Foreign leaders
Posted By: gourdpainter on 2008-10-11
In Reply to: Well I've heard - sbMT
I've seen a lot of the video clips and pictures also. You know there is so much hoopla about everything in politics, it's really hard for me to believe anything I see much less anything I hear. I think we've sunk so low in our politics that the one who can throw the most mud is the one who will win. I don't care about Obama's association of 40 years ago. I do care about his recent so-called church affiliation. I do not care if Palin fired the guy for not firing her ex-brother-in-law (of course she did). I do care that all she can talk about is how "bad" Obama is and how "saintly" John McCain is. Pull the string and see what Sarah says.
The common sense side of me tells me that most of the garbage we hear from both campaigns is stuff dug up by the other side trying to discredit the other candidate.
A MOST aggravating thing happened this morning.......a REPUBLICAN acquaintance stopped by to see us this morning. The unexpected call was to campaign for John McCain. He got ANGRY when I told him I wasn't voting for either candidate. Pretty much called me a redneck hillbilly for not agreeing with him. LOL
VOTING WITH A WRITE IN VOTE FOR LOU DOBBS.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
We're pussycats compared to some foreign leaders. sm
What's she going to do with them, and anyone else she can't just bully and fire?
Which leaders? I didn't know that leaders of ...sm
any other countries had endorsed either candidate.
yep, no wonder world leaders
supposedly want Obama in office -- he is in their back pockets.
praying for our leaders
we are admonished to pray for our leaders ...sort of a political love your enemies :-) please do not forget to pray for and support our third party candidates as well - brave men and women have not shed blood for this country so that it can be "ruled" by one party masquerading as two. we are in a homeland security crisis - our own Wall Street is committing domestic financial terrorism, exactly what we were warned that foreign terrorists would do. why are we being protected from our "enemies, both foreign and domestic"?? the corruption of our financial stability is treasonous, and the names of the traitors are known.
Being from hurricane country, our leaders do not
nm
Since when does talking with other country leaders
Better brush up on your reading skills.
and when she sits across from world leaders?
everyone is supposed to what, bow down to her and protect her from the big bad men? I smell Hillary here. gotta see that one when she gets sent overseas to talk to some of these foreign leaders like Cheney does now.
I am open right now to vote either way; however, I was thinking of McCain actually until SP came on-board.
she is too scattered, spreads herself too thin, too many different directions, looks like she is some wort of a whirlwind all the time and the interview she looked like a deer caught in headlights, hate to say it she looked stumped.
why do we want someone in office who needs to be protected, I just don't get it.
When leaders get messiah complexes...sm
When Leaders Get Messiah Complexes
Thursday, October 23, 2008
By Col. Oliver North
Washington, D.C. — On Wednesday this week, I was an unwilling eyewitness to a dramatic political event and it made me wonder where we are headed as a nation. More on that in a moment. First, a little background.
There is no doubt that leadership matters. The study of human history provides evidence that empires — even entire civilizations — rise and fall on the ideas, virtues and skills of great leaders. From Mesopotamia to the European continent, those who chronicled the triumphs and failures of great leaders in the Western world measured success based on military prowess and territory conquered. Herodotus detailed how the Persian Empire, built by Darius, eventually succumbed to Alexander the Great in the 5th Century B.C. That vision of leadership began to change in what is now Israel.
Old Testament prophets described a Messiah — in Aramaic, měshīhā — a leader — a savior who would deliver the Jewish people from their travails. For more than two millennia, Christians have believed that the Messiah is Jesus of Nazareth and that at the appointed time he will come again in triumph. Unfortunately, in the modern era there have many other leaders who perceived that they had messianic qualities that only they could provide.
Napoleon, in the aftermath of the bloody French Revolution, described himself as "essential" to the future of France – and was appointed dictator. The aftermath was a disaster for his countrymen and much of Europe.
Adolf Hitler was elected by the German people and then given absolute power because he claimed that only he could "preserve the Aryan race." The result was a global conflagration that resulted in the death of more than 25 million.
More recently — from Idi Amin in Uganda, to Pol Pot in Cambodia, Kim Jung IL in Korea and Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe — all have "led" their people to perdition after describing themselves as the only men capable of leading their populations through difficult times. Yet, all their people were ultimately worse off.
It is notable that until the 20th century, the American people managed to avoid selecting leaders who held messianic self-esteem. Neither George Washington nor Abraham Lincoln — arguably two of this nation's greatest leaders through the toughest crises in our history — described themselves in such terms. In fact, the record of what they said and wrote is replete with humility.
Not until Franklin Delano Roosevelt decided in 1940 that our country needed his "seasoned leadership," did any U.S. president even contemplate a third successive term in office. While FDR rose to become a great wartime leader, there is also little doubt that he amassed far more power in the office of chief executive than any of his predecessors. Roosevelt's authority was so great that his successor, Harry Truman, the modest man from Missouri, saw fit to endorse a constitutional amendment limiting presidents to two terms.
Given America's history of limiting executive power in government — if by no other means than term limits — it is interesting to note how much hope some people now vest in such office. And it's not just the presidency.
New York City, where FOX News Channel is headquartered, has a public law limiting the mayor to a tenure of two terms. Despite this ordinance, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, citing the current "economic crisis," insists that he should have a third stint in office. Though he was once a believer in term limits he now claims that, "Given the enormous challenges we face, I don't want to walk away from a city I feel I can help lead through these tough times."
That's messianic thinking. But apparently the Big Apple isn't the only place it's happening.
During Wednesday afternoon's rush hour, I was making my way home on the "Dulles Greenway" when a phalanx of police motorcycles and cruisers stopped all traffic and ordered us to pull our vehicles off the highway onto the shoulders. Over a loudspeaker we were told to stay put until the Obama campaign convoy passed, on the way to a rally in Leesburg, Virginia.
Instantly, hundreds of people were out of their cars. Directly in front of me a group of supporters — evident by their bumper-stickers — jumped out with cameras, cell-phones and banners. They began chanting: "The Messiah! He's coming! Obama is coming!" The shouting only intensified as the candidate and his entourage — motorcycles, police cars, black Secret Service Suburbans and busses — roared past us.
What I found so disturbing was seeing so many of my countrymen who apparently think — or believe — or hope — that the next president of the United States will save us from ourselves. Senator Obama has said we can not, "Wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for." He would do well to remember that unfulfilled expectations are the greatest cause of anger on the planet. That's true whether it is between a husband and wife, students and teacher, employers and employees, or leaders and the led. He might also recall that humility is a virtue that has distinguished our greatest leaders.
What all this means to the future of this republic, I don't know. I'm a military historian, not a prophet. But I do know the first name of the Messiah. It's not Mike. And it isn't Barack, either.
Oliver North hosts War Stories on FOX News Channel and is the author of the new best-seller, "American Heroes: In The War Against Radical Islam." He has just returned from assignment in Afghanistan.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,443829,00.html
No other leaders of other countries bowed
At least none that I'm finding. I could be wrong but I've been searching to see if other world leaders like France, PM Gordon Brown, Swiss, or any other leaders that attended the summit if they bowed. I'm not finding anything. Only the One.
You can't talk to the Iranian leaders
They are the cleric and they are the ones who rule the country. They rule with an iron fist and by the power of Islam. The president of their country is only a puppet just like in the U.S.
We should NOT get involved unless asked, which probably will not happen. Sure, there are some in this country who thinks we should and it's both sides who have that opinion, not just the pubs. President A will be the winner, you can be sure of that, since they are only doing recounts on certain areas of the country (probably those that voted for President A.
The military leaders are threatening to resign sm
From today's London Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece
Praying, trusting and respecting leaders?
I'm curious as to why one would consider this a viable option for change. Maybe I'm taking the remark out of context? No one just "deserves" respect. You earn that. It is not an entitlement. Neither is trust. Nothing is really, except for basic human decency. An example would be our soldiers. They earn their respect....most of them anyway. Our leaders are another story entirely.
Kicking and screaming and ranting is part of dissent, not only a right, but a responsibility. Folks need to have a look at our Declaration of Independence. Seriously.
Let our leaders hear us loud and clear
Reading all the posts it seems like everyone agrees on the same thing. None of us likes either candidate. What I'm reading a lot of is "I'm democrat so I'm voting democrat no matter what" or "I'm republican so I'm voting republican no matter what". The country has developed over the years into believing our vote counts. Whether you want to believe it or not, it doesn't. The country has been run not by who the people want elected but by big government and big corporations. People who have thousands and thousands of dollars to spend (if not millions) donate that money to ensure who they want to be elected is elected. Also, do some research on the "mysterious group" that meets each year yet the public is not allowed to be in those meetings and there are armed guards enforcing that. Those are the people who decide the fate of the country. Just the way it is and I accepted it a long time ago. If Americans truly did have a say in what goes on with our politicians we would see more and more of them fired, but they aren't. They still remain in office. I say let our leaders hear us loud and clear. We are against both candidates. If voting dropped or nobody went to vote I think they'd get the message loud and clear that we are disatisfied.
Obama will do just fine with hostile leaders.
Actually, understanding Islamic principles will serve the man of his intelligence quite well when up against either Ahmadinejad or with Israel. Obama knows exactly what to do with facing hostility. He certainly has faced enough of it on the home front here during the filthy word wars waged by the media and in fanatic chat room posts and has demonstrated the capacity to stoop to those low levels with the best of them. However, beyond the election, he will have not use for such petty, meaningless tactics and strategies. He is calm, collected and calculated in his responses, or lack there of, and has an uncanny ability to be conciliatory without having to compromise his basic values or objectives. Will be a breath of fresh air to see somebody at least try an approach that is not designed to promote US imperialism, world economic domination or the war of the civilizations.
Second paragraph of your post. It's all in the perspective, point-of-view and public perceptions. Being a good democrat does not necessarily make him a Washington insider, despite his long career. It only means that he knows his way around there and that his constituents continue to send him back there election, after election after election. Somebody somewhere must like him a lot. No further comment on your personal opinion. Sour grapes over an excellent pick. Let's see if McCain can show as much good judgment.
Why do all of a sudden want to hold leaders accountable?
wHat about Bill Clinton committing felony perjury? Having sex with an intern in the oval office? Where was the personal responsibility and who is holding him accountable? WHen are you going to drop the double standard and apply the same set of rules to everyone?
How do Arab leaders make their speeches? (sm)
If you could post a link to a video it would be appreciated. I really would like to see what you're talking about here.
Bush, military leaders let bin Laden escape
CIA operative says Bush, military leaders let bin Laden escape
Capitol Hill Blue | January 2 2006
The top CIA counterterrorism officer who tracked Osama bin Laden through the mountains of Afghanistan says the United States could have captured the terrorist leader if President George W. Bush and the American military had devoted the necessary resources to the hunt and capture.
In addition, says Gary Bernsten, a decorated espionage officer, the post-Cold War downturn in recruitment and attention to espionage has left a crippled spy agency that will need a decade or more to build up its clandestine service for the U.S. war on terrorism.
Berntsen led a paramilitary unit code-named Jawbreaker in the war that toppled the Taliban after the September 11 attacks.
He says his Jawbreaker team tracked bin Laden to Afghanistan's Tora Bora region late in 2001 and could have killed or captured the al Qaeda leader there if military officials had agreed to his request for an additional force of about 800 U.S. troops. But the administration was already gearing up for war with Iraq and troops were never sent, allowing bin Laden was able to escape.
His account contradicts public statements by Bush and former Gen. Tommy Franks, who maintained that U.S. officials were never sure bin Laden was at Tora Bora.
Berntsen says CIA Director Porter Goss faces an uphill battle to fill the agency's senior ranks with aggressive, seasoned operatives.
He's probably more aggressive than most of the senior officers in the clandestine service. So I think he's having to pull them along a bit, Berntsen said in an interview.
(Goss) is trying to improve the situation. But it's going to be tough. The rebuilding is going to take years. A decade, at least, he told Reuters late last week.
The CIA, widely criticized for lapses involving prewar Iraq and the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, has seen its clandestine staff dwindle to less than 5,000 employees from a peak of over 7,000, intelligence sources say.
Experts blame a post-Cold War downturn in recruitment for a current lack of seasoned clandestine operatives that has been exacerbated by a rush to lucrative private sector jobs in recent years.
We have a smaller number of really, really aggressive, creative members of our leadership in the senior service, said Berntsen, who recently published a book about his exploits in the war on terrorism, titled Jawbreaker (Crown Publishing).
Former CIA Director George Tenet told the September 11 commission in April 2004 the CIA would need five years to produce a clandestine service fully capable of tackling the terrorism threat.
Goss later said at his September 2004 Senate confirmation hearings that rebuilding the clandestine operation would be a long build-out, a long haul.
President George W. Bush issued an order last year that called for a 50 percent increase in CIA clandestine officers and analysts to be completed as soon as feasible.
The CIA is moving aggressively to rebuild and enhance its capabilities across the board, CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said.
But intelligence sources say the rebuilding process has been complicated by disaffection for Goss' leadership within the clandestine service.
Years of double-digit growth in federal spending on intelligence that followed the September 11 attacks may also be about to end.
John Negroponte, the new U.S. director of national intelligence, has endorsed an intelligence budget for fiscal year 2007 that is relatively flat, with current spending levels believed to total about $44 billion for the 15-agency intelligence community. Fiscal 2007 begins in October.
Berntsen, 48, who also led the CIA Counterterrorism Center's response to the 1998 al Qaeda bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa, sued the CIA in July, accusing the spy agency of trying to stop him from publishing his book.
Gimigliano said the CIA reviewed Bernsten's book before publication only to ensure that it contained no classified information.
In the book, Berntsen says his Jawbreaker team tracked bin Laden to Afghanistan's Tora Bora region late in 2001 and could have killed or captured the al Qaeda leader there if military officials had agreed to his request for an additional force of about 800 U.S. troops.
But the troops were never sent and bin Laden was able to escape, he said.
His account contradicts public statements by Bush and former Gen. Tommy Franks, who maintained that U.S. officials were never sure bin Laden was at Tora Bora.
Palin meets her first world leaders in New York. sm
Palin meets her first world leaders in New York
By SARA KUGLER, Associated Press Writer Tue Sep 23, 7:30 PM ET
NEW YORK - Sarah Palin met her first world leaders Tuesday. It was a tightly controlled crash course on foreign policy for the Republican vice presidential candidate, the mayor-turned-governor who has been outside North America just once.
ADVERTISEMENT
Palin sat down with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Colombian President Alvaro Uribe. The conversations were private, the pictures public, meant to build her resume for voters concerned about her lack of experience in world affairs.
"I found her quite a capable woman," Karzai said later. "She asked the right questions on Afghanistan."
The self-described "hockey mom" also asked former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger for insights on Georgia, Russia, China and Iran, and she'll see more leaders Wednesday on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly meetings.
It was shuttle diplomacy, New York-style. At several points, Palin's motorcade got stuck in traffic and New Yorkers, unimpressed with the flashing lights, sirens and police officers in her group, simply walked between the vehicles to get across the street. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, three hours behind Palin in seeing Karzai, found herself overshadowed for a day as she made her own rounds.
John McCain's presidential campaign has shielded the first-term Alaska governor for weeks from spontaneous questions from voters and reporters, and went to striking lengths Tuesday to maintain that distance as Palin made her diplomatic debut.
The GOP campaign, applying more restrictive rules on access than even President Bush uses in the White House, banned reporters from the start of the meetings, so as not to risk a question being asked of Palin.
McCain aides relented after news organizations objected and CNN, which was supplying TV footage to a variety of networks, decided to pull its TV crew from Palin's meeting with Karzai.
Overheard: small talk.
Palin is studying foreign policy ahead of her one debate with Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden, a senator with deep credentials on that front. More broadly, the Republican ticket is trying to counter questions exploited by Democrats about her qualifications to serve as vice president and step into the presidency at a moment's notice if necessary.
There was no chance of putting such questions to rest with photo opportunities Tuesday.
But Palin, who got a passport only last year, no longer has to own up to a blank slate when asked about heads of state she has met.
She also got her first intelligence briefing Tuesday, over two hours.
Karzai generated light laughter when he told an audience at the Asia Society that, in addition to Rice and Norway's prime minister, he had seen Palin on Tuesday. Thomas Freston, a member of the society's board, drew loud applause and laughter when he responded: "You're probably the only person in the room who's met Gov. Palin."
Randy Scheunemann, a longtime McCain aide on foreign policy, was close at hand during her meetings. Another adviser, Stephen Biegun, also accompanied her at each meeting and briefed reporters later.
Karzai and Palin discussed security problems in Afghanistan, including cross-border insurgencies. They also talked about the need for more U.S. troops there, which both McCain and Democrat Barack Obama say is necessary, Biegun said.
With both Karzai and Uribe, Palin discussed the importance of energy security. With Uribe, the conversation also touched on the proposed U.S.-Colombian Free Trade Agreement that McCain and Palin support but Obama opposes.
Her meeting with Kissinger, which lasted more than an hour, covered a range of national security and foreign policy issues, specifically Russia, Iran and China, Biegun said.
"Rather than make specific policy prescriptions, she was largely listening, having an exchange of views and also very interested in forming a relationship with people she met with today," he said.
Before Palin's first meeting of the day, with Karzai, campaign aides had told reporters in the press pool that followed her they could not go into meetings where photographers and a video camera crew would be let in for pictures.
Bush and members of Congress routinely allow reporters to attend photo opportunities along with photographers, and the reporters sometimes are able to ask questions at the beginning of private meetings before they are ushered out.
At least two news organizations, including AP, objected to the exclusion of reporters and were told that the decision to have a "photo spray" only was not subject to discussion. After aides backed away from that, campaign spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said the reporter ban was a "miscommunication."
On Wednesday, McCain and Palin are expected to meet jointly with Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili and Ukrainian President Viktor Yuschenko. Palin is then to meet separately with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
Palin, 44, has been to neighboring Canada and to Mexico, and made a brief trip to Kuwait and Germany to see Alaska National Guard troops.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDU4OTdhMTFhN2YwZTY3MmMzNGFhYzc3ODdhOTA0ZjQ=
GOP blanket bombs on Chicago's dem civic leaders
Right-wing rants that cite email sources are suspect at best. Google any one heading included in yesterday's post and discover links to the "common sense" of the Getting' After Left show and a barrage of right-wing blogs. Surprise, surprise.
BODY COUNT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
Despite being the 3rd largest US city, Chicago's murder rate ranks 20th behind much less populous cities Baltimore MD, Newark NJ, St. Louis MO, Oakland CA, Cincinnati OH, Buffalo NY, Kansas City MO, Miami FL, Pittsburg PA, and Cleveland OH. Guess who is ranked #21 (same general category)? That would be McC's hometown of Phoenix Arizona. Chicago has experienced an overall decline in crime since the 1990s.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
You seem to be equating Iraq fatalities to murder. I agree. On that Iraq body count figure, since you are talking civilians in Chicago, it is only fair to include those folks in your first six months of 2008 figure. In 2008, the average daily violent occupation-related loss of life via suicide attacks, vehicle bombs, gunfire and executions is 27 x 182.5 days in first six months = 4,927 + you 221 = 5148. While we are at it, may as well throw out that total civilian body count in Iraq, the very most conservative documented count being 88,373, or World Trade Center x30.
"COMBAT ZONE"
Naturally, no reliable data is available on this claim, it being a subjective pronouncement that seeks to pontificate.
STATE PENSION FUND
Here we see the smear leap from the Chicago to the state level...an apples to oranges, smoke and mirrors maneuver the GOP attack machine thought they might slip by unattentive readers. OK. Let's go there. As recently as February of this year, we find the following: http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/02/25/daily29.html
Center on Budget and Policy and Priorities: McCain's red state: Arizona Budget Deficit Worst in the Country. Follow link for all the fascinating details.
http://www.cbpp.org/1-15-08sfp.htm Info updated 08/05/08
For starters, state budget deficits are ranked in terms of shortfall percentages.
In the US, 29 states face budget shortfalls totaling 48 billion in 2009. Notice how similar this 29-state total is to the amount in the GOP smear that claimed a $44 BILLION dollar deficit IL pension plan funds. Arizona's shortfall percentage = 17.8%, now in second place behind the nations most populous state, California. Illinois' shortfall percentage = 6.6%, making AZ's budget deficit nearly 3 times that of IL. So, if we hold dems (and by pub logic, O) responsible for Chicago, then who, pray tell is responsible for Arizona, the political culture from which JM comes from?
COUNTY SALES TAX
To suggest that any party's local (especially municipal or county) tax schemes would be reproduced on a national level is downright ridiculous. Tax structures are entirely different and wildly varied from state to state. Speaking of states, I came across this link http://www.fairtaxation.org/facts/sales_tax_rank.php which shows the Arizona sales tax rate ranks higher (#10) at 7.8% than Illinois at 7.6%.
CHICAGO SCHOOLS WORST IN NATION
I bit hard to address this second subjective pronouncement that seeks to pontificate. In terms of WHAT exactly is it the worst? They are certainly not an uneducated bunch of folks:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a80Zfbu_.k4g&refer=us University of Chicago has produced 82 Nobel prize winners and 10 Nobel Prize winners in economics, more than any university in the US. The John Bates Clark Medal, bestowed every two years, recognizes the nation's most outstanding economist under 40. U of Chicago has produced more than any other US institution, 6 out of the 31 recipients. Seems like those Chicago economists are sort of, well....exceptional.
I really could go on and on about Chicago's booming economy but I am out of time here. Maybe later then.
High expectations for leaders...nah, Clinton pretty much blew that. No pun intended. nm
we should destroy any country that has missile parades or giant posters of their leaders?
Glenn Beck: I Think We Should Destroy Any Country That Has Missile Parades Or Giant Posters Of Their Leaders
The statement was creepy enough but the look of glee on Glenn Beck's face as he joked about destroying Iran, the country whose traditions he didn't like, was extremely troubling for a national news host. By the way, despite his enthusiasm for having other people engage in mass killing, I could not find any evidence that Mr. Destroyer ever put his own flabby fanny on the line for his country.
In a 2/10/09 discussion with author Joel C. Rosenberg, Beck sounded almost giddy as he said, "I think we should destroy any country that has missile parades or giant posters of their leaders. They never turn out like good friends. You know that? And (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) looks a little too spooky."
Rosenberg replied, "I don't want to destroy the country but I would like to remove the leadership."
"I could go either way," Beck said, with all the gravity of someone deciding whether he wanted red or white wine. "How irresponsible!" he joked.
Foreign language
Forgot to say that my foreign language was Latin and my memory is about as dead as the language.
Yeah. That "I don't think much about foreign
nm
Why should she think about foreign policy?
She was the governor of a state and that should have been her focus. Your #1 also has zero foreign policy experience. That is why he has Joe Biden. That is why Sarah has McCain. If something happened to McCain, she would have foreign policy advisors, just like Obama has in Biden. The thing is...she is the #2. If we elect Obama, we have zero foreign policy experience from day 1. It's pretty clear to me what I would rather see. I would like to at least start out with someone with several years foreign policy experience. But that is just me.
RE: Foreign Policy. Sam says we'd be just as well off
On the issues
Sarah Palin on Foreign Policy.
No stance
Obama on Foreign Policy
- Meet with Cuban leaders only with agenda of US interests. (Feb 2008)
- Cuba: Loosen restrictions now; normalization later. (Feb 2008)
- Important to undo the damage of the last seven years. (Feb 2008)
- Never negotiate out of fear, and never fear to negotiate. (Jan 2008)
- Ok to postpone Pakistani elections, but not indefinitely. (Dec 2007)
- Pakistan crisis: secure nukes; continue with elections. (Dec 2007)
- President must abide by international human rights treaties. (Dec 2007)
- Obama Doctrine: ideology has overridden facts and reality. (Dec 2007)
- China is a competitor but not an enemy. (Dec 2007)
- Willing to meet with Fidel Castro, Kim Jung IL & Hugo Chavez. (Nov 2007)
- Wrote 2006 law stabilizing Congo with $52M. (Oct 2007)
- No Obama Doctrine; just democracy, security, liberty. (Oct 2007)
- Invest in our relationship with Mexico. (Sep 2007)
- Strengthen NATO to face 21st-century threats. (Aug 2007)
- $50B annually to strengthen weak states at risk of collapse. (Aug 2007)
- No "strategic ambiguity" on foreign policy issues. (Aug 2007)
- At college, protested for divestment from South Africa. (Aug 2007)
- Increased aid to Republic of Congo. (Aug 2007)
- Visited largest slum in Africa, to publicize its plight. (Aug 2007)
- My critics engineered our biggest foreign policy disaster. (Aug 2007)
- China is a competitor, but not an enemy. (Aug 2007)
- Meet with enemy leaders; it's a disgrace that we have not. (Jul 2007)
- No-fly zone in Darfur; but pay attention more in Africa. (Jun 2007)
- Europe & Japan are allies, but China is a competitor. (Apr 2007)
- Palestinian people suffer-but from not recognizing Israel. (Apr 2007)
- FactCheck: Palestinian suffering from stalled peace effort. (Apr 2007)
- U.S. needs to ameliorate trade relations with China. (Mar 2007)
- U.S. funds for humanitarian aid to Darfur. (Mar 2007)
- We cannot afford isolationism. (Mar 2007)
- Protested South African apartheid while at college. (Feb 2007)
- Focus on corruption to improve African development. (Oct 2006)
- Supports Israel's self-defense; but distrusted by Israelis. (Oct 2006)
- Visited Africa in 2006; encouraged HIV testing & research. (Oct 2006)
- Never has US had so much power & so little influence to lead. (Jul 2004)
- US policy should promote democracy and human rights. (Jul 2004)
- Sponsored aid bill to avert humanitarian crisis in Congo. (Dec 2005)
- Urge Venezuela to re-open dissident radio & TV stations. (May 2007)
- Let Ukraine & Georgia enter NATO. (Jan 2008)
- Condemn violence by Chinese government in Tibet. (Apr 2008)
- Sanction Mugabe until Zimbabwe transitions to democracy. (Apr 2008)
Sarah Palin on Homeland Security
- Strong military and sound energy. (Aug 2008)
- Armed forces, including my son, give us security and freedom. (Jan 2008)
- Ask all candidates "Are you doing all you can for security?". (Oct 2007)
- Visits Kuwait; encourages Alaska big game hunting to troops. (Sep 2007)
- Promote from within, in Alaska's National Guard. (Nov 2006)
- Let military personnel know how much we support them. (Nov 2006)
Obama on Homeland Security
- No torture; no renditions; no operating out of fear. (Apr 2008)
- Unacceptable to have veterans drive 250 miles to a hospital. (Feb 2008)
- Pursue goal of a world without nuclear weapons. (Feb 2008)
- Al Qaida is stronger now than in 2001 as Iraq distracted us. (Jan 2008)
- Colleges must allow military recruiters for ROTC on campus. (Jan 2008)
- Rebuild a nuclear nonproliferation strategy. (Jan 2008)
- FactCheck: Promised to repeal Patriot Act, then voted for it. (Jan 2008)
- No presidential power for secret surveillance. (Dec 2007)
- No holding US citizens as unlawful enemy combatants. (Dec 2007)
- Congress decides what constitutes torture, not president. (Dec 2007)
- No torture; defiance of FISA; no military commissions. (Dec 2007)
- Restore habeas corpus to reach Muslims abroad. (Dec 2007)
- Human rights and national security are complementary. (Nov 2007)
- Don't allow our politics to be driven by fear of terrorism. (Nov 2007)
- 2006: Obama-Lugar bill restricted conventional weapons. (Oct 2007)
- Judgment is as important as experience. (Oct 2007)
- If attacked, first help victims then prevent further attacks. (Oct 2007)
- America cannot sanction torture; no loopholes or exceptions. (Sep 2007)
- Repeal Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell. (Aug 2007)
- 2005: Passed bill to reduce conventional weapon stockpiles. (Aug 2007)
- We are no safer now than we were after 9/11. (Aug 2007)
- Close Guantanamo and restore the right of habeas corpus. (Jun 2007)
- Homeland security must protect citizens, not intrude on them. (Mar 2007)
- America must practice the patriotism it preaches. (Mar 2007)
- Protecting nuclear power plants is of utmost importance. (Mar 2007)
- Personal privacy must be protected even in terrorism age. (Mar 2007)
- Get first responders the healthcare and equipment they need. (Mar 2007)
- Need to be both strong and smart on national defense. (Oct 2006)
- Grow size of military to maintain rotation schedules. (Oct 2006)
- Battling terrorism must go beyond belligerence vs. isolation. (Oct 2006)
- Going after AL Qaeda in Pakistan is not Bush-style invasion. (Jan 2006)
- Rebuild the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. (Jan 2006)
- We are currently inspecting 3% of all incoming cargo. (Oct 2004)
- Increase funding to decommission Russian nukes. (Jul 2004)
- Give our soldiers the best equipment and training available. (Jul 2004)
- Balance domestic intelligence reform with civil liberty risk. (Jul 2004)
Sarah Palin on War and Peace
- We don't know what the plan is to ever end the war. (Aug 2008)
- Wants exit plan; also assurances to keep our troops safe. (Mar 2007)
Obama on War and Peace
Iraq War
- President sets Iraq mission; Generals then implement tactics. (Apr 2008)
- President sets Iraq mission; give generals a new mission. (Apr 2008)
- $2.7 billion each week of Iraq spending is unsustainable. (Feb 2008)
- Humanitarian aid now for displaced Iraqis. (Feb 2008)
- FactCheck: Overstated displaced Iraqis; actually 4.2 million. (Feb 2008)
- The Iraq war has undermined our security. (Jan 2008)
- Iraq is distracting us from a host of global threats. (Jan 2008)
- End the war, and end the mindset that got us into war. (Jan 2008)
- The Iraq war was conceptually flawed from the start. (Jan 2008)
- Title of Iraq war authorization bill stated its intent. (Jan 2008)
- Get our troops out by the end of 2009. (Jan 2008)
- No permanent bases in Iraq. (Jan 2008)
- FactCheck: No, violence in Iraq is LOWER than 2 years ago. (Jan 2008)
- Congress decides deployment level & duration, not president. (Dec 2007)
- Surge strategy has made a difference in Iraq but failed. (Nov 2007)
- Leave troops for protection of Americans & counterterrorism. (Sep 2007)
- Hopes to remove all troops from Iraq by 2013, but no pledge. (Sep 2007)
- Tell people the truth: quickest is 1-2 brigades per month. (Sep 2007)
- No good options in Iraq--just bad options & worse options. (Aug 2007)
- Be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. (Jul 2007)
- We live in a more dangerous world because of Bush's actions. (Jun 2007)
- Case for war was weak, but people voted their best judgment. (Jun 2007)
- War in Iraq is "dumb" but troops still need equipment. (Apr 2007)
- Open-ended Iraq occupation must end: no military solution. (Apr 2007)
- Saddam is a tyrant but not a national security threat. (Mar 2007)
- Iraq 2002: ill-conceived venture; 2007: waste of resources. (Feb 2007)
- Saddam did not own and was not providing WMD to terrorists. (Oct 2004)
- Iraq War has made US less safe from terrorism. (Oct 2004)
- Invading Iraq was a bad strategic blunder. (Oct 2004)
- Democratizing Iraq will be more difficult than Afghanistan. (Oct 2004)
- Never fudge numbers or shade the truth about war. (Jul 2004)
- Set a new tone to internationalize the Iraqi reconstruction. (Jul 2004)
- Iraq war was sincere but misguided, ideologically driven. (Jul 2004)
- Not opposed to all wars, but opposed to the war in Iraq. (Jul 2004)
- International voice in Iraq in exchange for debt forgiveness. (Jul 2004)
Trouble Spots
- Iran is biggest strategic beneficiary of invasion of Iraq. (May 2008)
- Military surge in Afghanistan to eliminate the Taliban. (May 2008)
- Take no options off the table if Iran attacks Israel. (Apr 2008)
- Two-state solution: Israel & Palestine side-by-side in peace. (Feb 2008)
- Al Qaida is based in northwest Pakistan; strike if needed. (Jan 2008)
- No action against Iran without Congressional authorization. (Dec 2007)
- Iran: Bush does not let facts get in the way of ideology. (Dec 2007)
- Meet directly for diplomacy with the leadership in Iran. (Nov 2007)
- Committed to Iran not having nuclear weapons. (Oct 2007)
- Iran military resolution sends the region a wrong signal. (Oct 2007)
- Deal with al Qaeda on Pakistan border, but not with nukes. (Aug 2007)
- Military action in Pakistan if we have actionable intel. (Aug 2007)
- FactCheck: Yes, Obama said invade Pakistan to get al Qaeda. (Aug 2007)
- Focus on battle in Afghanistan and root out al Qaeda. (Jun 2007)
- Bush cracked down on some terrorists' financial networks. (Jun 2007)
- Iraq has distracted us from Taliban in Afghanistan. (Apr 2007)
- Iran with nuclear weapons is a profound security threat. (Apr 2007)
- We did the right thing in Afghanistan. (Mar 2007)
- We are playing to Osama's plan for winning a war from a cave. (Oct 2006)
- Al Qaida is stronger than before thanks to the Bush doctrine. (Jan 2006)
- Terrorists are in Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran. (Oct 2004)
- Problems with current Israeli policy. (Jul 2004)
- Engage North Korea in 6-party talks. (Jul 2004)
- Use moral authority to work towards Middle East peace. (Jul 2004)
Voting Record
- Voted to fund war until 2006; now wants no blank check. (Nov 2007)
- Late to vote against war is not late to oppose war. (Jun 2007)
- Spending on the Cold War relics should be for the veterans. (Jun 2007)
- Would have voted no to authorize the President to go to war. (Jul 2004)
- Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008. (Mar 2007)
- Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007. (Jun 2006)
- Voted YES on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Nov 2005)
JM/SP foreign policy exactly what?
I notice you have expressed no defense of SP regarding the points I have raised in the previous post regarding her breathtaking lack of knowledge and experience in foreign policy as was so painfully obvious in her first interview with Gibson and will be even more visible when she debates Biden. So you did what you always do and resorted to attacking Obama instead. OK. Let's go there for a minute.
You failed to mention who is the Chairman of the (full) Senate Foreign Relations Committee where hearings and strategies relative to NATO-Afghanistan relations are conducted. Lo and Behold. Would you look at that? It's Joe Biden, who served as chairman of that committee Jan 2001 to Jan 2003 and assumed his current incumbent chair position in Jan 2007. Looks like O made a pretty good choice of VP running mate when it comes to foreign policy experience. So if O is Chairman of the Subcommittee on European Affairs, why shouldn't he be in California for a debate? I would argue that if the Foreign Relations Committee IS the place where policy is debated relative to NATO and its relationship to Afghanistan (last time I checked, NOT in Europe) and O has (according to you) 300 advisors, his attendance is not expected or required, then evidently he feels that he can confidently rely on his advisors to keep him up to speed on what actually IS within the realm of his duties as Chairman of the Subcommittee on European Affairs since he is running for president.
By the way, how many foreign policy advisors does SP have at her disposal? Just curious. Also, it is notable that JM does not serve on any committees and his foreign policy experience is exactly what now? Speaking of advisors, for the life of me I cannot understand why you think there is something wrong with Obama having access to the insight of more than 300 people when it comes to foreign affairs. Sounds like a pretty impressive staff to me. Some might argue that that is an asset, not a liability. The world is a mighty big place and it is ludicrous to think that a president or a senator on a committee should not be taking advice and guidance from the experts on a given region.
Here's some foreign affairs stuff Obama did do during his time in the Senate before the campaign. Notice his interest in WMDs and his involvement in the strategy planning for controlling them in defense against terrorist attacks.
1. Introduced expansions to Cooperative Threat Reduction Program to secure and dismantle weapons of mass destruction and their associated infrastructure in former Soviet Union states.
2. Sponsor of Democratic Republic of Congo Relief, Security and Democracy Promotion Act, signed by Bush, to restore basic services like clinics and schools, train a professional, integrated and accountable police force and military, and otherwise support the Congolese in protecting their human rights and rebuilding their nation.
3. As member of Foreign Relations Committee, he made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa. His 2005 trip to Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan focus on strategy planning for the control of world's supply of conventional weapons, biological weapons and WMDs and defense against potential terrorist attacks.
4. January 2006, met with US military in Kuwait and Iraq. Visited Jordan, Israel and Palestinian territories. Asserted preconditions that US will never recognize legitimacy of Hamas leadership until they renounce elimination of Israel.
5. August 2006, official trip to South Africa, Kenya, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Chad where he made televised appearance addressing ethnic rivalries and corruption in Kenya.
So that's about it for now. JM/SP foreign affairs experience is what now?
However, if foreign investors own some of those...
mortgages, then I guess we are...in a way. Need to do some more research on that.
And do you buy foreign or domestic gas?
xx
I'd like to see a foreign car outdo that! n/m
x
Foreign Legion?
AN AMERICAN FOREIGN LEGION: IS THE US MILITARY NOW AN IMPERIAL POLICE FORCE?
Sunday 15 February 2009
by: William Astore, TomDispatch.com
New US Army recruits. (Photo: Tech. Sgt. Mike R. Smith / USAF)
A leaner, meaner, higher tech force - that was what George W. Bush and his Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld promised to transform the American military into. Instead, they came close to turning it into a foreign legion. Foreign as in being constantly deployed overseas on imperial errands; foreign as in being ever more reliant on private military contractors; foreign as in being increasingly segregated from the elites that profit most from its actions, yet serve the least in its ranks.
Now would be a good time for President Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to begin to reclaim that military for its proper purpose: to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Now would be a good time to ask exactly why, and for whom, our troops are currently fighting and dying in the urban jungles of Iraq and the hostile hills of Afghanistan.
A few fortnights and forever ago, in the Bush years, our "expeditionary" military came remarkably close to resembling an updated version of the French Foreign Legion in the ways it was conceived and used by those in power - and even, to some extent, in its makeup.
For the metropolitan French elite of an earlier era, the Foreign Legion - best known to Americans from countless old action films - was an assemblage of military adventurers and rootless romantics, volunteers willing to man an army fighting colonial wars in far-flung places. Those wars served the narrow interests of people who weren't particularly concerned about the fate of the legion itself.
It's easy enough to imagine one of them saying, à LA Rumsfeld, "You go to war with the legion you have, not the legion you might want or wish to have." Such a blithe statement would have been uncontroversial back then, since the French Foreign Legion was - well - so foreign. Its members, recruited worldwide, but especially from French colonial possessions, were considered expendable, a fate captured in its grim, sardonic motto: "You joined the Legion to die. The Legion will send you where you can die!"
Looking back on the last eight years, what's remarkable is the degree to which Rumsfeld and others in the Bush administration treated the U.S. military in a similarly dismissive manner. Bullying his generals and ignoring their concerns, the Secretary of Defense even dismissed the vulnerability of the troops in Iraq, who, in the early years, motored about in inadequately armored Humvees and other thin-skinned vehicles.
Last year, Vice President DickCheney offered another Legionnaire-worthy version of such dismissiveness. Informed that most Americans no longer supported the war in Iraq, he infamously and succinctly countered, "So?" - as if the U.S. military weren't the American people's instrument, but his own private army, fed and supplied by private contractor KBR, the former Halliburton subsidiary whose former CEO was the very same DickCheney.
Fond of posing in flight suits, leather jackets, and related pseudo-military gear, President Bush might, on the other hand, have seemed overly invested in the military. Certainly, his tough war talk resonated within conservative circles, and he visibly relished speaking before masses of hooah-ing soldiers. Too often, however, Bush simply used them as patriotic props, while his administration did its best to hide their deaths from public view.
In that way, he and his top officials made our troops into foreigners, in part by making their ultimate sacrifice, their deaths, as foreign to us as was humanly possible. Put another way, his administration made the very idea of national "sacrifice" - by anyone but our troops - foreign to most Americans. In response to the 9/11 attacks, Americans were, as the President famously suggested only 16 days after the attacks, to show their grit by visiting Disney World and shopping till they dropped. Military service instills (and thrives on) an ethic of sacrifice that was, for more than seven years, consciously disavowed domestically.
As the Obama administration begins to deploy U.S. troops back to the Iraq or Afghan war zones for their fourth or fifth tours of duty, I remain amazed at the silent complicity of my country. Why have we been so quiet? Is it because the Bush administration was, in fact, successful in sending our military down the path to foreign legion-hood? Is the fate of our troops no longer of much importance to most Americans?
Even the military's recruitment and demographics are increasingly alien to much of the country. Troops are now regularly recruited in "foreign" places like South Central Los Angeles and Appalachia that more affluent Americans wouldn't be caught dead visiting. In some cases, those new recruits are quite literally "foreign" - non-U.S. citizens allowed to seek a fast-track to citizenship by volunteering for frontline, war-zone duty in the U.S. Army or Marines. And when, in these last years, the military has fallen short of its recruitment goals - less likely today thanks to the ongoing economic meltdown - mercenaries have simply been hired at inflated prices from civilian contractors with names like Triple Canopy or Blackwater redolent of foreign adventures.
With respect to demographics, it'll take more than the sons of Joe Biden and Sarah Palin to redress inequities in burden-sharing. With startlingly few exceptions, America's sons and daughters dodging bullets remain the progeny of rural America, of immigrant America, of the working and lower middle classes. As long as our so-called best and brightest continue to be AWOL when it comes to serving among the rank-and-file, count on our foreign adventurism to continue to surge.
Diversity is now our societal byword. But how about more class diversity in our military? How about a combat regiment of rich young volunteers from uptown Manhattan? (After all, some of their great-grandfathers probably fought with New York's famed "Silk Stocking" regiment in World War I.) How about more Ivy League recruits like George H.W. Bush and John F. Kennedy, who respectively piloted a dive bomber and a PT boat in World War II? Heck, why not a few prominent Hollywood actors like Jimmy Stewart, who piloted heavy bombers in the flak-filled skies of Europe in that same war?
Instead of collective patriotic sacrifice, however, it's clear that the military will now be running the equivalent of a poverty and recession "draft" to fill the "all-volunteer" military. Those without jobs or down on their luck in terrible times will have the singular honor of fighting our future wars. Who would deny that drawing such recruits from dead-end situations in the hinterlands or central cities is strikingly Foreign Legion-esque?
Caught in the shock and awe of 9/11, we allowed our military to be transformed into a neocon imperial police force. Now, approaching our eighth year in Afghanistan and sixth year in Iraq, what exactly is that force defending? Before President Obama acts to double the number of American boots-on-the-ground in Afghanistan - before even more of our troops are sucked deeper into yet another quagmire - shouldn't we ask this question with renewed urgency? Shouldn't we wonder just why, despite all the reverent words about "our troops," we really seem to care so little about sending them back into the wilderness again and again?
Where indeed is the outcry?
The French Foreign Legionnaires knew better than to expect such an outcry: The elites for whom they fought didn't give a damn about what happened to them. Our military may not yet be a foreign legion - but don't fool yourself, it's getting there.
--------
William J. Astore, a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF), taught for six years at the Air Force Academy. He currently teaches at the Pennsylvania College of Technology. A TomDispatch regular, he is the author of "Hindenburg: Icon of German Militarism" (Potomac Press, 2005), among other works. He may be reached at wastore@pct.edu.
»
concerning foreign politics he does..nm
nm
I wish he was in foreign politics
nm
Dirty foreign policy
Well, seems to be if we didnt have such a murderous dirty foreign policy for the last 50 years, the rest of the world might not be wanting to blow us to kingdom come. You have to wonder why other people of the world hate us so. It is because we have overthrown third world governments and placed puppets in, undermined elections in other countries, murdered duly legally elected leaders in other countries. Heck, we were bombing Iraq nonstop through the 1990s and stepped it up right before this illegal criminal war. The great thing is lots of those soldiers who took part in the bombing are now speaking out. It has been my experience, from what I have seen in life, you can only bully for so long, then others will definitely strike back. We are now being struck back.
The Myth of Foreign Fighters
Report by US think tank says only '4 to 10' percent of insurgents are foreigners.
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
The US and Iraqi governments have vastly overstated the number of foreign fighters in Iraq, and most of them don't come from Saudi Arabia, according to a new report from the Washington-based Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS). According to a piece in The Guardian, this means the US and Iraq feed the myth that foreign fighters are the backbone of the insurgency. While the foreign fighters may stoke the incurgency flames, they only comprise only about 4 to 10 percent of the estimated 30,000 insurgents.
The CSIS study also disputes media reports that Saudis comprise the largest group of foreign fighters. CSIS says Algerians are the largest group (20 percent), followed by Syrians (18 percent), Yemenis (17 percent), Sudanese (15 percent), Egyptians (13 percent), Saudis (12 percent) and those from other states (5 percent). CSIS gathered the information for its study from intelligence services in the Gulf region.
The CSIS report says: The vast majority of Saudi militants who have entered Iraq were not terrorist sympathisers before the war; and were radicalized almost exclusively by the coalition invasion.
The average age of the Saudis was 17-25 and they were generally middle-class with jobs, though they usually had connections with the most prominent conservative tribes. Most of the Saudi militants were motivated by revulsion at the idea of an Arab land being occupied by a non-Arab country. These feelings are intensified by the images of the occupation they see on television and the internet ... the catalyst most often cited [in interrogations] is Abu Ghraib, though images from Guantánamo Bay also feed into the pathology.
The report also gives credit to the Saudi government for spending nearly $1.2 billion over the past two years, and deploying 35,000 troops, in an effort to secure its border with Iraq. The major problem remains the border with Syria, which lacks the resources of the Saudis to create a similar barrier on its border.
The Associated Press reports that CSIS believes most of the insurgents are not Saddam Hussein loyalists but members of Sunni Arab Iraqi tribes. They do not want to see Mr. Hussein return to power, but they are wary of a Shiite-led government.
TheLos Angeles Times reports that a greater concern is that 'skills' foreign fighters are learning in Iraq are being exported to their home countries. This is a particular concern for Europe, since early this year US intelligence reported that Abu Musab Zarqawi, whose network is believed to extend far beyond Iraq, had dispatched teams of battle-hardened operatives to European capitals.
Iraq has become a superheated, real-world academy for lessons about weapons, urban combat and terrorist trade craft, said Thomas Sanderson of [CSIS].
Extremists in Iraq are exposed to international networks from around the world, said Sanderson, who has been briefed by German security agencies. They are returning with bomb-making skills, perhaps stolen explosives, vastly increased knowledge. If they are succeeding in a hostile environment, avoiding ... US Special Forces, then to go back to Europe, my God, it's kid's play.
Meanwhile, The Boston Globe reports that President Bush, in a speech Thursday that was clearly designed to dampen the potential impact of the antiwar rally this weekend in Washington, said his top military commanders in Iraq have told him that they are making progress against the insurgents and in establishing a politically viable state.
Newly trained Iraqi forces are taking the lead in many security operations, the president said, including a recent offensive in the insurgent stronghold of Tal Afar along the Syrian border – a key transit point for foreign fighters and supplies.
Iraqi forces are showing the vital difference they can make, Bush said. 'They are now in control of more parts of Iraq than at any time in the past two years. Significant areas of Baghdad and Mosul, once violent and volatile, are now more stable because Iraqi forces are helping to keep the peace.
The president's speech, however, was overshadowed by comments made Thursday by Saudi Arabia's foreign minister. Prince Saud al-Faisal said the US ignored warnings the Saudi government gave it about occupying Iraq. Prince al-Faisal also said he fears US policies in Iraq will lead to the country breaking up into Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite parts. He also said that Saudi Arabia is not ready to send an ambassador to Baghdad, because he would become a target for the insurgents. I doubt he would last a day, al-Faisal said.
Finally, The Guardian reports that ambitions for Iraq are being drastically scaled down in private by British and US officials. The main goal has now become avoiding the image of failure. The paper quotes sources in the British Foreign department as saying that hopes to turn Iraq into a model of democracy for the Middle East had been put aside. We will settle for leaving behind an Iraqi democracy that is creaking along, the source said.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html
So sad..we need a foreign leader to help our poor
Venezuelan heating oil will be distributed to poor
U.S. communities via the
Venezuelan-owned oil company Citgo.
Credit: Venezuelanalysis.com
<http://Venezuelanalysis.com>
Caracas, Venezuela, November 18, 2005—The
Venezuelan-owned and
U.S.-basedfuel refiner and distributor Citgo will
begin distributing discounted heating oil to poor U.S.
communities next week. Rafael Ramirez, Venezuela's
Minister of Energy and Petroleum, made the
announcement yesterday, saying that the measure is
meant to show Venezuela's commitment to disadvantaged
sectors in the United States.
Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez had originally
announced the measure last August, while the U.S.
civil rights activist Jesse Jackson was visiting
Venezuela.
The launch of the discounted heating oil program is
meant to coincide with the Thanksgiving holiday and
will benefit communities in poor communities of
Boston, Massachusetts and of the Bronx, New York.
The first phase of the program will begin in Boston
and will provide 4.5million liters (1.2 million
gallons) of heating oil at discounted rates, which
will mean a savings of approximately $10 million.
According to the Venezuelan government, the discounts
will be achieved by eliminating middle-men and
having Citgo deliver the heating oil directly to the
communities.
Accordingly, the plan does not involve any losses to
Citgo itself.
The logistics of the plan will involve non-profit
community organizations, which will help with the
selection of beneficiaries, distribution, and billing.
Heating oil costs are expected to reach historical
heights this year, which means that many poor
households might have to go without heat, despite
limited state programs to subsidize heating oil for
low-income
families.
Citgo is a wholly owned subsidiary of Venezuela's
state-owned oil company PDVSA and operates five
refineries and licenses 14,000 gas stations throughout
the U.S.
For those who follow foreign politics...
I just heard on NPR that Gary Kasparov has been arrested in Russia during a marching and protest of Russia's voting practice. This is NOT good. Putin is a very dangerous individual who has been funding the middle east conflict and selling weapons to those who really shouldn't have them. Kasparov is a potential light at the end of the tunnel for a more democratic and liberal Russian state. I am afraid for him.
don;t forget foreign banks
successfully lobbied to be included in this bailout. (John McCain's financial advisor Phil Gram is head of USB, Swiss bank)
Foreign cars are not better or cheaper.
If they are cheaper it is because they are literally that....cheaper cars. You pay for what you get. I've seen so many American made cars throughout my family where they have put 200,000+ miles on vehicles and they keep going. I've driven so many different types of vehicles since my husband runs a car dealership and I have to say that American trumps foreign any day in my opinion. I will NEVER own a foreign car. Ain't happenin. You will more than likely see my happy butt in a Chevy of some type. I'm currently driving a Chevy Uplander and I friggin LOVE it! I have no problem telling someone their vehicle is a foreign piece of crap. In fact, I recently told my best friend's sister that was what her Honda was. LOL!
you should update yourself on foreign politics,
especially North Korea, Israel and Iran, instead of trying to prove IN VAIN that Obama's and Biden's decisions are wrong!
They know what they are doing!
you should update yourself on foreign policies
He most certainly does NOT know what he is doing.
He has more experience than Obama in foreign policy and that cannot...
be disputed. He did add that with Joe Biden; however, I still say it will look odd to foreign leaders if Biden goes to all his meetings with him. McCain can instill any number of advisors and/or his VP pick to help where he lacks in knowledge of the economy. Frankly, I would rather have the economy knowledge in the second chair than the foreign policy knowledge. Because if we get pulled into a confrontation with someone who we know for sure unequivocally DOES have nukes...well, you get my drift.
McCain does not plan to stay at war for 100 years. That was taken completely out of context and not what he said at all. What he said was that there could be an American presence there for 100 years in the form of bases. There are American bases all over the world. We still have bases in Germany and that war has been over for what...60 years or more? If the world lasts 100 years past WWII, those bases will still be there. THAT is what McCain was talking about. Not staying at war for 100 years. We have bases in South Korea, and that war has been over for 50+ years.
I could start pulling out all the Obama quotes but his followers don't care. I have never seen such a group myopic view about one individual. It seems like if he got up on a podium and said I really don't plan to do anything I say I will do, I am just like all the politicians before me, they would chant back "we don't care, we don't care, we don't care." Such is blind devotion. This goes way past a politician and party members.
How do you know McCain has no plans to help Americans through hard times? I can tell you one thing that should not be done is impose harsher taxes on the small family businesses in this country who employ a lot of people. All that does is either cause those companies to go offshore or fold, and then you have even more unemployed and add to the government ticket. But oh...what am I thinking. That is what Democrats want. The more beholden people are to the government, the better Democrats like it. When I say Democrats, I mean the Democratic party hierarchy. I do NOT lump all Democrats together and demonize the whole group as other posters here tend to do with Republicans. Even lump Independents in with the Republicans because they are "not Democrats." That is a decidedly unDEMOcratic attitude, unAmerican attitude. One would surmise the socialism thing is already working...well of course it is. How many times in the speech did we hear tax the rich and the disappearing middle class? Class socialism...redistribute that wealth.
Link to current law regarding foreign birth...sm
to American citizens. http://www.aca.ch/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=91&Itemid=80
That's ridiculous. This is a foreign policy debate...
mccain still leads all the polls on foreign policy. He has no reason to try to duck this, and that should not even be an issue...they should both be back in Washington doing their jobs as leaders of their parties, not to mention as senators, which they both still are and drawing checks for.
I am glad one of them is doing it, and believe it or not, if Obama had said it first he would be getting the kudos from me too. If he even agreed to it I would give him thumbs up. But he chose not to.
Stop importing foreign cars won't help a bit
People in this country want them because they get better gas mileage. Like I said before, Toyota has plants here in America and they are doing good.
The problem with the big 3 is they sat back and forgot about the past (1970s gas crunch), not into the future. They got a winner with those big SUVs and decided, "Hey, let's concentrate on all the big SUVs, big V8s, etc. That's what the American people want" and they did want them.
Car dealers are falling by the wayside in large numbers because of the problems, too. Lots of them are closing because they can't hang on any longer.
Looks like foreign ears are picking up on the right wing...sm
chatter about Obama's birth certificate. People spreading ilk about Obama are not doing our country any favors.
People have been buying foreign cars
for years. What does that have to do with losing our jobs due to fewer patient visits to doctors or hospitals? Actually, a lot of so-called American-made cars are made in Mexico, like the PT Cruiser. In fact, a lot of cars are made in Mexico because of cheap labor, including VW.
Cheney 'cabal' hijacked foreign policy
Cheney 'cabal' hijacked foreign policy By Edward Alden in Washington Published: October 20 2005 00:00 | Last updated: October 20 2005 00:19 Vice-President Dick Cheney and a handful of others had hijacked the government's foreign policy apparatus, deciding in secret to carry out policies that had left the US weaker and more isolated in the world, the top aide to former Secretary of State Colin Powell claimed on Wednesday. In a scathing attack on the record of President George W. Bush, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Mr Powell until last January, said: “What I saw was a cabal between the vice-president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made. “Now it is paying the consequences of making those decisions in secret, but far more telling to me is America is paying the consequences.” Transcript: Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson Click here http://news.ft.com/cms/s/c925a686-4...000e2511c8.html Mr Wilkerson said such secret decision-making was responsible for mistakes such as the long refusal to engage with North Korea or to back European efforts on Iran. It also resulted in bitter battles in the administration among those excluded from the decisions. “If you're not prepared to stop the feuding elements in the bureaucracy as they carry out your decisions, you are courting disaster. And I would say that we have courted disaster in Iraq, in North Korea, in Iran.” The comments, made at the New America Foundation, a Washington think-tank, were the harshest attack on the administration by a former senior official since criticisms by Richard Clarke, former White House terrorism czar, and Paul O'Neill, former Treasury secretary, early last year. Mr Wilkerson said his decision to go public had led to a personal falling out with Mr Powell, whom he served for 16 years at the Pentagon and the State Department. “He's not happy with my speaking out because, and I admire this in him, he is the world's most loyal soldier. Among his other charges: ■ The detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere was “a concrete example” of the decision-making problem, with the president and other top officials in effect giving the green light to soldiers to abuse detainees. “You don't have this kind of pervasive attitude out there unless you've condoned it.” ■ Condoleezza Rice, the former national security adviser and now secretary of state, was “part of the problem”. Instead of ensuring that Mr Bush received the best possible advice, “she would side with the president to build her intimacy with the president”. ■ The military, particularly the army and marine corps, is overstretched and demoralised. Officers, Mr Wilkerson claimed, “start voting with their feet, as they did in Vietnam. . . and all of a sudden your military begins to unravel”. Mr Wilkerson said former president George H.W. Bush “one of the finest presidents we have ever had” understood how to make foreign policy work. In contrast, he said, his son was “not versed in international relations and not too much interested in them either”. “There's a vast difference between the way George H.W. Bush dealt with major challenges, some of the greatest challenges at the end of the 20th century, and effected positive results in my view, and the way we conduct diplomacy today.” www.newamerica.net
How much did Barack Obama think about foreign policy before he decided to run...?
I would say...none. There is certainly no proof that he DID, that is why he chose Biden. So, if HE has to make a crucial decision that does not involve voting present or yelling at Michelle for spending $10,000 to send their kids to camp, or which Britney Spears designer to use for his next big speech...what's he gonna do? All I can say is, if he is elected, he better put Biden on speed dial or handcuff him to himself. You act as if your guy is ready!! And no one has to keel over for HIM to be in charge...he is in charge on day 1. Yeah, THAT IS scary!!
I don't know in what alternate universe you think Karl Rove is advising him. Karl Rove and John McCain detest each other. Have you not paid ANY attention these last few years??
Sarah Palin's foreign policy experience...
http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/2008/08/31/foreign-policy-experience-what-americans-dont-know-about-sarah-palin/
Biden's giving a speech on foreign policy right now..
sure doesn't sound like he is stepping down any time soon, but don't want to burst your bubble.
Biden has plenty of foreign policy experience.
n/m
|
