Sparky:BUSH=EVIL - Part two
Remember you have most of the background now.
The Bush clan are now among the superrich who've profited on human misery since 1831. It's about the opium trade and slavery and hate for the "other." The money trail covers many pointless wars and meaningless treaties — such as the:
Convention of Peking
The June 1858 Treaty of Tientsin was finally ratified by the emperor Xianfeng in the Convention of Peking on October 18, 1860.
The opium trade was legalized.
Christians were granted full
civil rights that were previously denied to them on the grounds of religious belief, including the
right to own property. They were also allowed to spread their faith as they so desired. The Second Opium War came to an end. The content of the Convention of Peking includes:
- China's recognition of the validity of the Treaty of Tientsin
- Opening Tianjin as a trade port
- Cede No.1 District of Kowloon (south of present day Boundary Street) to Britain
- Freedom of religion established in China
- Chinese were granted the freedom to emigrate from China should they choose
- Indemnity to Britain and France increasing to 8 million taels of silver respectively.
The door to making millions in the drug trade was left open ...The Age of Imperialism
The late nineteenth century is the era which most historians consider to be that of imperialism. Starting as early as the 1870s the United States began to aggressively expand its influence overseas. The annexation of Hawaii and the fall-out from the Spanish-American War saw the United States very closely adopt the European model of empire. The era also saw the first widespread protest against American imperialism. The population was divided between those that saw the economic and strategic benefits of colonies and those that felt it was counter to America's founding ideology. Noted Americans such as Mark Twain spoke out forcefully against these ventures. The same period saw other notables such as Rudyard Kipling advocate the idea of The White Man's Burden to "civilize" the rest of the world.
During this same period the American people continued to strongly chastise the European powers for their imperialism. The Boer War was especially unpopular in the United States and soured Anglo-American relations.
Asia
While American intervention had begun earlier with Matthew Perry forcibly opening Japan to the West with the Convention of Kanagawa in 1854, this period saw the United States expand its presence in Asia. The US pushed through the Open Door Policy that guaranteed its economic access to China. It also vigorously acquired small islands in the Pacific, mostly to be used as coaling stations.
The Boxer Rebellion
Not long before the turn of the century, China was divided into what some call "spheres of influence" - areas to which a European nation (some involved were Austria, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, and Russia) had claimed exclusive trading rights, or even the territory itself. The United States, having recently captured the Philippines and thereby becoming a power in the Asia, was eager to reap its own benefits from China, but felt impeded by these "spheres of influence".
In an effort to eliminate this hindrance, John Hay, secretary of state at the time (under William McKinley), sent letters to European leaders suggesting an "open door" policy in China, one that would grant equivalent trading rights to all powers inside the spheres of influence. The proposal was gently rejected, but Hay, refusing to admit defeat, claimed otherwise, and called their agreement "final and definitive".
The Chinese, meanwhile, were thoroughly fed up with the exercise of Western power over their nation. The Empress Dowager, Tsu Hsi, sent a message to all China's provinces encouraging aggressive and forceful action against the "various powers". This message, in combination with increasingly difficult living conditions throughout China, drove many Chinese to join such organizations as the Fists of Righteous Harmony.
Members of the Fists of Righteous Harmony practiced martial arts (hence the name "Boxers", given by the foreigners) and held a number of fanatically religious and nationalist ideas, believing that they were immune to enemy bullets and would awaken spirit soldiers through their actions. Though originally created with the intention of destroying the current government as well as expelling the foreigners, Tsu Hsi began supporting the organization, and their goal gradually changed solely to the removal of the foreigners.
The first few months of the dawn of the 20th century, the Boxers rampaged throughout the Chinese countryside, destroying everything Western, such as Christian churches and those who associated with them. Tsu Hsi allowed the Boxers to enter the capital city of Beijing, despite having promised the foreign diplomats that she would crush the rebellion. The Boxers moved towards the compound housing the foreign diplomats just outside the Forbidden City. The diplomats threw up hastily-constructed defenses and prepared for the assault with a small armed force, but after approximately two months of repeated assault by perhaps 20,000 Boxers, they were short on supplies and men (76 defenders had been killed).
Before dawn, just short of two months from the beginning of the attack, the defenders were met with a pleasant surprise - the Western Powers, growing worried from the lack of communication with the diplomats, collectively sent an armed force to save the diplomats, including 2,500 American soldiers. These international forces ransacked the city, even the Forbidden Palace, thus destroying the power of the current Ch'ing dynasty (though the empress disguised herself as a peasant and successfully escaped).
Following the rebellion, the Hay called for an expanded "open door" policy effective throughout China, not just within "spheres of influence". The United States and the European powers also agreed to preserve Chinese independence and government, but continued to exploit the country for monetary gain until World War II.
•••
Gets downright scary when you "follow the money."
————————————————
The Downing Street Memo is starting to roll up steam. So expect the "Neo Cons" to start defending themselves about being "Chicken Hawks" while American kids have lost their fathers and mothers in these senseless unnecessary war. Witness this (though one rabid neocon thought Dana was a "girl" he was defending ... ug!): In the Capitol basement yesterday, long-suffering House Democrats took a trip to the land of make-believe.
They pretended a small conference room was the Judiciary Committee hearing room, draping white linens over folding tables to make them look like witness tables and bringing in cardboard name tags and extra flags to make the whole thing look official. ...
Conyers replies:
June 17, 2005
Mr. Michael Abramowitz, National Editor
Mr. Michael Getler, Ombudsman
Mr. Dana Milbank
The Washington Post
1150 15th Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20071
Dear Sirs:
I write to express my profound disappointment with Dana Milbank's June 17 report, "Democrats Play House to Rally Against the War," which purports to describe a Democratic hearing I chaired in the Capitol yesterday. In sum, the piece cherry-picks some facts, manufactures others out of whole cloth, and does a disservice to some 30 members of Congress who persevered under difficult circumstances, not of our own making, to examine a very serious subject: whether the American people were deliberately misled in the lead up to war. The fact that this was the Post's only coverage of this event makes the journalistic shortcomings in this piece even more egregious.
In an inaccurate piece of reporting that typifies the article, Milbank implies that one of the obstacles the Members in the meeting have is that "only one" member has mentioned the Downing Street Minutes on the floor of either the House or Senate. This is not only incorrect but misleading. In fact, just yesterday, the Senate Democratic Leader, Harry Reid, mentioned it on the Senate floor. Senator Boxer talked at some length about it at the recent confirmation hearing for the Ambassador to Iraq. The House Democratic Leader, Nancy Pelosi, recently signed on to my letter, along with 121 other Democrats asking for answers about the memo. This information is not difficult to find either. For example, the Reid speech was the subject of an AP wire service report posted on the Washington Post website with the headline "Democrats Cite Downing Street Memo in Bolton Fight". Other similar mistakes, mischaracterizations and cheap shots are littered throughout the article.
The article begins with an especially mean and nasty tone, claiming that House Democrats "pretended" a small conference was the Judiciary Committee hearing room and deriding the decor of the room. Milbank fails to share with his readers one essential fact: the reason the hearing was held in that room, an important piece of context. Despite the fact that a number of other suitable rooms were available in the Capitol and House office buildings, Republicans declined my request for each and every one of them. Milbank could have written about the perseverance of many of my colleagues in the face of such adverse circumstances, but declined to do so. Milbank also ignores the critical fact picked up by the AP, CNN and other newsletters that at the very moment the hearing was scheduled to begin, the Republican Leadership scheduled an almost unprecedented number of 11 consecutive floor votes, making it next to impossible for most Members to participate in the first hour and one half of the hearing.
In what can only be described as a deliberate effort to discredit the entire hearing, Milbank quotes one of the witnesses as making an anti-semitic assertion and further describes anti-semitic literature that was being handed out in the overflow room for the event. First, let me be clear: I consider myself to be friend and supporter of Israel and there were a number of other staunchly pro-Israel members who were in attendance at the hearing. I do not agree with, support, or condone any comments asserting Israeli control over U.S. policy, and I find any allegation that Israel is trying to dominate the world or had anything to do with the September 11 tragedy disgusting and offensive.
That said, to give such emphasis to 100 seconds of a 3 hour and five minute hearing that included the powerful and sad testimony (hardly mentioned by Milbank) of a woman who lost her son in the Iraq war and now feels lied to as a result of the Downing Street Minutes, is incredibly misleading. Many, many different pamphlets were being passed out at the overflow room, including pamphlets about getting out of the Iraq war and anti-Central American Free Trade Agreement, and it is puzzling why Milbank saw fit to only mention the one he did.
In a typically derisive and uninformed passage, Milbank makes much of other lawmakers calling me "Mr. Chairman" and says I liked it so much that I used "chairmanly phrases." Milbank may not know that I was the Chairman of the House Government Operations Committee from 1988 to 1994. By protocol and tradition in the House, once you have been a Chairman you are always referred to as such. Thus, there was nothing unusual about my being referred to as Mr. Chairman.
To administer his coup-de-grace, Milbank literally makes up another cheap shot that I "was having so much fun that [I] ignored aides' entreaties to end the session." This did not occur. None of my aides offered entreaties to end the session and I have no idea where Milbank gets that information. The hearing certainly ran longer than expected, but that was because so many Members of Congress persevered under very difficult circumstances to attend, and I thought - given that - the least I could do was allow them to say their piece. That is called courtesy, not "fun."
By the way, the "Downing Street Memo" is actually the minutes of a British cabinet meeting. In the meeting, British officials - having just met with their American counterparts - describe their discussions with such counterparts. I mention this because that basic piece of context, a simple description of the memo, is found nowhere in Milbank's article.
The fact that I and my fellow Democrats had to stuff a hearing into a room the size of a large closet to hold a hearing on an important issue shouldn't make us the object of ridicule. In my opinion, the ridicule should be placed in two places: first, at the feet of Republicans who are so afraid to discuss ideas and facts that they try to sabotage our efforts to do so; and second, on Dana Milbank and the Washington Post, who do not feel the need to give serious coverage on a serious hearing about a serious matter-whether more than 1700 Americans have died because of a deliberate lie. Milbank may disagree, but the Post certainly owed its readers some coverage of that viewpoint.
Sincerely,
John Conyers, Jr. ...
Bush-Blair excuse for the Downing Street Memo doesn’t hold water Bush and Blair are claiming they went through the UN- they Did Not - they pulled the 2nd Resolution before the vote. Bush and Blair Did Not get UN approval but they invaded anyway.from the Downing Street Minutes Britain’s [CIA] Chief told Blair:
"The NSC had no patience with the UN route..." Bush’s only response to the Downing Street Memo was at the June 8th press conference with Tony Blair. Guess what - they both agreed - of course they didn’t ’fix the facts’. Really, they both wanted peace, so they went through the UN, and when Saddam didn’t comply, they were left with no choice but to invade.
As a matter of fact- Bush and Blair DID NOT go through the UN. Somehow this fact seems to have been erased from the collective memory of the US media. It would have been nice if just one reporter had stood up and said, "But Sirs, with all due respect, you tried to get a 2nd Resolution, you didn’t get it, and you invaded anyway. Why wasn’t there a vote on the 2nd Security Council Resolution?"
Doesn’t anyone remember Colin Powell’s infamous speech before the UN? On Feb 5, 2003, Powell gave a major speech to the UN Security Council, presenting the case for a 2nd UN Resolution. At the time, the international community was adamant that the first UN Resolution 1441 only authorized inspections, but it did not authorize war. This is why Powell gave this major speech, trying to convince the Security Council to vote for a 2nd Resolution authorizing war. ... (complete in link above)
More here —
This is the critical article though:
Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
At a forum in Washington on Thursday, seated from left, Joseph Wilson, an ex-ambassador; Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq; Ray McGovern, an ex-C.I.A. analyst; and John Bonifaz, an antiwar activist.
Published: June 17, 2005
WASHINGTON, June 16 - Opponents of the war in Iraq held an unofficial hearing on Capitol Hill on Thursday to draw attention to a leaked British government document that they say proves their case that President Bush misled the public about his war plans in 2002 and distorted intelligence to support his policy. (complete in link above)
Sparky Rant:After all, we haven't secured Afghanistan, Iraq or North Korea. The world is not safer because of us. We're fighting a war in a stupid manner endangering thousands of brave American troops. We don't have cheap gas. And the puppet king is now giving "pie in the sky" promises of Hydrogen Powered cars. Remember he cheated his way into power by disfranchising 91,000 plus Florida voters in 2000; which he did again in 2004. But he also gimmicked the Ohio vote this last time to further the illusion of victory with 4 million plus bogus votes likely culled from apathetic American non-voters. Why many of the Democrats are silent on this angers me.
This is why we have to make an issue of the
Downing Street Memo. A Chickenhawk nutjob lying to the American people which results in our troops dying is more important than a phony morality facade re: stem cells or blow jobs from an intern.
0&o - SparkyPS Google Jennifer Fritzpatrick to read about Poppy's affair. This article has enough bloat. :D
