Friday, February 29, 2008
“Wait, what did you just say? You’re predicting $4-a-gallon gasoline?”Isn't it comforting to know that our leader has no clue as to what is going on?
“That’s interesting. I hadn’t heard that. . . . I know it’s high now.”
“Wait, what did you just say? You’re predicting $4-a-gallon gasoline?”Isn't it comforting to know that our leader has no clue as to what is going on?
“That’s interesting. I hadn’t heard that. . . . I know it’s high now.”
Lately, in spite of my better judgment, I’ve found myself inflicted with a major case of “Obamania.” I cannot help but be excited at the prospect of a brilliant, younger-than-average, black president who could unite this polarized country against the failed policies of George W Bush. But each time I get optimistic that we are finally on the verge of entering a saner era, Obama makes a terribly foolish statement about the US occupation of Afghanistan. His latest quip is a prime example: in retaliating against McCain’s attacks on his position on the Iraq war, Obama responded: “I intend to bring [the Iraq war] to an end so that we can actually start going after al Qaeda in Afghanistan and in the hills of Pakistan like we should have been doing in the first place.” He simply wants to swap one failed war for another: out of Iraq and into Afghanistan.And his recent stance in regard to killers-for-hire should be added to the "move him in a more sensible direction" accountability.
If Obama intends on pursuing a more constructive policy in Afghanistan than the current one, I’m all for it.
I’m not saying Americans should not vote for Obama (assuming he ends up winning the Democratic nomination). On the contrary, he and the movement that supports him represents perhaps the most viable hope of ending the Iraq war on the horizon today. What I am suggesting is that Obama’s antiwar supporters ought to be prepared for the sleight-of-hand war-swapping he has planned. They can do that best by starting right now, to hold Obama accountable for his extremely mis-guided position on Afghanistan. They can do that by guiding him firmly toward the more constructive goal of ending that war too, which in the long term will do far more to actually end terrorism.
A senior foreign policy adviser to leading Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has told The Nation that if elected Obama will not "rule out" using private security companies like Blackwater Worldwide in Iraq. The adviser also said that Obama does not plan to sign on to legislation that seeks to ban the use of these forces in US war zones by January 2009, when a new President will be sworn in. Obama's campaign says that instead he will focus on bringing accountability to these forces while increasing funding for the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the agency that employs Blackwater and other private security contractors. (Hillary Clinton's staff did not respond to repeated requests for an interview or a statement on this issue.Say it ain't so, Obama. Just when I was coming to like you, this comes up. Ralph, still there?
Nader has bid for the presidency in different ways in every election since 1992 -- as a write-in candidate in the New Hampshire and Massachusetts primaries of that year, as a Green contender in 1996 and 2000 and as an independent with support from some of what remained of Ross Perot's Reform Party in 2004. His most notable run, in 2000, won 2.7 percent of the national vote, along with anger from Democrats who thought he tipped Florida -- and the presidency -- from Al Gore to George Bush. In fact, Gore won Florida, only to have the results manipulated into Bush's column by the Republican nominee's many allies in state government, with an assist from the Supreme Court. In the intense 2004 competition between Bush and Democratic John Kerry, Nader's run won just 0.3 percent on 34 state ballot lines.A problem today for Obama?
Unlike Gore and Kerry, Obama -- now the likely Democratic nominee -- has taken smarter stands on a number of issues close to Nader's heart, such as trade policy. This is not to say that Obama is as good as Nader on the issues. Far from it. But the savvier Obama platform, as well as the movement character of the Illinois senator's campaign, is likely to leave even less space for Nader to deliver a message. That said, Nader is a determined, sometimes unrelenting, truth teller. He worries far less about vote totals than about saying what he feels needs to be said -- and using the forum of the electoral process to say it. And he has already made it clear that he feels Obama should be prodded on issues ranging from labor law to corporate regulation to single-payer health care and Middle East policy.Okay, I admit it. I voted for Nader in the past. This year though, I cannot (I could not bear a McCain presidency - 4 more years of W). But I welcome his presence and voice. I welcome him to keep Obama on course. As John Nichols points out:
Obama may be "the first liberal evangelist in a long time," says Nader, but the senator's "better instincts and knowledge have been censored" since he hit the nation stage. "(Obama's) leaned, if anything, toward the pro-corporate side of policy-making," Nader said of the senator from Illinois. The consumer activist also scored Obama on on foreign policy, noting that, "He was pro-Palestinian when he was in Illinois... Now he's supporting (right-wing Israeli policies that thwart progress toward peace in the Middle East)."
Some more than others
The three leading contenders for the presidential nominations have staked out positions that differ radically, along party lines. All three say they believe that Afghanistan is an important security threat that needs to be addressed. But the Republican, John McCain, suggests that Iraq remains America’s bugaboo of security threats, while the two Democrats, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, appear to have moved on to Afghanistan. Both of them argue that focusing on Iraq gets in the way of a more serious threat in Afghanistan.I have to believe that Obama is the better choice of the three - do I have another viable option? McCain just wants to continue the mess, Hill is talking a great game of withdrawal but voted for the war and "voted" for an Iranian war. Obama talks about taking the battle to Afpak - let's hope that is just to show how "strong" he can be. Let's hope that if and when he is in office, talk/diplomacy rather than guns become his real weapon.
Distilled to its simplest form, Mr. McCain’s argument is that withdrawing from Iraq would make Americans less safe in the long run, because a withdrawal would embolden Al Qaeda, put American interests at risk in the Middle East, and make an already volatile region less safe. Senators Obama and Clinton have tacked in the opposite direction. Iraq, they argue, makes Afghanistan more dangerous. The Iraq war, Mr. Obama told an audience of supporters in Houston last Tuesday, “distracted us from the fight that needed to be fought in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda. They’re the ones who killed 3,000 Americans.” He has said that if elected, he would deploy at least two additional brigades in Afghanistan.
“Losing Afghanistan would be far more consequential than losing Iraq,” says Bruce Hoffman, a Georgetown University professor who was an adviser on counterterrorism to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad in 2004. “If Pakistan, especially along the border, fell into complete disarray, the integrity of the Afghan country and its government will be even more threatened, and that would have far greater repercussions for us.”
Western oil giants are poised to enter southern Iraq to tap the country's vast reserves, despite the ongoing threat of violence, according to Gordon Brown's business emissary to the country. Michael Wareing, who heads the new Basra Development Commission, acknowledged that there would be concerns among Iraqis about multinationals exploiting natural resources.No crap? It doesn't take a rocket scientist or an oil engineer to figure out that oil was the reason for war. As the world deals with Peak Oil, so many have said that this would happen.
Wareing declined to name names but it is thought that Shell, Exxon Mobil and dozens of others are watching closely. The role of American corporations in Iraq has been hugely sensitive since the US-led invasion in 2003, which some critics said was motivated by the Gulf state's oil wealth.
You know that oil was the motivator. It's the only reason that W did not give. He used every other gimmick - throw out an evil dictator, Weapons of Mass Destruction, bring liberty and freedom, stopping the next 9/11...
General Motors Corp Vice Chairman Bob Lutz has defended remarks he made dismissing global warming as a “total crock of shit,” saying his views had no bearing on GM’s commitment to build environmentally friendly vehicles.But just think Bobby. If the Vice Chair was behind it, what kind of vehicle could GM come out with - maybe the Volt could come out sooner than later.
In a posting on his GM blog on Thursday, Lutz said those “spewing virtual vitriol” at him for minimizing the threat of climate change were “missing the big picture.” “What they should be doing in earnest is forming opinions, not about me but about GM and what this company is doing that is … hugely beneficial to the causes they so enthusiastically claim to support,” he said in a posting titled, “Talk About a Crock.”
In his victory speech in Texas Tuesday, Barack Obama promised to end the Iraq war in 2009, a new commitment that parallels recent opinion pieces in The Nation.The machine is ready to toss the bombs his way. But this is what we have been asking for. End the War - sooner than later.
Prior to his Houston remarks, Obama’s previous position favored an American combat troop withdrawal over a sixteen-to-eighteen-month timeframe. He has been less specific on the number and mission of any advisers he would leave behind.
Ending the war in the first year of his potential presidency, therefore, is the strongest stand Obama has taken thus far, and one he will be questioned on sharply by the Republicans and the media.
The opportunity for the peace movement is to engage in open political and intellectual battle, from precincts to public forums, against the neoconservative agenda for a permanent war against Muslim radicals and on behalf of American access to oil with dire consequences at home.The War Is Over On January 20!
As I sit here and wait for the warmer weather so I can plant my peas and onions, I came across Path to Freedom. Inspiring!
This really makes me look at my small organic garden, my wildlife sanctuary, my practices all in a new light.
Makes me want to take more steps. Now if the ground will simply thaw so I can put that spade in to dig some new beds.
In a discussion of recent comments made by Michelle Obama, Bill O'Reilly took a call from a listener who stated that, according to "a friend who had knowledge of her," Obama " 'is a very angry,' her word was 'militant woman.' " O'Reilly later stated: "I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down."Sure, he didn't want to lead the party but to use such a sentiment is ridiculous and shows FAUX News viewers what he is all about.
But then again, anyone who watches FAUX probably wouldn't think twice about such a statement.
In the predawn hours of Jan. 29, a CIA Predator aircraft flew in a slow arc above the Pakistani town of Mir Ali. The drone's operator, relying on information secretly passed to the CIA by local informants, clicked a computer mouse and sent the first of two Hellfire missiles hurtling toward a cluster of mud-brick buildings a few miles from the town center.Hey we are the big fish - we call all the shots - we decide who/where/when to bomb.
The missiles killed Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda commander and a man who had repeatedly eluded the CIA's dragnet. It was the first successful strike against al-Qaeda's core leadership in two years, and it involved, U.S. officials say, an unusual degree of autonomy by the CIA inside Pakistan.
Officials say the incident was a model of how Washington often scores its rare victories these days in the fight against al-Qaeda inside Pakistan's national borders: It acts with assistance from well-paid sympathizers inside the country, but without getting the government's formal permission beforehand.
Gee, I wonder how long that works until "friends" get pissed at us?
Saudi Arabia's rulers threatened to make it easier for terrorists to attack London unless corruption investigations into their arms deals were halted, according to court documents revealed yesterday.Isn't this one of W's friends?Isn't this the country's rulers he recently visited and snuggled up to? With friends like this...
Previously secret files describe how investigators were told they faced "another 7/7" and the loss of "British lives on British streets" if they pressed on with their inquiries and the Saudis carried out their threat to cut off intelligence.
Prince Bandar, the head of the Saudi national security council, and son of the crown prince, was alleged in court to be the man behind the threats to hold back information about suicide bombers and terrorists.
The British government released a once-secret draft document on Monday that was drawn up to justify going to war in Iraq, succumbing to three years of pressure from freedom of information campaigners.The 32-page document, written by a former director of communications at the Foreign Office, cites intelligence sources to state that Iraq had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and could easily use them since it had done so before. Yet the document, amended in the margins, makes no mention of Saddam Hussein being capable of launching weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes, a false claim later used in another government dossier to make the case for going to war.A case for war made by a number of speech writers and propoganda hounds. This is the report from the UK. Don't think that our nation was any different.
“Rape is a standard method of intimidation by the regime,” his document says. “The government personnel card produced here (picture) identifies its holder, Aziz Saleh Ahmed, as a ‘fighter in the popular army’ whose activity is ‘violation of women’s honour: in other words, he is a professional rapist.” A parenthetical note adds: (any more on these people? This is the ghastly single image of oppression we must get into people’s minds).”
A war based on lies must stop NOW!
In determining which of the two leading Democratic candidates would make the most competent and credible commander in chief, it is revealing to compare the public statements of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama during October 2002, when Congress voted to authorize the U.S. invasion of Iraq.Just keep to your words and follow through.
Former President Bill Clinton insisted recently that Clinton and Obama had had virtually identical records on the Iraq war and that Obama’s claim that he “had the judgment to oppose this war from the beginning” was “the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.”
The record from that month, however, shows that there were indeed major differences between the two future presidential contenders, with Clinton supporting the Bush administration’s push for war and its exaggerated claims about Iraq’s alleged military prowess while Obama was opposing a U.S. invasion of that oil-rich country and openly challenging the administration’s exaggerated claims of an Iraqi threat so urgent it required a march to war.
Though under no obligation as an Illinois state senator to make any public statements on foreign policy, Obama spoke out against the prospects of war at an anti-war rally in Chicago.
That kind of judgment shows itself today in their respective choices as senior foreign policy advisers, many of whom would likely take top policy-making positions if the candidate does become president. Obama has assembled a foreign policy team whose members overwhelmingly opposed the war, in contrast to Clinton’s, whose members overwhelmingly supported it.
President Bush said Friday that "our country is in more danger of an attack" because of Congress' failure to extend a law that makes it easier for the government to spy on foreign phone calls and e-mails that pass through the United States.
American citizens must understand, clearly understand that there's still a threat on the homeland. There's still an enemy which would like to do us harm," Bush said. "We've got to give our professionals the tools they need, to be able to figure out what the enemy is up to so we can stop it."And W is just the man to prove it. You want a little bomb? You want a little scare? You want a little plot to destroy a landmark? Have no fear - W is STILL here.
While the battle between Obama and Clinton continues, and may continue for a while, it is critically important we start getting out the message about McCain. We don't want the only story line to be about Democrats fighting.War is TOO costly in so many ways. Let's make sure we vote to END IT NOW!
Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman reluctantly acknowledged Thursday that he does not believe waterboarding is torture, but believes the interrogation technique should be available only under the most extreme circumstances.A sure way to make money for the Nation - sell raffle tickets with the winner being the one to pour the water on Joey's face. I'm in for an arm's length of tickets.
Lieberman was one of 45 senators who voted Wednesday in opposition to a bill that would limit the CIA to the 19 interrogation techniques outlined in the Army field manual. That manual prohibits waterboarding, a method where detainees typically are strapped to a bench and have water poured into their mouth and nose making them feel as if they will drown.
Then again, he likes it!
A Bush administration plan to crack down on contract fraud has a multibillion-dollar loophole: The proposal to force companies to report abuse of taxpayer money will not apply to work overseas, including projects to secure and rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan.This makes a lot of sense to me. Why would W and regime crack down on the real money making machine when they are going to benefit from it?
President George W. Bush decided to make a first-of-its-kind attempt to use a missile to bring down a broken U.S. spy satellite because of the potential danger to people from its rocket fuel, officials said Thursday.Remember the expression, what goes up must come down? So we launch the missile into the air, if it misses its target it will fall to Earth we know not where - unless it is programmed to accidently fall into Iran...
Deputy National Security Adviser James Jeffries, briefing reporters at the Defense Department, did not say when the attempted intercept would be conducted, but the satellite is expected to hit Earth during the first week of March.
He said a Navy missile known as Standard Missile 3 would be fired in an attempt to intercept the satellite just prior to it re-entering Earth's atmosphere. It would be "next to impossible" to hit the satellite after that because of atmospheric disturbances, Cartwright said.
A second goal, he said, is to directly hit the fuel tank in order to minimize the amount of fuel that returns to Earth.
Software associated with the Standard Missile 3 has been modified to enhance the chances of the missile's sensors recognizing that the satellite is its target; he noted that the missile normally is used to shoot down ballistic missiles, not satellites.
Congress on Wednesday moved to prohibit the CIA from using waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods on terror suspects, despite President Bush's threat to veto any measure that limits the agency's interrogation techniques.Who were the 45? Wonder if they would welcome the experience?
The prohibition was contained in a bill authorizing intelligence activities for the current year, which the Senate approved on a 51-45 vote. It would restrict the CIA to the 19 interrogation techniques outlined in the Army field manual. That manual prohibits waterboarding, a method that makes an interrogation subject feel he is drowning.
INTERVIEWED Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's national security adviser and now foreign policy mentor to Barack Obama, before the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran was published.Why start or provoke a clash? Ego? End of World dreams? Crazy, delusion visions of some sort of Christian only world? Trying to put more blood money in friends' pockets?
But it did not go into print until this month (in World Policy Journal in the US, Prospect magazine in Britain, Global Affairs in Russia and the Arab News in Saudi Arabia, among others). I asked Brzezinski if he wanted to re-write his apocalyptic scenario for Iranian-US relations. He didn't. "Some people with good reason fear an Iranian-US military clash before Bush leaves office in 12 months time", he says.
"There are still some people in the administration of neo-con persuasion who seem to be tempted by what I believe is a suicidal inclination to compound the Iraqi problem by some sort of military action against Iran."
Brzezinski's fear is that the Iraqi war instead of winding down could be enlarged before Bush's departure. "War is inherently dynamic", reasons Brzezinski. "There maybe some collisions, flashes, provocations, a clash with Iran, perhaps some terrorist act in the US, which can credibly be blamed on the Iranians. Al Qaeda has stated not long ago that such a collision between America and Iran will be very much in its strategic interest."
Brzezinski worries that the US risks becoming "a huge gated community self-isolated from the world... One of my indictments of Bush is that he has fostered a culture of fear in this country rather than diminished it."
The Middle East experts, Vali Nasr and Ray Takeyh, attempt to answer that question in the current issue of Foreign Affairs. "For the Bush administration containing Iran is the solution to the Middle East's various problems", they write. Its officials "seem to feel that in the midst of disorder and chaos lies an unprecedented opportunity for reshaping the region so that it is finally at ease with US dominance and Israeli prowess." That such a scenario is built on what most of us would regard as a fantasy seems not to bother them.
Yet there is no sign that Iran, as it did under the Shah, is seeking to become the pivotal state in the region. It is not creating disorder to fulfil some misread scriptural promise. Nor is it by nature an expansionist power. Iran has not begun a war for over 200 years. When Saddam Hussein's Iraq attacked Iran, Iran was clearly the innocent party.
Way back in the year of 2017She realizes it's here. What about the rest of us?
The sun was growing hotter
And oil was way beyond its peak
Interesting new album from Crow - political.
I heard about the day that two skyscrapers came down
Firemen and policemen people came from all around
The smoke covered the city and the body count did rise
The president spoke words of comfort with teardrops in his eyes
The, he led us as a nation into a war all based on lies
NATO's survival is at stake in the debate over how the United States and Europe should share the burden of fighting Islamic extremism in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday.Let's think about it: If I play basketball and love to foul and draw blood, should I get mad at my friend who doesn't want to play with me and my "style?" Is he the "bad guy" or did I bring this on myself. It is my choice to play dirty and rough. It is his choice to not want to play with me. Then next week he ends up playing with others and I, with my elbows flying, stand by myself shooting free throws. CHOICE in how we play. And everyone has a CHOICE if they want to play with me.
"We must not — we cannot — become a two-tiered alliance of those willing to fight and those who are not," Gates told the Munich Conference on Security Policy, where Afghanistan was a central topic
Washington has had innumerable disputes with its NATO allies in the 59 years since the security alliance was founded as a bulwark against the former Soviet Union. But Gates portrayed today's debate over the importance of the mission in Afghanistan and how to accomplish as among the most difficult ever. A central theme of Gates' speech was his assertion that al-Qaida extremists, either in Afghanistan or elsewhere, pose a greater threat to Europe than many Europeans realize.
Clearing land to produce biofuels such as ethanol will do more to exacerbate global warming than using gasoline or other fossil fuels, two scientific studies show.Knocking down the trees. Clearing the land. The pesticides. The herbicides. All to feed our habits.
The independent analyses, which will be published today in the journal Science, could force policymakers in the United States and Europe to reevaluate incentives they have adopted to spur production of ethanol-based fuels. President Bush and many members of Congress have touted expanding biofuel use as an integral element of the nation's battle against climate change, but these studies suggest that this strategy will damage the planet rather than help protect it.
Think also of how many meals can be made from all that corn pumped into gas tanks versus on someone's plate.
Iraqi police said they killed an al Qaeda in Iraq leader on Saturday in the northern city of Samarra, a day after five U.S. soldiers were killed in two explosions elsewhere.We often hear reports of "top level" al Qaeda being killed. Almost noted as something to be proud of - we are succeeding(?). But doesn't it seem that al Qaeda either had a lot of so-called leaders or is very adept at replenishing their losses.
Mahmoud al-Douri, who also went by the name Abu Omar, was killed during a raid on a Samarra house, a police official said. Police said al-Douri shot at them and they fired back, killing him.
Let's hope we are not announcing this as some sort of scorecard. Ball games need scorecards - wars don't.
or is that "Stupid war?"
The heck with Congress' big stimulus bill. The way to get the country out of recession — and most people think we're in one — is to get the country out of Iraq, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll. Pulling out of the war ranked first among proposed remedies in the survey, followed by spending more on domestic programs, cutting taxes and, at the bottom end, giving rebates to poor people in hopes they'll spend the economy into recovery.
With Iraq a key issue and the Democratic primaries unresolved, isn’t it time for the peace movement to get off the sidelines and become more engaged? Shouldn’t we be doing everything possible to make the candidates compete for the peace vote? Think of the battlegrounds ahead where the peace vote is up for grabs: Washington on February 9, Maryland and the District of Columbia February 12, Wisconsin February 19, Rhode Island, Vermont and Ohio on March 4, and other states like Oregon and Pennsylvania through May.
There are differences that matter between Clinton and Obama, not as great as between the Democrats and McCain, but significant nonetheless. They are these: Obama favors a 16-18 month timeline for withdrawing US combat troops. Clinton favors “immediately” convening the Joint Chiefs to draft a plan to “begin” drawing down US troops, but with no timetable for completing the withdrawal. Obama opposed the measure authorizing Bush to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, widely regarded as an escalating step towards another war. Clinton voted for the authorization. Obama opposed the 2002 authorization for war that Clinton voted for. Clinton still calls that decision a “close call” and refuses to say it was a mistaken vote. It’s true that both candidates support leaving thousands of “residual” American troops behind for a likely counterinsurgency conflict that we should all oppose. Peace activists should demand a shift to peace diplomacy beginning with a US commitment to end the occupation and withdraw all troops. But Obama’s position is clearly better than Clinton’s, and both candidates should be encouraged to see that the strongest anti-war position wins votes.
In the immediate context, it seems to me that a group like MoveOn has to consider whether its endorsement of Obama now deserves a blast of anti-war energy in places like Seattle, Baltimore, Madison, Vermont, suburban Ohio, Providence, and Portland. Television, radio and media advertising still can be purchased for peace voices. Progressive Democrats at the grass-roots level might flood these decisive areas with questions to the campaigns and informational leaflets designed to educate swing voters. Signs and banners asking “Peace By When?” might be seen at rallies and media events. The new reality is that the primaries will grind on, the percentages will remain extremely tight, and the Iraq War can be made into a tipping issue over which the candidates compete. It takes a peace movement now.
Possible? Is our nation capable of lies? Does greed (for money and power) drive some leaders?
We'd better. We cannot afford any more time, money or lives.
The photo taken at yesterday's "meet-up" with McCain shows W and the glorious bomb. Want more info? Visit Not Another War to learn more about the campaign and sign the petition.
One war is too many. One war is too insane!
John, 100 year war, McCain brought his campaign to Sacred Heart University in Fairfield today. As a pre-Super Bowl warm-up I stood on the sidewalk holding my "No War On Iran" sign.
Love holding the sign and trying to make eye contact with the starched, furred McCain supporters. But they hardly ever look. I could imagine some of them telling their kids in the backseat, "Don't look at them Johnny. They are evil and should be completely ignored. They are not true patriots - we are."
One did glance my way and just shook her head in disgust. I think she would have loved to drive over me. I just felt sorry for her that she could think of supporting a continuation and expansion of the war.
As Joey LIEberman drove by he flashed a peace sign. The utter absurdity of this man flashing a peace sign while promoting war is beyond my comprehension.
The highlight? I wandered over to the side entrance with a handful of others and waited to see who would pass that way. And lo and behold McCain and his entourage passed by. Did he see my sign - I doubt it. But it still made my day.
Despite growing recognition in the Pentagon and the intelligence community that global warming poses serious national security threats to the United States, Washington is spending 88 dollars on the military for every dollar it spends this year on climate-related programmes, according to a new study released here Thursday by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS). The study, entitled “Military vs. Climate Security”, found that the government has budgeted 647.5 billion dollars for the defence budget in 2008 — more than the defence budgets of the rest of the world’s nations combined — compared to 7.37 billion dollars for climate-related programmes.We have to look at who benefits from these dollars - whose wallets are fattened. That is the first issue. The second is that the monies for climate-related programs must also address consumerism and our ways of life (or rather ways of buying). Until we all realize that our consumer culture must change, we shouldn't expect funds to be relegated to programs that will take money away from GE, Monsanto, Exxon...
Of the latter total, moreover, only 212 million dollars is devoted to helping poor countries obtain clean, renewable energy sources that do not contribute to global warming — less than what U.S. military forces in Iraq spend each day on operations there.
Today Barack Obama earned the endorsement of MoveOn, one of the largest grassroots membership organizations in the United States, after clobbering Hillary Clinton by 40 percent in Internet balloting. Obama led the final tally 70.4% to 29.6%, clearing the supermajority required for the endorsement. MoveOn, which has never endorsed a presidential candidate before, boasts that it has 1.7 million members in Super Tuesday states. The group has over half a million members in California alone - roughly one out of ten primary voters in Tuesday’s largest state.He was right about Iraq from the start -unlike Hill. A major plus for me.
It's official: Peace Garden now Supports Obama in 2008.
Well now I know who to vote for this Tuesday. My heart still belongs to Kucinich but my vote now belongs to Obama.
Two mentally disabled women were strapped with explosives Friday and sent into busy Baghdad markets, where they were blown up by remote control, a top Iraqi government official said. The bombs killed at least 98 people and wounded more than 200 at two popular pet markets on the holiest day of the week for Muslims, authorities said. In both bombings, the attackers were mentally disabled women whose explosive belts were remotely detonated, Gen. Qasim Atta, spokesman for Baghdad's security plan, told state television. "By targeting innocent Iraqis they show their true demonic character," said Lt. Col. Steve Stover, spokesman for the Multi-National Division-Baghdad. "They care nothing for the Iraqi people; they want to subjugate them and forcefully create a greater Islamic sharia state," he said, referring to Islamic law.Two questions:
This article really paints the picture that we view this as the EndTimes War: Win one for Jesus and destroy the demon-hordes who are "mentally disabled!"
Is this any way to try to live in a world with different opinions, views, traditions, beliefs....?