NEWS COMPASS

Tony Blair "signed in blood" with George Bush to Topple Saddam Hussein One Year BEFORE the Iraq War

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:29:00 +1100

by

Andrew Sparrow. Read here in Guardin UK

Sir Christopher Meyer is the most high-profile figure to give evidence so far. A former press secretary to John Major and UK ambassador in Washington from 1997 to 2003, he infuriated the government with his views about the Iraq war in his memoirs. Broadly in favour of the war, he also strongly criticised Tony Blair's failure to get more from the US in return for backing the invasion. Here we examine the key moments of his evidence.

"It has to be emphasised that regime change in Iraq was official US policy. It went back to the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, passed unanimously by the Senate, by an overwhelming majority in the House of Representatives, and signed into law by Bill Clinton in October 1998. So regime change and, to quote the act, "to establish a programme to support a transition to democracy in Iraq", was an official American policy which George Bush inherited from Bill Clinton. The fact that Clinton did not do very much about it is neither here nor there."

Although the decision to invade Iraq is often depicted as one taken solely by Bush adminstration neocons, Meyer said the Bush regime was not an "aberration" and there was "more of a continuum with previous administrations" than either US party was willing to admit. While some blamed "the nutters" in the Bush administration for inventing the regime change policy, this was simply not true, he said.

"Crawford was a meeting at the president's ranch. I took no part in any of the discussions and for a large chunk of that time no adviser was there … when David Manning [Blair's then foreign policy adviser] comes before you he will tell you that he went there with Jonathan Powell [Blair's chief of staff] for a discussion of Arab/Israel and the intifada. It was at that meeting that there was a joint decision between Bush and Blair that Colin Powell should go to the region and get it sorted. I believe that after that the two men were alone in the ranch until dinner on the Saturday night when all the advisers, including myself, turned up. So I'm not entirely clear to this day … what degree of convergence was signed in blood at the Texas ranch."

Blair met Bush at Crawford in April 2002 and we know from a leaked Cabinet Office memo that Blair said "the UK would support military action to bring about regime change, provided that certain conditions were met". The three conditions were: efforts being made to construct an international coalition, the Arab/Israeli conflict being "quiescent", and the UN weapons inspection route being exhausted. But the precise nature of the understanding between the two men has never been revealed, prompting allegations that Blair made commitments in Texas that contradicted what he was saying in public.

"The real problem, which I did draw several times to the attention of London, was that the contingency military timetable had been decided before the UN inspectors went in under Hans Blix. So you found yourself in a situation in the autumn of 2002 where you could not synchronise the military timetable with the inspection timetable … the result of that was to turn resolution 1441 on its head. Because 1441 had been a challenge to Saddam Hussein, agreed unanimously, to prove his innocence. But because you could not synchronise the programmes … you had to short-circuit the inspection process by finding the notorious smoking gun … and we – the Americans, the British – have never really recovered from that, because, of course, there was no smoking gun."

This was one of the most damning points made by Meyer. After the UN security council unanimously passed resolution 1441 in November 2002, the high point of British efforts to secure an international consensus, Hans Blix's weapons inspectors were admitted back into Iraq. But by that stage the US military was preparing for war in January (although the invasion did not start until March). Blix never had time to complete the inspection process and Meyer implies that the process was therefore something of a charade.

"We could have achieved more by playing a tougher role … if, for example, at Crawford Tony Blair had said: "I want to help you, George, on this but I have to say, in all honesty, that I will not be able to take part in any military operation unless we have palpable progress on the peace process and we have absolute clarity on what happens in Iraq if it comes up." I think that would have changed the nature – it would not have led to a rupture – it would have changed the nature of American planning."

Another damning charge. Meyer said that Britain "failed miserably" to use its influence with Bush to achieve any progress in the Middle East. The allegation that post-invasion planning would have been better if Blair had made more of a fuss is particularly serious. "We underestimated the leverage at our disposal," said Meyer.

"I'm not trying to make a party political point here whatsoever, but quite often I think about this – I think what would Margaret Thatcher have done. And she would have insisted – I take her name in vain, for Pete's sake, I may be struck with a thunderbolt – I think she would have insisted on a coherent political and diplomatic strategy and she would have demanded the greatest clarity about what the heck happened if and when you removed Saddam Hussein."

Meyer's comments about Thatcher will revive suspicions among some Labour figures that he's really a Tory.

The day's key moments

Key fact

Sir Christopher Meyer revealed that before Tony Blair visited George Bush at Crawford in March 2002, Blair's foreign policy adviser, David Manning, gave Meyer a "chunky set of instructions" that covered Iraq.

Best quote

Meyer said: "I'm not trying to make a party political point here whatsoever, but quite often I think about this, what would Margaret Thatcher have done … I think she would have insisted on a coherent political and diplomatic strategy and she would have demanded the greatest clarity about what the heck happened if, and when, you removed Saddam Hussein."

Top jargon

1441. That refers to UN security council resolution 1441, the "final warning" passed by the UN in November 2002, saying that Iraq was in breach of previous resolutions relating to WMD and paving the way for the return of weapons inspectors to the country.

Damage rating

It was bad for Blair. Meyer's main complaint was that Blair did not do as much as he could to influence Bush, particularly in relation to the Middle East peace process and post-invasion planning

The Dark Side of the ‘Special Relationship’ between Israel and the US

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:56:00 +1100

The Dark Side of the ‘Special Relationship’ between Israel and the US

by

Justin Raimondo

(Justin Raimondo is the author of An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books, 2000), Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement (ISI, 2008), and Into the Bosnian Quagmire: The Case Against U.S. Intervention in the Balkans (1996).

He is a contributing editor for The American Conservative, a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute, and an adjunct scholar with the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He writes frequently for Chronicles:A Magazine of American Culture.)

Read here for more

A silent battle has been raging right under our noses, a fierce underground struggle pitting the U.S. against one of its closest allies. For all its newsworthiness, the media has barely noticed the story – except when it surfaces, briefly, like a giant fin jutting above the waves. The aggressor in this war is the state of Israel, with the U.S., its sponsor and protector, playing defense. This is the dark side of the "special relationship" – a battle of spy vs. spy.

Convicted spy Jonathan Pollard – now serving a life sentence – stole secrets so vital that an attempt by the Israelis to get him pardoned was blocked by a massive protest from the intelligence and defense communities. Bill Clinton wanted to trade Pollard for Israeli concessions in the ongoing "peace process," and he was only prevented from doing so by a threat of mass resignations by the top leadership of the intelligence community.

The reason for their intransigence: among the material Pollard had been asked by his Israeli handlers to steal was the U.S. attack plan against the Soviet Union. According to Seymour Hersh, then-CIA director Bill Casey claimed Tel Aviv handed over the information to Moscow in exchange for relaxation of travel restrictions on Soviet Jews, who were then allowed to emigrate to Israel.

The Pollard case is emblematic – but it was just the beginning of a years-long effort by U.S. counterintelligence to rid themselves of the Israeli incubus. Law enforcement was – and presumably still is – convinced Pollard was very far from alone, and that a highly placed "mole" had provided him with key information. In his quest to procure very specific information, Pollard knew precisely which documents to look for – knowledge he couldn’t access without help from someone very high in government circles.

In addition, the National Security Agency (NSA) intercepted a phone conversation between an Israeli intelligence officer and his boss in Tel Aviv, during which they discussed how to get hold of a letter by then-secretary of state Warren Christopher to Yasser Arafat. The Washington spy suggested they use "Mega," but his boss demurred: "This is not something we use Mega for," he averred.

The search for Mega and his underlings continues to this day, as U.S. counterintelligence attempts to rip up what appears to be a vast Israeli spy operation by its very deep roots.

That’s why they went after Ben Ami Kadish, who handed over U.S. secrets to Tel Aviv and shared a handler with Pollard, and why they indicted Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, two top officials of AIPAC, the powerful pro-Israel lobbying group.

That’s why they were listening on the other end as Jane Harman promised an Israeli agent to intervene in the Rosen-Weissman case.

And now a new front has been opened up in this subterranean war with the arrest of Stewart David Nozette, a top U.S. scientist who worked for the Pentagon, had access to the most closely guarded nuclear secrets, and was the lead scientist in the search for water on the moon.

Nozette’s case is interesting because of his impressive resume: he held top positions with the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, and NASA, and he served on the White House National Space Council under George H.W. Bush.

From 1989 until March 2006, he held "Q" clearance, which means he had access to "critical nuclear weapon design information" and vital information concerning 20 "special access programs" – secrets only a very few top government officials had knowledge of.

In other words, this wasn’t just some mid-level schmuck who wanted to sell out his country for cash: he was one of the big boys – the principal author of the Clementine biostatic radar experiment, which allowed U.S. scientists to discover water on the moon – a kind of J. Robert Oppenheimer figure, whose singular contributions to the U.S. space program and its military applications granted him security clearances available to a very select few.

The affidavit in support of the criminal complaint [.pdf] alleging espionage is terse, vague in parts, and brimming with implication. Taking their cues from the Department of Justice press release, most news reports state, "The complaint does not allege that the government of Israel or anyone acting on its behalf committed any offense under U.S. laws," leaving out the last three words in the DOJ’s sentence: "in this case."

In this particular case, it’s true, prosecutors are going after Nozette for violations that occurred while they were reeling him in, with a federal agent pretending to be a Mossad officer offering him money (not very much, by the way) in exchange for secrets. The real question, however, is what caused them to zero in on Nozette?

A Washington Times piece cites Kenneth Piernick, a former senior FBI agent, who opined:

“He must have made some kind of attempt, which triggered the FBI’s interest in him. They cut in between him and whoever he was trying to work with and posed as an intelligence officer, agent, or courier to handle the issue, and then when he delivered what he intended to deliver to that person, his contact was likely an undercover FBI agent or [someone from] another U.S. intelligence service.”

Yet Nozette may have made more than a mere "attempt." The affidavit alleges that, from 1998 to 2008, he served as a consultant to "an aerospace company wholly owned by the government of Israel," during which time "approximately once a month representatives of the aerospace company proposed questions, or taskings, to Nozette." He answered these questions, and, in return, received regular payments totaling $250,000.

This indicates the Feds had been on to Nozette for quite some time, and with good cause. The affidavit also notes that, at the beginning of this year, he traveled to "a different foreign country" in possession of two computer "thumb" drives, which seemed to have mysteriously disappeared upon his return some three weeks later. What was on the drives – and who were the recipients?

In 2007, federal authorities raided the offices of Nozette’s nonprofit company, the Alliance for Competitive Technology (ACT), purportedly because ACT, having procured several lucrative government contracts, had defrauded the federal government by overcharging.

The affidavit cites an anonymous colleague of Nozette who recalled the scientist said that if the U.S. government ever tried to put him in jail he would go to Israel or another foreign country and “tell them everything” he knows.

Perhaps the real reason for the raid, however, had to do with the FBI’s growing suspicion – if not certainty – he was funneling U.S. secrets to Tel Aviv. ACT is a curious creation, a "nonprofit" group that nevertheless generated over half a million dollars last year according to documents filed with the IRS, with over $150,000 in salary and benefits paid out to Nozette. But it wasn’t just about money. ACT’s mission statement reads like a spy’s dream come true:

"The Alliance for Competitive Technology … has been created to serve the national and public interest by conducting scientific research and educational activities aimed at expanding the utilization of National and Government Laboratory resources.

The National Laboratories possess significant technology, technologists, and resources, of great potential value to growing U.S. industrial organizations, both small and large. Recent changes in national policy (the Stevenson-Wydler Act of 1986 and the NASA Technology Utilization Program) have sanctioned the pursuit of technology transfer from these organizations. However, the capabilities and resources present in National Laboratories are often difficult to access by small and medium sized organizations with limited resources.

ACT will research the best mechanisms to facilitate this transfer through focused research on technology transfer mechanisms, and educational and instructive programs on technology transfer from National Laboratories.

In addition, ACT will enable U.S. organizations to utilize the resources of National Laboratories through existing established mechanisms (e.g., the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Technology Affiliates Program).Transfer of commercially valuable technology is significantly enhanced by such direct support of private sector efforts."

In short: ACT is all about technology transfer – from the U.S. to Israel. This, as is well-known, is one of the favored activities of the Israeli intelligence services, which regularly pilfer the latest American technology (especially military applications) to such an extent that a General Accounting Office investigation once characterized the effort as "the most aggressive espionage operations against the U.S. of any U.S. ally."

ACT had contracts with the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C., the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in Arlington, Va., and NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. It is hardly a leap of faith to conclude that vital data flowing from these projects was fed directly into the waiting maw of the Mossad.

Nozette was a key figure in developing and promoting the "Star Wars" ballistic missile defense system. His colleague in the "High Frontier" movement – and the official director of ACT – is one Klaus Heiss, like Nozette an enthusiast [.pdf] of space colonization (who also has some strong views on other subjects).

Contacted by an FBI agent masquerading as an Israeli intelligence agent, Nozette didn’t blink when told his lunch companion was from the Mossad: "Good," he said. "Happy to be of assistance." This was well before the issue of money was raised.

Later in the conversation, Nozette boasted of his top-level security clearances and the range and depth of his knowledge of U.S. secrets, adding, "I don’t get recruited by the Mossad every day. By the way, I knew this day would come." Questioned further by the undercover agent, Nozette said, "I thought I was working for you already. I mean, that’s what I always thought [the foreign company] was – just a front."

Which it no doubt was.

Nozette agreed to be a regular "asset," yet he clearly felt his position was increasingly precarious. He inquired about the right of return and raised the possibility that he might go to Israel. He wanted a passport as part of his payment, in addition to the few thousand dollars the FBI was putting in a post office "dead drop" for him on receipt of stolen secrets.

Well, then, so what? Don’t all nations, even allies, spy on each other? What’s the significance of this particular case

On the surface, our relationship with Israel is encompassed by the terms of the "special relationship," which has so far consisted of the U.S. giving unconditional support to Tel Aviv’s every action, no matter how brutal [.pdf] or contrary to our interests – and tolerating, to a large degree, its extensive covert operations on U.S. soil (or, at least, keeping quiet about them). On a deeper level, however, the tensions in this one-way love affair have frayed the specialness of the relationship almost to the breaking point.

This is not just due to the election of Barack Obama, who is widely perceived in Israel as being biased against the Jewish state. These tensions arose during Bush’s second term, when U.S. policy began to perceptibly tilt away from Tel Aviv.

A particularly telling blow to U.S.-Israeli relations was the decision by the U.S. to clamp down on visa requirements for Israelis entering the U.S.: potential visitors from Israel are now required to undergo an interview, restrictions on their length of stay have been extended, and admission to the U.S. is no longer assured.

In the secret world of spooks spying on one another, the U.S.-Israeli relationship is increasingly adversarial, while in the diplomatic-political realm, it has nearly reached the point of open hostilities.

This is thanks to the objective conditions that determine relations among nations: in the post-Cold War world, Israel necessarily became much less of an asset to the U.S. In the post-9/11 world, as John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt have so trenchantly pointed out, it is an outright liability.

Our self-sacrificial policy of unconditional support for Israel has earned us implacable enemies in the Arab world and granted our adversaries a priceless propaganda prize – and the growing awareness of this disability is something the Israelis no doubt find disturbing. The distortion of our foreign policy by the power of the Israel lobby is also being widely noted, and this is their real Achilles heel.

In this case, too, the Lobby will no doubt rush to exert their influence to downgrade Nozette’s crime and even depict him as an innocent victim of entrapment. Defenders of the AIPAC duo conjured a vast "anti-Semitic" conspiracy within the U.S. Justice Department and the FBI to explain the alleged persecution of Rosen and Weissman, and the same tactics are bound to be trotted out in this instance.

That is nonsense. The FBI didn’t just pick Nozette arbitrarily and conjure his crimes out of thin air. Their target was already deeply involved with the Israelis, and this is what brought him to their attention in the first place.

The nature and extent of Israeli spying in the U.S. is not a subject you’ll see the "mainstream" media very often touch with so much as a 10-foot pole, but when it does the results can be ominously disturbing. I, for one, haven’t forgotten Carl Cameron’s four-part series on Israeli spying in the U.S., broadcast by Fox News in December 2001.

According to Cameron, his sources in law enforcement told him the Israelis had been following the 9/11 hijackers and had foreknowledge of their plans but somehow neglected to tell us. And then there were those dancing Israelis, leaping for joy at the sight of the Twin Towers burning…

This is the dark side of the "special relationship," so dark that hardly anyone wants to acknowledge it, let alone consider its implications.
- Justin Raimondo

Iranian President Mr Ahmadinejad is an Iranian Jew converted to Islam

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 7 Oct 2009 11:44:00 +1100

By Damien McElroy and Ahmad Vahdat

Read here in Telegraph UK

Ahmadinejad showing papers during election.
It shows that his family's previous name was Jewish
(Photo courtesy of Telegraph UK)

A photograph of the Iranian president holding up his identity card during elections in March 2008 clearly shows his family has Jewish roots.

A close-up of the document reveals he was previously known as Sabourjian – a Jewish name meaning cloth weaver.

The short note scrawled on the card suggests his family changed its name to Ahmadinejad when they converted to embrace Islam after his birth.

The Sabourjians traditionally hail from Aradan, Mr Ahmadinejad's birthplace, and the name derives from "weaver of the Sabour", the name for the Jewish Tallit shawl in Persia.

The name is even on the list of reserved names for Iranian Jews compiled by Iran's Ministry of the Interior.

Experts last night suggested Mr Ahmadinejad's track record for hate-filled attacks on Jews could be an overcompensation to hide his past.

Ali Nourizadeh, of the Centre for Arab and Iranian Studies, said:

"This aspect of Mr Ahmadinejad's background explains a lot about him. Every family that converts into a different religion takes a new identity by condemning their old faith."By making anti-Israeli statements he is trying to shed any suspicions about his Jewish connections. He feels vulnerable in a radical Shia society."

A London-based expert on Iranian Jewry said that "jian" ending to the name specifically showed the family had been practising Jews.

"He has changed his name for religious reasons, or at least his parents had," said the Iranian-born Jew living in London. "Sabourjian is well known Jewish name in Iran."

A spokesman for the Israeli embassy in London said it would not be drawn on Mr Ahmadinejad's background. "It's not something we'd talk about," said Ron Gidor, a spokesman.

The Iranian leader has not denied his name was changed when his family moved to Tehran in the 1950s. But he has never revealed what it was change from or directly addressed the reason for the switch.

Relatives have previously said a mixture of religious reasons and economic pressures forced his blacksmith father Ahmad to change when Mr Ahmadinejad was aged four.

The Iranian president grew up to be a qualified engineer with a doctorate in traffic management. He served in the Revolutionary Guards militia before going on to make his name in hardline politics in the capital.

During this year's presidential debate on television he was goaded to admit that his name had changed but he ignored the jibe.

However Mehdi Khazali, an internet blogger, who called for an investigation of Mr Ahmadinejad's roots was arrested this summer.

Mr Ahmadinejad has regularly levelled bitter criticism at Israel, questioned its right to exist and denied the Holocaust. British diplomats walked out of a UN meeting last month after the Iranian president denounced Israel's 'genocide, barbarism and racism.'

Mr Ahmadinejad has been consistently outspoken about the Nazi attempt to wipe out the Jewish race. "They have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews and they consider it a principle above God, religions and the prophets," he declared at a conference on the holocaust staged in Tehran in 2006.

Neocons Salivate Over the Chance for Another Middle East War with IRAN

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 07:11:00 +1000

Read here

by

Robert J. Elisberg

"Now is not the time for the president to dig in to a neutral posture," Paul Wolfowitz wrote last week in the Washington Post. "It is time to change course."

Oh, swell. Now he wants to change course.

Mind you, as an architect of the Iraq War, it's not like Mr. Wolfowitz's track record on advice for the Middle East is terribly dazzling.

His opinion here is not terribly surprising, though. The neocon wing of the Republican Party has rarely found a war it doesn't love to start (finishing, optional), most especially if they themselves don't have to risk fighting it. And now, it seems like most conservative Republicans have their trigger finger itching to start yet another Middle East war.

No, thanks. Been there, done that.

In his op-ed, Mr. Wolfowitz chose two comparisons (noting only quietly at the very end that "no two situations are identical.").

The first was the1986 Philippine elections when Ronald Reagan initially made a cautious statement (exactly as President Obama has done...), and only later declared that there had been fraud. Never mind that the Philippines is one of our longtime allies with whom (unlike Iran) we have actual diplomatic ties. And never mind that whatever happened there would not destabilize the entire world - let alone neighboring Mindanao. And never mind what overturned events was that Philippine President Fernando Marcos had two reform leaders arrested, which brought a national protest that forced him to flee the country three days later.

Yes, that's so much like Iran...

His other "comparison" - and one uses that word advisedly - was when George Bush (the first) spoke out against a coup attempt in the Soviet Union in 1991. After he too was initially non-committal and cautious. Exactly like President Obama. Later, Bush took the "bold" step of condemning the coup. Yes, honest, this is the comparison Paul Wolfowitz is trying to draw.

Noteworthy though is that Mr. Wolfowitz stops right there and leaves out the other involvement Mr. Bush 41 also made in 1991. That's when he challenged Iraqis to stage a coup and "to take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside." The result of these empty words of false encouragement was that the uprising was defenseless, and Saddam Hussein ordered mass killings that have been estimated in the range of up to 230,000.

Shocking, I know, that Paul Wolfowitz ignored this "comparison" in American presidential intervention. Especially given that as far as comparisons go, Iraq is next door to Iran. It was just an oversight, I'm sure...

Of course, pretty much all the right-wing Republican voices who want the president to involve himself in Iran have ignored this recent history, as well. Instead, they prefer words that will either - 1) be empty with no substance behind them and put millions of Iranians at risk, or 2) get us involved in yet another Middle East war.

It is this very same, empty belligerence that John McCain has been ratcheting, including on his new-found Twitter account. (Republican discovery of Twitter misses the point that when your messages are limited to 140 characters, so is the depth of your thought.)

"Mass peaceful demonstrations in Iran today," he tweeted, "let's support them & stand up for democracy & freedom! President & his Admin should do the same."

Mind you, it's not remotely clear what "standing up" actually would accomplish - or means - but it is an admonition he's fallen in love with. "It's our duty to stand up for people who are struggling for freedom," he quoted to C-Span. "We should stand up for them," he told Fox News. "The way we stood up for the Polish workers in Gdansk, the way we stood up for the people of then Czechoslovakia..."

...and the way we stood up for Iraqis in 1991 with empty, meaningless words before they were mass murdered? But then, John McCain has a record of being reckless here. After all, we can't forget his singing, "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," during his failed presidential candidacy. At least we now know what America avoided by not having his experienced leadership during this time of grave diplomatic delicacy.

This is all the same hubris and ignorance that got us involved in Iraq. That's why Iranian experts have near-unanimously applauded President Obama's handling of the situation - because they actually understand the perspective.

They know that what is happening in Iran right now is far deeper than protesting a vote. It's a political/religious battle that goes back to the Muslim Brotherhood formed in Egypt in 1928 - and to many hundreds of years of conflict. As Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former Middle Eastern specialist in the C.I.A., wrote in Sunday's New York Times:

"Yet in the current demonstrations we are witnessing not just the end of the first stage of the Iranian democratic experiment, but the collapse of the structural underpinnings of the entire Islamic approach to modern political self-rule....Westerners would do well to understand the magnitude of what is transpiring in the Islamic Republic."

"Standing up" for the reform candidate Mr. Moussavi would get him painted as an American puppet, a disaster for reformers. It could even be the one thing that unites Iran. Further, despite whatever rigging existed, President Ahmadinejad may still have won the election, just that the rigging guaranteed a bigger margin. And if Ahmadinejad did, indeed, win - or stays in power, regardless - this is the Iranian administration we will need to deal with to lessen their nuclear threat. Most importantly, though, as anyone who understand Iran knows, its president doesn't have authority - that rests with the Supreme Leader. So, imposing ourselves for a figurehead while spiting the actual sovereign is as dangerous and counterproductive as anything imaginable towards an unstable nuclear power.

And President Obama understands all this. And has been widely praised by those who understand the situation. For goodness sake, even George Will called the right-wing criticism, "foolish".

"The people on the streets know full well what the American attitude toward the regime is. And they don't need that reinforced."

And the reality is, that Mr. Obama did speak out early, contrary to the fake-talking points of the neocons and far right Republicans.

"We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust action against the Iranian people," the president stated last week. "The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights." ("Stands"!) "If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion."

That is as blunt a statement as any that Ronald Reagan made towards the Philippines, or George Bush (the first) made towards the Soviet Union. And it was far more diplomatic and thoughtful than what Mr. Bush (the first) said to Iraqis before they got mass murdered.

Yet still the neocons want more, insist the president isn't saying anything, isn't doing anything.

It's irresponsibly dangerous. As when the right-wing Charles Krauthammer wrote in the Washington Post: "And where is our president? Afraid of "meddling."

Amazingly, there is Mr. Krauthammer, in his own words, admonishing the president to actually "meddle." Meddle in a centuries-old religious conflict of a nuclear power. The same meddling that got us mired in the disaster of Iraq.

Meddling! They want meddling! Enough already. We've seen the result of "meddling." Which is why the far right has long-since lost its credibility for giving any advice. But still they give it.

"He's been timid and passive more than I would like," said Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC).

Apparently, more "meddling" would be to Mr. Graham's liking. That belligerent "Bring it on!" swagger than George W. Bush managed so well.

These right-wing voices just love war, as long as they don't have to fight it. Just love sending young Americans to die, to salve their posturing ego and failed politics. Just love the idea to "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran." Perhaps that would be aggressive enough for them all, calling for more active meddling in Iran.

Been there, done that. The results are right across Iran's border in Iraq.

What all these loud, empty, aggressive voices ignore is that a president who measures his public statements thoughtfully is not inherently silent under the surface, which keeps the channels open for creating real change. Any one of these war-mongering voices who thinks that all Barack Obama is doing about Iran is making public statements is either naïve or disingenuous.

And yet Barack Obama makes his public statements - as he did again on Tuesday, strongly. But makes them responsibly. Because words can't be empty when they matter most. A responsible President speaks to improve conditions, not inflame them. Not meddle. Not posture. Not paint us into war.

Happily, there are far more voices who understand this. And understand history, not just posturing for political air time. And happily, these include the more moderate of Republicans, as well.

During the presidential election, Barack Obama was roundly chastised by this same right wing and by Mr. McCain for his supposed "naivety" in saying he'd sit down with Iran without preconditions. Yet now, on Sunday, Republican Richard Lugar, the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, one the country's experts, told CNN that the United States and Iran should "sit down." Even amid all the Iranian upheaval, even though the government "is shooting people...beating people," host John King asked, if Iran called tomorrow, should the U.S. "sit down with them?" And Sen. Lugar again repeated his answer - "Yes."

Go figure...

President Carter Says Gaza Palestinians Treated Like Animals by Israells

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:59:00 +1000

GAZA, June 16 (Reuters) - Palestinians in the Gaza Strip are being "treated more like animals than human beings", former U.S. president Jimmy Carter said on Tuesday.

On a visit to the enclave, he condemned Israel's January bombardment of Gaza and its continuing trade blockade, which he said forbids even children's toys.

"I understand that even paper and crayons are treated as a security hazard," he told Gazans at a local United Nations office. "I sought an explanation of this when I met with Israeli officials and I received none, because there is no explanation."

Carter, 84, has spent far more years as a human rights activist than he did in the White House from 1977 to 1981. He is easily the most outspoken former U.S. president on the Middle East conflict, and seen by many Israelis as a harsh critic.

He ignored a U.S. government ban on dealings with Gaza's Islamist rulers Hamas and had talks with its leaders.

Israel tightened a blockade on Gaza in 2007 when Hamas took control after routing rival Fatah forces loyal to President Mahmoud Abbas, who favours a peace deal with Israel. In late December, Israeli forces bombed then invaded Gaza, devastating its already battered infrastructure.

Since then, Israel has blocked imports of steel, cement and other goods to the population of 1.5 million Palestinians, saying Hamas could use many items for military purposes.

Carter, a Democrat, said he had seen for himself there had been almost no reconstruction in Gaza over the past five months.

"Never before in history has a large community like this been savaged by bombs and missiles and then been deprived of the means to repair itself," he said

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama: the transition from rivals to allies

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:26:00 +1000

by
Jon Rapoport (LA Democrat Examiner)

It has been nothing short of remarkable to witness what appears to be a very strong and close relationship between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama. These formerly bitter rivals, during the 2008 Democratic Primaries, are now joined at the hip regarding the current administration's foreign relations initiatives. It seems like ancient history, but one only has to recall back to just over a year ago, when things were not quite as chipper between these two very notable figures.

Remember the Clinton Campaign’s use of the infamous “3 a.m.” commercial, which attempted to question the qualification and experience level of then Senator Obama? Or former President Bill Clinton’s controversial remarks regarding Jesse Jackson winning of the '84 and '88 South Carolina Primary, in which Clinton seemingly tried to claim that the victories of both Jackson and Obama were for the same exact reasons.

What about the famous “shame on you” speech delivered by then Senator Clinton regarding a health care mailer distributed by the Obama Campaign shortly before the Ohio Primary? The list goes on and on regarding the bitter sniping that took place throughout the campaign from the Clinton Camp towards the Obama Camp.
For his part, Sen. Obama repeated claims that Sen. Clinton was not always truthful and forthright regarding her record during the campaign. Obama also continually questioned Clinton's explanations regarding her authorization vote for the Iraq War.

“You know I opposed this war in Iraq from the start. But one of my opponents [Clinton] is trying to rewrite history,” said Obama while campaigning in early 2008.

After the bitter and seemingly unending primary, the resolution of the long standing Florida and Michigan Primaries controversy and the conclusion of the pursuit for Superdelegates, Sen. Obama finally came away the winner.

To her credit, Sen. Clinton quickly accepted the defeat and subsequently became a fervent advocate for the future President. Her most stirring and notable speech took place on the second night of the Democratic National Convention last August in Denver. From that point on, Sen. Clinton made it abundantly clear that the proper move for her 18 million supporters was to vote for Sen. Obama in the November election. Many of these supporters were still unhappy because Sen. Obama declined to offer Sen. Clinton the opportunity to be his running mate, instead selecting Sen. Joe Biden.

It turned out that President Obama had another prominent and public role in mind for Sen. Clinton. The role of Secretary of State, the chief international representative and spokesperson for the United States Government.

Sunday, while appearing on ABC's “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” Mrs. Clinton explained her rationale for accepting the President's offer.

“Ultimately, it came down to my feeling that, number one, when your president asks you to do something for your country, you really need a good reason not to do it. Number two, if I had won and I had asked him to please help me serve our country, I would have hoped he would say yes. And, finally, I looked around our world and I thought, you know, we are in just so many deep holes that everybody had better grab a shovel and start digging out.”

Since Mrs. Clinton assumed her position, it is quite safe to say that her views have been in lock step with that of the President. The most notable example of this is the administration's belief that Israel should halt further expansion of settlements into the West Bank, while simultaneously articulating the United States unwavering support for the state of Israel.

Mrs. Clinton has also been front and center with President Obama during their recent trip to Egypt and their earlier participation in April's G20 Summit in London. In fact, there's very telling photos of the two receiving a private tour of the Sultan Hassan Mosque in Cairo.

Stateside, there is also a very unique photo of the two of them conversing outdoors at a White House picnic table. Either they are Academy Award winning actors, or they just happen to get along very well despite their past differences.

The brilliance of the President's decision to appoint Mrs. Clinton is twofold:

First, in terms of experience, knowledge of the key issues and relationships with foreign governments, particularly in the Middle East, Mrs. Clinton compares favorably to any other potential candidate for this position.

Second, the union of these two Democratic Party Goliaths has almost completely unified the party and it has eliminated any bitterness associated with the primary campaign.

As for the “3 a.m.” commercial, Mrs. Clinton explained her current feelings regarding if the President is able to handle a “middle of the night” crisis, during Sunday's ABC interview.

“Absolutely, and you know, the President, in his public actions and demeanor, and certainly in private with me and with the national security team, has been strong, thoughtful, decisive. I think he's doing a terrific job. And it's an honor to serve with him.”

Jewish Lobby Gives Obama His Marching Orders

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 04:47:00 +1100

By Michael Collins Piper

Read here

THE POWERFUL JEWISH LOBBY in Washington is already issuing marching orders to President-elect Barack Obama.

One of the most influential voices of the lobby has published an array of “working papers” designed to tell the president how he must maintain the “special relationship” between the United States and Israel, increase pressure on a variety of Arab and Muslim states that are perceived as dangers to Israel, and generally assure that Israel’s interests will always be first and foremost in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy, not only in the Middle East but around the globe.

The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), a particularly vocal force in the Jewish lobby, published an entire edition of its Journal of International Security Affairs (dated fall 2008), sending the official word to Obama.

JINSA was founded by one Stephen Bryen who—along with a host of other well known names connected to JINSA—was once investigated by the FBI on charges of espionage for Israel.

A variety of articles in the journal addressing “Middle East Policy and the Next President” and “Iran, Iraq and Beyond,” make it clear that JINSA—best known as a nest of the infamous “neo-conservatives” who misdirected U.S. foreign policy during the outgoing Bush administration, sparking the war in Iraq and continuing to clamor for action against Iran—wants Obama to pursue Bush-style policies.

AIPAC is particularly obsessed with using U.S. military and economic power to force Arab and Muslim nations to “reform” from within. Talk of “democracy” flows freely within AIPAC’s assorted essays, demanding that Israel’s neighbors conform to the Western version of democracy.

But when the Palestinian people voted the Hamas movement into power in the Palestinian Authority in the occupied West Bank and the Gaza strip, AIPAC and other elements in the Jewish lobby immediately began calling for the United States to reject that freely elected government.

Now, of course, Hamas is largely only in control of the beleaguered Gaza—which many refer to as “ghetto”— and the Palestinian statehood movement has been eviscerated, at least for now. This makes AIPAC and the lobby for Israel quite happy, for Israel has long encouraged U.S. policies—and helped create conditions—that have the effect of “divide and conquer” in the Arab and Muslim world.

Israel is not like any other nation in the world, in that it seems to thrive best (and enjoys the benefits of) having its neighbors quarreling among themselves and rent within. Other nations prefer neighbors that are peaceful and internally secure. Israel wants its neighbors in chaos, because this prevents them from waging war against Israel, either individually or united.

And although in the wake of the debacle in Iraq, which led many Israelis and their allies in the United States to suddenly proclaim that the Iraq war should never have been waged, the fact is that Israel and its U.S.-based agents-in-place were the prime movers behind that war and it was Israeli intelligence that was providing what critics now recognize was the “bad intelligence” that led the Bush administration to “mistakenly” conclude that Iraq was working toward an assembly of nuclear weapons to rival that of Israel.

The Israelis and their American spokesmen evidently now believe that if they tell the “big lie” often enough—the lie that Israel’s interests played no part in orchestrating the debacle in Iraq—that it will make Americans forget that Israel was the foremost advocate of the war in the first place.

However, the evisceration of Iraq by the United States is part and parcel of a long-standing Israeli national security policy aimed toward “balkanizing” the Muslim world.

Yet, AIPAC, in its journal, is now working to perpetuate the myth of Iraqi nuclear weapons and suggesting that Iraq’s weapons were transported into Syria, another nation which has been on the “wish list for war” of Israel and its lobby in America. And AIPAC makes it clear that the destruction of Iran’s nuclear development program is a “must.”

AIPAC is not the only Israeli lobby unit sending the message to the new president. Commentary magazine, long affiliated with the American Jewish Committee, has—in recent issues—been trumpeting a similar bellicose refrain directed at Obama.

The editorial director of the Jewish lobby journal is John Podhoretz, a longtime close personal and political associate of the ubiquitous William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard magazine, which is the most infamous voice of the neo-conservative, hard-line pro-Israel elements operating in the media, in the think tanks, and in official policy making and national security and intelligence circles in Washington.

Their fathers, Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, are two of the founding fathers of the neoconservative network, both Trotskyite Marxists who announced their “conversion” to conservatism during the latter days of the Cold War, banging the drum for intensified U.S. support for Israel.

A complete overview of the neo-conservative power structure and its rather bizarre origins in the days when American Jewish communists like Kristol and Podhoretz turned on the Soviet Union when then- Soviet chief Josef Stalin began moving against Jewish and Zionist elements inside Russia can be found in The High Priests of War and The Judas Goats, two works by this author.

Whether President Obama intends real change, as he promised, or whether he will advance the Israeli agenda (which saw its power expand exponentially in the Republican administration of George W. Bush) remains to be seen. But “the lobby” is making its voice heard and Obama knows that he better not ignore it.

Related Article

Thus Sprach Barack: Pouring Acid on Gaza's Wounds

by Chris Floyd

READ HERE

Yesterday, we wrote of our eager anticipation of Barack Obama's long-suppressed opinion on the mass slaughter in Gaza. As we all know, the most eloquent, forthright and morally concerned orator of the age kept a demure silence on this subject for weeks, because, he said, "we have only one president at a time," who alone should speak about foreign policy.

Of course, that didn't keep the morally concerned orator from speaking freely on almost every other aspect of foreign policy -- Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc.

But consistency, as they say, is the hobgoblin of small minds, and the brain of the new president -- who has set the world aflame with rhetoric that has never been heard in Washington before, soaring phrases of penetrating uniqueness about freedom, hope, peace, and the enduring greatness of the American people -- is famously large.

Anyway, we have waited, and at last Obama has spoken. Here's what he had to say today, while welcoming Hillary Clinton to the State Department and appointing Establishment grandee George Mitchell as his special envoy to the Middle East:

Let me be clear: America is committed to Israel's security. And we will always support Israel's right to defend itself against legitimate threats. For years, Hamas has launched thousands of rockets at innocent Israeli citizens. No democracy can tolerate such danger to its people, nor should the international community, and neither should the Palestinian people themselves, whose interests are only set back by acts of terror.

To be a genuine party to peace, the quartet has made it clear that Hamas must meet clear conditions: recognize Israel's right to exist; renounce violence; and abide by past agreements. Going forward, the outline for a durable cease-fire is clear: Hamas must end its rocket fire; Israel will complete the withdrawal of its forces from Gaza; the United States and our partners will support a credible anti-smuggling and interdiction regime, so that Hamas cannot rearm.

Yesterday I spoke to President Mubarak and expressed my appreciation for the important role that Egypt played in achieving a cease-fire. And we look forward to Egypt's continued leadership and partnership in laying a foundation for a broader peace through a commitment to end smuggling from within its borders."

There you have it. The invasion of Gaza -- which began after Israel broke the ceasefire, launched provocative and deadly raids inside Gaza, and had also tightened its death-grip blockade to a level quite legitimately comparable to the Warsaw Ghetto -- was actually the fault of (wait for it, wait for it).... the Palestinians. Thus sprach Barack.

But do let's be fair. The new president also feels the pain of the Palestinians in Gaza. He feels it so much that he is going to ensure that any reconstruction in Gaza is controlled by the kleptocracy known as the Palestinian Authority -- the same faction that tried -- with American and Israeli backing -- to overthrow the legitimate, democratically elected government of Palestine, instigating a vicious civil war that, lo and behold, left Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation weak and splintered. Now hear the words of the Compassionate One:

Now, just as the terror of rocket fire aimed at innocent Israelis is intolerable, so, too, is a future without hope for the Palestinians. I was deeply concerned by the loss of Palestinian and Israeli life in recent days and by the substantial suffering and humanitarian needs in Gaza. Our hearts go out to Palestinian civilians who are in need of immediate food, clean water, and basic medical care, and who've faced suffocating poverty for far too long.

Now we must extend a hand of opportunity to those who seek peace. As part of a lasting cease-fire, Gaza's border crossings should be open to allow the flow of aid and commerce, with an appropriate monitoring regime, with the international and Palestinian Authority participating.

Relief efforts must be able to reach innocent Palestinians who depend on them. The United States will fully support an international donor's conference to seek short-term humanitarian assistance and long-term reconstruction for the Palestinian economy. This assistance will be provided to and guided by the Palestinian Authority.

At every point, the control of the "Palestinian Authority" -- which means, of course, the Israeli government -- is stressed. Even Obama's dramatic call to open the crossings that Israel has imposed on the open-air prison of Gaza, where many thousands of people have been living in refugee camps for 60 years, and where the entire 1.5 million-strong population is kept stateless and imprisoned, is carefully hedged: the crossings will require "an appropriate monitoring regime" -- i.e., the same regime that has been monitoring the crossings for years on end: the Israeli government. Of course, the PA -- the former insurgent group that has turned itself into the Judenrat of the occupation, doing the Israeli government's dirty work for them -- is to be cut in on the action, along with unspecified "international participation." Of course, the recent deadly attack on UN buildings in Gaza has given us yet another in a long string of demonstrations of how Israel treats "international participation" within its domains and targeted territories.

Now we can see why Obama kept silent on Gaza while Bush was still in the White House: because he held precisely the same views as Bush on the subject. There is nothing in Obama's statement that could not have been said -- or was not actually said -- by Bush. You couldn't slide a piece of onion-skin paper between the stances of the two men on Gaza.

Meanwhile, Professor As'ad AbuKhalil, the "Angry Arab," takes an equally dim view of today's developments:

Well, it took two longs days before Obama dispelled any notions of a change in US Middle East policy. For some reasons, many Arabs and many American leftists I know (you know yourselves) have wanted to believe so bad that Obama will deviate from the Zionist path of US foreign policy. I knew that it would be a matter of weeks that he would prove me right, but I did not know that he would prove me right in a matter of hours. His speech on the Middle East today could have easily been written by Benjamin Netanyahu....

Obama's speech was quite something. It was like sprinkling sulfuric acid on the wounds of the children in Gaza--those who survived the Israeli terrorist festival of butchery and massacres. His remarks leave you with the impression that there are two sets of problems in the holy land: that there was terrorism against civilians in "southern Israel" and then there is some undefined civilian suffering in Gaza from some undefined natural disaster--an earthquake or hurricane.... He then followed the Zionist line that all aid should pass through the transparent gangs in Ramallah--but that is important because Fatah has a very long record of integrity, transparency, merit, and high ethical standards--along with collaboration with Israel.

AbuKhalil also points us to this analysis of Obama's chosen partner in Middle East peace, the man who was in fact the first foreign leader the new president called upon taking office: Palestinian "president" Mahmoud Abbas. (The quote are required because Abbas' term has actually ended, but he is still somehow president of a rump Palestinian Authority.) From The National:

The reasons for Abbas’s demise are few, and they predate the Israeli attack on Gaza: he long ago placed all of his eggs in the Israeli-American basket. Acting as if his chickens had already hatched, his inability to deliver any tangible achievement has instead meant they came home to roost with a vengeance.

Key to this is Abbas’s relationship to his people: simply put, it never existed. Arafat saw the Palestinians as the ace in the deck to be played when all else failed, and understood that his leverage with outside actors derived from their conviction that he represented the Palestinian people. If he consistently failed or refused to properly mobilise this primary resource, he at least always held it in reserve.

Abbas has by contrast been an inveterate elitist, who seems to have regarded the Palestinian population as an obstacle to be overcome so that the game of nations could proceed – there are after all only so many seats at the table where great statesmen like George Bush and Ehud Olmert together create the contours of a new Middle East....

Cursed with exceptional self-regard, Abbas has always shown disinterest in the opinions of others. From the moment he convinced himself of the sincerity of Bush’s visions, which put the onus on the Palestinians to prove they qualify for membership in the human race and are worthy of being spoken to by Tsipi Livni and Condoleezza Rice, there was no turning back. Henceforth the Palestinian security forces would point their weapons exclusively at their own people, and only Saeb Erakat would be aimed at Israel. At the United Nations, once a primary arena for the Palestinian struggle, Abbas’s emissary Riad Mansour was too busy drafting a resolution declaring Hamas a terrorist entity to deal with more trivial Palestinian concerns. It was simply impossible to steer Abbas towards a change of course, let alone a national dialogue that could produce a genuine strategy.

By the expiration of his presidency on January 9, his constitutional status had become the least of his problems. Each and every one of his policies had failed. In the West Bank, settlement expansion was proceeding at an unprecedented pace while the Wall neared final completion, rendering talk of a two-state settlement all but moot.

After Hamas triumphed in the 2006 parliamentary elections, Abbas’s ceaseless scheming to remove the Islamists from office and overturn the election’s results – characteristically in active partnership with outside forces rather than the Palestinian electorate – was a veritable carnival of folly and incompetence. When Hamas acted first in 2007, it took the Islamists only several days to dispose of those few forces still prepared to fight for Mohammed Dahlan [the PA's ruthless "security" enforcer and much-beloved Washington favorite].

This then is the broken reed upon which Obama proposes to build "a lasting peace in the Middle East." An unconstitutional, totally compromised puppet leader rejected by his people, whom he disdains.

What, wasn't Ahmad Chalabi available?

Gaza Massacre: Israel Bombed Two UN Schools

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:08:00 +1100

Read here for more on The Guardian (UK) and here and here and here

ISRAEL'S COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT:
CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY
SUPPORTED BY THE UNITED STATES

(THE DEAFENING SILENCE OF PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA)

Did United States or the Western Countries Allow Palestinian people to have fighter-jets to DEFEND their lives against the Israel war-planes ?

While Palestinian Children are being Massacred by US taxpayer-funded Israeli war-planes, Obama is Enjoying Golf in Hawaii

Israel's assault on Gaza has exacted the bloodiest toll of civilian lives yet, when the bombing of UN schools being used as refugee centres and of housing killed more than 50 people, including an entire family of seven young children.

The United States late Saturday BLOCKED approval of a UN Security Council statement calling for an immediate cease-fire between Israel and Hamas and expressing serious concern at the escalation of violence following Israel’s ground attack in Gaza, council diplomats said.

The UN protested at a "complete absence of accountability" for the escalating number of civilian deaths in Gaza, saying "the rule of the gun" had taken over.

The death toll resulted from Israel's attacks has reached 363, including at least 59 children and 18 women. This figure is expected to rise.

Obama Gagged by the Powerful Israeli-Jewish Lobby Groups and Staff Within his Transition Team

(Note: Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Israel Emanuel, is an Israeli and holds a dual citizenship) -read here and here for more

THE refusal of the US president-elect, Barack Obama, to comment on the Gaza conflict had disappointed Arab leaders, the Palestinian Foreign Affairs Minister, Riyad al-Maliki, said yesterday. Mr Maliki said that Mr Obama's silence on Gaza contrasted with his willingness to comment on the terrorist attacks in Mumbai last November.

Israel rejects stationing of international monitors at border crossing as also any international force in the area.

UN General Assembly chief Miguel d'Escoto has criticized the Security Council for its inability to curb Israel's "monstrosity" in Gaza. D'escoto criticized the UN Security Council for not showing enough tenacity in ending Gazans suffering in the wake of the weeklong Israeli offensive in the coastal strip.

Doctors in Gaza said more than 40 people died, including children, in what appears to be the biggest single loss of life of the campaign when Israeli bombs hit al-Fakhora school, in Jabaliya refugee camp, while it was packed with hundreds of people who had fled the fighting.

Most of those killed were in the school playground and in the street, and the dead and injured lay in pools of blood. Pictures on Palestinian TV showed walls heavily marked by shrapnel and bloodstains, and shoes and shredded clothes scattered on the ground. Windows were blown out.

Hours before, three young men who were cousins died when the Israelis bombed Asma elementary school in Gaza City. They were among 400 people who had sought shelter there after fleeing their homes in Beit Lahiya, in northern Gaza.

Abed Sultan, 20, a student, and his cousins, Rawhi and Hussein Sultan, labourers aged 22, died.

Abed Sultan's father, Samir, said the bodies were so mangled that he could not tell his son from the cousins. "We came to the school when the Israelis warned us to leave," he said. "We hoped it would be safe. We were 20 in one room. We had no electricity, no blankets, no food. Suddenly we heard a bomb that shook the school. Windows smashed. Children started to scream. A relative came and told me one of my sons was killed. I found my son's body with his two cousins. They were cut into pieces by the shell."

The UN was particularly incensed over targeting of the schools, because Israeli forces knew they were packed with families as they had ordered them to get out of their homes with leaflet drops and loudspeakers. It said it had identified the schools as refugee centres to the Israeli military and provided GPS coordinates.

Israel accused Hamas of using civilians as cover, and said the Islamist group could stop the assault on Gaza by ending its rocket attacks on Israel.

The Palestinian authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, last night delivered an impassioned plea to the UN security council to act immediately to stop the Israeli operation, which he described as a "catastrophe" for his people. Israel has agreed a "humanitarian corridor" to allow Palestinians to get essential goods.

The rising casualty toll, more than 640 Palestinians killed since the assault began 12 days ago, gave fresh impetus to diplomatic efforts. The White House offered its first hint of concern at Israel's actions by calling on it to avoid civilian deaths. The president-elect, Barack Obama, broke his silence by saying he was "deeply concerned" about civilian casualties on both sides. He said he would have "plenty to say" about the crisis after his swearing in.

Gordon Brown said the Middle East was facing its "darkest moment yet" but hoped a ceasefire could be arranged soon.

The head of the UN Palestinian refugee agency, John Ging, said three shells landed at the perimeter of the school. "It was entirely inevitable if artillery shells landed in that area there would be a high number of casualties," he said.

He said UN staff vetted those Palestinians who sought shelter at the school. "So far we've NOT had violations by militants of our facilities," he said, though responding to questions he accepted there had been clashes between Hamas and the Israeli army in the area.

Earlier in the day, Ging visited Gaza's hospital and was shocked at the scale of civilian casualties. "What you have in this hospital is the consequences of political failure and the complete absence of any accountability for actions that are being taken. It's the rule of the gun now, and it has to stop," he said.

At least 12 of one family, seven children aged from one to 12, three women and two men, were killed in an air strike on their house in Gaza City. Nine others were believed trapped.

Rejecting Israeli claims there is no humanitarian crisis, Christopher Gunness, spokesman for the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), asserted, "The idea there is not a humanitarian crisis is absurd . . . it is appalling for anyone to say there is not."

UNRWA closed 20 health centres, although its staff are doing their best to aid the injured. UNRWA and the World Food Programme have suspended ration distribution, leaving 1.1 million people without basic foodstuffs. Mr Gunness criticised the Security Council for not adopting a ceasefire resolution. "Innocent people in Gaza have suffered enough."

President-Elect Obama Enjoying Golf While Palestinian CHILDREN are Being Killed by Israelis

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 2 Jan 2009 14:36:00 +1100

Read here for more in The Huffington Post

US President-Elect Barack Obama (who campaigned to change the world and the US ) Played Golf in Hawaii, While Israeli Planes are Killing Palestinian Children

( AND.. Emperor Nero Played the Fiddle, While Rome Burned)

"The evil only exists because the good remain silent."

President-Elect Obama Golfing in his Deafing Silence in Hawaii ....

Meanwhile in Gaza

Related articles:

EGYPT Complicit in the Bombing of Gaza: As the Palestinian death toll approaches 400, much of popular anger throughout the Arab world has been directed at Egypt – seen by many as complicit in the Israeli campaign."Israel would not have hit Gaza like this without a green light from Egypt," Hamdi Hassan, MP for the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's largest opposition movement, told IPS. "The Egyptian government allowed this assault on Gaza in hopes of finishing off Hamas." Read here for more
United States President George W. Bush supports Israel's operation in Gaza. During the conversation, Bush backed Israel's demand that a ceasefire with Hamas take effect only after the rocket fire at Israeli communities end. Read here for more
As the war in the Gaza Strip rages on, protests continue all across the world. In the United States alone, over 100 protests have already been organized against the attacks, from a small rally in Salt Lake City to much larger rallies along the east coast. Among the largest was in Dearborn, Michigan, where thousands of protesters braved freezing cold temperatures in a rally organized by the Congress of Arab-American Organizations. As has been the case since the war began, the real President-elect (Barack Obama) has remained silent on the situation. What was he doing today instead of commenting on the hundreds of people killed in the Gaza Strip? According to the Associated Press, he was getting his picture taken with a nine-month-old. Read here for more
President-elect Obama conveniently remains silent on the current hostilities (for now) and has thus deferred to President Bush. Earlier this summer he endorsed Israel's right to defend itself against Qassam rockets by stating, "If someone were sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I would do anything to stop it." One wonders, however, if President elect Obama's principles of safety, dignity and self defense apply to Palestinians as well? If Obama and President Bush's daughters were forced to suspend their emergency hospital operations due to fuel shortages, beg for 300 essential medicines, drink contaminated water that causes malnutrition and anemia in children, eat bread made of animal feed, and renounce electricity because their main power plant was forced to shut down, what would they do? By continuing to vocally defend Israel as the only advocate and partner of peace while perpetually blaming Palestinians as the sole aggressor, the United States recklessly obfuscates the reality of an Israeli blitzkrieg that repeatedly bombards a beleaguered Palestinian refugee population with an inordinately superior and sophisticated military might. Read here for more
As Israel nails shut the coffin that is Gaza under a siege that has lasted nearly three years, steadily intensifying so that malnutrition rates rival those of sub-Saharan Africa, sewage runs raw in the streets and pollutes the ocean, homes are still being bulldozed to super-add collective punishment upon collective punishment; men, women and children are still being sniped at and killed; children are deafened by continuing sonic booms, the vast majority of them suffer from post-traumatic stress syndrome, and many of that majority have no ambition other than becoming “martyrs,” Israel in mid-December denied entry to Richard Falk, UN Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur on the occupied territories. It is Dr. Falk's responsibility to report to the UN on conditions in the occupied territories. Israel is blocking him from carrying out this job. He not only describes Israel’s atrocities in Gaza, but calls for immediate protective action “to offset the persisting and wide-ranging violations of the fundamental human right to life.” He also calls for an International Criminal Court investigation to “determine whether the Israeli civilian leaders and military commanders responsible for the Gaza siege should be indicted and prosecuted for violations of international criminal law.” Many others, Jewish and not Jewish (including Israeli Jews ) have charged Israel with violations of international law and war crimes in Gaza. As Falk himself noted in his statement about Gaza to the UN, the Secretary General of the UN, the President of the General Assembly, and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights have all condemned Israel for its monstrous siege. Christopher Hedges writes that Falk told him Israel’s siege has unleashed “an unfolding humanitarian catastrophe that each day poses the entire 1.5 million [population] Gazans to an unspeakable ordeal, to a struggle to survive . . . This is an increasingly precarious condition. A recent study reports that 46 per cent of all Gazan children suffer from acute anemia. There are reports that the sonic booms associated with Israeli overflights have caused widespread deafness, especially among children. Gazan children need thousands of hearing aids. Malnutrition is extremely high in a number of different dimensions and affects 75 per cent of Gazans. There are widespread mental disorders… Over 50 per cent of Gazan children under the age of 12 have been found to have no will to live." Read here for more
Hamas missiles could reach Israel's nuclear facility at Dimona. Rocket attacks from Gaza have forced Israelis to flee in ever greater numbers and military chiefs have been shaken by the size and sophistication of the militant group’s arsenal. the rockets fired by Hamas in the current fighting have flown farther and been more accurate than weapons used by the group in the past, the officials said. Some have flown nearly two dozen miles, destroying buildings in the southern Israeli cities of Ashdod and Beersheba. Read here for more

QUOTE: "..There is another reason why this attack has beenallowed to occur:
The complicity and silence of the international community.
Israel cannot and would not act against the will of its economic allies in Europe or its military allies in the US.

Israel may be pulling the trigger ending hundreds, perhaps even thousands of lives this week, but it is the apathy of the world and the inhumane tolerance of Palestinian suffering which allows this to occur.
'The evil only exists because the good remain silent'
- Dr. Mustafa Barghouthi
by

Mustafa Barghouthi
Secretary General of the Palestinian National Initiative
29 December 2008

The Israeli campaign of 'death from above' began around 11 am, on Saturday morning, the 27th of December, and stretched straight through the night into this morning.

The massacre continues Sunday as I write these words.

The bloodiest single day in Palestine since the War of 1967 is far from over following on Israel's promised that this is 'only the beginning' of their campaign of state terror.

At least 290 people have been murdered thus far, but the body count continues to rise at a dramatic pace as more mutilated bodies are pulled from the rubble, previous victims succumb to their wounds and new casualties are created by the minute.

What has and is occurring is nothing short of a war crime, yet the Israeli public relations machine is in full-swing, churning out lies by the minute.

Once and for all it is time to expose the myths that they have created.

1. Israelis have claimed to have ended the occupation of the Gaza Strip in 2005.
While Israel has indeed removed the settlements from the tiny coastal Strip, they have in no way ended the occupation. They remained in control of the borders, the airspace and the waterways of Gaza, and have carried out frequent raids and targeted assassinations since the disengagement.

Furthermore, since 2006 Israel has imposed a comprehensive siege on the Strip.

For over two years, Gazans have lived on the edge of starvation and without the most basic necessities of human life, such as cooking or heating oil and basic medications.

This siege has already caused a humanitarian catastrophe which has only been exacerbated by the dramatic increase in Israeli military aggression.
2. Israel claims that Hamas violated the cease-fire and pulled out of it unilaterally.
Hamas indeed respected their side of the ceasefire, except on those occasions early on when Israel carried out major offensives in the West Bank.

In the last two months, the ceasefire broke down with Israelis killing several Palestinians and resulting in the response of Hamas. In other words, Hamas has not carried out an unprovoked attack throughout the period of the cease-fire.

Israel, however, did not live up to any of its obligations of ending the siege and allowing vital humanitarian aid to resume in Gaza. Rather than the average of 450 trucks per day being allowed across the border, on the best days, only eighty have been allowed in - with the border remaining hermetically sealed 70% of the time.

Throughout the supposed 'cease-fire' Gazans have been forced to live like animals, with a total of 262 dying due to the inaccessibility of proper medical care.

Now after hundreds dead and counting, it is Israel who refuses to re-enter talks over a cease-fire. They are not intent on securing peace as they claim; it is more and more clear that they are seeking regime change - whatever the cost.
3. Israel claims to be pursuing peace with 'peaceful Palestinians'.

Before the on-going massacre in the Gaza Strip, and throughout the entirety of the Annapolis Peace Process, Israel has continued and even intensified its occupation of the West Bank. In 2008, settlement expansion increased by a factor of 38, a further 4,950 Palestinians were arrested - mostly from the West Bank, and checkpoints rose from 521 to 699.

Furthermore, since the onset of the peace talks, Israel has killed 546 Palestinians, among them 76 children. These gruesome statistics are set to rise dramatically now, but previous Israeli transgressions should not be forgotten amidst this most recent horror.

Only this morning, Israel shot and killed a young peaceful protester in the West Bank village of Nihlin, and has injured dozens more over the last few hours. It is certain that they will continue to employ deadly force at non-violent demonstrations and we expect a sizable body count in the West Bank as a result. If Israel is in fact pursuing peace with 'good Palestinians', who are they talking about?
4. Israel is acting in self-defense.
It is difficult to claim self defense in a confrontation which they themselves have sparked, but they are doing it anyway. Self-defense is reactionary, while the actions of Israel over the last two days have been clearly premeditated.

Not only did the Israeli press widely report the ongoing public relations campaign being undertaken by Israel to prepare Israeli and international public opinion for the attack, but Israel has also reportedly tried to convince the Palestinians that an attack was not coming by briefly opening crossings and reporting future meetings on the topic.

They did so to insure that casualties would be maximized and that the citizens of Gaza would be unprepared for their impending slaughter.

It is also misleading to claim self-defense in a conflict with such an overwhelming asymmetry of power.

Israel is the largest military force in the region, and the fifth largest in the world.

Furthermore, they are the fourth largest exporter of arms and have a military industrial complex rivaling that of the United States.

In other words, Israel has always had a comprehensive monopoly over the use of force, and much like its super power ally, Israel uses war as an advertising showcase of its many instruments of death.
5. Israel claims to have struck military targets only.
Even while image after image of dead and mutilated women and children flash across our televisions, Israel brazenly claims that their munitions expertly struck only military installations. We know this to be false as many other civilian sites have been hit by airstrikes including a hospital and mosque.

In the most densely populated area on the planet, tons upon tons of explosives have been dropped. The first estimates of injured are in the thousands. Israel will claim that these are merely 'collateral damage' or accidental deaths. The sheer ridiculousness and inhumanity of such a claim should sicken the world community.
6. Israel claims that it is attacking Hamas and not the Palestinian people.
First and foremost, missiles do not differentiate people by their political affiliation; they simply kill everyone in their path. Israel knows this, and so do Palestinians. What Israel also knows, but is not saying public ally, is how much their recent actions will actually strengthen Hamas - whose message of resistance and revenge is being echoed by the angry and grieving.

The targets of the strike, police and not Hamas militants, give us some clue as to Israel's mistaken intention. They are hoping to create anarchy in the Strip by removing the pillar of law and order.
7. Israel claims that Palestinians are the source of violence.
Let us be clear and unequivocal. The occupation of Palestine since the War of 1967 has been and remains the root of violence between Israelis and Palestinians.

Violence can be ended with the occupation and the granting of Palestine's national and human rights. Hamas does not control the West Bank and yet we remain occupied, our rights violated and our children killed.
With these myths understood, let us ponder the real reasons behind these airstrikes; what we find may be even more disgusting than the act itself.

The leaders Israel are holding press conferences, dressed in black, with sleeves rolled up.

'It's time to fight', they say, 'but it won't be easy.'

To prove just how hard it is, Livni, Olmert and Barak did not even wear make-up to the press conference, and Barak has ended his presidential campaign to focus on the Gaza campaign. What heroes...what leaders...

We all know the truth: the suspension of the electioneering is exactly that - electioneering.

Like John McCain's suspension of his presidential campaign to return to Washington to 'deal with' the financial crisis, this act is little more than a publicity stunt.

The candidates have to appear 'tough enough to lead', and there is seemingly no better way of doing that than bathing in Palestinian blood.

'Look at me,' Livni says in her black suit and unkempt hair, 'I am a warrior. I am strong enough to pull the trigger. Don't you feel more confident about voting for me, now that you know I am as ruthless as Bibi Netanyahu?'

I do not know which is more disturbing, her and Barak, or the constituency they are trying to please.

In the end, this will in no way improve the security of the average Israeli; in fact it can be expected to get much worse in the coming days as the massacre could presumably provoke a new generation of suicide bombers.

It will not undermine Hamas either, and it will not result in the three fools, Barak, Livni and Olmert, looking 'tough'.

Their misguided political venture will likely blow up in their faces as did the brutally similar 2006 invasion of Lebanon.

In closing, there is another reason - beyond the internal politics of Israel - why this attack has been allowed to occur: the complicity and silence of the international community.

Israel cannot and would not act against the will of its economic allies in Europe or its military allies in the US. Israel may be pulling the trigger ending hundreds, perhaps even thousands of lives this week, but it is the apathy of the world and the inhumane tolerance of Palestinian suffering which allows this to occur.

'The evil only exists because the good remain silent'

DECEPTION or FACT: Was Sarah Palin Really Pregnant with Trig? A Lesson in Biology

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 23:16:00 +1100

Sarah Palin had ridiculed the media for insinuating that Trig (who was born with Down Syndrome) was not her child.

But, she was flying across America and attending a conference after her waters broke. If it is true she was pregnant and at the same time travelling from Texas to Alaska when her waters broke, her action was truly irresponsible and silly.

Blogger Audrey, wrote a long piece (read below) on the facts of a pregnancy.

She concluded that she DOESN'T believe Palin was ever PREGNANT with Trig.

A Biology Lesson

by

Audrey

Excerpts: Read here for more

Childbirth is a biology lesson. It involves a lot of, at times, not particularly appetizing details regarding very private parts of the female anatomy.

One reason, I believe, that some of this "deception" has been allowed to go on for so long is that no one will confront Gov. Palin on some of the "private" details, and just how implausible her story is on the specifics.

The single specific piece of information that we have that has caused the most scrutiny of her birth saga is that she traveled back from Texas to Alaska on April 17th leaking amniotic fluid.

Yet, she has never once been asked pointed questions about the very real specifics of this.

It would be a bit like someone calling in sick at work because he has cut his arm very badly, then never showing any physical signs - like blood, or stitches, or going to the doctor, that it ever happened, yet being defensive about having to "prove" it.

The leaking of amniotic fluid is an indisputable, unmistakable sign of the onset of labor. Flying at eight months of pregnancy is ill-advised. Flying at eight months with leaking amniotic fluid is insane, particularly for a woman who has boasted about her easy (past) births.

According to one obstetric source that I found, a woman with Palin's trouble-free history had about a 66% chance of giving birth WITHIN ten hours from the time her membranes ruptured.

I've stated this before, but it bears repeating:

It was NOT possible that Palin would give birth before she got back to Alaska. It was PROBABLE.

What is amniotic fluid?

Most people know it's what surrounds the baby, but where does it come from? It is not something the mother produces, at least later in pregnancy. By the eighth month, the majority of what makes up amniotic fluid is the by-product of the fetus's urinary system; quite bluntly, it's the baby's pee. By 34 weeks, in a normal pregnancy there is about a quart of amniotic fluid. The quantity diminishes a bit by 40 weeks.

Many labors begin with some leaking (or even a large full-blown rupture) of the amniotic sac. For other women, the sac will rupture at some point during labor. If labor is left to progress fully naturally, sometimes the sac never ruptures and the baby is born still encased in it, though most birth attendants now will artificially rupture the sac before this point. (Being born still in the sac (the caul) traditionally was considered good luck, even magical. Here's article from Wikipedia about it. )

When membranes rupture PRIOR to any other signs of labor, what does this mean? What should be done?

I've read some more extreme comments that membrane rupture is an "emergency," and Gov. Palin should have immediately called an ambulance and rushed to the hospital.

It is considered absolutely mandatory that once membranes have ruptured, within a sensible time frame of an hour or two, someone needs to check the baby's heart tones.

Why? Because as soon as there is any leakage of fluid, additional compression can be put on the umbilical cord. It's possible in rare cases for the cord to actually slip down between the baby's head and the side of the uterus, at times even coming out through the cervix. This IS a MAJOR EMERGENCY, and the only way to rule out cord problems is to check the baby - fairly promptly.

However, it's pretty clear that almost twenty four hours passed from the time that Gov. Palin first has stated that she saw some signs of amniotic fluid until she actually saw a physician.

Where did the story come from that her membranes had ruptured?

Interestingly, it seems to have come from her father, Chuck Heath. Let's do a quick review of a timetable.

April 17th - 4 AM Texas time, 1 AM Alaska time
Gov. Palin calls her doctor to report, "there was AN IDEA there that he might come early." I am not sure exactly what this means.

Did she have a dream that her baby might come early? A vision from above?

Did a little bird whisper it into her ear?

Or did she have some clear physical indications that she might be in labor?
April 17th - Around 11 PM Alaska Time
Palin arrives at Mat-Su Hospital AFTER remaining in Texas to give a luncheon speech then taking TWO separateFOUR hour flights, and having a TWO hour layover in Seattle.
April 18th - 6:30 A.M.
Trig is born at Mat-Su Regional Hospital in Palmer.
April 18th - Afternoon
KTUU (Anchorage NBC Affiliate) goes to Mat-Su in Palmer and does an interview with Sarah Palin's PARENTS. It was at THIS interview that apprently Gov. Palin's FATHER states that her water broke in Texas. So while it seems that Gov. Palin might have wished to be a bit more discreet about the details, her father was not so reticent.
April 19th
The Palins leave the hospital with Trig.
April 21st
The Palins, at Sarah's office in Anchorage, give an interview. (This was not published until the NEXT day, the 22nd.)

It was during this interview, that Palin was asked specifically about her water breaking, and was told that her FATHER had said that. She clearly does not want to discuss it, but she DOESN'T deny it.

Why? Because it's true? Or because it is the story that she gave her parents for why she left Texas early, and now can't backpedal or THEY will get suspicious?

Here's the exact quote from the Palin interview:

Reporter:
So did your water break?

Palin:
Well, if you must know more of those type of details, but, um…

Reporter:
Well, your dad said that and I saw him say it so that’s why I asked.

Palin:
Well that was again if, if I must get personal, technical about this at the same time, um, it was one, it was a sign that I knew, um, could lead to uh, labor being uh kind of kicked in there was any kind of, um, amniotic leaking, amniotic fluid leaking, so when, when that happened we decided OK let’s call her.

So, we have it, in Gov. Palin's own (convoluted) words, that her amniotic fluid began leaking at 4 AM in Texas, and they called her doctor.

As has been stated so many other places, it is incomprehensible that a doctor would not have told Gov. Palin to go to a hospital immediately and get checked out.

And it's also interesting to note that Dr. Cathy Baldwin Johnson has NEVER confirmed that the Palins called her at this time. In fact, she stated that that "things" (a precise medical term if I ever heard one) had already "settled down," (more precision) by the time the Palins called. (Or, as my physician husband has quipped: "I must have missed that day in medical school.")

So... someone is lying.

Amniotic fluid "leaking"

What does this mean to the layperson? What it means is that they probably don't want to think about it.

What does it mean to a birth attendant? It means, frankly, a rather untidy mess.

When we would attend a home birth, we would set up in the birthing room a full-sized trash can. (Not the kitchen size, your standard outdoor size.) By the time wee-one came along, it was almost always full.)

Sarah Palin at the Governor's Conference in Texas

How did Gov. Palin handle this mess?
How did she protect the hotel furniture and bedding, and her business suit DURING her speech?
Did Todd promptly call a cab or the hotel car, rush out to the nearest CVS, and buy hospital grade sanitary pads and/or some Surecare or Chux bed underpads at 4 A.M?

When I was still a home birth "helper," we would sit the mom on disposable pads (no panties, and certainly nothing in the vagina like tampons, since that would increase the chances of infection) which were changed scrupulously every half an hour or so.

And once membranes rupture, it's not just a drop or two of clear fluid. Women who are going into labor start losing mucous, also known as "the mucous plug" which has sealed up the cervix. What does this look like? For lack of a better description, it looks like bloody snot.

So, morning in Texas, April 17th, we have the Governor of Alaska, with small gushes of fetal urine and bloody snot leaking out of her vagina putting on her business suit (including pantyhose?) preparing to give a speech... which by all reports, she DID.

(Good God, does anybody still believe this story?)

(And don't forget, this was a conference! Not only was there a luncheon speech, but I imagine there were panels or discussions or workshops during the "morning session."

Never has it been indicated that Palin did not participate... it would have caused comment if she had not. My guess is that she DID participate.

We don't have direct proof for that, but we do have the Governor of Hawaii's statement that “Nobody knew a thing. I only found out from my security detail on the way home that she had gone into labor and that she had gone home to Alaska.”

Only the Governor of Texas suspected that something was up (probably where the rumors later heard by Lingle's security detail came from), and that was only because the Palins had rushed off so quickly after her speech, refusing to confirm either way whether she was in labor.)

And how would she have handled it if the "leak" had become a full-fledged rupture DURING the speech or while sitting in some workshop? "OOOPS. Sorry. My bad."

This has personally happened to me. (Not during a speech at a Governors' Converence, of course.) But I had some leaking which all of a sudden turned into a flood. I "popped." And if you don't think a quart of fluid is a lot, I suggest you all get up from your computers right now, take a quart of water, and dump it on the floor between your legs.

Now picture that happening up on a podium in front of the other Governors. It would have been the most memorable Republican Governor speech on record, I promise you that.

That anyone would have taken this risk is so implausible it is ludicrous. But no one really wants to "go there" in terms of confronting Palin. (Not that anyone has really been given the chance!)

No one really wants to confront her with questions like:

How DID you protect your clothing, Gov. Palin?
What WOULD you have done had you started leaking a lot of fluid on the floor during the speech?
Did you need to call housekeeping and have your bed changed in the middle of the night?

Birth is not a tidy process.

Gov. Palin has given, as "proof" of her labor, information that she was in the midst of one of the more untidy parts, yet has given no indication that she behaved in such a way that would support her own contention. And, because it's "private," we're not allowed to ask.

Sarah Palin on the Air Plane Returning to Alaska

But... of course... the adventure is just beginning, because we are now supposed to believe that she sat on airplane seats for EIGHT additional hours, all the while the flight attendants NOT noticing anything out of order.

People in Alaska knew she was pregnant. The flight attendants certainly should have been aware of it, though they may not have realized the exact due date.

If Gov. Palin had been getting up and going to the bathroom every few minutes (clutching her carry-on bag, because of course she would have needed her bag to carry into the restroom the hospital grade sanitary pads she should have been changing), you don't think the flight attendants would have noticed?

They would not only have noticed, they would have been worried. But no one observed anything unusual in her behavior during TWO four hour flights.

This is completely inconsistent with someone whose "membranes are leaking."

Precautions Against "Infection" After Membrane Rupture

And a note about infection: once it's been determined that there's no compression of the umbillical cord after membrane rupture, the next worry is infection, that because the sterile sac is now compromised, bacteria can enter and begin to grow.

It's why most midwives in a home birth setting will not even do an internal exam on a woman whose membranes are leaking until labor is well-established; you do not want to do anything to risk introducing infection. You don't bathe (you shower) and observe very careful hygiene while using the bathroom. You keep everything as clean and dry as possible.

(Now... think about airplane toilets.)

Or Was It Urine, Not Amniotic Fluid

I've read other places that perhaps the logical explanation was that it was not amniotic fluid at all; it was just a bit of urine. We should leave Gov. Palin alone because none of us know for sure. Certainly urine leakage can happen. You sit a six plus pound kicking baby on top of a woman's bladder and, yeah, you betchya, there can be "mishaps."

But there are several arguments against this.

First, Trig Palin was born at 6:30 a.m.(MORNING) on April 18th. (Sarah Palin returned from Texas on April 17th) If Gov. Palin had arrived at Mat-Su with no signs of labor (considering that she was just 35-36 weeks) they would have sent her home.

There are easy tests that can detect the presence of amniotic fluid in the vagina. The physician would have performed the test and if none had been detected, they would have sent her home.

The fact that a baby was born the NEXT morning indicates that someone was in labor that night.
The second thing is that she DIDN'T deny it. She was asked specifically about the "water breaking" on 4/21 and she confirmed her story.

She could have told the interviewer on April 21st that her impression in Texas that she was leaking fluid turned out to be wrong; that she'd been mistaken. But she didn't.

That she was leaking amniotic fluid in Texas is HER story and she is sticking by it. This is not something "bloggers" have fabricated out of nowhere.

So what do we conclude from all this?

IF Palin's story is COMPLETELY true, if she is Trig's mother, and everything happened the way she has claimed, she took utterly unacceptable medical risks with her infant's life.
She did not have him checked when her membranes ruptured, to rule out the possibility of cord prolapse.
She would have had to be dressed and to comport herself in a way that would have increased the chances of infection for almost 24 hours.
She risked having to give birth with no medical assistance in the aisle of an airplane.
She risked disrupting the travel plans of hundreds of other people.
And, if Palin's story is completely true, Cathy Baldwin-Johnson should lose her medical license.

If Palin's story is PARTIALLY true, what parts are a LIE?

My guess would be that she had NO contact at all with Baldwin-Johnson, at least prior to their layover in Seattle. It's a complete fabrication that she called her doctor from Texas. She took utterly reckless chances with her baby's safety as well as the comfort of everyone else on the airplane... and she beat the odds. And THIS is why Cathy Baldwin Johnson has appeared to cut off most contact with Palin and her crazy birth story... because Palin's lies have actually jeopardized Balwin-Johnson's professional reputation. She can't come clean about the birth without telling the world that Palin is a liar. She's reluctant to do that. While I admire loyalty, in this case I would say it's misplaced.

If Palin's story is ENTIRELY a lie, and the physical realities of membrane rupture which I have seen and dealt with countless times make me lean very strongly in that direction, then the only answer is she was NEVER pregnant at all.

Rahm Emanuel, an Israeli Citizen as Obama's Chief of Staff: Middle East Conflict Will Not be Resolved

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 12:16:00 +1100

Read here article by John Whitbeck and here by Alexander Cockburn for more

Excerpts:

In the first major appointment of his administration, President-elect Barack Obama has named as his chief of staff Congressman Rahm Emanuel, an Israeli citizen and Israeli army veteran. This is the man who arranges the President's schedule, staffs out the agenda, includes, excludes.

Rahm Emanuel volunteered to serve in Israel in 1991 and who made brisk millions in Wall Street. He is a super-Likudnik hawk, whose father was in the fascist Irgun in the late Forties, responsible for cold-blooded massacres of Palestinians.

Emanuel's father’s unreconstructed ethnic outlook has been memorably embodied in his recent remark to the Ma’ariv newspaper that

"Obviously he [Rahm] will influence the president to be pro-Israel… Why wouldn't he be [influential]?
What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House."

He favored the war in Iraq, and when he was chairing the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2006 he made great efforts to knock out antiwar Democratic candidates

Emanuel's father, according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, was a member of Menachem Begin's Irgun forces during the Nakba.

He named his son after "a Lehi combatant who was killed" -- i.e., a member of Yitzhak Shamir's terrorist Stern Gang, responsible for, in addition to other atrocities against Palestinians, the more famous bombing of the King David Hotel and assassination of the UN peace envoy Count Folke Bernadotte.

The editorial in the next day's Arab News (Jeddah) was entitled "Don't pin much hope on Obama -- Emanuel is his chief of staff and that sends a message". This editorial referred to the Irgun as a "terror organization" (a judgment call) and concluded:

"Far from challenging Israel, the new (Obama) team may turn out to be as pro-Israel as the one it is replacing."

Obama repeatedly pledged unconditional allegiance to Israel during his campaign, most memorably in an address to the AIPAC national convention which Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery characterized as "a speech that broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning", and America's electing a black president has always been more easily imagined than any American president's declaring his country's independence from Israeli domination.

Why would Obama, a man of unquested brilliance, have chosen to send such a contemptuous message to the Muslim world with his first major appointment?

Why would he wish to disabuse the Muslim world of its hopes (however modest) and slap it across the face at the ealiest opportunity?

A further contemptuous message is widely rumored to be forthcoming -- the naming as "Special Envoy for Middle East Peace" of Dennis Ross, the notorious Israel-Firster who, throughout the 12 years of the Bush the First and Clinton administrations, ensured that American policy toward the Palestinians did not deviate one millimeter from Israeli policy and that no progress toward peace could be made and who has since headed the AIPAC spin-off "think tank", the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
For decades, the Palestinian leadership has been "waiting for Godot" -- waiting for the U.S. Government to finally do the right thing (if only in its own obvious self-interest) and to force Israel to comply with international law and UN Resolutions and permit them to have a decent mini-state on a tiny portion of the land that once was theirs.

This was never a realistic hope. It has not happened, and it will never happen.

So it may well be salutary not to waste eight more days (let alone eight more years) playing along and playing the fool while more Palestinian lands are confiscated and more Jewish colonies and Jews-only bypass roads are built on them, clinging to the delusion that the charming Mr. Obama, admirable though he may be in so many other respects, will eventually (if only in a second term, when he no longer has to worry about reelection) see the light and do the right thing.

It is long overdue for the Palestinians themselves to seize the initiative, to reset the agenda and to declare a new "only game in town".

No American president -- least of all Barack Obama -- could easily support racism and apartheid and oppose democracy and equal rights, particularly if democracy and equal rights were being pursued by nonviolent means.

No one anywhere could easily do so. The writing would be on the wall, and the clock would be running out on the tired game of using a perpetual "peace process" as an excuse to delay decisions (while building more "facts on the ground") forever.

Democracy and equal rights would not come quickly or easily.

Forty years passed between when, on the night before his assassination, Dr. Martin Luther King cried out that he had been to the mountain top and had seen the promised land and when Barack Obama was elected as president of the United States. (The Bible suggests a similar waiting period in the wilderness for Moses.)

Forty-six years passed between the installation of a formal apartheid regime in South Africa and the election of Nelson Mandela as president of a fully democratic and nonracist "rainbow nation".
While it may be be hoped that the transformation would be significantly quicker in Israel/Palestine, it is clear that many who already qualify as "senior citizens" will not live to see the promised land.

However, if the promised land of a democratic state with equal rights for all is correctly and clearly perceived and persistently and peacefully pursued, there is ample reason for confidence that Israel/Palestine will one day experience the tearful exaltation of a "Mandela Moment" or an "Obama Moment", restoring hope in the moral potential both of a nation and of mankind, and that the Jews, Muslims and Christians who live there will finally reach their promised land.

Rahm Emanuel - Background
Read here for more

Rahm Israel Emanuel (Hebrew: רם ישראל עמנואל‎) was born in Chicago, Illinois. His first name, Rahm, means "high" or "lofty" in Hebrew, while his last name, Emanuel, means "God is with us."
According to his father, his son is the namesake of Rahamim, a Lehi paramilitary group combatant who was killed. Rahm’s surname was adopted by his family in 1933, after Rahm’s paternal uncle, Emanuel Auerbach, was killed in a skirmish with Arabs in Jerusalem.

Emanuel's father, Benjamin M. Emanuel, is a pediatrician who was born in Jerusalem and was a member of the Irgun, a Jewish militia which operated from 1931 to 1948 during the British Mandate of Palestine.
His mother, Martha Smulevitz, worked as an X-ray technician and was the daughter of a local union organizer. She became a civil rights activist; she was also once the owner of a Chicago-area rock and roll club. The two met in Chicago in the 1950s.
Emanuel's older brother, Ezekiel, is an oncologist and bioethicist, and his brother Ari is a talent agent in Los Angeles who inspired Jeremy Piven's character Ari Gold on the HBO series Entourage. Emanuel himself is the inspiration for the character Josh Lyman on The West Wing. Emanuel is a first cousin of Howard Stern Show writer Benjy Bronk. Emanuel also has a younger adopted sister named Shoshanna, 14 years his junior.

When his family lived in Chicago, Emanuel attended Bernard Zell Anshe Emet Day School, a Jewish day school. After his family moved to Wilmette, he attended public school: Romona School, Wilmette Junior High School, and New Trier West High School.
He and his brothers attended summer camp in Israel. At some point during his high school years, while working at an Arby's restaurant, Emanuel severely cut his right middle finger. He sought medical attention only after suffering severe infection as a result of the wound, resulting in the partial amputation of the finger. The story of this event has changed over time - it was once rumored that he lost it in combat for the Israeli army, when it was blown off by a Syrian tank.

He graduated from Sarah Lawrence College in 1981, and went on to receive a master's degree in Speech and Communication from Northwestern University in 1985. While still an undergraduate, he joined the congressional campaign of David Robinson of Chicago.

Emanuel was a civilian volunteer in the Israel Defense Forces during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, repairing truck brakes in one of Israel's northern bases.

Emanuel's wife, Amy Rule, converted to Judaism shortly before her wedding.They are members of Anshe Sholom B'nai Israel, a Modern Orthodox congregation in Chicago.They have three children, son Zachariah and daughters Ilana and Leah.

Emanuel is a close friend of fellow Chicagoan David Axelrod, Chief Strategist for the 2008 Barack Obama presidential campaign. Axelrod signed the ketuba, a Jewish marriage contract, at Emanuel's wedding, an honor that goes to a family friend or distant relative.

Rabbi Asher Lopatin of Anshe Sholom B'nai Israel Congregation is quoted as saying: "It's a very involved Jewish family"; "Amy was one of the teachers for a class for children during the High Holidays two years ago."
Emanuel has said of his Judaism: "I am proud of my heritage and treasure the values it has taught me." Emanuel's family lives on the North Side of Chicago, in the North Center neighborhood.

RELATED ARTICLE

A Plea from Israel :Come, Obama, Change My Life

by

Edna Canetti

(Edna Canetti wrote this for MachsomWatch. The piece was translated from Hebrew by George Malent)

Read here

Obama my dear, they tell me that you are going to change the world. Do me a favor, come and change my life personally.

Come to Israel, grab its stupid leadership by the throat and take its foot off the neck of another people. Come and force us to do what is clear, and written, and fitting, and necessary, come and get us out of the Territories, if necessary do it with a smile that reveals million-dollar teeth. If necessary bare your teeth and force us to do it.

Make it so that I don’t have to get up in the morning – I who hate to get up early, to go to the checkpoints, to watch and to weep. Make it so I will not have to see 19-year-old children who have been duped into believing that they are defending the home front by pointing rifles at five-year-old children.

Make it so that when my daughters take a shower for half an hour I don’t have to think about Ayad’s family from Awarta that puts buckets under all the washbasins in order to reuse the water which is more precious than gold. Because the settlements need the West Bank’s water more than the Palestinians do.

Make it so that when I sit in a traffic jam I don’t have to think about the vast numbers of cars that are standing at the entrance to Tul Karem while each one is checked by soldiers and dogs because there has been a warning that they’re about to blow up Tul Karem.

Make it so that when my sister urgently rushes to the hospital to give birth and when I rush my husband to the hospital practically with red lights flashing, I don’t have to think about the women giving birth and the heart patients and the wounded people who are stopped at the entrance to Nablus because their vehicle has no permit to enter.

Make it so that when I see a soldier in uniform on the street I do not wonder what he did last night. What house he entered in a “Straw Widow procedure”,* what boy he beat up in the alleys of Hawara because he smiled the wrong way.

Make it so that in the morning I don’t hear the satisfaction in the voice of the radio newsreader who relates that the IDF has killed six terrorists.

Obama my dear, this autumn I did not go to the olive harvest. It didn’t work out. Please make it so that I will not suffer from pangs of conscience because I am not doing enough. That I am living my own good life, pursuing my career, while for the other people just to get home safely is a career in itself.

Please relieve me of this pain that I have all the time deep in my belly. It never lets up, I can never really enjoy life, children, friends or work, because my mind is preoccupied with the image of the shepherd in Baq’a standing by the locked gate and shivering with cold because the redhead with the key has not showed up, and the bound blindfolded boy, and the three-year-old girl who got hit on the head by the carousel at the checkpoint, and the barriers of dirt and the concrete blocks that stop the lives of so many people from flowing smoothly.

Come, Obama, come and save us from ourselves.

And if that is what they mean when they say you are not a friend of Israel, then don’t be a friend. We have already had friends who arm us and justify every horror we carry out and save us from the international courts. Be a true friend. Save us from ourselves. And don’t do it for the world, do it only for me, so I can have peace. You owe it to me. I do not believe in God but still I prayed for you.
-Edna Canetti

Sarah Palin blamed by the US Secret Service over death threats against Barack Obama

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 9 Nov 2008 08:56:00 +1100

Read here

The Republican vice presidential candidate attracted criticism for accusing Mr Obama of "palling around with terrorists", citing his association with the sixties radical William Ayers.

The attacks provoked a near lynch mob atmosphere at her rallies, with supporters yelling "terrorist" and "kill him" until the McCain campaign ordered her to tone down the rhetoric.

But it has now emerged that her demagogic tone may have unintentionally encouraged white supremacists to go even further.

The Secret Service warned the Obama family in mid October that they had seen a dramatic increase in the number of threats against the Democratic candidate, coinciding with Mrs Palin's attacks.

Michelle Obama, the future First Lady, was so upset that she turned to her friend and campaign adviser Valerie Jarrett and said: "Why would they try to make people hate us?"

The revelations, contained in a Newsweek history of the campaign, are likely to further damage Mrs Palin's credentials as a future presidential candidate. She is already a frontrunner, with Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, to take on Mr Obama in four years time.

Details of the spike in threats to Mr Obama come as a report last week by security and intelligence analysts Stratfor, warned that he is a high risk target for racist gunmen. It concluded: "Two plots to assassinate Obama were broken up during the campaign season, and several more remain under investigation. We would expect federal authorities to uncover many more plots to attack the president that have been hatched by white supremacist ideologues."

Irate John McCain aides, who blame Mrs Palin for losing the election, claim Mrs Palin took it upon herself to question Mr Obama's patriotism, before the line of attack had been cleared by Mr McCain.

That claim is part of a campaign of targeted leaks designed to torpedo her ambitions, with claims that she did not know that Africawas a continent rather than a country.

The advisers have branded her a "diva" and a "whack job" and claimed that she did not know which other countries are in the North American Free Trade Area, (Canada and Mexico). They say she spent more than $150,000 on designer clothes, including $40,000 on her husband Todd and that she refused to prepare for the disastrous series of interviews with CBS's Katie Couric.

In a bid to salvage her reputation Mrs Palin came out firing in an interview with CNN, dismissing the anonymous leakers in unpresidential language as "jerks" who had taken "questions or comments I made in debate prep out of context."

She said: "I consider it cowardly. It's not true. That's cruel, it's mean-spirited, it's immature, it's unprofessional and those guys are jerks if they came away taking things out of context and then tried to spread something on national news that's not fair and not right."

She was not asked about her incendiary rhetoric against Mr Obama. But she did deny the spending spree claims, saying the clothes in question had been returned to the Republican National Committee. "Those are the RNC's clothes, they're not my clothes. I asked for anything more than maybe a diet Dr Pepper once in a while. These are false allegations."

Speaking as she returned to her native Alaska, Mrs Palin claimed to be baffled by what she claims was sexism on the national stage. "Here in Alaska that double standard isn't applied because these guys know that Alaskan women are pretty tough, on a par with the men in terms of being outdoors, working hard," she said.

"They're commercial fishermen, they're pilots, they're working up on the North slopein the oil fields. You see equality in Alaska. I think that was a bit of as surprise on the national level."

Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff to Play Bad Cop to Obama as Good Cop

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 6 Nov 2008 22:04:00 +1100

Rep. Rahm Emanuel might not appear to be the obvious choice for White House chief of staff for a president-elect who speaks eloquently of setting aside partisan differences and bringing the country together.

The Illinois congressman, after all, is best known as something of a Democratic political assassin. From his days as a top aide to President Clinton to his recent role leading the Democrats to a House majority, Emanuel has relentlessly attacked his foes and gone ruthlessly after anyone who stood in his way.

Read here

Perhaps precisely because Obama seems likely to adopt a unifying posture as president, Obama may need someone practiced in the art of political hardball.

Republican strategist John Feehery -- who worked for former House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert and former House Minority Leader Robert H. Michel as well as former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay -- said Emanuel could help prevent House Democrats from overreaching.

"He understands that if Obama goes too far to the left, it's not going to be good for the Democrats," Feehery said. "I think he's the kind of guy who can knock some heads and help Obama guide the Congress toward the middle. . . . You will need a bad cop to Obama's good cop, and Rahm will fill that role quite nicely."

Emanuel's policies, unlike his politics, have always been centrist, in the Bill Clinton mold. In addition, a different Emanuel has emerged in recent years, one who has forged friendships with Republicans and shown an ability to work with them on occasion.

Emanuel was born in Chicago and kicked off his political career working for such powerhouses as Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley and former Sen. Paul Simon of Illinois before joining Clinton's 1992 presidential run.

Along the way, Emanuel earned a reputation for a colorful intensity unusual even in the hard-hitting world of politics. His profanity is legendary and seems designed in part to throw his interlocutors off-balance.

Emanuel excelled at fundraising, sometimes screaming and shouting at donors until they agreed to contribute -- generously -- to his candidate. He threatened to tear up checks if he considered them too small.

"Congressional Republicans respect what he has been able to do," Feehery said. "They think he's a formidable opponent. They think he works his butt off. They won't particularly love him, but if he's smart, they will respect him."

Revealed: Sarah Palin is Ignorant, Annoying and Tantrum-Prone

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 6 Nov 2008 20:09:00 +1100

Tensions between McCain and Palin camps

Read here

Sarah Palin left the national stage Wednesday, but the controversy over her role on the ticket flared as aides to John McCain disclosed new details about her expensive wardrobe purchases and revealed that a Republican Party lawyer would be dispatched to Alaska to inventory and retrieve the clothes still in her possession.

Tensions have simmered for much of the last month between aides loyal to McCain and those loyal to Palin, but they boiled over after the Republican nominee's defeat, as both sides spoke freely -- though anonymously -- about the wardrobe controversy and other conflicts.

Two aides to McCain and two to Palin discussed the tensions but asked that their names not be revealed, saying they were not comfortable speaking openly about internal operations.

The miscommunication and quarrels between the two camps lasted into Tuesday night, said McCain aides familiar with the situation. Palin arrived at the Arizona Biltmore planning to deliver a speech before McCain's concession speech, they said, but was told by senior McCain aides Steve Schmidt and Mark Salter that it would not be appropriate.

Fox News reported Wednesday that Palin's lack of knowledge on some topics also strained relations. Carl Cameron reported that campaign sources told him Palin had resisted coaching before her faltering Katie Couric interviews; did not understand that Africa was a continent rather than a country; and could not name the three nations that are part of the North American Free Trade Agreement -- the United States, Canada and Mexico.

For weeks, the McCain-Palin campaign has dealt with the fallout from the disclosure that the Republican National Committee was billed for $150,000 in wardrobe purchases for the Palin family -- a discovery that was widely ridiculed and undercut Palin's hockey mom appeal.

Several McCain aides said they had recently discovered that Palin's traveling staff had used personal credit cards to spend as much as $20,000 to $30,000 on additional wardrobe items for Palin.

Palin and her press aides were traveling back to Alaska on Wednesday and could not be reached for comment. But one aide earlier told Newsweek: "Gov. Palin was not directing staffers to put anything on their personal credit cards, and anything that staffers put on their credit cards has been reimbursed, like an expense."

The original $150,000 in purchases was revealed in late October after the release of the September and October Federal Election Commission filings by the Republican National Committee. Those reports revealed that more than $75,062.63 was spent at Neiman Marcus, $49,425.74 at Saks Fifth Avenue and $5,102.71 at Bloomingdale's around the time of the Republican National Convention in early September.

The campaign has said that many of those clothes were returned.

But McCain aides said Wednesday that spending on Palin's wardrobe continued well after the convention, with one custom-made outfit showing up around the time of her "Saturday Night Live" appearance on Oct. 18.

As first reported by Newsweek on Wednesday, McCain aides said some of that money was spent on clothing for Palin's children and husband, Todd, who may have received between $20,000 and $40,000 in wardrobe purchases. The money also included thousands of dollars in shoes. Several aides also said the items included jewelry, but a Palin aide disputed that.

Top McCain aides Schmidt, Rick Davis and Nicolle Wallace were flabbergasted by the magnitude of the spending as the receipts began trickling into the Republican National Committee, aides said.

Wallace had arranged for a stylist to shop for Palin before the convention because the Alaska governor did not have a chance to return home after she was selected as McCain's running mate.

Aides familiar with the campaign's internal discussions said Wallace and other top aides authorized the purchase of three outfits for Palin to wear during convention week and three ensembles for the campaign trail. But cost was to be kept to no more than $25,000 to $35,000.

When Schmidt learned that Palin's staff was putting clothing purchases on personal credit cards, aides said he called them to stop it.

Palin aides tell a different story. Several close to the governor said Wednesday that Palin was outraged by the amount of money being spent on her clothing and that she was naive about what the clothes cost.

"The very first day of shopping, there was a $14,000 price tag and . . . she was absolutely shocked," one of the Palin aides said.

Palin was not pleased by what had been selected for her, the aide said, adding that "a lot of that stuff that was purchased was never worn by her -- that was by her choice."

When the shopping spree hit the press, she appeared frustrated, telling audiences that she wears a lot of her own clothing and hadn't asked for the lavish purchases.

Resentments had started to brew earlier. Palin was not comfortable with the team of handlers sent by party headquarters to manage her appearances, and there were frequent conflicts between the staff at headquarters and her traveling staff. Palin felt constrained by the fact that she had little decision-making power, and questioned the directions being given to her by the campaign, an aide said.

In an interview with CNN on Wednesday, Palin denied that there were tensions with the McCain camp. But that is at odds with accounts from aides on both sides. The strain worsened, the aides said, after Palin was recorded talking to a Canadian comedian who pretended to be French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

Campaign staffers said McCain's top aides were blindsided by the call, which they said was approved by Palin foreign policy aide Steve Biegun.

McCain aides said the Palin camp did notify McCain's senior staff or the State Department about the supposed contact. Outraged, Schmidt organized a conference call. He demanded to know who had arranged the call, and questioned why anyone would have agreed to such an unusual request and then failed to clear it with top staff, McCain aides said.

Biegun immediately took responsibility. In an interview Wednesday, he said some aides at McCain headquarters were in fact aware of the call, and that it had been on the schedule for "a couple days."

"I was fooled," he said. "No one's going to beat me up more than I beat myself up for setting up the governor like that."

The World Sighs With Relief: Barack Obama Elected 44th President

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 6 Nov 2008 08:31:00 +1100

Read here

The United States has seen the biggest transformation in its standing in the world since the election of John Fitzgerald Kennedy in November 1960.

The world's expectations of an Obama administration are high

This is a country which has habitually, sometimes irritatingly, regarded itself as young and vibrant, the envy of the world. Often this is merely hype. But there are times when it is entirely true.

With Barack Obama's victory, one of these moments has arrived.

The US has never been so unpopular, so derided, and so dismissed by the outside world as it has in the latter stages of George W Bush's presidency. The other day I asked Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's formidable secretary of state, if she could remember a time when people hated America so much.

Expectations abroad

"Not in my lifetime," she answered. "I feel very strongly about this country, and what an exceptional, amazing country it is. But I honestly think this is about as bad as I've seen it."

Opinion polls around the world have confirmed America's unpopularity. And the chance that a young, apparently pleasant and modest black man might become its president was greeted favourably everywhere.

Last summer a poll for the BBC World Service, conducted in 22 countries, indicated that people preferred Barack Obama to John McCain by four to one. Almost half said that if Senator Obama were elected, it would change their view of the United States completely.

America is no longer the power it was. It can still lead, but it is no longer in a position to dictate to the wider world

For eight years the word that people around the world have used again and again to describe the approach of George W Bush's presidency is "arrogance". The tone in Washington seemed to be one of superiority amounting almost to contempt.

Think of the speeches by men like Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz or Paul Bremer. All were closely concerned with the occupation of Iraq, which was carried out in defiance of opinion in most of the rest of the world.

Why did the US invade Iraq? "Because we are America," said another leading figure in the enterprise, famously. "We can."

Outside this country, most people would probably agree with Madeleine Albright's judgement when she spoke to me: "I think Iraq will go down in history as the greatest disaster of American foreign policy - worse than Vietnam."

In the rush to war in 2003, when many American politicians were frightened to stand out against the crowd, Barack Obama condemned the invasion loudly and publicly.

No guarantee

The fact that he has been elected president is his reward for that. And everyone around the world who felt that the Iraq war was wrong will feel that America has now chosen a different path - a path that leads away from extraordinary rendition, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, waterboarding and all the rest of it.

America is no longer the power it was. Without meaning to, President Bush demonstrated that. It can still lead, but it is no longer in a position to dictate to the wider world.

A black family in the White House will change America's image abroad.

Barack Obama clearly understands this. As an African-American (literally, since his father was from Kenya) his background is not one of privilege and superiority. He will be open to the world in a way President Bush never was. And he will show once again the value of the American dream.

This is no guarantee that he will be a success as president. Jimmy Carter understood the US's reduced position in the post-Vietnam world, and he refused to dictate to the world. Nowadays most Americans regard him as a failure.

But the outside world is set to be delighted by Barack Obama's victory. And its view of America will change accordingly.

Howard Dean: DON'T BLOW IT ! GO OUT AND VOTE

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 5 Nov 2008 02:23:00 +1100

New York Daily News says: Vote for Obama & Seismic Change

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 4 Nov 2008 21:19:00 +1100

Read here

Tuesday, November 4th 2008

Let us make history today.

Let us vote for seismic change. Let us choose as President a man who holds great promise to restore America's stride.

Let us vote for Barack Obama.

The most expensive, most closely followed presidential campaign is done. Fully 633 grueling days have passed since Obama - then 45, now 47 - began a candidacy remarkable in the annals of U.S. politics.

He and the country have come a long way on a trail marked by the unpredictable - and never more so than with the eruption of a global financial crisis and the hobbling of the economy. The nation reaches the end of the contest facing challenges of a very different nature than it did when prosperity seemed secure, the war in Afghanistan appeared on track and violence raged in Iraq.

The dislocations in the waning days of the race confirmed that Obama must be the choice over John McCain, a terrific public servant but not the man for this hour of lost jobs, lost savings and lost homes.

Obama's bent toward the working and middle classes would rebuild confidence that the White House has the public's interests at heart as a new government gets to work repairing awful wreckage left by the old.

The cool he displayed while leading a nearly flawless campaign signals that he would bring to the Oval Office a steadiness under pressure far greater than might be expected of a leader of his limited seasoning.

And there is no question that he would set standards for communicating with the country and the world, no small gift.

With polls showing that 90% of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, Obama is harvesting justified anger at the failures of President Bush. But now his all-too-effective indictment of the Bush record is of no further use. Come tomorrow, it would be the Obama record that counts.

He has advanced proposals that stretch from the conduct of two wars to energy independence to universal health coverage to an overhaul of the tax code that shifts breaks from the wealthy to those at the bottom and in the middle.

Each has merits and demerits, but collectively they represent an agenda devised under very different circumstances.

Substantial adjustments will be necessary.

If Obama is elected, he must apply clear-eyed pragmatism to pressing issues that demand action. Promises that have been overtaken by new realities must give way to results-oriented governing. Political dogma must bow to the truth that ideology will not spur job creation or stabilize housing prices.

There is a world of difference, for example, in marching through Iowa and New Hampshire as an armchair general and serving as commander in chief. There is no position on this planet in which facts matter more.

Obama's vow to bring combat troops home from Iraq within 16 months is, in the most favorable light, a best guess at a plan - utterly divorced from the strategic analysis that produced the troop surge he opposed.

Starting tomorrow, best guesses will not suffice, nor will holding to a timetable that risks a rise in violence with the consequences of empowering Iran to meddle in Iraq's internal affairs, alienating Sunni-led countries of the Mideast and undermining America's credibility in Afghanistan.

A President Obama will have to keep combat forces in Iraq until the Iraqis are fully prepared to stand on their own.

Similarly, Obama's signature plan for the home front - tax cuts for 95% of families - is about to crash into a recession and a deficit that has grown from huge to astronomical. The plan can't survive the concussions.

The revenue gained from rescinding Bush's excessive breaks for the wealthy would be better spent on infrastructure projects, like mass transit, that stimulate the economy than on benefits for those in the lowest brackets. And raising capital-gains taxes now would impede recovery, nowhere more so than in New York.

In sum, as we said in endorsing him two weeks ago, Obama will need wisdom and flexibility to repair a damaged economy, restore faith in government and return competence to the White House.

While winding down the war in Iraq, developing strategies for Afghanistan and preventing a recurrence of terror.

But there are good grounds to believe that the hopes of millions of Americans have not been misplaced in rallying to the flag of a man likely to break a racial barrier that most expected to last for generations more.

Obama is a person of high intellect and political perception. He would not be approaching the pinnacle of power with but 12 years in government under his belt without these qualities.

He has shown the sense to assemble smart advisers - of which he will need more - and he appears to have the even greater sense to take their counsel. And, of top importance, he has promised to return bipartisanship to Washington.

So, let us make history today.

Let us vote for Barack Obama.

Sarah Palin implies Democrats like terrorists

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 4 Nov 2008 11:09:00 +1100

Read here

Stumping in bellwether Missouri on Monday, Sarah Palin implied that a vote for Barack Obama would support terrorists.

What a desperate and reprehensible ploy.

“Do they think that terrorists have all of a sudden become the good guys?” she said in Jefferson City, according to CNN.

Palin continued: "No, the terrorists still seek to destroy America and her allies and all that it is that we stand for: freedom, tolerance, equality. The terrorists have not changed their minds.”

Obama's grandmother dies of cancer in Hawaii

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 4 Nov 2008 09:57:00 +1100

Obama with his maternal grandparents
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's grandmother died of cancer, he said in a statement on Monday, a little more than a week after he interrupted the White House campaign to say goodbye to her in Hawaii.

"It is with great sadness that we announce that our grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, has died peacefully after a battle with cancer," Obama said in a joint statement with his sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng. "She was the cornerstone of our family, and a woman of extraordinary accomplishment, strength and humility."

Dunham, 86, helped raise Obama from the age of 10 while his mother was working in Indonesia, and Obama took an emotional 22-hour trip to Hawaii to visit her on October 23 and 24.

Obama said afterward his grandmother had been flooded with cards, flowers and well-wishes from around the country, and he regularly thanked crowds at his campaign rallies for their prayers.

"Our family wants to thank all of those who sent flowers, cards, well-wishes and prayers during this difficult time," the statement said.

"It brought our grandmother and us great comfort. Our grandmother was a private woman, and we will respect her wish for a small private ceremony to be held at a later date," the statement said.

Dunham had followed Obama's presidential bid with great interest, and her death comes one day before U.S. voters will render their verdict in the race between Obama and Republican John McCain.

Obama affectionately called her "Toot" -- short for "tutu," the Hawaiian word for grandmother -- and frequently spoke of her on the campaign trail.

Dunham had recently broken her hip but the campaign had refused to comment on reports she was suffering from cancer.

A Vote for McCain is a Vote for Palin

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 3 Nov 2008 16:15:00 +1100

Read here

Most people chosen to run and serve as Vice President cannot expect to be the next President in the succeeding election. Even in the corporate world, a long-serving VP cannot think for one moment that she is next in line for the highest position in the company.

The U.S. Vice-President is simply that – to take over in case the President is incapacitated, dies or cannot further serve.

Sarah Palin as the Republican Vice Presidential candidate is a very different political animal.

It would seem that voting for John McCain this Tuesday is voting for Palin in 2012.

Of course, there is no absolute certainty of this happening. But the great likelihood of this should send shivers or at least create some hesitation in voters.

Assuming McCain wins, to believe that Palin will sit idly by and perform traditional vice presidential functions of supporting the President in a wait-and-see attitude is naïve.

Palin will most likely promote herself as the next Commander in Chief, especially if McCain fumbles. She is using this election, win or lose, as an ultimate play for an even greater election in the coming years.

Women voters who might have felt disenfranchised or betrayed when the Democrats chose Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton may have initially jumped with joy when a woman was tasked to run for Vice President. As a class they may have felt elated, justified and vindicated that a lady governor was picked by McCain to run by his side. This was the trick in the McCain’s sleeve to woe Hillary Democrats.

The truth is that Sarah Palin is no Hillary Clinton – not by a very long mile.

To say that, if one can’t vote for Hillary because the Democrats chose Obama, then just vote for McCain since Palin is his VP pick, is totally absurd. Clinton is in a league of her own; Palin is an untested, media-dodging and seemingly vindictive political leader from the isolated state of Alaska.

It cannot be denied that when Palin hit the political scene two months ago, Hillary loyalists were presented with an amazing opportunity. To dramatize their point that Hillary should have been chosen by the party over Obama, they could side with McCain since he chose a female running mate. This is what McCain had been hoping for. The choice of Palin indeed brought a sense of uneasiness in the Obama political camp.

But after the political dust had settled, Hillary loyalists didn’t see much of Clinton in Palin.

She wasn’t the exact opposite but there were many issues on which they strongly differed. Sure, they’re both women but the comparison seems to end there. Palin was seen as ultra-conservative, a fanatic gun supporter, and with a drill-baby-drill philosophy. She’s starkly different from Hillary in terms of attitude, political experience, and fundamental beliefs.

In the weeks that followed her grand entry into mainstream politics, media cut Palin down and exposed her for who she truly is. From the tall image she initially projected as a reformer, foe of the status quo and independent-minded maverick, she was trimmed down to size. Media exposed her flaws, her vindictive side in the Troopergate scandal, her being an anti-maverick, and recently her wardrobe affairs.

It seems that being the “hottest governor from the coldest state” wasn’t good enough. In the Katie Couric interview she was discovered to be unprepared, unfit and uneducated about foreign policy and world affairs. In two other interviews she appeared strong on energy and on children with disabilities, but weak on other important topics like the economy and Wall Street meltdown, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Twice in a row, she misrepresented the official duties of the Vice President. She has been caught exaggerating claims on Obama such as his alleged “palling around with terrorists” and mouthing rhetoric without factual or substantial basis. She was found by the Alaska legislature to have dealt an unethical hand in the firing of the State Trooper. She was a prior supporter of the ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ before it became the object of a national lampoon, and is convinced that drilling Alaska's protected Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil is a great idea.

Palin is now both media’s darling and its favorite castaway. She successfully used the media by to launch her as a future Presidential prospect; it was also media that exposed her lack of experience and vulnerability. Tina Fey can make a good living impersonating her every week and talk show hosts can make constant headlines by interviewing her on important political matters that she hardly knows about.

Media made her an overnight star; the same media is trying to undo her now. That may be difficult. She can use the spotlight and celebrity glow she has attained anytime, anywhere. If Obama wins this Tuesday, perhaps media can cast her away and treat her as a one-hit wonder. But the star power she has initially drawn may still turn some heads.

There’s an age factor to consider when voting for McCain. At 72 he will be the oldest American to be sworn in as President if he wins. Assuming he is able to finish a four-year term given his health and ripe age, it’s possible that he will either not run for reelection in 2012 or the Republican Party might anoint Palin as the party’s standard bearer.

That’s a frightening possibility.

There’s a rumor in the media that the McCain and Palin camps are arguing and blaming each other. McCain’s camp, it is said, has tried to mold and manage Palin to make her more appealing to the voters and help the Republican ticket. Palin’s camp has argued that she was mismanaged, quartered off from the media, and pigeonholed. McCain’s camp denies this, saying that it’s hard to oversee a candidate clearly unprepared for the White House, who acts like a diva to boot.

Whatever the truth, there’s friction within the Republican Party today. If McCain wins, there would even be more friction in the White House. McCain is the strong, domineering type of leader who tells people what to do. Palin is the free-spirited youthful voice whose exuberance and smile always catch attention. She is also someone who can’t be told to just sit down and listen. She is indubitably ambitious and is ably making her own play for a future election.

Given the friction in the last few days to election, it would be an all-out war from 2009 until 2012 between McCain and Palin if the Republicans win. It wouldn’t be a surprise if Palin seeks the party’s nomination in 2012. And it wouldn’t be much of a surprise if the Republicans handily give her that nomination, whether McCain is still strong, polls well, or wants to run for a second term.

Thus, a vote for McCain now is a vote for Palin in 2012. Given how media was able to expose her for what she truly represents, Republican diehards and McCain enthusiasts, even Hillary Democrats, should think long and hard before Tuesday’s election where a lot is at stake.

War Monger Dick Cheney Endorses John McCain and Sarah Palin

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 3 Nov 2008 12:42:00 +1100

Read here

Barack Obama Congratulates John McCain
on Cheney's Endorsement of McCain and Palin

Dick Cheney flew to his home state, Wyoming, to speak at the Laramie rally in support of the Republican ticket.

Dick Cheney told a rally in Laramie on Saturday:

"He's a man who has looked into the face of evil and not flinched, he's a man who is comfortable with responsibility, and has been since he joined the armed forces at the age of 17.
He has earned our support and confidence, and the time is now to make him commander in chief.

I'm pleased that he has chosen a running mate (Sarah Palin) with executive talent, toughness and common sense."

The endorsement may help McCain among loyal Republicans, but not with Americans disenchanted with the Bush-Cheney administration, or among independents angry over the stewardship of the past eight years.

McCain has been at pains to distance himself from the administration, pointedly saying in the final presidential debate that he was not Bush.

Obama's team, whose campaign theme is that McCain would represent a continuation of the Bush-Cheney administration, put out an ad within 90 minutes of Cheney's endorsement, as well as placing a clip of Cheney's speech on YouTube. The 30-second ad says:

"Barack Obama. Endorsed by Warren Buffett and Colin Powell. And John McCain's latest endorsement?"

Cheney had announced his endorsement for McCain before, but, like Bush, had been largely absent from the campaign trail during the past two months. His decision to participate in the Laramie rally at the weekend was prompted partly by a desire to speak on behalf of Republican congressional candidates and to deliver what amounted to an emotional look back on his career. He will retire from politics on inauguration day, January 20.

The Triumph of Ignorance: How Morons Succeed in U.S. Politics

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 2 Nov 2008 18:15:00 +1100

Read here article by George Monbiot or here

by

George Monbiot

George Monbiot is the author of the best selling books Heat: how to stop the planet burning; The Age of Consent: a manifesto for a new world order and Captive State: the corporate takeover of Britain; as well as the investigative travel books Poisoned Arrows, Amazon Watershed and No Man’s Land. He writes a weekly column for the Guardian newspaper.

He has held visiting fellowships or professorships at the universities of Oxford (environmental policy), Bristol (philosophy), Keele (politics), Oxford Brookes (planning) and East London (environmental science). He has honorary doctorates from the University of St Andrews and the University of Essex and an Honorary Fellowship from Cardiff University. In 1995 Nelson Mandela presented him with a United Nations Global 500 Award for outstanding environmental achievement. He has also won the Lloyds National Screenwriting Prize for his screenplay The Norwegian, a Sony Award for radio production, the Sir Peter Kent Award and the OneWorld National Press Award.

McCain Supporter REFUSES Halloween
Treats To Kids Supporting Obama

How was it allowed to happen? How did politics in the US come to be dominated by people who make a virtue out of ignorance? Was it charity that has permitted mankind’s closest living relative to spend two terms as president?

How did Sarah Palin, Dan Quayle and other such gibbering numbskulls get to where they are?

How could Republican rallies in 2008 be drowned out by screaming ignoramuses insisting that Barack Obama is a Muslim and a terrorist? (1)

Like most people on this side of the Atlantic I have spent my adult life mystified by American politics. The US has the world’s best universities and attracts the world’s finest minds. It dominates discoveries in science and medicine. Its wealth and power depend on the application of knowledge. Yet, uniquely among the developed nations (with the possible exception of Australia), learning is a grave political disadvantage.

There have been exceptions over the past century: Franklin Roosevelt, Kennedy and Clinton tempered their intellectualism with the common touch and survived; but Adlai Stevenson, Al Gore and John Kerry were successfully tarred by their opponents as members of a cerebral elite (as if this were not a qualification for the presidency).

Perhaps the defining moment in the collapse of intelligent politics was Ronald Reagan’s response to Jimmy Carter during the 1980 presidential debate. Carter - stumbling a little, using long words - carefully enumerated the benefits of national health insurance. Reagan smiled and said “there you go again” (2). His own health programme would have appalled most Americans, had he explained it as carefully as Carter had done, but he had found a formula for avoiding tough political issues and making his opponents look like wonks.

It wasn’t always like this. The founding fathers of the republic - men like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams and Alexander Hamilton - were among the greatest thinkers of their age. They felt no need to make a secret of it. How did the project they launched degenerate into George W Bush and Sarah Palin?

On one level this is easy to answer. Ignorant politicians are elected by ignorant people.

US education, like the US health system, is notorious for its failures. In the most powerful nation on earth:

one adult in five believes the sun revolves around the earth;
only 26% accept that evolution takes place by means of natural selection;
two-thirds of young adults are unable to find Iraq on a map;
two-thirds of US voters cannot name the three branches of government;
the maths skills of 15 year-olds in the US are ranked 24th out of the 29 countries of the OECD (3).

But this merely extends the mystery:

How did so many US citizens become so dumb, and so suspicious of intelligence?

Susan Jacoby’s book The Age of American Unreason provides the fullest explanation I have read so far. She shows that the degradation of US politics results from a series of interlocking tragedies.

One theme is both familiar and clear: RELIGION - in particular fundamentalist religion - makes you STUPID.

The US is the only rich country in which Christian fundamentalism is vast and growing. Jacoby shows that there was once a certain logic to its anti-rationalism.

During the first few decades after the publication of The Origin of Species, for example, Americans had good reason to reject the theory of natural selection and to treat public intellectuals with suspicion. From the beginning, Darwin’s theory was mixed up in the US with the brutal philosophy - now known as Social Darwinism - of the British writer Herbert Spencer. Spencer’s doctrine, promoted in the popular press with the help of funding from Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller and Thomas Edison, suggested that millionaires stood at the top of a scala natura established by evolution. By preventing unfit people from being weeded out, government intervention weakened the nation. Gross economic inequalities were both justifiable and necessary (4).

Darwinism, in other words, became indistinguishable to the public from the most bestial form of laissez-faire economics. Many Christians responded with revulsion. It is profoundly ironic that the doctrine rejected a century ago by such prominent fundamentalists as William Jennings Bryan is now central to the economic thinking of the Christian right. Modern fundamentalists reject the science of Darwinian evolution and accept the pseudoscience of Social Darwinism.

But there were other, more powerful, reasons for the intellectual isolation of the fundamentalists. The US is peculiar in devolving the control of education to local authorities. Teaching in the southern states was dominated by the views of an ignorant aristocracy of planters, and a great educational gulf opened up. “In the South”, Jacoby writes, “what can only be described as an intellectual blockade was imposed in order to keep out any ideas that might threaten the social order.” (5)

The Southern Baptist Convention, now the biggest Protestant denomination in the US, was to slavery and segregation what the Dutch Reformed Church was to apartheid in South Africa. It has done more than any other force to keep the South stupid. In the 1960s it tried to stave off desegregation by establishing a system of private Christian schools and universities. A student can now progress from kindergarten to a higher degree without any exposure to secular teaching. Southern Baptist beliefs pass intact through the public school system as well. A survey by researchers at the University of Texas in 1998 found that one in four of the state’s public school biology teachers believed that humans and dinosaurs lived on earth at the same time(6).

This tragedy has been assisted by the American fetishisation of self-education. Though he greatly regretted his lack of formal teaching, Abraham Lincoln’s career is repeatedly cited as evidence that good education, provided by the state, is unnecessary: all that is required to succeed is determination and rugged individualism. This might have served people well when genuine self-education movements, like the one built around the Little Blue Books in the first half of the 20th century, were in vogue. In the age of infotainment it is a recipe for confusion.

Besides fundamentalist religion, perhaps the most potent reason why intellectuals struggle in elections is that intellectualism has been equated with subversion. The brief flirtation of some thinkers with communism a long time ago has been used to create an impression in the public mind that all intellectuals are communists.

Almost every day men like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly rage against the “liberal elites” destroying America. The spectre of pointy-headed alien subversives was crucial to the election of Reagan and Bush. A genuine intellectual elite - like the neocons (some of them former communists) surrounding Bush - has managed to pitch the political conflict as a battle between ordinary Americans and an over-educated pinko establishment. Any attempt to challenge the ideas of the rightwing elite has been successfully branded as elitism.

Obama has a good deal to offer America, but none of this will come to an end if he wins.

Until the great failures of the US education system are reversed or religious fundamentalism withers there will be political opportunities for people, like Bush and Palin, who flaunt their ignorance.

References:

1. For a staggering display of ignorance and bigotry, see HERE

2. You can see this exchange at HERE

3. All these facts are contained in Susan Jacoby, 2008. The Age of American Unreason: dumbing down and the future of democracy. Old Street Publishing, London.

4. Susan Jacoby, ibid. Chapter 3.

5. Susan Jacoby, ibid. Page 57.

6. Susan Jacoby, ibid. Page 25.

An Interview with General Colin Powell

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 2 Nov 2008 15:35:00 +1100

Associate Editor of Jamaican Gleaner News, Byron Buckley last week interviewed former United States (US) Secretary of State Colin Powell, who has Jamaican roots, about his views on the US presidential election.

Barack Obama has commander-in-chief quality, says Powell

Read here
by

Byron Buckley

To what extent is your endorsement of presidential candidate Barack Obama likely to encourage active military personnel or veterans to vote for him?

Because I was a soldier, military personnel and veterans will take my view into account, but I find that so many of our soldiers now are exceptionally well informed through the Internet and television that they can make informed judgements. I hope they will look at my judgement and compare it to the judgement of others and make an informed choice. I cannot tell you how many people I may have influenced or caused to move in the other direction, but I am confident that our soldiers are dedicated citizens and they will examine both candidates and make an informed judgement.

How do you respond to the view that your endorsement of Senator Obama has shored up his image as commander-in-chief while undercutting that image of your Republican and military colleague John McCain?

I don't think I have undercut John McCain, who, as I said, is a distinguished American individual in both war and peace. He certainly is qualified to be commander-in-chief, so I don't think I have undercut that. But, at the same time, I think my endorsement of Senator Obama says that I believe he has demonstrated in this campaign that he understands the issues that we face and he brings the leadership and organisational abilities that one needs to be a good commander-in-chief. If you look at the campaign that he has run, it has been almost perfect, and it has been run almost like a military operation. So, I believe he has the leadership and management skills as well as the substance and the style, frankly, to be a good commander-in-chief and a good leader of foreign policy for the American people.

You opted out of running for the US presidency in the past. So, why do you think a young, black and politically inexperienced Barack Obama can now be successful in his bid to become president of the USA?

I don't know that there is any reason to compare my experience with his experience. I opted out because I did not wish to run for political office. I didn't think it was the right thing for me and I didn't have the kind of passion one needs. Now, 13 years later, a young, black man has come along, who has been passionate and who has demonstrated to the American people that he has the gifts necessary to be a successful president. Why do I think he can do it? Well look what he has done so far. He has pushed aside all his competitors to win the Democratic Party's nomination. And now as we enter into the last few days of the campaign, he is ahead in most of the polls. So, it is not so much a comparison to what I was thinking of 13 years ago, but it's the way in which he has presented himself to the American people, and he has won their support.

Now it's still a close race and we don't know who will prevail, but you have to say the American people have given Mr Obama a great deal of support and Mr McCain is receiving a great deal of support too. We will know next Tuesday which of them had the greatest support of the American people.

And so we should be very proud of what we have done in this campaign - brought along two candidates from two different parties with two philosophies, both of them as dedicated, committed Americans who will reach out to the international community, and it is now up to the American people to make their choice.

Former Jamaican Prime Minister Edward Seaga says regardless of who assumes the US presidency, there is unlikely to be any real change in US-Jamaica relations. As a former US secretary of state, do you agree?

I agree with what my good friend Mr Seaga has said. There is no reason to believe there will be any change. We have good relations with Jamaica; we want to help Jamaica. There is a very active diaspora here in the United States, starting with me, and some of the other Jamaican Americans. There is no reason to believe that either one of the two candidates would fundamentally change the relationship we have with Jamaica.

Do you agree with Senators Obama's proposal to hold talks with Cuba's Raúl Castro without conditions?

I don't know if he has said that directly. I think what he has said is let's examine each of those situations where we haven't been talking to people. That includes places like Syria, Iran and Cuba.

Let me rephrase. Regardless of who wins, what will US-Cuba relations be like going forward?

I don't know that there is going to be significant change until there is a change in the leadership in Cuba. There are still strong political feelings in the United States about the kind of regime that Mr Castro has led for many decades. So, I would not expect a significant change until there is a change in the political leadership in Cuba.

In your view, how would an Obama or McCain victory impact race relations and immigration issues in the USA?

I think if Mr Obama wins it will be a very exciting thing here in the United States, and around the world as well, with respect to race relations. If Mr McCain wins, I know him very well, I know that his heart is in the right place and there isn't anything the slightest bit discriminatory about him. So, I think he would be a leader who would try to improve race relations as well, although clearly, Mr Obama, because he is African American, might have the most immediate effect. But things aren't going to deteriorate because Mr McCain is president; I know the man well.

With respect to immigration, I think both of them have forward-leaning policies and perspectives. America is an immigrant country; we touch every nation, every nation touches us. Immigration has kept us alive and well and inspiring over these many years. We have a problem right now, that in the aftermath of 9/11, the American people wanted to make sure our borders were secure. So, we spend a lot of time on increasing the strength of the border along our southern boundary; and we have done a lot of things with respect to visas and access to the country, because the American people wanted to make sure that they were being protected, which is the first responsibility of a government.

But at the same time, we have to encourage immigration. We have to encourage people to come to the United States, and we have to do something about all of those individuals in the United States who are undocumented, mostly Mexicans. As they are contributing to our economy we have to find a way to regularise them; in other words, bring them out of this undocumented status to some kind of documented status, even though they may have to be penalised in some way for being undocumented, but let's bring them out. That was the position of President Bush, but the political difficulties that came into play after 9/11 made it hard to pursue that goal, and I hope that either Mr McCain or Mr Obama would pursue that goal. Senator McCain has been very strong on this issue in previous years.

Which of the two candidates' economic policies do you believe will get America through this current financial crisis faster?

It's hard to say right now because I don't know what our economic situation would be like on January 20 next year. Things are moving so rapidly and changing right now, with the actions of the current administration and the actions of our Federal Reserve banks and (Treasury Secretary Henry) Paulson, that I would really have to demure and say we have a president now and we will have to see where the country is on January 21 to see which of the economic policies (of Obama or McCain) are most useful. However, I am more inclined to the economic policies of Senator Obama.

Which of the two candidates' policies do you think is more realistic in addressing the war on terror being waged in Iraq and Afghanistan?

With respect to Iraq, the policy is norma-lising. The Iraqis have said that they are increasingly capable of handling security and they are going through their political reconciliation. And so it is the Iraqis who are setting timelines as to when we should leave. I think that whoever becomes president will be faced with the need to continue the troop drawdown because the Iraqis have indicated they wish the drawdown to continue.

The challenge is going to be in Afghanistan. I think both candidates realise that is going to be the major theatre of action and they will have to figure out whether more troops should be added, and if so, how many, what we should do about the drug problem in Afghanistan and how to shore up the government so it does a better job.

Do you think it is fair for Obama's opponents to use his relations with Rev Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers against him on the campaign trail?

This is politics and people always try to use these kinds of arguments. I think they are flawed arguments, both Jeremiah Wright and Mr Ayers. But politics isn't always fair. I just don't think these tactics will work on the American people. We will see on Tuesday whether I am right or whether I am wrong.

Sarah Palin Duped by Prank Call: How Could She and her Aides be So Naive and Stupid!!!

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 2 Nov 2008 15:23:00 +1100

Read here

By CHARMAINE NORONHA

TORONTO (AP) — Sarah Palin unwittingly took a prank call Saturday from a Canadian comedian posing as French President Nicolas Sarkozy and telling her she would make a good president someday.

"Maybe in eight years," replies a laughing Palin.

The Republican vice presidential nominee discusses politics, the perils of hunting with Vice President Dick Cheney, and Sarkozy's "beautiful wife," in a recording of the six-minute call released Saturday and set to air Monday on a Quebec radio station.

Palin campaign spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt confirmed she had received the prank call.

"Governor Palin was mildly amused to learn that she had joined the ranks of heads of state, including President Sarkozy and other celebrities, in being targeted by these pranksters. C'est la vie," she said.

The call was made by a well-known Montreal comedy duo Marc-Antoine Audette and Sebastien Trudel. Known as the Masked Avengers, the two are notorious for prank calls to celebrities and heads of state.

Audette, posing as Sarkozy, speaks in an exaggerated French accent and drops ample hints that the conversation is a joke. But Palin seemingly does NOT pick up on them.

He tells Palin one of his favorite pastimes is hunting, also a passion of the 44-year-old Alaska governor.

"I just love killing those animals. Mmm, mmm, take away life, that is so fun," the fake Sarkozy says.

He proposes they go hunting together by helicopter, something he says he has never done.

"Well, I think we could have a lot of fun together while we're getting work done," Palin counters. "We can kill two birds with one stone that way."

The comedian jokes that they shouldn't bring Cheney along on the hunt, referring to the 2006 incident in which the vice-president shot and injured a friend while hunting quail.

"I'll be a careful shot," responds Palin.

Playing off the governor's much-mocked comment in an early television interview that she had insights into foreign policy because "you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska," the caller tells her: "You know we have a lot in common also, because ... from my house I can see Belgium."

She replies: "Well, see, we're right next door to different countries that we all need to be working with, yes."

When Audette refers to Canadian singer Steph Carse as Canada's prime minister, Palin replies: "Well, he's doing fine and yeah, when you come into a position underestimated it gives you an opportunity to prove the pundits and the critics wrong. You work that much harder."

Canada's prime minister is Stephen Harper.

Palin praises Sarkozy throughout the call and also mentions his wife Carla Bruni, a model-turned-songwriter.

"You know, I look forward to working with you and getting to meet you personally and your beautiful wife," Palin says. "Oh my goodness, you've added a lot of energy to your country with that beautiful family of yours."

The Sarkozy impersonator tells Palin his wife is "so hot in bed" and then informs her that Bruni has written a song for her about Joe the Plumber entitled "Du rouge a levres sur une cochonne" — which translates as "Lipstick on a Pig."

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama derided his Republican challenger John McCain's call for change in Washington as "lipstick on a pig," days after Palin made a lipstick joke at the Republican convention. The McCain-Palin campaign then released an ad implying Obama was calling Palin a pig with that remark.

The caller asks Palin if Joe the Plumber is her husband and adds: "We have the equivalent of Joe the Plumber in France. It's called Marcel, the guy with bread under his armpit."

He also tells the Alaska governor that he loved the "documentary" made about her and referred to a pornographic film with a Palin look-alike made by Hustler founder Larry Flynt.

She answers tentatively, "Ohh, good, thank you, yes."

The callers then reveal the prank and identify themselves and their radio station.

"Ohhh, have we been pranked?" Palin asks before handing the phone to an aide who ends the call.

Obama's campaign spokesman Robert Gibbs, commenting on the prank, said: "I'm glad we check out our calls before we hand the phone to Barack Obama."

John McCain Made Himself a Question Mark

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 2 Nov 2008 13:28:00 +1100

Read here

Who's The Question Mark?

By

MAUREEN DOWD

In the final moments of the most gripping campaign in modern history, John McCain is still trying to costume Barack Obama as a dangerous enigma.

But, in an odd and remarkable reversal, it is McCain who is the enigma, even though he entered the race with one of the best brands in American politics.

And it is Obama, who sashayed onto the trail two years ago as an aloof and exotic mystery man with a slim record and a strange name, now coming across as the steadier brand.

The McCain campaign specializes in erratica, while the Obama campaign continues to avoid any dramatica.

McCain pals around with Joe the Plumber and leaves Tito the Builder to Sarah Palin, exactly the kind of inane campaign silliness that the McCain formerly known as Maverick would have mocked mercilessly.

He’s getting a little traction on taxes, as he latches on to every possible scary image about Obama — except the suggestion that the Democrat’s gray Hart Schaffner Marx suits are red.

Before he was bubbled by Bushies, McCain was one of the most known and knowable quantities in American politics. For most of his long public career, he prided himself on his openness with the press — he even allowed some reporters to watch the results of January’s New Hampshire primary in his hotel suite in Nashua. He relished spending all day being challenged by voters and reporters.

Last summer, tapped out and unable to afford a paid staff of political professionals, he talked freely, telling reporters he would have a White House that would be the polar opposite of the secretive and dismissive Bush-Cheney operation.

He imagined weekly press conferences and talked of subjecting himself to a version of British question time in Congress. While acknowledging he was a tech tyro, he promised to try “a Google,” as he called searching the Web, to put government spending online so citizens could bird-dog it.

He even went so far as to spin a dream of a West Wing in which he would cut back on his Secret Service so he wouldn’t feel so constrained.

In the end, “The Bullet,” or “Sarge,” as McCain calls his replacement campaign manager Steve Schmidt, was the one who did the shackling, turning the vibrant and respected McCain into a shell of his former self.

Schmidt abruptly cut off the oxygen supply to McCain’s brain.

No more of the oldest established, permanent floating crap game of press confabs. No more audiences that weren’t vetted for friendliness. No more of McCain’s trademark insouciant mocking the process even as he participated in it.

Whether it was the five years he spent in a hole in Hanoi or just his gregarious makeup, McCain seemed to feed off of the company of people who interested him, be it reporters, voters or the pols in his posse, like Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham.

Unlike Obama, He Who Walks Alone, McCain always rejected the solitary in favor of the social. But ever since Sergeant Schmidt put Captain McCain into a sterile brig on the trail, the candidate has become a question mark.

Why would he repeat that oblivious line about the fundamentals of the economy being strong, saying it once in August and again in September?
Why would he threaten to not show up for a debate (after denouncing Obama for not rising to the challenge of joint town halls) so that he could go to Washington and play the shining knight if he had no plan and no prospect for success?
Why did he allow his campaign to become a host body for a Bush virus looking for someplace to infect? After working so hard to erase the image of what Senate aides called “the Bush hug,” McCain inexplicably hugged Bushies, surrounding himself with mercenaries trained in the same Rovian tactics that tore up his family — and tore apart his campaign — in 2000.
Why did a politician who once knew how to play the game so well, who was once so beloved by people of very different political stripes, allow his campaign to get whiny, angry, vengeful and bitter?
Why Palin? (Her latest instant classics came Friday, when she entered a rally in York, Pa., to the tune of “Thriller” and when a conservative radio station broadcast an interview in which she accused reporters of threatening her First Amendment rights by attacking her for negative campaigning that she feels justifiably calls out Obama “on his associations.”)
Why did he allow his staff to put Palin on a couture catwalk in a tin-cup economy and then, when the price tags were exposed, trash her as a “diva” and “whack job,” thus becoming the rare Republican campaign devoured by Democratic-style vicious infighting?

The ultimate riddle is this:

Why doesn’t McCain question why he has become a question mark?