Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Tuesday, August 12th 2008

LONDON - BP PLC said it shut down an oil pipeline that runs through Georgia on Tuesday as a precautionary measure, but added that it is unaware of any Russian bombings on pipelines in the region.

BP said the 90,000-barrel-a-day pipeline to Supsa on Georgia's Black Sea coast from Baku in Azerbaijan will remain closed indefinitely.

Another pipeline operated by the London-based oil company in the former Soviet Republic, the larger Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, is already out of action after a fire last week on its Turkish stretch. The BTC pipeline usually provides around 1 million barrels of Caspian crude to international markets.

BP spokesman Robert Wine said that the Baku-Supsa line was closed because it runs through the center of Georgia, where there was greater risk of conflict.

However, he added that BP had no reports of damage to pipelines in Georgia, despite claims from some officials there that Russian forces had attacked the lines.

"I think those reports out there are inaccurate," he said.

Turkish President Abdullah Gul also said Tuesday that fighting in Georgia had not damaged the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline.

Wine later said that BP also had stopped pumping gas into the South Caucasus pipeline, which runs from the Caspian Sea through Georgia into Turkey. However, gas will continue to run though that line for another seven days.

BP would continue to assess the security situation in Georgia over the next few days to consider when to reopen the pipelines, Wine said.

Georgian ports on the Black Sea are a main shipping point of Caspian Sea crude from Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan. More than 500,000 barrels leave these ports daily, and plans are afoot to expand capacity by an additional 200,000 barrels a day.

The Baku-Supsa pipeline was only reopened a few weeks ago after 18 months of inaction. It has the capacity to pump up to 150,000 barrels a day, but has recently been pumping around 90,000 barrels a day.

BP said it still has no timeframe on the potential reopening of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline after it was damaged by a fire late last Tuesday. Kurdish rebels took responsibility for sabotaging the pipeline.

Workers for Botas International Ltd., which operates the BTC line, put out the fire on Monday and are expected to carry out a closer inspection of the damage over the coming days.

Another pipeline that runs to the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiysk, also known as the Northern Route Export Pipeline, which BP uses to export oil, but does not operate, remains open.

Wine said that there was still some production in oil fields in the Caspian Sea, but it had been reduced because of the pipeline closures.

OBAMA 2008


Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE

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

Dedicated To Truth !

Tuesday, August 12, 2008






GOPers For Obama Rip McCain On Georgia;

Tout Hagel As V.P.

Republicans For Obama Speak Out


By Sam Stein

A group of prominent Republicans supporting Barack Obama took to a conference call Tuesday morning to tout their preferred candidate, make the case for other GOPers to cross party lines, and warn about the dangers of John McCain's foreign policy.

Hoping to fill a void in news with Senator Obama on vacation, former Rep. Jim Leach, former Sen. Lincoln Chafee and Rita Hauser (a national intelligence expert who served in the Bush administration), offered at times sharp lines of criticism for the presumptive Republican nominee.

"I served with Sen. McCain, and he and I were the only two to vote against the Bush/Cheney tax cuts," recalled Chafee. "During this campaign it is a different John McCain. He is saying he would make the tax cuts permanent. He is advocating more drilling whereas he voted against drilling in ANWR. It goes to his credibility. And that is such an important issue for this country... plus his foreign policy has been consistently with Bush/Cheney and I know from my perspective that is a huge issue for the United States."

Hauser, meanwhile, pivoted off current events to highlight why Republicans like her viewed McCain's foreign policy as shortsighted and, quiet possibly, at odds with international interests.

"I think the little flare up we are witnessing in Georgia is another illustration of the different approach these two men are taking," she said. "McCain is bellicose: threatening to kick Russia out of the G8, use force if it is required. Obama is far more of the traditional position: turn to international institutions, call for reconciliation, call for an end of hostilities, but also be firm in his words. And that's the kind of leadership we need."

Reflecting disenchantment over the Bush/Cheney years, Leach, Chafee and Hauser all touted Obama's pledge of post-partisanship as a defining aspect in why they were crossing party lines. As for the true test of Obama's bipartisanship -- whether he would appoint a Republican official as vice president or to his cabinet -- the officials on the call deferred to the candidate. But Leach did give a nod to Sen. Chuck Hagel, a prominent Republican who seems tailor made to endorse Obama.

"There are a number of very impressive vice presidential candidates and this is a singular decision for one person and that is Sen. Obama. But I would be hopeful that among the serious list of people to be considered would be Chuck Hagel," said the Iowa Republican. "I think Chuck would be the type of Republican who will represent well this country."

As part of their Republicans-for-Obama effort, the group said they would be launch a website in the next few days that would, primarily, contrast Obama's positions against McCain's through a Republican lens. "It will encourage others to come on because they will see that there is a growing number of Republicans around the country that support him," said Hauser.

The imperative was there, said Leach. It was simply a matter of showing Republicans the shortcomings of the current administration and convincing them that Obama was within their political mainstream.

"This is not a time for politics as usual," said the former congressman. "The portfolio of issues passed on to the next president is as daunting as any since WWII. The case for inspiring new political leadership and the social ethic has seldom been more evident. Barack Obama's platform is a call for change, but the change that he is articulating is more renewal than departure. ... It is rooted in very old American values that are very much part of the Republican as well as the Democratic tradition. ... The national interest requires a new approach to our interaction with the world -- including the recognition that a long-term occupation of Iraq is likely dangerously destabilizing." Visit: Republicans For Obama

OBAMA 2008

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE

A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...
Together, We WILL Make A Difference

Monday, August 11, 2008


McCain Doesn't Have Temperament
To Be President
Wants To Bomb, Bomb, Bomb....EVERYBODY !

In response to the Russia/Georgia conflict going on right now, McCain is reiterating his auto-response to basically everything.....ATTACK ! It's very weird watching him in his low volume, mild tone basically saying that we need to attack Russia. IS HE NUTS ? The following article discusses McCain's need for serious anger management....a disorder he's possessed for many years.


By Ronald Kessler
Newsmax.com

WASHINGTON -- Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is considered a front-runner for the 2008 race, but does McCain have the temperament to be president?

As portrayed by the mainstream media, McCain is an engaging war hero, a man of political moderation positioned between the left and the right.

But to insiders who know him, McCain has an irrational, explosive side that make many of them question whether he is fit to serve as president and be commander in chief.

Nowhere is that sentiment stronger than in the Senate, where McCain has few friends or supporters. In fact, when McCain ran for the Republican nomination for president in 2000, only four Republican senators endorsed him.

"I have witnessed incidents where he has used profanity at colleagues and exploded at colleagues," said former Senator Bob Smith, a New Hampshire Republican who served with McCain on the Senate Armed Services Committee and on Republican policy committees. "He would disagree about something and then explode. It was incidents of irrational behavior. We've all had incidents where we have gotten angry, but I've never seen anyone act like that."

McCain's outbursts often erupted when other members rebuffed his requests for support during his bid in 2000 for the Republican nomination for president. A former Senate staffer recalled what happened when McCain asked for support from a fellow Republican senator on the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.

"The senator explained that he had already committed to support George Bush," the former Senate staffer said. "McCain said ‘f— you' and never spoke to him again."

"He had very few friends in the Senate," said former Senator Smith, who dealt with McCain almost daily. "He has a lot of support around the country, but I don't think he has a lot of support from people who know him well."

Another former senator who requested anonymity recalled an exchange at a Republican policy lunch. McCain turned on another senator who disagreed with him.

"McCain used the f-word," the former senator said. "McCain called the guy a ‘sh--head.' The senator demanded an apology. McCain stood up and said, ‘I apologize, but you're still a sh--head.' That was in front of 40 to 50 Republican senators. That sort of thing happened frequently."

"People who disagree with him get the f--- you," said former Rep. John LeBoutillier, a New York Republican who had an encounter with McCain when he was on a POW task force in the House. After LeBoutillier had openly tape recorded comments at a conference, McCain got the idea that LeBoutillier was secretly tape recording him.
"Are you wired up?" LeBoutillier quoted McCain as asking. "Of course not," LeBoutillier said.

"Prove it," McCain said.

LeBoutillier said he lowered his pants, apparently satisfying McCain that he was not taping him.

"He is a vicious person," LeBoutillier said. "Nearly all the Republican senators endorsed Bush because they knew McCain from serving with him in the Senate. They so disliked him that they wouldn't support him. They have been on the hard end of his behavior."

Andrea Jones, McCain's press secretary, did not respond to requests from NewsMax for comment.

Senators are leery of speaking on the record about what McCain is really like. Bob Smith described his behavior reluctantly. A former Republican senator listed Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, and Pete Dominici, fellow Republican senators, as being among those who had encountered McCain's outbursts, but none of them agreed to be interviewed on the subject.

Most major media outlets have been uninterested in pursuing the subject. Virtually every media outlet ran Sen. Trent Lott's comment at a 100th birthday tribute to Strom Thurmond. As a result of the criticism over his remarks, Lott stepped aside as Senate majority leader.

But only a few news outlets, like the Phoenix New Times in Arizona and the National Journal, that ran an Associated Press story reporting McCain's 1998 joke suggesting that Chelsea Clinton was ugly and Janet Reno and Hillary Clinton were lesbians.

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?" McCain said at a GOP fund-raiser in Washington. "Because Janet Reno is her father."

McCain apologized to the Clintons. But more recently, McCain said on Fox News, "You know, the French remind me a little bit of an aging actress of the 1940s who is still trying to dine out on her looks but doesn't have the face for it."

In part because he gives reporters access and charms them with his apparent openness, McCain gets good press.

"A presidential candidate is not supposed to talk at length and on the record about the rules he broke or the strippers he dated, or the time he arrived so drunk that he fell through the screen door of the young lady he was wooing," Time wrote in a Dec. 13, 1999 profile of McCain. "The candor tells you more than the comment, and reporters sometimes just decide to take him off the record because they don't want to see him flame out and burn up a great story."

"National reporters may genuflect, but local journalists cringe at the thought of covering McCain, better known in Arizona for his short temper, refusal to take calls, and attempts at media manipulation than for the ‘straight talk' he doles out . . ." a Playboy profile said in February 2000.

When people have come forward to relate their bizarre experiences with McCain, only minor publications or the foreign press have run their accounts. The favored treatment is reminiscent of the way the press turned a blind eye to John F. Kennedy's dalliances — except that voters have far more need to know about evidence of instability than presidential infidelities.

"The White House is a character crucible," according to Bertram S. Brown, M.D., a psychiatrist who formerly headed the National Institute of Mental Health and was an aide to President John F. Kennedy. "It either creates or distorts character . . . . Even if an individual is balanced, once someone becomes president, how does one solve the conundrum of staying real and somewhat humble when one is surrounded by the most powerful office in the land and from becoming overwhelmed by an at times pathological environment that treats you every day as an emperor?

"Here is where the true strength of the character of the person, not his past accomplishments, will determine whether his presidency ends in accomplishment or failure."

When asked about his temper, McCain has portrayed himself as angry about issues.
"Do I feel passionately about issues? Absolutely," McCain has said. "Do I get angry when I see pork barreling and wasteful spending? Absolutely."

But McCain's outbursts have not been directed at policy issues or waste. Instead, even if they are longtime friends, he explodes at people who disagree with him or who tell him they cannot support him.

Pat Murphy, an editor at the Arizona Republic, became friends with McCain in the early 1980s. As Murphy rose to become publisher of the paper, their friendship continued.

In 1989, Murphy and his wife Betty had lunch with McCain in the Senate dining room. They were talking about a hearing on a federal project to build a dam system designed to deliver water from the Colorado River to Arizona. Even though the project was supposed to be non-partisan, McCain told Murphy he had planted highly technical questions with a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee to ask when Rose Mofford, the governor of Arizona, testified.

The idea was, because she was a Democrat, to make her squirm when she did not know the answers.

Murphy was horrified and told McCain his feelings. After that, McCain froze him out.
"What has struck me about McCain is that everybody underestimated the ability of his advisers and him to hypnotize the national media, because most of us in the media in Arizona thought of him as a guy who had a terrible temper, occasionally had a foul mouth, a guy who whined and pouted unless he got his way," Murphy said. "McCain has a temper that is bombastic, volatile, and purple-faced. Sometimes he gets out of control. Do you want somebody sitting in the White House with that kind of temper?'
Former Phoenix Mayor Paul Johnson, a Democrat, encountered McCain's temper when he and other local mayors briefed the Arizona congressional delegation on local issues. After Johnson spoke, McCain said, "Hold it a minute. Somebody write down everything this guy has to say. You know what, we need to record him. It's best to get a liar on tape."

Johnson stood up and said, "Senator, if you have a problem with me, why don't we go out in the hallway and talk about it."

"You're goddamn right I have a problem with you," McCain said. "They've been treating you like a princess in Phoenix while they've been burning me over this dam deal, and I'm sick of it."

A longtime member of Senator Dennis DeConcini's staff, Judy Leiby, worked on veteran's issues and had differed with McCain on some of them over the years. After DeConcini announced he was retiring in 1994, McCain showed up in his office.

"I was standing around talking to about a half a dozen postal workers I'd worked real closely with," Leiby recalled. "And McCain came in. He walked down the line, shaking hands, and he ignored me. And one postal worker said, ‘Do you know Judy Leiby?' He said, ‘Oh, yeah, I know her.'"

McCain turned away from Leiby, trembling.

"You could tell he was so angry, he was white," she said. "He turned back to me and said, ‘I'm so glad you're out of a job, and I'll see that you never work again.'"
Of this incident, McCain said that because he didn't hold Leiby in "particularly high esteem," he thought it would be hypocritical to shake her hand. "I didn't raise my voice, didn't offer any disparaging remarks or insults," he said.

Jim Abbott, the supervisor of the Coronado National Forest, reported a similar threat by McCain in 1989. Worried about the impact on the endangered Mount Graham red squirrel, Abbott ordered a halt to construction of University of Arizona telescopes at the top of the mountain. McCain then asked to meet with Abbott and said, "If you do not cooperate on this project, you'll be the shortest-tenured forest supervisor in the history of the Forest Service."

A few days later, McCain called Abbott to apologize. Construction ultimately proceeded after McCain backed legislation to create an exemption for the project from the Endangered Species Act and other existing laws.

Democrat Marty Russo had an altercation with McCain when McCain was in the House, according to the Atlantic Monthly.

"Seven-letter profanities escalated to 12-letter ones and then to pushes and shoves, before the two were separated," according to the account.

In 1993, the Boston Globe reported that McCain "came across the Senate floor and, while mocking [Ted] Kennedy, told him to ‘shut up,' according to observers in the chamber. "A stunned Kennedy returned the comment, telling McCain to ‘shut up' and ‘act like a senator.'"

The previous year, Robin Silver and Bob Witzeman, both medical doctors, met with McCain at his Phoenix office to discuss the endangered Mount Graham red squirrel. At the mention of the issue, McCain erupted.

"He slammed his fists on his desk, scattering papers across the room," Silver said. "He jumped up and down, screaming obscenities at us for at least 10 minutes. He shook his fists as if he was going to slug us."

After Silver pointed out that his behavior was inappropriate, "He apologized and was contrite," Silver said.

Indeed, senators joke among themselves about their collection of "McCain Notes" — apologies McCain sends after he has unleashed a tirade. The question on the minds of those who know him is whether a man who seems so out of control should have the authority to unleash nuclear weapons.

"I think he is not fit to be president," said former congressman LeBoutillier.

Now, more than ever...
America Needs Good Judgement...
OBAMA 2008


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

Why Did The Bush Regime Instruct The Media

To LIE

About The Russia vs. Georgia Conflict ?

It is obvious that the media has been handed their orders of how they should portray this Russia vs. Georgia 'war'. They are all in lockstep claiming Russia to have started this onslaught, painting the Russians as terrible, barbaric killers of the innocent....which is an outright LIE ! RUSSIA DID NOT START THIS !!!! Below, is a true assessment of what has occurred followed by two eyewitness accounts in broken English but still understandable. Don't be fooled America ! The Regime has an ulterior motive. Now the article:

* * * * *

From Times U.K.

Russia and Georgia were on the brink of war last night after Moscow responded to a Georgian offensive in the breakaway republic of South Ossetia by sending tanks, troops and war-planes across the border.

More than a thousand civilians were reported to have been killed and large parts of Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, were reduced to ruins as a conflict with potentially global repercussions erupted after months of rising tension. Georgia announced last night that it was withdrawing half of its 2,000 troops from Iraq as it ordered an all-out military mobilisation.

The country is the West’s strongest ally in the region, one of the staunchest supporters of America’s War on Terror and a vital conduit for Western oil and gas supplies from Central Asia.

“We have Russian tanks moving in. We have continuous Russian bombardment,” President Saakashvili declared as he appealed for international support. “Russia is fighting a war with us in our own territory.”

After a week of skirmishes with separatist militias, Georgian forces began an offensive on Thursday night to seize control of South Ossetia, which broke away in a civil war in the early 1990s and has since sought closer links with Russia.

Russia responded by sending units of its 58th Army, including tanks and hundreds of troops, into South Ossetia while its aircraft reportedly attacked military targets in Georgia itself.

Eduard Kokoity, the leader of South Ossetia’s self-styled government, said that more than 1,400 people had died in the Georgian offensive. The International Committee of the Red Cross said that hospitals were overflowing. Reporters saw trucks bringing wounded Georgian soldiers out of South Ossetia to a military hospital in Gori.

Russia said that at least ten of its peacekeepers in South Ossetia had been killed and another thirty wounded. Georgia claimed to have shot down five Russian jets. Mr Saakashvili told CNN: “It’s like the attack into Afghanistan in 1979. It’s like Czechoslovakia when the Soviet tanks rolled in. If they get away with this in Georgia, the world will be in trouble.”

South Ossetia is little bigger than Luxembourg. but an all-out war would have global repercussions and could leave Russia with a stranglehold on Central Asia’s vast oil and gas supplies. Analysts said that Georgia’s bid for Nato membership, to be discussed at a summit in December, would be complicated greatly by continuing hostilities with Russia. If an increasingly assertive Kremlin succeeds in imposing its will on its tiny neighbour, it might be encouraged to do the same elsewhere in the former Soviet Union.


* * * * *

Now, a first hand account:

People of the world. You deceived! World mass media conduct propagation of a false information. Russia DID NOT ATTACK Georgia! 07.08.2008 at 22:00 Georgia has attacked South Ossetia. At 3:30 08.08.2008 tanks of the Georgian armies have entered into city Tskhinvali.
Artillery bombardment all the day long proceeded, fights with use of tanks and heavy combat material, both against ossetic armies, and against peace inhabitants were conducted. 2000 civil people already were lost.
The Russian peacemakers have arrived to South Ossetia in the evening 08.08.2008 for settlement of the conflict and prompting of the world in republic and protection of the Russian citizens living on territory of South Ossetia. Georgia has attacked South Ossetia on eve of Olympiad, it is top of cruelty and cynicism.
Proofs and video-materials look on : http://www.1tvrus.com/ , http://www.1tv.ru/owa/win/ort6_main.main , http://www.rian.ru/ , http://www.vesti.ru/news , news.ntv.ru/ , http://www.ren-tv.com/ , http://www.newsru.com/ .We shall tell is not present to WAR!!!www.1tvrus.com this is our first chanel, our force are there,they are dieing not for this lie, our country try to help sivilians, we take them to our hospitals in Vladikavkaz, 30thousands people are in this city, see it all if you want...I copy first part of text becase i dont now language good(sory for this…


A second first hand account:

At first: Georgia the first attacкed peaceful citizens who live in town Tshenval and its surroundings (about 1 o’clock at night 08/08/2008. And no one your chanel told about what happened in Tshenval ). Look at this fact more that 2000 PEACEFUL PEOPLE WERE KILLED with that bombardment (inclding 15 peacemakers from Russia).

At second: Russian armed force can be in South Ossetia by the mandate of U.N.O.
This mandate was verified with the agreement between South Osetia and Georgia in 1992 year.Any qyestions?

But if Georgia is right why are the Georgia Internet’s recources closed? Why did your chanels keep silence about Georgia’s attacks on South Ossetia at the day of begining Olympic Games? Why Do your chanels not transmit cadres from destroyed town Tshenval? There are a lot of ‘’WHY’’, aren’t there?
Watch this VIDEO.
There is an American citizen who was in South Ossetia during Georgian’s attacks. No comments.

NOTE: Now Bush is on TV saying that Russia has 'invaded a sovereign nation'. This is starting to feel like the same manipulative build-up from the Regime/media as the Iraq invasion.

RELATED ARTICLES:
Top McCain Advisor Lobbyist For Georgia
Oil Behind Plan for U.S. Troops In Georgia
Did The U.S. Train Georgian Troops for War With Russia

Could the regime want another war in order to declare Martial Law
(and block the election ?)

COMBAT THE MEDIA LIES....(and The Regime)
They're Lying Again !!!!
SPREAD THE TRUTH
!

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE
A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...
Together, We WILL Make A Difference !

Sunday, August 10, 2008


Iraq Demands "Clear Timeline"

For U.S. Withdrawal


BAGHDAD — Iraq's foreign minister insisted Sunday that any security deal with the United States must contain a "very clear timeline" for the departure of U.S. troops. A suicide bomber struck north of Baghdad, killing at least five people including an American soldier.

Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told reporters that American and Iraqi negotiators were "very close" to reaching a long-term security agreement that will set the rules for U.S. troops in Iraq after the U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.

Zebari said the Iraqis were insisting that the agreement include a "very clear timeline" for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces, but he refused to talk about specific dates.

"We have said that this is a condition-driven process," he added, suggesting that the departure schedule could be modified if the security situation changed.

But Zebari made clear that the Iraqis would not accept a deal that lacks a timeline for the end of the U.S. military presence.

"No, no definitely there has to be a very clear timeline," Zebari replied when asked if the Iraqis would accept an agreement that did not mention dates.

Differences over a withdrawal timetable have become one of the most contentious issues remaining in the talks, which began early this year. U.S. and Iraqi negotiators missed a July 31 target date for completing the deal, which must be approved by Iraq's parliament.

President Bush has steadfastly refused to accept any timetable for bringing U.S. troops home. Last month, however, Bush and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki agreed to set a "general time horizon" for a U.S. departure.

OBAMA '08.....THE RIGHT CHOICE !

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE

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

Dedicated To Truth


Russia Expands Bombing Blitz Against Georgia


David Nowak

GORI, Georgia — Georgian troops retreated from the breakaway province of South Ossetia on Sunday and their government pressed for a truce, overwhelmed by Russian firepower as the conflict threatened to set off a wider war.

Russia deployed a naval squadron off the coast of another of Georgia's separatist regions, Abkhazia, and its jets bombed the outskirts of Tblisi, the Georgian capital.

Georgia's Foreign Ministry said its soldiers were observing a cease-fire on orders of the president and declared the move in a note handed over to Russia's envoy to Tbilisi.

"Georgia expresses its readiness to immediately start negotiations with the Russian Federation on cease-fire and termination of hostilities," the ministry said in a statement.

A spokesman for the Russian Embassy confirmed the Georgian note was received; the Russian Foreign Ministry had no immediate response.

Georgia, whose troops have been trained by American soldiers, began an offensive to regain control over South Ossetia overnight Friday, launching heavy rocket and artillery fire and air strikes that pounded the provincial capital, Tskhinvali.

In response, Russia, which has granted passports to most South Ossetians, launched overwhelming artillery shelling and air attacks on Georgian troops.

Russia has demanded that Georgia pull out its troops from South Ossetia as a condition to negotiate a cease-fire. It also urged Georgia to sign a pledge not to use force against South Ossetia as another condition for ending hostilities.

Time For Judgement...TIME FOR OBAMA !

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE

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

Dedicated To Truth

Saturday, August 9, 2008





Another War Is Breaking Out...
RIGHT THIS MINUTE !


New York Times
GORI, Georgia — The conflict between Russia and the former Soviet republic of Georgia moved toward all-out war on Saturday as Russia prepared to land ground troops on Georgia’s coast and broadened its bombing campaign both within Georgia and in the disputed territory of Abkhazia.

The fighting that began when Georgian forces tried to retake the capital of South Ossetia, a pro-Russian region that won de facto autonomy from Georgia in the early 1990s, appeared to be developing into the worst clashes between Russia and a foreign military since the 1980s war in Afghanistan.

Georgia’s president, Mikheil Saakashvili, declared that Georgia was in a state of war, ordering government offices to work around the clock, and said that Russia was planning a full-scale invasion of his country.

Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, eclipsing the authority of President Dmitri A. Medvedev, left the Olympics in China and arrived Saturday evening in Vladikavkaz, a city in southern Russia just over the border that is a military staging area. State-controlled news broadcasts showed Mr. Putin meeting generals, suggesting that he was in charge of the operations on Georgian soil.

Mr. Putin made clear that Russia now viewed Georgian claims over the breakaway regions within its borders to be invalid, and that Russia had no intention of withdrawing. “There is almost no way we can imagine a return to the status quo,” he said, according to Interfax.

Russian armored vehicles continued to stream into South Ossetia, and Russian officials said that 1,500 civilians had been killed in South Ossetia and that 12 Russian soldiers had died.

A Georgian government spokesman said that 60 civilians had been killed in airstrikes on the city of Gori. Each side’s figures were impossible to confirm independently.

Attending the Olympic Games in Beijing, President Bush directly called on Russia on Saturday to stop bombing Georgian territory, expressing strong support for Georgia in a direct challenge to Russia’s leaders. (complete article)

Time For Judgement...TIME FOR OBAMA !

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE

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

Dedicated To Truth




Hiding The Scumbag (McCain)

By Jane Smiley

So, John Edwards had a brief affair with a woman who is over forty, and it's a scandal. Elizabeth Edwards was ill at the time, and so John is especially naughty for being so callous, and yes I gave money to his campaign, but then, I never thought adultery was a big deal in the abstract, because, as we all know, I am a liberal, and I think denying people healthcare, swindling the taxpayer, starting an unnecessary war by forging documents and lying, and stealing the oil belonging to other nations is a lot worse than adultery. If every working person in America were to be free to join a union and if we had mastered that global warming thing, then I could start worrying about adultery, and be glad of it.

So, John McCain had a lengthy affair with a young rich woman, left his wife for her when she was crippled from a car accident, and went on to live off the new wife, for decades, and it's not a scandal. Why is that? Why is a misstep, followed by anger and reconciliation, a scandal, while actual bona fide betrayal followed by abandonment (and, let's say, a parasitic lifestyle) is just one of those things?

It is said that the first Mrs. McCain has forgiven her former husband. It is said Elizabeth Edwards has forgiven her current husband.

I know, I know, the National Enquirer never went after McCain. Why is that? When there seemed to be a bit of a smoking gun about John McCain and a lobbyist earlier this year, The National Enquirer didn't touch it. The lobbyist was disappeared, the New York Times dropped the story, and shhh. NO scandal. Why is that? Wouldn't I, as a citizen, rather my president slept with a filmmaker than a lobbyist?

Is it just that John Edwards is cuter than John McCain? Is it just that the idea of McCain getting it on makes the press squirm, and so they don't touch that story? Or do they really have a pro-Republican bias that shows up over and over and over? The press seems to be saying, go ahead, Republicans, trash the country, bankrupt the country, drive the country into a economic, moral, ethical, and military abyss. We don't care. We aren't going to hold you responsible for anything, including marital abandonment and cruelty.


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

Tuesday, August 5, 2008


McCain Volunteers Cindy
For TOPLESS Contest !



David Knowles (AOL News)

John McCain
drummed up support at the annual biker rally in Sturgis, South Dakota yesterday, telling the crowd he preferred the sound of Harley Davidson motorcycle engines to cheering Germans "any day." Hooray for outlaw bikers! John McCain salutes your Easy Rider spirit! So much so, in fact, that he hinted that his wife Cindy might like to get those engines revving a little louder. Via CNN:

Indeed, McCain felt so comfortable at the event that he even volunteered his wife for the rally's traditional beauty pageant, an infamously debauched event that's been known to feature topless women.

"I encouraged Cindy to compete," McCain said to cheers. "I told her with a little luck she could be the only woman ever to serve as first lady and Miss Buffalo Chip."

Yes, nothing like a little first lady T&A to help heal the country (the bottoms have been known to come off at the Miss Buffalo Chip contest, too). Nothing quite says "American Pride" like showing off your wife at a biker rally.

More Sturgis fun pictures here. And here's the video of McCain delivering his scripted shtick on having the bikers oggle our would-be first lady.

Time For Judgement....Time For OBAMA

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

send comments



We always hear about Obama's problems with blacks, whites, hispanics, jews, women, muslims, beer drinkers etc.. So we found this to be very interesting:

McCain's Problem With White Voters

By: Paul Jenkins

Much has been said and written in the past six months about Barack Obama's need to attract white voters in sufficient numbers to be elected, first in the primary (done) and now in the general election. It is a truism that somehow got twisted into Obama having a "problem with white voters" by the Clinton campaign and a compliant and mathematically illiterate traditional media. More to the point now, it is McCain who needs to score exceptionally well among white voters, better in fact than any other Republican presidential candidate in the past 20 years, including George H. W. Bush in his rout of Michael Dukakis in 1988.

A combination of changing demographics and heightened interest among groups favorable to Obama means that McCain will likely need over two-thirds of the vote of white voters 30 and older, and over 60% of all white voters, to even have a shot at winning. By comparison, the GOP's best presidential scores among whites in the last five elections belong to the elder Bush (60% against Dukakis) and George W. Bush (58% against John Kerry). The task is not impossible, but increasingly unlikely.

It is no surprise, then, that the McCain campaign has suddenly started focusing on race. The meaningless "race card" play is as desperate now as it was when Bill Clinton used it late in the primary. It is a frantic plea to the sliver (or is it more?) of white voters who somehow think that African-Americans can pull out a trump card that magically cowers all white people around them into submitting to their will. The "race card" covers a wide, polymorphous range of presumed white grievances, not least of which is affirmative action, which 53% of white voters say is "no longer necessary" in one recent survey; perhaps not coincidentally, the same percentage of white voters thought Obama's comment saying he didn't look like past presidents was "racist."

With that in mind, the Clintons' raw recourse to race in some of the late primary states did appear to have some effect: in Pennsylvania, for instance, half of Clinton's winning margin was provided by white voters who openly said that the candidate's race mattered "a lot" in their choice. It appears that McCain too sees race-baiting as his only way to the presidency and is turning to it early in the hope of stemming an unfriendly tide.

The prospects for McCain nonetheless remain daunting, even if one believes that openly bringing race to the table will attract more voters than alienate others (this is not a given.)

How did this happen?

At the risk of making Karl Rove and Mark Penn turn in their political graves, forget about micro-trends and let's look at the old-school, but frankly still meaningful broad racial, ethnic and age demographics at play.

African-Americans, Democrats' most loyal group, will continue to support the party's nominee with the same margin or better as in the past. What will change here is that black turnout can be expected to rise, conservatively to 12% of the electorate (from 11% in 2004.)

Among Latinos, McCain had high hopes, with his Arizona roots and moderate stance on immigration. That was until he cut and ran on that issue in the GOP primary, bringing him more or less in line with a party whose approval among Latinos is sinking even faster than among the general population (obviously not only because of its stance on immigration.) By doing this, McCain abandoned all hope of duplicating Bush's inroads in 2004. Recent polls have been remarkably consistent in pegging the race among Latino voters at about 70% of decided voters in favor of Obama. As the McCain campaign likes to say, he needs no introduction to this group: we take that to mean that there is little for him to add, that the majority of Latino voters' mind is made up and that these numbers will not change. Adding to McCain's problems is that the number of Hispanic voters has grown in every one of the past four years, conservatively to 9% of the voting age population.

Another problem for McCain: young white voters, who have tilted solidly towards Democratic candidates in recent elections (10% margin for Kerry in 2004.) The difficulty for the Republican this year is that the Democrat is especially attractive to young voters (Obama surely has more youth appeal than, say, Kerry); and that as echo boomers (children of baby boomers) have come of age, the number of voting-age young people has swollen. Even if 18-29 year-olds don't vote in a higher proportion than usually (and most observers assume they will), there are far more of them than there were four or eight years ago.

With white voters thirty or older representing a shrinking share of the electorate, and Republicans' already low popularity with the rest of the voting population dwindling, the challenge grows exponentially for McCain. Not coincidentally, he has rarely been able to exceed a 45% share against Obama in the RealClear and Pollster general election poll composites. It may be that the actual ceiling when undecided voters are accounted for is 47 or 48%, but it is unlikely to be higher.

Of course, the presidential election is based on the electoral college and individual states' outcomes, not on national polling as was sadly demonstrated in 2000. Here too, though, the picture is bleak for McCain. Outside of a dozen dazzlingly red states, mostly small and mostly in the Deep South, Appalachia and the Plains, McCain cannot count on any strong traditional GOP support. Again, demographic composition and recent shifts are working against him in a number of key states without which he cannot even begin to hope to be elected.

In the South, McCain is leading by single digits in Mississippi, South Carolina and Georgia, all of which have large African-American populations. Obama is unlikely to win these, but he sure will give McCain a fight, especially in Georgia, an unpleasant prospect for McCain whose limited resources should not be depleted in such Republican strongholds. More ominously, both candidates are essentially tied in North Carolina and Virginia, easy wins for Bush in 2004. Both states feature a potentially lethal mix for McCain: a large pool of black voters, young and/or educated whites, and a growing Latino population.

In the Southwest, McCain's problems are best symbolized by Arizona, his home state, in which he is struggling to beat Obama, thanks in no little part to the fact that Hispanics now represent 25% of voters. Texas should not be close either, yet here too Obama is lurking behind McCain by just 6% or so. McCain may not have given up yet on New Mexico and Colorado (both of which Bush won), but he may as well in light of polling and of demographics that favor a general shift towards the Democratic party (open Senate seats in both states are expected to move into the Democrat column this year.) Nevada remains a moderately bright spot for McCain, as it appears to be shifting more slowly towards Democrats than its neighbors; that said, here too Obama is now leading.

Obama's home region, the Midwest, is a nightmare for McCain. States previously known as swing have swung so far towards Obama (and in some cases Democrats generally) that they are considered all but unattainable by McCain: Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa (all decided by less than 3% margins in 2004) will all vote for Obama. Perhaps worse for McCain, Indiana, North and South Dakota, and Missouri are in play, an unthinkable occurrence four years ago. McCain's hopes in the region rest on Ohio and Michigan. It is a measure of the hill he has to climb that in Ohio, an absolute must-win Bush state for him, McCain is currently slightly behind Obama. Michigan is essentially McCain's only hope at this point of gaining a significant formerly Democratic state (thank you DNC for your ineptitude in handling that primary problem, and Hillary Clinton for exacerbating it after all was lost), and even there he is behind Obama. It is no accident that both Ohio and Michigan, bleeding jobs and population, are essentially immobile demographically and are showing the least movement toward the Democrat.

Another state McCain cannot lose under any circumstance is Florida. Thanks to Obama's late start there and Democratic primary stupidity (see Michigan above), the state has only recently slowly started moving towards the Democrat. That said, it IS moving, with Obama slightly ahead. A look at the Congressional races in the state shows what McCain may be up against: Florida's three Cuban-American Representatives, all Republicans, are in the fight of their electoral life, demonstrating the deep demographic and political shifts in the state, especially in South Florida. The most recent survey gives Obama a 20% edge among Latinos in Florida, a sea change from 2004 when the exit poll numbers were the exact reverse.

Aggravating the situation for McCain, smaller GOP states such as Alaska and Montana are threatening to break off, less because of demographics than of local conditions and Republican corruption and ineptitude. The presence of former GOP Congressman Bob Barr at the head of the Libertarian ticket will probably not be material in most states, but in some close contests (such as Montana and Alaska) his role could be remarkably akin to that played by Ralph Nader in 2000.

The Northeast, including Pennsylvania, will vote en bloc for Obama except for West Virginia and, just possibly, New Hampshire, McCain's political home away from home in which he is nonetheless lagging behind Obama.

None of this is to say that the election is foretold, that Democrats should be complacent, or that Obama has a cakewalk ahead of him. However, McCain's campaign to date is so widely off the mark that it is hard to imagine he will be able to get his groove back with white voters, a group whose aspirations he should be deeply familiar with. It also means that unless McCain can convince more white voters to cast their ballot for him than for any Republican in recent memory, and to match Ronald Reagan's performance against Walter Mondale in 1984, he will not win. This too is unlikely: after all, many of these voters knew Reagan. And McCain, to them, is no Reagan.


OBAMA 2008

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

send comments

Monday, August 4, 2008


HAPPY BIRTHDAY
BARACK OBAMA !!!

Turns 47 today....August 4th

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE
A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...
Together, We WILL Make A Difference

Sunday, August 3, 2008


FACT CHECK: McCain Opposed Federal MLK Holiday, Arizona MLK Holiday And Key Legislation Aimed At Equal Opportunity For African Americans


From: ProgessiveAccountabilty.org

McCain Claim: McCain Defended Opposition Of Federal MLK Holiday By Saying He Supported Arizona’s State Holiday. During a press availability in Panama City, Florida, John McCain said, “I have supported hundreds of pieces of legislation, which would help Americans obtain an equal opportunity in America. I am proud of that record, from fighting for the recognition of Dr. Martin Luther King’s birthday in my state to sponsoring specific legislation that would prevent discrimination in any shape or form in America today.” [McCain Press Availability In Panama City, Florida, 8/1/08]

  • FACT: McCain Supported Republican AZ Governor’s Decision To Rescind MLK Holiday. ABC News reported, “In Arizona, a bill to recognize a holiday honoring MLK failed in the legislature, so then-Gov. Bruce Babbitt, a Democrat, declared one through executive order. In January 1987, the first act of Arizona’s new governor, Republican Evan Mecham, was to rescind the executive order by his predecessor to create an MLK holiday. Arizona’s stance became a national controversy. McCain backed the decision at the time.” [ABC News, 4/3/08]

  • FACT: McCain Supported Gov. Evan Mecham’s Decision In 1987 To Rescind Martin Luther King Jr. Day. As reported by the Philadelphia Inquirer, “In a vote likely to haunt him for the rest of his public career, McCain voted against 1983 legislation establishing the third Monday in January as the federal holiday marking King’s birthday. Back home in Arizona, he supported Gov. Evan Mecham’s decision in 1987 to rescind an executive order creating a state holiday for King, but later reversed his position.” [Philadelphia Inquirer, 6/16/08]
  • FACT: McCain Voted Against Creating Martin Luther King Holiday. In 1983, McCain voted against a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill to designate the third Monday of every January as a federal holiday in honor of the late civil rights leader, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The motion passed 89-77. [HR 3706, Vote 289, 8/2/83; CQ 1983]
    • McCain Admitted His Opposition To The Federal MLK Holiday Was “A Mistake” And His Position Has “Evolved.” During a 2000 interview, McCain compared his evolution on this issue to former Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater. “I believe that Barry Goldwater, to start with, regretted his vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act,” McCain said. “I think that Barry grew, like all of us grow and evolve. In 1983, when I was brand-new in the Congress, I voted against the recognition of Dr. Martin Luther King. That was a mistake, OK? And later I had the chance to … help fight for … the recognition of Dr. Martin Luther King as a holiday in my state.” [ www.salon.com 4/18/00; Accessed 4/2/08]
  • FACT: In 1994, McCain Sided With Senator Jesse Helms and Voted To Eliminate Funding For Martin Luther King Commission. McCain voted in favor of a Helms amendment “to prohibit federal financing for the Martin Luther King Jr. Federal Holiday Commission.” The amendment failed 28-70-2. [S Amdt 1738, Vote #127, 5/24/94; CQ Vote Description]
  • FACT: McCain Voted Against The Civil Rights Act Of 1990 FOUR Times. In 1990, McCain voted against a bill designed to address employer discrimination at least 4 times. According to the Washington Post, the “Civil Rights Act of 1990 is designed to overturn several recent Supreme Court rulings that made it much more difficult for individual employees to prove discrimination. The legislation, being fought by business, also would impose new penalties on employers convicted of job discrimination.” [S 2104, Vote #304, 10/24/90; Vote #276, Vote #275, 10/16/90; Vote #161, 7/18/90; Washington Post, 7/9/90]
Dont' Be Fooled.....OBAMA 2008

Related Article: Sole Black Reporter Booted From McCain Event

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE

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

Saturday, August 2, 2008


Obama Just Not A Good Negro


By: Ernest Harris

I'm about at the end of my rope as it relates to giving certain people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to how they respond to and treat Barack Obama and his family.

By "certain people" I am referring to the mainstream media (MSM) and to be frank, conservatives, most of whom are white, but by no means is this category limited only to whites. And by the way, I include some Hillary supporters and other Democrats in this category as well, because I don't for a minute believe just being in the Democratic Party makes one truly liberal or progressive.

But I have tried for quite some time in this campaign, and even before, as it relates to other situations in my lifetime, to give people the benefit of the doubt, to offer potential excuses for behavior that is so undeniably indicative of at minimum a double standard for how minorities are treated as compared to whites, and at worst, outright racism, and I do hesitate most of the time to use that word.

What has become very clear to me in the aftermath of Obama's historic trip to the Middle East and Europe is that the root of the opposition to, and extremely palpable dislike for Obama (and Michelle), is that he is just not behaving like the good negro that is expected of him. He has stepped out of his "place," beyond his station, into a position that was not agreed to and chosen for him by others. In short, he is being "uppity," that ultimate charge leveled at blacks for generations when they dared try to equate themselves with those who they should know are better than them.

Just look at some of the things that have been said, loudly and quietly, about Obama since this trip, which clearly pushed some of these people over the edge. In report after report, comment after comment, you could hear the grumblings. Obama was acting like a rock star; Obama was already acting like he was President; Obama was presumptuous; the trip and his talking in front of large crowds are symptomatic of Obama's hubris, his arrogance.

It was truly strange. Here you had an American man who was welcomed with open arms, indeed with great excitement about a new era that he just might represent, and many on the right (and some in his own party) were acting like he did something wrong. The double standard that couldn't be missed was that John McCain had essentially taken the same trip, and more, since he also went to Mexico and Colombia. And not once do I recall the MSM, or even the Democrats, questioning his right to go and the value of such a trip. Not once. But Obama goes and is greeted with much more excitement (an understatement) and he has to defend the trip. Outrageous. It is like Obama said himself at the Unity Conference this weekend in Chicago, it's like he is being punished for doing the trip better than McCain could. And for being more popular.

But you see, I don't ultimately think it is about whether or not Obama did it better or not. It is increasingly clear that this is about the fact that seeing a Black man (at least one who identifies as such in his case) in front of that crowd in Germany, seeing him with those heads of state, in a role as possible leader of the free world, was just too much. True colors are just starting to bleed through. We could see it coming with some people even before this trip. There were comments that Barack and Michelle were trying to act like the Black Kennedy's and there was, and still is of course, the much talked about charge that they are elitists. This charge has always been the most curious. It has come mostly, though not entirely, from Republicans who elected a current President who comes from generations of money and truly elite circles. How much more elite can a person be when their father was a President? Even McCain and his wife fit the definition of elite better, his father a Navy Admiral and his wife from one of the wealthiest families in the country. The Obama's, by all accounts, are from working class homes with no one in their families in a position to have "given" them anything they got. And yet it is the Obama's who are called elite.

No, they are not elitist. They are just minorities who are above and beyond what certain people are used to seeing, are better than what certain people are comfortable accepting since they do force the undeniable realization that they are indeed anybody's equal. And that just seems to be too much for some people to handle.

And now, according to Politco.com, McCain's new strategy is to go even further and try to make stick the notion that Obama is simply "not American enough." Which, no matter how you slice that, ultimately is code for he doesn't look like what an "American" should look like. It'll be interesting to see how far he gets with this one. But I have no doubt that there are many out there who deep down believe dark skin is not representative of 'America," at least not for our highest leader. It is clear, that no matter what Obama did, said, or does, he will never be acceptable, not because of his liberal positions, because we have had liberals run for office before, and because we saw and still see with some Hillary supporters, even being liberal is not enough. No, he will never be acceptable to this segment of our society simply because of his skin color. Political disagreements are not uncommon and are expected. But what we are seeing cannot be explained simply as partisan discourse.

There really is no other way to explain this double standard in treatment and response, this constant cry that Obama is presumptuous, arrogant, elitist and any number of other nicer ways to say he is not behaving as a good minority should, which is done by accepting only what is given, and by not daring to overshadow or overstep the white man, or woman as he did in Hillary's case.

He is just not supposed to be where he is and doing what he is doing. Ultimately that is one change too far and too fast for those in our society who cling to the old ways and outdated concepts of societal and world order.

Earnest Harris is an award-winning writer. He has written for The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Dallas Morning News, New York Newsday, and Hispanic magazine among others. He was also a political columnist with The Austin American-Statesman and the host of talk radio shows in Austin, Texas and St, Louis, Missouri. Currently he is primarily focused on the entertainment industry where he works as a writer, producer and director in Los Angeles. He and his wife oversee their own production company, Marlo Productions. Their latest movie, "A Simple Promise" was just released on DVD and two others are slated to go into production this year.

Obama 2008

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




Friday, August 1, 2008


Vietnam War Speechwriter says:

Here We Go Again


By: Noel Koch

On the first Saturday of each new month during the summer a group of Vietnam Veterans gather at the Vietnam Memorial in the early morning hours to wash The Wall. It is an act of homage, honoring our Brothers and Sisters. We are joined by a local service group, Civil Air Patrol Cadets, recruited to continue the work after we are gone. Each person has his or her motives for coming together in that hallowed place. For me, it is an act of contrition.

From 1971 through 1974 I served in the White House as a Special Assistant to the President. Part of my role involved the crafting of speeches arguing the case for staying the course in Vietnam. These speeches represented, in the aggregate, a monument to specious reasoning and a misapprehension of the imperatives of great power. President Nixon did not coin the phrase "I am not going to be the first president to lose a war." That self-regarding sentiment came from President Lyndon Johnson.

Still, President Nixon adopted it, and the popular wisdom of foreign policy "thinkers" reaching back to the 50s dressed it in the more presentable language of global realpolitik. If the communists took Indochina, Thailand would fall, then Burma and on across the Asian sub-continent. Jingoists, confused over which way the dominoes might fall, and never reluctant to send other people's sons and daughters to war, warned that if the communists weren't stopped in Southeast Asia we would be fighting them in the streets of San Francisco.

Establishment gray beards joined the chattering classes to insist that if the US withdrew from Vietnam, the US would lose its credibility, would cease to be a great power, its word never again to be trusted by its allies and others who looked to us for leadership in the struggle against global tyranny. It was all, as Neil Sheehan, writing about John Paul Vann, called it: "a bright shining lie." And the worst lie of all, in repeated appeals to the grieving hearts of our fellow citizens, was that we could only redeem the lives of our fallen by "winning" the war. Braced by that lie, we sacrificed more.

At length, President Nixon, the grand master of realpolitik, began the necessary process of extracting America from Vietnam. The fears we promoted in the speeches I and others wrote and promoted proved baseless. Inevitably, the angers set loose by our misadventure in Vietnam persisted for years.

In the end, it was John McCain, brutalized as a prisoner of war, who completed his Vietnam service by leading the fight to lance the boil of bitterness that disfigured the face of America in the aftermath of the war. It was John McCain, much honored for his wartime heroism, who brought further honor upon himself by standing for reconciliation with an old foe. Implicit in McCain's healing leadership was the understanding that our withdrawal from Vietnam, where our nation lost a war but our warriors never lost a battle, did not disgrace the memory of the more than 58,000 who died there.

If disgrace is to be assigned, it rests not with those who served, but with those who misused their service. The fighters of Vietnam, after all, defending their homeland, were only the instrument of our losses. It was America's misguided leadership that was the agent of those losses.

So, it is a sorrow now to hear John McCain, in pursuit of the White House, accusing Senator Barack Obama of dishonoring the sacrifices of American soldiers by calling for the withdrawal of US forces from a conflict promoted, as was Vietnam, by deceiving the American people. It is inexplicable, as the war in Iraq itself is inexplicable, that Senator McCain should charge that Barack Obama "is willing to lose a war in order to win the presidency." Buried near the surface of that discreditable allegation is the insistence that America must put still more of its best at risk in order to redeem those it has already lost.

The Senator insists we must win in Iraq. Yet, after a war that has lasted longer than World War II, and after the loss of more than 4,000 American lives, a definition of "winning" has still to be offered by the authors of this fiasco and their supporters. Senator Obama's fitness to be Commander-in-Chief is reaffirmed by his determination to end this folly, despite attacks on his motives and his patriotism. It was that determination that has served to persuade Iraq that it must now put its own house in order. And that is as close to "winning" as we are going to get in this war.

It is often said, and correctly, that Iraq is a very different war from Vietnam, but this much they have in common: American lives were wasted in Vietnam and they are being wasted in Iraq. However much American blood is shed in that sour soil, it will not be sweetened sufficiently to nurture up the seeds of democracy. (huff post)

Noel Koch is a member of the steering committee of Vets For Obama. Visit their official site or join them on Facebook.


SUPPORT OUR TROOPS...BRING THEM HOME !

Obama 2008


Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE

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

Together, We WILL Make A Difference !


Group Pushing 'Hillary For VP'

VoteBoth Closes Down


Nedra Pickler

WASHINGTON — An effort to urge Barack Obama to pick former rival Hillary Rodham Clinton as his running mate is shutting down under the assumption she is not a contender for the No. 2 spot.

The two former Clinton staffers who started the group Vote Both say Obama's decision to offer Clinton a prime-time speaking role at the Democratic Party nominating convention and other signals suggest Obama will not chose her.

"Because it seems that Senator Obama has made his decision to offer the slot on the ticket to another candidate, we believe that continuing to ask him to pick Hillary is no longer helpful to our party's chances of winning in November," Adam Parkhomenko and Sam Arora wrote in an e-mail they planned to send Thursday to the 40,000-plus supporters who signed onto their online petition.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the campaign won't comment on the vice presidential search and hasn't finalized the convention speaking program. Obama and Clinton advisers have said Clinton is likely to speak on the convention's second night, Aug. 26, which is the 88th anniversary of the ratification of the amendment giving the women the right to vote.

Parkhomenko and Arora have a combined 10 years experience working for Clinton. Most recently Arora was a press aide to her presidential campaign and Parkhomenko was executive assistant to former Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle, who is now chief of staff for Obama's yet-to-be named vice presidential nominee.

In an interview, Arora was coy about what makes them so confident Clinton won't be chosen.

"All indications we have from people close to Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are that Hillary is not on the short list," Arora said. "We're looking at how we can _ if we can _ use Vote Both to help him because we want a Democrat in the White House."

Obama said this week that he wants a running mate who will help him change how business has been conducted in Washington _ seen by many as an indication that he won't pick Clinton.

It's Voter Registration Time !!!

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE

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

Together, We WILL Make A Difference !