and thereby making their vote for Ron Paul null and void. "The first part of the poll was about which candidate one prefers, with candidates from both parties being available as choices. Great! However, after I finished answering positively for Ron Paul, the poll got very interesting," he writes. "As anyone who is familiar with how polls work is aware, polls are branching in their structure. Answers you give to one section of the poll will determine what questions you will receive in the next section of the poll." The pollee then relates his confusion about the fact that the poll threw up 20 questions about cooking rice before another extensive set of questions regarding personal sexual behavior. "This went on for a number of pages and was rather intrusive," he said. "It dealt with sexual positions, sexual fantasies, sexual preferences and similar intimate subjects. Of course neither rice cooking or sexual behavior have anything to do with presidential elections or politics in general. Or at least it shouldn''t!"
Reply to this comment
by megaprophet November 15, 2007 6:42 AM EST
WERE HAVING A TEA PARTY! YOU''RE INVITED
As we all know, freedom isn''t free in this country. Therefore, in the wake of our successful fundraising event of November 5th, in which we all came together to raise $4.2 million dollars for Ron Paul''s campaign, we''ve set yet another date for an even bigger fundraiser. This one will take place during on December 16th: a very important date for people who love freedom and hate tyranny to ring the Liberty Bell, and let our sold-out, globalist, political ****** and their mainstream media enablers know that good Americans are mad as hell, and that we''re not going to take it anymore. December 16th is the 224th aniversary of The Boston Tea Party: an act of protest by the American colonists against the tyranny of Great Britain where the Sons of Liberty boarded British ships and dumped crates of tea overboard into Boston Harbor. It was a key event which helped to spark the American Revolution, and we hope this event will, likewise, add additional spark to our own 21st Century political revolution to restore peace, prosperity and freedom to our Republic by helping elect a President whose record of adherance to The Constitution is unmatched by anyone in American politics. Please join us this December 16th for the largest one-day political donation event in history. Our goal is to bring together 100,000 people to donate $100 each, creating a one day donation total of $10,000,000. The time to act is now. The time for Ron Paul is NOW! TeaParty07.com
Reply to this comment
by megaprophet November 15, 2007 6:40 AM EST
HOPE FOR AMERICA: PRESIDENT RON PAUL

-- No more meddling in other country''s political affairs
-- No more aggressive military actions overseas
-- No more torture prisons
-- No more pseudo-wars like the "War on Drugs"
-- No more IRS and unconstitutional income taxes
-- No more Federal Reserve (the group of private banks which owns our government)
-- No more erosion of Social Security to pay for militarization
-- No more U.N. (one world government) participation
-- No more NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO or GATT
-- No more North American Union
-- No more federal gun control laws
-- No more illegal aliens pouring-in over our country''s borders
-- No more illegal aliens allowed to roam freely in our streets
-- No more national ID cards (Real ID Act)
-- No more government invasion of your privacy
-- No more federal Laws which are not authorized by The Constitution
-- No more federal erosion of State sovereignty
-- No more unlimited federal government

They don''t call him "Dr. No" for no reason. The Doctor is in! Join us in this 21st Century political revolution at ronpaul2008.com

"Liberty, when it takes root, is a plant of rapid growth."
- George Washington

"if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom."
- Samual Adams

"Ron Paul doesn''t represent your Father''s school of political thought. He represents your Founding Fathers."
- Me
Reply to this comment
by goodprophet November 14, 2007 11:55 PM EST
RON PAUL FAVORS NON-INTERVENTIONIST FOREIGN POLICY
All of the other presidential candidates wants to continue our illegal police action in Iraq indefinitely, and they do not rule out a preemptive (nuclear) first strike against Iran. Conversely, Ron Paul voted against our (undeclared) war in Iraq, which was sold to us with lies. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies--the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. The war in Iraq has cost more than 3,500 American lives and almost a trillion dollars. We need a leader in the White House who will ensure this never happens again. Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have 750 foreign bases and troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft. We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing our borders against illegal aliens who are invading us from the South. No war should ever be fought without a Declaration of War voted upon by the Congress, as required by The Constitution. Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations. Too often, we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised.
Reply to this comment
by goodprophet November 14, 2007 11:21 PM EST
MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING: A GLOBALIST LIE
When I consider the claim that we should give-up our civil liberties in order to protect ourselves from terrorism, or that we should pay a global Carbon Tax administered and enforced by the U.N. (one world government), because mankind is somehow to blame for global warming, two quotes come to mind:

