Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Has President Barack Obama provided any clues on how he plans to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States? After taking the oath of office as cited below….

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

…President Barack Obama delivered his inaugural address. As the transcript provides in the second paragraph of his speech President Obama made reference to this. ‘At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.’ There are two troubling items here. Is there a difference between ‘we the people’ and the President of the United States? And ‘true to our founding documents’ could be viewed as a little vague. Since he is now in the highest office in the nation it is difficult to determine if he is drawing a distinction between the two especially now that he is in ‘high office’.

If you object to the preceding paragraph consider the following:

There are other references out there on President Obama’s view of the founding documents. Use a search engine with the words ‘obama’ and ‘constitution’. For example, he in populating the US Supreme Court and perhaps other federal courts Mr Obama has said this. In explaining his vote against Roberts, Obama opined that deciding the “truly difficult” cases requires resort to “one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.” In short, “the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart.” No clearer prescription for lawless judicial activism is possible.

Here’s a little more from the piece at The Weekly Standard.

Indeed, in setting forth the sort of judges he would appoint, Obama has explicitly declared: “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old–and that’s the criterion by which I’ll be selecting my judges.” So much for the judicial virtue of dispassion. So much for a craft of judging that is distinct from politics.

Here’s a teaser from a Powerline piece that you may be interested in reading. Yesterday the Obama campaign called on University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein to tamp down the furor over Obama’s advocacy of “redistributive change” and overcoming of the Constitution’s “negative rights” in his 2001 radio interview. Politico’s Ben Smith reliably channelled Professor Sunstein’s spinning on behalf of Obama.

Another statement holds the phrase, ‘we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.’ Says who? Hope is for losers. The minute you start a sentence with ‘I hope’ you end the pursuit of the ends you seek by abandoning self-determination and personal responsibility. You then expect someone or something else to provide the solution on your behalf. Even the lottery has better odds of success. Hope is not the antidote for fear. Fear is a natural response to a threat. Hope is not part of the solution but a surrender to the fear.

‘Unity of purpose over conflict and discord’ is choice rhetoric. It is merely an extension of the hope and fear sentiment designed by the far left to convince the weak to succumb to the nanny state philosophy that government is the answer to all your problems. It is further evidence that an Obama Administration will choose appeasement and surrender over standing up and defending freedom against those who wish our nation harm.

The next two paragraphs on ’setting aside childish things’ and ‘reaffirmation’ is merely a shot at his opposition party as well as the previous administration. It is full of contradictions in how we must change and yet continue as we are. It exposes the desire to change America and redefine that change as something we have lost which is untrue. The only time we risk losing what is and has been America is when we fail to oppose radical notions that would lead to and end of this republic as we know it.

The next contradiction in this speech begins ‘this is the journey we continue today.’ On the one hand President Obama states we are just as good and strong as we always were and on the other hand we must change. Perhaps his call to stop putting off unpleasant decisions refers to his pursuit of socialism. If you disagree with this appraisal please explain how a never ending expansion of government and a continuation of government control of private enterprise is anything other than a move to socialism? The subsequent paragraph largely details Obama’s plan for such policies.

The paragraph starting with ‘nor is the question before us’ specifically addresses President Obama’s desire to redistribute wealth disguised as an endorsement of free markets. He accepts the fact that free markets work but without government intervention they do not share the wealth equally or for the common good. Yes, go ahead and be successful in free markets but be ready to share all you have with everyone else whether they earn it or not.

Much of the remainder of the speech beyond this point continues to stress Obama’s belief that his ideas are what WAS good about America and uses general rhetorical references to history as his proof that what he believes is what we once were. These parts of the speech reinforce his intention to appease the very people who threaten this nation. They are crafted to send a message that this new leader will bend to the threat. Every time this nation has withdrawn and given confidence to those who believe we are too timid to defend ourselves we have been attacked. A return to such policies will only invite more of the same. For Mr Obama to attempt to convince the public that weak-kneed concessions and appeasement of global threats is the best defense underscores his refusal to understand history or his intent to mislead.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

“It seems the era of Hope is to be inaugurated with a slaughter of the innocents.” (Michelle Malkin) 

My fellow citizens:

I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America’s decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America - they will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things - some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.

Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions - that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort - even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world’s resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment - a moment that will define a generation - it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter’s courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent’s willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends - hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence - the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed - why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America’s birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

“Let it be told to the future world…that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive…that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it].”

America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children’s children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God’s grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

It is no surprise with all the hype that continues about PEBO and the arrival of inaugural activities many so-called experts have an abundance of advice equalled only be their desire to be heard and given media attention. Nothing like using a national event to promote your own self-interest. The least impressive video account below belongs to the person with the easiest name to abuse while criticizing. Guess who it is? (hint: it could make you hurl)

J Scott Carpenter is one of Bremer’s Boyz from the days of the Iraq Provisional saga and has ties to Duncan Hunter and Rich Santorum. There are other details you can find for yourself with a simple search or visit to Wiki or Source Watch, etc. Michelle Dunne from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace may have some similar history with foundations, institutes, academia or other org’s as Carpenter. The value of the opinions of these two is probably up to the reader. This blog lumps them into the category of those who have connections in the public sector and likely special interest motivations influencing their positions.

Go figure, Heather Hurlburt is a former speechwriter for Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright. Has been described as a ‘Michigan-based consultant and writer’. That explains a lot. Hisham Melham is a Lebanese journalist and bureau chief for As-Safir Daily, a Beirut, Lebanon, newspaper. That wraps up the brief descriptions of those offering their advice to Obama on the Middle East. Will his administration or any others in Washington offer better? Only time will tell. But there are a couple of points made in one or more of these videos that may in fact be valid.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Video: What Should Obama Say to the Middle East?

By Mohamed Elshinnawi
Washington
17 January 2009

So what should President Barack Obama say to the Middle East? That was the question before a panel of Middle East experts convened recently by two Washington-based nonprofit groups - the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Project for Middle East Democracy.

Click the videos below to view excerpts of the panelists’ addresses.

J. Scott Carpenter

Carpenter says the Obama administration must recognize the Bush administration’s mission to promote freedom in the Middle East failed. He says the U.S. must narrowly define its interests in the region.

Michele Dunne

Michele Dunne cautions the Obama administration against developing a rigid list of policy priorities for the Middle East and encourages officials instead to develop a framework for dealing with unexpected challenges that are likely to arise.

Heather Hurlburt

Heather Hurlburt encourages Obama’s administration to listen to leaders in the Middle East and promote cultural exchanges between Americans and Arabs.

Hisham Melhem

Hisham Melhem says Obama’s tone will be very important when he addresses the Middle East.

An AP report suggests Barack Obama will try to improve America’s image as viewed by other nations. The report also blames America’s image problem entirely on the war on terror. Could it be many nations are not happy with the US for refusing to do nothing about 9/11? Could it be those nations had hoped that after the attack on the World Trade Center America would simply withdraw from the international stage or offer surrender or appeasement to the terrorists and their state sponsors?

Rather than suggest America has an image problem it may be reasonable to suggest there are plenty of countries in the world that need to address their own ‘image’ problems. According to the USA Today on Feb 6, 2002 15 of the 19 hijackers from the 9/11 attack were from Saudi Arabia. The Saudis disputed this information and at one point suggested it was Israeli-inspired. Well no one is disputing Osama bin Laden was born in Saudi Arabia and had his citizenship withdrawn in 1994.

What about those of power and influence in Saudi Arabia? The royal family in all its luxury and fundamentalist views has been accused of many things with regard to the way ordinary citizens are treated in their country. How much different is that to the way others are treated in countries like Iran, Syria, or even Iraq? In general, how are Muslims doing on matters of human rights, treatment of women, tolerance of other religions and violence or oppression of individuals in their midst who may not share their views? But America has an image problem. How ironic.

Yet President-elect Barack Hussein Obama (the full name as he intends to use at inauguration) intends to make his case to the Muslim world in an effort to improve America’s image as viewed by Islamic nations. Obama promised during his campaign that one of his top priorities would be to work to repair America’s reputation worldwide, and that one element of that effort would be a speech delivered in a Muslim capital. It is reported as customary for American presidents to be inaugurated using their full name. It is also reasonable to believe that Barack Obama’s parents are responsible for selecting his full name. But every choice made by Barack Obama as an adult is a responsibility he must shoulder. Does his intention to essentially ‘apologize’ to the Muslim world add support to the notion that liberals favor surrender and appeasement to those who favor our destruction as well as anyone else viewed as infidels. Which by the way sometimes includes members of their own religion.

“It’s something I intend to follow through on,” Obama said in an interview published Wednesday in the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times. “We’ve got a unique opportunity to reboot America’s image around the world and also in the Muslim world in particular. So we need to take advantage of that.”

‘In the Muslim world in particular’ is a troubling statement. The President-elect seems to be focusing on an agenda item discussed by many during the 2008 campaign in which bloggers in particular were criticized for suggesting. That Barack Obama may demonstrate his affinity with the Muslim world through policy and initiatives while in the White House. Another major concern by those opposed to his election deals with his connection to corrupt Chicago politics all the way up to the Illinois governor who was arrested on corruption charges this week. How about the following excerpt in light of that and concerns with his associations with the likes of Tony Rezko and William Ayers, etc.

Obama said he, his wife Michelle and their two young daughters will make frequent visits during his presidency back to their home in Chicago, perhaps as often as every six weeks. “My Kennebunkport is on the South Side of Chicago,” he said. “Our friends are here. Our family is here. And so we are going to try to come back here as often as possible.”

His continued closeness with all things Chicago may be his undoing. Blagojevich is keeping that possibility alive. Here is another link on this story for you to ponder.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Parents worldwide inspired to name kids for Obama (Michelle Malkin)

Florida’s 24th district featured a decisive win for Democrat Suzanne Kosmas over three term Republican incumbent Tom Feeney. Kosmas is cited as having a real estate business and serving eight years in the Florida legislature. She will represent four Florida counties and while some refer to her as a moderate and having a history of working with Republicans and opposing tax cuts in Florida there are also hints of typical liberal agendas. At the top is her redeployment stance on Iraq, supporting massive infrastructure spending as well as propping up the Kennedy Space Center in her state, universal health care and alternative energy. If she believes in balanced budgets, pay as you go, ‘accountability’ and tax cuts how does that live with the spending she supports?

No need to scream about the lack of performance by Congress or the White House or either major political party on matters related to money. Managing budgets, appropriations and trying to empty the Treasury includes all of the above as co-conspirators. Only time will tell if Kosmas is just another liberal and the jury will probably be out for some time as she is another freshman member of the US House.

While this blog is something of a fan of NASA and its long history the agency is not without serious flaws. The relatively small portion of the federal budget used by NASA (16 billion a few years back) may be made leaner if the space agency ever decides to pursue some of the technologies advanced by the private sector in recent years. Kosmas states in her brief announcement and introduction on The Hill’s Congress blog that she views NASA, or more precisely, the Kennedy Space Center as ‘one of the most significant issues’ in her district. That is followed by this statement. ‘We will keep people working there and flying into space.’ It would seem reasonable to conclude NASA’s future and the employment prospects of those at the Kennedy Space Center will be determined by more than a statement by a freshman member of the House.

In the last paragraph of her blog post Kosmas indicates her constituents want bipartisan cooperation in Washington and adds her party leadership says they intend to do just that. Oh, the optimism and hopeful chants expressed by newly elected politicians. Armed with nothing more than a new job in Washington with the small probability that she will be able to accomplish anything significant during her first term or two Kosmas mirrors most of what the other newbies are saying. Would it be premature to conclude that the freshman described in these few posts as well as all the ones before them contribute to Washington politics as usual as their entry to national politics is taken from the same tired old script and political playbook used by those in Congress and elsewhere for years?

Veteran lawmakers typically gloat after their efforts defeat a competing effort from the opposition party. Likewise they blame the opposition party when things do not go well which is often. Veteran politicians and newbies use approved rhetoric when speaking publicly in an attempt to snow the voter. When things get really bad they all talk about the word ‘bipartisan’. It is used to equally distribute blame when they are all guilty and agree to collective job saving, their own. It is also used in an attempt to make the opposition party look bad when nothing is being done typically in regard to legislation. So the newbies mentioned here as well as the veteran lawmakers are all relying heavily on their political playbooks which supports the notion that, yes, newbies are complicit in Washington politics as usual.

Regarding Suzanne Kosmas specifically, there is a chance with what has been said about her and some of her previous state legislative performance something positive may occur. But those hopes may be dashed by her status as freshman and how her party will manipulate that fact to their advantage. Most likely will be the pressure to ‘do as we say’ or no money for you at re-election time.

We may never hear about her again.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

This third installment of The Downside of Elections as Term Limits features an interesting politician. For he was in politics as a staffer at the state level in Ohio. He is a veteran of the Air Force and tours in Iraq, etc., and advocates for veterans. He was a member of the state legislature in Ohio and has pursued his education to the level of master’s degree. Another US Congressional freshman with a substantial resume’ who is no stranger to politics. That may be further qualified by his announcement on The Hill dot com Congress blog. That is where this series of post’s started and continues to this third post. What is similar and what is contrast within John Boccieri’s blog post compared to the first two freshman featured here?

The classic excuse of representing one’s home constituents as a politician prepares to lobby for funds on his state’s behalf is presented in Boccieri’s opening at the Congress Blog. While separating Ohio from the remainder of the country in terms of economic strife he ignores state’s like Michigan who are in similar straits. Later in the second of two paragraphs he hints at favoring the auto industry bailout while explaining 25% of Ohio’s economy rises of falls with the Big Three. Maybe there should be some mention of why Ohio puts that many eggs in one basket? There are other examples where for instance agriculture dominates the economic landscape. And we all know how much of that industry was manipulated by others. From government subsidies tempting family farmers to abandon good principles in exchange for a sure thing by growing this or more frequently not growing that to the corporate heavyweights buying up or putting out of business those family farms which had been the core of American culture and economics. With all the talk of diversity these days there is a definite lack of it in American business demonstrated by forestry in the northwest, agriculture in the ‘heartland’, commercial fishing in the coastal areas and the list goes on.

While Boccieri is a veteran and advocates for veterans he seems to favor withdrawal from Iraq, etc. It is difficult to tell by his words but it may leave you with the impression his ‘bring them home with honor’ mirrors those liberals demanding surrender or appeasement before the troop surge but softening their tone after victory became the likely outcome. More pandering may be present in his use of hot button issues like health care and all those items focused on Ohio. Sure, all politicians do it. Lobby for their states through pork and earmarks and other political prizes. Does this freshman to the US Congress possess those characteristics attributed to long term lawmakers by virtue of his state experience? How else can one interpret his blog announcement?

There are videos at youtube where you can simply search by this freshman’s name to view them. None reviewed here gave a good glimpse into this politician’s motives or agenda. His blog post of two paragraphs seemed to do it better. That is why there are none published here as with the two former freshman featured.

Getting People Back To Work And Bringing Our Troops Homes (Congressman-elect John Boccieri)

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

All you have to do is Google, 2008 presidential election Jewish vote, to learn that exit polls and pundits conclude 78% of this voting demographic selected Barack Obama for President. Some people on the planet, not the least of which is the Arab world, have long complained that the US has a biased view in their support of Israel. Some people complain that the US affords too much support to the Palestinians and others on the side opposite Israel in this long standing dispute over land, politics, policies, religion, history and a whole list of sensitive issues not the least of which is the survival of this tiny state surrounded by much larger unfriendly neighbors.

The US and Israel have been staunch, unyielding allies for most if not all of the long standing relationship. So why the 78% vote for Obama? To the casual observer it would seem logical that Jewish voters would have overwhelmingly supported John McCain for President. Here is one sources ’spin’ on the vote.

The economic crisis and disgruntled Hillary Clinton voters “coming home” to the Democratic Party are the best explanations for the Obama surge, Brooks said, denying that there was any evidence — other than some anecdotal reports — that McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as his vice presidential nominee was a factor in Jews turning so decisively towards Obama.

There is much more in the report above but this observer would have expected no such outcome. Any reports seen here over the years suggested that by and large the Jewish vote is dominated by the issue of Israel and the US support associated with its survival. This blog would also suspect that no special special support for Israel will be forthcoming from an Obama administration. Some other reports may bear this out based on reaction to the Obama election from abroad.

People on the streets here in Cairo, and across much of the Arab world, appear elated by the election of Democrat Barak Obama as the next president of the United States, despite some apprehension in the Gulf and in Lebanon.

Commentators on Al-Jazeera TV, which has consistently criticized the outgoing Bush administration for its policies towards the Arab world, appeared almost jubilant over Mr. Obama’s election, with many hailing the results of the election as a “positive for the Arab world.”

Aside from a Syrian paper’s editorial suggesting anyone will be better than President Bush or an Egyptian who apparently drank the Kool Aid before echoing Obama supporters’ common refrain that Obama will solve the world’s problems, the ‘Arab world’ seems to believe that Obama, Biden and the Dems majority in Congress will benefit them. Perhaps their are Arabs and Jews who like most other people on the planet would just like to see the Middle East’s problems solved it should be reasonable to suggest that what the Arab world wants and what Israel wants are quite clearly at odds given the history of the region and state of affairs over so many decades in recent memory. So if the Arab world is ‘almost jubilant’ over the Obama victory and 78% of the Jewish vote in America went for the new President-elect, what are they all thinking?

“But, for some Arab Gulf states, especially Saudi Arabia and those who deal really with the Bush family and with the Republicans in particular, I think it is not a good moment for them; they prefer to deal with the Republicans and not with the democrats, since the democrats emphasize democracy and human rights and those issues are not welcomed in such countries as Egypt, and Saudi Arabia,” he added.

Essam El Aryan, who is a leader of Egypt’s banned Muslim Brotherhood was mostly optimistic about Mr. Obama’s election and thought it was good for both the Arab and Islamic worlds.

It is almost unavoidable to at least mention some issues raised during the campaign, reasonable or not, regarding Barack Obama and items in his past and more recent history related to the Muslim world. With a Muslim father and part of his youth spent in Indonesia as well as other similar connections to the Muslim or Arab world is it possible that while many, including the Obama campaign, dismissed these facts as irrelevant that others outside the US include these facts in their positive assessment? And could it also be that the trips to Syria and other locations in the Arab world by Speaker Pelosi’s mini-world tour convinced the Arab world that the Dems in general are ready to appease them? After all, Barack Obama is ready, willing and now able to begin discussions with Iran without any opposition from anyone about how the meetings are initiated. So again, why did 78% of the Jewish vote in the US go for Obama?

Granted, sentiment in the Arab world is not unanimous on the election of Barack Obama. Despite the general tone of optimism in the Arab press over President-elect Barak Obama’s victory, the Arab daily Al-Hayat ran a caricature showing an Israeli wielding a gun at an Arab man, joking “heads, Obama, and we win; tails McCain, and you lose,” suggesting that the paper thinks neither candidate will really be beneficial to the Arab world.

So what about opinion in Israel? Reaction to the news of Mr. Obama’s victory was not so positive in Jewish West Jerusalem, where many Israelis saw John McCain as a stronger supporter of Israel. This 67-year-old Israeli woman says she was born in Israel and has lived through several wars with Arabs. She says Obama’s willingness to engage Iran and his outreach to Palestinians makes her feel unsafe. She says Mr. Obama’s election presents a danger for Israel and a danger for America.

To put a positive spin on Obama foreign policy as it may or may not be regarding Israel and the rest of the Middle East an academic contributes the following anecdote. Political scientist Mohammed Dajani, of Al Quds University in Arab East Jerusalem, hosted Mr. Obama during a visit and was impressed by his charisma.

“He was able to actually inspire Palestinians who walked in as anti-Americans, yet he was able to keep the message that he had [and] he was able to win them over,” he said. “So I feel he is someone who could inspire both antagonists or both conflicting parties, to be able to find a solutions, within his term, for the Arab-Israeli conflict.”

That would represent an incredibly optimistic viewpoint. For as long as the ‘crisis’ in the Middle East has continued where does one locate realistic expectations of a solution acceptable to those involved that at a minimum would eliminate the constant threat of violence or war? Official comments out of Israel, as might be expected, expressed the expectation of continued cooperation from the US.

Maybe President-elect Obama will convey the same sentiment to Israel that he delivered to the American people in his acceptance speech. That nothing may be accomplished in the first year or first term and we all will need to sacrifice. Could the 78% Jewish vote for Obama be having buyer’s remorse yet?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, McCain Blogs, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Cao’s Blog, Democrat=Socialist, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

There are obvious questions about Colin Powell’s essentially 11th hour endorsement of Barack Obama. Not the least of which would be why Powell’s son remains loyal to Senator John McCain. In the piece below from The Hill there is a suggestion that the junior Powell may stand to win a job in a McCain Administration. One could make the case he could have a job in either candidate’s administration. A more compelling question could be is Colin Powell’s endorsement a little payback for falling on his sword at the United Nations with his now famous address laying out the case for WMD leading up to the war in Iraq? Or is it simply that Colin Powell is now in a position to do what he wants?

Colin Powell splits with son over White House race
By Alexander Bolton
Posted: 10/20/08 02:21 PM [ET]

Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, has put him at odds with his own son, former Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Michael Powell.

Michael Powell, who served as a policy adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, is a surrogate for John McCain and represents the GOP nominee on the campaign trail.

He endorsed McCain early in the Republican primary in January, and said the Arizona senator was the best candidate to “calm the turbulent economic waters and to steer the new economy in a direction that will bring growth, opportunity and prosperity to all Americans.”

Rush Limbaugh wants you to believe Colin Powell’s endorsement is based solely on race. There is not sufficient information to conclude that to be true or false. But it certainly is plausible. This blog believes its payback time. All those years of being the good soldier, serving at the pleasure of the President and a fine record of accomplishment and a stellar reputation that was at least threatened by the United Nations episode may see the General using his new found freedom to stick it to the GOP and his former colleagues. But at what price?

Barack Obama comes with a substantial amount of baggage as does his running mate Joe Biden. If Colin Powell is supporting Barack Obama simply due to the shared heritage of race, how would that play if any of Obama’s skeletons in the closet emerge as major political scandals? By throwing support for the Democratic party candidate Powell may be risking more bad press if the conveniently scheduled post-election hearings on the housing scandal at Freddie and Fannie are not successful in covering up DNC complicity in the subprime mortgage mess.

Colin Powell did not have to endorse either candidate. Is it possible that the man with the stellar reputation and immense standing in the world is merely endorsing Barack Obama for President because he truly believes he is the right man for the job? You can only believe that if you are certain that Colin Powell did everything in his life based on what he believed in rather than what was expected of him. Powell was at odds with Cheney and Rumsfeld over the Iraq situation and was regularly ganged up on by others in the Adminstration. Yet he went to the United Nations, again serving at the pleasure of the President, and made the case for the Bush White House and WMD. Are you convinced he believed what he was saying or do you think he did what was expected of him?

So it is possible Colin Powell is endorsing Barack Obama for reasons other than he believes Obama to be the right man for the job. Could it be another reasonable person is being used by the scam phenomenon that is Obama? Colin Powell’s endorsement may be more complicated than any one reason. He may believe Barack Obama is the right man for the job. He may be doing this solely on race. He may be getting payback on his former colleagues.

The endorsement effect may have faded over time so the announcement this close to the election may be more telling than other indicators. Help shore up some fading support and dominate some of the news cycle with a big name endorsement with two weeks left. This is strategy and Powell is no stranger to such things. This is politically motivated and there is an agenda in which Powell is a player. Endorsements should not have much significance these days as there is little risk to those offering the endorsement in most cases.

So the payback angle still holds. But what Colin Powell may have in mind is another run at Secretary of State. Go back and do things the way you wanted to without the restrictions from opposition like the last time around. But that could be done in a McCain Administration as well. But then Powell would not get the added bonus of doing it with a black President.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

It is not uncommon to find an analysis of the foreign policy differences between John McCain and Barack Obama. One such analysis below from down under agrees with the view from this blog and is used here to emphasize that point. Senator John McCain is in a much better position to deal with Iran than Barack Obama. Among all the issues that face the US now and will face the next President very soon, Iran and their pursuit of nuclear capabilities as well as the threats against Israel, the rest of the Middle East and the world in general ranks as critiical. So think about the other events related to Iran presented below and their historical implications.

Iran test candidates

In the end the result was much closer than anticipated, with most political pundits calling it tie. But on the crucial issue of Iran, Senator McCain struck a more convincing tone, giving him the edge on this most pressing of security issues. What to do about Iran’s nuclear weapons program will be one of the most difficult challenges to face the next occupant of the White House. A nuclear-armed Iran would spark an atomic arms race in the Middle East, threaten the world’s oil supplies and embolden Iran-sponsored extremist groups such as Hezbollah.

Senator Obama’s policy on Iran has been marked by missteps, most notably his offer to negotiate directly with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions. In Saturday’s debate he backtracked on this position, saying he was no longer so sure. But he stuck to his belief that direct diplomacy would give the US more credibility to press for tougher sanctions. Senator McCain was more forthright, ruling out talks with Mr Ahmadinejad and reiterating his opposition to giving ground in any way that might legitimise the Iranian leader’s illegal behaviour.

At first glance, the title from an article in the Tehran Times suggested someone had lost their mind or this was simply propaganda from Iran.

Rabbis hail Ahmadinejad’s NY visit

A group of American rabbis welcome Iran’s President Mahmud Ahmadinejad’s visit to New York in a move aimed at countering an anti-Iran protest.

Iran promotes peace and respects Judaism, spokesman of Neturei Karta International (Jews United Against Zionism) Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss said in a statement issued on the eve of President Ahmadinejad’s visit to New York.

This is while a pro-Israeli group called the Conference of Presidents of Major American Organizations has made efforts to organize a rally in front of the UN headquarters on Sunday to protest President Mahmud Ahmadinejad’s arrival in the U.S..

Right out of the blocks the claim that Iran ‘promotes peace and respects Judaism’ sends the BS meter off the charts. How is advocating the destruction of Israel promoting peace and respecting Judaism? The additional strange suggestion from the piece indicating Rabbis on both sides of the Iranian controversy. The report offered below also presents a combination of expected and unexpected responses to Iran.

A coalition of U.S. religious groups exchanged views with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at a New York hotel.

The dialogue Thursday, sponsored by Mennonite, Quaker and other religious groups that press for world peace, had been sharply criticized by Jewish groups for allegedly legitimating the Iranian president’s anti-Semitic rhetoric and his oppression of religious minorities in Iran.

Expected: Jewish groups criticizing others for meeting with the Iranian President. Unexpected: other religious groups meeting with the Iranian President. While one might not reasonably expect everyone to hold the same opinion on Iran on every issue, recognizing Ahmadinejad’s call for the destruction of Israel and therefore condemning the Iranian Preisdent and refusing to meet with him should be SOP for religious groups as well as political leaders. Since Ahmadinejad has been compared to Hitler it is not a stretch to view some recent events as similar to the coddling manner by which many also treated Hitler during his rise to power in Germany. And we all know what happened then.

And then a surprise from the WSJ that would seem more appropriately located in the confines of the NYT based on past history. A reporter’s account of an invite and dinner with Ahmadinejad extended to those of Iranian heritage.

Inside Iran, sentiments are divided over him. The ultra conservatives praise his populist demeanor while others criticize him for his government’s economic policies that have contributed to the rise of unemployment and a 25% inflation rate, despite a country swimming in cash from soaring oil prices.

At the dinner party in New York, criticism of Mr. Ahmadinejad appeared to have been brushed aside and replaced with fervent nationalistic pride. Both the host and the attendees appeared to cling to the one strong, if only, tie: being Iranian.

And the same mixed reactions are of course not dead at the United Nations either.

Sound familiar? First there is tough talk from those in the UN and the IAEA that Iran is dangerous and pursuing nukes (or WMD) and that they are ignoring the United Nations and members that are demanding they cease and desist.

UN Nuclear Agency Accuses Iran of Blocking Investigation

September 15, 2008
The United Nations nuclear agency is accusing Iran of blocking a U.N. investigation into allegations that Tehran tried to make nuclear weapons.

The UN then speaks of enforcing sanctions and possibly announcing more to which Ahmadinejad promptly flips them off.

Iran’s Ahmadinejad Dismisses Sanction Talk as Weak

September 18, 2008
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has dismissed talk of new sanctions over Iran’s disputed nuclear work as a sign of weakness by those making the threat.

And about a week later the Iranian President struts his stuff at the UN and essentially tells them to go pound sand

Iran’s Ahmadinejad Denounces ‘Bullying Powers’ in UN Address

Sept 26, 2008
The Iranian leader sounded a defiant tone at the United Nations, where preliminary consultations have been held on a possible fourth sanctions resolutions against Tehran in the Security Council because of its refusal to halt uranium enrichment.

Sounds like the UN responded with tougher sanctions after being bad mouthed by Iran.

Major Powers Agree on New UN Resolution on Iran

Sept 26, 2008
Putting aside differences over Georgia, the United States and Russia joined other major powers Friday in endorsing a new draft U.N. Security Council resolution calling on Iran to comply with international demands to halt its uranium enrichment program. The draft, expected to be approved by the full council next week, reaffirms existing U.N. sanctions against Iran but contains no new ones.

While the previous report indicates there were no new sanctions, the title and story below drive home the point.

Iran Avoids New Sanctions in Security Council Vote

By Margaret Besheer
27 September 2008

The United Nations Security Council has adopted a resolution ordering Iran to halt its uranium enrichment program — but the council did not impose any new sanctions.

And on top of all that comes a recent addition to the shameful actions of some Iranian citizens.

Young Iranians Release Book Caricaturing The Holocaust

Sunday, September 28, 2008

TEHRAN, Sept. 27 — Iranian students have released a book containing cartoons of the Holocaust, including some depicting hospitalized Jews on respiratory machines attached to canisters of Zyklon B, the gas used to exterminate Jews during World War II.

The students, members of a state militia, unveiled “Holocaust” in Tehran’s Palestine Square on Friday in the presence of Education Minister Ali Reza Ali-Ahmadi, during annual demonstrations calling for the retreat of “Zionists” from “occupied Palestine.”

Below is an excerpt of an account of the Iranian President’s stand on Israel.

Ahmadinejad: Destroy Israel, End Crisis

Thursday, August 3, 2006; 10:49 AM

PUTRAJAYA, Malaysia — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday the solution to the Middle East crisis is to destroy Israel. In a speech during an emergency meeting of Muslim leaders, Ahmadinejad also called for an immediate halt to fighting in Lebanon between Israel and the Iranian-backed militant group Hezbollah.

“Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented,” he said.

Ahmadinejad, who has drawn international condemnation with previous calls for Israel to be wiped off the map, said the Middle East would be better off “without the existence of the Zionist regime.”

Israel “is an illegitimate regime, there is no legal basis for its existence,” he said.

There are enough examples in this post to reveal nearly every nation, organization or group is complicit in allowing the insanity that is Ahmadinejad to persist. Many are quick to condemn his behavior but few, especially the United Nations, are prepared to support that condemnation with action. This includes other Arab states who publicly support peace in the Middle East but whose actions offer little evidence that this is anything more than posturing.

It has been said that during the first Presidential debate John McCain was the only adult in the room. That would be a plus since Ahamdinejad contends since the US has nukes Iran should be able to also. An adult would handle that like any other lame argument from an unruly child and not allow the stupidity to continue. Whereas Barack Obama would simply say ‘no’ without follow up action like the fine parents who let their children raise hell in public to the disdain of others wishing the offending parent(s) knew how to raise children.

But of course that is an absurd analogy on the state of affairs with Iran equal to the inept response of world leaders to the very real threat of the stated goals of Iran.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

It is beginning to show that President Bush is aware his tenure is almost over and little time is left to pursue remaining tasks. Some very critical objectives were successfully accomplished during his watch but not without a series of flawed actions or policies. It is likely historians years from now will be more sympathetic in analyzing his Presidency than current observers.

As an example the economy is the number one issue entering the November elections. When has it not been in a Presidential election. And it is unfair to characterize the economic climate a recession as it does not pass the test of two consecutive quarters of decline in the GDP. For all the noise made about decisions leading up to the war in Iraq including prosecution of the war pre-troop surge, the antiwar left has been relatively quiet compared to this time last year. There were plenty of mistakes for sure, but the clamor over them has ignored the achievements of the Bush Administration. Not the least of which was to neutralize a Democratic Congress and avoid a larger mess if the liberals had there way.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Bush Expected to Maintain US Troop Level in Iraq through 2008

By Al Pessin
Pentagon
Pessin report - Download (MP3)
Pessin report - Listen (MP3)

The White House says next week President Bush will announce his plans for U.S. troop levels in Iraq for the rest of his time in office, an announcement that will also affect how many additional troops he can send to Afghanistan. Officials say senior military officers have recommended no further Iraq withdrawals this year, and only a small one early next year, which could make it difficult for commanders to address the increased attacks by insurgents in Afghanistan. VOA’s Al Pessin reports from the Pentagon.

President George W. Bush

President Bush’s long-awaited announcement is expected next Monday or Tuesday, before Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the top U.S. military officer Admiral Mike Mullen testify before a congressional committee on Wednesday. Those men gave their recommendations to the president two days ago, and officials say they included the views of the top coalition commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus. They also included the views of the heads of the U.S. military services, who have been particularly concerned about the stress on the force caused by multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.

On condition of anonymity, officials have told news reporters the recommendation is for no further reduction in the 140,000-strong U.S. contingent in Iraq this year, and for a small reduction of between 3,000 and 5,000 troops in January, just before President Bush leaves office.

White House Press Secretary Dana Perino hinted at the go-slow approach on Friday, saying the president does not want to do anything that could reverse the security gains made in Iraq during the past year.

“The question in the president’s mind has been, ‘How do we make sure that we cement those gains and not jeopardize those gains?’ and be able to continue the process of ‘Return on Success.’ He’s obviously talking to his national security team and he’ll be consulting with members of congress before we move forward,” she said.

Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Schloesser (file photo)

American officials have long said they would like to increase the U.S. and international troop presence in Afghanistan, but that the United States does not have many troops to send as long as its commitment in Iraq remains high. So President Bush’s expected announcement may not be good news for the U.S. commander in eastern Afghanistan, Major General Jeffrey Schloesser, who spoke to reporters at the Pentagon Friday via satellite.

“I’m going to ask for more troops,” said General Schloesser. “I think it’s pretty commonly known that I already have. And I’m optimistic that we’ll potentially see them in the coming months.”

Officials have said commanders in Afghanistan want 10,000 more troops, but General Schloesser says he may only get a couple of thousand, at least in his area. But the general says it is not an emergency, in spite of the increase of insurgent attacks. He says allied forces are not losing in eastern Afghanistan, but they are not winning as quickly as he would like.

“It’s a slow win,” he said. “I want to make it into a solid, strong win. It’s going to take time no matter what. But I’d like to do it in a more robust way.”

U.S. officials have called the Afghanistan war an “economy of force” operation, because not enough troops have been available to send. General Schloesser says that needs to change.

The general says U.S., NATO and Afghan forces face a complex group of between seven and 11,000 insurgents, who, he says, have increased their attacks in his sector by 20 to 30 percent this year and are trying to develop what he called “spectacular” attacks. He plans a winter offensive to try to prevent the insurgents from bringing in supplies to prepare for next spring’s fighting season, and also an increase in development assistance for local Afghan communities.

So what is the big deal here? If the intelligence community makes a mistake they are called inept or incompetent or worse. If they are on top of their game the charges are usually offending the ACLU or overstepping their authority. It seems as though working in the spy business isn’t all 007. From the intelligence gathering of nations to corporate espionage it’s a dirty job that at least for governments has to be done. And not unlike any other criticial enterprise is subject to the whim of public opinion. It also makes for a lucrative transaction for established authors.

One thing is clear. The United States has not been attacked on our soil since 9/11. For all the listed failures attributed to the spy game and various enforcement agencies the plain truth is they must have done something right since because no one is that lucky to do nothing and have success. Winston Churchill spied on the US and vice versa and we were allies. What ordinary citizen knows now or ever if their right to privacy was violated? And if it kept the US safe who would honestly care?

If as the Iraqi quoted in the report below ‘there is no trust’ what is the big surprise? If most humans were inherently trustworthy all the time we would probably not have conflicts on the personal level as well as internationally. But that would be an unrealistic expectation and we need to accept some imperfections to survive. And that does not mean we should abandon oversight but who is watching whom?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Top Investigative Reporter: US Spies on Iraqi PM

By VOA News A top U.S. investigative reporter says the Bush administration has extensively spied on Iraqi officials, including Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

The Washington Post Friday previewed a book by its associate editor, Bob Woodward, in which one source is quoted as saying about Mr. Maliki, “we know everything he says.”

Woodward’s book, called “The War Within: A Secret White House History,” is based on interviews with intelligence, diplomatic and military sources, as well as two on-the-record interviews with U.S. President George Bush. It is set for release Monday.

The White House declined to comment specifically on the charge of spying. An Iraqi government spokesman said if true, “it reflects that there is no trust,” adding Baghdad will be asking Washington for an explanation.

According to the Post, Woodward also says that last year’s troop surge in Iraq was not the primary factor behind the steep drop in violence there. Instead, Woodward points to what he calls “groundbreaking” covert programs to track and kill insurgent leaders.

The book also gives credit for the drop in violence to Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr’s moves to rein in his powerful Mahdi army, and to the Sunni groups that turned against al-Qaida in Iraq.

Woodward writes of an administration sharply divided about the course of the war, and he portrays Mr. Bush as sometimes disconnected from it. When asked how the White House decided on sending five brigades to Iraq for the surge, rather than the military’s suggestion of two, Mr. Bush is quoted as saying “Okay, I don’t know this. I’m not in these meetings, you’ll be happy to hear, because I got other things to do.”

The Post says that during the interviews with Woodward, the president spoke of the war as part of a re-centering of American power in the Middle East, which he justified by saying that was the place from which “a deadly attack emanated.”

“The War Within” is Woodward’s fourth book on the Bush administration and Iraq. Woodward is best known for his work, along with Carl Bernstein, uncovering the Watergate scandal that ultimately led to the resignation of former President Richard Nixon.

Peaceful demonstration is fine. But then there were, as usual, those who ‘created disturbances’ or ‘confronted police’ or ‘vandalized property’. Stepping over the peaceful demonstration line is always the part where antiwar fanatics fail to accomplish anything. Once you step over the line of what is legal your credibility disappears and any sympathy or support you sought evaporates also.

And antiwar protesters almost never fail to miss the point. Slogans like ’support the troops, end the war’ should be rephrased to ’support the troops, win the war.’ And the vet who is quoted in the report presents a statement or at least part of a statement that suggests he did not read or does not understand the agreement he entered into with the military. It appears he completed a tour then was on leave and when ordered to return to duty, refused and was discharged. In years past the penalty for that may have been more severe than simply discharge. The obvious question beyond knowing what you’re signing up for is how can the military be effective if anyone serving can decide for themselves is they will obey orders. And if you choose to disobey orders you should be prepared to accept the consequences. What does Gilligan’s explained actions say to others who followed orders or made the ultimate sacrifice?

And to Mr Alvarado some clarification is required. Yes, there are people who oppose the war and those who support the troops and the mission. You, sir, oppose the war and people like myself support the troops and the mission. Again, some people in Minnesota are against the war and the Bush Administration but not all. You should be clear about that as well as the other statements you made.

You want to be heard, fine. But understand there is a risk/reward factor here. The reward is for a brief period you feel better for having done something you feel compelled to do. The risk is you defeat your own purpose of wanting to end the war by giving incentive to the enemy to continue which only opposes your intent. Winning the war will also end it without surrender or defeat. And if you claim you support the troops then for their sacrifice victory is the only satisfactory outcome to honor their service.

Any failures of the government to adequately attend to the needs of veterans is the only ocmplaint you cite that has merit. A travesty to those who served is to fail in providing the services they need as a result of that service. But there are better ways to solve that problem than protesting the war. Redirecting your energies to direct contact with those responsible for providing service to veterans will prove more successful than the longshot of public protest.

And of course there was protest about the environment, health care and Gitmo. Were you really protesting the war or simply broadcasting the far left agenda at the opposition party’s convention?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Thousands of Anti-War Protesters March to Site of Republican Convention
By Lisa Ferdinando
St. Paul
01 September 2008
Thousands of people rallied outside the Republican Party national convention on Monday, protesting the war in Iraq and the policies of the Bush administration. The march was mostly peaceful, but some small groups of protesters created disturbances and confronted police, and several people were arrested. VOA’s Lisa Ferdinando is in St. Paul, Minnesota.

A protester kicks a smoke bomb during a protest at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota, 01 Sep 2008

Protesters marched from the capitol building in downtown St. Paul to the arena where the Republican Party national convention opened Monday in an abbreviated session.

Young and old, and parents with children participated in the march. They carried signs with slogans such as “Say No to War,” “U.S. Out of Iraq” and “Support the Troops, End the War.” Police in riot gear stood watch as demonstrators made their way through the streets.

They marched around the security perimeter surrounding the convention site. Some protesters vandalized property, and police dispersed them.

Among the marchers was 27-year-old military veteran James Gilligan with the group, Iraq Veterans Against the War. He called for changes in health care and the treatment of veterans returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“It’s a damn shame that a veteran can go ahead and serve for his country, go into battle, watch his brothers and sisters fall around him, come home, and, if he doesn’t want to go again, he’s kicked out of the military,” said James Gilligan.

Protesters arrested in a field behind the Minnesota Science Center, 1 Sep. 2008

The Iraq war has been a dominant issue in the presidential campaign. Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama has called for U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq, while Senator John McCain, who will be formally nominated at the convention as the Republican candidate, favors keeping American forces in Iraq as long as necessary to secure the country.

Lou Alvarado, a resident of St. Paul, took part in the march.

“I want the world to take notice that people are against the war,” said Lou Alvarado. “People here in Minnesota are against the war and against the Bush administration. We don’t go along just to go along and get along. I’m here to let my voice be known and let it be heard and put the message out.”

The protesters also demonstrated for stricter environmental policies and for better health care, and against the U.S. military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

All you need to know about the RNC protesters By Michelle Malkin

Below is the far left answer for the White House. He asks John McCain not to question his patriotism. John McCain’s patriotism speaks for itself based on his personal record. Obama has no record outside of sound bites and policy suggestions that fail. He says he has opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. The excerpt below is an example of the kind of leadership he offers. He was advocating surrender, withdrawal and defeat in 2006 and earlier. John McCain supported the troop surge and it was a success. He opposed the handling of the war before the surge and is why he supported victory in Iraq with the surge. So who do you want running the country? Surrender, withdrawal and defeatist appeaser Barack Obama or experienced Senator, Veterean and War Hero John McCain?

Sen. Obama: Iraq withdrawal should begin in 2007
POSTED: 5:08 p.m. EST, November 20, 2006

CHICAGO, Illinois (CNN) — Sen. Barack Obama called Monday for U.S. troops to start leaving Iraq in 2007, arguing that the threat of an American pullout is the best leverage Washington has left in the conflict.

“The time for waiting in Iraq is over. It is time to change our policy,” said Obama, a freshman Democrat from Illinois touted as a possible national candidate in 2008.

“It is time to give Iraqis their country back, and it is time to refocus America’s efforts on the wider struggle yet to be won.

And Barack Obama likes to court the far left of which he is a member. The big resume’ he touts is community organizer and state senator in Illinois. His legislative experience has been analyzed as containing too many ‘present’ results in his voting record rather than taking a stand on issues. Two ends of the spectrum for McCain would be his staunch support of the troop surge against compelling opposition in which he is vindicated. His support of amnesty nearly derailed his pursuit of the nominatin for President. He admitted he was wrong and ‘learned his lesson’. This blog is as yet unconvinced on that point but will take John McCain over Barack Obama any time. Read Obama’s silly speech excerpt to the far left listed below.

I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

The report from VOA listed below is the inspiration for this post. From the report, the real bottom line is John McCain’s quote on Obama, ‘“Even in retrospect, he would choose the path of failure for America over the path of success and victory,” McCain said. “In short, both candidates in this election have pledged to end this war and bring our troops home. The great difference is that I intend to win it first.”

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Obama Tells McCain Not to Question His Patriotism

By Jim Malone
Washington
Malone report - Download (MP3)
Malone report - Listen (MP3)

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama Tuesday urged his Republican opponent, Senator John McCain, to stop questioning his character and patriotism. Obama spoke to the same veterans group in Florida that McCain addressed the day before when he accused Obama of putting his political ambitions ahead of U.S. national interests. VOA National correspondent Jim Malone has the latest on the presidential campaign from Washington.
Senator Obama told the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Orlando, Florida, that Afghanistan remains the central front in the war on terrorism, and that he was right to oppose the war in Iraq from the start.

Obama also challenged Senator McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, to refrain from further attacks on his patriotism.

“I have never suggested and never will that Senator McCain picks his positions on national security based on politics and personal ambition,” Obama said. “I have not suggested it because I believe he genuinely wants to serve America’s national interests. Now it is time for him to acknowledge that I want to do the same. Let me be clear-I will let no one question my love of this country. I love America, so do you, and so does John McCain.”

A day earlier, Senator McCain told the same conference that Senator Obama had put his own political ambitions ahead of the national interest by trying, in McCain’s words, to legislate failure in Iraq.

McCain opposes Obama’s proposal for a troop withdrawal timetable in Iraq, and he criticized Obama again for refusing to acknowledge the success of the Bush administration’s military surge strategy in Iraq.

“Even in retrospect, he would choose the path of failure for America over the path of success and victory,” McCain said. “In short, both candidates in this election have pledged to end this war and bring our troops home. The great difference is that I intend to win it first.”

Apart from the debate over Iraq, both presidential contenders are focused on picking their vice presidential running mates and getting ready for the national nominating conventions.

Obama is expected to pick his running mate first, since the Democratic convention begins Monday in Denver, Colorado. The latest media speculation focuses on Democratic Senators Joe Biden of Delaware and Evan Bayh of Indiana, and Virginia Governor Tim Kaine.

Senator McCain is expected to announce his choice shortly before the Republican convention begins on September 1 in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota.

Much of the Republican speculation has focused on Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge.

Public opinion polls show a close race at the moment with a slight edge to Obama. Both contenders will be looking to get a boost out of their party conventions before they enter the general election campaign in early September.

University of Virginia expert Larry Sabato says the presidential candidates and their parties try to maximize the impact of the modern political conventions.

“The reason why conventions still matter is because millions of voters are distracted. They are busy,” Sabato said. “A convention is a wonderful opportunity for both parties to [tele] scope into just four days their major arguments on behalf of their candidate and their party.”

Each party convention will last four days, and will culminate with the party nominees giving a televised acceptance speech, watched by millions, both in the U.S. and around the world.

The United States Wednesday imposed sanctions against a general in Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps for helping insurgents in Iraq. The U.S. Treasury Department action also targets three Iraqis living in Iran and Syria and a Syrian-based television station. VOA’s David Gollust reports from the State Department.The move by the Treasury Department underscores U.S. concern about Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps and particularly its elite Quds Force, which administration officials believe has helped orchestrate insurgent attacks and sectarian violence in Iraq.

The most prominent target of the new financial sanctions is the Quds Force commanding officer, Brigadier-General Ahmad Foruzandeh, who a Treasury statement said has led “terrorist operations” against U.S.-led coalition forces and directed assassinations of prominent Iraqis.

Also named are two Iranian-based Iraqis - Abu Mustafa al-Sheibani and Ismail Hafiz al-Lami - said to be directing Shi’ite extremists in Iraq and a Syrian-based Iraqi, Mishan al-Jabouri, a former Iraqi parliamentarian who owns a Syrian television station that has openly backed the Iraqi insurgency.

The television station itself, Al-Zawra, is also being sanctioned and is accused by the Treasury Department of broadcasting coded messages to a Sunni terrorist group, the Islamic Army of Iraq.

The U.S. action freezes any bank accounts or other assets the TV station or the four individuals may have in the United States, and forbids Americans from doing business with them.

Administration officials concede Wednesday’s order will likely have little practical impact. But Treasury Undersecretary for Terrorism Stuart Levey said the move brings to light “the lethal actions” of the sanction targets, and he urged the international community to join the United States in isolating them from the global economy.

The Bush administration imposed sanctions on the overall Quds Force last October in an effort to increase pressure on Tehran over both its activities in Iraq and its nuclear program.

In his Jerusalem news conference Wednesday, President Bush reiterated the administration’s determination to try to get Iran to change its behavior by diplomatic means including sanctions:

“I believe it’s incumbent upon the American president to solve problems diplomatically,” said President Bush. “And that’s exactly what we’re in the process of doing. I believe that pressure, economic pressure, financial sanctions, will cause the people inside of Iran to have to make a considered judgment about whether or not it makes sense for them to continue to enrich [uranium] or face world isolation. The country is paying an economic price for its intransigence and its unwillingness to tell the truth.”

The latest sanctions are being imposed under an executive order the president signed last July authorizing penalties against Iraqi insurgent groups and their supporters.

A U.S.-led effort to impose a third round of sanctions against Iran in the U.N. Security Council over its nuclear program has stalled in the wake of a U.S. intelligence report last month that Tehran halted a covert nuclear weapons program in 2003.

Mr. Bush said in Jerusalem the National Intelligence Estimate does not mean the weapons program cannot easily be restarted, and that Iran will remain a threat unless the global community acts to prevent it from acquiring the material and know-how to build a weapon.
By David Gollust
State Department
09 January 2008

If nothing else, a post about France and Sarkozy provides an excuse to post a pic and video link about Carla Bruni. But this particular video is relevant since Sarkozy and Bruni are apparently an item. Seems the French might not be real crazy about this arrangement. Hence, for this and other reasons, the post title is ‘Bon Chance, Sarkozy’.

France Stubs Out Smoking

By VOA News
29 December 2007
The French cafe society culture of long conversations over wine and coffee while relaxing in the ever-present haze of cigarette smoke is about to be transformed.

The smoky cafe will be only a memory when France bans smoking in bars, discotheques, restaurants, casinos and cafes on January 1.

Cafe and restaurant owners are concerned there will be little conversation with less wine, coffee and food purchased when customers are not allowed to smoke.

In November, thousands of cafe and restaurant owners marched in Paris to protest the upcoming ban, but the French government is moving ahead with implementing the new law.

Smoking restrictions began earlier this year in workplaces, schools, airports, hospitals and other public sites.

Officials say France has at least 65,000 smoke-related deaths each year.
That France is engaging the politically correct smoke free stance is not a surprise. Surely everyone can climb on board the no smoking band wagon. This is not entirely unlike the global warming mentality that selects causes for which the supporters can feel better about themselves. It’s easy to select only those causes requiring no self-sacrifice or discipline and look upon those on the other side with disdain. Have these same crusaders eliminated any questionable lifestyle choices of their own? Do you see Al Gore giving up his private jet or palatial estate? Has the health problem of obesity received as much attention or willing crusaders as smoking or drinking or other popular targets? The reality of stigmas for personal choice is another reason this post expresses bon chance, Sarkozy.

But the more serious reasons for wishing Sarkozy good luck is related to another hot topic, nuclear power and the threat of a viable energy source being used for weapons.

Sarkozy: France Supports Egypt’s Nuclear-Power Plans

By VOA News
29 December 2007
French President Nicolas Sarkozy says France is willing to help Egypt develop nuclear power plants.

In an interview published Saturday in the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram, Mr. Sarkozy said France will cooperate and work together with Egypt if the Cairo government wants to develop civilians uses for nuclear technology.

Earlier this year, authorities in Cairo announced that Egypt intends to build several nuclear reactors to meet its future energy needs.

The French president has been vacationing in Egypt in advance of an official state visit he will begin on Sunday in Cairo.
France generates 75 or 80% of its electrical power capacity from nuclear plants. This may be one area where France is a leg up on other countries in limiting less desirable effects of other power generating sources. Offering to help Egypt develop similar nuclear power capabilities as many countries align to oppose Iran’s arguments over nuclear issues could just be bad timing. Like the outspoken little maniac from Iran won’t use this in his arguments. Again comes the bon chance Sarkozy.

France opposed the US on many items in recent years. Some critics of those opposing the US suggested certain financial arrangements with Iraq in recent years may have been the real reason for the opposition.

Thursday, 13 February, 2003, 17:31 GMT
France’s economic ties to Iraq
By John Laurenson

During the late 1970s, French companies started work on the Tamuz One nuclear reactor near Baghdad - designed to produce plutonium - and on a second reactor, Tamuz Two.

During the Iran-Iraq war, France was soon supplying Iraq with top level military hardware of its own.

All told, France sold some $25bn-worth of weaponry to Iraq before the UN embargo was imposed after the Gulf War.

But above all, the French are interested in Iraqi oil.

Nicolas Sarkis, of Arab Oil and Gas magazine, says France’s state-controlled TotalFinaElf is poised to win contracts to drill the largest unexploited oil reserves in the world.

Before and after Sarkozy’s election in France reports suggested he was interested in improving the relationship with the US. Some may have cheered no more Chirac, no more freedom fries, no more hassles or some promise of good feelings between France and the US. Like most optimistic forecasts or expectations it will probably require bon chance for the new leader of France even with the cherry reports of his early success.

2007 was France’s Year of Nicolas Sarkozy

By Lisa Bryant
Paris
22 December 2007

Bryant report - Download MP3 (1.2MB)
Listen to Bryant report

The year 2007 in France can easily be called the year of Nicolas Sarkozy. Since Mr. Sarkozy’s election as president, he appears to be everywhere, and as Lisa Bryant reports for VOA from Paris, he is living up to some of the high expectations.

It’s May 6, 2007, and Nicolas Sarkozy, candidate for the ruling conservative Union for a Popular Movement Party has won the French presidential elections, beating out his Socialist rival Segolene Royale with 53 percent of the votes. During his campaign Mr. Sarkozy promised not just change in France, but a real “rupture” or break from the country’s past. He reiterated this vow during a triumphant speech shortly after the results were announced.

Speaking before cheering supporters, France’s new leader said the country had given him everything. Now, it was time for him to give back to France.

The past seven months have indeed brought changes and a new tone to French politics. Mr. Sarkozy appointed an extremely diverse cabinet, including not only a number of women and ethnic minorities, but also members of the leftist opposition, including French Foreign Affairs Minister Bernard Kouchner.

Steven Ekovich specializes in French politics at the American University of Paris.

“Right now, he’s exploiting his image as a young, dynamic president,” he said. “And we’ll see how quickly the French get tired of this energy. But we have quite a dramatic difference with the previous president who seemed to have no energy at all.”

When it comes to domestic policy, says Frederic Micheau, an analyst at the IFOP polling agency in Paris, the French president has largely delivered.

Micheau says Mr. Sarkozy has made good on campaign promises to help realize a new, simplified European Union treaty, simplify immigration laws, and reform the universities and special pension privileges for some French workers.

Not all the changes are popular. The pension reform plans brought hundreds of thousands of striking workers to the streets in November and students upset about the proposed university reforms blocked several dozen French universities. Critics have also blasted new immigration restrictions passed by Mr. Sarkozy’s center-right government.

President Bush poses with French President Nicolas Sarkozy in Kennebunkport, Maine, 11 Aug 2007

President Bush poses with French President Nicolas Sarkozy in Kennebunkport, Maine, 11 Aug 2007
In fact, Stephane Le Foll, a Socialist deputy in the European Parliament and Cabinet director for Socialist party chairman Francois Holland has nothing good to say about Mr. Sarkozy’s performance to date.

Overall, Le Foll gives Mr. Sarkozy a negative year-end report card. He says the economy is doing badly, and likely to be worse next year. And, he says, the president’s social policies aren’t any better.

Mr. Sarkozy’s foreign policy has also generated criticism. He has established warmer ties with the United States than under his predecessor Jacques Chirac, but analyst Micheau says he has not respected his campaign promises to make human rights issues an integral part of his foreign policy, notably in his dealings with Russia and China, which he visited this year.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, left, greets Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi at his arrival at the Elysee Palace in Paris, 12 Dec. 2007
French President Nicolas Sarkozy, left, greets Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi at his arrival at the Elysee Palace in Paris, 12 Dec. 2007
And the December visit to France of Moammar Gadhafi of Libya, once considered a terrorist nation, generated outcry particularly when Mr. Gadhafi contradicted Mr. Sarkozy and said the French president had not brought up human rights concerns during their talks.

Socialist politician Le Foll says Mr. Gadhafi’s visit deteriorated the image not only of Mr. Sarkozy, but also of France. He also criticizes the way the French president monopolizes the media and public space.

And Mr. Sarkozy’s energy seems unending, visiting French fishermen one day and flying off to Chad the next, to bring back Europeans facing kidnapping charges. Although he tried to keep his rocky relationship with his wife Cecilia private, the announcement of their divorce in October splashed across front pages of the French newspapers. His new relationship with Italian singer Carla Bruni is similarly grabbing media attention.

Mr. Sarkozy’s popularity has also plummeted from a peak of nearly 80 percent in August to between 50 and 55 percent today. Most analysts believe his honeymoon with the French people is over. Micheau of IFOP is among them.

But Micheau said President Sarkozy’s highest popularity ratings almost reached those of French wartime hero, Charles de Gaulle, so it was inevitable that they should drop.

Micheau says Mr. Sarkozy’s best plan of action for 2008 is to continue making good on his promises of 2007.

(note for this post: if bonne chance is correct and bon chance not precisely so, that explains the use here of bon chance)