In a previous journal entry (from Nov. 30, 2004), I challenged Bush's assertion, in a presidential debate, that before the Civil War Amendments, amendments 13-15, the Constitution didn't allow slavery. In fact, as I noted, the Constitution contains several provisions tolerating or accommodating slavery, such as Art. I,Sec.2[3], the well-known 3/5ths clause, which counted slaves as three fifths of a person for Congressional apportionment purposes. Bush's assertion received some criticism at the time (I noted in the article by Rothfeld and Colby in my journal and provided a link to it).
However, no one, as far I know, has criticized Colin Powell's counter-historical statement, made in a speech before the Veterans of Foreign Wars, about the United States' use of military power:
"And how have we used this unrivaled power? We have not sought to conquer anyone. We have never been comfortable with occupation of any land. We do not covet anyone's territory. We do not seek to impose dominion over anyone. Instead, we have sent our wonderful young men and women forth from our shores in harm's way to help others, to protect others, to liberate others. Many of them have lost their lives in our foreign wars, and America has asked for nothing in return except just enough land in which to bury them."
The United States uncomfortable with occupation? We can't be that uncomfortable with it. We do it often enough. Following the Spanish American War, we occupied the Philippines for decades. U.S. troops even battled insurgents there. Sound familiar? The U.S.. doesn't covet anyone's territory? How about Puerto Rico's territory? How about Hawaii's territory? How about the territory of Guam or Samoa? We coveted Spain's territory in Cuba, too. Back in the 1840's, President Polk sought to buy it. After the Spanish American War, we occupied the island for three years and still occupy Guantanamo Bay.
Do Bush and Powell not know history? Or do their counter-historical assertions just reflect their general inclination to ignore unpleasant facts?
However, no one, as far I know, has criticized Colin Powell's counter-historical statement, made in a speech before the Veterans of Foreign Wars, about the United States' use of military power:
"And how have we used this unrivaled power? We have not sought to conquer anyone. We have never been comfortable with occupation of any land. We do not covet anyone's territory. We do not seek to impose dominion over anyone. Instead, we have sent our wonderful young men and women forth from our shores in harm's way to help others, to protect others, to liberate others. Many of them have lost their lives in our foreign wars, and America has asked for nothing in return except just enough land in which to bury them."
The United States uncomfortable with occupation? We can't be that uncomfortable with it. We do it often enough. Following the Spanish American War, we occupied the Philippines for decades. U.S. troops even battled insurgents there. Sound familiar? The U.S.. doesn't covet anyone's territory? How about Puerto Rico's territory? How about Hawaii's territory? How about the territory of Guam or Samoa? We coveted Spain's territory in Cuba, too. Back in the 1840's, President Polk sought to buy it. After the Spanish American War, we occupied the island for three years and still occupy Guantanamo Bay.
Do Bush and Powell not know history? Or do their counter-historical assertions just reflect their general inclination to ignore unpleasant facts?
VIEW 9 of 9 COMMENTS
driving is dangerous!
glad you're getting your car checked out.
i hope they fix it.
have a great and safe weekend
xo annabelle
hope all is well.
i got a sore throat..
blech