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
- Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propagandist

"We have nothing to fear but fear itself, and those who would exploit our fear for power and their own personal, selfish, cynical gain."
- Franklin D. Roosevelt

Earth is heating up lately, but so are other planets in our solar system. It''s scientific fact. The sun''s increased activity links all of these warming events. Fluctuations in solar activity effect the climate on Earth and other planets, and always will. No reputable scientist could deny that increased Sun activity causes an uptick in Earth''s temperatures. Man''s impact on the planet is exaggerated. All 6 billion people on Earth could fit into an area no bigger than New England.
Reply to this comment
by goodprophet November 14, 2007 11:18 PM EST
CLINTON PLANTS GLOBAL WARMING QUESTIONS
The Clinton campaign has admitted to planting questions at a college speaking engagement in Iowa. They have confirmed that a campaign staffer approached a student to ask Senator Clinton a question about global warming during a campaign stop in Newton, Iowa, on Nov. 6. The story was first reported by Patrick Caldwell, a junior at Grinnell College and the features editor of The Scarlet and Black college newspaper. He reported that student Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff was approached by the Clinton campaign to ask certain question about global warming and about the need for a global Carbon Tax. Gallo-Chasanoff also said that she "noted that staffers prompted Clinton to call on her and another student who had been approached before the event. Some of the questions asked were confusing and clearly off-message." Clinton Campaign spokesperson Mo Elleithee told ABC News that "on this occasion a member of our staff did discuss a possible question about Sen. Clinton''s global warming plan at a forum. This is not standard policy and will not be repeated again." The staffer still remains with the Clinton campaign, but they would not reveal the person''s name. The Clinton campaign refused to comment on whether this was the only time they have planted questions among audience members about the issue of global warming.
Reply to this comment
by goodprophet November 14, 2007 11:15 PM EST
YOU''RE A FROG IN A POT
My fellow Americans need to open their eyes to the fact that our republic, along with The Constitution upon which it was founded, is being flushed-down the toilet by our nations'' bought and paid for politicians and media. While the Oligarchs warn and incite fear in the sheeple about the prospect of terrorism, they at the same time leave our borders wide open, and then conduct illegal wars overseas that do nothing but incite the terrorism which their Orwellian Laws like the Patriot Act and the John Warner Defense Authorization Act pretend to protect us from. Wake up America! It''s not about protecting you from terrorism, or Global Warming, or any of that other fear-mongering garbage the sold-out, mainstream media feeds you 24/7. It''s about feeding the bankers and the military industrial complex, and facilitating the global elite''s ability to ratchet-down control over the American people, placing us into a total control grid where they can surveille, track and control everywhere we go and everything we do. It''s the groundwork for tyranny. It''s the New World Order plan of Bush, Clinton, Edwards, McCain, Giuliani, et.al., being executed quite beautifully. You''re a frog in a pot: In order to cook a frog, you don''t throw him into a pot of boiling water. If you do, he''ll resist and jump-out. What you do instead is, you turn the heat-up REAL SLOW, and by the time the water is boiling he won''t be able to jump out anymore, because it''s too late--he''s already doomed.
Reply to this comment
by goodprophet November 14, 2007 11:13 PM EST
CLINTON MAKES BUSH DICTATOR
With the full support of Senators Clinton, Obama and McCain, President Bush recently signed into Law the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, which, according to Senator Leahy (VT), will actually "encourage the President to declare Martial Law." It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a Laws which limits the President''s ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act, helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic Law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush has now undone all of those prohibitions. The John Warner Defense Authorization Act, which was signed by the President in an unpublicized ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency," suspend Congress; The Constitution; and to take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of your Governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder." President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act. The two Laws compliment one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad of those who dissent and are stripped of their citizenship, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home by allowing the President to order the military onto our streets in a domestic Law enforcement role, which is already being done. Vote for Liberty. Vote for Ron Paul.
Reply to this comment
by goodprophet November 14, 2007 11:10 PM EST
CLINTON ALLOWS BUSH TO PARDON HIMSELF
