COLIN POWELL SAID HE SPEWED "BULLSH_T."
It is my recollection that Colin Powell gave his presentation to the UN about Iraq and then quietly called all the information he had just spewed "bullsh_t." He was quoted as having said it by those who were there at the time (officials of the U.S. government). Has he said that publicly not using the same term but making clear that it was all lies or falsehood or some such similar term? I haven't heard that he has. I first wrote about that on the Web in:
IRAN AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC
Saturday, January 27, 2007
@ 7:11:41 AM (Pacific Time)
WHY SHOULD COLIN POWELL'S OPINION COUNT FOR SO MUCH?
The point here is that why should Colin Powell's opinion count for so much while he still stands unrepentant? He's still blind in the sense Jesus means it.
What's his unrepented history? If he repents, it's a whole new day. Until then, if it ever happens, his history matters a great deal. Being unrepentant shows that he holds much, if not all, of the same faulty mentality. His attitude that the religion of the leader shouldn't matter comes into play here for instance. Does religion matter? What is the situation concerning the secular versus the religious? There are many things hanging in the balance. Humanity is on the line, so to speak.
BUSH/CHENEY COMMITTED "HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS"
In the following post:
WEEK IN REVIEW: SUNDAY, MAY 6, 2007 - SATURDAY, MAY 12, 2007
Saturday, May 12, 2007
@ 1:10:53 PM (Pacific Time)
By Tom Usher
Lawrence Wilkerson was a top State Department aide to Colin Powell. He has said that Bush/Cheney committed "high crimes and misdemeanors." The only news here is that another former Bushite has turned people's evidence that is not yet state's evidence.
You see there that people who worked firsthand under Colin Powell, who admired and may still, Powell, know (and knew if you will dig) that the Iraq War was based on deliberate fabrication. Why hasn't Powell said so? Well, if he knew and didn't say anything and in fact went along with it and promoted it to the entire world via the U.N., he's a war criminal. Well, if he is an unrepentant war criminal, why would anyone view Obama in a better light with Powell's endorsement? Crass politics is the only reason. It has nothing to do with Obama being better or worse in Obama's heart.
It is true that Colin Powell is not as reactionary as George W. Bush. That though doesn't make the whole tree good. It certainly doesn't render him better qualified to lead in decision making or to have more sway with the general public than do others who showed far better judgment all a long and who don't have to repent for having backed the invasion and occupation of Iraq when there were vastly better ways of handling the situation. The fact that he does hold sway is a bad sign even though he is right that John McCain is a hothead even in his senior years and hasn't done a good job in correcting racial and ethnic bigotry of the coercive type (where people use the government to punish people for race or ethnicity, which punishment is pure evil).
So, it is true that these matters are relative. Powell's sin is relative to that of George W. Bush's, but that does not exonerate him or give cause for lifting him to on-high. That position must be reserved for the one who truly merits such admiration and esteem and glorification. Jesus said that when we glorify Jesus, we are glorifying God the Father since Jesus is only (only?) doing what God wants done.
WHAT DID POWELL REALLY BELIEVE ABOUT IRAQ?
Here's more of what I've had to say about Powell:
The Bush-43 administration via Colin Powell and Condi Rice had openly claimed before 9-11 that Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat, that he was contained, that his capacity for undertaking any programs for the development of weapons of mass destruction had been eliminated. It wasn't until after 9-11 that the story abruptly changed. Powell and Rice were ordered to bring all further statements into conformity with the written pre-9-11 neocon agendum of taking over Iraq at the first pretext salable to the brainwashed. Suddenly, Powell and Rice were lying about intelligence. They both knew it full well. The president's entire inner circle knew exactly that the intelligence was twisted with half-truths and wholesale lies to fit the neocon agendum of global militant capitalist revolution.
CHAPTER 2: CHRISTIAN CONSERVATISM: THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CONFUSION: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A CONSERVATIVE-REPUBLICAN CHRISTIAN: JESUS IS A SMALL-C COMMUNIST
Sunday, August 26, 2007
@ 10:31:47 PM (Pacific Time)
By Tom Usher
REAL RELATIVE SIN
Frankly, it was Colin Powell more than George W. Bush who subverted the U.N. Powell is the one who insisted that the U.S. game the U.N. for cover if the Bush administration was bound and determined to invade Iraq. Bush would have done it without the U.N. Bush went along with the ruse. Powell was looking ahead for legal cover. He was looking to give cover to the other countries he figured the U.S. would need in the longer run. All this shows is that Powell was craftier than Bush and not that he was being basically more honest. Bush's attitude about craftiness is that he rather just lay down the law via worldly might (his version of the law, which isn't the divine I can confirm to you without hesitation).
THERE IS THE LAW AND THEN THERE IS THE LAW: SEMANTICS, STANDARDS, ETC.
Oh, it's true that God has allowed humanity to suffer under its own terrible collective decisions (extremely low personal and collective standards), but that doesn't mean that humanity is following the law. It means the opposite. There is the law that you end up suffering under your standard. Then there is the law that is righteousness where suffering ends. Bush is a tormentor. God delivers souls to the likes of Bush to be tormented. "Delivers" here is also to be understood contextually or semantically. The nation (U.S.) and the world have slumped into its currently more fallen position by reason of low standards. That's it. Raise the standards and rise. Raise them all the way and rise all the way. That's God's message. There's nothing wrong with that.
NO SMALL LIES
Powell's were no small lies. Over a million have died from them, many of them women and innocent children. Hundreds of millions, even billions, have been cursed by the lies. The cold-hearted racists and ethnic bigots and unforgiving and merciless won't care that though. They will just point out the errors of their enemies and ignore any possibilities for changing hearts and minds to clear and plain righteousness, including their own.
They will point out the errors in Islam for instance (and there are errors), but they won't apply the same spotlight to their own beliefs. Islam itself falls prey to this same double-standard.
What's in store for them? The law I mentioned above is in store, just as Jesus said. If you are shown mercy, which God does show if you will think about it, and you turn around and don't show it to others, you'll be delivered to the tormentors (who make the CIA dark-site operatives and private contractors look like novice amateurs). So, you don't believe in God and the demons, etc., you say. Well, that's your choice God has allowed you.
More of what I've written about Colin Powell:
All the president's men and women are duplicitous. Colin Powell had been the whitewashing military investigative officer concerning the Vietnam My Lai massacre. [VIETNAM SERVICE: BABY KILLERS IN MY LAI, Posted: Sunday, August 10, 2008, @ 8:06:38 PM (Pacific Time), By Tom Usher] He was the dutiful yes-man putting the best face on the massacre. He was also involved in coordinating missile sales to Iran during the Iran-Contra illegal arms-sale scheme. Now, he has been deeply involved in the lies leading the American people to allow the invasion of Iraq leading to the death of several tens of thousands of Iraqi military and probably no fewer than fifteen to twenty thousand Iraqi civilians before the US captured Baghdad. Many more have since died. Who cares though since they are only subhuman Iraqis and the US now controls the Iraqi oil fields and has a huge forward military base of operations in the Middle East? Isn't that how the conservatives see it? Yet, people still talk of Colin Powell as potential US presidential material. It would be bizarre were it not commonplace for unrepentant, scandal-retread conservatives to show up time and again in Republican administrations and remain powerful within Republican circles.
CHAPTER 8: EQUATING GOD AND COUNTRY: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A CONSERVATIVE-REPUBLICAN CHRISTIAN: JESUS IS A SMALL-C COMMUNIST
Monday, August 27, 2007
@ 12:21:04 AM (Pacific Time)
By Tom Usher
What's Powell's position regarding torture? By the way, the term "tormenters" in the New Testament and as the term is used by Jesus Christ, may be interchanged with the term "torturers."
Consider the following:
ABC News reported tonight that President Bush's most senior and trusted advisers met in "dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House" beginning in 2002 to approve the use of "combined" interrogation techniques (the joint use of harsh interrogation techniques). Those tactics included whether detainees "would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding."
Members of the National Security Council's Principals Committee - Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, George Tenet, and John Ashcroft - approved the use of these techniques. "Sources said that at each discussion, all the Principals present approved."
ABC REPORT: BUSH AND ALL PRINCIPAL ADVISERS OKAYED TORTURE
Thursday, April 10, 2008
@ 2:45:34 AM (Pacific Time)
By Tom Usher
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
We also have Dennis Kucinich's ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH to which to refer. Dennis and his staff did yeomen's work in this effort. It is disgraceful that they were ignored by the Congress and the American people and the corporate media. Of course, the corporate media is completely a part of the system that brought forth and brings forth the very crooks Dennis and his staff and others have pointed out not so much for vengeance's sake as to help set the nation and world on the better course.
What did Dennis say about Colin Powell?
"[W]hat I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network…” February 5, 2003, Speech of Former Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations.
"[H]e has made repeated covert attempts to acquire high-specification aluminum tubes from 11 different countries, even after inspections resumed. …By now, just about everyone has heard of these tubes and we all know that there are differences of opinion. There is controversy about what these tubes are for. Most US experts think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium." Speech of Former Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations, February 5, 2003.
"But the President also believes that this problem has to be dealt with, and if the United Nations won't deal with it, then the United States, with other likeminded nations, may have to deal with it. We would prefer not to go that route, but the danger is so great, with respect to Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction, and perhaps even terrorists getting hold of such weapons, that it is time for the international community to act, and if it doesn't act, the President is prepared to act with likeminded nations." Statement of Former Secretary of State Colin Powell in interview with Ellen Ratner of Talk Radio News, October 30, 2002.
Following September 11, 2001, President Bush and Vice President Cheney took strong steps to thwart any and all proposals that the circumstances of the attack be addressed. Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell was forced to renege on his public promise on September 23 that a "White Paper" would be issued to explain the circumstances. Less than two weeks after that promise, Powell apologized for his "unfortunate choice of words," and explained that Americans would have to rely on "information coming out in the press and in other ways."
FULL TEXT 35 ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT FOR PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, BY DENNIS J. KUCINICH, JUNE 9TH, 2008
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
@ 8:02:45 PM (Pacific Time)
By Tom Usher
All of that that Powell was saying and doing flies in the face of his beliefs pre-9/11 and post-9/11. He never believed any of the neocon propaganda. He knew exactly what was going on: Lies or bullshit, as he called it.
REBUILDING BRIDGES STILL DISHONESTY
Now, as I said above, Colin is craftier than is George W. Bush. Colin is rebuilding bridges behind the scenes and now out in the open. He is timing this for maximum results in his favor without having to come clean. That's his military strategy and tactical training and propaganda training above all coming out.
WHERE'S THE REAL WORLDLY POWER UNTIL THE END OF THE AGE?
He knows that while the Bush family has great wealth and power, it is not the preeminent power. He knows where the real power is. It lies with the bankers, not the ones who parade in public but rather the ones who call the shots behind closed doors always. Those are the private bankers. They control the currencies of the world. They hold the real worldly power, not the ultimate spiritual power mind you. They are self-deceived about the ultimateness of their wealth, power, and control. The Bilderberg Group picks the president. Obama has given enough assurances. He's also been informed about where the real power is. He's not interested in bucking them now or once in office. His advisors will be those chosen by the plutocrat and kleptocrat bankers — the same people who controlled the money-changers Jesus purged from the Temple and for which he was crucified but resurrected as a clear sign among other ways of viewing it such as reward for such faith.
MANY REPUBLICANS FOR OBAMA: DID THE BILDERBERG GROUP ANOINT BARACK?
Sunday, June 15, 2008
@ 10:39:29 PM (Pacific Time)
By Tom Usher
Is Powell a closeted atheist or antichrist? What's his fruit?
Turn, repent, and atone, Colin Powell.
God bless everyone in the universe.
Here's another source you may find helpful:
Chris Floyd Online - Empire Burlesque - High Crimes and Low Comedy in the American Imperium
Mon 20 Oct 2008
Written by Chris Floyd
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)