The case in front of the Supreme Court, Citizens v. Federal Election Commission, revolves around a documentary called “Hillary: The Movie,” produced by Citizens United. Based on Hillary Clinton, the film was banned for violating the McCain-Feingold bill which requires disclosure on funding sources, and stipulates that neither corporate or union treasuries can finance any “ad” pro or con just before a primary.

The 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), also known as the McCain-Feingold bill, was the last major piece of legislation passed to control the source of financing for Federal political campaigns. The bill eliminated soft money donations to the national party committees, and restricted the funding of political pronouncements, ads, etc., by corporations, or organizations such as unions and non-profit organizations.

The arguments and presentations beginning today in front of the Supreme Court, will address a question all voters should take a stand on. Are your rights to free speech the same as the rights of corporations or organizations? Corporations and organizations are not individuals, they do not have the inherent rights of the people, nor do they have the same privileges. They are vehicles created and used by society for diverse purposes. Voters should seek to minimize their further influence on the political process and on the political landscape.

You will hear and read arguments whining that the government is treating organizations big and small, unfairly by prohibiting election advocacy, and is in effect imposing censorship. Some suggest that such treatment of organizations provides them less protection in the eyes of the law than is provided to individuals. The suggestion that organizations should be equal to individuals under the law twists the interpretation of the Constitution beyond common sense, and ignores the fact that current laws provide organizations with rights and privileges not available to individuals. Let’s not let anyone convince us that organizations are “persons.”

You will also hear that the media companies have no restrictions on their election leanings, or that restrictions do not apply to them and should therefore equally not apply to other corporate entities. While it is true that media companies have been given a pass on their ability to “manipulate” opinion, this is not a persuasive argument for overturning laws that in themselves do not go far enough in the restrictions of campaign finance.

The First Amendment of the Constitution explicitly prohibits Congress from infringing on the individual’s freedom of speech (other than inciting government overthrow), and as we long ago learned, free speech is a great freedom, but is not so “free.” While you may be able to shout your ideas, demands or wishes freely out your window to the extremes your lungs will allow without bursting, you will not achieve the reach that well financed organizations are able to affect as they shout at you through your invasive televisions.

This court decision revolves around financing free speech, but at its heart is the impact the decision will have on ability of organizations to influence voter perception. Organizations large and small already have too much influence on the electoral process. Corporations and labor organizations already impact election outcomes through such vehicles as Political Action Committees (PACs), or through the doors of political party organizations. We should note that the billion dollar campaign which carried Barack Obama into the Oval Office could not be audited by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) because the task was too onerous. Do not believe the pretense that the FEC is a watchdog, or does its job of monitoring campaign contributions, much less where and how the money is spent.

Allowing entities to finance the formation of perceptions, places a vast amount of power in the few hands at the helms of those entities, far overreaching the capacities of their “rank and file.” Politics have always been and will always be subject to self-serving influences. As wealth concentration continues unabated, effective control of the political process has already been skewed away from the average taxpayer. Simply put, the CEO of Goldman Sachs reaching into the company coffers has access to more money than you do to impact the outcome of an electoral campaign, and it’s not even his money. Neither shareholders, nor his employees, have any say on the candidate receiving the CEO’s largesse.

Some alternative legislation should be considered, including anonymity of donations, capping personal contributions and matching them with government funds, as well as eliminating all corporate and union political contributions and related loopholes. Beyond cleaning up the abuse of the process, this would bring campaign funding and spending within realms that might foster the advance of alternative parties to the political game on the national stage.

Should the Supreme Court overturn years of tested law in favor of corporate and union spending, it will relegate the taxpaying voter to that of second-class citizen, and insinuate a gigantic crack into the democratic process. No matter what the Supreme Court decides, the voter should take a stand at the poles with facts rather than with the prejudice of well-financed and influential rhetoric and advertisements.

High definition cameras bringing the drama into public consciousness should invade this upcoming Supreme Court hearing, and educate voters on the fundamental process none can take for granted. A Democracy is a very fragile environment demanding fastidious nurturing. “We the people,” was never intended to mean, “We the corporations and unions.”

It would be hard to imagine President Obama ever standing only a few feet from the North Korean border and warning its leaders that if they ever used nuclear weapons, “it would be the end of their country.”

Mr. Obama is not the threatening kind. He prefers “soft” power to win over his adversaries. In fact, after North Korea’s May 25 test of a bomb close in size to the one dropped on Hiroshima, he said the US would merely “work with our friends and allies to stand up to this behavior.”

What a contrast to the last Democratic president.

It was President Clinton who actually spoke those threatening “hard power” words – within earshot of North Korean soldiers – in 1993.

link

At the time, Pyongyang was revving up its nuclear-bomb program.

Mr. Clinton knew something back then that Obama is learning on the job: Tough talk against an enemy is sometimes needed simply to reassure America’s allies that the US will live up to its defense promises. Those commitments include its unique role to provide nuclear deterrence, or promised retaliation, if an ally is attacked.

By his actions and his words, Obama is sending worrisome signals to Japan and South Korea that they might be left alone in a confrontation with North Korea or even perhaps China.

First…some background.

On March 27th of this year Hillary Clinton accepted a Planned Parenthood award called the Margaret Sanger Award. So named because Sanger is the founder of the group, originally called the American Birth Control League. She had this to say about it’s founder:

Now, I have to tell you that it was a great privilege when I was told that I would receive this award. I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision … And when I think about what she did all those years ago in Brooklyn, taking on archetypes, taking on attitudes and accusations flowing from all directions, I am really in awe of her.

Now….for those who know Sanger’s history, the statement above should shock you. As it did to Nebraska congressman Jeff Fortenberry who said the following during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on April 22nd:

Your remarks last month, when you called Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, a person whom you enormously admire, were stunning to me. Margaret Sanger clearly embraced bigotry and racism. She advocated for the elimination of the disabled, the downtrodden and the black child. In one of her writings, she said, “Today eugenics is suggested by the most diverse minds as the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.” I don’t believe these ideologies have a place in our pluralistic society. And you went on to say that you will use American foreign policy in your position to further reproductive rights, which includes abortion, across the globe.

