Israel ‘Will Attack Iran’ Before New US

President Sworn In, John Bolton Predicts

John Bolton, the former American ambassador to the United Nations, has predicted that Israel could attack Iran after the November presidential election but before George W Bush’s successor is sworn in.

by Toby Harnden in Washington
The Arab world would be “pleased” by Israeli strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, he said in an interview with The Daily Telegraph.”It [the reaction] will be positive privately. I think there’ll be public denunciations but no action,” he said.
Mr Bolton, an unflinching hawk who proposes military action to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons, bemoaned what he sees as a lack of will by the Bush administration to itself contemplate military strikes.

“It’s clear that the administration has essentially given up that possibility,” he said. “I don’t think it’s serious any more. If you had asked me a year ago I would have said I thought it was a real possibility. I just don’t think it’s in the cards.”
Israel, however, still had a determination to prevent a nuclear Iran, he argued. The “optimal window” for strikes would be between the November 4 election and the inauguration on January 20, 2009.

“The Israelis have one eye on the calendar because of the pace at which the Iranians are proceeding both to develop their nuclear weapons capability and to do things like increase their defences by buying new Russian anti-aircraft systems and further harden the nuclear installations .

“They’re also obviously looking at the American election calendar. My judgement is they would not want to do anything before our election because there’s no telling what impact it could have on the election.”
But waiting for either Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate, or his Republican opponent John McCain to be installed in the White House could preclude military action happening for the next four years or at least delay it.

“An Obama victory would rule out military action by the Israelis because they would fear the consequences given the approach Obama has taken to foreign policy,” said Mr Bolton, who was Mr Bush’s ambassador to the UN from 2005 to 2006.
“With McCain they might still be looking at a delay. Given that time is on Iran’s side, I think the argument for military action is sooner rather than later absent some other development.”
The Iran policy of Mr McCain, whom Mr Bolton supports, was “much more realistic than the Bush administration’s stance”.

Mr Obama has said he will open high-level talks with Iran “without preconditions” while Mr McCain views attacking Iran as a lesser evil than allowing Iran to become a nuclear power.
William Kristol, a prominent neo-conservative, told Fox News on Sunday that an Obama victory could prompt Mr Bush to launch attacks against Iran. “If the president thought John McCain was going to be the next president, he would think it more appropriate to let the next president make that decision than do it on his way out,” he said.

Last week, Israeli jets carried out a long-range exercise over the Mediterranean that American intelligence officials concluded was practice for air strikes against Iran. Mohammad Ali Hosseini, spokesman for the Iranian foreign ministry, said this was an act of “psychological warfare” that would be futile.
“They do not have the capacity to threaten the Islamic Republic of Iran. They [Israel] have a number of domestic crises and they want to extrapolate it to cover others. Sometimes they come up with these empty slogans.”

He added that Tehran would deliver a “devastating” response to any attack.
On Friday, Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency, said military action against Iran would turn the Middle East into a “fireball” and accelerate Iran’s nuclear programme.

Mr Bolton, however, dismissed such sentiments as scaremongering. “The key point would be for the Israelis to break Iran’s control over the nuclear fuel cycle and that could be accomplished for example by destroying the uranium conversion facility at Esfahan or the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz.

“That doesn’t end the problem but it buys time during which a more permanent solution might be found…. How long? That would be hard to say. Depends on the extent of the destruction.”
The Telegraph

STOP THE MADNESS.....VOTE OBAMA !!!!!!!!!!!

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE

A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...

Together, We WILL Make A Difference !

NOTE: The Previous Post

Bush Gave $43 Million TO TALIBAN was written in May 2000

WOW ! Bush Gave $43 Million TO TALIBAN !

Robert Sheer
The Nation

May 2000

Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-US terrorists, destroy every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush Administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this nation still takes seriously.

That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the United States the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention.

Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti-American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998.

Sadly, the Bush Administration is cozying up to the Taliban regime at a time when the United Nations, at US insistence, imposes sanctions on Afghanistan because the Kabul government will not turn over Bin Laden.

The war on drugs has become our own fanatics' obsession and easily trumps all other concerns. How else could we come to reward the Taliban, who has subjected the female half of the Afghan population to a continual reign of terror in a country once considered enlightened in its treatment of women?

At no point in modern history have women and girls been more systematically abused than in Afghanistan where, in the name of madness masquerading as Islam, the government in Kabul obliterates their fundamental human rights. Women may not appear in public without being covered from head to toe with the oppressive shroud called the burkha , and they may not leave the house without being accompanied by a male family member. They've not been permitted to attend school or be treated by male doctors, yet women have been banned from practicing medicine or any profession for that matter.

The lot of males is better if they blindly accept the laws of an extreme religious theocracy that prescribes strict rules governing all behavior, from a ban on shaving to what crops may be grown. It is this last power that has captured the enthusiasm of the Bush White House.
The Taliban fanatics, economically and diplomatically isolated, are at the breaking point, and so, in return for a pittance of legitimacy and cash from the Bush Administration, they have been willing to appear to reverse themselves on the growing of opium. That a totalitarian country can effectively crack down on its farmers is not surprising. But it is grotesque for a US official, James P. Callahan, director of the State Department's Asian anti-drug program, to describe the Taliban's special methods in the language of representative democracy: "The Taliban used a system of consensus-building," Callahan said after a visit with the Taliban, adding that the Taliban justified the ban on drugs "in very religious terms."
Of course, Callahan also reported, those who didn't obey the theocratic edict would be sent to prison.

In a country where those who break minor rules are simply beaten on the spot by religious police and others are stoned to death, it's understandable that the government's "religious" argument might be compelling. Even if it means, as Callahan concedes, that most of the farmers who grew the poppies will now confront starvation. That's because the Afghan economy has been ruined by the religious extremism of the Taliban, making the attraction of opium as a previously tolerated quick cash crop overwhelming.

For that reason, the opium ban will not last unless the United States is willing to pour far larger amounts of money into underwriting the Afghan economy.
As the Drug Enforcement Administration's Steven Casteel admitted, "The bad side of the ban is that it's bringing their country--or certain regions of their country--to economic ruin." Nor did he hold out much hope for Afghan farmers growing other crops such as wheat, which require a vast infrastructure to supply water and fertilizer that no longer exists in that devastated country. There's little doubt that the Taliban will turn once again to the easily taxed cash crop of opium in order to stay in power.

The Taliban may suddenly be the dream regime of our own war drug war zealots, but in the end this alliance will prove a costly failure. Our long sad history of signing up dictators in the war on drugs demonstrates the futility of building a foreign policy on a domestic obsession.

Time 4 Judgement....Time 4 OBAMA !

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE

A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...

Together, We WILL Make A Difference !

Obama's NAACP Speech

It is always humbling to speak before the NAACP. It is a powerful reminder of the debt we all owe to those who marched for us and fought for us and stood up on our behalf; of the sacrifices that were made for us by those we never knew; and of the giants whose shoulders I stand on here today.

They are the men and women we read about in history books and hear about in church; whose lives we honor with schools, and boulevards, and federal holidays that bear their names. But what I want to remind you tonight — on Youth Night — is that these giants, these icons of America’s past, were not much older than many of you when they took up freedom’s cause and made their mark on history.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was but a 26-year old pastor when he led a bus boycott in Montgomery that mobilized a movement. John Lewis was but a 25-year old activist when he faced down Billy clubs on the bridge in Selma and helped arouse the conscience of our nation. Diane Nash was even younger when she helped found SNCC and led Freedom Rides down south. And your chairman Julian Bond was but a 25-year old state legislator when he put his own shoulder to the wheel of history.

It is because of them; and all those whose names never made it into the history books - those men and women, young and old, black, brown and white, clear-eyed and straight-backed, who refused to settle for the world as it is; who had the courage to remake the world as it should be - that I stand before you tonight as the Democratic nominee for President of the United States of America.

And if I have the privilege of serving as your next President, I will stand up for you the same way that earlier generations of Americans stood up for me - by fighting to ensure that every single one of us has the chance to make it if we try. That means removing the barriers of prejudice and misunderstanding that still exist in America. It means fighting to eliminate discrimination from every corner of our country. It means changing hearts, and changing minds, and making sure that every American is treated equally under the law.

But social justice is not enough. As Dr. King once said, “the inseparable twin of racial justice is economic justice.” That’s why Dr. King went to Memphis in his final days to stand with striking sanitation workers. That’s why the march that Roy Wilkins helped lead forty five years ago this summer wasn’t just named the March on Washington, and it wasn’t just named the March on Washington for Freedom; it was named the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.
What Dr. King and Roy Wilkins understood is that it matters little if you have the right to sit at the front of the bus if you can’t afford the bus fare; it matters little if you have the right to sit at the lunch counter if you can’t afford the lunch. What they understood is that so long as Americans are denied the decent wages, and good benefits, and fair treatment they deserve, the dream for which so many gave so much will remain out of reach; that to live up to our founding promise of equality for all, we have to make sure that opportunity is open to all Americans.

That is what I’ve been fighting to do throughout my over 20 years in public service. That’s why I’ve fought in the Senate to end tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas and give those tax breaks to companies that create good jobs here in America. That’s why I brought Democrats and Republicans together in Illinois to put $100 million in tax cuts into the pockets of hardworking families, to expand health care to 150,000 children and parents, and to end the outrage of black women making just 62 cents for every dollar that many of their male coworkers make.

And that’s why I moved to Chicago after college. As some of you know, I turned down more lucrative jobs because I was inspired by the Civil Rights Movement and I wanted to do my part in the ongoing battle for opportunity in this country. So I went to work for a group of churches to help turn around neighborhoods that were devastated when the local steel plants closed. And I reached out to community leaders - black, brown, and white - and together, we gave job training to the jobless, set up afterschool programs to help keep kids off the streets, and block by block, we helped turn those neighborhoods around.

So I’ve been working my entire adult life to help build an America where social justice is being served and economic justice is being served; an America where we all have an equal chance to make it if we try. That’s the America I believe in. That’s the America you’ve been fighting for over the past 99 years. And that’s the America we have to keep marching towards today.
Our work is not over.

When so many of our nation’s schools are failing, especially those in our poorest rural and urban communities, denying millions of young Americans the chance to fulfill their potential and live out their dreams, we have more work to do.
When CEOs are making more in ten minutes than the average worker earns in a year, and millions of families lose their homes due to unscrupulous lending, checked neither by a sense of corporate ethics or a vigilant government; when the dream of entering the middle class and staying there is fading for young people in our community, we have more work to do.
When any human being is denied a life of dignity and respect, no matter whether they live in Anacostia or Appalachia or a village in Africa; when people are trapped in extreme poverty we know how to curb or suffering from diseases we know how to prevent; when they’re going without the medicines that they so desperately need - we have more work to do.
That’s what this election is all about. It’s about the responsibilities we all share for the future we hold in common. It’s about each and every one of us doing our part to build that more perfect union.

It’s about the responsibilities that corporate America has - responsibilities that start with ending a culture on Wall Street that says what’s good for me is good enough; that puts their bottom line ahead of what’s right for America. Because what we’ve learned in such a dramatic way in recent months is that pain in our economy trickles up; that Wall Street can’t thrive so long as Main Street is struggling; and that America is better off when the well-being of American business and the American people are aligned. Our CEOs have to recognize that they have a responsibility not just to grow their profit margins, but to be fair to their workers, and honest to their shareholders and to help strengthen our economy as a whole. That’s how we’ll ensure that economic justice is being served. And that’s what this election is about.
It’s about the responsibilities that Washington has - responsibilities that start with restoring fairness to our economy by making sure that the playing field isn’t tilted to benefit the special interests at the expense of ordinary Americans; and that we’re rewarding not just wealth, but the work and workers who create it. That’s why I’ll offer a middle class tax cut so we can lift up hardworking families, and give relief to struggling homeowners so we can end our housing crisis, and provide training to young people to work the green jobs of the future, and invest in our infrastructure so we can create millions of new jobs.

And that’s why I’ll end the outrage of one in five African Americans going without the health care they deserve. We’ll guarantee health care for anyone who needs it, make it affordable for anyone who wants it, and ensure that the quality of your health care does not depend on the color of your skin. And we’re not going to do it 20 years from now or 10 years from now, we’re going to do it by the end of my first term as President of the United States of America.

