What Bush Got Right

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: clevelandsucks @ 08/15/2008 2:06:37 PM

    Bush got alot of things right. #1 was to worry about making tough/controversial decisions (agree or disagree with the outcomes) and NOT to worry about poll numbers. Maybe if Clinton had made some REAL decisions, Bush wouldn't have had to deal with certain issues that he has had to handle as president.

  • Posted By: Driver of wagons @ 08/15/2008 1:57:15 PM



    MCCAIN: "And I led the investigation."

    It was a scandal that rocked the country, linking all the way to the Bush White House and Republicans in Congress, sending two former Republican Congressmen to prison.

    But, now, desperate to raise campaign cash to run more negative attack ads, John McCain is cozying up to Jack Abramoff's cronies.

    Ralph Reed, a key business partner of Jack Abramoff helped the convicted former Republican lobbyist launder 2 million dollars through a front group to finance a gambling campaign.

    Now, Ralph Reed has signed up to raise money for John McCain. Reed has even been appointed to McCain's Victory 2008 Team.

    Ralph Reed's murky connections to Jack Abramoff run so deep, it cost him a race for Lt. Governor in Georgia.

    While most people now see Ralph Reed as a tainted man raising tainted money, John McCain sees him as a source of campaign cash cow.

    John McCain is a mere mirage of himself

  • Posted By: Bass Pro @ 08/15/2008 9:15:00 AM

    For those of you that defend Bush and use the example of Clinton's invasion of Kosovo, you're way off base. Clinton's response was actually 20 years too late. For the previous 2 decades, while Presidents and Heads of State without the raising of an eyebrow, more than 200,000 of the population were slaughtered in the name of ethnic cleansing. to compare that to the invasion in iraq which was cooked up by Bush/Cheney/Rice/Powell and Rumsfeld is to continue to live the lie. I doubt Bill Clinto will be judged kindly by history and rightly so, but for you Republican's to compare the Bush/Cheney White House to the Clinton White House is weak.

    What has Bill Clinton to do with the phony war in Iraq? What has Bill Clinton to do with the trashing of our Constitution? What has bill Clinton to do with our disasterous economy? What has Bill Clinton to do with our disasterous Foriegn Policy?

    If you mouth-breathing out of touch G OLD Pers could think of something positive to say about your President and you candidate, you would. Fact is you're on defense all the time because you are in a constant state of embarrassment . Last post until after the conventions. Taking shots at thos ewho are already committed is getting tedious. I'll be back to gloat a little after Obama has routed McNutty and all of you would be supporter are explaining how you never really liked yor supported our candidate. I suggest a new mantra after the smashing defeat could be: "We were stuck with him!"

  • Posted By: jimmybear @ 08/15/2008 7:54:19 AM

    I read the cover piece on ???What Bush did Right???. Maybe it was the ???tough Love??? that brought some of these countries around. Remember, we lost 2 embassies, a destroyer and 911 was planned & manufactured while Bill was banging interns. The world loves to hate the US when it suits them. i.e. France, the UN and Annan & son made off with millions of dollars in illegal oil from Iraq. The world also hates to love the US as well. i.e. Please make Russia respect Georgia???s sovereignty.

  • Posted By: NotSoBigMac @ 08/15/2008 7:45:06 AM

    From Iraq war advocate to the administration apologist, hmmh? Okay you may be right that Bush has rectified his course somewhat. How about accepting the ICC? How about admitting that U.S. has used and will use torture and accept the consequences? How about getting serious about the private contractors who are acting without accountability - enriching W's buddies while doing it?

  • Posted By: Rock182529 @ 08/15/2008 1:25:36 AM

    I think it's a gutsy and worthy article to articulate the things GW Bush has gotten right. I actually believe there will be more in hindsight, but for now, this is a good attempt to balance the more simplistic and over-used "he's just an idiot" criticism that is too rampant (and too easy). Good job! Got my read.