Madame Secretary, I don’t believe we should use American foreign policy to export abortion. This will undermine, in my view, our foreign relations in many areas throughout the world, including Latin America and Africa and among Muslim peoples. Promoting the international abortion industry is an imposition of our own woundedness upon others. Abortion has caused tremendous grief in this society, and its export I believe will be seen as a form of neocolonialism that is paternalistic and elitist and an assault on the dignity especially of the poor and vulnerable. I believe women deserve better, women throughout the world deserve better.

Her answer:

Well, Congressman, let me say with respect to your comments about Margaret Sanger, you know, I admire Thomas Jefferson. I admire his words and his leadership and I deplore his unrepentant slaveholding. I admire Margaret Sanger being a pioneer in trying to empower women to have some control over their bodies and I deplore statements that you have referenced. That is the way we often are when we look at flawed human beings. There are things that we admire and things we deplore.

But Thomas Jefferson didn’t make it his life’s work to promote slavery and actually opposed slavery:

As for Jefferson, he opposed slavery–as both John C. Calhoun and Abraham Lincoln argued in their own times. The primary principle that animated his political thought, his vision, is the “self-evident” truth “that all men are created equal.” The fact that he continued to own slaves until his death in 1826 is in many ways a contradiction of his political vision. It can be attributed partly to the selfishness described by Jefferson himself in his Notes on the State of Virginia, that “no man will labour for himself who can make another labour for him.” It can also be partly attributed to Jefferson’s prudential judgment that a gradual emancipation combined with colonization would be preferable to the immediate emancipation of millions of free blacks into a virulently racist society.

Margaret Sanger on the other hand DID make it her life’s work to promote eugenics. The VISION that promoted the weeding out of the “undesirables” in the human race. Hitler used the eugenics theory to justify his master race theory and ultimately ended with the Holocaust

Some quotes from the “great” Sanger:

“…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ’spawning… human beings who never should have been born.” [speaking about the poor and immigrants]
Pivot of Civilization

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population…” Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble – Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College: Massachusetts.

“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.

“Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child,”
Birth Control Review, April 1932

“Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need … We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock.”
Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review

“Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.
“The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.” Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.

More here.

Which brings me to this great interview of Angela Franks, author of Margaret Sanger’s Eugenic Legacy: The Control of Female Fertility, by Glenn Beck on Margaret Sanger, the progessive movement, and Hillary/Obama’s support of them: (h/t MisUnderstimated)

Margaret Sanger is the model from which progressives are molded from….and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are prime examples of a progressive.

And after today they are now in complete control of this country with the super majority they have long desired.

Latest case? Hillary’s Russian faux pas with the symbolic “reset” button… OMG…

It started with Biden who, for once, can’t get nailed with this gaffe. Early February he made news in Munich with his speech at the Conference where he para-phrased Obama, saying:

It is time — to paraphrase President Obama — it’s time to press the reset button and to revisit the many areas where we can and should be working together with Russia.

Along comes Hillary, here to assure our former Cold War nemesis that this new admin was determined to mend the broken relationship. Word has she greeted the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov with a symbolic “gift” of a red button with the word “reset” on it in Russian.

…. or so she thought…

“I would like to present you with a little gift that represents what President Obama and Vice President Biden and I have been saying and that is: ‘We want to reset our relationship and so we will do it together,” said Clinton, presenting Lavrov with a palm-sized yellow box with a red button.

Clinton joked to Lavrov: “We worked hard to get the right Russian word. Do you think we got it?”

“You got it wrong,” said Lavrov, smiling as the two pushed the reset button together before dinner at a Geneva hotel.

He told Clinton the word “Peregruzka” meant “overcharge,” to which Clinton replied: “We won’t let you do that to us.”

“We mean it and we look forward to it,” she said of “resetting” the relationship, a phrase that Joe Biden first used at a security conference in Munich.

Lavrov said he would put the gift on his desk.

What bozos do they have in charge of all this stuff? You’d think an mistake in “judgment” here or there may be understandable. But based on their performance thus far, I suggest they stick with sending on a complement of Keebler or Oreo cookies…. both regular and low fat, to be politically correct, of course.

UPDATE from Breitbart on Mar 7th

Seems some Russian media are having a field day with the faux pas…

Russian media has been poking fun at US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton after she gave her Russian counterpart a “reset” button with an ironic misspelling.

~~~

But instead of the Russian word for “reset” (perezagruzka) it featured a slightly different word meaning “overload” or “overcharged” (peregruzka).

Daily newspaper Kommersant put a prominent picture of the fake red button on its front page and declared: “Sergei Lavrov and Hillary Clinton pushed the wrong button.”

A correspondent for NTV television called it a “symbolic mistake,” pointing out that US-Russian ties had become overcharged in recent years due to discord over such issues as missile defence and last summer’s war in Georgia.

“The friendly US gesture was upturned by a small amusing incident,” the news website RBC.ru wrote in an article posted late Friday evening.

“Yet this curious episode did not stop Clinton and Lavrov from pushing the button in front of television cameras.”

Mr. Rubin is… or let’s make that was, as he’s resigning … chairman of Citigroup’s executive committee. Citigroup is breaking up it’s “supermarket” bank investment business model, despite receiving bailout funds.

Citigroup signaled a breakup of its unwieldy financial supermarket model with a possible deal to sell a share of its prized retail brokerage business to Morgan Stanley, said several people with knowledge of the discussions, underscoring the enormous problems the bank continues to confront even after receiving taxpayer bailout funds.

The new chapter of wrenching change came as former Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin, who came under fire for his strong support of that model in an advisory role that helped fuel the bank’s troubles, said he would resign.

~~~

For Mr. Rubin, his resignation is a sobering turn in a sterling career in Washington and on Wall Street. Since joining Citigroup in 1999 as an adviser to the bank’s senior executives, Mr. Rubin, 70, who is an economic adviser on the transition team of President-elect Barack Obama, has sat atop a bank that has made one misstep after another.

~~~

In his capacity as a senior adviser to Citigroup’s top executives and board, he pushed hard for the bank to step up its trading of risky mortgage-related securities and other complex investments as long as it improved oversight — a strategy critics say sowed the seeds of the bank’s current troubles. Mr. Rubin, whose contract specifically absolved him from daily operational responsibilities, has maintained that he could not have foreseen the current mess.

Remember this guy? Let’s jog your memory…

Back in 1995, Clinton had Mr. Rubin – as his Treasury Secy – rewrite the rules for the Community Reinvestment Act, This was, as I mentioned in my Sept 22, 2008 post, the first domino falling in a perfect storm of housing and lending events.

Now if you’re standing, you’d better sit… Now that the election is over, and the media’s beloved candidate has taken the White House, the NYTs decides to cop to the truth about the economic housing origins.

Yup… the below is from the ol Grey Lady herself – the lead linked article in this post.

When he was Treasury secretary during the Clinton administration, Mr. Rubin helped loosen Depression-era banking regulations that made the creation of Citigroup possible. During the same period, he helped beat back tighter oversight of exotic financial products, a development he had previously said he was helpless to prevent.

Woof… it’s a brand new day, eh? LOL

But wait, we’re not done with Mr. Rubin’s “sterling career” yet. In 2002, he was uncomfortably close to the Enron scandal. Yet, as even the uber-left rag, Common Dreams states, Rubin danced out of that shadow with a “get out of jail free” card.

As Enron’s accounting irregularities were being discovered and its fortunes rapidly sinking, Bob Rubin placed a call on November 8 to Peter R. Fisher, current undersecretary of the Treasury for domestic finance. According to Treasury, Rubin wanted to know if the Bush administration was going to intervene with the big credit rating agencies, who were about to lower their rating of Enron’s debt. Since Rubin’s Citigroup was holding hundreds of millions of dollars worth of Enron’s debt, it had quite a large stake in the outcome of any such decision.

Treasury told the press that Fisher said no, and Rubin agreed with the decision — as if this were just an informational call to discuss the pros and cons of political intervention to protect the credit rating on Enron’s bonds. But this should not be allowed to drop.

The public needs to know more about this phone call, and any others that Rubin may have made on Citigroup’s behalf. Whether or not they are technically illegal, such actions are a blatant and corrupt abuse of one of the highest offices of our government.

So why do we care about Rubin now? Rubin’s replacement as Clinton’s Treasury Secy replacement was Larry Summers… the same Larry Summers who is now the *current* appointed Treasury Secy [see my update: NEC Director] with the Obama administration… and in sole charge of all that bailout cash.

UPDATE CORRECTION: As Chuck snidely pointed out in his comment below, I erroneously swapped the positions of Tim Geithner and Larry Summers in their admin appointed positions. Geithner has his hands on the taxpayers bucket of cash, and Summers has Obama’s ear as his NEC Director and top advisor.

Geithner was Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs, working under both Rubin and Summers. Some say Summers was Gaithner’s mentor, but other sources described him as a Rubin protégé.

Well ain’t that an improvement? LOL

This, of course, make the potential of a Rubin position in the Obama admin even worse… reuniting the damaging cabal of Clintonian economic team once more.

Rubin is also a member of Obama’s Transition Economic Advisory Board.

After his latest “sterling” career moment of helping drive Citigroup into the ground , Rubin’s unemployed.

So the burning question is, how long before this loser shows up in Obama’s Treasury Department or economic team to help spend the taxpayers money?

Apparently in October of 2004 Hillary pushed through some bond legislation that allowed a developer named Robert Congel to use tax-exempt bonds to help construct an expansion of the Carousel Center in Syracuse called the Destiny USA entertainment and shopping complex.

So what you say? Well, the next month a hundred grand shows up as a donation to the Clinton Foundation.

A developer in New York state donated $100,000 to former President Bill Clinton’s foundation in November 2004, around the same time that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton helped secure millions of dollars in federal assistance for the businessman’s mall project.

Hillary Clinton helped enact legislation allowing the developer, Robert Congel, to use tax-exempt bonds to help finance the construction of the Destiny USA entertainment and shopping complex, an expansion of the Carousel Center in Syracuse.

~~~

Congel had been a prime force behind Congress’s passage of tax-exempt “green bonds,” a program to decrease the financing costs of some $2 billion in environmentally friendly projects by exempting lenders from paying federal taxes on their income from the private bonds. By some estimates, the program could cost the Treasury about $200 million.

The way the legislation was written, Congel’s Syracuse development, which he agreed to build and run in a way that promotes renewable energy and recycling, was one of just four proposed projects that would qualify.

That’s not all either. Nine months later she helped set aside five million for the roadway construction to the new center.

She also helped secure a provision in a highway bill that set aside $5 million for Destiny USA roadway construction.

The bill with the tax-free bonds provision became law in October 2004, weeks before the donation, and the highway bill with the set-aside became law in August 2005, about nine months after the donation.

The Internation Herald-Tribune does it’s best to minimize the impact by including the fact that Congel was a donor to Republicans and Democrats. Big deal, a developer will give to whoever is in office at the time and can do the most for his projects. While there is no way to prove this deal was illegal, unless there are Blago type wiretaps, it does stink to high heaven.

It gets better. Another fundraiser for Hillary, Norman Hsu, will talk about Clinton and Obama during his upcoming trial for fraud:

In addition to the Rod Blagojevich pay-for-play probe, Obama could figure in the upcoming fraud trial of Norman Hsu, the disgraced Democratic fundraiser who was charged last year with operating a $60 million pyramid scheme. According to investigators, Hsu, a major Hillary Clinton fundraiser, pressured investors to donate money to political candidates with whom he was aligned. In a letter last week to U.S. District Court Judge Victor Marrero, Hsu’s lawyer, Martin Cohen, requested a 60-day delay in the start of Hsu’s trial, scheduled to open January 12 (Cohen cited the “extraordinary level of negative publicity” generated by the recent arrest of alleged Ponzi schemer Bernard Madoff).

In his December 22 letter, a copy of which you’ll find below, Cohen also noted that Hsu was already “notorious for his political activities” and that it was “inevitable” that his client’s “connections” to Bill and Hillary Clinton “and other democratic notables–including perhaps the president-elect–will be introduced at trial.” Before becoming a key fundraiser for Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid, Hsu co-hosted a 2005 California fundraiser for Obama’s political action committee and introduced the Illinois Democrat to Marc Gorenberg, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist who later joined the Obama campaign’s national finance committee.

Obama hasn’t even been sworn in yet and his Adminstration is in complete disarray and turmoil. Question, will Hillary be thrown under the bus as the others have?

Democratic unity starts to show cracks

Democrats head into 2009 with sky-high expectations but points of intra-party friction are already starting to show a month before President-elect Obama’s inauguration, forecasting bigger fights next year. Veteran Democrats say the party has become more split along parochial interests since Democrats last controlled majorities as large as they will in the 111th Congress. They say the growth of their majorities in Congress, which has ushered in a new cadre of lawmakers from conservative-leaning states and those with new views on old policy problems, has only made the Democratic caucuses less governable. “Because the Democratic caucus is itself diverse, reflecting many different points of view, it will be a challenge for the leadership to keep that coalition of interests together on the priorities established,” said former Democratic Sen. Richard Bryan (Nev.). “That will be a big challenge.”

Pres-elect Obama (long labeled as indecisive by his detractors) has not commented on Israel’s counterattacks against Hamas in Gaza. Before being elected he was both an advocate of peace and a supporter of Israel’s right to defend itself. The rocket attacks that preceded Israel’s counterattack have been going on since 2002, and talks have never prevented them.

Senator Clinton (D) (Obama’s pick for Secretary of State) backs Israel’s counterattacks and dismissed diplomatic talks with Hamas.

“negotiating with Hamas is unacceptable for the United States.”

Fmr CENTCOM commander and failed Mideast envoy, Gen. Anthony Zinni thinks she’s wrong, and he says Obama’s Admin should start talks asap.

“The old way of using envoys and summits and us putting plans on the table — that has never worked. I think we need a fresh start, more involved, a greater presence on the ground and a commitment to do it throughout the term of an administration,” Zinni said.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D) blames Israel for the violence, ignores Hamas’ thousands of rocket attacks, and calls for a U.N. investigation.

“All this was, and is, disproportionate, indiscriminate mass violence in violation of international law,” Kucinich said in a statement. “Israel is not exempt from international law and must be held accountable.”

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) does recognize the thousands of Hamas rockets that have been launched into civilian areas in Israel, and thus does not blame Israel.

Pelosi and other Democrats have refrained from criticizing Israel’s government, which has responded to the Hamas attacks with a rocket assault on Gaza. “Peace between Israelis and Palestinians cannot result from daily barrages of rocket and mortar fire from Hamas-controlled Gaza,” Pelosi said in a statement posted on the Speaker’s website on Monday.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) agrees that the onus for the past 4 days of violence rests w Hamas-NOT Israel.

Reid said he “strongly” supported Israel’s right to defend its citizens from the Hamas rocket attacks and to restore its security. He also blamed Hamas for any humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip. “Hamas’s failure to stop these attacks only exacerbates the humanitarian situation for the residents of Gaza and undermines efforts to attain peace and security in the region.”

Rep. Howard Berman (D) (chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee) also blames Hamas-not Israel.

“The loss of innocent life is a terrible tragedy, and the blame for that tragedy lies with Hamas.”

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D) also blames Hamas.

“Hamas is abusing the people of Gaza by using their homes as a base for terror operations,” he said. “The world should no longer tolerate a terrorist government in the Gaza Strip.”

Former Congresswoman and renown police slapper, Cynthia McKinney (D) took a different approach. She loaded up a yacht w supplies and tried to help out the Palestinians. Unfortunately for her and her friends, the boat was stopped by the Israelis.

4 days into the Israeli air campaign+blockade, and President-elect Obama STILL hasn’t made a comment in support of Israel’s right to defend itself against Hamas’ rocket attacks, in favor of talking with the political arm of the terrorist group, or in against Israel and in support of a U.N. investigation into Israel’s alleged violation of international law and genocidal war. Foreign affairs legend, Vice President-elect Joe Biden (D), has also been silent on the matter (though with his tendency to gaffe, this might have saved lives).

He hasn’t even voted PRESENT. The Democrats’ Congress is clearly split. Policy advisors and leaders are confused as to whether or not to even talk w Hamas, and President-elect himself is apparently dazed and unable to lead or even make a statement while on vacation.

Apparently THIS is leadership.
THIS, is the 21st Century Democratic Party.

President Bill Clinton on December 16, 1998:

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we’re acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

The air strikes lasted more than three days. While the Pentagon did not say how many cruise missiles were used, they did admit that more cruise missiles were used in the first two days of this campaign than the 290 that were fired at Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War.

This attack marked the third time President Clinton launched air strikes against the country of Iraq. The first attack was launched in response to the 1993 assassination attempt on George H.W. Bush. The second strike came in 1996 to make Saddam “pay a price” for unleashing his army against the northern Kurds. This time, however, it was about weapons of mass destruction:

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, “Iraq’s conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

“In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq’s prohibited weapons program.”

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam’s deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

President-elect Barack Obama has chosen his foreign policy adviser, Susan E. Rice, to be ambassador to the United Nations, picking an advocate of “dramatic action” against genocide as he rounds out his national security team, Democrats close to the transition said Sunday.

Mr. Obama intends to announce Ms. Rice’s selection at a news conference here Monday along with his previously reported decisions to nominate Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for secretary of state, keep Robert M. Gates as defense secretary and appoint Gen. James L. Jones, a retired Marine commandant, his national security adviser, the Democrats said.

The choice of Ms. Rice to represent the United States before the United Nations will make her one of the most visible faces of the Obama administration to the outside world aside from Mrs. Clinton. It will also send to the world organization a prominent and forceful advocate of stronger action, including military force if necessary, to stop mass killings like those in the Darfur region of Sudan in recent years.

Yes, by all means she will be a forceful advocate of strong action when it comes to mass killings. Except of course if you support a early withdrawal of troops from Iraq, which would then lead to mass killings. That she would overlook because she supports The One. Here she is in December of 2007:

Having opposed the Iraq war from the start, Obama was the first major candidate to set forth a comprehensive plan to redeploy our forces safely and press Iraqis to achieve the necessary political progress. His Iraq War De-escalation Act introduced in January 2007 was embraced by the Senate Democratic leadership in the Senate and remains the basis for their primary legislative vehicle to end the war.

In September 2007, Obama elaborated his Iraq strategy, making clear that he would plan to withdraw combat forces at the responsible pace of one to two brigades a month, with the aim of having all of our combat brigades out within 16 months. Obama has been very specific about the means to achieve political reconciliation as well as the economic and humanitarian steps he would take to avert a worst-case scenario in Iraq and to build the kind of political consensus that’s essential to end the conflict. Obama was also very clear that he would leave no permanent bases in Iraq. To the extent that that there will be a need for a small residual presence for a period of time, it would be focused on protecting our embassy and our civilian operations, and on targeting al Qaeda operatives inside Iraq.

No problems supporting the withdrawal there, in fact she was a cheerleader for it even though the NIE said it would lead to a increase in sectarian violence:

Mr. Obama’s position on troop cuts was forged in late 2006 as Iraq appeared to be approaching a full-scale civil war. Drawing on the bipartisan Iraq Study Group report, he opposed Mr. Bush’s troop reinforcement plan and sponsored legislation in January 2007 that would have removed all American combat brigades by the end of March 2008, while allowing a small force to remain for training, counterterrorism and the protection of the American Embassy and its personnel.

At that time, American intelligence agencies warned in a national intelligence estimate that the removal of all American and allied forces within 18 months would “almost certainly” lead to a significant increase in sectarian fighting, suggesting that the speedy, if partial, withdrawal advocated by Mr. Obama would also risk a major increase in violence.

So mass killing in Darfur….bad. Mass killing in Iraq….eh, something to overlook. Why? Partisan politics. Bush was behind Iraq so let the Iraqi people fend for themselves.

She is a perfect fit for Obama as Michael Goldfarb points out:

The Times doesn’t mention it, but the title of that piece in the Atlantic: “Bystanders to Genocide.” Authored by Samantha Power, an Obama adviser and someone who actually has a record of backing strong action against mass killings, the story does not reflect well on Rice:

At an interagency teleconference in late April, Susan Rice, a rising star on the NSC who worked under Richard Clarke, stunned a few of the officials present when she asked, “If we use the word ‘genocide’ and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November [congressional] election?” Lieutenant Colonel Tony Marley remembers the incredulity of his colleagues at the State Department. “We could believe that people would wonder that,” he says, “but not that they would actually voice it.” Rice does not recall the incident but concedes, “If I said it, it was completely inappropriate, as well as irrelevant.”

If one believes that the United Nations is a hopelessly ineffective institution and wants to make sure it stays that way, then perhaps Obama has chosen an appropriate emissary: a woman who prefers to ponder the political implications of inaction — they’re going to love her at Turtle Bay.

Meanwhile, as the first article quoted said, Hillary will be his pick for SecState even though it is forbidden by the Constitution.

And finally, check out the video of his presser. A reporter brought up the fact that he didn’t think to highly of Hillary’s foreign policy experience a few months ago and he responds with a “it’s all just words” excuse. He didn’t really mean it you see:

Yeah, its all the media’s fault for bringing up his quote. I mean how dare they!

The section he will ignore wholesale in the appointment of Hillary is the Constitutional prohibition in the Emoluments Clause (Article I, Section 6, clause 2):

No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time: and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.

In a nutshell this means Congress cannot take an appointment for which the pay has gone up during the time that person held office in Congress. The pay for the Secretary of State has gone up in the last year that which would prevent Hillary from getting appointed.

But Taft, Nixon, Carter, and Clinton all ignored the Constitution. They did it by lowering the pay after the fact. One of the Democrats favorite former KKK member, Robert Byrd, didn’t like this tactic in 1973 and said this:

we should not delude the American people into thinking a way can be found around the constitutional obstacle

But now that its the Democrats in power, and wanting Hillary in the SecState spot it’s all good.

Professor Volokh quoted Prof. Michael Stokes Paulsen, author of Is Lloyd Bentsen Unconstitutional?, in his post on the subject:

A “fix” can rescind the salary, but it cannot repeal historical events. The emoluments of the office had been increased. The rule specified in the text still controls.

Unless one views the Constitution’s rules as rules that may be dispensed with when inconvenient; or as not really stating rules at all (but “standards” or “principles” to be viewed at more-convenient levels of generality); or as not applicable where a lawsuit might not be brought; or as not applicable to Democratic administrations, then the plain linguistic meaning of this chunk of constitutional text forbids the appointment of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.

I wouldn’t bet on this actually preventing the appointment, however. It didn’t stop Lloyd Bentsen from becoming Secretary of State. But it does make an interesting first test of how serious Barack Obama will be about taking the Constitution’s actual words seriously. We know he thinks the Constitution should be viewed as authorizing judicial redistribution of wealth. But we don’t know what he thinks about provisions of the Constitution that do not need to be invented, but are actually there in the document.

You think the Democrats will stand firm against this tactic, as they did in 1973?

I highly doubt it seeing how much hypocrisy we have seen come from the left side of the aisle.

Why is it a smart cookie like Hillary would elect to “serve at the pleasure” of her former opponent, becoming an employee and envoy mouthpiece instead of a leader? The devil in the details must lie in the back room negotiations, of which only some we are privvy to via the media reports.

What we do know is that Hillary has played hardball in those negotiations, demanding ultimate authority in the choice of her State department underlings. This effectively results in a “purge”, dividing the Obama National Security administration appointees with the State Department along the Obama/Clinton party lines.

In negotiations with Mr Obama this week before agreeing to take the job, she demanded and received assurances that she alone should appoint staff to the State Department. She also got assurances that she will have direct access to the President and will not have to go through his foreign policy advisers on the National Security Council, which is where many of her critics in the Obama team are expected to end up.

As Dick Morris and wife, Eileen McGann point out in their weekend piece, Hillary Nomination Would Be An Obama-Nation, this is far from the “change” of the beltway and the power player insiders he promised. Tho today the Obama faithful spin his promise to abandon “business as usual politics”… labeling the adoption of the Clinton admin personnel as wise, demanding “experience” in his cabinet and admin advisors.

But then, as Morris rightly points out, there isn’t an iota of foreign policy experience between the Obama or Hillary.

Apart from the breathtaking cynicism of the appointment lies the total lack of foreign-policy experience in the new partnership. Neither Clinton nor Obama has spent five minutes conducting any aspect of foreign policy in the past. Neither has ever negotiated anything or dealt with diplomatic issues. It is the blonde leading the blind.

If Obama were seeking to “unite” the divided camps of the DNC, instead he may well have driven a wedge between the two departments (NSA and State Department) that must work hand in hand on a common cause… the security of the nation.

Morris… intimate to the Clinton’s inner sanctum and political strategy in the past… doesn’t echo my “huh??” on all of this in direct phrasing, but also doesn’t seem to grasp what Obama – or Clinton – has in mind here.

If Obama needed any warning about how Hillary will play the game, he need only look at how she handled her appointment. She forced Obama to see her by publicly complaining that she had not heard from him. When he raised the possibility of her appointment to State, she then leaked word that it was in the works. Even the announcement of her appointment was not made by Obama but leaked by Hillary’s “confidantes.”

Hillary will be a loose cannon as Secretary of State, vindicating her own agenda rather than that of the president and burnishing her own image at every turn. Not since Cordell Hull in the 30s have we had a Secretary so interested in running for president. Not since William Jennings Bryan in the 1910s have we had a defeated nominee named as Secretary. Obama will not be able to control Hillary nor will he be able to control his own administration with Emanuel as Chief of Staff. He will find that his appointees will march to the beat of their own drummer – if he is lucky – and Hillary’s if he is not.

Either Obama has chosen to put himself in this untenable situation because he is not wise in the ways of Washington or because he plans to be little more than a figurehead. Given his campaign, neither seems likely. But his promise of change has proven so bankrupt that maybe the rest of his candidacy is too.

The Obama faithful, while not exibiting flat out “buyers’ remorse” yet, are convinced of what they believe is Obama’s first “mistake”.

…But a little after lunch on Wednesday two Obama aides went to a local coffee shop to talk. Both were veterans of the campaign, hailed as the best organised and most disciplined in US history, which has made their boss the first black president.

Both had come to believe, in the crucible of the campaign, that Mr Obama’s judgment was superior to their own. But when they met on Wednesday they agreed on one thing: “He’s making a mistake.” As one of the participants told a friend later that night: “She’ll do a good job but she’ll do it for herself, not for Barack. I can’t bear the drama again.”

~~~

The Obama aides who went for coffee on Wednesday discussed how the initial tentative talks between Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton were leaked by the Clinton camp, then how every twist and turn of the financial vetting found its way into the media.

Those in Mrs Clinton’s camp who wanted her to take the job wanted the financial issue off the table believing Mr Obama would find any excuse not to give her the job.

“They can’t help themselves,” the Obama aide told his friend, a fellow Democrat strategist. “Every event is a potential ladder up or a bullet to be dodged. They’re positioning and spinning all the time. They lost. Now we seem to be handing them the farm.”

