This is an interview with San Diego Assistant District Attorney, Steve Walter from the local Public Broadcasting Service's local station.
(A link to the original source, which includes an audio version can be found after the full text.)
MAUREEN CAVANAUGH (Host): Now what constitutes the difference between a drug dealer and a legitimate provider of medical marijuana?
WALTER: It’s a very difficult question. The law itself, when I say the law I’m talking about Prop 215, SB-420, and the AG’s guidelines, as well as the case law. In essence, you have to be either a user or a qualified patient or a caregiver for such a patient.
Wow. So according to the San Diego District Attorney's Office, "a user" is "a legitimate provider of medical marijuana." That's really disturbing as I have obtained/do obtain all of my medical cannabis from Medical Cannabis Caregivers/ Legal Patients. These are the ones that Walter himself oversaw the aggressive arrests of. I guess going on the above quote, he believes that any one ELSE, just so long as they 'use marijuana' is a responsible, law abiding, trustworthy source for the medication I use for my healthcare. Great.
Terrorist Attacks On Medical Cannabis Patients Continueby 921 » Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:34 pm Unfortunately it appears that despite her claim to care about "Medical Marijuana Patients", San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis and her armed militia continue to wage war on San Diego's most defenseless...I received this report from an anonymous Medical Cannabis Patient/ Co-Op Member just today:A narcotics officer came in last night and demanded the administrators personal information. he would not leave until we gave it to him. he said he was getting all admins personal info for records and that the "task force" was going to be sending letters, that's why he needed it. I know he went to Mother Nurture and a couple others in SD. I feel it is a ploy to get their personal info so they can raid their houses along with their businesses. If you could post this all over for me, it would help others.I fear that those suspicions may be correct. In addition to above report and what I perceive are truly medical cannabis patients asking for help, I have noticed a whole new influx since 9/9/2009's raids. People I have never met or even "chatted with online" are emailing me asking where to get medical cannabis, asking where I live and telling me about buying marijuana off the street. People are posting "reviews" on the BCC section on WeedMaps insinuating that the Collective was anything but a legitimate Medical Collective. I post about BCC possibly opening back up and the suspicious emails increase instantly and the forum is hit with what I assume are links to possibly illegal, pornographic websites. And even though I've done countless hours of volunteer work to support local law enforcement families & officers and even though I may not live to see next year thanks to Cirrhosis (and other currently fatal health issues) - I am afraid that at any moment the door to the apartment I can't afford will be kicked in and I will be put in a jail cell even though I have not knowingly broken any California State Law.If this is how Bonnie Dumanis CARES for me and other Medical Cannabis Patients, I'd rather she ignore us, because she's far worse than any of the diseases that are killing me.~ "921"
Terrorist Attacks On Medical Cannabis Patients Continue
by 921 » Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:34 pm
A narcotics officer came in last night and demanded the administrators personal information. he would not leave until we gave it to him. he said he was getting all admins personal info for records and that the "task force" was going to be sending letters, that's why he needed it. I know he went to Mother Nurture and a couple others in SD. I feel it is a ploy to get their personal info so they can raid their houses along with their businesses. If you could post this all over for me, it would help others.
http://www.sandiegobcc.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=50
Regarding the friendly disagreement between the Bard and myself, Bush and Cheney already enjoy undeserved folk hero status, and within the far right realms, they will always enjoy such status regardless of outcome.
I appreciate the debate.
During the Cold War, it was common for the Soviet Union to promote its Collectivist ideology by recruiting people, using both money and any personal dissatisfaction with Capitalism, who would write articles, produce films, talk with friends, family, and neighbors, and otherwise spread news and talk that had a pro-Soviet slant. This is something that all nations do, to varying extents; it's a way of promoting their own national interests. What was remarkable about the Soviet efforts was not only the extent in terms of the number of recruits, but also the vast sums of money expended to both pay individuals and support various activities such as publishing, protests, and so on.
At this point in time, the world of communications has exploded - within seconds, we can text someone in Germany, email someone in India, have a live 'net meeting' with colleagues in NY, AK, and Singapore. One part of this immense, and increasing, world of communications includes what are called "social media", including personalized websites on hosts like MySpace and FaceBook, to "instant message"-type services such as Twitter. The benefit of this communication is that it makes full censorship almost impossible, such that oppressive governments can no longer murder hundreds to thousands of people while keeping such actions out of the sight of the world.
Another benefit is that information flows freely, giving people even in remote areas access to vast stores of news and knowledge. One of the disadvantages of this instant communication is that, as has been noted by many, there is also an increase of "noise", of mere opinion that is passed off as fact, of massaged information, and of plain everyday errors. One thing that has received very little attention, however, is something that harkens back to the days of the Soviet "agents provocateur", the people who were tasked with not only spreading deliberately-inaccurate nformation ("disinformation"), but also, with fomenting dissent. The connection between massive oil revenues flowing into previously-undeveloped areas, and the export of terrorists by some of these areas, is well-documents, and easily found (with references) in Thomas Friedman's "Hot, Flat, and Crowded". What has not been documented, at least as far as this writer has seen, is whether a connection exists between terrorist groups, and the use of fake IDs on social media to spread dissent and chaos in Western nations.
This probably sounds bizarre and paranoid to the average citizen, who still has trouble comprehending how someone can blow himself up in a schoolyard for the sake of an ideology of hatred; bit would be useful to note, however, that devotees of such a radical ideology would have no moral compunctions about assuming a false Western-sounding ID and function as an 'agent provocateur', posing as either a "left-winger" or a "right-winger", and use the completely-unregulated social media to spread dissent. One of the strengths, in fact, of committed ideologues is that they often will look upon attempted cash payment as an insult; this characteristic was noted, and used, by Soviet spymasters during the Cold War, and it would be a mistake to assume that other anti-Western groups learned nothing from that history.
So, the next time you receive a message from someone proposing the overthrow of a duly-elected and law-abiding Western government, instead of first assuming that you need to reject, hate, discriminate against, or otherwise be "enemies" of whatever group to which the writer/speaker claims to belong, stop for a moment and ask yourself, Is this really showing me that my fellow citizens are my enemies, or is this someone using a false ID and typing inflammatory rubbish from the bowels of a hidden cave in some desolate hinterland? ALthough Western nations have their fair share of dissatisfied citizens, it just might be possible that some people are using the destructive lessons of the past to fan a few sparks into a fire.
Look at our matrimonial ads. Parents from the 30% are every day seeking alliance from well settled brides / grooms in UK, US, Canada, Australia and Europe. Every one of our ruling elites, including the PM, President, nationalist party leaders and policy makers have their sons and daughters settled in these nations.
Let us look around our neighbours. While bollywood movies and Indian people are loved by everyone around the world, we pretend ignorant to the fact that there is a growing aversion towards India in the SAARC region. While the traditional hatred between India and Pakistan is well known, why India could not build a cordial relationship with any of it’s neighbours Bangladesh, Srilanka, Nepal and China?. We can not close our eyes to the fact that the entire subcontinent is gravitating towards China and very soon India may be left all alone.
The “holier than thou” attitude and unreasonable boasting of intellectual prowess by repeatedly quoting certain phrases like Einstein’s “We owe a lot to Indians who taught us how to count, without which no worthwhile scientific discovery could have been made”, “worlds largest democracy” etc while the genocides, corrupt judiciary, quality of life, deteriorating infrastrature and weeping poverty speaks otherwise, generates a sense of hypocrisy and disillusion about India in the minds of weaker neighbours.Dr.Manmohan Singh knows these geopolitical dynamics very well and realised that he can't have an Indo-US nuclear deal under his arms and extend the hand of friendship to China as well. Simply put, China did not buy his bluff. In this context, China is emerging as a defacto leader of the subcontinent and all our "weaker neighbours" have started signing "deals and pacts" with China. Obviously, one can not have his cake and eat it too.
Hope, we are not moving towards taking pride in glorified tragedies like “slumdog millionaire”.
We all know very well that 150 years of Hindu-Muslim hatred has culminated into the birth of Pakistan. After partition, the Hindu and Muslim population in either countries have become easy target for the majority to vent their anger and frustration against the minority.
After 60 years, the 10% Hindu population of Pakistan has dwindled down to less than 2% while 10% of Muslim population of India has almost doubled to 20% , in proportion with the national average. Most of the Pakistani Hindus have migrated to India, while almost all the Indian Muslims who were not cut by the geographical division have remained intact as Indians, despite descrimination and alienation.
The abscence of a moderating force has pushed Pakistan into the grip of Islamists while Hinduism in India has done the remarkable job of severing the umbilical cord between the Muslims and the Mullahs. An Indian Muslim might be economically and politically weaker than his Pakistani counter part but definitely commands more respect in the world arena and knows how to play by the rules of the game.
The Mumbai terror attack is a crucial milestone in the Indo-Pak rivalry. It has proved beyond doubt that it is impossible for India to teach any kind of lesson to Pakistan by any war. Whatever "other options open" is irrelevant for Pakistan because it is seen as a hero in the eyes of "Muslim world", for the very resons that India can NOT bully Pakistan any more.
Today, the people of Pakistan have got fedup of "Allah + Army" combo and they are eagerly looking out for an opportunity to get out of this mess. In fact, most of the Pakistani intellectuals have started enjoying the vulgar assault of Indian media on Pakistani establishments and they welcome it as a necessary anti-dose for their illness. But, it should NOT be misinterpreted as a disillusion against their state of Pakistan. The desire to see their nation strong and prosperous is "deep rooted" in the heart of every Pakistani as much as that of an Indian for India.
India can not continue with it's "outdated" mindset against Pakistan. We don't have an answer for the "roti, kapda, makaan" dream of 1.2 billion population. It is a silent volcano and tsunami brewing right under our arse. Jingoistic slogans of "Bharat mata ki, jay" is pushing all the neighbours towards China and creating an aversion for India in the SAARC region.
India should gracefully accept the bitter reality that Pakistan is a strong and sovereign nation and will NEVER get cowed down by India.
Pakistan is ready for a "real" dialogue. It is anxiously waiting. India should accept to "live and sleep" with the enemy. India should break the barriers. Pakistan is waiting.
Everyone is invited to view and join:Crime Solutions Workgroup
Blog: Crime Solutions Workgroup
CDP and 24-hour Schedulinghttp://ourpresidency.ning.com/profiles/blogs/citizen-development-programHuman Traffickinghttp://ourpresidency.ning.com/profiles/blogs/human-traffickingPrison Issueshttp://ourpresidency.ning.com/profiles/blogs/prison-issuesCrime/Terror Networks & Mappinghttp://ourpresidency.ning.com/profiles/blogs/crimeterror-networksUSAPs (Black Projects)http://www.ourpresidency.com/profiles/blogs/usaps-black-projects"...technology...not under government control or any type of high level control."Edgar Mitchell, astronaut
Our Presidency.ning.com http://www.ourpresidency.ning.com/
Open Invitation to join: Our Presidency.com, http://www.ourpresidency.com/
All interested in developing solutions to crime, terror, and related issues are invited to join,
Blog: Crime Solutions and Related Issues
http://www.ourpresidency.com/profiles/blogs/crime-solutions-and-related/
Victor G. Jackson
Crime Solutions Workgroup
http://www.ourpresidency.com/profile/VictorGJackson
Unleashing Terrorist Network in Pakistan
by Pukhtoon Khan
The Pakistani Media has again as usual,mis-quoted the recent statements of President Karzai in which he issued a forceful warning to militants in Pakistan, saying he will send Afghan troops across the border to combat Taliban insurgents. The mis-interpretation of the President's statements is done intentionally by the Pakistani media to provoke the Tribal Pashtuns against their fellow Afghan brethren despite of the fact that President Karzai has been warning Pakistan regarding cross border infiltration of Pakistani religeous and military terrorists into Afghanistan.
What President Karzai said in his statement was : 1) That terrorists from Pakistani tribal areas are entering Afghanistan for suicide bombing to target Afghan and ISAF forces. 2) That these Terrorists are [ISI-backed] Taliban whose leader is Baitullah Mehsud or Mulla Umar in Pakistan. 3) That Afghanistan and ISAF forces reserve the right to take the revenge of killings by these Talibans in Afghanistan even if Afghan and NATO forces have to chase them to their houses in the FATA. 4) That Afghanistan is also concerned about the atrocities being committed to Pashtuns in Pakistan. 5) That Afghanistan only trusts ANP among the political parties in Pakistan.
It is obvious that if the govt of Pakistan does not take any action against these terrorists entering Afghanistan but rather facilitates and trains them to do these nefarious activities then Afghanistan would feel insecure and it would be compelled to take precautionary measures for her security.
Pakistani media projected the statement as provocative and tried to hide factual position from the world which implied :1) That Afghanistan is neither interested to violate the so called sovereignty of Pakistan nor does it want to harm or attack its fellow Pashtun brothers in FATA. 2) That Pakistan is behind the suicide attacks in Afghanistan. 3) That Pakistani agencies are behind the planing and training of the suicide bombers and terrorist. 4) That Pakistan is not sincere to see peace and progress in Afghanistan. 5) That Afghanistan reserves the right to take revenge of all the suicide bombs done by the invisible hands which get activated from FATA – the land of non-local terrorists trained by Pakistani army and agencies with the help of local religious demagogues.
Let us unleash the multi-tier terrorists network active in Pakistan under state supervision .
It is a well established fact that the Taliban as well as other religious prototype groups are the products and terrorist wings of ISI. The statements of Baitullah Mehsud and Mulla Umar of Taliban Movement Pakistan are just the Pashto translation of ISPR's statements regarding Afghanistan and Pakhtoonkhwa.
The nomenclature of the terrorist network in Pakistan is as follows: 1. The planning and strategy formation is done at the GHQ Rawalpindi both against Pashtuns,Balochis or Sindhis and against India and Afghanistan. 2. The plan is executed by the intelligence agencies (ISI,MI,IB etc) of Pakistan. 3. Depending upon the geopolitical situation of the region, the modus operandi of the terrorist activities is customised accordingly. In Pukhtunkhwa, the religious parties and clerics are bribed to provide "manpower" for the suicide bombs and other terrorist activities while the more technically sensitive operations like killing of political leaders are carried out by the intelligence agencies themselves.
Religeous groups like Taliban along with the local criminal elements are guided by the professionals of the intelligence agencies to control the local people through religious authority. The network of Taliban is extended across Pakhtunkhwa regionwise in order to hijack the freedom and liberty of the local people anytime and to terrorise the people constantly.
Baitullah Mehsud in Waziristan,Mangal Bagh in Khyber agency, Mulla Fazlullah in Swat,Mulla Omar in Bajaur etc are all the ISI puppets playing with the lives of innocent Pashtuns - a nation which has never been conquered with sword but has been falling prey to the authority of religion in history. On top of it all ,the military is carrying out operations in the name of war on terror but infact killing all those among the local population who might potentially become a power to reckon with against the designs of the state sponsored terrorist activities and hegemony of Punjab dominated Pakistan army.
In Afghanistan,there is peace in all those cities that are bordering other neighboring countries except Pakistan.It is the border with Pakistan which has been experiencing political unrest and insurgency due to Taliban. The Talibans in Afghanistan – who were the product of ISI in the early 90's - are under the complete control of Pakistani agencies and plotting plans to destabilise Afghanistan in every possible manner.
Pakistani agencies export experts and expertise to the Taliban in Afghanistan via FATA.The same notorious agencies are propagating against the ISAF forces to deceive the world media on one hand and motivate the local population for "Jihad" on the other in order to justify its anti-Afghan activities.
It is therefore suggested that the world community should pressurise Islamabad so that it stop its interference in the internal affairs of its neighbouring contries specially Afghanistan. A stable Afghanistan is in the best interest of Pakistan as Afghanstan is the gateway for all the trade routes to central Asia. Based on an ambiguous state ideology and having no roots and bonds of integrity among the various nationalities ,Pakistan is already on the brink of another collapse due to the prevalent system of injustice and exploitation and therefore is fastly loosing its chances of survival.
What Has Senator John McCain Accomplished in the War on Terror?
If Senator John McCain describes these as his accomplishments and successes, I would really hate to see what happens when he has a really bad day in the Senate. We cannot afford to risk this nation by electing someone with Senator John McCain’s accomplishments or lack thereof.
Barack Obama Wins
http://www.jcer.info/
http://www.jcer.info/candidates
http://www.jcer.info/about_us
http://www.jcer.info/media_center
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1015396.html
Watching the recent McCain/Palin rallies reminds me of the Jodie Foster movie "The Accused" where the attorney charges a group of men for contributing to the commission of a crime (rape) by yelling, chanting, and creating an atmosphere of peer pressure and mob mentality… but in this case, McCain and Palin are the ones guilty of deliberately leading people to form false conclusions (implying Obama is a terrorist), creating a frenzy of hate, and when the words “terrorist” and “kill him” are yelled, they smile with great pride at their achievement and continue to work the crowd; however, this is not a movie, and the people screaming these comments are not actors.
I understand neither McCain nor Palin graduated at the top of their class, and while they might try to pass this off as "politics as usual," they can't be THAT stupid. I'm sure they both know exactly what this sort of thing can lead to. This is irresponsible, reckless, and dangerous behavior. Unfortunately, I don't expect either of them to stop. Like many in the Bush Administration, Palin behaves like she's above the law (refusing to testify in Trooper-Gate), but her recent campaign trail stunts are beginning to lead me to the conclusion that this "Good Christian Hockey Mom" has convinced herself she’s above God’s law as well: The 9th Commandment (Thou shalt not bear false witness). For everyone's sake, I hope these stunts just alert voters as to how low these two will sink to win an election, as the other outcome that I fear and dare not say is completely unacceptable in a civilized society, yet if it were to happen, I will always remember McCain and Palin's participation in that crime.
It’s a sad sad state of affairs when violence and terror are the tactics used to win people over in an election.
Watching Sarah Palin and John McCain stand idly by while the hubs of the wheels on their lunatic fringe called you a terrorist and screamed for your murder was much like I imagine the roundup for a good old fashioned lynching would have been during the dark years of Jim Crow.
I was very sadly reminded amidst the rowdy cheers and outbursts for violence that all that was needed was a little more old fashioned ‘scary stranger’ rhetoric and a couple of enthusiastic Joe 6-packs…and some trees may yet still long to bear strange fruit. We cannot allow it.
Stand strong B, don't let anyone get you down and remember that understanding beats the world.
You can win. And I can too.
Let's do this!
In the first presidential debate, John McCain once again criticized Barack Obama for saying he’d send troops into Pakistan to “take out” bin Laden or other al-Qaeda leadership even if the Pakistani government did not approve. He called Obama "naive."
However, McCain previously said that, if elected, “I will follow bin Laden to the gates of Hell and I will get him. I promise you that." Apparently he’d follow him to the “gates of Hell,” but not into Pakistan.
Obama clearly has our safety in sight on this issue, and not political posturing. If McCain must first seek permission from whatever government is running Pakistan at the time in order to get bin Laden, then our security will be compromised by his presidency. I’m voting Obama as the candidate who would truly fight terrorism, not just give lip service to doing it.
Senator Obama will strive to provide tax cuts for the middle class, affordable health care, and a new energy economy that creates millions of jobs. He will seek to end the war in Iraq responsibly, focus on defeating al Qaeda and the Taliban, and restore America's standing in the world.
Senator John McCain offered no solutions for the challenges Americans are facing in their daily lives. Nothing but more of the same failed Bush policies at home and abroad that he has supported more than 90% of the time in the Senate.
An example of how failed a Leadership role John McCain would bring to the Presidency is Obama's assertion that McCain "said the other day that he would not meet potentially with the prime minister of Spain, because he -- you know, he wasn't sure whether they were aligned with us," a reference to McCain's repeated refusal -- during an interview with Radio Caracol WSUA 1260 AM in Miami -- to say that as president, he would refuse to meet with Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. As evidence of the truth for this claim, McCain foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann reportedly wrote that "there is no doubt Senator McCain knew exactly to whom the question referred" and that McCain in fact "refused to commit to a White House meeting with President Zapatero in this interview." Indeed, during the debate, McCain did not assert that he "misspoke" during the Radio Caracol interview, but rather responded to Obama by saying, "I'm not going to set the White House visitors schedule before I'm president of the United States."
Questions exist, whether McCain forgot which country Zapatero leads, got confused about Spain's geographic relationship to Latin America, or confused Zapatero with the Zapatista rebels from Mexico. In either instance, this incident reveals a danger of possible confrontation could explode due to his complete lack of understanding World Leaders and events.
During the debate Obama said, "Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who's one of his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just said that we should meet with Iran -- guess what -- without precondition. This is one of your own advisers," and, "When we talk about preconditions -- and Henry Kissinger did say we should have contacts without preconditions -- the idea is that we do not expect to solve every problem before we initiate talks." During the debate, McCain repeatedly purported to correct Obama by saying Kissinger would not support presidential-level talks with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Each time, Obama made clear that was not his contention -- that, instead, he was accurately saying Kissenger supported talks between the United States and Iran at levels below the president.
Was John McCain simply confused or was he attempting to provide a misdirection because Senator Obama clearly showed how Senator McCain doesn't even understand what his own Advisors are advising ?
Obama's comments during the debate accurately reflected Kissinger's comments during a September 15 forum. Kissinger said, "Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we -- we know we're dealing with authentic -- with authentic proposals." Asked by CNN's Frank Sesno, "To put at a very high level right out of the box?" Kissinger responded:
Initially, yes. And I always believed that the best way to begin a negotiation is to tell the other side exactly what you have in mind and what you are -- what the outcome is that you're trying to achieve so that they have something that they can react to.Now, the permanent members of the Security Council, plus Japan and Germany, have all said nuclear weapons in Iran are unacceptable. They've never explained what they mean by this. So if we go into a negotiation, we ought to have a clear understanding of what is it we're trying to prevent. What is it going to do if we can't achieve what we're talking about?But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations. We ought, however, to be very clear about the content of negotiations and work it out with other countries and with our own government.
Initially, yes. And I always believed that the best way to begin a negotiation is to tell the other side exactly what you have in mind and what you are -- what the outcome is that you're trying to achieve so that they have something that they can react to.
Now, the permanent members of the Security Council, plus Japan and Germany, have all said nuclear weapons in Iran are unacceptable. They've never explained what they mean by this. So if we go into a negotiation, we ought to have a clear understanding of what is it we're trying to prevent. What is it going to do if we can't achieve what we're talking about?
But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations. We ought, however, to be very clear about the content of negotiations and work it out with other countries and with our own government.
One final observation I have regarding John McCain
McCain Suspends Campaign to Work on Wall St Plan
The Arizona senator announced he would suspend his campaign, pull television advertising, halt fundraising and return to Washington on Thursday to try to help negotiations over a stalled $700 billion bailout plan for Wall Street."We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved," McCain said, urging Obama to join him.
~@~
I believe Senator John McCain made a strategic blunder in his forcefully and public move in going to Washington DC for discussions on the Financial crisis. John McCain used Bluster to place his actions into the limelight and boxed himself in to a retraction. I believe if he had true concerns as a servant of the people, he could have silently traveled of his own accord to Washington DC and offer his assistance toward solving a problem, then not having acheived his objective, simply call and cancel his participation in the debate at the last moment.
This shows me a lack of thoughtful planning and leads me to view his actions as reckless. It's akin to someone going out publically and making sure their neighbors see them praying to God or announcing they have performed good works, all the while seeking the approval of those witnesses alone.
A senior McCain adviser made clear McCain would not attend a Friday debate unless a congressional rescue deal was sealed."If the package is reached and the country is saved, there will be a debate," the aide said. "But if there's no deal, how can you get on a plane . . . for a debate?"
Is this the type of Leadership America wants or deserves ? I think not !
Let's be clear: John McCain is offering nothing of substance in his political rhetoric, same as his running to Washington even though he had nothing of substance to add in resolving the crisis.
He is what my Grandfather would call a Flim-Flam Man
LEHRER: Afghanistan, Senator McCain?MCCAIN: First of all, I won't repeat the mistake that I regret enormously, and that is, after we were able to help the Afghan freedom fighters and drive the Russians out of Afghanistan, we basically washed our hands of the region.And the result over time was the Taliban, al Qaeda, and a lot of the difficulties we are facing today. So we can't ignore those lessons of history.The Geneva accords of 1988, which ultimately led to the withdrawal of the Soviet forces in early 1989, left the Afghan government in ruins.Senator John McCain said he would not repeat the mistake made by Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush ? I thought both of these Leaders were his Hero's and mentors ?
Have you folks heard the latest news out of Alaska ?September 26, 2008Palin should step down, conservative commentator says(CNN) – Prominent conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, an early supporter of Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin, said Friday recent interviews have shown the Alaska governor is "out of her league" and should leave the GOP presidential ticket for the good of the party.The criticism in Parker's Friday column is the latest in a recent string of negative assessments toward the McCain-Palin candidacy from prominent conservatives.It was fun while it lasted," Parker writes. "Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who is clearly out of her league."
McCains claim of taking out Bin Ladin**Senator McCain said it most concisely in June.*** "Look," he said. "I know the area. I've been there. I know wars. I know how to win wars. And I know how to improve our capabilities so that we will capture Osama bin Laden. Or put it this way, bring him to justice. We will do it. I know how to do it." Sen. McCain seems to be quite serious, that he and he alone, not the CIA, nor the U.S. Military, nor the current President can capture bin Laden. Thus we must take him at his word that this is no mere ludicrous campaign boast. We must assume Sen. McCain truly believes he is capable of doing this, and has been capable of doing this, since last January. "We will capture Osama bin Laden. We will do it. I know how to do it."If John McCain knows how to accomplish this task, why hasn't he told anyone how to implement his plan of action NOW rather than waiting until he is elected Commander in Chief ?Does he simply want all the Glory and Praise for himself ?
Dare to criticize Sarah Palin and you’ll find yourself back in high school, with all the petty taunts.
“You’re just jealous!” is the refrain filling my e-mail and voice mail in-boxes, and no doubt other female skeptics face a similar barrage. As if the presidency is about who has the hottest wardrobe, the best-coiffed hair and the attention of the hunky quarterback.
For men who question Palin’s credentials, it’s different. They’re just sexists.
Sorry, but neither jealousy nor sexism has anything to do with the well-founded doubts about the Republican Party’s choice for vice president. Anybody who cares about the future of this country had better take a long, hard look at her qualifications.
A lot of us anticipate what’s around the bend for Palin, our own Eliza Doolittle awaiting her grand remaking. Many of us have already observed this diversity game in the workplace.
Here’s how it’s played. Say a person is picked to fill a job she has not been groomed for, a position outside of her usual domain of expertise. Next, the new pick is heralded as perfect for the job, but in fact everyone knows the real reason the resume was lifted to the top of the stack is a qualification conferred upon birth.
Sometimes it’s race; in Palin’s case it’s gender.
There is nothing wrong with combing the ranks more thoroughly to bring a greater diversity of gender, age and experience to the workplace. My career has benefited from such thinking.
But the goal should be differently qualified — not unqualified.
Palin’s pithy quips play fine from the podium as a form of campaign entertainment; she is fresh counter to the stiff demeanor of McCain.
But the presidential race is not “American Idol” or a cheerleader tryout. Given John McCain’s age, and the horrific stress he endured as a POW, it is not out of line to envision Palin stepping into the presidency.
While the McCain-Palin campaign has the media parsing the meaning of “lipstick on a pig,” Russia is reasserting its imperial ambitions. Our military efforts in Afghanistan are flailing. The global financial system is buckling. The rest of the world continues to swirl with genocide, terrorism and natural disasters.
So Palin is a proud mom of a soldier. That’s laudable. But if she ends up commander-in-chief, how would she handle the delicate issue of our Special Forces pursuing the Taliban and al-Qaida across the Afghan border into Pakistan?
For that matter, does she understand the power struggle going on in Pakistan’s army and intelligence service between Taliban supporters and supposed friends of the U.S. — and how it plays when we kill Pakistani civilians?
Supporters like to point out that Palin governed a state “surrounded by two countries.” Has she ever been to Russia, or done much in Canada but hunt? How deeply does she understand the nuances of U.S. export/import markets?
The United States is in the midst of the largest real estate crisis since the Great Depression, but does Palin possess even a rudimentary understanding of how the U.S. mortgage market works? Apparently not.
She told a Colorado audience that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had “gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers.” But Fannie and Freddie, as McClatchy reported, “aren’t taxpayer funded but operate as private companies.”
Yes, taxpayers may take a hit as a result of the government takeover. But the problem with Fannie and Freddie and subprime mortgages has been regulatory failure.
I don’t envy Sarah Palin — I pity her.
The most humiliating experience a working person can have is to be plucked from the herd and placed into a job she is not able to fulfill.
The rest of us face the prospect of having to pick up the pieces when Palin inevitably fails. And we can’t afford four more years of that.
Only once in the entire campaign have I heard Barack say something about how changing our foreign policy and taking a more diplomatic approach could make us safer. He argues all the time that we should exhaust all options before using force, but he doesn't elaborate much.
Think about it. Bill O'Reilly (who I like to lovingly refer to as 'that douchebag on FOX') was pressuring Barack about foreign policy and when Barack said he would like to try diplomacy before acting militarily, douchebag said that this administration was already exercising diplomacy. Now, while I'm childish enough to call O'Reilly a douchebag, I'm grown up enough to give credit where credit is due. I'm sure that the Bush administration is putting forth a diplomatic effort with countries like Iran, but look at the other side for a moment. How could a country poised for invasion, that's already attacked and occupied one nation, offer genuine diplomacy? There's got to be a lot of suspicion and fear on the part of any country that's at the table with this administration.
Having a fresh administration that can offer genuine diplomatic discussions, that does not have a lingering reputation for militarism, won't make us weaker or more vulnerable, it will make us more viable and give us more diplomatic ground to stand on.
And while I'm aware that there are violent terrorist groups in the world that believe that killing infadels is their personal mission from God, I don't live every day in fear, and I certainly don't buy into the BS fear tactics that the McCain camp is selling.
I know most people on this site are probably pro-Obama anyway, but for anyone who's not, or for anyone who wants some ammunition for their political arguments, think about this: Al Queda attacked us to strike fear into our hearts - that's what terrorism is. The biggest issue on the Republican ticket right now is national security - which means they're banking on the fact that you are scared sh*tless at the thought of the US being attacked again. If you're planning to vote for McCain and your main concern is security, then guess what? THE TERRORISTS WIN. How's that for some irony.
I have faith in Barack Obama's ability to take a diplomatic approach with countries that threaten us, and I also believe in his ability to recognize when that approach is no longer enough. More importantly, I have faith in Barack Obama to ignite a passion in the common people of this nation, to stand up and join him in demanding improvement in all areas of our govenment, to bring our country back into good standing with the people who live in it as well as those who do not.
OBAMA/BIDEN 2008!
101 GIs Killed; U.S. "Losing" Afghanistan?
Taliban insurgents once derided as a ragtag rabble unable to match U.S. troops have transformed into a fighting force - one advanced enough to mount massive conventional attacks and claim American lives at a record pace.The U.S. military suffered its 101st death of the year in Afghanistan last week when Sgt. 1st Class David J. Todd Jr., a 36-year-old from Marrero, La., died of gunfire wounds while helping train Afghan police in the northwest. The total number of U.S. dead last year - 111 - was a record itself and is likely to be surpassed.Top U.S. generals, European presidents and analysts say the blame lies to the east, in militant sanctuaries in neighboring Pakistan. As long as those areas remain havens where fighters arm, train, recruit and plot increasingly sophisticated ambushes, the Afghan war will continue to sour."The U.S. is now losing the war against the Taliban," Anthony Cordesman, of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, wrote in a report Thursday. A resurgent al Qaeda, which was harbored by the Taliban in the years before the Sept. 11 attacks, could soon follow, Cordesman warned.
Continued . . .
Afghanistan ~ Pakistan
Afghan/Pakistan is central front war on terror
Joe Biden on Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan (Part 1)
Joe Biden on Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan (Part 2)
McCain = War
McCain "Bush on steroids"
Pat Buchanan:"McCain will make Cheney look like Gandhi"
McCain Thinks Iraq Borders Pakistan
McCain: Bringing Troops Home "Not Too Important"
Countdown: McCain-"Not too Important" when Troops Come Home
John McCain on Pakistan and Iran
John McCain Iraq War Argument ~@~ In this video, Sen McCain says the majority of citizens are wrong to be demanding an end to the war in Iraq. Then goes on to say, a President doesn't need to follow those wishes, opting to weather the wrath until voted out of office.
That is an important statement when broken down and comprehended outside the flow of his speech.
Primary responsibility @ .45 second mark thru 1.45
He has told the American people beforehand, that he will do as he sees fit regardless if that matches the will of the people.
McCain's POW Defense: Devaluing Our Service and His Own
A vote for Senator John McCain is a vote for sustained and expanding conflict from the moment he becomes President and Commander in Chief until the day, four years later he vacates the office. Make no mistake, Sen McCain is not seeking the Presidency of the United States! He is seeking the role of Commander in Chief.
McCain: A History of Being Wrong About Al Qaeda, Iraq and Iran
John McCain Has Consistently Neglected Afghanistan
The American people must ask themselves, do they truly intend to elect an eager War time Commander in Chief ? A War time Commander in Chief who doesn't fully comprehend any of the facts yet, rules by gut instinct and a spine of steel once a decision is made ? The American electorate must be aware of the awesome responsibility their vote has on this nations future.
Personally, I prefer to elect a President who, when necessary, wields the power of the Commander in Chief. I want a full time President who is willing and able to lead this nation, not a Commander in Chief who delegates the running of this nation into the hands of his friends.
Senator John McCain is a One Trick Pony, he desires, even covets the position and authority of the Commander in Chief.
Foreign Policy expert Brzezinski discusses his support of Barack Obama
Al Gore Endorses Barack Obama in Detroit, MI
Kennedy Endorsements of Barack Obama
Barack Obama: Judgement to Lead
Vote wisely and propose the same to your friends and families.
Why retired Generals and Admirals support Barack Obama
It's a matter of temperament !
Pakistan is at last finding its voice. The US would be wise not to gag it
Mohsin Hamid - The Guardian, Friday August 22 2008
..As a democracy, Pakistan's role in this drama is likely to change because a great tension at the centre of the US-Pakistan alliance will increasingly be exposed. That tension, in a nutshell, is this: most Pakistanis are anti-America. For a combination of reasons, and despite evident fondness for American products and individuals, my impression is that most Pakistanis have extremely negative views of the US as a geopolitical player....The anti-America sentiment suggests that Pakistanis would like greater independence in their relationship with the US. But the moribund state of Pakistan's economy and the fraught nature of its security situation make the country utterly dependent on US aid and eager for hi-tech American weaponry. The challenge facing Pakistan's new leaders is to explain that Pakistanis cannot have both. If they are to satisfy their constituents, they will need to articulate a plan for increasingly putting Pakistan's interests first while gradually reducing the country's reliance on the US.The US, for its part, will need to adjust to a Pakistan in which anti-America sentiment could seriously undermine US interests. The US can best do this by offering Pakistan not the appearance of an alliance but the equality and mutual respect that constitutes the substance of one. Pakistan's people have already demonstrated through the ballot that they reject the Taliban worldview, and the number of Pakistanis who died in terrorist attacks last year alone exceeds the number of Americans killed on 9/11..
..As a democracy, Pakistan's role in this drama is likely to change because a great tension at the centre of the US-Pakistan alliance will increasingly be exposed. That tension, in a nutshell, is this: most Pakistanis are anti-America. For a combination of reasons, and despite evident fondness for American products and individuals, my impression is that most Pakistanis have extremely negative views of the US as a geopolitical player..
..The anti-America sentiment suggests that Pakistanis would like greater independence in their relationship with the US. But the moribund state of Pakistan's economy and the fraught nature of its security situation make the country utterly dependent on US aid and eager for hi-tech American weaponry. The challenge facing Pakistan's new leaders is to explain that Pakistanis cannot have both. If they are to satisfy their constituents, they will need to articulate a plan for increasingly putting Pakistan's interests first while gradually reducing the country's reliance on the US.
The US, for its part, will need to adjust to a Pakistan in which anti-America sentiment could seriously undermine US interests. The US can best do this by offering Pakistan not the appearance of an alliance but the equality and mutual respect that constitutes the substance of one. Pakistan's people have already demonstrated through the ballot that they reject the Taliban worldview, and the number of Pakistanis who died in terrorist attacks last year alone exceeds the number of Americans killed on 9/11..
