Stop the War Drive; Hands Off Iran!Reno Actions in Support of Nationwide Demonstrations to Prevent War on Iran: Join us at the corner of McCarran and S. Virginia at 12 noon until 2 p.m. on Saturday September 27th.Bring signs and banners opposing the drive toward still another war, this time with Iran.The current regime in the White House can only maintain its legitimacy through perpetual war.The people of the U.S. and the people of Iran have more in common with each other than either has in common with their 'own' rulers. The people of the world have no interest in more slaughter.We need unity in resistance to the mad schemes of power-hungry tyrants in Washington or in Tehran.
Georgia's savage attack on Ossetia hardly got a mention in the corporate news. There was only the "inexplicable" Russian "aggression" against Georgia "on slight provocation." THE NATION's Katherine Vanden Heuvel gives some background on events in the Caucasus below. No one is wearing white hats in this shoot'em up.
"The past week's events in South Ossetia are bound to shock and pain anyone.... Nothing can justify this loss of life and destruction. It is a warning to all." --Mikhail Gorbachev, Washington Post, August 12
I am heartsick at the violence and brutalities on all sides. Georgian, South Ossetian and Russian friends have all suffered. Yet commentary in the US media, almost without exception, has turned a longstanding, complex separatist conflict into a casus belli for a new cold war with Russia, ignoring not only the historical and political reasons for South Ossetia's drive for independence from Georgia but also the responsibility of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili for the current crisis. So eager have commentators been to indict Vladimir Putin's Russia that they have overlooked Washington's contribution to the rising tensions.
Certainly Russia should be condemned for escalating the fighting beyond what was necessary to defend South Ossetians and Russian peacekeepers. But the US media have failed to provide the full backdrop. For one, the role of Saakashvili--who has sought to provoke Moscow over a range of issues in recent years--has been whitewashed. Georgia's president has often seemed more intent on currying favor with the Bush Administration, which has strongly supported Georgia's bid for NATO membership, than on looking after the interests of his people. The United States has also sent hundreds of military advisers to Georgia and welcomed Georgian troops in its "coalition of the willing" in Iraq. The irony is that the Bush Administration, which violated Iraq's sovereignty, now feigns outrage over Russia's actions. And for all the flowery talk of promoting Georgia's democracy, the Bush Administration has in the past year downplayed Saakashvili's violent crackdown on Georgian protesters, as well as his rigged election, declaration of martial law, attacks on opposition media and jailing of opponents.
In intervening militarily to protect South Ossetians and Russian peacekeepers, Moscow suggested it was following the precedent of Washington's 1999 war against Serbia. And just as Washington widened that war beyond the Kosovo theater to attack Serbia's infrastructure, Russia expanded its war, hitting targets in Georgia proper, thereby challenging the UN Charter. By doing so, Moscow is warning that NATO expansion on Russia's borders will not be tolerated.
There are also unasked questions about the conflict's eruption. Was Saakashvili's military strike designed to force NATO's hand after its hesitant endorsement of future membership for Georgia? Did the Bush Administration's public support of Saakashvili's belligerent stance toward Russia convince the Georgian president that he would have US backing if he attacked?
Such questions have been virtually ignored amid the relentlessly one-sided commentary, with critics like William Kristol and Robert Kagan drawing hysterical parallels with Munich in 1938, and Clinton Administration diplomat Richard Holbrooke issuing a truculent demand in the Washington Post that Russia pay a price. Yet calls for sanctions or boycotts are hollow. Even if the United States were not already stretched to the breaking point in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush Administration policies have left us with no credibility in Moscow and, therefore, little diplomatic leverage. That is why it was left to the European Union, despite its internal divisions, to arrange a cease-fire and advance a framework for resolving the conflict.
Yet crises like these also present opportunities--and new dangers. As I write, there is ambiguity to the current French-brokered ceasefire agreement---with the Russians interpreting it as permitting them to establish new security measures beyond South Ossetia and Abkhazia until international monitoring mechanisms can be worked out. Thus, Russia has positioned forces outside of Gori and have taken control of the port area of Poti. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration's response of sending humanitarian aid--delivered by the US military--poses dangers because it could cause an inadvertent hot war if US military forces engage Russian forces. Bush Administration and Pentagon officials have made it clear that US forces would not be "protecting the Georgian airport or seaport, but we we'll certainly protect our assets if we need to." Instead of hollow threats at this stage, we should seek restraint on all sides, and make every effort to move these issues into an international forum were cooler heads could prevail.
Above all, as Mikhail Gorbachev said Thursday night on CNN's Larry King Live, this crisis--and the opportunity it provides--should create the space for a different US-Russian relationship. A new approach must begin with recognition of Georgia's sovereignty but also recognize that Russia has legitimate interests along its borders and in areas that have been its traditional zones of security, from Central Asia to the Caucasus to Ukraine. And having established a precedent in supporting Kosovo's independence, Washington should work with Russia to set up a process, monitored by the UN, that could likewise lead to South Ossetia's and Abkhazia's eventual independence. This could establish the basis for a more cooperative US-Russia relationship that would also be in the interests of the Georgian people. As Mark Ames points out in a companion article at thenation.com, this conflict exposes a clash between two fundamental principles of international relations: the right of nations to control territory within their borders versus the right of peoples to self-determination. The West cannot simply claim the precedence of one principle (self-determination in Kosovo, for example) and then assert that of the other (national sovereignty in Georgia) without exposing its own hypocrisy and motivations based on power politics.
A key element in a new security paradigm must include a US commitment to end eastward expansion of NATO, especially to Georgia and Ukraine. In return, Washington and Moscow should jointly guarantee the sovereignty of those two countries. NATO expansion has furthered no one's security--in fact, it has increased regional tensions, aroused Russian insecurity and hostility, and discouraged countries from pursuing independent relations with Moscow, leading them instead to adopt provocative policies and act, at times, like virtual US colonies.
Worryingly, neither US presidential candidate has given a hint of being willing to rethink policy toward the region. While Obama argues for UN mediation and the importance of finding a settlement, both he and McCain support NATO membership for Georgia. (McCain is, of course, far more bellicose, tied as he is to ultra-neocons who demand that Georgia's--and Ukraine's--NATO membership be expedited and that Russia be excluded from the G-8.) Does either candidate even bother to consider that if Georgia had been a member of NATO when it launched its incursion into South Ossetia, the United States would now be at war with Russia? Isn't it finally time to dissolve a cold war military alliance and build a new geopolitical security structure for this century? "
Tuesday, June 24th 2008
Nikolas Kozloff, NACLA
For a candidate who talks the talk on human rights, Barack Obama has little to say about the infamous School of the Americas (SOA). Originally established in the Panama Canal Zone in 1946, the school later moved to Fort Benning, Georgia in 1984. Since its inception, the institution has instructed more than 60,000 Latin American soldiers in military and law-enforcement tactics.The Pentagon itself has acknowledged that in the past the School of the Americas utilized training manuals advocating coercive interrogation techniques and extrajudicial executions. After receiving their training at the institution, officers went on to commit countless human rights atrocities in countries like El Salvador, Guatemala, and Colombia.Activists long lobbied Congress to shut down the school, and in the waning days of the Clinton presidency they nearly achieved their goal. In July 1999, the House passed an amendment that cut funding for the military institution, but the Senate decided to pass its own version of the bill that included funding. Compromise legislation between the House and Senate deleted the funding cut, effectively restoring public support for the school. Shortly afterwards Congress renamed the school Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) and revised the institution’s structure and curriculum.Now fast forward to the 2006 mid-term Congressional election: hoping to make use of their newfound majority on Capitol Hill, some Democrats sought to eliminate WHINSEC’s funding once and for all. Shortly after their victory in November they nearly succeeded with 203 legislators voting against ongoing public support of the school and 214 in favor. The closeness of the vote suggested that if the Democrats were able to increase their legislative majority in 2008, then the WHINSEC might indeed be history.Outside the halls of Congress a number of prominent organizations joined calls to shut WHINSEC including the AFL-CIO, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the United Auto Workers, the United Steelworkers, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the NAACP, the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church, the United Church of Christ, and over 100 U.S. Catholic Bishops.Still, the Democratic presidential candidates refused to take a stand against WHINSEC. In fact, the only two Democrats who expressed opposition to the institution were long shots Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich (on the Republican side, Ron Paul said he too would shutter WHINSEC).In the early stages of the presidential race, Kucinich pledged to close the school if he were elected. A longtime foe of WHINSEC who had voted repeatedly to close the institution while serving in Congress, Kucinich even attended a political protest held at the gates of the school in late 2007.But now that Kucinich and the other Democratic contenders have bowed out of the race the question is: where does Obama stand? On International Human Rights Day last year the Senator remarked, “We in the United States enjoy tremendous freedoms, but we also carry a special responsibility—the responsibility of being the country so many people in the world look to… for human rights leadership.”Obama then added that Bush had undermined human rights: “We were told that waterboarding was effective. We were assured that shipping men off to countries that tortured was good for national security. We were led to believe that our military and civilian courts were inadequate, and so we established a network of unaccountable prisons.” He continued, “We have not only vacated the perch of moral leader; we have also compounded the threat we face, spurring more people to take up arms against us.”Obama lamented that the Bush administration had destroyed the moral credibility of the United States worldwide. In Darfur, Burma, Zimbabwe, Russia, and Pakistan, human rights violations were on the rise. Unfortunately, Washington no longer enjoyed any international respect and could not speak with authority on human rights.Poignantly, Obama closed by stating, “The very depth of the anti-Americanism felt around the world today is a testament not to hatred but to disappointment, acute disappointment. The global public expects more from America. They expect our government to embody what they have seen in our people: industriousness, humanity, generosity, and a commitment to equality. We can become that country again.”Obama likes to employ soaring rhetoric when discussing human rights. But late last year, he failed to take a strong position opposing WHINSEC. When pressed, the candidate praised Congress’ revision of the school’s curriculum but said that he wanted to continue to evaluate the institution.What more information could Obama possibly need to reach a final decision on the matter? An Obama spokesman said the senator "has not committed to closing down the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, but he will take a hard look at the program and the progress it has made once he is elected." The spokesman reiterated Obama was pleased with the institution's inclusion of human rights courses.To put this in all in perspective then, on this issue Obama has staked out a position to the right of Ron Paul, many members of Congress, and mainstream labor and Church organizations.Given widespread public disgust towards torture and the like, Obama’s meekness on WHINSEC is perplexing. In the wake of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal and revelations about so-called waterboarding, many U.S. citizens have soured on the War on Terror. Meanwhile, the prisoner detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, has become an international eyesore. Even President Bush and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have publicly said they’d prefer to close the facility.Obama also supports closing Guantánamo, which makes his statements on WHINSEC all the more befuddling. In the present political climate, what does the Senator have to lose by coming out against the former School of the Americas? Perhaps he fears the GOP might accuse him of being weak on defense. But Republican nominee John McCain is not likely to use torture as ammunition during the campaign—it hardly seems a winning electoral issue for the Arizona Senator. What’s more, many voters are oblivious to WHINSEC and have little knowledge of, or interest in, U.S. policy towards Latin America.No, it’s not fear of GOP retaliation on the campaign trail that keeps Obama quiet on WHINSEC. What the Senator is really concerned about is offending the movers and shakers within the military-industrial complex. Closing WHINSEC would demonstrate that the United States has no interest in dominating the peoples of Latin America by military means. Obama however is reluctant to make a clean break from the United States’ imperialist past.On the other hand, try as he might to skirt the issue, Obama will soon be obliged to take a clearer stand on WHINSEC. That’s because the House recently approved the McGovern-Sestak-Bishop amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for 2009. The amendment obliges WHINSEC to publicly release the names, rank, country of origin, courses, and dates of attendance of the school's graduates and instructors.Legislators pressed for the measure because in recent years WHINSEC has withheld vital information that would have helped to identify the perpetrators of massacres, targeted assassinations, and human rights abuses committed in Latin America. In a resounding defeat for the Pentagon, the measure was approved by a vote of 220 to 189. The amendment now heads to the Senate where all eyes will be on Obama.The vote, however, will not resolve the larger question of whether WHINSEC should be shuttered once and for all. If it chose to, the media could prod the candidates to address U.S. military policy towards Latin America during the fall campaign. So far however reporters and pundits have ignored the topic, preferring instead to ask Obama about his flag pin.McCain has suggested the two candidates participate in town-hall style debates, potentially allowing more direct engagement with voters. The U.S. public would surely welcome this departure from the relentless and insipid questioning featured in previous debates. It would certainly be refreshing to see Obama questioned on issues of real substance such as the historic U.S. role in Latin America, military policy, and human rights.
By Byron Wien
Published: August 10 2008 19:45
Having grown up in an America where the opportunities seemed endless, I am dismayed at how optimism seems to have diminished among our younger people. To understand how we got into this position, it might be useful to go back to 1933. During that year the US was in a deep recession and Hitler came into power in Germany. Thousands of European intellectuals, Jewish and otherwise, left Europe and came to the US, adding considerably to the scientific strength of this country. War broke out in 1939 and over the next six years Europe was flattened and Asian industrial cities were considerably damaged. The continental US built up its manufacturing capability to fight the war and was untouched by enemy bombs during the conflict.
In 1945, the US was clearly the world’s leader militarily, economically and politically. Its universities were pre-eminent and its cultural life was enriched by the migration of Europeans during the previous decade. This position of leadership lasted 35 years until 1980. It received a boost from Russia’s launching of a space satellite, Sputnik, in 1957. This was a shock because Russia’s scientific prowess was not taken seriously at the time. The US committed to putting a man on the moon in the next decade. Government funding for space research expanded and the objective was met.
Our space research gave rise to Silicon Valley and US industrial strength was enhanced by technology innovation derived from products created for our satellite programme. By 1980 however, Europe, helped by the Marshall Plan, was back on its feet and the Japanese car and electronics industries were developing momentum. We took our leadership for granted, ignored this shift and became complacent.
Our problems became more serious when communism failed in Russia, Chairman Mao died and reforms that were started in China and India began to play a role in the world economy.
During the 1960s and 1970s, US textile, apparel and shoe manufacturing migrated to Latin America and Asia. By 1990 many products formerly manufactured in the US were being produced abroad. In addition, foreign automakers were taking market share from Detroit and we became more dependent on imported oil.
Our initial reaction to the end of communism was to take a victory lap because capitalism had won. We talked of 3bn new customers without realising that many of these people would also become competitors. We began to view ourselves as a service economy without recognising that services do not export well. During the past 20 years our balance of payments deficit has expanded to 6 per cent of our gross domestic product, putting our currency in peril because our low savings rate requires us to finance our deficits with borrowing from abroad.
One of the reasons we feel so overburdened by debt is that it has steadily taken more borrowing to finance our growth. In the 1950s the economy grew by 73 cents for each dollar of added debt. In the 1960s it was 65 cents. By the 1980s it was only 34 cents and so far in the current decade it is less than 20 cents.
We all know the sad story of our slippage in mathematics and science. In fourth grade, American children are ahead of almost everyone in the world. By the eighth grade they are even and by 12th grade they are seriously behind. If you walk through the labs of our great scientific universities you see many Asian faces. Some of them are Americans who grew up here but many are foreign students. In the past, most of them stayed to enjoy the benefits of our open society but now many are going home. Since September 11, 2001 many have trouble getting visas and there are now considerable opportunities for them in their native countries. Today, America is the leader in only five product areas: computer hardware, software, biotechnology, aerospace and entertainment. That is not enough to provide job opportunities for a country of 300m people.
America’s decline has been a long time in coming and will not be reversed quickly, if it can be reversed at all. To do so will require exceptional leadership from the next president, since some aspects of life in the US may get worse before they get better.
To get started we will need to spend billions in a man-on-the-moon type programme to move from fossil fuels to alternative sources of energy. We will need to finance research in technology innovation and biotechnology, including stem cell research. We will need to generate most of our electricity using nuclear fuel. We will need to bring our infrastructure into the 21st century.
The next president’s biggest challenge will be to prevent America’s slide into a position where it is dependent on foreign sources for both capital and energy. We have the human resources to accomplish these goals. The question is whether we have the will.
Last year I gave a talk about America having reached its economic peak. I pointed out that England peaked in 1912 and life in the UK was still quite pleasant so I was not too worried about my own country having begun a gradual decline.
At the end, a young man approached the podium. He told me he had been reading my work for two decades. I thanked him and then he said: “One thing you should probably know is that Holland peaked in 1617 and life over there is still pretty good also.”
The writer is chief investment strategist for Pequot Capital Management
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
Andrew Whyman - North Lake Tahoe Bonanza - August 6, 2008
It’s a shame that more of you don’t know Walt. Walt is really quite an interesting person, much like so many other citizens of this community on the lake.Walt is more than half a century wise, Caucasian, accomplished, articulate, an excellent conversationalist and a long-term believer in the Incline community and its values.More to the point of this piece, Walt is a life-long Republican of stout Midwestern virtue. His father, also a life-long Republican, was the CEO of a major corporation in his time. Walt has owned several successful businesses. He has traveled widely and lived in Saudi Arabia and Europe. He considers himself a “business person” who measures “assets and liabilities” before making decisions. Having “run companies” he values the skill of “maximizing profitability.”In 2000, Walt voted for George W. Bush though his preferred candidate was John McCain. In 2004, he again voted for George W. Bush, but on this occasion not without misgivings. He recalls for me what made him hesitate then; seated in an Amsterdam café with European friends and talking politics he realized that “we have a global obligation.” His friends, it seemed, were deeply offended by U.S. government policies in the world, most particularly in Iraq, but not only in Iraq. By 2004, there were other misgivings. After the World Trade Center attack in 2001, the world coalesced behind America and was solidly supportive of the U.S. initiative in Afghanistan. So was Walt. Indeed, he was, like many Republicans not only fiscally conservative, but “hawkish” until the Bush foreign policy of “pre-emptive wars” and the folly of Iraq.Now Walt is committed to something he never thought possible. Having studied the candidates for president and the issues he plans to vote for Barack Obama.
Walt believes that Obama is, “One of the greatest potential leaders in our lifetime.” Obama, he says, has the “intellectual horsepower” to understand an increasingly complex world and the emotional serenity to make tough and wise decisions. For example, having studied Obama’s fiscal policy he believes they are both moderate and responsible. He knows that Republican efforts to portray the candidate as a “tax and spend” liberal who will “steal from the rich and give to the poor” are misleadingly inaccurate.As for John McCain he says, “McCain’s time came and went.” How, he asks wryly and reflectively, does a man who claims he doesn’t understand economics all that well, doesn’t use the Internet or e-mail, lead the most powerful country in the history of the world?Walt believes that healthy debate and constructive dialogue are essential to informed opinion. He rues the divisive political tactics of both major parties in what he sees as an absolutely critical period in the history of America. Says Walt passionately, “Things are much worse than they were in 1980, and most Americans don’t see it.”Walt remains a Republican. He wants other “Republicans and undecided Independents to question if Mr. McCain is the right person and look at the abilities of Obama.”To that end Walt started, “Red, White and Blue United for Change,” a series of meetings to explore the issues and consider the positions of both parties presidential candidates. To date there have been four meetings, including sessions devoted to the fiscal policies of both candidates and their positions on welfare and poverty.
Walt envisions weekly meetings between now and the election to discuss the issues. I can’t think of anything more democratic.For meeting times, e-mail Walt Borland at UnitedForChange@ltnv.net.
It’s the least, thoughtful citizens of any political persuasion can do if they care deeply about their country and its future.
Andrew Whyman is a nearly-retired physician who lives in Incline Village. To contact Whyman, email adwhyman@aol.com.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — A new poll out Thursday indicates that less than quarter of Americans think things are going well in the country.
The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. Poll showed that only 24 percent have a positive outlook for the country, while 76 percent say things are on the wrong track.
That figure is the lowest number on record since 1980, and the third time in four decades that the number has dropped so low.
Recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp. polling has shown a steady drop in the country's mood. In April 2007, 51 percent said things in the country were going badly. A year later, 70 percent felt that way.
"Only three events — Watergate, the Iran hostage crisis, and the economic downturn of 1992 — have driven below 30 percent the number who think things are going well," CNN's polling director Keating Holland said. The mood of the country has been assessed since 1974.
The poll sampled 1,041 adult Americans by telephone on July 27-29, 2008. The margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Original blog and photo at:
http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=5743
I know, I know - I’m too old to be attaching cutesy things to my backpack purse. But, I have found in the past that when I travel in foreign countries it’s best to declare right off the bat that you’re a fan of someone other than GWB or his seeming doppelganger McCain. So, in addition to the to-die-for Mountie Bear, I sported my “Obama 08” pin for all to see on my recent trek across Canada. I wore it as a sort of declaration to anyone walking behind me not to kick me just because I’m an American. We aren’t, after all, terribly well-liked. As people will tell you, they don’t have a problem with Americans as individuals, it’s the government they have issues with. Here at home in the US, it’s easy to become insulated and not see ourselves as the rest of the world does. News coverage elsewhere around the globe (particularly in Europe) is much more in-depth; there is much less of the sound byte mind set. Even being somewhere as close as Canada is far enough away to gain a larger perspective on our country.
Barack Obama’s rock star tour of the Middle East and Europe has partially coincided with my decidedly more prosaic tour of Canada. The enthusiastic world reception he has received was mirrored by those I came in contact with on my trip. In my travels, I met people from all over the world. Since Canada is part of the British Commonwealth there were of course English, Scots and Irish – after all, the exchange rate is fabulous at the moment. I also crossed paths and shared bus seats with Hungarians, French, Czechs, Africans, Swedes (regal ones, at that!), Indians, Japanese and of course, Canadians. My Obama button never failed to be a conversation starter. Admittedly, people who travel are generally more worldly and aware, but I still found it intriguing that most folks I talked to had been following our primary and election process closely and with much fascination.
And who do you think they were rooting for? Without exception, they were for Obama, hands down. During the primaries, they had had their definite favorites – many Brits I talked to had been rooting for Hillary - but were quick (perhaps quicker than we were) to get solidly behind Obama when it became apparent he would be the nominee. Political discussions became de rigueur even when I would try to steer the conversation in another direction. “Please,” I would say, “I don’t want to offend you if you’re a Bush fan.” This would usually elicit a snort of laughter, pronounced rolling of the eyes and unflattering comparisons of Bush with their own head of state.
I found that the “citizens of the world” as Obama called them today, are far ahead of us in terms of acceptance of many big issues. Whether or not global warming and climate change are real is not a subject to be argued about by Europeans and Canadians – they have moved past that and solutions are being sought. I was amazed at the amount of recycling that is practiced in Canada and has been for some time. Every hotel room has a recycling bin in addition to regular trash cans. I haven’t seen that in the US yet. In reading Canadian newspapers, I also learned that as far as they are concerned, torture is NOT ok, Guantanamo is NOT a good place and the war in Iraq is NOT one they should have gotten involved in. The recent extradition of an American soldier to face AWOL/dissent of the war charges is NOT something they are proud of. A murder, which is fairly uncommon, is a big deal – in the whole country - not just in the province the victim lived in.
So what did all those people I chatted with during long hours on my trans-Canada train journey have to say about Obama? They expressed amazement and admiration that we have a presumptive nominee that is African American. This is not a common thing anywhere in the world. They wanted to know if we had the guts to elect him. Would racism, whether silent or overt, raise its ugly head and end what they considered America’s last best hope? They expressed concern about Obama’s safety, pointing out that we don’t exactly have a stellar track record when it comes to leaders who inspire hope in so many but also inspire fear in a bigoted, insecure few. I found that in the world, like here at home, there is a hunger for a fresh approach; a new way; in a word: hope. They, like us, are tired of living life at a stress level that would kill an elephant.
When Obama addressed the crowd in Germany today, his basic message was that we need a world that is united if we expect to defeat the challenges we face today – from AIDS to terrorism. The greatest danger, he said, “…is to allow new walls to divide us from one another.” I learned on my trip that even in a small way, individuals tearing down those walls and talking to each other furthers international understanding. As one of my new British friends said at the conclusion of a rousing, wine-soaked political discussion, “In the end, in the democratic process, we get what we deserve.” If we stand by and become “low information voters,” paying little attention to the process, we tacitly allow government happen to us with all its abuses. This is what has happened in the past 7 ½ years; we got what we deserved.
This, then, is the question that remains to be answered in November: What do we deserve?
The consequence of US military action against Iran would be nothing but a blunt provocation of the Islamic regime against the people. If the US government wants to help Khamenei, it should drop bombs on Iranian targets. Such an action, before anything, will bring the ranks of the Islamic regime in line behind Khamenei and will more importantly legitimize a bloody suppression of any protest and possibly the mass execution of political and union activists by the army of deranged Islamic militia and revolutionary guards. The balance of power between the people in Iran and the Islamic government is not at a stage that such an action will result in the people's fight back against the regime. On the contrary, I believe, it will result in a mass retreat and will extend the life of the Islamic regime.
Koorosh Modaresi
From the San Francisco Chronicle ...
(CNN) — With just over four months to go until voters weigh in at the polls, a new survey suggests Sen. Barack Obama is holding a double-digit lead over Sen. John McCain among registered voters.
According to a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll, Obama holds a 12 point lead over McCain in a head-to-head match up, 49 percent to 37 percent. But when third party candidates Ralph Nader and Bob Barr are added to the list, Obama's lead over McCain extends to 15 points, 48 percent to 33 percent.
The survey is the second in a matter of days to indicate McCain may face a sizable deficit as the general election campaign kicks off. A Newsweek poll released four days ago showed the Illinois senator with a 15 point lead. According to a CNN analysis of five recent national surveys, Obama holds an 8 point lead over his presidential rival.
CNN Polling Director Keating Holland notes a substantial lead in June does not always lead to a decisive victory the following November. “Historically speaking, when June polls show a tight race, the race usually remains tight all the way through November. But when June polls have shown a big lead for one candidate, that lead has often melted," Holland said.
"Bill Clinton was leading Bob Dole by up to 19 points in June, 1996; Clinton won by eight. Michael Dukakis had a 14-point lead over George Bush the elder in June, 1988; Bush won by seven. Jimmy Carter was up nearly 20 points in June, 1976 but in November eked out a two-point win. And Richard Nixon managed an even smaller victory in 1968 even though he had a 16-point margin that June," Holland noted.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama is heading west next week to campaign in two states he hopes to turn blue this November.
The Senator from Illinois is scheduled to hold a campaign event in Albuquerque on Monday and Las Vegas on Tuesday. CNN considers Nevada a battleground or swing state as both parties think they can win Nevada in the general election. President Bush carried Nevada in 2004, but by only two points over John Kerry.
CNN considers New Mexico a state that leans Republican, but the Obama campaign has the state in its sights. President Bush won New Mexico four years ago as well, but by only one percent, and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is a major Obama supporter.
But geography may also comes into play. Arizona borders both states and is the home state of Obama’s rival, Sen. John McCain.
The presumptive GOP presidential nominee will also be in the west next week. He starts his week with fundraisers and campaign events in California.
