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 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!
I told her she should try to get some publicity concerning this because most parents probably don't know what's going on, and they have a right to. (She pulled my granddaughter from the class after the first day, so now my granddaughter has a teacher who actually teaches ENGLISH in her English class.)
I told her to contact her paper and/or TV station. She emailed them both. A reporter telephoned her today, said she was very interested in the story and was hoping to print it this coming Thursday.
She then received a reply email from the assistant news director of the TV station, also indicating an interest, and saying he was passing it on to his newsroom reporter and gave the name (apparently a local reporter who is very popular in her area).
She doesn't want to get the teacher in trouble and said so. She just wants her to teach English in her English class, and she mainly wants other parents to know what's going on in case they object, as well.
Thanks for your responses. I copied and pasted them and forwarded them to her, and she's grateful for the reassurance that you offered. It meant a lot to her and helped to convince her to go forward with this.
the article says his wife said they (govt) had planned on pcking up Gary Kasparov prior to the rally...........and this article says he will be *jailed for 5 days* - let's pray that's all it is........but they have been after him for a long, long time........unfortunately.
Thanks for that update
I was about to research it myself as I wait for my pies to get baked so I can go to bed. Another subject worthy of discussion are these activist groups such as Larasa or however they spell it.
UPDATE ........
They manage to take the waterpark out of the stimulus billl......WOW.....it took them how long? NOW, they have 3 billion of our dollars EARMARKED (which is what Obama said would not happen) for obesity and smoking cessation programs.......are you kidding?
If you're obese..................that's your problem! I do not care to pay for your fat coach.....PERIOD! I got a few pounds to lose myself but I sure as he!! don't expect the American citizens to pay for it!!!!
If you smoke................then only you can stop......I don't want to pay for your smoking coach!!!!! Put the d&mn thing down and stop..
WHAT A WASTE!!!!!!
Thanks for the update...(sm)
I knew they were doing the trial but didn't know they had been found guilty.
Update on Palast LOL sm
Looks like Exxon Mobil Corporation is not going to push for charges. Per Palast:
I have sworn to Homeland Security that we no longer send our footage to al-Qaeda — which, in any case, can get a much better view of the refinery and other “critical infrastructure” at Google Maps.
http://www.gregpalast.com/reporter-palast-slips-clutches-of-homeland-security
Update on Job Interview
First to katy - haha about community organizer! We were discussing that earlier. Careful, my hubby might be president one day! LOL
Anyways he went to the interview today. He thinks it went well. They were pretty laid back. Basically from what he was able to gather between the job description, what we found online, and what they told him, he will be working with the community, schools, and churches to implement programs that will better the welfare of children in the community. It is part of the Family Connection Partnership in Georgia (I think it might also be national). It's a relatively new effort in reply to the fact that Georgia is ranked around 45th for child welfare/raising.
We should know soon if he got it or not. He loves working with high risk teens and children (like most of our youth group!) and helping them to see that they can do better and succeed and be self sufficient!
Thanks to everyone who prayed or gave well wishes! I read some of your replies to him and he said thank you as well!
At some point you just gotta let the Bush thing go and accept the facts......it's Obama's turn at the helm and he chose to let the charges be dropped!! Now, we'll just wait until they blow up another one of our ships....would that make you feel better?
thanks for the spelling update.....
I'm usually a real stickler for spelling........obviously, I screwed that one up.....such is life. mice instead of mouse.........interesting.
Update for you regarding Biden.sm
U.S. Senator Joseph Biden, Jr.
United States Senate:
Six-term Sen. Joseph Biden, Jr. of Delaware was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1972 when 29 years old, the youngest U.S. senator in modern history.
In January 2007, Biden declared his candidacy for the presidency, but dropped out of the race on January 3, 2008. On August 23, 2008, Barack
Sponsored Links
Joe Biden
United States Senate:
Six-term Sen. Joseph Biden, Jr. of Delaware was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1972 when 29 years old, the youngest U.S. senator in modern history.
In January 2007, Biden declared his candidacy for the presidency, but dropped out of the race on January 3, 2008. On August 23, 2008, Barack Obama named Biden to be his vice presidential running mate.
Biden, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the 110th Congress (2007-08), is a gifted negotiator who has helped shape U.S. security and foreign relations policies for decades. He's a moderate Democrat who often bridges the bipartisan gap.
I would hardly call this 'kissing butt' qualities.
coming from this administration. Do I think Bush is a good president, yes! Do I think he's great? No, because, personally, he's not been conservative enough for me. To me, Ronald Reagan was great. He was tough, but he still made people like him. Bush not been tough enough on some issues.....however, that's never here or there. I have always freely said that I don't agree with everything coming from the Republican party. I'm a conservative first, Republican second, but as the days go on I am becoming more and more a Libertarian. I will still vote Republican, because I think that's where my vote has the most value, but if the Libertarian movement becomes more of a contender, believe me, I'm going to catch that wave.
I said all that to say this.....I never generalized when it came to Democrats when it came to Clinton in office, because, being from the South where there are still a lot of old Southern Democrats (and, gasp, I was one for several years believe it or not...) I knew all Democrats did not stand behind some of the Clinton policies. There were some Clinton policies I did like, although as a presidential role model he drug the office of president through the mud.....
To me it seems that liberals are all or nothing in hating Bush, but if there are some liberals out that who like Bush speak up and prove that generalization wrong
It is not failed policies.
You can promote those programs, but in this culture, sex-saturated media, desensitization to the point of sex is just an expression and you don't even have to like each other, multiple partners, the whole 9 yards. No program is going to work at this point. Birth control information is out there. How, in this culture, could you even say abstinence with a straight face? Doesn't mean I don't think it should be mentioned, because if it causes 1 or 2 kids not to engage in premarital sex, much better. Most social programs are failed policies...and a huge waste and drain on the government. That is one thing I like about both candidates...they say they will get rid of the social programs that don't work. Trouble is...they never identify which programs. lol.
O needs no defense on this or his policies.
for me to know and for you to find out after the landslide in T-minus 24 and O's inauguration in January.
I know my candidate, my party and their platform. I am very comfortable with my choice. Since there is no party radical enough to suit you, and since you know so much, why don't you establish your own? How about the Nazican party? Has kind of a catchy ring to it, don't you think?
Update: Pat's finally being held accountable
for his hateful words. Israel now refuses to do business with him because of his bizarre remarks about Sharon. Needless to say, I was very happy to see this.
MSNBC.com
Israel pulls plug on Pat Robertson deal Officials angry over evangelical leader's comments about Sharon's stroke
The Associated Press
Updated: 8:14 a.m. ET Jan. 11, 2006
JERUSALEM - Israel won't do business with Pat Robertson after the evangelical leader suggested Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's massive stroke was divine punishment, a tourism official said Wednesday, putting into doubt plans to develop a large Christian tourism center in northern Israel.
Avi Hartuv, spokesman for Israel's tourism minister, said officials are furious with Robertson's suggestion that the stroke was retribution for Sharon's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip last summer. We can't accept this kind of statement, Hartuv said.
Robertson is leading a group of evangelicals who have pledged to raise $50 million to build the Christian Heritage Center in Israel's northern Galilee region, where tradition says Jesus lived and taught.
Under a tentative agreement, Robertson's group was to put up the funding, while Israel would provide land and infrastructure. Israeli officials believe the project will generate tens of millions of tourism dollars.
But the project now is in question in light of Robertson's comments, said Hartuv.
We will not do business with him, only with other evangelicals who don't back these comments, Hartuv said. We will do business with other evangelical leaders, friends of Israel, but not with him.
A day after Sharon's stroke on Jan. 4, Robertson suggested the prime minister was being punished for dividing God's land, a reference to the August pullout from the Gaza Strip and four West Bank settlements.
God considers this land to be his, Robertson said on his TV program The 700 Club. You read the Bible and he says 'This is my land,' and for any prime minister of Israel who decides he is going to carve it up and give it away, God says, 'No, this is mine.'
Robertson's comments also drew condemnation from other Christian leaders and even U.S. President George W. Bush.
The ministry's decision was first reported in Wednesday's edition of The Jerusalem Post.
Christian center planned near Galilee Robertson's Christian Heritage Center was to be tucked away in 35 acres of rolling Galilee hills, near key Christian sites such as Capernaum, the Mount of the Beatitudes, where tradition says Jesus delivered the Sermon of the Mount, and Tabgha -- on the shores of the Sea of Galilee -- where Christians believe Jesus performed the miracle of the loaves and fish.
The project underlines how ties have strengthened in recent years between Israel and evangelical Christian groups that support the Jewish state.
Israel was considering leasing the land to the Christians for free. Tourism Minister Avraham Hirschson predicted it would annually draw up to 1 million pilgrims who would spend $1.5 billion in Israel and support about 40,000 jobs.
Hirschson, however, is one of Sharon's biggest supporters, and a member of the centrist Kadima party recently founded by the prime minister.
Hartuv left the door open to continuing the project, but only with people who don't back Robertson's statements.
We want to see who in the group supports his (Robertson's) statements. Those who support the statements cannot do business with us. Those that publicly support Ariel Sharon's recovery ... are welcome to do business with us, Hartuv said. We have to check this very, very carefully.
AFP – US President Barack Obama speaks at Goettge Memorial Field House in Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base, North …
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama challenged the nation's vested interests to a legislative duel Saturday, saying he will fight to change health care, energy and education in dramatic ways that will upset the status quo.
"The system we have now might work for the powerful and well-connected interests that have run Washington for far too long," Obama said in his weekly radio and video address. "But I don't. I work for the American people."
He said the ambitious budget plan he presented Thursday will help millions of people, but only if Congress overcomes resistance from deep-pocket lobbies.
"I know these steps won't sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they're gearing up for a fight," Obama said, using tough-guy language reminiscent of his predecessor, George W. Bush. "My message to them is this: So am I."
The bring-it-on tone underscored Obama's combative side as he prepares for a drawn-out battle over his tax and spending proposals. Sometimes he uses more conciliatory language and stresses the need for bipartisanship. Often he favors lofty, inspirational phrases.
On Saturday, he was a full-throated populist, casting himself as the people's champion confronting special interest groups that care more about themselves and the wealthy than about the average American.
Some analysts say Obama's proposals are almost radical. But he said all of them were included in his campaign promises. "It is the change the American people voted for in November," he said.
Nonetheless, he said, well-financed interest groups will fight back furiously.
Insurance companies will dislike having "to bid competitively to continue offering Medicare coverage, but that's how we'll help preserve and protect Medicare and lower health care costs," the president said. "I know that banks and big student lenders won't like the idea that we're ending their huge taxpayer subsidies, but that's how we'll save taxpayers nearly $50 billion and make college more affordable. I know that oil and gas companies won't like us ending nearly $30 billion in tax breaks, but that's how we'll help fund a renewable energy economy."
Passing the budget, even with a Democratic-controlled Congress, "won't be easy," Obama said. "Because it represents real and dramatic change, it also represents a threat to the status quo in Washington."
Obama also promoted his economic proposals in a video message to a group meeting in Los Angeles on "the state of the black union."
"We have done more in these past 30 days to bring about progressive change than we have in the past many years," the president in remarks the White House released in advance. "We are closing the gap between the nation we are and the nation we can be by implementing policies that will speed our recovery and build a foundation for lasting prosperity and opportunity."
Congressional Republicans continued to bash Obama's spending proposals and his projection of a $1.75 trillion deficit this year.
Almost every day brings another "multibillion-dollar government spending plan being proposed or even worse, passed," said Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., who gave the GOP's weekly address.
He said Obama is pushing "the single largest increase in federal spending in the history of the United States, while driving the deficit to levels that were once thought impossible."
Read into it what you please, because that is what always happens:
Obama challenges lobbyists to legislative duel
AFP – US President Barack Obama speaks at Goettge Memorial Field House in Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base, North … WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama challenged the nation's vested interests to a legislative duel Saturday, saying he will fight to change health care, energy and education in dramatic ways that will upset the status quo.
"The system we have now might work for the powerful and well-connected interests that have run Washington for far too long," Obama said in his weekly radio and video address. "But I don't. I work for the American people."
He said the ambitious budget plan he presented Thursday will help millions of people, but only if Congress overcomes resistance from deep-pocket lobbies.
"I know these steps won't sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they're gearing up for a fight," Obama said, using tough-guy language reminiscent of his predecessor, George W. Bush. "My message to them is this: So am I."
The bring-it-on tone underscored Obama's combative side as he prepares for a drawn-out battle over his tax and spending proposals. Sometimes he uses more conciliatory language and stresses the need for bipartisanship. Often he favors lofty, inspirational phrases.
On Saturday, he was a full-throated populist, casting himself as the people's champion confronting special interest groups that care more about themselves and the wealthy than about the average American.
Some analysts say Obama's proposals are almost radical. But he said all of them were included in his campaign promises. "It is the change the American people voted for in November," he said.
Nonetheless, he said, well-financed interest groups will fight back furiously.
Insurance companies will dislike having "to bid competitively to continue offering Medicare coverage, but that's how we'll help preserve and protect Medicare and lower health care costs," the president said. "I know that banks and big student lenders won't like the idea that we're ending their huge taxpayer subsidies, but that's how we'll save taxpayers nearly $50 billion and make college more affordable. I know that oil and gas companies won't like us ending nearly $30 billion in tax breaks, but that's how we'll help fund a renewable energy economy."
Passing the budget, even with a Democratic-controlled Congress, "won't be easy," Obama said. "Because it represents real and dramatic change, it also represents a threat to the status quo in Washington."
Obama also promoted his economic proposals in a video message to a group meeting in Los Angeles on "the state of the black union."
"We have done more in these past 30 days to bring about progressive change than we have in the past many years," the president in remarks the White House released in advance. "We are closing the gap between the nation we are and the nation we can be by implementing policies that will speed our recovery and build a foundation for lasting prosperity and opportunity."
Congressional Republicans continued to bash Obama's spending proposals and his projection of a $1.75 trillion deficit this year.
Almost every day brings another "multibillion-dollar government spending plan being proposed or even worse, passed," said Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., who gave the GOP's weekly address.
He said Obama is pushing "the single largest increase in federal spending in the history of the United States, while driving the deficit to levels that were once thought impossible."
First, please note that I never said that pics would be released in the OP, only redacted portions of the memos. (Presumably testimonies of the prisoners) The previous thread about this turned into a debate about releasing pics, and I erroneously didn't catch and correct that. My bad.
1. Sarah's socialism is fine and dandy for Alaska: "...and Alaska - we're set up, UNLIKE other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we SHARE THE WEALTH when the development of these resources occurs"... boasting to a reporter of having been able to send a check for $1,200 to every man, woman and child in the state since, "Alaska is sometimes described as America's socialist state, because of its collective ownership of resources.”
2. She agrees with Obama's windfall profits concept...a windfall profit, by any other name, is...well, a windfall profit.
3. Sarah is a hypocrite.
4. Sarah can articulate the shrub's oil policies even more precisely that her running mate.
Yes, but he is comparing policies and emphasizing
words straight from McC's mouth and infinitely verifiable upon inspection of his record. Obama is NOT indulging himself in a character assassinating, fear-mongering, cultural warring free-for-all. People DO notice the difference, you know...at least, some of them anyway.
after 8 years of failed policies...
I don't see how Obama could possibly do any harm. Bush has just officially been rated the 36th out of 42 presidents by a nonpartisan board of scholars.
have to change. Quite frankly, I'd rather feed a family than endure/survive a home invasion. We haven't even SEEN the outcome of this economic crisis. When people are hungry, they steal. When people have nowhere to live, they steal. They steal in order to survive. In order to avoid massive civil unrest - these people need a safety net. My husband is laid off and he is a professional. I pray we don't have to resort to eating out of dumpsters in order to survive. And don't think for a minute you are immune.
pertaining to personal workspace adornment (size, number and/or appropriateness of photographs, posters, banners, political content, sports memorabilia, etc.) then I would agree with you. If you don't like the policy, don't work there. Your office is not your personal gallery.
If the company doesn't want somebody hanging up a Soviet flag, then they're probably going to have to prohibit Old Glory as well.
However, if this is a policy formulated on the spur of the moment to appease a complainer, then I disagree. What's next? An Ohio State fan complaining about a Michigan pennant in the next cubicle?) Nor do I agree that new policies should be formulated after the fact to deal with an existing situation just because nobody foresaw it. If it's an important issue, then a rule should already cover it.
If this is a public area (waiting room/reception area) then I am sure the company must have had the foresight to write a standard regarding decor, since all visitors will see this. In my opinion, if it ain't covered in that policy, it should be okay.
Interesting that people voluntarily come to this country, going to considerable effort to get here, then so easily become offended and need special accommodations. What is it they don't understand about "liberty"? If an American coworker complained about the Ugandan flag in a neighboring workspace, there would be h*ll to pay! Disciplinary action against the complainer. Law suits! ACLU involvement! Paid leave and free counseling for the Ugandan employee to get over the trauma of the event!
Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, May 6, 2006; Page A13
A day after scolding Russia for retreating on democracy, Vice President Cheney flew to oil-rich Kazakhstan yesterday and lavished praise on the autocratic leader of a former Soviet republic where opposition parties have been banned, newspapers shut down and advocacy groups intimidated.
Cheney stood next to Kazakhstan's longtime president, Nursultan Nazarbayev, in a marble hall of the presidential palace in Astana and congratulated him on his country's vibrant economy. His tone was markedly different from the tenor of his remarks about Russia a day earlier during a stop in Lithuania, when he accused Moscow of violating its citizens' rights and using intimidation or blackmail against neighbors.
In the course of a 395-word opening statement, according to a White House transcript, Cheney pronounced himself delighted to be a guest of Nazarbayev, saying I consider him my friend and adding that the United States is proud to count Kazakhstan as a friend. Cheney professed great respect for Nazarbayev and said that we are proud to be your strategic partner and look forward to continued friendship between us.
Asked about Kazakhstan's human rights record, he expressed admiration for all that's been accomplished here in Kazakhstan and confidence that it will continue.
Kazakhstan, however, remains a repressive nation, ruled by a former Communist apparatchik who has maintained a tight grip over its 15 million people since Soviet days and parlayed its massive energy reserves into a place on the international stage. Those reserves, human rights advocates say, have earned the country a pass from the Bush administration on human rights.
Nazarbayev, 65, a onetime blast-furnace operator in a steel mill, was a member of the Soviet Politburo who took over as head of the republic of Kazakhstan in 1990, became president after independence in 1991, and has stayed in office through elections that have been judged neither free nor fair by international monitors -- the most recent in December, when he claimed 91 percent of the vote.
The opposition party Democratic Choice of Kazakhstan was liquidated last year, and authorities refused to register two other opposition parties. Two opposition leaders died from gunshot wounds -- the circumstances are contested -- in recent months. The government has closed newspapers and seized print runs while using tax, immigration and other investigations to harass nongovernmental organizations. It is illegal to insult Nazarbayev or to report on his health, finances or private life.
During the year almost all media outlets willing to criticize the president directly were subjected to intimidation, often in the form of law enforcement actions or civil suits, the State Department's annual human rights report stated in March.
Nazarbayev has been accused of massive corruption. His own prime minister revealed in 2002 that Nazarbayev had stashed $1 billion in oil money in a secret Swiss bank account. Aides called it a legitimate special reserve account. U.S. prosecutors have also charged American businessman James H. Giffen with laundering tens of millions of dollars in oil company bribes to Nazarbayev and his family, allegations the Kazakh president denies.
Oil has dominated U.S. relations with Kazakhstan for years. With the largest crude oil reserves in the Caspian Sea region, Kazakhstan pumps 1.2 million barrels a day and exports 1 million of that, making it an increasingly important international supplier. With foreign investment flooding into the country, the Kazakh government hopes to boost production to 3.5 million barrels a day by 2015, rivaling Iran.
But human rights groups that hailed Cheney's comments on Russia said Kazakhstan deserved the same. It is hardly consistent, said Curt Goering, deputy executive director of Amnesty International. He made some important remarks [on Russia]. He said some of the right things that needed to be said. But he should have said some similar things in Kazakhstan.
I guess this explains who Bush's real enemies are, and it has nothing to do with terrorism (unless you're the innocent American being targeted).
Posted on Fri, Jan. 20, 2006
U.S. accused of spying on those who disagree with Bush policies BY WILLIAM E. GIBSON South Florida Sun-Sentinel
WASHINGTON - While the White House defended domestic surveillance as a safeguard against terrorism, a Florida peace activist and several Democrats in Congress accused the Bush administration on Friday of spying on Americans who disagree with President Bush's policies.
Richard Hersh, of Boca Raton, Fla., director of Truth Project Inc. of Palm Beach County, told an ad hoc panel of House Democrats that his group and others in South Florida have been infiltrated and spied upon despite having no connections to terrorists.
Agents rummaged through the trash, snooped into e-mails, packed Web sites and listened in on phone conversations, Hersh charged. We know that address books and activist meeting lists have disappeared.
The Truth Project gained national attention when NBC News reported last month that it was described as a credible threat in a database of suspicious activity compiled by the Pentagon's Talon program. The listing cited the group's gathering a year ago at a Quaker meeting house in Lake Worth, Fla., to talk about ways to counter military recruitment at high schools.
Talon is separate from the controversial domestic-surveillance program conducted by the National Security Agency. Bush has acknowledged signing orders that allow the NSA to eavesdrop without the usual court warrants, prompting an outcry from many in Congress.
Bush plans to tour the NSA on Wednesday as part of a campaign to defend his handling of the program.
This is a critical tool that helps us save lives and prevent attacks, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said on Friday. It is limited and targeted to al-Qaida communications, with the focus being on detection and prevention.
The Defense Department's Talon program collects data from a wide variety of sources, including military personnel and private citizens, Pentagon spokesman Greg Hicks said.
They are unfiltered dots of information about perceived threats, Hicks said. An analyst will look at that information. And what we are trying to do is connect the dots before the next major attack.
To Hersh and some members of Congress, the warrant-less surveillance and Talon are all a part of domestic-spying operations that threaten civil liberties of average Americans and put dissenters under a cloud of suspicion.
Neither you nor anybody in that (Quaker) church had anything to do with terrorism, said Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla. The fact is, the Truth Project may have a philosophy that is adverse to the political philosophy and goals of the president of the United States. And as a result of that different philosophy, the president and the secretary of defense ordered that your group be spied upon.
There should not be a single American who today remains confident that it couldn't happen to them.
aThis post is in violation of Rapture Ready's policies.
You are in violation of Rapture Ready's polices by posting a link to their message board on this forum. The following is a direct quote from their terms of service.
"No posts or links from other message boards, forums, or political and religious blogs on this site or posting messages here on other message boards, forums, or political and religious blogs."
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)
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.
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
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.