onsdag 30 april 2008
Jag undrar dock om SVD:s "Sveriges bästa mediesajt" verkligen är en bättre slogan? Jag noterade idag att det faktiskt står så längst upp på ens internetbrowser när man besöker SVDs hemsida. Ganska lustigt. Ta en titt: www.svd.se
Att Obama försvagas innebär att det blir ännu svårare för superdelegaterna att välja sida; det kommer alltså att flyta ännu mer blod innan detta är över.
Det bästa för demokratiska partiet vore om Obama drog ifrån Clinton vad gäller popularitet och antalet delegater - då skulle förlusten inte heller kännas lika orättvis för Clintons supportrar.
Eftersom Obama kommer att få fler delegater än Clinton, vad som än händer, tror jag också att hans bas kommer att känna sig svikna med en annan utgång än Obama som partiets kandidat. Men nu kommer som sagt kampen att dra ut på tiden och vara oviss. Demokratiska partiet är de stora förlorarna.
Jag tycker uppriktigt synd om Obama. För mer än att detta bara är ett stort problem för hans politiska karriär - så är det en personlig tragedi. Pastor Wright har tydligen betytt väldigt mycket för honom i formandet av hans egen kristna tro. Att Wright sen är alldeles för dum för att förstå detta, och uppskatta en sådan sak på ett vist sätt - vilket nu tvingat Obama att bryta med en person som Obama betraktade som en vän, måste sägas vara tragiskt. "I can feel your pain", som Bill Clinton skulle ha sagt.
Här är ännu en artikel om deras relation: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/us/politics/01wright.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
tisdag 29 april 2008
Redan i sitt huvudsakliga tal nämner Wright Obama så pass mycket att Obama - utan att veta vad Wright senare skulle slänga ur sig - helt säkert måste ha förstått att Wrights anförande inte skulle kunna undgå att kopplas till honom själv. Till en början säger Wright om den senaste attacken (dvs anklagelserna mot honom som media lyft fram):
"The most recent attack on the black church, it is our hope that this just might mean that the reality of the African-American church will no longer be invisible.
Maybe now, as an honest dialogue about race in this country begins, a dialogue called for by Senator Obama and a dialogue to begin in the United Church of Christ among 5,700 congregations in just a few weeks, maybe now, as that dialogue begins, the religious tradition that has kept hope alive for people struggling to survive in countless hopeless situation, maybe that religious tradition will be understood, celebrated, and even embraced by a nation that seems not to have noticed why 11 o'clock on Sunday morning has been called the most segregated hour in America.
Wright utlägger därefter de svartas kristna långa och ofta svåra historia i USA. Till slut kommer han dock fram till vad hans egen svarta kyrka gjort för USA och då blir han också lite mer politisk och säger:
Our congregation, as you heard in the introduction, took a stand against apartheid when the government of our country was supporting the racist regime of the African government in South Africa.
Our congregation stood in solidarity with the peasants in El Salvador and Nicaragua, while our government, through Ollie North and the Iran-Contra scandal, was supporting the Contras, who were killing the peasants and the Miskito Indians in those two countries....
Our congregation has sent dozens of boys and girls to fight in the Vietnam War, the first Gulf War, and the present two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. My goddaughter's unit just arrived in Iraq this week, while those who call me unpatriotic have used their positions of privilege to avoid military service, while sending...
(APPLAUSE) ... while sending over 4,000 American boys and girls of every race to die over a lie.
Lite senare följer frågestunden:
MODERATOR: We do want to get in our questions.... You have said that the media have taken you out of context. Can you explain what you meant in a sermon shortly after 9/11 when you said the United States had brought the terrorist attacks on itself? Quote, "America's chickens are coming home to roost."
REVEREND WRIGHT: Have you heard the whole sermon? Have you heard the whole sermon?
MODERATOR: I heard most of it.
REVEREND WRIGHT: No, no, the whole sermon, yes or no? No, you haven't heard the whole sermon? That nullifies that question.
Well, let me try to respond in a non-bombastic way. If you heard the whole sermon, first of all, you heard that I was quoting the ambassador from Iraq. That's number one.
But, number two, to quote the Bible, "Be not deceived. God is not mocked. For whatsoever you sow, that you also shall reap." Jesus said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on you. Those are biblical principles, not Jeremiah Wright bombastic, divisive principles.
MODERATOR: Some critics have said that your sermons are unpatriotic. How do you feel about America and about being an American?
REVEREND WRIGHT: ...I served six years in the military. Does that make me patriotic? How many years did Cheney serve? (APPLAUSE)
MODERATOR: ...Senator Obama has tried to explain away some of your most contentious comments and has distanced himself from you. It's clear that many people in his campaign consider you a detriment. In that context, why are you speaking out now?
REVEREND WRIGHT: On November the 5th and on January 21st, I'll still be a pastor. As I said, this is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright. It has nothing to do with Senator Obama. It is an attack on the black church launched by people who know nothing about the African-American religious tradition.
And why am I speaking out now? In our community, we have something called playing the dozens. If you think I'm going to let you talk about my mama and her religious tradition, and my daddy and his religious tradition, and my grandma, you've got another thing coming.
MODERATOR: What is your relationship with Louis Farrakhan? Do you agree with and respect his views, including his most racially divisive views?
REVEREND WRIGHT: As I said on the Bill Moyers' show, one of our news channels keeps playing a news clip from 20 years ago when Louis said 20 years ago that Zionism, not Judaism, was a gutter religion.
And he was talking about the same thing United Nations resolutions say, the same thing now that President Carter is being vilified for, and Bishop Tutu is being vilified for. And everybody wants to paint me as if I'm anti-Semitic because of what Louis Farrakhan said 20 years ago.
I believe that people of all faiths have to work together in this country if we're going to build a future for our children, whether those people are -- just as Michelle and Barack don't agree on everything, Raymond (ph) and I don't agree on everything, Louis and I don't agree on everything, most of you all don't agree -- you get two people in the same room, you've got three opinions.
So what I think about him, as I've said on Bill Moyers and it got edited out, how many other African-Americans or European-Americans do you know that can get one million people together on the mall? He is one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century. That's what I think about him.
I've said, as I said on Bill Moyers, when Louis Farrakhan speaks, it's like E.F. Hutton speaks, all black America listens. Whether they agree with him or not, they listen.
Now, I am not going to put down Louis Farrakhan anymore than Mandela would put down Fidel Castro. Do you remember that Ted Koppel show, where Ted wanted Mandela to put down Castro because Castro was our enemy? And he said, "You don't tell me who my enemies are. You don't tell me who my friends are."
Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains. He did not put me in slavery. And he didn't make me this color.
MODERATOR: What is your motivation for characterizing Senator Obama's response to you as, quote, "what a politician had to say"? What do you mean by that?
REVEREND WRIGHT: What I mean is what several of my white friends and several of my white, Jewish friends have written me and said to me. They've said, "You're a Christian. You understand forgiveness. We both know that, if Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected."
Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls, Huffington, whoever's doing the polls. Preachers say what they say because they're pastors. They have a different person to whom they're accountable.
As I said, whether he gets elected or not, I'm still going to have to be answerable to God November 5th and January 21st. That's what I mean. I do what pastors do. He does what politicians do.
I am not running for office. I am hoping to be vice president.
MODERATOR: Senator Obama has been in your congregation for 20 years, yet you were not invited to his announcement of his presidential candidacy in Illinois. And in the most recent presidential debate in Pennsylvania, he said he had denounced you. Are you disappointed that Senator Obama has chosen to walk away from you?
REVEREND WRIGHT: Whoever wrote that question doesn't read or watch the news. He did not denounce me. He distanced himself from some of my remarks, like most of you, never having heard the sermon. All right?
Now, what was the rest of your question? Because I got confused in -- the person who wrote it hadn't...
MODERATOR: Were you disappointed that he distanced himself?
REVEREND WRIGHT: He didn't distance himself. He had to distance himself, because he's a politician, from what the media was saying I had said, which was anti-American. He said I didn't offer any words of hope. How would he know? He never heard the rest of the sermon. You never heard it.
I offered words of hope. I offered reconciliation. I offered restoration in that sermon, but nobody heard the sermon. They just heard this little sound bite of a sermon.
That was not the whole question. There was something else in the first part of the question that I wanted to address.
Oh, I was not invited because that was a political event. Let me say again: I'm his pastor. As a political event, who started it off? Senator Dick Durbin. I started it off downstairs with him, his wife, and children in prayer. That's what pastors do.
So I started it off in prayer. When he went out into the public, that wasn't about prayer. That wasn't about pastor-member. Pastor- member took place downstairs. What took place upstairs was political.
So that's how I feel about that. He did, as I've said, what politicians do. This is a political event. He wasn't announcing, "I'm saved, sanctified, and feel the holy ghost." He was announcing, "I'm running for president of the United States."
MODERATOR: You just mentioned that Senator Obama hadn't heard many of your sermons. Does that mean he's not much of a churchgoer? Or does he doze off in the pews?
REVEREND WRIGHT: I just wanted to see -- that's your question. That's your question. He goes to church about as much as you do. What did your pastor preach on last week? You don't know? OK.
MODERATOR: In your sermon, you said the government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. So I ask you: Do you honestly believe your statement and those words?
REVEREND WRIGHT: Have you read Horowitz's book, "Emerging Viruses: AIDS and Ebola," whoever wrote that question? Have you read "Medical Apartheid"? You've read it?
(UNKNOWN): Do you honestly believe that (OFF-MIKE)
REVEREND WRIGHT: Oh, are you -- is that one of the reporters?
MODERATOR: No questions...
REVEREND WRIGHT: No questions from the floor. I read different things. As I said to my members, if you haven't read things, then you can't -- based on this Tuskegee experiment and based on what has happened to Africans in this country, I believe our government is capable of doing anything.
In fact, in fact, in fact, one of the -- one of the responses to what Saddam Hussein had in terms of biological warfare was a non- question, because all we had to do was check the sales records. We sold him those biological weapons that he was using against his own people.
So any time a government can put together biological warfare to kill people, and then get angry when those people use what we sold them, yes, I believe we are capable.
MODERATOR: You have likened Israeli policies to apartheid and its treatment of Palestinians with Native Americans. Can you explain your views on Israel?
REVEREND WRIGHT: Where did I liken them to that? Whoever wrote the question, tell me where I likened them.
Jimmy Carter called it apartheid. Jeremiah Wright didn't liken anything to anything. My position on Israel is that Israel has a right to exist, that Israelis have a right to exist, as I said, reconciled one to another.
Have you read the Link? Do you read the Link, Americans for Middle Eastern Understanding, where Palestinians and Israelis need to sit down and talk to each other and work out a solution where their children can grow in a world together, and not be talking about killing each other, that that is not God's will?
My position is that the Israel and the people of Israel be the people of God who are worrying about reconciliation and who are trying to do what God wants for God's people, which is reconciliation.
MODERATOR: Can you elaborate on your comparison of the Roman soldiers who killed Jesus to the U.S. Marine Corps? Do you still believe that is an appropriate comparison and why?
REVEREND WRIGHT: One of the things that will be covered at the symposium over the next two days is biblical history, which many of the working press are unfamiliar with...........That, yes, I can compare that. We have troops stationed all over the world, just like Rome had troops stationed all over the world, because we run the world. That notion of imperialism is not the message of the gospel of the prince of peace, nor of God, who loves the world.
MODERATOR: You first gained media attention, significant media attention for your sermons several weeks ago. Why did you wait so long before giving the public your side of the sound bite story?
REVEREND WRIGHT: As I said to Bill Moyers -- and he also edited this one out -- because of my mother's advice to me. My mother's advice was being seen all over the corporate media channels, and it's a paraphrase of the Book of Proverbs, where it is better to be quiet and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.......
MODERATOR: Do you think it is God's will that Senator Obama be president?
REVEREND WRIGHT: I said I would offer myself for candidacy for vice president. I have not offered myself for candidacy of God. I can't presume to know what God would want.
In my tradition, however, what everybody has been saying to me as it pertains to the candidacy is what God has for you is for you. If God intends for Mr. Obama to the president, then no white racists, no political pundit, no speech, nothing can get in the way, because God will do what God wants to do.
Här är talet i sin helhet:
måndag 28 april 2008
Hillary Rodham Clinton has a better chance than Barack Obama of beating Republican John McCain, according to a new Associated Press-Ipsos poll that bolsters her argument that she is more electable in the fall than her rival for the Democratic nomination.
The survey released Monday gives Clinton a fresh talking point as she works to convince pivotal undecided superdelegates to side with her in the drawn-out Democratic primary fight.
Clinton, who won the Pennsylvania primary last week, has gained ground this month in a hypothetical head-to-head match up with the GOP nominee-in-waiting; she now leads McCain, 50 percent to 41 percent, while Obama remains virtually tied with McCain, 46 percent to 44 percent.Källa: Yahoo!
Och här kommenterar CNN:s korrespondenter Wrights tal. De tycks ha fått en ganska bra uppfattning av pastorn:
söndag 27 april 2008
MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24327554/ 2008-04-27
lördag 26 april 2008
Only in America...
By JOHN MILBURN, Associated Press Writer 13 minutes ago
Like hundreds of young men joining the Army in recent years, Jeremy Hall professes a desire to serve his country while it fights terrorism.
But the short and soft-spoken specialist is at the center of a legal controversy. He has filed a lawsuit alleging he's been harassed and his constitutional rights have been violated because he doesn't believe in God. The suit names Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
"I'm not in it for cash," Hall said. "I want no one else to go what I went through."
Known as "the atheist guy," Hall has been called immoral, a devil worshipper and — just as severe to some soldiers — gay, none of which, he says, is true. Hall even drove fellow soldiers to church in Iraq and paused while they prayed before meals.
"I see a name and rank and United States flag on their shoulder. That's what I believe everyone else should see," he said.
Hall, 23, was raised in a Protestant family in North Carolina and dropped out of school before earning his GED. It wasn't until after he joined the Army that he began questioning religion, eventually deciding he couldn't follow any faith.
But he feared how that would look to other soldiers.
"I was ashamed to say that I was an atheist," Hall said.
It eventually came out in Iraq in 2007, when he was in a firefight. Hall was a gunner on a Humvee, which took several bullets in its protective shield. Afterward, his commander asked whether he believed in God, Hall said.
"I said, 'No, but I believe in Plexiglas,'" Hall said. "I've never believed I was going to a happy place. You get one life. When I die, I'm worm food."
The issue came to a head when, according to Hall, a superior officer, Maj. Freddy J. Welborn, threatened to bring charges against him for trying to hold a meeting of atheists in Iraq. Welborn has denied Hall's allegations.
Hall said he had had enough but feared he wouldn't get support from Welborn's superiors. He turned to Mikey Weinstein and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.
Weinstein is the foundation's president and a U.S. Air Force Academy graduate. He had previously sued the Air Force for acts he said illegally imposed Christianity on students at the academy, though that case was dismissed. He calls Hall a hero.
"The average American doesn't have enough intestinal fortitude to tell someone to shut up if they are talking in a movie theater," Weinstein said. "You know how hard it is to take on your chain of command? This isn't the shift manager at KFC."
Hall was in Qatar when the lawsuit was filed on Sept. 18 in federal court in Kansas City, Kan. Other soldiers learned of it and he feared for his own safety. Once, Hall said, a group of soldiers followed him, harassing him, but no one did anything to make it stop.
The Army told him it couldn't protect him and sent him back to Fort Riley. He resumed duties with a military police battalion. He believes his promotion to sergeant has been blocked because of his lawsuit, but he is a team leader responsible for two junior enlisted soldiers.
No one with Fort Riley, the Army or Defense Department would comment about Hall or the lawsuit. Each issued statements saying that discrimination will not be tolerated regardless of race, religion or gender.
"The Department respects (and supports by its policy) the rights of others to their own religious beliefs, including the right to hold no beliefs," said Eileen Lainez, a spokeswoman for the Department of Defense.
All three organizations said existing systems help soldiers "address and resolve any perceived unfair treatment."
Lt. Col. David Shurtleff, a Fort Riley chaplain, declined to discuss Hall's case but said chaplains accommodate all faiths as best they can. In most cases, religious issues can be worked out without jeopardizing military operations.
"When you're in Afghanistan and an IED blows up a Humvee, they aren't asking about a wounded soldier's faith," Shurtleff said.
Hall said he enjoys being a team leader but has been told that having faith would make him a better leader.
"I will take care of my soldiers. Nowhere does it say I have to pray with my soldiers, but I do have to make sure my soldiers' religious needs are met," he said.
"Religion brings comfort to a lot of people," he said. "Personally, I don't want it or need it. But I'm not going to get down on anybody else for it."
Hall leaves the Army in April 2009. He would like to find work with the National Park Service or Environmental Protection Agency, anything outdoors.
"I hope this doesn't define me," Hall said of his lawsuit. "It's just about time somebody said something."
On the Net:
Military Religious Freedom Foundation: http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org
Fort Riley: http://www.riley.army.mil
Department of Defense: http://www.defenselink.mil
Syria's ambassador to the United States said Friday that the CIA fabricated pictures allegedly taken inside a secret Syrian nuclear reactor and predicted that in the coming weeks the U.S. story about the site would "implode from within."
"The photos presented to me yesterday were ludicrous, laughable," Ambassador Imad Moustapha told reporters at his Washington residence.
However, he refused to say what the building in the remote eastern desert of Syria was used for before Israeli jets bombed it in September 2007.
Senior U.S. intelligence officials said Thursday they believe it was a secret nuclear reactor meant to produce plutonium, which can be used to make high-yield nuclear weapons. They alleged that North Korea aided in the design, construction and outfitting of the building.
Syria bulldozed the building's ruins a month after it was bombed and constructed a new, larger building in its place, leaving little or no evidence of what had been on the site.
Moustapha would not explain the purpose of the new building. But he said the lack of military checkpoints, air defenses or barbed wire fences around either building should show that it was not a sensitive facility.
So far, Syria has not allowed the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect the area.
Syria's ambassador to the United Nations, Bashar Ja'afari, pledged on Friday to cooperate with the IAEA and suggested that "the main target of the American CIA allegations against Syria is to justify the Israeli attack against the Syrian side."
In a message to employees, CIA Director Michael Hayden praised the agency's "outstanding" work, calling it "a case study in rigorous analytic tradecraft, skillful human and technical collection."
But some outside nuclear experts were questioning some of the CIA's analysis, though not disputing its conclusions.
David Albright, president of the nonprofit Institute for Science and International Security, analyzed commercial satellite imagery of the bombed facility last fall and surmised then it was a nuclear reactor. He questioned the intelligence agencies' conclusion that the reactor was within months or weeks of completion.
"It's not clear-cut it was ready to turn on," Albright said.
He also took issue with the Bush administration's assertion that the reactor was solely intended to support a nuclear weapons program. Officials said Thursday the reactor was ill-suited for electrical generation — it lacked distribution wires or substations — and did not bear the hallmarks of a research reactor. They concluded the plutonium was therefore meant for weapons but acknowledged they had no direct evidence of that.
Almost all reactors produce plutonium, even those dedicated to peaceful purposes, Albright said.
"Civilian uses are possible and cannot be dismissed out of hand," he said. "I think the CIA and the White House have not shown that the only possibility for this reactor is that it was to make plutonium for nuclear weapons."
"It very well could be true," he said, "but it is far less than ironclad, absent other information."
According to the CIA, the Syrian reactor was modeled on a small North Korean reactor built at Yongbyon. That facility produced a small amount of plutonium for nuclear weapons. Albright said that facility was also a research effort to determine if the North Koreans could scale up the model to produce electricity efficiently.
Siegfried Hecker, the co-director for Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation, said the evidence strongly suggests Syria's intention was to produce plutonium. He agreed with the assessment that the plant was not well-suited for generating electricity.
"On the other hand, it was the best path to bomb-grade plutonium," he said. "That was most likely the primary purpose of this facility."
One piece of evidence that casts doubt on Syrian intentions to produce plutonium for weapons was the absence of a reprocessing facility, necessary to extract plutonium from spent nuclear fuel.
But Anthony Cordesman, a military expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that may not have been a serious impediment. Syria could quickly build such a reprocessing capability, he said.
Cordesman also said the CIA undercut its case against Syria by not explaining how a plutonium-producing reactor would fit into Syria's "long history" of suspicious activities that suggest it is trying to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
Yahoo News: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080425/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/syria_north_korea_nuclear
fredag 25 april 2008
Posted: Dec 6, 2006 3:29 AM
We can all say what we want about the midterm election. But it stands clear that the american people are dissatisfied by the events in Iraq the Bush administrations iraqi policies.
The situation in Iraq is americas present biggest foreign policy problem. Some days ago during the Senate hearings Bushs newly appointed Defense Secretary Robert Gates acknowledged that "we are not winning in Iraq". While Bush himself said the opposite.
I support President Bush more than most people. But there are some problems with Bushs world view: President Bush is a idealist. Being an idealist is a great thing. The belief in idealism is what makes America different from Europe (our last idealists were Churchill and Hitler). And among Americas presidents I would say that president Bush is one of the greatest idealists among american presidents during the 20th/21th century(so far) - together with Ronald Reagan and perhaps Franklin D Roosevelt.
Bushs idealism is also what brought him to office in 2000 as well as 2004- unlike Bill Clinton (and even more so, unlike Al Gore) - Bush brought new visions to the White House. He talked about confronting evil, establish democracies around the world and make the world a more free and better place for everyone. Bush also has the personality and the charisma to express these things in just the right way. In contrast to Al Gores boring fall-asleep way of expressing himself, and John Kerrys cliché- impersonal rethoric.
But idealism and idealists always confront a problem - a problem they, because of their own idealism not always are able to see: that is (1. the fact that there actually are no perfect ideals, and no golden concept which can always be used to solve your problems. and (2. that idealism in politics requires EVERYONE ELSE to be just as idealistic if the idealist vision shall unfold.
President Bush has been an idealist when talking about Iraq. During 2003 he declared that the mission was "accomplished" when the Baathregime was thrown out of power. Yet, as we now know - the war had just begun. It was for –that- reason the realist, not idealist - James Baker and Bush 41 did not invade Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War - since the realist school considered that it would not create peace but create chaos among the different iraqi ehtnic groups who stayed in peace only because of Saddam Husseins brutal power of oppression (just the way Tito ones ruled the former Yugoslavia - when his dictatorship fell the nation was thrown into chaos and the bloodiest war on european soil since world war 2).
Looking back that is what has happened in Iraq – and even President Bush has admitted that they did not expect what was to come after Saddam Hussein had lost his power: the coalition (who day after is decreasing – with even the British troops slowly leaving) in Iraq are not able to quench the terrorists. Yes, it might be true that Iraqis primeminister Al-Malaki is tying their hands. But if he allowed the American troops to do everything it would take to quench the insurgency then HE would lose his power - and the fragile Iraqi democracy for whom the Americans are fighting would be put into pieces. Therefore there are at the moment no other options than following the same path as before. But the same “path” is not good enough. Which is one thing the last mid-term election stated.
In the long run America would probably be able to win the war; but to a price too high for most Americans to pay. Since most Americans do not share Bushs idealism they want to bring their troops home as soon as possible and not stay in a war they cant win. So what are the options?
Bush has consistently during his presidency urged the nation to “stay the course”. To keep doing what they are doing to see the long-time success after blood and tears which in the future will create the peace everyone long for and bring the troops home “with the honor they have deserved”. Those are words by an idealist. But as stated, idealism never works unless everyone shares those ideals – and unless everyone are ready to pay the price required for establishing those idealistic visions.
In contrast to Bushs idealism the left wing Democrats say “get out as soon as possible”. They are not willing to spend money, power and American lives on a war without end; almost all Democrat presidential candidates for 2008 have this theme in common. Some can be more extreme than others – but all have in common that the war by now is a mistake and a mistake the Americans should withdraw from as soon as possible.
The problem though is that Bush as well as these Democrats have no solution in sight: Bush might be an idealist, and maybe his idealism would have worked in Iraq – if the American people shared the will to see thousand more Americans die in the Iraqi desert for someone elses nation (in this case the anti-israeli Islamic republic of Iraq). But they don’t. And therefore Bushs strategy wont work either.
The Democrat strategy might end the war. Or atleast end Americas involvement in the war. But it would not solve the fundamental problem. And it would not make America safer (on the contrary it would make America and the whole middle east more unsecure than during Saddam Husseins time). An American withdrawal would probably create a “great Iran” – where the Shiite Iran and the Shiite dominated Iraq join hands against the whole western world (and ofcourse against their sunni foes, not to mention Israel…). That strategy would end in chaos.
So what is the solution?
The only top-ranking US politician, who actually wants to see the war won, and who actually -has a strategy- how to win it, is Senator John McCain. Bush has steadfastly refused to send more troops to Iraq, saying that “the generals on the ground have not asked for more troops”. This is true, to some extent, but only half of the truth. The lack of US/coalition troops in Iraq are obvious – forcing marines to be moved from one secured area in Iraq to fight in an operation in another part of the country (leaving the just secured area undefended). Senator McCain has therefore consistently (and in a time where most people calls for withdrawal) stated that there must be more troops in Iraq to win this war.
I agree with him: there are two problems in present day Iraq. One is the military/police problem – which makes the military unable to quench the different terrorists groups (shia, sunni, baathists, al qaida). And secondly the US handed over Iraqi to the Iraqis too early, and before the job was done. It is not the American administration who have tied the hands of the troops operations – it is the Iraqi government (not because they disagree with the Americans but because it would be political suicide for a government ruled by the majority people of iraq to allow foreign forces to attack their own minority villages – and it would without hesitation lead to a full scale civil war among the different groups).
For that reason Iraq is not able to create peace by themselves. It must be, and should have been, forced upon them from without. Sending more troops to Iraq, and giving the troops the freedom necessary to do whatever it takes to win the war – is a winning strategy. But it requires a president willing to (1. send more troops and (2. willing to stand up against the Iraqi government and make it clear that Americas most important goal at the moment is to create stability not to uphold a fragile Iraqi government.
Bush has never had this strategy: in contrast he has kept holding primeminister Malikis hand, while its been obvious that Malikis decisions have not been popular among the American soldiers. Yes, Maliki is a sign of some extent of success in Iraq. He is a democratic elected prime minister – and therefore Bush can use him as Americas “little bitch”, and as a proof of how America has succeeded brining democracy to Iraq. But democracy has not in this case been the same thing as stability or peace – and always when creating a nation stability and peace is what most come first; then democracy can come. This fact is proven in South Korea, and to some extent even in Japan.
The US created democracy in Iraq before they created stability and peace. And President Bush is the one most responsible for that - since his own idealistic belief in “the power of freedom”, made him think that “free peoples don’t fight”. Unfortunately history has showed that not to be the case. President Bush is a great president, and I love him. Yet, it is obvious that he will not change his fundamental cornerstones in the Iraqi issue: he will not change his support for the Maliki government, nor will he support the troops before he supports the Iraqi government. And that is understandable, since it would be sort of to cut his own hand. But that is exactly what has to be done;
America must say to the Iraqis; we gave you freedom (a little bit too early) but you did not bring the peace or the stability we wanted you to bring. Therefore we must create this stability by sending more foreign troops to Iraq and do whatever it takes to once and for all destroy the insurgency, and secure the borders. Then, when that is done the Iraqi people can live in peace as well as freedom.
The war can be won militarily – but to win it politically it must be won fast. This is only possible by sending more troops to Iraq. And the only with this ambition is Senator John McCain. When most people, even Republicans abandon Bush since they view him as someone who stayed too long in Iraq - John McCain on the contrary says: yes, we´ve been there too long, so lets end this war now – by WINNING IT.
The Iraqi- question is and will be Americas most important problem during the coming years. Leaving Iraq is no option – because if the US leaves Iraq in chaos and the islamistic pro iranian forces of Iraq gets into power one thing is sure: America will be back again.
Therefore the war must be won, and it must be won fast: and the only one with the experience (political as well as military experience) to accomplish this is John McCain.
Please make him president in 2008.
Posted: Dec 6, 2006 7:30 AM
I like McCain because he understands Americas -most important issue- very well. At the moment the most important issue is the war on terror and the war in Iraq. Tax cuts, "legislating christian morale", a strive for limited government and so on are all important issues - but if the war on terror is not won those issues will soon mean nothing.
America stands on the brink to a new time: a time where american hegomonical power is at stake. The war in Iraq, if not handled well might as well become the end of Americas world supremacy. After the Vietnam war the United States lost its economic supremacy. Todays US economy is still strong, but its strenght lies in its past, not in its future - unlike China or for that instance the European Monetary Fund who still have far, far to go until it will reach its greatest time.
The United States still have the worlds most advanced military power - but a loss in Iraq will probably change that too, and will - just like Vietnam make the United States less able and less willing to take action when necissary; american military supremacy will be a thing of the past - while Europe might very well one day deside to gain also a unified military power.
No matter what the Iraq war was all about in its beginning - it is at this moment all about Americas future role as a world leader. Therefore the war in Iraq is, and should be a top priority for the american people and for whoever gets elected president in 2008. John McCain is a man who understands that this is the most important question of all (Bush understands this too, but he cant run again). John McCain has also been around longer than most - he has seen what the different wars the US has fought around the world has changed the direction of the nation. Therefore he knows what is at stake better than most - and unlike most politicians McCain actually has been in the military as a soldier as well as an officer. His strategy for Iraq is not perfect (in this situation there is no golde rule sollution, as I stated earlier) - buts the best strategy anyone yet has come up with. Its not a "Bush-stay-the-slow-course-Cause we will win in a distant future at the end of the tunnel when Gods light breks through" policy, and it is not a Democrat "cut and run" strategy. McCains path through this situation is uniqe. And because of that I cant imagine a better person being the next President than John McCain. McCain would even be better than if Bush could have run a 3rd term - since Bush is tied up by his own policies. McCain is not - and if he were president everyone would see that.
It must also be said, that even if John McCain will get strong competition in the Republican primary election - I think he is the one with best chances in the general election. The american people will elect a moderate candidate. Take Hillary Clinton for instance - she could and will easily win the Democratic primary - but in the general election she is still labeled as a "left wing extermist", who wont have it very easy to win the moderate votes unless she actually starts changing and showing herself to be a moderate.
John McCain is the only opponent "mainstream americans" trusts. They for sure wouldnt elect Bush again. And they wont elect an idealist in the next election. They will elect someone who knows the reality, what things on the ground is all about - and someone who then will do the best of the situation. I dont think any GOP candidate would have as good chances in the general election than John McCain. A full blown conservative or neocon, wont win. Even if they win the Rep. primary they wont win the general election. The next american president - Democrat or Republican will be a moderate. May it be John McCain, not Joe Liberman.
Källa: CBS 60 Minutes
Bush says rebates should help economy
1 minute ago
President Bush acknowledged that the economy is weakening, but expressed hope that tax rebates that start going out on Monday should help shore things up.
"This money is going to help Americans offset the high prices we're seeing at the gas pump, at the grocery store, and will also give our economy a boost to help us pull out of this economic slowdown," he said Friday in brief remarks at the White House.
The rebates range from $300 to $1,200 and are the centerpiece of the government's $168 billion stimulus package, enacted in February, to brace the teetering economy. Roughly 130 million households are expected to get them. The Bush administration is hoping that people will spend the money, helping to bolster the economy.
The IRS says the first direct deposits of rebates will begin Monday, with paper checks to follow starting next month.
"Obviously our economy is in a slowdown," Bush said.
Earlier this week, the president denied the nation was in a recession, instead saying, "We are in a slowdown." But many economists believe the economy may already be in a recession.
A trio of crises — housing, credit and financial — has threatened to plunge the economy deep into recession.
The economy grew at an anemic 0.6 percent in the final three months of last year and is believed to have gotten even weaker in the first three months of this year. The government will report on the first quarter's performance next week. A growing number of analysts believe the economy is shrinking now.
With the economy faltering, the nation's unemployment rate has climbed to 5.1 percent, the highest since September 2005, when it suffered from the devastating blows of the Gulf Coast hurricanes. Job losses in the first three months of this year neared the quarter-million mark.
The collapse of the once high-flying housing market has been the biggest weight on the economy.
With many people watching their single-biggest asset — their home — falling in value, they have been less inclined to spend, weakening the economy.
Foreclosures have surged to record highs and financial companies have taken multibillion losses on mortgage investments that soured. The situation has sent a tremor through Wall Street and has sent the administration, Congress and presidential contenders looking for ways to provide relief.
Yahoo News: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080425/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_economy
torsdag 24 april 2008
Yesterday Hillary Clinton was quoted by NY Times saying:
The Pennsylvania race was volatile into its final hours. Mrs. Clinton, for instance, surprised some Democrats with a remark about Iran on ABC on Tuesday, when she broke with her practice of avoiding hypothetical questions and commented on a situation in which Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.
“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran,” she said. “In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”
Since the Democratic party opposes the war in Iraq, is this really a wise thing to say? That statement is a lot more clear than McCains "bomb bomb Iran" song. She basically says that if she is elected president, she will launch an attack on Iran.
Posted: Apr 24, 2008 1:08 AM
...if they bomb israel. it’s still something i wholeheartedly oppose, but let’s be honest about it.
we have enough legitimate points to criticize clinton on that we don’t need to stretch the truth to concoct new ones. being dishonest like this will only make obama supporters look bad.
Posted: Apr 24, 2008 1:08 AM
I miss the Clintons of the 90’s. I never thought I would see the day where Hillary became irrational and mean spirited instead of the tough first lady who was the bane of every Republican.
It’s simple what Hillary is doing: she’s trying to repeat George W’s election sucess by playing tough and playing dirty politics. She’s trying to do to Obama what Bush did to McCain in 2000. Indeed, she is taking plays from the Republican handbook.
I may be overly optimistic, but I hope that the 18-21 year olds who are fighting this old man’s war in Iraq will help put the final nail in the coffin of Hillary’s crazy campaign rather than risk being sent off to a third war.
Posted: Apr 24, 2008 3:17 AM
What is wrong with it?
You mean to tell me that if Iran attacked Israel with a nuclear weapon that we can’t or should not respond???
That is absurd, nuclear attacks deserve IMMEDIATE response from the President. If not, it sends a BAD message to any other nation who seeks to use nuclear weapons, can I mention North Korea?
If someone attacks with a nuclear weapon you have to respond.
you (Billy) bashed mccain for his hundred years in iraq comment, you bashed obama for stating he would attack al queda bases in pakistan if they were found to have a new plot, so try to remain consistent for once.
Drive the Nation wrote:
Posted: Apr 24, 2008 4:10 AM
What’s unfortunate, is that people actually try to manufacture these hypothetical situations into an issue. Did Iran ever say they wanted to "nuke Israel"? After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I don’t think the US will be dropping any nukes anytime soon. The issue should be about disarming nuclear weapons in all the countries who currently have them or developing them on a phased time line, not talking about "would you use one if hypothetically this country used one on another nation?"... That to me, seems very preemptive. How is Iran supposed to view our next President as an advocate of peace and change, diplomacy, and trade- if we are saying that we’re going to bomb them in the media? This is the kind of message we want to send to Iranians? That we’re already painting them as an enemy, after we destroyed Iraq?
It’s the right-wing tactics of the pro-war advocates that want to try to get Democrats debating and agreeing with a "war" mentality. Once they can get Hillary Clinton on the record saying that she’d attack Iran, they can edit some sound bytes and video clips and say she’s a flip-flopper, for being pro-war, anti-war, and then all of the sudden, pro-war- and THEN, they show a proud picture of McCain with a huge American flag behind him saying he’s always been "pro war, no flip-flopping". The Republicans are already trying to set it up so they have a hoard of negative ads against Clinton OR Obama, whoever should win. They know they have less attacks on Obama, so they’ve been hoping Clinton can somehow win, but she’s not going to.
Sorry Republicans, too bad- Obama is going to beat your old man, and America is going to change for the better, whether you like it or not.
In the wake of Barack Obama's defeat in Pennsylvania on Tuesday, the Democrats have a huge problem. On the one hand, they have a front-runner who hasn't won a single one of the major primary states other than his own, who's a neophyte on the national scene, and who has enormous difficulties attracting the white, non-college educated voters he needs to win. On the other, there's Hillary Clinton - a candidate who has greatly diminished her stature on the campaign trail, who faces huge liabilities of her own (in part because of her gender and in part because of Clinton fatigue), and whose chances of winning in November would require her to thread an Electoral College needle.
Furthermore, the long, bitter campaign has produced an untenable result: a large portion of each camp's supporters now say they are unlikely to support the intra-party rival should their candidate not win the nomination.
Therefore, if the Democrats want to have their best chance to win an election in November that six months ago it looked like they couldn't lose, they may have only one option at this point: they can turn to Al Gore.
In truth, Gore would be a stronger candidate in November than the two front-runners. He knows what it's like to run in a tough presidential campaign, which, as we're finding out with Obama, is a huge advantage. He is, after all, a Nobel Prize winner; he has the advantage of now running from outside Washington even though he's as experienced as John McCain; and he might be able to pick off a Southern state or two. He's already won once - with an asterisk. And he could put the electoral focus back on the economy and the Republican record of the past eight years - which it will rarely be as long as Clinton or Obama is the nominee.
Sure, Gore's entry would obviously not be greeted with waves of enthusiasm by Obama supporters. Still, he is quite popular with one of the Illinois senator's principal constituencies: the young.
Against all odds
It's true that drafting a new candidate at this point would be unprecedented. But the virtually deadlocked race between the two remaining candidates makes it at least possible.
Several things would have to occur - and quickly. First, some senior Democrats - with the help, perhaps, of a former presidential candidate, such as John Edwards - would have to publicly urge Gore to make a run. It would help matters enormously if this group included former supporters of Clinton and Obama.
Second, though not required, a write-in campaign could be mounted in one of the remaining states, such as Kentucky or Oregon, on May 20, or Montana or South Dakota, on June 3. The advantage of Oregon is that, historically, at least one candidate - Jerry Brown in 1976 - ran a strong third there as a write-in.
The advantage of Kentucky, Montana, or South Dakota is that neither of the present front-runners looks particularly strong on paper in those contests. Furthermore, because those states are relatively small, a well-funded write-in campaign might have a chance to be successful. (Success in this case doesn't mean winning, just doing "better than expected.") The key, of course, is to raise the necessary money to mount such a campaign. But in the Internet age - with the right backing - it might be pulled off.
Third, a bloc of superdelegates would have to declare for the putative candidate. Again, this isn't impossible. There are about 25 Edwards delegates still out there that might be persuaded by Edwards himself - so that's a start. Plus, there are enough horrified and disgruntled party elders who would welcome an alternative, if they thought they wouldn't be making fools of themselves by going out on a limb for a candidate with no chance of being successful.
Finally, a Gore draft would eventually need the support of either Bill or Hillary. While the Clinton effort has begun to succeed in its argument that Obama has major weaknesses, it is time for its principals to realize that Hillary is never going to succeed in the camp's second necessary argument: that she should be the alternative. She's never going to catch Obama in the elected delegate count. And her initial high poll negatives (that have never been reduced) - combined with the way she has alienated Obama's supporters - make her now an almost certain loser in November.
So, if she and Bill care about the party and nation and truly believe that Obama is unelectable - an unpopular but defensible argument - they have, really, only two choices. They can throw in with an effort to draft their former protégé. (A Gore and Newark mayor Cory Booker ticket?) Or they can continue to indulge their illusions and send their party hurtling toward disaster.Källa: RealClearPolitics
onsdag 23 april 2008
The Pennsylvania race was volatile into its final hours. Mrs. Clinton, for instance, surprised some Democrats with a remark about Iran on ABC on Tuesday, when she broke with her practice of avoiding hypothetical questions and commented on a situation in which Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.
“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran,” she said. “In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”
Ett uttalande som skulle låta henne förtjäna smeknamnet Järnladyn 2.
New York Times rapporterar om reslutatet i artikeln: Clinton Wins Primary, Keeping Bid Alive: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/us/politics/23penn.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
CNN rapporterar i artikeln: "Clinton Claims Victory in Pennsylvania" http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/22/pa.primary/index.html
ABC News i ett filmklipp:
tisdag 22 april 2008
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Michael Moore wants voters in Pennsylvania to cast their ballots for Barack Obama.
Moore endorsed Obama in a 1,100-word posting on his Web site Monday. It includes praise for the Illinois senator and harsh words for Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic Party and the Bush administration.
Lamenting the lack of a valid primary in his home state of Michigan, Moore writes that Obama's experience and voting record aren't as important as his "basic decency" and ability to inspire.
"What we are witnessing is not just a candidate but a profound, massive public movement for change," Moore writes. "My endorsement is more for Obama The Movement than it is for Obama the candidate."
The 54-year-old Oscar-winning filmmaker was hardly as kind to Clinton.
"Over the past two months, the actions and words of Hillary Clinton have gone from being merely disappointing to downright disgusting," he writes, saying that she has tried to "smear" Obama — "Like you were nuts. Like you were a bigot stoking the fires of stupidity."
Most of Moore's ire is directed at the Bush administration "and the permanent, irreversible damage it has done to our people and to this world."
"I, like the majority of Americans, have been pummeled senseless for eight long years," he writes. "That's why I will join millions of citizens and stagger into the voting booth come November, like a boxer in the 12th round, all bloodied and bruised with one eye swollen shut, looking for the only thing that matters — that big 'D' on the ballot."
Moore says he is disappointed with the Democratic Party, too, for failing to end the war despite public outcry and for "do(ing) the bidding of the corporate elite in this country. Any endorsement of a Democrat must be done with this acknowledgment ..."
Moore declined to elaborate further when contacted by The Associated Press.
On the Net:
Moore's site: http://www.michaelmoore.com
Källa Yahoo News: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080422/ap_en_mo/people_michael_moore
måndag 21 april 2008
Yahoo News skriver så här:
The leader of Hamas says his Palestinian militant group is offering Israel a 10-year truce if it withdraws from all lands it seized in the 1967 war.
Khaled Mashaal says he made the offer to former President Carter in talks on Saturday.
Earlier, former President Jimmy Carter said that Hamas is prepared to accept the Jewish state's right to "live as a neighbor next door in peace." Carter met twice with Mashaal over the weekend.
Inom islamsk teologi så är muslimer bara tillåtna att sluta fred med en fiende i tio år - ett sådant fredsavtal kallas hudna och handlar i praktiken bara om att muslimerna ska sluta fred så länge de själva är i underläge. När islamiströrelsen Hamas specifikt säger 10 års fred så syftar de defintivt på detta begrepp (med dess innebörd). Jag undrar om Jimmy Carter förstår det? Förmodligen inte.
söndag 20 april 2008
CNN har ett reportage om saken här:
fredag 18 april 2008
Nå, nu är det Obamas tur - som efter den för hans del ganska avslagna debatten häromdagen beklagar sig över att han blev väldigt attackerad. Något Hillary Clinton kommenterade på följande sätt:
"Some of you see that debate the other night?" Clinton asked the crowd in Randor, Pennsylvania. "Well, I know that some of my opponents' supporters and my opponent have been complaining about hard questions. Well, having been in the White House for eight years and seeing what happens in terms of the pressures and the stresses on the president, that was nothing. I'm with Harry Truman on this: if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. I am very comfortable in the kitchen."
Obamas kampanjstab gav dock svar på tal:
"Considering the fact that Senator Clinton sat on stage at the last debate and complained to all of America that she always gets the first question, her blatant hypocrisy here is stunning," Obama campaign spokesperson Bill Burton said in a written statement.
Så länge allt väl. Om man med allt väl menar att kandidaterna agerar just precis så som kandidater gör i valtider: klagar på varandra.
Än en gång kastade sig Bill Clinton in i leken och sa så här:
The former President said he didn't see his wife "whining" when she's taken some tough political shots on the presidential campaign trail.
"When I watched that debate last night, I got kinda tickled," Clinton said at an American Legion Hall event in St. Mary's, Pennsylvania, "After the [debate], her opponents', oh, the people working were saying, 'Oh this is so negative, why are they doing this.' Well they've been beatin' up on her for 15 months. I didn't hear her whining when he said she was untruthful in Iowa or called her the senator from Punjab."
"And, you know, they said some pretty rough things about me, too. But you know, this is a contact sport. If you don't want to play, keep your uniform off," Clinton told a loudly cheering crowd.
På sätt och vis känns det inte lika väl när Bill säger att hans fru inte klagar lika mycket som Obama - i ljuset av att ingen gråtit och klagat lika mycket på hur orättvist behandlat hon blivit än Hillary.
Intrigerna i det Demokratiska partiet går alltså vidare - och allt tyder på att det är till McCains fördel. Så länge är allt verkligen väl :)
torsdag 17 april 2008
President Bush and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown tried to dispel doubts about their relationship on Thursday, showcasing personal bonhomie as well as common ground on a range of vexing issues, from the war in Iraq and a showdown with Iran to global trade and crises in Sudan and Zimbabwe.
Brown, particularly, appeared to make an effort to move beyond the leaders' frosty first meeting in July.
The British prime minister, then only a month in office as successor to top Bush ally Tony Blair, was given a coveted invite to the U.S. presidential retreat at Camp David. But he displayed stiff formality that led some to question whether he would work as closely as Blair — or much at all — with Bush.
That didn't seem in question in the Rose Garden after Thursday's nearly 90-minute Oval Office session between the two.
On Iran, Brown offered staunch support for his host's tough stance on the need to rein in Tehran's disputed nuclear program.
Brown said "I make no apology" for seeking to persuade European leaders to extend European sanctions against Iran, to include investments and liquefied natural gas. "Iran is in breach of a nonproliferation treaty," he said. "Iran has not told the truth to the international community about what its plans are."
Likewise on Iraq, Brown's focus — like Bush's — was on the "substantial progress" being made by a U.S.-led coalition of troops.
Brown announced shortly after taking office that he would reduce British troop levels in Iraq. But that plan, to drop British troop numbers from about 4,000 to 2,500 starting within weeks, is now on hold until Iraqi security forces make gains in driving out militias from the oil-rich southern city of Basra.
The two displayed no daylight in their views on other key topics as well, including criticism of Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe's refusal to release results of elections believed to have been won by opponents three weeks ago; frustration with the slow pace of peacekeeping help for Sudan's violent Darfur region, and belief in the need for a global deal lowering tariffs and liberalizing trade.
The British leader praised Bush's anti-terrorism leadership effusively, saying "the world owes President George Bush a huge debt of gratitude." He called the president's programs to battle AIDS and malaria in Africa "pioneering work." He labeled their session an "excellent meeting" that left the bond between the two nations "stronger than ever."
There was even gentle ribbing about whether Bush actually was going to cook the intimate dinner the two leaders and their wives were to share in the evening in the White House residence.
Blair's popularity plummeted because of his support for Bush, making Brown wary up to now about forging ties that are too close and suffering the same fate. But Brown even went so far as to invoke Blair's name in promising to align himself with the U.S. leader.
"As Tony Blair said, we stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the American people and with President Bush," Brown said. "And I continue to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with him in rooting out terrorism wherever we find it in any part of the world which puts freedom, democracy and justice at risk."
Even before his trip, Brown had said he hoped to strengthen ties through coordinated efforts to shore up the world economy and work on climate change.
Brown diplomatically declined to state a personal preference in the race to succeed Bush in the Oval Office. Brown had met earlier Thursday one-on-one, in succession, with Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain and his Democratic rivals, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, one of whom will be his ally come January.
But at Bush's side, he said: "It is for Americans to decide who their president is going to be."
Bush did his part too.
The president went out of his way to lavishly praise the contributions — and to honor the sacrifices — of British troops in Iraq, commenting on the "brilliance" of British helicopter crews during recent fighting in support of an Iraqi offensive in Basra.
And when a British reporter said to Brown, "Some people would suggest that the special relationship is a little less special than it was under Mr. Brown's predecessor. Is that true or false?," Bush interjected to answer himself.
"False," he said. "This is a unique relationship. It truly is. And I value my personal friendship, as well as our relationship between our countries. Look, if it wasn't a personal relationship, I wouldn't be inviting the man to a nice hamburger or something."
On Iran, Bush rejected Tehran's argument that its nuclear activities are intended only for a civilian energy program. "If that's the case, why did they have a secret program?" he said.
Bush added that he regards Tehran as "untrustworthy" on the topic. So even if Iranian officials are telling the truth now about a benign reason for their enrichment activities, he suggested that could easily change.
"To say that well, OK, it's OK to let them learn to enrich and assume that that program and knowledge couldn't be transferred to a program — a military program — in my judgment is naive," he said.
Brown said that not only was he taking his own action to help rein in Tehran, but that he also was in support of U.S. efforts to pressure Iran through talks and the threat of a new, tough round of sanctions at the United Nations.
He did stress that it is important to monitor the effect sanctions are having in Iran, where inflation is high.
MR. GIBSON: ...the District of Columbia has a law, it's had a law since 1976, it's now before the United States Supreme Court, that prohibits ownership of handguns, a sawed-off shotgun, a machine gun or a short-barreled rifle. Is that law consistent with an individual's right to bear arms?
SENATOR CLINTON: You know, George, I want to give local communities the opportunity to have some authority over determining how to keep their citizens safe.
This case you're referring to, before the Supreme Court, is apparently dividing the Bush administration. You know, the Bush administration basically said, we don't have enough facts to know whether or not it is appropriate.
And Vice President Cheney who, you know, is a fourth special branch of government all unto himself -- (laughter) -- has actually filed a brief saying, oh, no, we have to, you know, we have to prevent D.C. from doing this.
Cheney gav dock svar på tal i detta videoklipp från CNN :)
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans are no longer underdogs in the race for the White House. To pull that off, John McCain has attracted disgruntled GOP voters, independents and even some moderate Democrats who shunned his party last fall.
Partly thanks to an increasingly likable image, the Republican presidential candidate has pulled even with the two Democrats still brawling for their party's nomination, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo! News poll released Thursday. Just five months ago — before either party had winnowed its field — the survey showed people preferred sending an unnamed Democrat over a Republican to the White House by 13 percentage points.
Also helping the Arizona senator close the gap: Peoples' opinions of Hillary Rodham Clinton have soured slightly, while their views of Barack Obama have improved though less impressively than McCain's.
The survey suggests that those switching to McCain are largely attuned to his personal qualities and McCain may be benefiting as the two Democrats snipe at each other during their prolonged nomination fight.
David Mason of Richmond, Va., is typical of the voters McCain has gained since last November, when the 46-year-old personal trainer was undecided. Mason calls himself an independent and voted in 2004 for President Bush, whom he considers a strong leader but a disappointment due to the "no-win situation" in Iraq.
"It's not that I'm that much in favor of McCain, it's the other two are turning me off," Mason said of Clinton and Obama, the senators from New York and Illinois, in explaining his move toward McCain. As for the Republican's experiences as a Vietnam War prisoner and in the Senate, Mason said, "All he's been through is an asset."
By tracking the same group of roughly 2,000 people throughout the campaign, the AP-Yahoo poll can gauge how individual views are evolving. What's clear is that some Republican-leaning voters who backed Bush in 2004 but lost enthusiasm for him are returning to the GOP fold _ along with a smaller but significant number of Democrats who have come to dislike their party's two contenders.
The findings of the survey, conducted by Knowledge Networks, provide a preview of one of this fall's battlegrounds. Though some unhappy Republicans will doubtless stay with McCain, both groups are teeming with centrist swing voters who will be targeted by both parties.
The poll shows that McCain's appeal has grown since November by more than the Democrats' has dwindled. McCain gets about 10 percentage points more now than a generic Republican candidate got last fall; Obama and Clinton get about 5 points less than a nameless Democrat got then.
Underlining McCain's burgeoning popularity, in November about four in 10 considered McCain likeable, decisive, strong and honest while about half do now. Obama is seen as more likeable and stronger now but his numbers for honesty and decisiveness have remained flat, while Clinton's scores for likeability and honesty have dropped slightly.
"You can't trust Hillary and Obama's too young," said Pauline Holsinger, 60, a janitorial worker in Pensacola, Fla., now backing McCain who preferred an unnamed Democrat last fall. "I like him better, he's more knowledgeable about the war" in Iraq.
Voters at this stage in a campaign commonly focus more on candidates' personal qualities. That usually changes as the general election approaches and they pay more attention to issues and partisan loyalty — meaning that McCain's prospects could fade at a time when the public is deeply unhappy with the war, the staggering economy and Bush.
For now, more than one in 10 who weren't backing the unnamed Republican candidate in last November's survey are supporting McCain, a shift partly offset by a smaller number of former undecideds now embracing Obama or Clinton. Of those now backing McCain, about one-third did not support the generic GOP candidate last November.
Among people who have moved toward McCain, about two-thirds are discontented Bush voters, with many calling themselves independents but leaning Republican.
About half of this group say they are conservative, yet their views on issues are more moderate than many in the party, with some opposing the war in Iraq. They have favorable but not intensely enthusiastic views of McCain _ for example, two-thirds find him likeable while far fewer find him compassionate or refreshing.
"He's known, he's a veteran," said David Tucker, a retired Air Force technician from Alexandria, La., and Bush voter who was undecided last November but has ruled out Obama and Clinton. "I understand him better."
Around a third of the voters newly supporting McCain lean Democratic and mostly backed Democrat John Kerry in 2004. They are moderates who disapprove of Bush and the war in Iraq, but find McCain likeable, much more so than they did last November.
Many McCain-backing Democrats express one consistent concern about McCain — his age.
"Let's face it, we're not getting any younger," said retired accountant Sheldon Rothman of Queens, N.Y., who like McCain is 71. "There are too many imponderables when you get to that age, especially with the stress of the presidency."
Whether those now switching to McCain will stay that way once the Democrats choose a candidate is what the fall campaign will be about.
"McCain has a history of doing well with independent voters," said GOP pollster David Winston. He said voters' preference for an unnamed Democratic candidate but McCain's strong performance against Obama and Clinton means "Democrats have an advantage their candidates are not taking advantage of."
Democratic pollster Alan Secrest said the contrasting numbers mean that while the voters' overall mood favors Democrats, they are still taking the measure of Clinton and Obama.
"The Democrats will have to earn their way this fall," he said.
The AP-Yahoo survey of 1,844 adults was conducted from April 2-14 and had an overall margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.3 percentage points. Included were interviews with 863 Democrats, for whom the margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3.3 points, and 668 Republicans, with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.8 points.
The poll was conducted over the Internet by Knowledge Networks, which initially contacted people using traditional telephone polling methods and followed with online interviews. People chosen for the study who had no Internet access were given it for free.
— AP News Survey Specialist Dennis Junius contributed to this report.
onsdag 16 april 2008
måndag 14 april 2008
För att fritt citera Pat Condell: just nu kunde vi hålla på med att kolonsiera månen et c, men istället måste vi spendera vår tid med att bekämpa de här aporna från medeltiden. Vilket slöseri...
Här är förövrigt en längre artikel om saken, med fler videor på fler av de unga martyrkandidaterna: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4649878&page=1
Nu har Bill Clinton gjort det igen. För några veckor sedan berättade Hillary hur hon under ett besök i det krigshärjade Bosninen var tvungen att ducka för att undgå eld från krypskyttar. Det påståendet visade sig vara helt fel - något Hillary senare erkände att hon misstagit sig på. Direkt efter incidentent visade opinionssiffror att Hillary tagit skada av överdriften, men vid det här laget tycks hysterien kring händelsen lagt sig. Ända tills Bill kastade sig in i leken igen.
På en kampanj för sin fru så tog han återigen upp Bosninen-historien och försökte försvara sin fru genom att säga att hon gjort ett misstag en sen kväll på en kampanj pg a att hon varit trött (se klippet på följande länk: http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4633162. ) Faktum var dock att Hillary berättade Bosnien-historien vid mängder av kampanjer både morgon och kväll. Bills felaktiga uttalande om Hillarys felaktiga uttalande fick återigen media att blicka tillbaka på skrönan om krypskyttar i Bosninen. Något Hillary inte alls gillade, varför hon helt enkelt ringde upp sin make och sa åt honom att hon kunde försvara sig själv. Toffelhjälten Bill har under hela hennes kampanj nämligen haft en tendens att trampa i klaveret.
Här är en video om saken:
fredag 11 april 2008
Ett annat känt namn är Joe Lieberman - Demokraten (eller rättare sagt den fd Demokraten) som är god vän med McCain, som stöder McCain som president och som dessutom stöder Irakkriget. Tyvärr är han dock alltför lik McCain för att kunna locka till sig de konservativa - som har i färskt minne att Lieberman faktiskt var vice-presidentkandidat också till ingen mindre än Al Gore år 2000.
Ett annat känt namn är utrikesminister Condolezza Rice: i egenskap av kvinna, vore hon en bra motpol till Hillary Clinton. Och som afro-amerikan, är hon också en bra motpol mot Barack Obama. Vad som ligger henne till last är möljigtvis att hon tillhör Bushadminstrationen - och en av president Bushs allra närmaste medarbetare. Med undantag för Dick Cheney är Rice den enda av Bushs närmsta medarbetare som nu nästan åtta år senare hängt med ända från början. I ett val där McCain förmodligen inte vill förknippas allt för mycket med Bush vars popularitetssiffror är mindre än någon president haft på årtionden kan Rice möjligtvis binda honom lite väl mycket till "det gamla". Ett annat problem är förstås också att Rice aldrig visat något intresse för bli vice-presidentkandidat.
Det finns förstås fler alternativ också: Floridas populära guvernör Charlie Christ, som bland annat endorsade John McCain några dagar innan primärvalet i Florida är ett sådant. Han är latino-amerikan, och kan på så vis locka en mycket viktig väljargrupp. Att han dessutom är relativt ung, måste ses som en fördel då McCain själv är den äldsta presidentkandidat någonsin.
Valalternativen är således många för McCain, som har många faktorer att ta i akt i sitt beslut. Yahoo News avslutar dock en artikel om saken med följande slutsats:
In the end, however, there is a simple requirement for McCain, according to Todd Harris, a Republican strategist who was a McCain spokesman in his 2000 presidential bid.
"Regardless of which way he goes, I think he should pick someone who he is personally comfortable with, because unlike so many in Washington, he is not particularly good at faking friendships," Harris said.
Där skulle jag vilja vara också!
torsdag 10 april 2008
tisdag 8 april 2008
Clinton's margin over Obama cut in Pennsylvania: poll
1 hour, 14 minutes ago
Senator Barack Obama has cut into Hillary Clinton's lead in Pennsylvania ahead of the state's Democratic presidential primary later this month, according to a new poll published Tuesday.
Clinton, who needs a big win in the eastern state on April 22 to keep her campaign for the party nomination alive, leads rival senator Obama 50 percent to 44 percent, the Quinnipiac University poll showed.
Just last week the poll had Clinton leading Obama by nine points, and the former first lady had a 12-point lead in mid-March, according to Quinnipiac.
The poll, taken over April 3-6, showed Obama picking up women voters, a cornerstone of Clinton's support base.
Quinnipiac said that over the past week Clinton's margin of support among women supporters fell to 54 to 41 percent from 54 to 37 percent.
It also said Obama, vying to become the country's first African-American president, had cut into her support among white voters.
Clinton led among white voters 56 to 38 percent, down from 59 to 34 percent last week.
Obama led among black voters, 75 percent favor the Illinois senator while 17 percent back Clinton.
Clinton prevailed among voters over the age of 55 and Obama had the edge among those under 45.
The two Democrats are engaged in a tight race to amass enough delegates to win the party's nomination and contest the presidential election in November against Republican rival John McCain.
Obama currently leads the race nationally with 1,637 delegates compared to Clinton's 1,502, with 2,025 needed to win the nomination, according to the independent Real Clear Politics website. He also holds a narrow lead in the popular vote in nomination contests.
The poll showed Obama making inroads against Clinton in a state considered perfectly suited to his rival.
"Obama is not only building on his own constituencies, but is taking away voters in Senator Hillary Clinton's strongest areas -- whites including white women, voters in the key swing Philadelphia suburbs and those who say the economy is the most important issue in the campaign," said Clay Richards, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
With Clinton under pressure to score an impressive victory in Pennsylvania, Obama "needs only to come close to be considered the winner" as Clinton has argued she is best placed to compete in large, pivotal states against McCain, the presumed Republican nominee.
The survey of 1,340 voters was carried out from April 3-6 with a margin of error of 2.7 percent.