  • Posted By: NoSheep @ 08/15/2008 12:09:32 AM

    Hitler commissioned the Volkswagon...I guess that's what HE got right; but would you put HIS mug on the cover of your magazine? I was disgusted by the national venue you gave to the face of one of the members of the largest criminal cabals this country has ever seen. I suppose if Adolf were alive today, you'd be in the pocket of his puppet masters as well. The real story is in the billions in bribes that were paid. Who owns you?
    payer, the laws compromised, the

  • Posted By: NoSheep @ 08/15/2008 12:07:23 AM

    Hitler commissioned the Volkswagon...I guess that's what HE got right; but would you put HIS mug on the cover of your magazine? I was disgusted by the national venue you gave to the face of one of the members of the largest criminal cabals this country has ever seen. I suppose if Adolf were alive today, you'd be in the pocket of his puppet masters as well. The real story is in the billions in bribes that were paid. Who owns you?
    payer, the laws compromised, the

  • Posted By: Cyby9 @ 08/13/2008 1:49:18 AM

    Let's see...Fareed is basically saying that the spoiled brat who barely stole the car eight years ago and proceeded to have one total wreck each year has FINALLY figured out how to drive...that's progress. OK Fareed, tell us please "what is the kid's parents paying for the insurance policy?" We get the keys back and the bill arrives at our doorstep while the brat leaves scot free...the USA...what a country!

    • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/14/2008 8:26:07 PM

      Paaallleeezzzz... Are you still whining about Gore losing the election! Whataru, 12 years old?

      Get over it, why don't you?

      • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 08/14/2008 9:08:24 PM

        Al Gore lost. Nothing was stolen from him. The votes were recounted. So many chads, so little time.

    • Posted By: star3 @ 08/14/2008 7:48:37 PM

      Not worth a response, but fyi, the parents gave him the car & the keys, unfortunately, it was not a new car, and the previous owner had done irrepairable damage, which resulted in the wreckage that the new owner has been paying for ever since. But being the smart mechanic that he is, he, somehow, managed to fix things as best he could, then hoped his used car would hold together long enough to drive him to where he needed to go until he turned it over to the next owner who, hopefully, will, also, be a good mechanic as well as a good driver Too bad this beautiful car was so abused by its original owner.

  • Posted By: right-wing genius @ 08/12/2008 1:40:35 PM

    I am pleased to see some cool-headed individuals sticking up for this dismally unpopular President. For the record, I have no problem with people criticizing President Bush, even though I personally like him, so long as their criticism is LEGITAMITE and RESPECTFUL. By the way. . .why bring up Doug Feith???s Jewish Faith? It always strikes me as pathetic how the left - the people who are supposed to value "inclusion", "tolerance" and "diversity" - can be so anti-Semitic sometimes (and you WOnder why Joe Lieberman endorsed McCain). DID YOU KNOW that Feith???s grandfather lost his parents and SEVEN OF HIS SIBLINGS in the Holocaust (the brainchild of a left-wing radical dictator)? My source on that, F.Y.I., was not some ???right-wing Zionist??? blog but MAUREEN DOWD, the bitchy, liberal New York Times columnist. Furthermore, we are definitely NOT less safe than we were 7 years ago ... Notice that we???ve not had a terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11, whereas under Clinton we had the World Trade Center bombing, the Oklahoma City bombing, attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. . .not to mention the attacks on U.S. troops in Mogadishu, bombing of the Khobar Towers and the U.S.S. Cole. If you think you can handle more truth, then read my posting below (Posted @ 08/11/2008 2:21:37 PM).

    • Posted By: flamingo123 @ 08/12/2008 2:47:20 PM

      right-wing genius, your views are very insightful, unbiased and honest. don't get me wrong, I am not a Bush admirer, but it's true, after 9/11, the terrorists have not been successful with another attempt to launch another attack. After the November presidential election. I hope, whoever will be the next president. can be as affective in preventing another terrorists attack on American soils.

      • Posted By: wombat-bob @ 08/12/2008 3:50:22 PM

        Why would bin Laden want/need to attack? he's got America stuck in the same sort of quagmire that bled the Soviet Union dry, & that's where he learned his big tactics, back when he was on the CIA payroll...

        • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/14/2008 10:19:16 PM

          Wrong.

          Bin Laden doesn't want to attack us? Laughable. Bin Laden is and has been on the run since 9/11. He's cowering under one of those hijabs that Muslim women are forced to wear, somewhere in Pakistan.

          He is ineffective and has been for 7 years. No attacks on the US since then, remember?

        • Posted By: star3 @ 08/12/2008 6:30:10 PM

          And I suppose the CIA is slipping those checks to him now throught that hole in his head as he conducts business from his office in that cave hes hiding out in. No, I don't believe hes in any cave, he is more likely in a "cave" in some grand hotel or a rich person's private home, waiting for an oppertunity to try to finish what he failed to complete on 9/11/2001. However, there is one problem with that plan: The angry Eagle isn't going to allow him another oppertunity. So, his fate is already sealed, its just a matter of time. That is the reason President Bush no longer thinks about OBL--because he knows OBL is finished as a threat. He claims that he would be "glorified" by dying for his beliefs, yeah, well, Binnie, we're waiting for you to back up your humming bird mouth that has been over-rode by your mockingbird ass, climb out of that "cave" and come get "glorified" America will survive--you won't.

          • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/14/2008 10:16:32 PM

            Wrong.

            Bin Laden doesn't want to attack us? Laughable. Bin Laden is and has been on the run since 9/11. He's cowering under one of those hijabs that Muslim women are forced to wear, somewhere in Pakistan.

            He is ineffective and has been for 7 years. No attacks on the US since then, remember?

    • Posted By: observer101 @ 08/12/2008 1:54:46 PM

      right-wing...The dems here dont recognize the events you mentioned as really happened...Their time line is mixed up and think its ALL happened on Bushs' watch. There thinking is the world was great when Clinton was in office and doing NOTHING to defend this nation..And Dems/Libs here think freedom is totally free and we do not have to defend it in anyway if work or fighting is involved...typical dreamers.

      • Posted By: eagles1776 @ 08/12/2008 5:06:17 PM

        Apparently jingoists still can't realize what most of the world knows. It was a mistake to go after Saddam Hussein when it was Bin Laden and his band of AlQaeda thugs that did us harm.

  • Posted By: korlopp @ 08/12/2008 9:37:34 PM

    Did you guys make W reminsicent of Colonel Sanders in this cover shot on purpose? Hilarious. And, sadly, fitting.

    • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/14/2008 9:04:35 PM

      It's just a picture... geeezzz do you hate him that much?

  • Posted By: tjmills @ 08/12/2008 10:30:07 PM

    Things may might not be great now, but wait until a young inexpericiend obama takes office. Good luck U.S.A

    • Posted By: summer4077 @ 08/13/2008 2:29:05 PM

      Yeah because we all know that young presidents are bad...like JFK and Clinton. Oh wait...they were good...hmm...guess that kills your point.

      • Posted By: star3 @ 08/13/2008 11:13:13 PM

        JFK was a good president, Clinton was/is a pompous ass. JFK was, also, one of the last REAL Democrats; since then, they have been taken over by plastic Americans who want nothing more than to see the demise of everything America has always stood for. We are here to see that does not happen. Even if a democrat gets elected , he/she will never be allowed to uproot all the values we have come to appreciate, that is not going to happen. They think they are sneaky and will, slowly, but surely, "change" our way of life, but what they won't be prepared for is that we're a tad smarter than the average bear....

        • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/14/2008 8:47:55 PM

          I agree with you about JFK.... he was one of the first to implement tax cuts and how they help the economy. From a democrat no less.

  • Posted By: thegoodman @ 08/13/2008 4:27:10 PM

    Th e bottom-line of George Bush's two terms, which your article fails to mention, is that correcting some of his first-term errors does not erase the long-term consequences of those errors.

    • Posted By: star3 @ 08/13/2008 8:14:02 PM

      We still have military bases in Germany, and other places since WW2. How long a term are we speaking of?

      • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/14/2008 8:36:34 PM

        Not to mention when Clinton invaded the former Yugoslavia.... yes, we're still there.

  • Posted By: cdstrickland @ 08/13/2008 2:24:43 PM

    It would have been easier to put a blank page under the heading "What Bush got Right". This man is now a war criminal in the world and there was nothing positive that he did during the last 7 years. No defense from Newsweek needed- you can't change the outcome of Bush's administration and the next president can use it as an example of what not to do as well as to reverse the damage.

    • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/13/2008 4:46:17 PM

      cdstrickland,

      Nothing positive? I see Afghanistan as positive, as we haven't had attack since 9/11 Or, would you have sat on your duff and done nothing after 9/11? I guess you would have rather followed that highly successful Clinton model against terrorism and used "harsh language".

      • Posted By: star3 @ 08/14/2008 7:30:06 PM

        Sky, or maybe he would have used a Clintonisum such as: "We were NOT attacked by those terrorist!" " They just happened to be on the plane when it, accidently, slamed into the tower, and the second one was just coming to help, when the pilot lost control of the plane due to all the smoke which blinded him.

        • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/14/2008 8:05:07 PM

          Star.... LMAO!!!! Your Clintonism is priceless...

      • Posted By: Notrepublican @ 08/14/2008 12:34:50 AM

        Yeah, I mean even though Bush got information about the 9/11 attack by a threat made by Osama Bin Ladin, it's not like he could have used the intelligence to stop the attacks made on 9/11 instead of ignoring it and throwing it away. Oh wait, he could.

        • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/14/2008 8:18:54 AM

          You really believe that, don't you. I know you have no actual proof of this, but please, tell us why Bush, or any other president would not act if he had the information you say he had.

      • Posted By: Notrepublican @ 08/14/2008 12:35:16 AM

        Oh snap

  • Posted By: langs13 @ 08/13/2008 7:05:38 AM

    Faredd: You have got to let me know what strain of weed you are smoking.

    The surge did not quell violence in Iraq. The death squads of the Shia armed by America commiting genocide has run most of the Sunnis out of the country if they were not murdered.

    The genocide was complete when the surge started. .

    • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/14/2008 8:19:28 PM

      You are incorrect of course. The surge did not quell the violence in Iraq??? I would like to ask you, what stain of weed are YOU smoking?

  • Posted By: arbet14 @ 08/13/2008 9:48:26 AM

    i love newsweek...i HATE this cover !! Sad to say that his face nauseates me and the sooner it is gone, the better...thousands of our young men and women killed and maimed for no good reason and the loss of respect for our wonderful country worldwide...shame on you for using his face for your cover

    • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 08/13/2008 10:11:11 AM

      Who voted in favor of Bush's plan to attack Iraq? All the people in Congress we have elected.

      • Posted By: Notrepublican @ 08/14/2008 1:20:14 AM

        Who controlled the Congress at that time, the Republicans.

        • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/14/2008 9:02:46 AM

          And your point? Because almost all of the Dems voted to go also, it wouldn't have made any difference who controlled Congress.

          • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 08/14/2008 1:15:41 PM

            Ditto and thank you Sky. Baci....

            • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/14/2008 8:16:04 PM

              Il mio piacere, la mia bellezza!

    • Posted By: Bass Pro @ 08/13/2008 2:12:34 PM

      Agreed, Bush/Cheney viewed fron the rear will be a welcomed sight.

  • Posted By: rab1525 @ 08/13/2008 3:31:44 PM

    The cover was great, but should have " see centerfold", then you should have left in blank, nothing right !
    November can't come soon enought !!!

    • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/13/2008 7:41:03 PM

      Nothing right? If Bush did nothing right as you think, then you would've obviously done nothing after 9/11 except become nice and quiet. Or maybe you could have asked the Taliban, Bin Laden, and the terrorists nicely not to attack us again. The reality here is that you're safe for a reason.... as in, we haven't been attacked since 9/11.

      I know you think of yourself as a sheep, but I'll let you in on a secret.... your human.

      Act like one.

      • Posted By: Notrepublican @ 08/14/2008 12:18:36 AM

        I mean, we haven't been attacked by another hurricane have we? LOL

        • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/14/2008 7:27:08 AM

          NR, not funny. If you would, please explain why we haven't had an attack on our soil since 9/11. (you can omit the inane "the terrorists haven't wanted to" statement).

          Spin it any way you want, but the fact is overwhelming force is the only thing terrorists understand.

          One other question, did you support the president's response to 9/11? And BTW, bad analogy... hurricanes don't plan to kill people on purpose.

          • Posted By: star3 @ 08/14/2008 7:19:08 PM

            Exactly, Sky. Good post, nothing I can say to improve on that.

      • Posted By: Notrepublican @ 08/14/2008 12:22:01 AM

        I mean, even though so many people say were actually less safe than we were after 9/11 because we pissed off so many people, you don't have to believe them. I mean, the 4,500 U.S. soldiers deaths and the thousands of soldiers living under constant danger are worth it since we're less safe right?

        • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/14/2008 7:07:37 AM

          You're saying we should have swept 9/11 under the rug and done nothing. Catering to European opinion is one of reasons Clinton did nothing about the war on terror. I don't think that way. Please, ask me if I care if we "pissed someone off" for defending ourselves. If we hadn't made a stand, yes, there would have been another 9/11.

          You can't have it both ways.

          • Posted By: catspaw @ 08/14/2008 5:43:43 PM

            We should had gone after the right cause of 9/11, not a made up reason and say they were behind when they weren't.

            • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/14/2008 6:46:10 PM

              Catspaw, are you speaking of Afghanistan, or Iraq?

  • Posted By: OnlyCureJGK @ 08/13/2008 7:47:10 PM

    ???Baron M.A. Rothschild wrote, "Give me control over a nation's currency and I care not who
    makes its laws." All that is needed to effectively control a government is to have control over the
    nation's money: a central bank with a monopoly over the supply of money and credit. This had
    been done in Western Europe, with the creation of privately owned central banks such as the
    Bank of England. Georgetown professor Dr. Carroll Quigley (Bill Clinton's mentor while at
    Georgetown) wrote about the goals of the investment bankers who control central banks: "...
    nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate
    the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole... controlled in a
    feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived
    at in frequent private meetings and conferences."

    Thomas Jefferson wrote: "The Central Bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing
    against the principles and form of our Constitution...if the American people allow private banks to
    control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and
    corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their
    children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

    The U.S. managed to do without a central bank until early in this century, when, according to
    Congressman Charles Lindbergh, Sr., "The Money Trust caused the 1907 panic, and thereby
    forced Congress to create a National Monetary Commission." Headed by Senator Nelson
    Aldrich, father-in-law of John D. Rockefeller, Jr., the Commission recommended creation of a
    central bank.


    Though unconstitutional, as only "The Congress shall have Power...To coin Money, regulate the
    Value thereof..." (Article I, Section 8, U.S. Constitution) the Federal Reserve Act was passed in
    December 1913; ostensibly to stabilize the economy and prevent further panics, but as Lindberg
    warned Congress: "This act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth...the invisible government
    by the money power, proven to exist by the Money Trust investigation, will be legalized." The
    Great Depression and numerous recessions later, it is obvious the Federal Reserve produces
    inflation and federal debt whenever it desires, but not stability.

    • Posted By: OnlyCureJGK @ 08/13/2008 7:52:15 PM

      ???A national income tax was declared unconstitutional in 1895 by the Supreme Court, so a
      constitutional amendment was proposed in Congress by none other than ...Senator Nelson
      Aldrich. As presented to the American people it seemed reasonable enough: income tax on only
      one percent of income under $20,000, with the assurance that it would never increase. Since it
      was graduated, the tax would "soak the rich", ...but the rich had other plans, already devising a
      method of protecting wealth.

      According to an eyewitness, Wilson was brought to Democratic Party headquarters in 1912 by
      Bernard Baruch, a wealthy banker. He received an "indoctrination course" from those he met, and
      in return agreed, if elected: to support the projected Federal Reserve and the income tax, and
      "listen" to advice in case of war in Europe and on the composition of his cabinet.
      Wilson's official biographer, Ray Stannard Baker, revealed that the League was not Wilson's idea.
      "...not a single idea--in the Covenant of the League was original with the President." Colonel
      House was the author of the Covenant, and Wilson had merely rewritten it to conform to his own
      phraseology.
      The League of Nations was established, but it, and the plan for world government eventually
      failed because the U.S. Senate would not ratify the Versailles Treaty.
      Pat Robertson, in "The New World Order," states that Colonel House, along with other
      internationalists, realized that America would not join any scheme for world government without
      a change in public opinion. After a series of meetings, it was decided that an "Institute of
      International Affairs", with two branches, in the United States and England, would be formed.

      • Posted By: OnlyCureJGK @ 08/13/2008 7:55:21 PM

        ???Colonel House, along with other
        internationalists, realized that America would not join any scheme for world government without
        a change in public opinion. After a series of meetings, it was decided that an "Institute of
        International Affairs", with two branches, in the United States and England, would be formed.
        The British branch became known as the Royal Institute of International Affairs, with leadership
        provided by members of the Round Table. Begun in the late 1800's by Cecil Rhodes, the Round
        Table aimed to federate the English speaking peoples of the world, and bring it under their rule.
        The Council on Foreign Relations was incorporated as the American branch in New York on July
        29, 1921. Founding members included Colonel House, and "...such potentates of international
        banking as J.P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, Paul Warberg, Otto Kahn, and Jacob Schiff...the
        same clique which had engineered the establishment of the Federal Reserve System," according to
        Gary Allen in the October 1972 issue of "AMERICAN OPINION."

        Antony Sutton, a research fellow for the Hoover Institution for War, Revolution, and Peace at
        Stanford University, wrote of this philosophy: "While monopoly control of industries was once
        the objective of J.P. Morgan and J.D. Rockefeller, by the late nineteenth century the inner
        sanctums of Wall Street understood the most efficient way to gain an unchallenged monopoly was
        to 'go political' and make society go to work for the monopolists-- under the name of the public
        good and the public interest."

        • Posted By: OnlyCureJGK @ 08/13/2008 7:58:27 PM

          ???As corporations went international, national monopolies could no longer protect their interests.
          What was needed was a one world system of government controlled from behind the scenes. This
          had been the plan since the time of Colonel House, and to implement it, it was necessary to
          weaken the U.S. politically and economically.

          Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking Committee declared: "It was not accidental. It
          was a carefully contrived occurrence...The international bankers sought to bring about a condition
          of despair here so that they might emerge as rulers of us all."

          Curtis Dall, son-in-law of FDR and a syndicate manager for Lehman Brothers, an investment firm,
          was on the N.Y. Stock Exchange floor the day of the crash. In "FDR: My Exploited Father-In-
          Law," he states: "...it was the calculated 'shearing' of the public by the World-Money powers
          triggered by the planned sudden shortage of call money in the New York Market."

          Similar to the sub prime collapse that triggered the housing crash.

          Taking America off the gold standard in 1934, FDR opened the way to unrestrained money
          supply expansion, decades of inflation--and credit revenues for banks. Raising gold prices from
          $20 an ounce to $35, FDR and Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr. (son of a founding
          CFR member), gave international bankers huge profits.


          FDR's most remembered program, the New Deal, could only be financed through heavy
          borrowing. In effect, those who had caused the Depression loaned America the money to recover
          from it. Then, through the National Recovery Administration, proposed by Bernard Baruch in
          1930, they were put in charge of regulating the economy. FDR appointed Baruch disciple Hugh
          Johnson to run the NRA, assisted by CFR member Gerard Swope. With broad powers to regulate
          wages, prices, and working conditions, it was, as Herbert Hoover wrote in his memoirs: "...pure
          fascism;...merely a remaking of Mussolini's 'corporate state'..." The Supreme Court eventually
          ruled the NRA unconstitutional

          The CIA has been under CFR control almost continuously since its creation, starting with Allen
          Dulles, founding member of the CFR and brother of Secretary of State under President
          Eisenhower, John Foster Dulles. Allen Dulles had been at the Paris Peace Conference, joined the
          CFR in 1926, and later became its president.

          • Posted By: OnlyCureJGK @ 08/13/2008 7:59:42 PM

            ???The original concept for the UN was the outcome of the Informal Agenda Group, formed in 1943
            by Secretary of State Cordell Hull. All except Hull were CFR members, and Isaiah Bowman, a
            founding member of the CFR, originated the idea.

            Admiral Chester Ward, a member of the CFR for over a decade, became one of its harshest
            critics, revealing its inner workings in a 1975 book, "Kissinger ON THE COUCH." In it he states
            "The most powerful cliques in these elitist groups have one objective in common: they want to
            bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and national independence of the United States."

            James Warburg, son of CFR founder Paul Warburg, and a member of FDR's "brain trust,"
            testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 17, 1950, "We shall have
            world government whether or not you like it--by conquest or consent."

            • Posted By: OnlyCureJGK @ 08/13/2008 8:04:17 PM

              If you go to ------ cfr.org -------- the official website for the Council on Foriegn Relations and look up articles on soverienty there is one written by the current president of the CFR.

              • Posted By: catspaw @ 08/14/2008 5:15:26 PM

                Only, what your trying to tell us is that people, of high ranking, have been trying to get our country to fall from the inside-out since basicly the early 1890's. Right?

                • Posted By: star3 @ 08/14/2008 7:09:44 PM

                  Sure sounds that way, doesn't it---kinda like "A chicken in every pot". But don't under estimate the ability of the American people to prevail with our Constitution still intact, and our $$$ in OUR pockets. You may fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

  • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/14/2008 7:05:58 PM

    Notrouble: (from 8/12)

    Boorish and bullish, especially during Bush's first term? That means our response to 9/11.

    Look, NoTrouble (and I can clearly see why you use that name) If you want to cave to European opinion and do nothing while getting your ass kicked, then do so! As an apologist, that's exactly what you're saying you would have done after the attack in New York. Just don't expect me or the majority of other Americans to do the same.

    BTW, I speak French... and I suggest that if you're going to tell people to go to hell, stop hiding behind a language that you know nothing about.... Your French really does suck.

    Comprendre, cancre?

  • Posted By: arbet14 @ 08/13/2008 9:53:00 AM

    good article...disgusting cover !
    cannot stand to see the face of the person who has, along with his vp, has destroyed the worldwide respect for our country and murdered and maimed so many of our precious young men and women.

    • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 08/13/2008 10:08:35 AM

      Only Bush and his VP are to blame? Think again.

      • Posted By: sharenews @ 08/13/2008 3:46:36 PM

        I agree, Pia. Congress has been a huge impediment and has been doing a huge disservice to our country with all their lack of bipartisanship to get anything done to help get us out of the mess we are in. . .

        • Posted By: Notrepublican @ 08/14/2008 1:19:13 AM

          Can Congress end the war in Iraq and stop borrowing billions of dollars from the Chinese? Because that would probably solve one of our biggest problems. Wait, is Mccain going to stop the war in Iraq and stop borrowing billions of dollars from the Chinese, I'm pretty sure he's for the war and running our country on borrowed money. Oh well, if Mccain is elected, I geuss we'll have to wait another four years to solve one of the biggest problems facing America today. Although then, there will be a much larger debt and will take that much longer for America to recover, especially if we hit a recession which we're heading to right now because of the Iraq war and borrowed money.

          • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/14/2008 6:57:15 PM

            I agree, we are upside down with China... they do own our debt. The reasons go beyond the war, but you are correct none the less.

            Geezzz, NR, you and I actually agreeing on something... who would've thunk it! lol

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse