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 policies
He most certainly does NOT know what he is doing.
concerning foreign politics he does..nm
nm
I wish he was in foreign politics
nm
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.
She was in state politics at the time, not national politics......
how much foreign policy experience did Bill have when he went to the presidency having only been a governor? The same as Sarah Palin. Because he was concentrating on his job...the state of Arkansas (and Paula Jones and what was that stripper's name?). Sarah Palin was concentrating on the state of Alaska.
Good grief. lol. Why don't you poll all the governors in all the states in the union and ask them how much they think about foreign policy?
Update
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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!
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.
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.”
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.”
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!!