And here’s what else we’ll do - we’ll make sure that every child in this country gets a world-class education from the day they’re born until the day they graduate from college. Now, I understand that Senator McCain is going to be coming here in a couple of days and talking about education, and I’m glad to hear it. But the fact is, what he’s offering amounts to little more than the same tired rhetoric about vouchers. Well, I believe we need to move beyond the same debate we’ve been having for the past 30 years when we haven’t gotten anything done. We need to fix and improve our public schools, not throw our hands up and walk away from them. We need to uphold the ideal of public education, but we also need reform.

That’s why I’ve introduced a comprehensive strategy to recruit an army of new qualified teachers to our communities - and to pay them more and give them more support. And we’ll invest in early childhood education programs so that our kids don’t begin the race of life behind the starting line and offer a $4,000 tax credit to make college affordable for anyone who wants to go. Because as the NAACP knows better than anyone, the fight for social justice and economic justice begins in the classroom.

But it doesn’t end there. We have to fight for all those young men standing on street corners with little hope for the future besides ending up in jail. We have to break the cycle of poverty and violence that’s gripping too many neighborhoods in this country.

That’s why I’ll expand the Earned Income Tax Credit - because it’s one of the most successful anti-poverty measures we have. That’s why I’ll end the Bush policy of taking cops off the streets at the moment they’re needed most - because we need to give local law enforcement the support they need. That’s why we’ll provide job training for ex-offenders - because we need to make sure they don’t return to a life of crime. And that’s why I’ll build on the success of the Harlem Children’s Zone in New York and launch an all-hands-on-deck effort to end poverty in this country - because that’s how we’ll put the dream that Dr. King and Roy Wilkins fought for within reach for the next generation of children.

And if people tell you that we cannot afford to invest in education or health care or fighting poverty, you just remind them that we are spending $10 billion a month in Iraq. And if we can spend that much money in Iraq, we can spend some of that money right here in Cincinnati, Ohio and in big cities and small towns in every corner of this country.

So yes, we have to demand more responsibility from Washington. And yes we have to demand more responsibility from Wall Street. But we also have to demand more from ourselves. Now, I know some say I’ve been too tough on folks about this responsibility stuff. But I’m not going to stop talking about it. Because I believe that in the end, it doesn’t matter how much money we invest in our communities, or how many 10-point plans we propose, or how many government programs we launch - none of it will make any difference if we don’t seize more responsibility in our own lives.

That’s how we’ll truly honor those who came before us. Because I know that Thurgood Marshall did not argue Brown versus Board of Education so that some of us could stop doing our jobs as parents. And I know that nine little children did not walk through a schoolhouse door in Little Rock so that we could stand by and let our children drop out of school and turn to gangs for the support they are not getting elsewhere. That’s not the freedom they fought so hard to achieve. That’s not the America they gave so much to build. That’s not the dream they had for our children.

That’s why if we’re serious about reclaiming that dream, we have to do more in our own lives, our own families, and our own communities. That starts with providing the guidance our children need, turning off the TV, and putting away the video games; attending those parent-teacher conferences, helping our children with their homework, and setting a good example. It starts with teaching our daughters to never allow images on television to tell them what they are worth; and teaching our sons to treat women with respect, and to realize that responsibility does not end at conception; that what makes them men is not the ability to have a child but the courage to raise one. It starts by being good neighbors and good citizens who are willing to volunteer in our communities - and to help our synagogues and churches and community centers feed the hungry and care for the elderly.

We all have to do our part to lift up this country.
That’s where change begins. And that, after all, is the true genius of America - not that America is, but that America will be; not that we are perfect, but that we can make ourselves more perfect; that brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand, people who love this country can change it. And that’s our most enduring responsibility - the responsibility to future generations. We have to change this country for them. We have to leave them a planet that’s cleaner, a nation that’s safer, and a world that’s more equal and more just.

So I’m grateful to you for all you’ve done for this campaign, but we’ve got work to do and we cannot rest. And I know that if you put your shoulders to the wheel of history and take up the cause of perfecting our union just as earlier generations of Americans did before you; if you take up the fight for opportunity and equality and prosperity for all; if you march with me and fight with me, and get your friends registered to vote, and if you stand with me this fall - then not only will we help close the responsibility deficit in this country, and not only will we help achieve social justice and economic justice for all, but I will come back here next year on the 100th anniversary of the NAACP, and I will stand before you as the President of the United States of America. And at that moment, you and I will truly know that a new day has come in this country we love.

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE

A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...

Together, We WILL Make A Difference !

Thank you.

ALERT ALL WARRIORS !

ACTION TIME AGAINST NEW YORKER MAGAZINE

CANCEL YOUR SUBSCRIPTION !!!!!!!!!!!

Article from Huff Post:

OBAMA CAMP: "Tasteless And Offensive "

Who knows if they'll get this in Dubuque, but they sure aren't going to like it in Chicago: This week's New Yorker cover features an image of Michelle and Barack Obama that combines every smeary right-wing stereotype imaginable: An image of Obama in a turban and robes fist-bumping his be-afro'd wife, dressed in the military fatigues of a revolutionary and packing a machine gun and some serious ammo. Oh yes, this quaint little scene takes place in the Oval Office, under a picture of Osama bin Laden above a roaring fireplace, in which burns an American flag. All that's missing is a token sprig of arugula.

The illustration, by Barry Blitt,is called "The Politics of Fear" and, according to the NYer press release, "satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack Obama's campaign." Uh-huh. What's that they say about repeating a rumor?
Presumably the New Yorker readership is sophisticated enough to get the joke, but still: this is going to upset a lot of people, probably for the same reason it's going to delight a lot of other people, namely those on the right: Because it's got all the scare tactics and misinformation that has so far been used to derail Barack Obama's campaign — all in one handy illustration. Anyone who's tried to paint Obama as a Muslim, anyone who's tried to portray Michelle as angry or a secret revolutionary out to get Whitey, anyone who has questioned their patriotism— well, here's your image.

Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton called it "tasteless and offensive" and, according to Jake Tapper at ABC, another high-profile Obama supporter called it "as offensive a caricature as any magazine could publish."

The companion article by Ryan Lizza, who has written extensively about the campaign, traces Obama's early career and rise through Chicago politics. It's very long (18 pages!) and probably won't thrill a lot of Democratic party faithful, either, since it advances the image of Obama as a skilled and calculating politician who rose by becoming a master of the game:
"[P]erhaps the greatest misconception about Barack Obama is that he is some sort of anti-establishment revolutionary. Rather, every stage of his political career has been marked by an eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions rather than tear them down or replace them....he has always played politics by the rules as they exist, not as he would like them to exist. He runs as an outsider, but he has succeeded by mastering the inside game."
Is it the New Yorker's job to write uniformly flattering profiles of Obama? Do they have a duty to avoid controversial imagery that plays off the most dogged and damaging campaign smears? Of course not. Still, as Tapper says, there are probably "some angry, angry people in Chicago right now." Not to mention Washington, New York, and maybe even Dubuque.

Update: Artist Barry Blitt defends the cover, saying that "It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is." (end of article)

NOTE FROM B4B:

SPONSORED RACISM WILL NOT BE TOLERATED !!!!!

CANCEL YOUR SUBSCRIPTION

TIME TO FLOOD THEIR PHONES, EMAIL, FAX, ETC.

(then deal with advertisers)

Senior Editor: Hendrik Hertzburg

CONTACT THE ARTIST: Barry@BarryBlitt.com

New Yorker Magazine

Owner: Conde' Nast Publications

4 Times Square New York, N.Y. 10036

phone: 1-800-825-2510

email:themail@NewYorker.com

ADVERTISING CONTACTS:

Drew Schutte

Vice President & Publishing Director

David Miller

Associate Publisher

For small-space advertising inquiries, please send an e-mail to http://us.mc532.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=smallads@newyorker.com, or call 877-843-6967.

For general advertising inquiries, please contact:

Terese CunninghamAdvertising Director

Telephone: 212-286-2105

E-mail: terese_cunningham@newyorker.com

Maria TenagliaAdvertising Director

Telephone: 212-286-6993

E-mai l: maria_tenaglia@newyorker.com

For other advertising inquiries, please contact your local sales representative:Cookman Campbell

Chicago Manager

Telephone: 312-649-3506

E-mail: cookman_campbell@newyorker.com

Patti ChapmanDetroit Manager

Telephone: 248-458-7955

E-mail: patti_chapman@newyorker.com

Melissa Smith

Los Angeles Manager

Telephone: 323-965-3466

E-mail: melissa_smith@newyorker.com

Marii Sebahar

San Francisco Manager

Telephone: 415-955-8282

E-mail: marii_sebahar@newyorker.com

For marketing inquiries, please contact:

Daniella Wells

Marketing Services Director

Telephone: 212-286-7479

E-mail: http://us.mc532.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=daniella_wells@newyorker.

Conde' Nast Owns the following Mags:
Vogue
W
style.com
Glamour
Allure
Self
Teen Vogue
GQ
Details
Men's Vogue
men.style.com
Architectural Digest
Brides
Modern Bride
Elegant Bride
Brides.com
Lucky
Domino
Cookie
Golf Digest
Golf World
Golf for Women
Vanity Fair
Gourmet
Bon Appétit
epicurious.com
Condé Nast Traveler
concierge.com
Wired
Wired.com
Condé Nast Portfolio
Portfolio.com
The New Yorker

ASSIGNMENT: Can someone track down which candidate Conde' Nast/Hertzburg contributed to. Could be interesting. Let us know.

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE

A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...

Together, We WILL Make A Difference !

I Was Right ! Bush Wants Israel To Bomb Iran !

Just yesterday B4B reported about the 'secret' congressional meeting this past March regarding the Imminent Martial Law Plan (see post below) which would mean that Bush would stay in office during the martial law period (basically canceling the election). Yesterday we stated that Bush may coax Israel to attack Iran (wouldn't look credible if U.S. did another illegal preemptive attack....plus all of our troops are kind of busy right now), creating major unrest in the region, giving Bush 'justification' for the desired martial law declaration. Well, here it is, just one day later as reported in the Times of United Kingdom:

President George W Bush backs Israeli plan for strike on Iran

Times/UK

President George W Bush has told the Israeli government that he may be prepared to approve a future military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with Tehran break down, according to a senior Pentagon official.

Despite the opposition of his own generals and widespread scepticism that America is ready to risk the military, political and economic consequences of an airborne strike on Iran, the president has given an “amber light” to an Israeli plan to attack Iran’s main nuclear sites with long-range bombing sorties, the official told The Sunday Times.

“Amber means get on with your preparations, stand by for immediate attack and tell us when you’re ready,” the official said. But the Israelis have also been told that they can expect no help from American forces and will not be able to use US military bases in Iraq for logistical support.
Nor is it certain that Bush’s amber light would ever turn to green without irrefutable evidence of lethal Iranian hostility. Tehran’s test launches of medium-range ballistic missiles last week were seen in Washington as provocative and poorly judged, but both the Pentagon and the CIA concluded that they did not represent an immediate threat of attack against Israeli or US targets.

“It’s really all down to the Israelis,” the Pentagon official added. “This administration will not attack Iran. This has already been decided. But the president is really preoccupied with the nuclear threat against Israel and I know he doesn’t believe that anything but force will deter Iran.”

The official added that Israel had not so far presented Bush with a convincing military proposal. “If there is no solid plan, the amber will never turn to green,” he said.
There was also resistance inside the Pentagon from officers concerned about Iranian retaliation. “The uniform people are opposed to the attack plans, mainly because they think it will endanger our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan,” the source said.

Complicating the calculations in both Washington and Tel Aviv is the prospect of an incoming Democratic president who has already made it clear that he prefers negotiation to the use of force.

Senator Barack Obama’s previous opposition to the war in Iraq, and his apparent doubts about the urgency of the Iranian threat, have intensified pressure on the Israeli hawks to act before November’s US presidential election. “If I were an Israeli I wouldn’t wait,” the Pentagon official added.

The latest round of regional tension was sparked by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which fired nine long and medium-range missiles in war game manoeuvres in the Gulf last Wednesday.
Iran’s state-run media reported that one of them was a modified Shahab-3 ballistic missile, which has a claimed range of 1,250 miles and could theoretically deliver a one-ton nuclear warhead over Israeli cities. Tel Aviv is about 650 miles from western Iran. General Hossein Salami, a senior Revolutionary Guard commander, boasted that “our hands are always on the trigger and our missiles are ready for launch”.

Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, said she saw the launches as “evidence that the missile threat is not an imaginary one”, although the impact of the Iranian stunt was diminished on Thursday when it became clear that a photograph purporting to show the missiles being launched had been faked.
The one thing that all sides agree on is that any strike by either Iran or Israel would trigger a catastrophic round of retaliation that would rock global oil markets, send the price of petrol soaring and wreck the progress of the US military effort in Iraq.

Abdalla Salem El-Badri, secretary-general of Opec, the oil producers’ consortium, said last week that a military conflict involving Iran would see an “unlimited” rise in prices because any loss of Iranian production — or constriction of shipments through the Strait of Hormuz — could not be replaced. Iran is Opec’s second-largest producer after Saudi Arabia.

Equally worrying for Bush would be the impact on the US mission in Iraq, which after years of turmoil has seen gains from the military “surge” of the past few months, and on American operations in the wider region. A senior Iranian official said yesterday that Iran would destroy Israel and 32 American military bases in the Middle East in response to any attack.

Yet US officials acknowledge that no American president can afford to remain idle if Israel is threatened. How genuine the Iranian threat is was the subject of intense debate last week, with some analysts arguing that Iran might have a useable nuclear weapon by next spring and others convinced that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is engaged in a dangerous game of bluffing — mainly to impress a domestic Iranian audience that is struggling with economic setbacks and beginning to question his leadership.

Among the sceptics is Kenneth Katzman, a former CIA analyst and author of a book on the Revolutionary Guard. “I don’t subscribe to the view that Iran is in a position to inflict devastating damage on anyone,” said Katzman, who is best known for warning shortly before 9/11 that terrorists were planning to attack America.

“The Revolutionary Guards have always underperformed militarily,” he said. “Their equipment is quite inaccurate if not outright inoperable. Those missile launches were more like putting up a ‘beware of the dog’ sign. They want everyone to think that if you mess with them, you will get bitten.”

A former adviser to Rice noted that Ahmadinejad’s confrontational attitude had earned him powerful enemies among Iran’s religious leadership. Professor Shai Feldman, director of Middle East studies at Brandeis University, said the Iranian government was getting “clobbered” because of global economic strains. “His [Ahmadinejad's] failed policies have made Iran more vulnerable to sanctions and people close to the mullahs have decided he’s a liability,” he said.
In Israel, Ehud Olmert, the prime minister, has his own domestic problems with a corruption scandal that threatens to unseat him and the media have been rife with speculation that he might order an attack on Iran to distract attention from his difficulties. According to one of his closest friends, Olmert recently warned him that “in three months’ time it will be a different Middle East”.

Yet even the most hawkish officials acknowledge that Israel would face what would arguably be the most challenging military mission of its 60-year existence.
“No one here is talking about more than delaying the [nuclear] programme,” said the Pentagon source. He added that Israel would need to set back the Iranians by at least five years for an attack to be considered a success.

Even that may be beyond Israel’s competence if it has to act alone. Obvious targets would include Iran’s Isfahan plant, where uranium ore is converted into gas, the Natanz complex where this gas is used to enrich uranium in centrifuges and the plutonium-producing Arak heavy water plant. But Iran is known to have scattered other elements of its nuclear programme in underground facilities around the country. Neither US nor Israeli intelligence is certain that it knows where everything is.

“Maybe the Israelis could start off the attack and have us finish it off,” Katzman added. “And maybe that has been their intention all along. But in terms of the long-term military campaign that would be needed to permanently suppress Iran’s nuclear programme, only the US is perceived as having that capability right now.”
Additional reporting: Tony Allen-Mills in New York

NOTE FROM B4B: WAKE UP AMERICA ! While some of us are sitting around arguing about FISA, should Hillary be V.P., Jesse Jackson's 'nut-gate', etc., the Bush Regime is planning something so diobolical that all of these issues will be irrelevent. STAY FOCUSED ! Going to be a hot summer !

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE

A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org....

Together, WE Will Make The Difference !

NEWSFLASH !
Congress addresses the imminent martial law plan - in private.

Sat. July 12, 2008

Secret meeting in Congress to discuss the imminent martial law. This happened March 13th of 2008. WHY? Congress is expecting the imminent collapse of the U.S. economy sometime in late 2008 and the possibility of “Civil War” in the United States due to the economic collapse. Possibly the most disturbing, “The advance round up of insurgent U.S. citizens that are likely to move against the U.S. Government.” It goes on to project the necessary and unavoidable merger between the U.S. , Canada and Mexico to save the U.S. economy. If this doesn’t motivate you into action then nothing will…. If nothing else watch CSPAN video of Dennis Kucinich asking for the reasons for secret meeting.

You think this is not possible then read this NOW:
Bush Executive Order: I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat…

Here’s some of the links the author (Michael Herzong) refers to in the audios:B.A. BrooksHouse of Representatives Secret meeting (Wired.com)House of Representatives Secret meeting (Dennis Kucinich)Detailed information that is connected to B.A. BrooksDavid J. Meyer congress secret meeting


NOTE from B4B: The rumor of a potential Bush martial law plan has been spreading and seems to be heading toward reality. One is not certain if the martial law plot will derive from an economic crash late this summer or an attack on Iran most probably launched by Israel under Bush's request. Either way, it is interesting that after 2 years of public outcry for a Bush impeachment, which had fallen on deaf ears, just last week Nancy Pelosi stated that impeachment proceedings may be warranted, although she knows that actual impeachment would take more time than Bush has left in office. Could this be her way of blocking the anticipated martial law....knowing that if Bush is in impeachment proceedings he cannot declare martial law ? Looks like it's going to be a hot summer. Stay grounded. Stay Together....The TRUE battle may be yet to come.

(See Updated Post from B4B)

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE
A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots org...Dedicated To Truth !

Is This Why Rev. Jackson Hates Obama ?

Open Letter to Rev. Jackson from Najee Ali

(Political Activist)

Rev Jackson, your vulgar tirade caught on tape by Fox News where you said you wanted tocut Barack Obama's nuts off and accusing him of talking down to Black folks by giving moral lectures at churches is the last straw for me and a growing number of African Americans who are outraged at your comments.

There are many Blacks across the nation, myself included, who are appreciative for the work and contributions you have made in your civil rights career. But at this point, you're hurting Black America and Obama.


In September 2007 it was clear that you were frustrated by Obama, when you stated in an interview in South Carolina that Obama needs to stop acting white, because you felt he was not engaged in the Jena 6 movement enough to your liking.


Rev Jackson, your continued verbal attacks on Obama are unwarranted. It's as if you're jealous that Obama has eclipsed you and both your campaigns for the Democratic nomination by actually preparing to win it as the 2008 presumptive nominee.


Jesse Jackson & Barack Obama
For years you have been criticized as an ambulance chaser and opportunist. Many of Dr. King's insiders and aides say that King did not trust you. 40 years ago in Memphis as King lay dying from an assassin's bullet your first thought and action was to smear your shirt with Dr. King's blood. You then proceeded to appear in Chicago the next day on several news programs wearing the same shirt you deliberately smeared with his blood as if you were the heir of King's movement.


Obama's recent comments about Black fathers not abandoning their children and accepting moral responsibility in our lives is a lesson you apparently needed to learn when you were younger. If you had, it may not have caused you to cheat on your wife and father a child out of wedlock with a former staffer. Maybe that's what really bothered you about Obama's message to the church that Black fathers should be responsible for their children; you certainly haven't been.


Jesse Jackson and daughter
Living in Los Angeles I have watched your ten year old daughter grow up. Over the years I have had the pleasure to spend several holidays with your daughter including Christmas, her birthday parties and other milestones in her life. I will never turn my back on {the child} her mom and their family. It's about providing friendship, support and love to them while you have been missing in action.


Your daughter has never traveled or taken a trip with you, you have an annual birthday party in Beverly Hills every year where your entire family is welcome but your youngest child has only attended it once. She has had very little contact with her siblings and has never even met her big brother Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr, who apparently doesn't want anything to do with her. And allegedly (I believe it to be true ), he was the one to leak the scandal to the media concerning your affair.


Now don't get me wrong, Obama is not above reproach. He is a politician and is fair game to be fairly criticized by you or anyone else. But to personally attack Obama is crossing the line. Obama is not talking down to Black people; he wants you and other dead beat dads to spend time and care for your children properly. The destruction of the Black family and absentee fathers is a major problem in our community.


It's a problem that King spoke out and fought against. 40 years after King's murder I can see why King didn't trust you. If you can't and won't sincerely help Obama in this historic run then at least stop attacking him. Listen to Obama's message of being a responsible father and start taking care of your daughter.


Najee Ali

Najee Ali is Executive Director of Project Islamic H.O.P.E, a national civil rights organization that advocates for the human rights of oppressed people regardless of race, gender or religion. He was selected by Wave Newspapers and Our Weekly Newspaper as one of the 25 most influential black leaders in Los Angeles. More information is available at: http://www.islamichope.org/.

Note from B4B: We didn't write the letter....we just shared it...and all we can say is.....WOW !

(UPDATE: We have deleted the child's name for anonymity.)

Related Article

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE
A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...Dedicated To Truth !

Rev. Jesse Jackson Makes
B4B Official 'Obama Hater List'

Thanks to the now infamous 'Nut-Gate' comment made by Rev. Jesse Jackson, Blacks4Barack has received numerous requests to have Jackson placed on the Obama Hater Watch List. In order to comply with the overwhelming requests we have chosen to add the Rev. on a temporary basis (still being respectful).

Visit http://blacks4barack.org/GetFiredUp.html to see the
complete Official Obama Hater List.
Obama news updates, photos, Celebs 4 Obama, volunteer info, videos, voter registration, Create-Your-Own Obama Logo (FREE), SpeakOut4Obama, Join B4B, Media Lies of the Week and Much More !

Blacks4Barack !

A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org... Dedicated To Truth !

Should Jesse Jackson Be Added

To The 'Obama Hater List'

(although he's a 'supporter')?

The Rev. Jesse Jackson issued an apology to Barack Obama Wednesday for making what he called a "crude and hurtful" remark about the Illinois senator's recent comments directed toward some members of the black community.

According to Jackson, a Fox News microphone picked up comments he meant to deliver privately that seemed to disparage the presumptive Democratic nominee for appearing to lecture the black community on morality.

Jackson didn't elaborate on the context of his remarks, except to say he was trying to explain that Obama was hurting his relationship with black voters by recently conducting "moral" lectures at African-American churches.
Jackson's apology came a few hours before Fox News planned to air the remarks.
Speaking to CNN Wednesday, Jackson said he feels "very distressed" over the comments.

"This is a sound bite in a broader conversation about urban policy and racial disparities. I feel very distressed because I'm supportive of this campaign and with the senator, what he has done and is doing," he said. "I said he comes down as speaking down to black people. The moral message must be a much broader message. What we need really is racial justice and urban policy and jobs and health care. That's a range of issues on the menu.

"Then I said something I regret was crude. It was very private. And very much a sound bite," he also said.
More details from Clarence Page on The Swamp:

Well, Swamp fans, as Jackson explained to me by telephone, his remarks occurred during an off-air moment during a Fox New Channel interview that aired Sunday.
Jackson didn't realize that the mics were still "hot," as in turned on and recording when he made a few off-the-cuff remarks about Obama's faith-based programs.

Bill O'Reilly has the story and plans to report it on his Fox program, "The O'Reilly Factor" tonight.

Even though O'Reilly has booked me and another guest to respond to the video, he is withholding a full transcript or recording of Jackson's remarks even from me until the program airs.
So far I have only been told by a producer that Jackson criticizes Obama's proposed faith-based programs for "talking down to black people."

And (A warning here to younger or more sensitive readers) Jackson also says something about how the senator was "going to get his (twin objects of male anatomy) cut off."
Jackson, who recalled his remark as, "The senator is cutting off his you-know-what with black people," expressed deep regrets for saying it, even in what he thought was a "private conversation."

"I want to be clear," Jackson said. "My support for Barack Obama is unequivocal. I apologize to Barack and the Obama campaign for my crude and hurtful comments."

B4B NOTE: Looks like the old school might be a bit jealous. Jesse Jackson has done many great things as well as paved the way....but now it's time to stay out of the way.

To See The Official 'Obama Hater Watch' list visit Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE

Iraq Leaders Demand Timeline For U.S. Departure

Iraq said for the first time yesterday that it wanted to set a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops from its territory.


(Times/UK)

President Bush has long resisted a schedule for pulling his 145,000 soldiers out, arguing that it would play into the hands of insurgents. Nouri al-Maliki, the Shia Prime Minister, who boasted last week that he had crushed terrorism in the country, suggested that it was time to start setting time-lines.


“The current trend is to reach an agreement on a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or to put a timetable on their withdrawal,” Mr al-Maliki said during a visit to the United Arab Emirates. He rejected efforts by Mr Bush to hurry through an agreement on vital issues such as the immunity of US troops in Iraq and use of the country’s airspace. Mr Bush had hoped to sign a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) by the end of July to establish the basis for a long-term presence of US troops in the country.
The Iraqi parliament has bridled at pushing through such a binding deal with the outgoing and unpopular Bush Administration, saying that the negotiations have been secretive and could undermine Iraq’s sovereignty. “I don’t know anything about this agreement and neither does parliament,” said Ezzedine Dawla, a Sunni MP. “We’re going to pass something we don’t know anything about.”


Mr al-Maliki’s announcement showed a growing self-confidence that Iraqi leaders can stand up to their powerful ally. His oil minister said last week that leading Western oil companies would not be allowed to set conditions for future deals over Iraq’s main natural resource. The tough stance also comes before Iraqi provincial elections later this year, and may mark the start of the Prime Minister’s campaign to be reelected. His popularity was bolstered by military operations to take back the southern oil city of Basra and the town of al-Amarah from Iranian-backed Shia militias.


His comments may also hint at future cooperation with Barak Obama, the Democratic candidate, who has promised to pull US troops out of Iraq within 16 months, although Mr Obama has since appeared to waver on the commitment.


“The negotiations are continuing with the American side,” Mr al-Maliki said, reflecting the desire of many MPs to wait until a new administration is in the White House, and Iraq’s provincial elections are over, before making any deal. The agreement would govern such issues as immunity for US troops from prosecution, the use of Iraqi airspace, and which side takes operational control for military missions against insurgents.


Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish MP, said that the issue of immunity for US forces had become a particularly sensitive subject for Iraqis. “We have suffered so much from immunity. Immunity equals committing crimes. In the name of immunity they have killed people, they have their own prisons, they captured Iraqis. We can’t continue like this,” he said.


Haidar al-Abadi, a close aide to the Prime Minister, said that the US had wanted complete control of Iraqi airspace, since Iraq still had no air force. Mr al-Abadi said that the Government had rejected the demand. “Air-space will be decided by the Iraqi Government,” he said.
In a rebuff to the Mr al-Maliki the Pentagon said any timetable would be articifical and withdrawal would depend on conditions on the ground.





Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE

A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...Dedicated To Truth

Message From Obama

Re: FISA

Today, Barack Obama posted a message to supporters on my.barackobama.com about the FISA legislation.

I want to take this opportunity to speak directly to those of you who oppose my decision to support the FISA compromise.

This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.

But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any president or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility.

The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues. The recent investigation (PDF) uncovering the illegal politicization of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report.

The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention -- once I'm sworn in as president -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.

Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples' attention on the abuses of executive power in this administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true -- not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down.

I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country. That is why we have built the largest grassroots campaign in the history of presidential politics, and that is the kind of White House that I intend to run as president of the United States -- a White House that takes the Constitution seriously, conducts the peoples' business out in the open, welcomes and listens to dissenting views, and asks you to play your part in shaping our country's destiny.

Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have. After all, the choice in this election could not be clearer. Whether it is the economy, foreign policy, or the Supreme Court, my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years, while I want to take this country in a new direction. Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change. But if we come together, we have an historic opportunity to chart a new course, a better course.

So I appreciate the feedback through my.barackobama.com, and I look forward to continuing the conversation in the months and years to come. Together, we have a lot of work to do.

Barack Obama

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE

A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...Dedicated To Truth

Clinton-Backing Black

Politicians Face Angry

Black Voters

Robert Stolarik

for The New York Times

Kevin Powell is challenging Mr. Towns for his seat.
“His decision not to back Obama shows he is out of touch with his constituents,” said N. Chandler, a former city corrections officer who lives in Bedford-Stuyvesant and who had supported Mr. Towns in the past. “And I think the people of this district are ready for a change.”
The tensions in the district echo those in a handful of races around the country as Democratic incumbents with large African-American constituencies try to soothe resentments and anger incited by their support for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Even after Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton embraced in Unity, N.H., on Friday and sought to put their divisions behind them, some strains are still evident closer to the ground.

In Georgia, Representative John Lewis, a prominent civil rights leader, is facing primary challenges from two black candidates who have been critical of him for backing Mrs. Clinton for months before shifting to Mr. Obama. To underscore the point, one of the challengers set up his headquarters in the same building that served as Mr. Obama’s office for the primary. Nearby, in Savannah, Representative John Barrow, who is white but represents a district that is largely black, is under attack from a challenger who says Mr. Barrow was also late to endorse Mr. Obama.

Another New Yorker, Representative Gregory W. Meeks of Queens, faces a primary opponent who has sought to make an issue of Mr. Meeks’s support of the Clinton campaign in a district, New York’s 6th, where Mr. Obama drew nearly 56 percent of the vote.
The man seeking Mr. Meeks’s seat is Ruben Wills, 36, a former chief of staff for State Senator Shirley L. Huntley and an organizer for Mr. Obama in southeast Queens. “I was on board with Obama from Day 1,” Mr. Wills said. “Meeks had to be dragged across the line.”
And Representative Yvette D. Clarke, of Flatbush, Brooklyn, is running unopposed but lost the endorsement of a vital organization, the Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats, in part because she embraced Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy.

Most of these seats are considered safely Democratic, leaving little incentive for the national Democratic Party, or its leaders, to get involved in the races.
But at least one district — Mr. Barrow’s in Savannah — is considered vulnerable to Republican competition in the fall. And there, Mr. Obama surprised many black leaders by endorsing Mr. Barrow, a conservative Democrat who did not endorse him until after the Georgia primary.
Regina Thomas, a Georgia state senator who is black and is running for the seat, said that voters shared her displeasure with Mr. Obama’s decision. “This is what one constituent said to me, ‘Barrow didn’t do anything to help Obama win the 12th District,’ ” she said. “After he endorsed Barrow, people were like: ‘What in the world is he doing? Why doesn’t he just stay out of it?’ ”
For Mr. Towns in Brooklyn, leftover tensions from the Clinton-Obama battle seem especially strong. An emerging young black political class is seeking to assert the neighborhood’s power against what it sees as an older establishment, based in Harlem, that has long exercised disproportionate influence in New York. The younger Democratic activists link Mr. Meeks and Mr. Towns, the son of a North Carolina sharecropper and a 25-year veteran in Congress, to that structure.

Mr. Towns cannot afford to take the challenge lightly. Two years ago, he won with less than 50 percent of the vote in a three-way race. The man who is running against him now, Kevin Powell, is a community organizer who has the backing of celebrities like the comedian Dave Chappelle, who is scheduled to headline a fund-raiser for Mr. Powell.

Jordan Thomas, who led the organization Brooklyn for Barack, and Arthur Leopold, a fund-raiser for the Obama campaign, are backing Mr. Powell, as are several Democratic clubs, including the Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats, in part because of members’ disappointment after Mr. Towns backed Mrs. Clinton.
It is difficult to overstate the enthusiasm and pride Mr. Obama stirred in the district, where he received 58 percent of the vote. Interviews last week with residents, political activists and businesspeople throughout the district showed those feelings to be still close to the surface.

Patrice C. Queen, a freelance writer from East New York, Brooklyn, and a volunteer for Mr. Powell’s campaign, was especially upset that Mr. Towns had continued to back Mrs. Clinton even after her supporters made what she said were racially charged comments about Mr. Obama.

To her, the reason black leaders like Mr. Towns stuck with Mrs. Clinton was obvious. “Racial self-hatred,” said Ms. Queen, who is black. “It was as if they were saying: ‘We people of color are not ready yet. We’re not ready to be in the White House.’ Self-hatred does that to you.”
Kyle Clarke, an elementary school teacher, said Mr. Towns’s loyalty to Mrs. Clinton was purely strategic.

“He’s been in office for 25 years and he’s part of the establishment,” he said. “How’s he going to go up against the Clintons? He wants to have a career.”
A. T. Mitchell, 42, who recently started a political club, Hip-Hop Stand Up and Vote, on a gritty block in East New York, said Mr. Towns’s support of Mrs. Clinton was not solely a reason to abandon him, but it did send a powerful message.
“It said that he is out of touch with his constituents, that he is removed from the concerns of the common voter,” Mr. Mitchell said.
In an interview, Mr. Towns said he was worried that the compressed primary calendar did not give him much time to make peace with Obama loyalists. “September is not that far away,” he said, referring to the Sept. 9 primary. “That’s problematic for me.”
While the Towns campaign plans to dispatch the representative on a schedule of intense campaigning later this summer, the operation is also readying its lawyers to aggressively scrutinize the signature petitions Mr. Powell has gathered to get on the ballot, with the hope of knocking him off.

The challenge appears to have taken Mr. Towns by surprise. His campaign said he had more than $300,000, a relatively meager sum at this stage for an incumbent facing a challenge.
Mr. Towns said it had been personally difficult for him to choose between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. “I serve in the Congressional Black Caucus, and he is a member,” he said. “But Hillary Clinton represents New York State, and I’ve worked together with her on many projects.”
Mr. Towns can expect some help from a longtime House colleague, Representative Charles B. Rangel of Harlem, who also supported Mrs. Clinton but escaped a primary fight, in part because he lined up much of Harlem behind her.

NOTE: Speaking of Clinton-Backing Black Politicians...where's Stephanie Tubbs Jones (my Congresswoman), Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee, Kendrick Meek, Corrine Brown, Alcee Hastings, Emanuel Cleaver....now that Barack Obama has been declared the nominee ?

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE

A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...Dedicated To Truth

Obama; Bill Clinton

Finally Talk

Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Barack Obama and Bill Clinton ended their mutual silent treatment Monday, with the Democratic presidential candidate reaching out and asking his former Democratic nemesis to help him win the White House.
In their first conversation since the end of the heated primary, Mr. Clinton agreed to campaign for the candidate he portrayed as inexperienced for a presidential run. Mr. Obama had said Bill Clinton's harsh criticisms led him to wonder which Clinton he was running against sometimes.
The 20-minute conversation was the latest step in bringing together the two warring camps. While Hillary Clinton has been publicly behind Mr. Obama, hard feelings remained between the former Democratic president and the candidate hoping to become the next one.
They hadn't spoken until Mr. Obama called Monday after landing in Missouri for a campaign stop. Both sides later issued statements about the conversation, an important public display of how Mr. Obama needs to have both Clintons on board moving into the general election.
Enlarge Image
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama hugs Stephanie Alloush as he greets supporters near the Harry Truman National Historic Site in Independence, Mo., on Monday. (Associated Press)
Related Articles
Recent
Obama fires back at attacks on patriotism
The next president's predicaments
Canadians oppose Iraq war, poll finds
McCain, Obama court crucial Hispanics voters
Obama quietly visits wounded veterans
Obama, Clinton meet in Unity
A tough spot for Obama
Bill Clinton is still popular with voters even if his stock went down, especially among blacks, after his angry outbursts against Mr. Obama during the primary. But Mr. Obama could use the former president to help win over voters, especially the working-class whites who fondly remember better economic times under the Clinton administration and who overwhelmingly supported Hillary Clinton during the primaries.
Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said Mr. Obama asked Mr. Clinton to campaign with him and on his own.
Mr. Obama “has always believed that Bill Clinton is one of this nation's great leaders and most brilliant minds, and looks forward to seeing him on the campaign trail and receiving his counsel in the months to come,” said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.
Clinton spokesman Matt McKenna said the former president renewed his offer — expressed in a one-sentence statement last week — to do whatever he can to ensure Mr. Obama wins the presidency.
“President Clinton continues to be impressed by Senator Obama and the campaign he has run, and looks forward to campaigning for and with him in the months to come,” Mr. McKenna said. “The president believes that Senator Obama has been a great inspiration for millions of people around the country and he knows that he will bring the change America needs as our next president.”
Bill Clinton was in Europe last week and did not attend last Friday's rally with his wife and Mr. Obama in the symbolic town of Unity, N.H. Mr. Obama said it was appropriate that he appear alone with his former rival since they waged the hard-fought race.

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE