General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: This is not about Obama or Snowden, this is about the corporate takeover of our democracy [View all]slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)sometimes, most of the time, we need to keep an open mind, just reading one view helps to keep us all "in place."
This speech was in 2003, but you can easily pick out the parts you agree with and those you do not, I was reminded of this when reading the thread about arming the Syrian rebels. Bottom line is we need to debate the issues, not the person!
You can easily listen to the speech and say I agree with this part and disagree with another segment, it is not some language that appeals to 'everyone.' Debate the issues and take a stance! Same could be said with Kucinich, you knew where he stood, there was no ambiguity.
Neo CONNED ! - Speech on the House Floor - July 10, 2003
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3668081
I posted the speech in 2008, but I just realized DUer sam sarrha posted it shortly after it happened, with hardly a comment from the DU community.
""...Since the change of the political party in charge has not made a difference, whos really in charge? If the particular party in power makes little difference, whose policy is it that permits expanded government programs, increased spending, huge deficits, nation building and the pervasive invasion of our privacy, with fewer Fourth Amendment protections than ever before?
......How did all this transpire? Why did the government do it? Why havent the people objected? How long will it go on before something is done? Does anyone care?
...In addition to publications, multiple think tanks and projects were created to promote their agenda. A product of the Bradley Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) led the neocon charge, but the real push for war came from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) another organization helped by the Bradley Foundation. This occurred in 1998 and was chaired by Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. They urged early on for war against Iraq, but were disappointed with the Clinton administration, which never followed through with its periodic bombings. Obviously, these bombings were motivated more by Clintons personal and political problems than a belief in the neocon agenda.
...Let there be no doubt, those in the neocon camp had been anxious to go to war against Iraq for a decade. They justified the use of force to accomplish their goals, even if it required preemptive war. If anyone doubts this assertion, they need only to read of their strategy in A Clean Break: a New Strategy for Securing the Realm.
provocative speech by rep. Ron Paul..."Neo...CONNED!"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x4477
Edited on Sun Aug-03-03 11:18 PM by sam sarrha
"a starkly reveling anti NEOCON speech form 6-10-03, www.house.gov/paul click neo conned, i had to go to Yahoo, MSN was a dead end. this defines what neocon'ism actually is... a frightening story, i have to go study Machiavelli now, will get back ... this is all based on a 500 yr old mad man! i knew they were just $2,000 ..tinfoil lined 'suits'. the speech is fairly long, i was highlighting the important parts and most of it is yellow now... very well done work.. i am grateful and impressed. an ABSOLUTE MUST READ !!!!"