~~~

The Washington Post columnist and Clinton sceptic, David Ignatius, added: “The idea of subcontracting foreign policy to Clinton, a big, hungry, needy ego surrounded by a team that’s hungrier and needier still, strikes me as a mistake of potentially enormous proportions.” It is a view that many around the President-elect now share.

~~~

Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, the dean of Washington’s foreign policy writers, warned: “When it comes to appointing a secretary of state, you do not want a team of rivals. Foreign leaders can spot daylight between a president and a secretary of state from 1,000 miles away.”

Also in their coffee chit chat? The famous discipline that made the Obama campaign renowned
has apparently all but disappeared since coming to Washington. And with the Clinton ranks swamping the appointees, they worry about Obama’s campaign promises “to withdraw quickly from Iraq, to talk to leaders of rogue states and to get tough with Pakistan, all policies Mrs Clinton has spoken out against. “

The obvious media assumptions about Obama’s choice of Clinton was the “keep your friends close, and your enemies closer” adage. Certainly removing her from the Senate… hang, from the country, along with hubby, Bill… certainly allows him to easily keep an eye on her, and perhaps minimize any 2012 competition for a second run at the WH.

Which brings me to the enigma… just why would Hillary sideline her ambitions for a high level mouthpiece job? Despite her choices for supporting State department cast and characters, she still remains nothing but an Obama subordinate, as senior advisor, David Axelrod, is quick to point out.

David Axelrod, one of the President-elect’s closest aides, Sunday offered that blunt declaration to critics who question the wisdom of tapping powerful ex-rival Hillary Clinton as secretary of state.

“People need to understand one thing,” he said. “There’s one person who’s going to be in charge of American foreign policy, and there’s one person who’s going to be in charge of American economic policy. And that’s Barack Obama.”

“He’s going to set the direction, and he’s going to assemble a group of talented and brilliant people to help execute that vision,” Axelrod said. “And certainly Sen. Clinton, should she be selected, fits that category of brilliance and ability.”

Yes… Hillary seems to be bent on accepting a position of being the dummy to a ventriloquist Obama. A position that she holds only as long as it suits Obama’s whims. If Morris is right – that Hillary will pursue a very personal (and vindictive) agenda, how much will a President Obama tolerate before giving her the axe? For Hillary, certainly a strong and independent woman, this seems a baffling career choice, involving a serious leap of faith requiring Obama loyalty.

She ends her primary and presidential campaign still in debt to the tune of $7.6 million – not including the $13.2 million from her own pocket. As a federal employee, she has limitations on fundraising for payback of that debt under The Hatch Act, unable to assist in promotion and planning of fund raising events. A personal appearance is possible, but of a delicate nature as to not be construed as a conflict of interest.

And then, of course, there is the possibility that she requests the FEC to “forgive” her debt…

Campaign finance experts said if she joins the Obama cabinet, Clinton would almost certainly shutter her political action committee, HillPac, but could leave her Senate re-election committee for 2012 and presidential campaign committee dormant.

Another outside possibility is that Clinton could successfully petition the election commission to forgive her debts, citing the fund-raising restrictions facing her as secretary of state. The commission would have to evaluate whether Clinton had exhausted all reasonable means to pay down her debt.

But Kahl said he believed it was “highly unlikely” that the commission would grant such a request, considering federal rules would still allow her campaign committee to continue to raise money, albeit under some constraints.

“These debt settlements can go on for years,” Kahl said.

Needless to say, Hillary’s choice to relinquish her Senate seat, and accrued time to establish seniority, is a risky one. If Obama keeps her on for a year, her Senate seat is gone, and a new run at either the Senate or the Oval Office is one or two years away…. and many dollars of debt in between.

Then again, perhaps this is what Obama has in mind. He can effectively clip Hillary’s elected office wings by enticing her into the administration, then casting her aside after a politically correct length of time.

Yes… it’s a leap of faith Hillary is doing. Why does she feel so confident as to place her future career in the hands of Barack Obama? Just what gave her enough assurances that she will not be tossed out the door easily, and satiate her personal job security and thirst for power?

Oh to be a fly on the wall….

Obama Throws No Bones to Progressive Base
…
Joseph Stiglitz is a Nobel Prize-winner in economics and a critic of corporate globalization. He should be Treasury Secretary. Senator Russ Feingold is a champion of civil liberties. He should be Attorney General. Robert Greenstein is head of Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. He would make a much better OMB director. Arlene Holt Baker, executive vice president of the AFL-CIO, would be a tremendous Secretary of Labor. And if Obama really wanted change, if he really wanted to honor progressives who backed him early on and then did the grunt work against McCain, he’d nominate Dennis Kucinich as Secretary of State.

That sure would indicate a welcome departure from empire as usual.

But at this point, progressives are getting absolutely nothing from Obama.

link

Where’s that CHANGE we heard so much during the TWO YEARS Obama was a professional Presidential candidate (and a U.S. Senator on the side)?

Amanda Carpenter reminds us why Newt not running for the RNC Chair is probably a good thing:

And it would appear that both men might be on the same page.

Bill Sammon’s sources tell him Steele may announce as soon as Thursday, and is courting the endorsement of Newt Gingrich, which if landed, would do much to scare off the incumbent and possible challengers:

The source also contradicted a report in Tuesday’s Washington Times that Steele and Gingrich were competing for the RNC post.

“There is no fight,” the source said. “This tension between Michael Steele and Newt Gingrich is totally fabricated and, in fact, Gingrich and Steele are working together to create a new strategy for the direction of the GOP.”

In a statement issued by the former House speaker, Gingrich said he was not interested in seeking the post of Republican party chairman.

“A number of people have asked me to consider running for Republican National Committee chair. They have been very flattering, and I am very honored by their support,” he said.

It’s time to bring in new blood. Republicans need a fresh makeover even as we speak of returning back to conservative traditionalism. As much as we decry that “race doesn’t matter”, the face of the Republican Party as seen by the American public is that of the stereotypical “white man’s club”. We need the Palins, the Jindals, to bring style with the substance. What the Democratic Party had in 2008 was a charismatic rock star; what we need is not only a “return” to conservative ideology, but also one wrapped in an attractive delivery system. Someone like Alfonso Rachel in the public eye could also do much to reshape the image of the Republican Party. He is someone who the MTV crowd can relate to on style and delivery.

I prefer Michael Steele as RNC Chair on the most superficial of reasons, as well as on the most substantial: He’s black.

The color of his skin shouldn’t matter. But because the country as a whole is still fixated on race….it matters. Let someone like Michael Steele deliver the post-racial conservative message that it’s the Republican Party that’s been living the message of MLK: That the color of one’s skin doesn’t matter; it’s the content of the character.

Michael Steele has character; and to those to whom it matters, he also has the “right” skin color to deliver the message.

One of life’s charms is in paradox.

Michael Medved points out similarities between where we find ourselves politically today, and where we were 16 years ago:

Pouring over the numbers in the Presidential and Congressional elections of 2008, there’s an eerie parallel that deserves far more attention than it’s received.

In races for the House, the Senate and the Presidency, the final totals match almost precisely with the results of the last Democratic sweep in 1992.

That election gave the Democrats 57 Senate seats to 43 for the Republicans. So far, with three races yet to be decided in 2008, Democrats (and the two independents who caucus with the Democrats) control 57 seats and the Republicans control 40.

It is absolutely appalling to me, that an angry and unfunny idiot of Al Franken’s magnitude might steal the election in Minnesota.

Assuming that the GOP’s Norm Coleman hangs on to win his seat after a recount in Minnesota, that Saxby Chambliss wins his run-off election in Georgia, and that Ted Stevens (or a GOP replacement) secures the seat in Alaska, the Senate lineup will match exactly with its contours in 1992—57 to 43. Even if the Republicans lose one of the undecided seats, it’s possible that Independent Joe Lieberman will decide (or find himself forced) to caucus with them, still giving them the same 43 seats they won in ’92.

On the House side, the resemblance is similarly close to the line-up sixteen years ago. After the Clinton landslide (beating President George H. W. Bush and eccentric “Reform Party” contender H. Ross Perot), the Democrats nabbed 258 seats in the House and the GOP controlled 176. At this point in 2008, the Dems have secured 255 seats and the Republicans 174, with six seats unsettled. The most likely outcome of the races yet to be decided would be an exact replica of the House of Representatives that convened in 1993.

As to the Presidential race, sixteen years ago Bill Clinton cruised to victory with 370 electoral votes to 168 for President Bush (Ross Perot drew 18.9% of the popular vote but, like most third-party vanity candidates, earned no electoral votes). In 2008, assuming that John McCain carries the officially undecided state of Missouri (where he’s maintained a slight but steady lead) the final outcome will be an Obama victory by 365 to 173 electoral votes— just a five vote difference from the 1992 race. In the popular vote, Obama prevailed by a margin of 6.5%, while Clinton beat Bush sixteen years ago by a strikingly similar margin of 5.5%.

The resemblance in election outcomes between the triumph of Clinton Democrats in 1992 and the resounding win by Obama Democrats in 2008 ought to fill disheartened Republicans with determination and hope.

Just two years after the electoral disaster of ’92, the GOP came roaring back to capture both houses of Congress in the “Contract with America”/Newt Gingrich revolution. And six years after that epic triumph, Republicans recaptured the White House under George W. Bush in the impossibly close election of 2000.

For several reasons, the election of 2008 left Republicans in an even better position for a quick comeback if they handle their opportunities intelligently.

Above all, the situation with the economy should work to the GOP’s advantage in the Congressional elections of 2010 and perhaps even in the Presidential race of 2012.

When Bill Clinton came to power in 1993, the recession that destroyed the first Bush presidency had already begun to recede and the economy had already begun its recovery, which ultimately morphed into the “Clinton Boom” and secured Slick Willy’s reelection. No one expects a similar economic turnaround for President-elect Obama in the three months before his inauguration and perhaps not even in the first two years of his presidency. If unemployment continues to rise, the deficit continues to explode, and personal income continues to stagnate or decline, the Obama reputation as a messianic miracle worker could collapse in a hurry. As with Clinton, the great expectations surrounding Obama’s election could quickly transform to a sense of betrayal and even disappointed rage.

Don’t worry, folks: The sun will come out tomorrow (or in two years); and the best is yet to come.

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the “Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.” This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are:

The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq’s history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.

The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

While the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 made the removal of Saddam Hussein public policy, the United States by this time had already been secretly trying to remove Saddam for several years. A full year and a half before Clinton signed the Act into law, on May 8, 1997 Jim Hoagland of the Washington Post wrote:

The Central Intelligence Agency has spent six years and $110 million trying to overthrow Saddam Hussein in the most expensive sustained failure in agency history.

And that was just the cost of the CIA’s failed efforts to remove Saddam. In addition to those costs, there was considerable expense in containing him when you consider the large military presence needed to enforce the northern and southern no fly zones and the naval force needed to enforce sanctions and the oil-for-food program. And, of course, once every few years Bill Clinton would also launch a couple dozen or more cruise missiles into Iraq too.

In today’s liberal world view, United States foreign policy should be based on building “relations” as if feelings between government entities is something we should be greatly concerned about. It is almost impossible to believe now that while campaigning in 1992 Al Gore said United States foreign policy should be based on “American values” and support for “political freedom and economic freedom.” I wonder if Al Gore would be called a neoconservative if he said something similar today.

Paul Wolfowitz, one of the chief architects of the Bush Doctrine before it was later redefined by Charlie Gibson, said:

To win the war against terrorism and, in so doing, help share a more peaceful world, we must speak to the hundreds of millions of moderate and tolerant people in the Muslim world, regardless of where they live, who aspire to enjoy the blessings of freedom and democracy and free enterprise. These are sometimes described as “Western values”, but, in fact, they are universal. We need to recognize that the terrorists target not only us but their fellow Muslims, upon whom they aim to impose a medieval, intolerant and tyrannical way of life. Those hundreds of millions of Muslims who aspire to the freedom and prosperity that Americans enjoy are, in many cases, on the frontlines of the struggle against terrorism.

And in reality that is a easy argument to make. Dictators have very different policy objectives than elected governments. Saddam Hussein funded terrorism to create an environment of fear and terror which he used to remain in power. Saddam had no interest in peace between Israel and its neighbors. External threats like Israel and the United States (Gulf War, economic sanctions, and cruise missile attacks) could be used as tools to create national unity and support for the government while also distracting from the hardships of daily life under a totalitarian regime.

It is difficult to imagine that a freely elected government in Iraq would have paid $25,000 bonuses to the families of suicide bombers. It is difficult to imagine that a freely elected government would have provided safe haven to terrorists like Abu Abbas, Abu Ibrahim, Abu Nidal, and World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin.

President George W. Bush described his foreign policy best during his second inaugural address:

There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment and expose the pretensions of tyrants and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant. And that is the force of human freedom.

We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

America’s vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this Earth has rights, and dignity and matchless value because they bear the image of the maker of heaven and Earth.

Across the generations, we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation’s security and the calling of our time.

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.

The United States was founded by men and women seeking life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our foreign policy should be conducted with these same inalienable rights in mind. How much can be achieved and the methods used is open for debate. But, if your foreign policy is based primarily on building relations with other countries, your foreign policy is little more than hoping to obtain political recognition and photo opportunities.

So, why did President Bill Clinton and congress feel the need to pass the Iraq Liberation Act way back in 1998? Perhaps Senator Joe Biden said it best:

Fateful decisions will be made in the days and weeks ahead. At issue is nothing less than the fundamental question of whether or not we can keep the most lethal weapons known to mankind out of the hands of an unreconstructed tyrant and aggressor who is in the same league as the most brutal dictators of this century.