Buried deep inside Military Commisions Act, which was FULLY SUPPORTED by Senators Clinton, Obama and McCain, is a provision which pre-pardons President Bush and all the members of his administration for any crimes which they may have committed all the way back to September 11, 2001. Why that far back? That kind of makes you wonder. Huh? I can''t help but recall what Nixon said during an interview following the Watergate scandal when he said, "If the President does it, by definition, it''s not illegal." History never repeats itself, folks. It only rhymes. At least Nixon had enough class to wait for another President to pardon him for his crimes against our country. Bush apparently doesn''t want to take that chance. He has to consider the risk that Ron Paul will become our next President.
Reply to this comment
by goodprophet November 14, 2007 11:07 PM EST
CAMPING OUT WITH HALIBURTION
The John Warner Defense Authorization Act, which was supported by Clinton, Obama and McCain, permits militarized police round-ups and detention of protesters ("potential terrorists") and other "undesirables" for detention in facilities which are already contracted for and under construction by Kellog, Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton. This Law, which was sold to an "emergency managed" and willfully gullible public in the wake of the 9/11 attacks as a necessary measure needed by our President in order to fight his "global war on terrorism," permits the indefinite detention of American citizens who resists the foreign and domestic agenda of our President. The Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International reported recently that global engineering and technical services powerhouse, Kellog, Brown & Root announced during January 2006 that its Government and Infrastructure division had been awarded a (no bid) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contract to build these detainment camps with a maximum total value of $385 million over a five year term, and that this contract called for the company to build "temporary detention and processing capabilities" to augment existing U.S. government Detention and Removal Operations and to support "the rapid development of new programs." New Programs? Could it possibly get any worse? Why would the president be so concerned about Americans protesting? Aren''t we all happy campers?
Reply to this comment
by goodprophet November 14, 2007 11:05 PM EST
ARE WE A NATION OF LAWS?
Consider the Patriot Act. The Law is 342 pages long, or 57,000 words, making it a bit longer than Dostoevsky''s "Notes from Underground" or, if you''re partial to pigs, about twice the size of Orwell''s "Animal Farm." The Patriot Act is the reigning champion of our government''s recent un-American activities. When it was first paraded before Congress and the Senate following the 9/11 attacks, few Members, other than Congressman, Ron Paul dared to vote against it. Most in Congress simply gave it their rubber-stamp of approval, without ever reading it. Why bother? It was, after all, named the "USA Patriot Act." It must be a good thing. Right? Now in effect, the Law wrecks a generation''s worth of constitutional protections against government snooping, legalizing police-state tactics in searches and seizures, criminalizing certain forms of speech and political activity, and opening the way for the mistreatment of foreigners in government custody and wholesale expulsions and imprisonment. It is a repugnant, unnecessary Law that goes against the very principles its name wrongly implies. Yet, it remains unchecked and unbalanced by public opinion, Lawmakers or the Courts. So, yes, we''re a nation of Laws. But the Laws aren''t much to speak of when they''re designed to hoodwink the public to win its docility. Neither is public responsibility much to speak of these days when its docility is secured with nothing more than a ploy-riddled play on the word "patriot."
Reply to this comment
by goodprophet November 14, 2007 11:02 PM EST
DEMOCRATS HOODWINKED BY HILLARY
Sadly, even though Clinton voted for the war in Iraq, and a host of Laws aimed at removing civil liberties; and our country''s sovereignty, Democrats are so blinded by her cult of personality that I predict they will overwhelmingly vote to put her crime family back into office. While I''ve made some progress in educating Liberals as to the phony staged consensus of the left-right paradigm, the fact remains that a majority of Democrats still see the White House as some kind of political Super Bowl, where the success of their "team" is the be all and end all - to the expense of America as a whole. The Punch and Judy show theater that was the "troop surge" debate in the Senate characterizes Hillary''s role in hoodwinking Americans perfectly. The debate is framed as not whether the U.S. should get out of the Middle-East altogether, but the relative minutia of whether to feed thousands of more troops into the meat grinder or not. A Clinton presidency will mean more war, more dead Americans, and a further desecration of the tattered shreds of what''s left of our Constitution. Clinton is the ultimate global elitist and represents the Democrats supposed base: the poor and downtrodden, about as much as Lindsay Lohan represents grace and dignity. I''m sure she informed the likes of David Rockefeller and Queen Beatrix as to her presidential aspirations during her last visit to attend the Bilderberger conference. Vote for a REAL AMERICAN. Vote for Ron Paul.
Reply to this comment
by goodprophet November 14, 2007 10:59 PM EST
BILDERBERGERS RULE
The Bilderberg Group is a secretive gathering of global power brokers, which includes Hillary Clinton, and a virtual who''s who of other folks whose names you will recognize (Search Wikipedia: "Bilderberg Attendees"), has inspired layers of ridicule. In recent times, the deeds laid at the group''s doorstep have included the creation of the EU, the Iraq war, and the group''s current efforts to create a North American Union, which will erase U.S. borders and sovereignty. Their agenda: economic and political domination; one world government; and world population reduction. After it was leaked that a speech by John Edwards at their meeting in Italy, was one reason for his selection as John Kerry''s vice-presidential running mate in 2000, people began to ask, "Are the Bilderbergers now shaping the worldwide political scene?" Over 130 of the world''s most powerful monarchs, politicians and business leaders attend the annual, invitation-only gatherings in order to to discuss and orchestrate public policy worldwide. The hotels involved are closed-off to other guests and reporters. Guards are placed around the perimeter, and attendees promise to keep quiet about what they hear and say. "They do not have to sign anything, but they understand that they do not talk," said Maja Banck-Polderman, the group''s Secretary. Tony Gosling, a British reporter who has followed the group says, "I think that a forum where so many rich and powerful people meet should be open to public scrutiny."
Reply to this comment
by goodprophet November 14, 2007 10:56 PM EST
RON PAUL WILL RESTORE U.S. SOVEREIGNTY
All of the trade deals and world government organizations, which all of the presidential candidates support (except Ron Paul), such as the ICC, NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA, are all a major threat to our nation''s sovereignty. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites. The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals. Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get a prescription to take herbs and vitamins. The WTO has forced Congress to change our laws to meet their needs, and not our own. If anything, the WTO makes trade relations worse by giving foreign competitors a new way to attack U.S. jobs. The NAFTA superhighway, being built by a Spanish company, is just one part of a plan to erase our borders and create the North American Union, a single nation State like the EU, out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new, unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under the NAU scheme. There won''t be any borders anymore, or a free America. Our limited, constitutional government will be gone forever. Let''s not forget the UN either. It wants to impose a direct Carbon Tax on us. Ron Paul successfully fought this move in Congress last year, but if we are going to stop ongoing attempts of this world government body to rule over us, we need someone in the White House who knows how to say "No." We must withdraw from any organizations or treaty that infringes upon our nation''s sovereignty.
Reply to this comment
by goodprophet November 14, 2007 10:54 PM EST
WHO''S RON PAUL?
Ron Paul''s campaign has become a clearinghouse for voters like me who feel unrepresented by the Fascisct (globalist Republicans) and their Socialist comrades in crime (globalist Democrats). They''re actually one and the same. It''s all a phony, poorly staged left-right paradigm. Most people, though, are too distracted, dumbed-down, or outright brainwashed by mainstream media, which endlessly regurgitates scientifically-crafted streams of information aimed at keeping their eyes closed to the realities of the world around them, that they fail to recognize this. Those currently in power, and those being groomed to take [major] political power, are preselected by a "global elite," and whomever is eventually elected, will ultimately, serve their agenda, and not ours. People on the right and those on the left have many differences. Maybe irreconcilable ones. But they have a lot of common beliefs too, and our numbers and anger are of a considerable magnitude. No matter what happens in 2008, I personally believe Ron Paul will influence the national conversation about how much power our government should have over our lives; how much liberty we should give up for security; and whether we should continue moving along our current path towards a one world government. These are issues that, frankly, no one else is talking about as seriously and sincerely as Ron Paul. What''s for sure is that his growing army of supporters like me will be a force to be reckoned with in 2008.
Reply to this comment
See all 128 Comments
  • MOST POPULAR
Discussed
  1. Obama, GOP Clash over cure for Economy

    (328 recent comments)

Exclusive Webshow

Mike Huckabee on GOP "rock stars," 2012, health care reform and more. Watch Now

Latest News
News in Pictures
Scroll Left Scroll Right
Connect with CBS News

Stay connected with the CBS News using your favorite social networks and online news applications: