tda

Why is it Bush keeps echoing that he’s “not” going to become involved in the opposing candidate’s quest for the presidency, but continues to provide jabs at Senator Obama’s every comment when it opposes his highly prized programs, which have failed miserably?

I think it is fair access this observation based on an article, which appeared within Politico, entitled “Bush warns Obama on Iraq politicking” and quoted:

“I would hope that whoever follows me realizes we’re at war,” he said. “While there hasn’t been an attack on the homeland, that doesn’t mean people don’t want to attack us. … We have to deny safe haven. … They want us to leave. … If given a chance, democracy will succeed.”

Source: Politico

Bush’s latest jab came from an e-Mail circulated by the moveon.org where MoveOn delivered to its members a topic entitled “The beginning of the end?” and reads as follows:

Dear MoveOn member,

Three big things happened on Iraq this week. They could mean the beginning of the end of the war.

But since the media have mostly ignored them, I wanted to make sure you saw what's going on.

Here's the scoop:

Iraqis want U.S. Troops out. No one was expecting Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to speak up in favor of withdrawal—after all, he's close with the Bush administration. But with elections in Iraq coming up, and a great majority of Iraqis opposed to a prolonged U.S. occupation, Maliki can't afford to toe the Bush line. So he's surprised everyone by standing up this week for a timetable for troop withdrawals and a date certain to end the war. The LA Times headline reads, "Iraqi prime minister advocates withdrawal timeline."1

As a result, the "endless war agreement" Bush has been pushing fell through. Since January, hundreds of thousands of us pushed Congress to stand up to President Bush's proposed treaty with Iraq, which would have tied the next President's hands and made it much harder to get out. This week, the Washington Post reported that that agreement has fallen through—Iraqi leaders are putting their feet down and demanding a much shorter agreement.2

And now even the Pentagon is considering faster timelines. According to reporter Michael Hirsh at Newsweek, "a forthcoming Pentagon-sponsored report" will recommend a big drawdown of troops—suggesting "that U.S. forces be reduced to as few as 50,000 by the spring of 2009, down from about 150,000 now."3

In other words, it's now clear: Most Americans are for a timeline, and so are most Iraqis. And even experts in the Pentagon agree.

For his part, Barack Obama is using these developments to hammer home the point that John McCain and President Bush are now isolated in their resistance to any kind of timeline for withdrawal. He wrote an Op-Ed in the New York Times yesterday that reaffirmed his commitment to a timeline that would have all combat troops out of Iraq in 16 months.

It concludes, "Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea. . . [F]or far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender. It's not going to work this time. It's time to end this war."4

It's important that we all work to get the word out about these developments. You can even start by just forwarding this email. Most Americans still don't know that the Iraqis want us out. And that may be the single most important fact to share at this point in time.

I'm always shocked when someone points out that it's been six years since we first started working together to prevent an Iraq war. This week, we're turning a corner in that fight. Bush's permanent war agreement has fallen through. The Iraqi politicians are speaking up. And if we keep working together, we just might see the remaining holdouts in Washington coming around as well.

Thanks for all you do,

–Eli Pariser

Sources:

1. "Iraqi prime minister advocates withdrawal timetable," Los Angeles Times, July 8, 2008.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3940&id=13247-8708491-gQ4wgsx&t=2

2. "U.S., Iraq Scale Down Negotiations Over Forces," Washington Post, July 13, 2008.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3941&id=13247-8708491-gQ4wgsx&t=3

3. "Who Says Less Troops?," Newsweek, July 21, 2008.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/145848

4. "My Plan for Iraq," Barack Obama, New York Times, July 14, 2008.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3942&id=13247-8708491-gQ4wgsx&t=4

Barack Obama finished making a major speech on Iraq and foreign policy. Here's how he described the Bush-McCain approach:

George Bush and John McCain don't have a strategy for success in Iraq—they have a strategy for staying in Iraq. They said we couldn't leave when violence was up, they say we can't leave when violence is down. They refuse to press the Iraqis to make tough choices, and they label any timetable to redeploy our troops "surrender," even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government—not to a terrorist enemy. Theirs is an endless focus on tactics inside Iraq, with no consideration of our strategy to face threats beyond Iraq's borders.

You can read the speech here:
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3939&id=13247-8708491-gQ4wgsx&t=1

Barack Obama in Washington, D.C., July 15, 2008 - Obama delivers an address on Iraq Policy. July 15, 2008.

Just received an e-Mail from MoveOn.org regarding their concern on off shore drilling, which is in line with Senator Obama’s policy.

Dear MoveOn member,

In recent weeks, conservatives led by Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh have sent over a million messages to Congress calling for offshore oil drilling. Then John McCain joined the push for drilling.

Today, George W. Bush reversed the coastal drilling ban first enacted by his father. Congress is the only thing standing in the way of drilling rigs on our beaches.1

It's a scam: experts agree that offshore drilling won't save anyone any money at the pumps for 10 years. And at that point, it might save 3 or 4 cents a gallon.2 But some senior Democratic senators indicated that they might fold under the pressure.

Can you tell Congress to stop drilling by signing this petition right away?

The petition says: "Americans don't need or want gimmicks. We want real solutions, and that means investing in new, cheaper energy sources now."

After you sign, please forward this email to your friends and family.

Thanks for all you do.

–Noah, Matt, Laura, Daniel and the rest of the team

Sources:
1. "Bush Lifts Drilling Moratorium, Prodding Congress," New York Times, July 14, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/washington/14drillcnd.html
2. "Will More Drilling Mean Cheaper Gas?", Time Magazine, June 18, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3834&id=13245-8708491-2zF_dpx&t=2

Reading what I considered a factual blog on HuffingtonPost.com, talking with numerous friends and family, listening to many past media newscasts; allows me to wonder why we’re still in Iraq.  This past week even the Iraqi leaders -- notably Nouri al-Maliki -- are standing up to the US by demanding a timeline for withdrawal.

Many say this five year old war was about oil, while others claim Weapons of Mass Destruction and terrorism, which theory is correct?  Personally, I believe it was for oil, Halliburton, Bechtel, Exxon, Shell, GE and the aerospace community of contractors, all who have and are, reaping enormous profits.

Now it’s time for our departure before these aforementioned companies “totally” bankrupt our US economy.

The most that can be expected at this stage are November electoral mandates for peace and a speedy withdrawal from both American and Iraqi voters. This will not be easy, despite the peace majorities entrenched in both countries. In the meantime, Congressional debate over the secret US-Iraq "status of forces" agreement will keep the issues front-and-center.

If Barack Obama goes through with his high-risk plan to visit Iraq [and Afghanistan], he may be confronted by US military commanders and Iraqi leaders questioning his 16-month timetable as naive and threatening to national security. On the other hand, Obama risks demoralization within his electoral base if he wavers on basics.

Meanwhile, in John McCain, the hawks have found the perfect iconic candidate for keeping the Iraq war alive through the present depths of its democratic legitimacy crisis. McCain's election would serve the interests of the Pentagon, revive the neo-conservative era, and further deepen the conflict between democracy and empire.

Source: HuffingtonPost

Obama Lays Out Clear Plan For Iraq Withdrawal In NY Times Op-Ed

The New York Times

THE call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.

The differences on Iraq in this campaign are deep. Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president. I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Since then, more than 4,000 Americans have died and we have spent nearly $1 trillion. Our military is overstretched. Nearly every threat we face -- from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran -- has grown.

After reading this article published by the ACLU, on the web, I felt sicken that our American society, especially those involved in educational administration would be consider such an action, as to strip search a student.  The student was accused based on a classmate’s uncorroborated accusation that she possessed ibuprofen (a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) found in many over-the-counter medications).

Savana Redding, an eighth grade honor roll student at Safford Middle School in Safford, Arizona, was pulled from class on October 8, 2003 by the school’s vice principal, Kerry Wilson.  Earlier that day, Wilson had discovered prescription-strength ibuprofen – 400 milligram pills equivalent to two over-the-counter ibuprofen pills, such as Advil – in the possession of Redding’s classmate.  Under questioning and faced with punishment, the classmate claimed that Redding, who had no history of disciplinary problems or substance abuse, had given her the pills. Safford maintains a zero-tolerance policy toward all prescription medicines, including prescription-strength ibuprofen.

After escorting Redding to his office, Wilson presented Redding with the ibuprofen pills and informed her of her classmate’s accusations.  Redding said she had never seen the pills before and agreed to a search of her possessions, wanting to prove she had nothing to hide.  Joined by a female school administrative assistant, Wilson searched Redding’s backpack and found nothing.  Instructed by Wilson, the administrative assistant then took Redding to the school nurse’s office in order to perform a strip search.

In the school nurse’s office, Redding was ordered to strip to her underwear.  She was then commanded to pull her bra out and to the side, exposing her breasts, and to pull her underwear out at the crotch, exposing her pelvic area.  The strip search failed to uncover any ibuprofen pills.

“The strip search was the most humiliating experience I have ever had,” said Redding in a sworn affidavit following the incident.  “I held my head down so that they could not see that I was about to cry.” 

Source: ACLU

I am not so naive as to believe that all school systems are like the aforementioned but I do truly believe justice must come to those who participated within this institution.

Academics should stay with teaching our young to provide all a better society to live within, and law enforcement must address those who do not conform to the “Rule of Law”.  Why an unfounded search was subjected to this student breaks even our “standards” of decency and common sense.

This just out from MoveOn.org, via an e-Mail received from the organization requesting members sign a petition – rather serious when you read how reckless Senator McCain is:

By all accounts, the news coming out lately about Iran is scary. Iran is testing more missiles, and the Bush administration is promising swift retribution for any attack on the US or our allies.

To top it off, John McCain keeps joking about killing the Iranian people—discussing rising U.S. exports of cigarettes to Iran,  he joked, "Maybe that's a way of killing them." And we all remember McCain's infamous, "Bomb Iran" song.

War is not a joke. The truth is that the Bush-McCain policy of reckless saber-rattling and threatening doesn't work—it just makes things worse and increases tensions in the region. What we need is serious, tough, and smart diplomacy—not another war.

Right now, Congress is considering bills that could clear the way for escalation or war. But they can act to make sure President Bush and John McCain don't lead us into another reckless war.

The petition reads:

"Saber-rattling and threats towards Iran without diplomacy is not working. Please support a new direction towards Iran and demand President Bush get Congressional authorization before getting us into another war."

For years, the Bush administration's policy has been the same—tough talk and no real diplomacy. So far, that hasn't helped curtail Iran's apparent nuclear ambitions or advanced American interests.

Unfortunately, John McCain's belligerent comments only make matters worse—at a moment when the Persian Gulf is on the brink of war because of leaders who dehumanize and demonize folks on the other side, John McCain is offering more of the same old approach.

As NPR reported this morning, "McCain believes that the Bush administration's approach has been the right one.

What we need right now from this administration, and from our next president, is serious diplomacy. As Barack Obama said, "The United States has to gather up others in the region, as well as internationally, to apply pressure on Iran. But it's very difficult for us to do so when we haven't shown a willingness to engage in the sort of direct negotiations with Iran that would give them carrots and sticks for a change in behavior.

We don't need more saber-rattling, belligerent rhetoric or jokes about killing Iranians.

Too many lives—American, Israeli, and Iranian—are at stake. Please click here to tell Congress to help avoid another war. 

Update:

Omid Memarian: McCain's Cigarette Gaffe: A Cold Blood Commander-In-Chief?

"Maybe that's a way of killing them," responded Republican presidential candidate John McCain when was asked about an Associated Press report on the $158 million of cigarettes shipped to Iran during George W. Bush's presidency, despite restrictions on U.S. exports to that country.

Senator McCain's prescription for killing Iranian people, beyond a gross joke, is a reflection of a sad reality: a foreign policy that suffers from severe miscalculations and lack of principles.

Just a few weeks ago, in his latest article for the New Yorker, Seymour Hersh revealed that the United States funds and supports terrorist groups responsible for killing innocent Iranians. Simply young soldiers, doing mandatory military service and fight against drug traffickers.

"The C.I.A. and Special Operations communities also have long-standing ties to two other dissident groups in Iran: the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, known in the West as the M.E.K., and a Kurdish separatist group, the Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan, or PJAK.

The M.E.K. has been on the State Department's terrorist list for more than a decade, yet in recent years the group has received arms and intelligence, directly or indirectly, from the United States. Some of the newly authorized covert funds, the Pentagon consultant told me, may well end up in M.E.K. coffers."

No surprise. Tradition in the U.S.'s unofficial foreign policy is to use all means -- unjust, immoral, and inhumane -- to defeat the enemy, regardless of the harmful, long-term consequences. One such consequence is endangering the life of ordinary people. For instance, during the war between the Soviet Union and Afghanistan, it was the United States who fed raised Islamist groups to fight against Russia. One of these groups later became Al-Qaeda, causing harm and terror for millions of people around the world and killing thousands of innocent people in the United States.

Senator McCain's disdain for ordinary people when talking about killing Iranian people reminds many people of the U.S.'s support of one of the most brutal dictators of the 20th century, Saddam Hussein. Iraq's war against Iran from 1980-1988 that left one million dead, innocent people on both sides and many more injured.

McCain's cold-blooded when his jokes about killing people and bombing other countries is reminder of Reagan administration's green light to Saddam Hussein when he used chemical mass destruction weapons against his own people and the Iranians. This disastrous criminal act twenty years later is still the main cause of the death among veterans and civilians who lived in the polluted areas.

Unlike most of veterans who respect human lives due to their profound and extraordinary experiences at wars, Senator McCain matter of fact to joke about people's lives is a disastrous trait for a commander-in-chief.

There are ways of talking to U.S. adversaries rather than asking for "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran." The United States' policy toward Iran is intended to change Iranian government's behavior, not to kill Iranian people.

Sen. McCain's obsession of cold-blooded, gross jokes about killing people is not an image the United States seeks for itself beyond its borders. During the last years, the Bush administration has done enough to damage the image of the country, encouraging anti-Americanism not only in the Middle East but also in many Asian, European and Latin American countries. McCain's tone is disrespectful, cruel and reminder of the cold-blooded people in Abu-Ghraib and Guantanamo, whose behavior brought embarrassment and shame for America, not proud, people who are not, unquestionably, representative of United States of America.

Source: HuffingtonPost

Members of the Washington Region Religious Campaign Against Torture display a banner at the Public Witness Against Torture event in Washington, D.C. on March 10, 2008.

While growing up I never though I would see the day when our government would condone torture under any circumstances; yet today, it’s openly discussed in our congressional branch, who is weighting the pros and cons of what is acceptable torture.  

9-11 was as shocking as the bombing of Pearl Harbor, some sixty years ago and I felt we had learned our lesson, not about physical torture, but mental torture by imprisoning our Japanese immigrates in camps and in the 80’s admitting to our mistakes and finally providing them with an apology and a lump sum payment money to those who were still living.  Dose this mean in forty to fifty years from now history may “repeat” itself?  I was brought up under the assumption “two wrongs don’t make it right” and our policies of condoning limited torture is “wrong”; perhaps just as wrong as 9-11 itself!

The following reprint from the Center for American Progress, By Lindsay Barrett, provides an interesting insight in torture from a religious point of view; although I am a Christen, I’m somewhat non-practicing within an organized affiliation I feel this posting echoes my feelings:

Torture Is a Moral Issue

Lieutenant Colonel Daniel J. Baumgartner Jr. told the Senate Armed Services Committee recently that torture techniques “are used by police, priests, and teachers … They’re nothing more than interview techniques, some friendly and some not so friendly. Good cop, bad cop has been around for centuries.”

That’s definitely news to religious communities. Priests and other people of faith in the United States have been working for years to eradicate harsh interrogation techniques because they constitute torture. The degradation of other human beings is seen as an affront to God and God’s creation in almost every religious community, from Catholics to mainline Protestants, Jewish groups, evangelicals, and Muslims. According to sacred texts, human dignity is inherent within each of us and to maim or destroy that dignity is a grave sin.

People are bound by a common humanity, but denigrating fellow humans ruptures that bond and destroys the basic spiritual principle of the Golden Rule, which commands that we treat others as we would want to be treated ourselves. Torture tears this principle to shreds. It also corrupts the hearts of the perpetrators, just as it destroys the bodies and souls of its victims.

Religious groups have accordingly organized efforts to increase public awareness of torture and work for its eradication. Princeton Theological Seminary Professor George Hunsinger in 2006, for example, founded The National Religious Campaign Against Torture, an interfaith organization “committed to ending U.S.-sponsored torture, cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.” The campaign provides educational resources for pastors and lay leaders to spark congregational discussion and action. It has also raised awareness through innovative techniques such as hanging “Torture Is a Moral Issue” banners on houses of worship across the country and running a full-page anti-torture ad in the New York Times signed by religious leaders and organizations, including Eli Wiesel and the Muslim Public Affairs Council.

Jewish groups are also involved; the Central Conference of American Rabbis, an organization of rabbis formed in 1889, passed a resolution condemning torture in 2005. NETWORK is a Catholic group that lobbies on Capitol Hill urging policymakers to advocate for peace and justice. Kathleen Byrne, a lobby associate for NETWORK, says, “Faith should play a core role in a believer’s political life.”

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has published a Catholic study guide for congregations that examines torture as a moral issue. People of faith are gathering in Atlanta this September for a National Summit on Torture that will examine how torture came to be practiced by our nation, as well as how to heal broken relationships with the Muslim world and restore America’s leadership in protecting human rights. And just two weeks ago, the United Nations International Day in Support of Torture Victims and Survivors brought together people for a 24-hour vigil during which torture survivors spoke about their experiences.

Faith communities also point to pragmatic reasons for opposing torture—it can harm our military and security interests. When we torture enemies, our own troops are more susceptible to being tortured. In a 2004 article in The Wall Street Journal, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) wrote, “While our intelligence personnel in Abu Ghraib may have believed that they were protecting U.S. lives by roughing up detainees to extract information, they have had the opposite effect. Their actions have increased the danger to American soldiers, in this conflict and in future wars.”

The Bush administration has justified its actions since 2001 by claiming that we are living in a uniquely dangerous time. To win this “battle of civilizations,” says the administration, we must be pre-emptive and ruthless, foregoing legal niceties and moral qualms that might have been suitable in the past.

Dr. Jacqueline Bussie, religion professor at Capital University in Columbus, Ohio counters this, saying, “The claim of a state of emergency is a common thread in civilization’s history. Everyone says it’s exceptional times in exceptional circumstances and so exceptional actions are necessary. Only later do people begin to wonder if this kind of reasoning promotes security or actually moves them farther away from that goal.”

Ibn al Shaykh al Libbi, for example, then the highest ranking member of Al Qaeda in U.S. custody, was secretly handed over to Egypt by the United States in 2002. After being tortured, Al Libbi confessed that Iraqi military leaders had trained members of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups to use biological and chemical weapons. Despite warnings from the Defense Intelligence Agency, administration officials used this information as one of the reasons for invading Iraq. Only later did the CIA admit that he “had no knowledge of such training or weapons, and fabricated the statements because he was terrified of further harsh treatment.” With rising military and civilian death tolls, increasing fiscal commitment, and alienation from former allies, al Libbi’s “information” has greatly endangered America.

The basic fact is that torture is illegal and it does not work. It violates the Geneva Conventions, the United Nations Convention Against Torture, 18 U.S.C. 2340, and The Army Field Manual. And President Bush directed that all detainees be treated “humanely” in Military Order 1 on November 12, 2001.

There is a growing consensus that harsh interrogation tactics actually undermine national interests. During the Senate hearing in June, Major Jerald F. Ogrisseg, Chief of the Air Force Psychology Services stated, “I’d seen waterboarding and never recommend it be used in training. It produces compliance with the administrator 100 percent of the time. I heard comments like, ‘If they brought me near it again, I’d have done anything to avoid it.’ We have no way of knowing if the information provided is true or not.” Ogrisseg edited A Code of Conduct, which stated, “Torture yields poor information, decreases legitimacy, and increases resistance.”

Beyond all this, practicing torture has severely impaired America’s reputation around the world. A 2006 World Public Opinion survey found that 78 percent of Germans and 56 percent of the British believing the U.S. government did a “bad job” of promoting human rights. This was a sharp increase from 1998, when only 24 percent of Germans and 22 percent of Britains held such opinions.

Such a long list of moral, security, and legal arguments against torture is what motivates communities of faith to fight current Bush administration policies.

Evangelicals, once a targeted voting block for the administration, are standing against torture. According to David Gushee, Professor at Mercer University in Atlanta, Georgia and President of Evangelicals for Human Rights, fewer than 50 percent of evangelicals currently identify themselves as part of the Christian Right. In 2007, Evangelicals for Human Rights released the Evangelical Declaration Against Torture. The Declaration also had the approval of the National Association of Evangelicals, which represents 60 denominations and millions of individuals. The Declaration states five reasons that Evangelicals must fight torture—sanctity of life, human rights, Christian history and human rights, ethical implications, and legal structures—and recommends that policymakers uphold the Geneva Conventions and reverse any U.S. law, policy, or practice that violates the listed moral standards.

Professor Gushee says, “People know torture is abhorrent. I’m not hearing too many people advocate ‘torture’. There’s usually a softer name like ‘aggressive interrogation techniques’. Whenever people resort to euphemisms, they shouldn’t be engaged in the activity. As Christians, we have an obligation to stand up in the public square. The same reason I’m against abortion is why I’m against torture—the dignity and value of human life.”

Torture is, and should be, an overarching issue for a wide range of faith communities. It violates basic theological principles. It is ineffective. It is detrimental to U.S. national security. And it compromises our work toward the common good. Policymakers must echo the voices of American faith leaders to stop torture.

Source: CAP

June 26, 2008 - The Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties holds a hearing, "From the Department of Justice to Guantanamo Bay: Administration Lawyers and Administration Interrogation Rules, Part III." Witnesses will include David Addington, Chief of Staff to the Vice President; John Yoo, the former Justice Department lawyer who wrote a now-repudiated memo allowing the harsh interrogations; and Christopher Schroeder, Charles S. Murphy Professor of Law and Public Policy Studies at Duke University. Chairman John Conyers questions the witnesses.