Posts with the tag international relations

The Brilliance of Biden and Obama

kavips — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:46:04 EDT

It has been an amazing day on the international news front... These three stories are all tied together, thanks to the skill of the new administration...

1) The opening of dialogue with Cuba.

2) The handshake with Chavez of Venezuela

3) The UN walkout of the president of Iran's diatribe of Israeli racism...

All three show a break from outdated Republican policies....

First with Cuba... A State Department's go-slow approach was shocked by the admission of Raul Castro, that he is ready to discuss "human rights, freedom of the press, political prisoners... everything." He said: "We could be wrong.. We admit it. We're human beings too.

Ok, so how long have we had the embargo? And now.... we get the admission.. If you want progress, you must have dialogue... Those who punish first, expecting capitulation, are just plain wrong.. That of course includes the entire Republican Party...As most of you are now just finding out, they are just plain wrong...

The handshake from Chavez was motivated more by how much Obama is worshiped in Venezuela than by any policy change... Chavez cannot afford the appearance of being the enemy of one so admired by his own constituents... Therefore as long as the US interests do not directly impinge upon the welfare of Venezuela's citizens, we should have an ally in Chavez who must appear to be on our side, especially since he may have his own domestic challengers... And as most of America knows, the criticism Chavez leveled at our former administration, was shared by 65% of Americans as well... In fact, America went to the polls in record numbers to elect our current president, simply because our last one was so bad...

Now with a simple handshake, we have far more political inroads into Venezuela than we ever would have had Obama dissed Chavez as did Bush... You might remember how stupid every American was seen to be, because Bush would never mention Chavez by name? We were the joke of civilization... and well deserved we should be.. Anyone out there who still thinks we should treat Chavez as a stepchild, is simply ignorant... And yes, they are also all Republicans....

Third, the president of Iran got up and railed against Israel's racist policies... He was jeered off stage and half of the crowd walked out... Here we gave him the rope, and he hung himself... Today he gave the United States' cause for the support of Israel, far more credibility than had we as the old administration would have done, forbid him from coming and speaking... The old policy gave him support among his allies... Today, based on his personal implosion, his allies are running away for cover.... He is far more isolated upon the world's stage, than at any time over the past administration's misjudgements....

Hence the brilliance of the Biden/ Obama tact... Let our enemies do our work for us.. Let them ruin their stature in the world by themselves, without us damaging ours in the process...

But if one of our former enemies can outmaneuver us on the global stage, so that they truly appear willing to change, and anxious to open new relations up with us, then after all these wasted years it appears they weren't really our enemies after all...

Of course Republicans will complain they are... But then, by now, we all know that when it comes to governing, Republicans don't know much of anything.

Do I really want to do this?

Robert — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 17:00:31 EST

Do I really want to do this? Post, in a blog? Yet again? This seems to be something that I do not take to well, for a variety of reasons. I suppose one of them is that "blogging," in and of itself, seems like a useless point of time, resources, and energy, to me. I would suspect another is a sense of vulnerability, when I do this. Lastly, there are times I just feel plain lazy, or tired, and don't want to do this.

I have many thoughts racing through my head these days.

I have watched my roommate suffer unemployment, and the chaos that ensued in his life from that, and I have watched the pontificating, posturing, lying, deceiving, outright hypocrisy, and downright idiotic asinine (sorry, but it's true) childish behavior of our Congress these last few days, about President Obama's stimulus package, and been as ashamed of them as I was personally of GWB.

To borrow from our President, "let me be clear," I was never ashamed of the United States of America. But there were things said, done, documented, undeniable, during these last 8 years, that made me feel very frustrated, while I tried to cope with how we appeared, overseas, to email pen pals, in, for instance, Australia.

How was I to answer such sincere questions as "Why haven't you impeached?" or "Why'd you vote him in a second time?" How could I convey the complexity of impeachment, and clarify that it was not me, nor The People, but Congress, that did not impeach, and that it remained, forever, debatable as to who really won the second 4 years given to GWB.

Some of these things just astound our foreign friends, who think that we think we are all that matters, and that, for instance, other countries don't have problems with illegal immigrants, too. They tell me what they are doing about the world-wide water crisis, and ask what our nation is doing, and I have to say that as a nation, I do not know of anything we are doing, but that from what ever I have heard, various water conservation efforts are at state level.

This bewilders them.

Then there is healthcare. They are told that we over here don't want to pay for Universal Healthcare, that The People do not want to pay for it. This is what they are told.

Although I can prove, through diligent searching, that this is not so, it is hard to do so, because this is such a warped, and closed, topic, here.

I know what it is: I was a RN for 24 years. Those opposed, affiliated with insurance industry, certain aspects of the healthcare industry, itself, and so on, and related lobbiests, get politicians to chant half-truths, which are really lies, to the public.

Such as, you'll pay more.

Initially, probably. But in the long run, not at all, because our current system is more per capita than any other developed nation, in healthcare, and we rate behind places like Australia, the UK, Canada, in infant mortality, etc. We pay more, and get less, as it is. So initially, investing in a more streamlined, more efficient, single-payer systme, would cost more, but only in the initial phase.

Mind you, no one was concerned about the initial cost of the "war on terror" and or invading Iraq, which we were promised would pay us back in oil profits, which we have yet to see, as a nation.

You want to talk about bad investments? Talk about that. Not healthcare, where providing good stabilizing preventive medicine can save millions of dollars.

I should know.

I live with hypertension, diabetes, HIV, Congestive Heart Failure, heart attack, lung disease (Idiopathic: Lymphocytic Interstitial Pneumonitis), and have to wear oxygen 24 hours a day.

I worked 24 years as a RN, and have been disabled almost 3 years, now.

I face a $4,000.00-plus "donut hole" in my Medicare D prescriptions this year, thanks to GWB, to save Medicare money, and I do not know where I am going to find that over $4,000.00 in my budget.

If I set aside $335.00 per month, for 12 months, I would have the money. I do not have $335 in my monthly budget, to do that, which means I cannot afford $4,000.00 "out of pocket" annually.

What am I going to do? Just up and die? You tell me.

This is what it's all about.

Don't you dare say well, that's me, and you're you, and you're doing okay, so that's all that matters. I was doing "okay" too, until one day...

I could very well be you.....one day.

If you don't do something to better things now, they will be worse, for you, and your children, and your grandchildren, for generations to come.

The State of the U.S.

David from Gainesville, FL — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 16:49:12 EST

Dear Mr. Obama,

I am relieved and filled with hope now that you are our president with the backing of a Democratic Congress.

For several years I have believed that the United States has been losing ground as a leading nation and that our leadership and political policies have guided our country into a lifestyle and way of conducting business that is not sustainable or ethical in the areas of economic and labor policies, environmental management and resource use, medical care, care for the homeless and financially deprived, education, civil rights, penal philosophy and practice. and international relations and policies, and defense. In general, our people and government have addressed the symptoms rather than core causes of problems in each of these areas. To a great extent policies have been driven by personal and vested interests and not by science and the welfare of the people. Below I have introduced my views on each of these areas. In future communications, I intend to elaborate on and clarify these views.

Our economy should aim for steady state and stable conditions instead of continued expansion. We should localize our economy by minimizing imports and keeping services and production of goods within our country. All workers should make a living wage and should be registered U.S. residents with some provision for authorized temporary residents from other countries. Transfer of funds should be primarily related to goods or services received. Loans and activities related to speculation of the future should be heavily regulated and significantly taxed.

Sustainable environmental practices must be strived for by maximizing recycle, minimizing disposal of wastes into the environment, prevention of resource depletion, and minimizing destruction of natural environments. We must evaluate and regulate major polluting industries such as land filling, agricultural, fossil fuel extraction and use, mining, water use, and forestry (especially lumber and paper industries).

Basic affordable medical care and drugs should be available to all legal residents and visitors. Layered medical care practices should range from simple nursing care to special medical services provided by doctors and medical specialists. Incentives should be provided to encourage U.S. residents to improve their health, e.g. healthy diets and exercise. Unhealthy products such as alcohol, foods with added sugar, tobacco products, and alcoholic beverages should be heavily taxed.

Every resident should be entitled to have their basic needs met, i.e. food, shelter, and medical care. Group homes should be established to help those with mental, physical, and addiction health problems and released prisoners. Prisons should be viewed as rehabilitation institutions which strive to be self sufficient and provide counseling and training. Half-way houses and jobs opportunities should be provided for released prisoners. Capital punishment should be abolished.

Education through undergraduate college level should be free for all residents. Students should be grouped based on demonstrated aptitude so education can be focused. Education at all levels should include basic knowledge, creativity, and life management skills.

Laws should be instituted to minimize discrimination of individuals based on age, gender, sexual preference, or religion. Legislation of morality should be minimized. Issues should be clarified by open dialog regarding controversial issues such as abortion, stem cell research, capital punishment, euthanasia, and gay rights.
Strong policies should be instituted to address and improve international relations. The U.S. should encourage formation of an international governmental agency (IGA) with funds and personnel provided from all participating nations. The IGA should play a governing role in international defense, security, disaster, economic, and environmental issues. Member nations should collectively decide and act on matters related to terrorism, internal oppression, response to natural disasters, and regulation of global environmental issues such as greenhouse gases, fishing practices, and water use. Movement should be toward diplomacy and away from war and use of weapons of mass destruction. All able bodied men and women should be required to provide civil service and be trained as reservists on call for civil and other defense issues.

Sincerely,
David P. Chynoweth, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University of Florida

National Autodetermination: International Relations

The SABLE CIRCLE GROUP — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:42:38 EST

The world awaits our new leader in Washington.

A leader that will actively represent the people of America through a Global perspective & identity of our nation.

The decisions our new President will bring and the causes he will support and impliment will be closely scrutinized by other Countries and Nations.

The reactions of the American people will also be viewed and publicized abroad.

The way we address and support Isreal with regards to the Gaza reaction will be crucial, because Arab nations will be watching particularly close and will deal with us based on how we relate with Isreal.

Therefore, the American People must also have a primary view of Israel as well, for us to better support our President's decisions.

Palin's integrity, international viability, Dominionist religion

Eric from Seattle, WA — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 19:42:57 EDT

“This whole thing with the wardrobe, I try to just ignore it because it's so ridiculous... Those clothes, they are not my property … I’m not taking them with me. I’m back to wearing my old clothes from my favorite consignment shop in Anchorage, Alaska." –Palin So, if Palin is unable to say "No" to McCain’s staff over clothing, why should anyone have any faith that she will be able to compete in complex negotiations with formidable, often intimidating, foreign leaders like Vladimir Putin. Does anyone care to try convincing America that the world’s most formidable leaders will be at all impressed with her “old clothes” and “You Betcha!” politics. Now, don’t jump to classist conclusions. However, when dealing with world leaders, wearing used clothes is never a plus, unless you are volunteering for Habitat For Humanity. And, if she did not oppose the $160K in clothing buys until after the public flap over it, it does not speak well of her integrity or her ability to speak Truth to Power (in this case, John McCain and his campaign). Can you imagine Sarah Palin negotiating with Vladimir Putin over arms reduction? The question is: Does she even want arms control? According to the Reverend Rich Lang, Palin “comes directly out of the Christian Dominionist movement which affirms that followers of Christ have a God-given mandate to seize political, military and economic control of the world, claiming victory and embracing a divinely pre-scripted destiny of universal Christian rule.” Further, this movement believes in God as a tribal warrior who commands ethnic cleansing, strict codes of public purity, and hierarchal political order. As much as we have admired John McCain through the years, he lost all rights to expect our respect when he abandoned his fellow veteran John Kerry during the Swift Boat slander campaign. Our point in expressing our past admiration is that we are entirely realistic about his chances of living through even his first term.

Internationals - Get out the Vote

EMGEE — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 08:53:22 EDT

The United States is a melting pot for people from almost every country on the planet. Which means that every country has at least one family member or friend who is a citizen of the United States.

I would like to create a movement in these important last days of the campaign to urge all countries around the world to exhort their families and friends who are citizens of the United States to VOTE, FIRST OF ALL, and of course, vote for Obama/Biden ticket.

From Albania to Zimbabwe and all countries in between - text/email/blog/skype/call your families and friends, citizens of the United States and remind, urge, implore, tell them to VOTE. VOTE EARLY, VOTE NOVEMBER 4, 2008, VOTE, VOTE, VOTE...

The Economic Plan that is needed.

John from Berkeley, CA — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 04:22:48 EDT

What Obama needs to do is lower taxes for the middle class, that way their will be a larger effect on consumer consumption. The old trickle down effect of hoping the upper class' tax breaks can benefit the economy is no longer working; they are the ones who caused this financial crisis. We need to urbanize the country and create more inward growth of our administrative systems, knowledge, and innovation while still maintaining a steady control as the world's central economic generator.

It will be particularly advantageous to create the right alliances right now. China is on the brink of entering its mass urbanization phase. Chinese media, such as "Still Life" directed by Jia Zhanke, depict the demolition of old Chinese cities and in order for mass reconstructive urbanization projects mainly consisting of infrastructure and industry. America needs to begin capitalizing upon the economic benefits that helping and fostering economic growth of a quickly developing brings. This mutually beneficial international partnership of trade, coupled with the tax breaks for the "Joe" consumers, will undoubtedly help boost America's economy, not just to its former state, but rather to that next level. It is time to embrace the intelligence of a Harvard graduate running this country.

Seven Reasons to Support Obama

David from Las Vegas, NV — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:13:13 EDT

Below is an e-mail exchange I had with my mom. She's a McCain supporter and had forwarded an e-mail explaining why people were going to vote for McCain. This is my response:

******************

Mom,

Thank you for forwarding that, as I've been trying to find someone to articulate why they liked McCains' platform. I'll assume that you agree with what you forwarded since you don't indicate to the contrary. Here's my response and why I think people should vote for Obama instead of McCain:

Yes, McCain conducted himself in accordance with the Code of Conduct when he was a prisoner of war in Vietnam. A code taught to all our military members. That he held to it is a credit to him, but not unique to him. Also, the fact that he served in the military is laudable. But it is also one of the primary reasons that he is less qualified to be a good President. It is the same reason that I would not be a good President. People instinctively reach for what they are most familiar with. In my case, as in Senator McCain's case, that is the military. How could it be otherwise? It is what we have lived and what we know. However, the military should be the very last of the tools a president reaches for in his pursuit of foreign relations and policy. Sen McCain knows this, and has on occasion even uttered these words in public. But he hasn't internalized them. This is readily evidenced by his proposal that we implement a spending "freeze" with the exception of the military and veteran affairs as a means of addressing our current financial crisis. This very clearly communicates what his priorities are, and I believe them to be wrong. Having served 14.5 years in the military myself, I feel I am entitled to weigh in on this issue. As for the "unblemished record" the below author claims, this is simply not true. McCain was one of the Keating 5--directly involved in the largest savings and loan fraud ever perpetrated on the American people. It is unfortunate that you were unable to watch the video I sent you, as it appears to detail the particulars of this as narrarated by the government regulator who was directly involved with it. That notwithstanding, a quick google of "Keating 5" should bring up the relevant facts of the matter. While the resulting congressional inquiry did not find that McCain acted "improperly", it did find that he exercised "poor judgment". Beyond this, one has but to fact check the attack ads that McCain is running to find his tactics both dishonest and hypocritical. I specifically refer to the ad where Obama is portrayed as saying that Americans were just "air raiding villages and killing civilians" in Afghanistan. It then goes on to berate him for having voted against a funding bill for the troops. On the first point, the words shown are taken out of context and spun. In context, he was actually advancing the idea that we need to increase the number of ground troops in Afghanistan so that we are not limited to air raids on villages which DO kill civilians along with their intended targets. Being an Air Force fighter pilot, I can tell you with authority that that's a fact. Obama also steadfastly refers to the work that our soldiers are doing as "heroic" and advocates great benefits be extended to them, both in terms of education and health care (to include much better treatment for post traumatic stress disorder--a condition known to affect many of our homeless veterans). On the second point, McCain is grossly hypocritical to even bring this up, since he ALSO voted against the particular funding bill that is being referenced--but he conveniently didn't want to tell you that part.

However, enough of throwing spears at McCain. The individual who wrote the message you sent complains that no-one he's talked to can articulate why a person should vote FOR Obama. As incredible as this seems to me, I can answer that mail. Here are a few of the reasons that I like Obama (in no particular order):

1) Among the tasks facing our next President is the restoration of American standing and stature in the world. Obama is already vastly more favorably viewed in international circles than is McCain, making this task easier for him to accomplish. Not "easy", mind you, but "easier" since he has a better starting position.

2) Obama is intimately versed in both black and white culture, making him a leading figure in overcoming the remaining race relation issues that linger in our country. Being mulatto, there are many who reflexively grouped him with and treated him as black. However, being raised by his white single mother, and then by his white grandparents, he has lived through both sides of the issues are and so understands both sides at a very fundamental level. If you missed the speech that he gave on race relations, it is well worth referencing--easily on par and in keeping with the tenor struck by such distinguished men as Martin Luther King. And for those who have asserted that "you don't elect a black man to lead a white country" (a direct quote, these people are still out there), I have two suggestions. First, check your racist attitude at the door. Second, check the projected demographics which indicate that in the very near future, this will no longer be a majority white country.

3) Obama's plan to raise taxes on the wealthiest 5% of Americans while giving tax cuts or no tax increases to the other 95% of us seems the only responsible thing to do in light of the fact that we have doubled the national debt over the course of the last 8 years. We have to pay for that SOMEHOW, and the primary way government gets money is through taxes. So, while nobody enjoys taxes, it is our collective responsibility to pay the debts that we have, as a nation, already run up. It is true that Obama proposes a number of new programs that will cost money. However it is also true that he consistently outlines how he intends to pay for each of his intended initiatives. By contrast, McCain's intended policy of continuing to give tax cuts to big corporations has already been proven a failure. This really comes as no surprise to me. Trickle-down economics doesn't and never will work for the simple reason that people are greedy. This is not meant so much as a pejorative statement, just an observation. If they weren't basically a little greedy, then we wouldn't praise people for being generous--it would be the norm. From this perspective, if you give more money to people at the top, who don't need to go spend it on anything, its really not surprising to me that they're usually going to keep it. On the other hand, if you make more money available to people who are struggling to make ends meet, it seems obvious that they will turn around and buy more of the things that they are in need of. If you want to jump start the economic engine, this seems a much better way to go about it. While we're on the subject of economics, I have spoken with a distressing number of people who seem to hold an altogether caustic opinion of the poor in this country. Yes, it is probably true that some of them are in that position because they're lazy. But to assume that such is the norm is both elitist and, in my experience, incorrect. Many of the "poor" people that I am personally familiar with are junior enlisted members in our armed forces, who routinely put in a 10 to 12 hour work day and then (when they're not deployed) go work a second job to try to provide adequately for their families. To castigate such fine people as "lazy" is deeply offensive to me.

4) Obama favors strong investment in renewable energy sources in an effort to rid ourselves of dependance on Middle Eastern oil over the next 10 years. This is actually a point that the two candidates agree on--the differences are only in the details. While not wildly enthusiastic about it (and contrary to McCain's claims), Obama does support offshore drilling to tap additional domestic sources of oil. However, he also points out that there is no conceivable way that we can simply drill ourselves out of this fix. We only have 3% of the world's known oil reserves, yet consume 25% of the world's oil. At best, increased domestic drilling can represent part of a bridge to a new mix of energy sources. By aggressively pursuing wind, solar, bio-fuels, geo-thermal, clean coal, and nuclear technologies, we can simultaneously stop sending $700B a year to other nations for their oil (many of whom don't really like us), and create thousands of new jobs here in America. Jobs that cannot be shipped overseas, since they will revolve around building and sustaining the new energy infrastructure that we create.

5) Obama champions strong investment in improving our nation's schools, to include incentive pay for outstanding teachers along with an across the board raise in teachers' salaries. Beyond this, he calls on our youth to invest in their country, either in the military or in a greatly expanded version of the Peace Corp. I think this is a fantastic idea, as it will give many more Americans the opportunity to serve in an organization greater than themselves in pursuit of national goals and improvement. It will allow them to identify themselves as Americans and gain pride in their nation. Even better, in my book, is if that service includes the opportunity to serve overseas, as this would be an eye-opening experience to many--helping them to finally understand the freedoms and privileges that they grew up taking for granted. This is not to fault anyone. I am merely stating that most in our country lack this perspective, and without it, how can you really appreciate what you've got? In return for the youth investing in our country, our country will invest in them, extending the same kinds of educational benefits currently accorded to those who serve in our military through the G.I. Bill. This will make going to college a much more attainable goal for many who are both willing and capable of completing higher education, but simply lack the means to do so at this time. By thus establishing a more educated and much more broadly experienced workforce, the nation will benefit in its ability to compete in a global economy.

6) It is true the Obama has not served in the military himself. However, he demonstrates a much firmer grasp of very basic military principals than McCain does. To begin with, a gentleman by the name of Sun Tzu made a remarkable observation a VERY long time ago, which is still true today. The observation was that never, in the history of the whole world, has it been a good thing for any nation to be perpetually at war. Our nation has been in perpetual conflict since at least the first Gulf War (arguably much longer). We just called the intervening years Operations NORTHERN and SOUTHERN watch (among others). McCain is on public record as having no problems with continuing to fight in Iraq for as long as the "next hundred years". The reasons that protracted conflict are bad are many. They include the following though: First, war is expensive both in terms of blood and money--and you will bleed your country dry of both if you remain at war indefinitely. Second, the longer you fight an enemy, the more you teach him your tactics and the more effective you make him. Even if our whole country was wildly enthusiastic about being in Iraq, the fact remains that we can't afford it. We are spending $10B per month there. This is money that we don't have. We are having to borrow it from countries like China, adding to an already massive national debt. We are doing this while the Iraqis are sitting on a $79B surplus. Yes, we invaded Iraq and yes, it would have been extremely irresponsible to then turn around and leave immediately. However, that's not what we did. We invaded them over 5 years ago and have invested heavily in trying to help them rebuild since then. Many of the remaining problems are rooted in deep fault-lines within Iraq's own population. For time out of mind, Sunnis and Shi'ites have fought each other--and until THEY work out a compromise that will work for THEM, all we are going to do by being there is akin to puting a band-aid on a case of gangrene and getting our troops killed in the process. This brings me to a second basic military principal which Obama demonstrates a better fundamental grasp of: the necessity to commit sufficient force to a military endeavor to achieve victory. Obama is very clear on the point that we are involved in two wars: one in Iraq, and one in Afghanistan. One which should never have been started, and one which we cannot afford to lose respectively. On Sept 11, 2001, our nation was attacked, and we rightly answered that attack. I served in Kyrgyzstan in 2002 with an international coalition of 8 nations who all stood with us and believed in the justice of our cause. We had a very good opening game, but since then we have lost our way. As a result, many who once stood with us, do so no longer. There was no reason that had to happen. As I mentioned earlier, Obama correctly champions the idea of increasing our troop commitment to Afghanistan in order to finally finish the job that we started there. However, with the massive commitments we currently face in Iraq, we are unable to do this. We have nothing else left to send. Our guard and reserve forces are fully tapped already--which functionally means that we have no reserve (which is a terrible position to be in, but I won't go in to that here). Therefore, I heartily approve of Obama's proposal that we responsibly and expeditiously end our involvement in Iraq so that we can conclude business in Afghanistan--the original and true front in this "war on terror".

A personal observation at this point: While we definitely had to respond to the Sept 11, 2001 attack, declaring "war on terrorism" was not the way to go about it for two fundamental reasons. First, terrorism is a method of warfare which always has (and always will) be chosen by the weaker side in a conflict as the most effective means of fighting the stronger side. It is cheap, it is effective, and it is very easy to maintain for a very long time. Thus, there will always be terrorists. This leads right back to Sun Tzu's caution about not fighting perpetual wars. Second, since we backed the mujahadeen (essentially a collection of 7 different terrorist organizations) as a means of kicking the Russians out of Afghanistan, it is entirely hypocritical of us to then turn around a crusade against a method of warfare that we have used ourselves. So, while we needed to respond to the attack we suffered, we also needed to establish what our strategic objectives would be. Once again, Obama has articulated a position that I agree with: kill Osama Bin Laden. This is specific, it is measurable, and it is achievable. All too often, people seem to think that the implied end-state for our "war on terror" is to kill all terrorists everywhere. This could not be further from the truth. For proof of my point, just look to history. In World War II, we didn't kill all the Germans. We didn't even kill all the Nazis. Nor did we kill all the Japanese. Nor even all of those most devoted to their emporer. The point is that at some point, we have to figure out how we're going to live with those who were once our enemies. And this brings me to another reason that I like Obama:

7. Obama has said that he intends to sit down and talk with both our friends AND our enemies. This is in keeping with my basic understanding of what diplomacy is. That he is intent on trying diplomacy first is exactly what we should want in our leaders. To borrow a quote from the musical 1776 (attributed to Stephen Hopkins, one of our founding fathers), "I've never seen, heard, nor smelt an issue so dangerous it couldn't be talked about--hell yes! I'm for debating anything!" President Bush's policy, which McCain appears intent on continuing, of refusing to speak with nations we don't like is another proven failure. For example, under this policy, Iran has gone from zero to now claiming over 6000 nuclear centrifuges. While it is possible that this would have happened even had we been in dialog with them, there is also the possibility that a diplomatic resolution could have been reached--and we know that not talking to them didn't produce the desired result.

As this is getting rather long winded, I will content myself with the first seven reasons that sprang to mind for why I think people should vote FOR Obama. Please feel free to forward this to anyone you like, and I welcome discussions with any who so desire. My truest hope is, regardless of which candidate people choose to vote for--that they will be voting for their candidate's positions, not merely in opposition to the "other" party. David

--- On Wed, 10/8/08, Pamela wrote:

From: Pamela
Subject: Fw: Letter worth reading
To:
Date: Wednesday, October 8, 2008, 2:42 PM

Well sports fans, if this is a hoax, so be it.
To be honest the whole election sounds like one to me.
But IF Obama and McCain really are the candidates we have to chose between here is a well written, if somewhat verbose, letter stating why you should consider McCain over Obama.
    ^_^.

---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Well worth reading as you consider how you will vote----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 7:35 AMSubject: Fw: Letter worth reading----- Original Message -----
From: Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 6:57 AMSubject: Fw: Letter worth reading
This is long, but worth taking the time to read.
Letter worth reading

THIS LETTER MAKES MORE SENSE THAN ANYTHING I HAVE SEEN, HEARD, OR READ, CONCERNING THE UPCOMING ELECTION...

IT'S A LETTER FROM A U.S. CITIZEN... WHO LIVES IN ILLINOIS... AND OBVIOUSLY IS A "SELF-THINKER"... NOT JUST A "FOLLOWER"!!!

IF YOU ONLY READ ONE THING, REGARDING THIS ELECTION... LET THIS BE THE ONE THING!! AFTER READING IT, YOU WILL PROBABLY WANT TO FORWARD IT TO OTHER AMERICANS WHO ARE "SELF THINKERS"!!

An impassioned letter from a "nobody".

Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 3:19 PM
Subject: FW: A letter from Illinois

Dear Friends:
               My name is Joe Porter. I live in Champaign, Illinois. I'm 46 years old, a born-again Christian, a husband, a father, a small business owner, a veteran, and a homeowner. I don't consider myself to be either conservative or liberal, and I vote for the person, not Republican or Democrat. I don't believe there are "two Americas " but that every person in this country can be whomever and whatever they want to be if they'll just work to get there and nowhere else on earth can they find such opportunities. I believe our government should help those who are legitimately downtrodden, and should always put the interests of America first.
            The purpose of this message is that I'm concerned about the future of this great nation. I'm worried that the silent majority of honest, hard-working, tax-paying people in this country have been passive for too long. Most folks I know choose not to involve themselves in politics. They go about their daily lives, paying their bills, raising their kids, and doing what they can to maintain the good life. They vote and consider doing so to be a sacred trust. They shake their heads at the political pundits and so-called "news", thinking that what they hear is always spun by whomever is reporting it. They can't understand how elected officials can regularly violate the public trust with pork barrel spending. They don't want government handouts. They want the government to protect them, not raise their taxes for more government programs.
               We are in the unique position in this country of electing our leaders. It's a privilege to do so. I've never found a candidate in any election with whom I agreed on everything. I'll wager that most of us don't even agree with our families or spouses 100% of the time. So when I step into that voting booth, I always try to look at the big picture and cast my vote for the man or woman who is best qualified for the job. I've hired a lot of people in my lifetime, and essentially that's what an election is - a hiring process. Who has the credentials? Whom do I want working for me? Whom can I trust to do the job right?
                I'm concerned that a growing number of voters in this country simply don't get it. They are caught up in a fervor they can't explain, and calling it "change".
            "Change what?", I ask.
            "Well, we're going to change America", they say.
              "In what way?", I query.
              "We want someone new and fresh in the White House", they exclaim.
              "So, someone who's not a politician?", I say.
              "Uh, well, no, we just want a lot of stuff changed, so we're voting for Obama", they state.
               "So the current system, the system of freedom and democracy that has enabled a man to grow up in this great country, get a fine education, raise incredible amounts of money and dominate the news, and win his party's nomination for the White House that system's all wrong?"
            "No, no, that part of the system's okay we just need a lot of change."
            And so it goes. "Change we can believe in."
             Quite frankly, I don't believe that vague proclamations of change hold any promise for me. In recent months, I've been asking virtually everyone I encounter how they're voting. I live in Illinois, so most folks tell me they're voting for Barack Obama. But no one can really tell me why only that he's going to change a lot of stuff "Change, change, change." I have yet to find one single person who can tell me distinctly and convincingly why this man is qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful nation on earth other than the fact that he claims he's going to implement a lot of change.
          We've all seen the emails about Obama's genealogy, his upbringing, his Muslim background, and his church affiliations. Let's ignore this for a moment. Put it all aside. Then ask yourself, "What qualifies this man to be my president? That he's a brilliant orator and talks about change?"
            CHANGE WHAT?
            Friends, I'll be forthright with you I believe the American voters who are supporting Barack Obama don't have a clue what they're doing, as evidenced by the fact that not one of them - NOT ONE of them I've spoken to can spell out his qualifications. Not even the most liberal media can explain why he should be elected. Political experience? Negligible. Foreign relations? Non-existent. Achievements? Name one. Someone who wants to unite the country? If you haven't read his wife's thesis from Princeton, look it up on the web. This is who's lining up to be our next First Lady? The only thing I can glean from Obama's constant harping about change is that we're in for a lot of new taxes.
            For me, the choice is clear. I've looked carefully at the two leading applicants for the job, and I've made my choice.
               Here's a question - "Where were you five and a half years ago? Around Christmas, 2002. You've had five or six birthdays in that time. My son has grown from a sixth grade child to a high school graduate. Five and a half years is a good chunk of time. About 2,000 days. 2,000 nights of sleep. 6,000 meals, give or take."
                John McCain spent that amount of time, from 1967 to 1973, in a North Vietnamese prisoner-of-war camp.
                 When offered early release, he refused it. He considered this offer to be a public relations stunt by his captors, and insisted that those held longer than he should be released first. Did you get that part? He was offered his freedom, and he turned it down. A regimen of beatings and torture began.
            Do you possess such strength of character? Locked in a filthy cell in a foreign country, would you turn down your own freedom in favor of your fellow man? I submit that's a quality of character that is rarely found, and for me, this singular act defines John McCain.
            Unlike several presidential candidates in recent years whose military service is questionable or non-existent, you will not find anyone to denigrate the integrity and moral courage of this man. A graduate of Annapolis, during his Naval service he received the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross. His own son is now serving in the Marine Corps in Iraq . Barack Obama is fond of saying "We honor John McCain's service...BUT...", which to me is condescending and offensive - because what I hear is, "Let's forget this man's sacrifice for his country, and his proven leadership abilities, and talk some more about change."
          I don't agree with John McCain on everything - but I am utterly convinced that he is qualified to be our next President, and I trust him to do what's right. I know in my heart that he has the best interests of our country in mind. He doesn't simply want to be President - he wants to lead America, and there's a huge difference. Factually, there is simply no comparison between the two candidates. A man of questionable background and motives who prattles on about change, can't hold a candle to a man who has devoted his life in public service to this nation, retiring from the Navy in1981 and elected to the Senate in1982.
         Perhaps Obama's supporters are taking a stance between old and new. Maybe they don't care about McCain's service or his strength of character, or his unblemished qualifications to be President. Maybe "likeability" is a higher priority for them than "trust". Being a prisoner of war is not what qualifies John McCain to be President of the United States of America - but his demonstrated leadership certainly DOES.
         Dear friends, it is time for us to stand. It is time for thinking Americans to say, "Enough." It is time for people of all parties to stop following the party line. It is time for anyone who wants to keep America first, who wants the right man leading their nation, to start a dialogue with all their friends and neighbors and ask who they're voting for, and why.
          There's a lot of evil in this world. That should be readily apparent to all of us by now. And when faced with that evil as we are now, I want a man who knows the cost of war on his troops and on his citizens. I want a man who puts my family's interests before any foreign country.

I want a President who's qualified to lead.

I want my country back, and I'm voting for John McCain.
Phone: 760.434.1395
E-mail: ronald.hess@alumni.purdue.edu

Speak Loudly And Carry A Big Stick

Lee Save USA — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 16:20:43 EDT

This paraphrased proverb was never more apt than it is right now for the Obama/Biden campaign. Common sense and decency must prevail over the the illegal, dishonest and damaging policies that continue to be championed by the Republicans.

It is time for the Democrats to hit hard and give Republicans a dose of their own medicine. Though fair play is our way, we must do what it takes to win the White House this November. That means tough, tough, tough and, if need be, dirty. Hit them at the source and preempt their machinations.

The media, in all their greedy glory, opt for profits over truth and substance. They are deliberately beholden to corporations whose interests lie with the Republicans, and their reporting continually hides both the Democratic superiority and the Republican lies.

Our future and the future of the world are at stake. I'd like to know more about the camapaign's plans and see the tactics at work in the public domain. We need to get tough and aggressive, the sooner, the better.

Save USA

Lugar-Obama and Columbia University

rahga — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 11:59:40 EDT

Here is what I want to know: Why is the Obama Campaign not emphasizing the Lugar-Obama Non-Proliferation Bill and Obama's education at Columbia University?

On the first point, as a former high school debate coach who has had countless discussions with students about the earlier Nunn-Lugar legislation, I think I have a fair grasp of the importance of Lugar-Obama to national security and international relations. Quite simply, Lugar-Obama is one of the most important pieces of legislation to come out of the US Congress in the last decade. It seems to me McCain's nomination of a candidate with virtually no experience in foreign policy (let alone substantive education in IR) provides a perfect opportunity for the campaign to talk about Lugar-Obama (again), thus underscoring his IR credentials.

Second, Barack has a BA from Columbia University in Political Science with a specialization in International Relations. Governor Palin, by contrast, has a BS degree in communications-journalism and a minor in political science from the University of Iowa. Sigh.... I listend as long as I could last night (maybe 15 minutes) as callers to the Sean Hannity show complained about Obama's "elitist" education. Look, I'm not denigrating Sarah Palin for studying journalism, or having faith or attending a state university. I am a Christian with beliefs many would find conservative, and I'm currently finishing a PhD in communication at a state university. But since when are degrees from presitgious universities with extraordinarily high standards a liability?

I am concerned about these two issues because a quick serach of Lexis-Nexis this morning turned up NOTHING about Lugar-Obama. Meanwhile the McCain campaign is shouting long and loud about Palin's executive credentials.

Please, please... I hope the campaign reads this entry and decides to talk about these things.

Did I mention that Palin is a global warming skeptic? Heaven help us! Really. The world is a very big place and Wasilla, Alaska is a verrrry small town.

McCain's Religious Intolerance and Theocratic World View

David Drissel — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:46:51 EDT

I don't think John McCain really understands that the United States was founded primarily on the ideals and principles of the Enlightenment, rather than simply "Judeo-Christian values.” Sure, such religious values played an indirect role in the founding of the country, but the fact remains that our founders were convinced that an official state religion should be avoided at all costs. Indeed, several of our founding fathers - including Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin - were actually deists rather than traditional Christians.

More importantly, the First Amendment guarantees “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” McCain, who graduated at the bottom of his class in the Naval Academy, probably doesn't even comprehend such important constitutional principles as the separation of church and state. His confusion was certainly evident at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church in California last week, when he declared: "Our Judeo-Christian principles dictate that we do what we can to help people who are oppressed throughout the world."

The main problem with such language is his use of the collective “our,” which implies strongly that American values are synonymous with Judeo-Christian values. Of course, this was not the first time that McCain has used such exclusionary language, effectively rejecting the contributions and values of Americans that do not practice either Judaism or Christianity. As the Boston Globe observed recently, McCain uses such language often and in a variety of contexts. For instance, he recently praised small-town Americans by noting, "The Judeo-Christian values that they hold are the strength of America."

He has even used such language in reference to job training programs. Referring to laid-off workers this past February, he proclaimed, "We've got to educate and train these people. It is a Judeo-Christian values nation and it's an obligation we have and we are not doing it."

Even more disturbing, McCain appeared to embrace a religious test for President in comments he made last year in an interview with Beliefnet, hinting very strongly that non-Judeo-Christians need not apply. As he stated: "The number one issue people should make [in the] selection of the president of the United States is, 'Will this person carry on in the Judeo-Christian principled tradition that has made this nation the greatest experiment in the history of mankind?"

On a practical level, McCain’s theocratic comments have potentially serious repercussions not only for the civil liberties of Americans, but also for U.S. foreign policy and international relations. For example, in justifying the U.S.-led “preemptive” invasion of Iraq, McCain said the following in 2006: "This just wasn't the elimination of a threat to Iraq - this was elimination of a threat to the West, part of this titanic struggle we are in between western Judeo-Christian values and principles and Islamic extremists."

He made similar comments earlier this year about Iran at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire. In reacting to a new intelligence report that had downplayed the threat of Iran's nuclear program, McCain quickly listed other reasons to be distrustful of the Iranians. As he stated: "And they sure don't share our Judeo-Christian values."

It’s really disturbing that McCain is identifying non-Judeo-Christian countries (with predominately Muslim populations) as problematic for the U.S, simply because of reputed differences in religious values. In effect, McCain is framing such countries as part of an ostensible “clash of religions,” as was noted in the Boston Globe article. Much to the chagrin of the Muslim world, McCain constantly conflates Islam in general with the war on terror. He has implicitly referred to Islam as an “alien” faith that is deemed to be threatening to the “Judeo-Christian” world.

Last week, McCain argued in favor of supporting Georgia in its conflict with Russia by noting twice approvingly that “Georgia is a Christian nation.” McCain seemed to be praising Georgia for adopting Christianity as its official religion, implying that predominately Muslim nations and breakaway provinces in the region - such as Chechnya and Azerbaijan – are not as deserving of U.S. support.

McCain's theocratic rhetoric is just one more reason why I am convinced that he is a very dangerous man who would likely start a war with Iran or other predominately Muslim countries for foolish, irrational reasons. Based on such imprudent and ignorant comments, McCain is not intellectually fit to be commander in chief.

My Top Ten Reasons Why Barack Obama is the Best Choice for International Relations and U.S. National Security

David Drissel — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:52:58 EDT

In recent weeks, the McCain campaign has repeatedly argued that Barack Obama is unprepared to engage in international relations as President. These are my top ten reasons why I strongly believe that Obama as President would be highly successful in dealing with foreign policy and national security issues, much more so than John McCain.

1. There's no doubt that Sen. Barack Obama has more global appeal than any other candidate for President. He's the son of an African immigrant and a woman from Kansas, which represents an obvious departure from the past. HIs global popularity is undeniable and would give him additional leverage in encouraging other nations to embrace particular approaches to foreign policy.

2. Obama has lived in other countries and traveled abroad extensively, and as a result fully understands many other cultures particularly in Southeast Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.

3. Obama studied international relations in college and consequently understands important nuances of foreign policy. He has brought his academic expertise to the U.S. Foreign Relations committee and has worked in a bipartisan fashion to chart a new American foreign policy. For example, Obama spearheaded the effort – along with Republican Senator Richard Luger - to emphasize the importance of helping eliminate “loose nukes” in Russia and Eastern Europe – a project that had been vastly under-funded by the Bush Administration.

4. He witnessed poverty and related social problems firsthand on a daily basis as a community organizer on the streets of Chicago and will have a greater understanding of comparable Third World issues as a result. His experience at the grassroots level in the U.S. will enable him to devise viable, innovative solutions to global problems as poverty, hunger, lack of adequate health care, worker safety, infant mortality, AIDS, organized crime, and human trafficking.

5. He has incredible credibility (and political capital) in the world because he opposed the Iraq War from the very beginning (unlike John McCain) and understood in 2002 that Bush's pre-emptive war in Iraq would seriously hurt America's standing in the world. After all, the Iraq War is the Number One reason why the U.S. has become so incredibly unpopular in recent years.

6. Obama has clearly demonstrated good judgment in such foreign policy decisions, unlike McCain - who made the worst foreign policy decision in decades when he voted to authorize Bush’s invasion of Iraq.

7. Obama is highly diplomatic in his personal style and never shrill or temperamental (unlike McCain), which will help win back good will around the world. He doesn't lose his cool or cry "shame" when he disagrees with someone. Rather, Obama knows how to bring people together and forge compromises - and this characteristic will help him immensely in any diplomatic initiatives he undertakes with foreign governments.

8. Obama is willing to meet with virtually any leader in the world without unnecessary bureaucratic preconditions (unlike McCain), thereby signaling a new, more open, stance for American foreign policy. He understands that the U.S. never stopped meeting with Soviet leaders during the Cold War, so why should we not meet with our enemies today? He contends that adequate preparation for such meetings is absolutely necessary, but continuing the obstructionist saber-rattling cowboy antics of the Bush Administration (as McCain favors) will get us nowhere.

9. Obama knows how to prioritize national security concerns (unlike Bush and McCain) and will act accordingly in shifting the emphasis in the war on terror back to Afghanistan/Pakistan, where it truly belongs. Of course, he will also use his diplomatic skills to help bring together disparate Iraqi factions and fully involve Iraq’s Muslim neighbors and the United Nations in a multilateral effort to achieve lasting stability in the region.

10. Electing Barack Obama as President will be a clear and unambiguous signal to the world that the U.S. is charting a brand new course. Rather than looking backwards, the U.S. will be moving forward with fresh new ideas and innovative bipartisan approaches in foreign policy.

Obama Chaumont Barbecue Script

George — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:03:24 EDT

The closeness of this election is not about the presumptive presidential nominee, it is an indictment of the American body politic. This is the same citizenry that reelected a president with the most dismal work performance ratings in presidential archives. Right now there is still a core group who supports him and, yes, would vote for him again if the chance presented itself. Then, there are those Republicans who stand to gain much for a status quo that has rewarded the wealthiest among them and the presumptive Republican nominee promises to do that. Senator Obama’s overwhelmingly enthusiastic greeting on the world stage by the peoples of the Middle East and Europe and their leaders attest to this. Those nations are praying America comes to its senses and elects a president who understands that no nation can act unilaterally but must lead by cooperation not domination, by inspiration, not intimidation, by espousing peace not a preemptive military policy. If this nation, in effect, elects a president who will be merely an extension of the previous administration, those nations will not only be disappointed but now on the defensive. They are looking for a leader who will embrace global environmental concerns, not downplay them or believe that watered down pollution requirements or the drilling for more oil off of our own shores will be satisfactory. They are looking for a leader to embrace, not fear, to lead an international effort to fight terror, not a go-it-alone cowboy diplomacy. For a leader who will seek to instill hope in other nations by allowing them the right to their own self-determination, not a specious claim of democratization which, when the process runs counter to his expectations, abandons it, or merely serves as the pretext for an underlying corporate agenda that seeks to pillage a nation’s resources. Why is it that so much of the world can see this but we cannot? This is because we have become a nation where corporate interests dictate the political dialogue and its mainstream media coverage. This election will take a grassroots organization unprecedented in presidential politics to have a chance for our candidate, Barack Obama, to win the White House in November. It is disappointing enough that the election has to be this close, it will disastrous if another Republican charge into the White House smirking at the gullibility of the American people all the way.

Obama breaks bread in Afghanistan

Loucia Seropian — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 03:35:51 EDT

Obama breaks bread with Afghan President Hamid Karzai for almost two hours Sunday in a friendly discussion but avoided confrontation on countries troubled challenges... well, that's an eye opener.
leaving dusty affairs challenging the two countries for political self-reflection is a flaw; unless this is about "breakfast with the president" get together. If that's the case, well starting with President Karazi is a good choice as it'll get Obama more ink on this activity.
But What was the plan? In any relationship regardless how tense or smooth, flaws and hindrances will pop up and divert reflections… leaving a discussion tables with no highlights or heading points means the breakfast was fresh and tummy pleasing!!!
Looking Beyond the bread and coffee event, oh it must be tea in Afghanistan, i am not sure if The OBAMA Campaign is approaching its second phase meaning going beyond America. Choosing Afghanistan as a first stop spicy (meaning juicy) and today IRAQ are two huge steps. but what is the real message here?
whether these initiatives are called building platforms, or common grounds for resolving the challenges in a more composing and computing format or simply as ice bergs as breakers…you sure can conclude that the Afghan landing is a pure hospitality and diplomatically drive.
Well, as a reader and OBAMA supporter, I would say at some point Mr. Obama should pin point the current relationship between the two countries maybe not in truce yet but not in silence either… leaving a discussion table just with bread crumbles on,,, doesn't pay or dust off
My advice: Keep the dust from settling on the clear mirror of the self nature It is easy to be swept away by pious emotions and enthusiasm for political and foreign relations reform of one's conviction.
Without pre positioned exertion there can be no progress, follow this advice and keep the dust from settling on the clear mirror of the self nature.

Maliki Endorses Obama Timeline in Huge Blow for McCain, Bush

Sheldon from Doylestown — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 00:26:59 EDT

Maliki Endorses Obama Timeline in Huge Blow for McCain, Bush

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-hayden/maliki-endorses-obama-tim_b_113845.html

In a stunning diplomatic breakthrough for Barack Obama, Iraq's prime minister yesterday endorsed the Democratic candidate's 16-month timeline for withdrawing combat troops from Iraq.
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki endorsed the Obama approach in a July 18 interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, just as President Bush and Sen. John McCain were touting a vague new commitment to a "horizon" for withdrawal. The New York Times did not report the Maliki statement in its July 19 edition.

Uncertainty about Maliki's surprise statement persists since his top political spokesman told the Times only one week ago that troop withdrawals would take three to five years, if not longer. [NYT, July 11]. The number of American troops he would request as counter-terrrorism units, trainers and advisers could be tens of thousands.

But as Obama's plane touched down in Afghanistan, Maliki's comments were having a far-reaching effect on the war and presidential politics, with the Maliki government withdrawing from George Bush and making McCain appear foolish.

This could be the "Philippine option" predicted in Ending the War in Iraq, in which the US arranged behind the scenes for the Manila government to request the departure of the American fleet.
While the sequencing may be accidental, it appears that the Obama forces could reap a windfall. Obama will seem more successful than Bush in managing the last stages of the war, depriving McCain of the claim to superior foreign policy experience. Obama's imminent arrival in Baghdad could seem like a victory lap in the foreign policy "primary."

Why would Maliki break so sharply with his long-time US partner in the White House? Are the Iraqis more adept at playing American politics than the White House is?

As noted before at this site, Iraqi public opinion -- Shi'a and Sunni -- strongly favors a deadline for American troop withdrawal. The provincial elections to be held later this year [at the insistence of the US] will produce victories for candidates who demand ending the occupation, both in Sunni areas like Anbar and Mahdi Army areas like Sadr City. Maliki's coalition must appear to stand for Iraqi sovereignty and the departure of US forces.

Somewhere in the background is Iran with its strong ties to the entire Shi'a community in Iraq. The Iranian interest is in keeping Shi'a factions unified in a demand that the US troops and bases are folding up and returning home. Iran believes that a retreating US will be less able to strike from positions of strength on the ground if a US-Iran conflict takes place.

Besides Iran and the Shi'a bloc, the big winners in this scenario would be the multinational oil companies now subtly assuring themselves access to Iraq's oilfields after thirty years of absence.
The Bush Administration could mask defeat in claims of "mission accomplished", perhaps with garlands of flowers provided by Maliki at a joint ceremony.

Though genuine peace would a blessing, the real losers stand to be the Sunni minority which is the backbone of the insurgency, and the long-suffering Shi'a poor in Sadr City whose social-economic needs are little recognized by the dominant Shi'a party. In the region's geo-politics, Saudi Arabia would be angered at the rise of greater Shi'a and Iranian power in potentially competitive oil fields. And despite their alarm about Iran's nuclear plans, Israel would welcome an Iraq shorn of its power in the Sunni world.

As for al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, they could claim a victory in helping drive the American forces out of Iraq, but their narrow public support would shrink further if Iraqis recover sovereignty. A loophole in the Obama plan, certainly endorsed by Maliki, would allow American counter-terrorism units to go after alleged al-Qaeda units operating in Iraq as US combat forces draw down.

The huge "if" hovering over this sudden development is simply whether the Bush Administration can force Maliki to back down from his statement, or at least retreat from going further.

Here is Maliki's statement, delivered as Obama's visit to the region was beginning:

Whoever is thinking about the shorter term [for withdrawal] is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems... As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned... Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic... Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.

Tom Hayden is the author of Ending the War in Iraq [2007].

Little Green Footballs and Big Red Chewing Gum

Mark Levin — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:25:37 EDT

We have some neocon blogs like "Little Green Footballs" pointing out some of the more intolerant blog posts on MyBO - Michael Pugliese pointed this out recently. I think they are doing us a service (for no pay!) and should be thanked.

Given that the Obama campaign doesn't want to be responsible for what is posted, but like Youtube will take down offensive content when it is flagged, I think this is a good way to operate.

The lack of campaign moderation means that any "nutjob", which I semi-objectively called myself in Jonathan Tilove's article about MyBO, gets to start a group or publish there. That includes right-wing nutjobs too. I believe those from every point on the political spectrum should feel welcome to blog here, even if they are at odds with Obama's views. It is in a way an extension of his philosophy - to listen to others, even though he will make his own decision. We are never poorer for a greater diversity of views that puncture the torpor of groupthink. It's a soapbox, and all are welcome.

http://www.newhouse.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48772

These intolerant bloggers could have chosen other free services like Blogger/Blogspot to publicize their views - but here they find a politics-savvy audience where they can air their views, and engage.

The genius of this setup is that it allows everyone (including an LGF blogger, George Bush, an Israpundit blogger or a Jemaah Islamiya (JI) radical like Fatima, or even Osama bin Laden himself) to post!

How long their posts stay up there is a function of how many eyes are searching for stuff, how measured or intolerant it is, whether it claims any illegal associations, etc. And how long it takes to get to the attention of the handful of Obama campaign staffers assigned to MyBO violations.

I call it genius because it allows everyone to feel like they are "being heard" by the campaign, even if a campaign staffer will never see the posts or comments (which is probably true for 99.99% of the posts and comments). And people love being "heard" - they feel empowered, and part of the "movement" - even if they agree with only 10% of his agenda. It also emphasizes his message of openness, and resonates with the social network generation.

Also - the sheer diversity of views makes it clear that (1) the campaign does not exercise active editorial control over content, and (2) it's a big tent movement, with varying degrees of agreement with his positions. Exercising more control over it can be counterproductive - then you can be held responsible for everything that is said!

Someone in JI like Fatima, who although she claims an association with a terrorist group has actually found something about a potential US President that she likes. This should be seen as a good thing, not a terrible thing. We need to make a credible pitch to those in radical groups to separate from the dead-enders in those groups - this should not be pilloried as a negative. Read Tom Friedman's NYT op-ed today, where he makes a similar point:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/opinion/11friedman.html

Then again, Fatima might be a fat white guy from Texas, who wants to help in the effort to paint Obama as less American every day.....

Given the sheer anonymity such a forum affords, we have no way to credibly ascertain the identity and associations of the posters. We are better off focusing on the logic and rationale of what the person is saying (instead of trying to figure out who said it, and blackballing them on that basis). If we have logic on our side, we should surely prevail.

Obama has been a bit of a blank slate on which many people (with whom he wouldn't find much in common with) have projected their politics. That is more an indicator of how much people hunger for hope and leadership today than how much they have in common with his positions.

Once again, thanks to LGF bloggers for volunteering for the Obama campaign!

Hillary not square on torture ...

Martin Edwin "Mick" from Churchton, MD — Sat, 03 May 2008 05:23:40 EDT

Hillary Clinton has lately been loudly proclaiming her fealty to the Democratic Party's best traditions on human rights.

However, just two years ago, Hillary--the purported "expert" on international relations--said there should be "lawful authority" for torture in some cases.

(See, for example, www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0907/Hillary_... )

Her immoral stand was opposite to that of every other major Democratic presidential candidate in 2007-2008, and the heat she took for it caused her to make one of her famous "flip flops."

So much for her being "ready to go on Day 1."

More like not ready for prime time ...

Taiwan Relations Act

Hope4Unity — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 23:56:31 EDT

The new President-Elect of Taiwan is Ma Ying-Jeou. Senator Obama's remarks on the election and the Taiwan Relations Act is posted on the main blog.

Taiwan Relations Act, Public Law 96-8 96th Congress

http://usinfo.state.gov/eap/Archive_Index/Taiwan_Relations_Act.html

Clinton blarney

Steven — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:20:01 EDT

There is a very succinct article in, of all papers, the UK’s conservative Daily Telegraph, about Hillary Clinton’s claim that she was “instrumental” in the Northern Ireland peace process. The writer of the piece, Toby Harnden, EVISCERATES the claim with ample quotations and references.Go to:http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/tobyharnden/mar08/hillaryiamirish.htmHere is an excerpt:It’s not just Unionists who are pouring cold water on Hillary Clinton’s claims. Some of the most acerbic comments have come from Irish nationalists. The historian Tim Pat Coogan told The Chicago Tribune: “It was a nice thing to see her there, with the women's groups. It helped, I suppose. But it was ancillary to the main thing. It was part of the stage effects, the optics.” Former SDLP man Brian Feeney said pithily: "The road to peace was carefully documented, and she wasn’t on it.”The Clinton campaign has trotted out a John Hume statement that Hillary played “a positive role for over a decade in helping to bring peace to Northern Ireland” while Gerry Adams, the Sinn Fein leader, told the “Irish Times”that “Senator Clinton played an important role in the peace process” and “I met the senator on many occasions when she was First Lady, and subsequently when she became a senator for New York State. I always found her to be extremely well informed on the issues".Neither of these vague pronouncements, however, say exactly what Hillary Clinton did that was "instrumental”. By her own account, she facilitated meetings of women from either side of the sectarian divide and encouraged the founding of the Women’s Coalition – laudable but hardly instrumental.If her claims of deep and meaningful foreign policy experience are to have any credibility then the former First Lady needs to get a whole lot more specific about exactly what she did to bring peace to Northern Ireland.That should set the record straight.

Barack Habla sobre Relaciones entre México y los Estados Unidos

Conchita Cruz — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 21:03:15 EST

Lean el articulo editorial escrito por Barack Obama en el periódico: The Dallas Morning News para reparar la relación entre Estados Unidos y México:

Bajo George W. Bush, los Estados Unidos no ha cumplido con su papel histórico como líder del hemisferio oeste. Como presidente, yo restauraré ese liderazgo trabajando por avanzar la prosperidad y seguridad común de todo el pueblo de las Americas. Ese trabajo necesita empezar con una asociación estratégica renovada con México.

Cuando el Señor Bush tomó esta posición juro que la relación con Latinoamérica iba ser una prioridad. Pero durante los últimos siete años, la forma que esta administración ha intentado lidiar con esta parte del mundo ha sido torpe, desinteresada y más que nada, distraída por la guerra en Irak. Es más, las relaciones no se han recuperado totalmente desde que México rehusó seguir la línea de precipitarse a la guerra del Presidente Bush.

El Presidente de México, Felipe Calderón, acaba de viajar por los Estados Unidos y ni siquiera fue a Washington, lo cual realmente no es muy sorprendente dado lo poco que ha hecho el Señor Bush para mejorar las relaciones.

Empezando en mi primer año en la presidencia, yo llamaré a reuniones anuales con el Señor Calderón y el Primer Ministro de Canadá. A diferencia de varias cumbres bajo el Presidente Bush, estas reuniones serán conducidas con un nivel de transparencia que representa los lazos importantes entre nuestros tres países. Nosotros buscaremos la participación activa y abierta de ciudadanos, el movimiento laboral, el sector privado y las Organizaciones No Gubernamentales (ONGs) para desarrollar las agendas y para alcanzar el progreso.

Con nuestros vecinos del sur, la agenda debe incluir la seguridad de nuestra frontera. Sin embargo, debemos empezar con el trabajo duro de una reforma migratoria integral aquí en casa; y nosotros seremos un país de leyes y de inmigrantes. Pero nosotros también tenemos que trabajar con México para tomar medidas duras contra inmigración ilegal y el crimen transnacional que amenaza la seguridad de las personas a ambos lados de la frontera.

Esto necesitará nuevas inversiones y nuevas asociaciones. Aquí están algunas de las cosas que necesitamos hacer:

• Incrementar tecnología y compartir inteligencia en tiempo real para dejar que las autoridades Estadounidenses y Mexicanas puedan encontrar y desmantelar los carteles de narcotraficantes.

• Invertir en educación "contra las drogas" de ambos lados de la frontera para reducir la demanda de narcóticos ilícitos.

•.Hacer un esfuerzo para interrumpir el contrabando de armas y el blanqueo de dinero desde los Estados Unidos que mantienen a los carteles Mexicanos de las drogas con armas y fondos.

• Trabajar junto con México para aumentar el profesionalismo de la policía y de los oficiales judiciales

También es hora que desarrollemos una estrategia bilateral para levantar a nuestras comunidades en la frontera. 6.5 millones de Americanos viven en ciudades y pueblos en la frontera y 61 millones de Americanos viven en los cuatro estados que tienen frontera con México. Con demasiada frecuencia nosotros nos olvidamos de las necesidades especiales de estas comunidades, que están integradas con sus ciudades gemelas del otro lado de la frontera. Como presidente, yo trabajaré con los gobiernos estatales y locales para aumentar las sociedades transnacionales de transporte, de policía, protección ambiental, cuidado de salud y el uso de agua.

A nivel nacional, nuestra diplomacia con México debe tener como meta, la modificación de NAFTA. Yo lucharé por criterios laborales y ambientales que sean ejecutables --que no sean acuerdos laterales y inaplicables que han hecho poco para contener los fracasos de NAFTA. Para reducir la inmigración ilegal, nosotros también tenemos que ayudar a México a desarrollar su economía, para que más Mexicanos puedan realizar sus sueños o aspiraciones al sur de la frontera. Por eso, yo incrementaré asistencia a terceros países, incluyendo una expansión de micro-financiamiento de negocios en México.

Finalmente, nosotros tenemos que reconocer la conexión entre nuestra retórica y nuestras relaciones- tanto con México como dentro de nuestras fronteras. Nosotros podemos y debemos tener un debate robusto sobre reforma migratoria, pero no podemos demonizar o convertir a un grupo étnico en el chivo expiatorio. Ya, nosotros hemos visto el incremento de "crímenes motivados por el odio" que deben ser inaceptables aquí en nuestro país, y esto también arriesga envenenar nuestras relaciones con Latinoamérica.

Nuestra relación con México debe servir como un puente para crear más seguridad y prosperidad en Norte América y para mejorar nuestras relaciones con Latinoamérica. Pero nosotros no podemos alcanzar esta sociedad a menos que dediquemos una diplomacia enfocada y sostenida y creemos una relación más efectiva con nuestro vecino del sur.

Barack Obama's Statement on Fidel Castro

Matthew Negrete — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:04:28 EST

The following is the statement made by Barack Obama concerning the resignation of Cuban President Fidel Castro:

Today should mark the end of a dark era in Cuba's history. Fidel Castro's stepping down is an essential first step, but it is sadly insufficient in bringing freedom to Cuba.
Cuba's future should be determined by the Cuban people and not by an anti-democratic successor regime. The prompt release of all prisoners of conscience wrongly jailed for standing up for the basic freedoms too long denied to the Cuban people would mark an important break with the past. It's time for these heroes to be released.
If the Cuban leadership begins opening Cuba to meaningful democratic change, the United States must be prepared to begin taking steps to normalize relations and to ease the embargo of the last five decades. The freedom of the Cuban people is a cause that should bring the Americans together.

An Alliance of Civilizations Could Make Friends for Obama's America

Charles Penny — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 11:20:44 EST

The article below originally appeared on Barack Obama’s website as “Friends Waiting to Be Made in an Alliance of Civilizations” on January 22, 2008. I am re-publishing it now especially to share it with my compatriots in Spain, such as those in “Obama Supporters in Spain”, a group of friends of Barack’s which I joined today, 1st February 2008.

As this re-release of “Friends Waiting to Be Made in an Alliance of Civilizations” is aimed at readers who may be more familiar with Spanish politics, I should also provide the caveat beforehand that I have serious reservations about the Zapatero Government’s apparent willingness to negotiate with groups which use violence and vandalism in an attempt to achieve their objectives and its fuelling the flames of independence-seeking movements within Spain, a country I love almost as much as my own. Furthermore, I question the warm relations Zapatero’s Spain has sought with regimes like Castro’s Cuba and Chavez’s Venezuela, relations which are already bearing bitter fruit for Spain. However, I strongly support the Alliance of Civilizations as an initiative to promote peaceful relations between countries and peoples. I encourage US policy-makers like Barack Obama and those Israeli policy-makers inclined towards peaceful relations with their Palestinian neighbors to engage in the Alliance and other initiatives which aspire to create a more peaceful world.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The American foreign policy I have known and loved is one in which war is a last resort. Sadly, in recent years, a very different policy has emerged in the current culture of fear propagated by America’s own leaders. Regarding one of the conflicts in which the US is currently mired in particular, Barack Obama says, “…the war in Iraq should never have been authorized, and it should never have been waged.” (1) With the truth better known about the Bush Administration’s real motives for the invasion of Iraq as opposed to what the public and even high-ranking officials in the Administration were told in the build-up to the war, it is now even more clear that precious US credibility was lost precisely at a time when it was most needed.

Barack Obama offers a fresh change of course for innovative leadership to restore America’s standing in the world and enable the US to once again be the protagonist for peace in the Middle East it has been when peace in this region was at least in sight, if not in reach. As an American residing in Spain, the Alliance of Civilizations (AoC), a United Nations initiative underway since 2004, sounds as tailor-made for Barack Obama as those trendy gray suits he wears. US participation in the Alliance or in some other similar peace initiative, led by an Obama Administration, could result in peace and understanding winning out over war and extremism.

Spain has had many centuries of experience with Muslim countries and peoples. Its record is most certainly a mixed one of being a bridge between Europe and Africa for finding common ground, but more often, of confrontation led by religious zealotry on both sides of the Straits of Gibraltar. From its history and geographic position on the planet, Spain is a place where Christians, Jews and Muslims have, in its better moments, lived together in harmony, and in its worst, clashed in confrontation. However, in today’s tumultuous world, Spain would seem to have learned from its own experience.

Spain’s version of 9/11 was 3/11, that tragic day in March, 2004 when 192 innocent lives were taken by terrorist bombers on early-morning commuter trains in Madrid. Instead of lurching to the right and pursuing a policy of war in a culture of fear as might have been expected, the Spanish people rose up and swept a progressive new president, José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, into power. He has taken a markedly different approach to addressing the fundamental issues dividing people in our world.

On September 21, 2004, Zapatero presented a proposal for an Alliance of Civilizations at the 59th General Assembly of the United Nations. According to the Mission Statement for this innovative organization, “The Alliance of Civilizations (AoC) aims to improve understanding and cooperative relations among nations and peoples across cultures and religions and, in the process, to help counter the forces that fuel polarization and extremism.” (2)

The Alliance of Civilizations fits hand-in-glove with Barack Obama’s goals to fundamentally change the approach of American foreign policy. At a speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs in April, 2007, Obama stated, “In today's globalized world, the security of the American people is inextricably linked to the security of all people.” In the same speech, he provides five ways in considerable detail “…to let the world know that we are committed to our common security, invested in our common humanity, and still a beacon of freedom and justice for the world.” One of these five measures in summary is “…to invest in our common humanity - to ensure that those who live in fear and want today can live with dignity and opportunity tomorrow.” (3)

This approach represents the America which in its best moments has been a proactive positive force for international relations based on peace and shared prosperity for all peoples. The Alliance of Civilizations has already been putting machinery in place to constructively work towards the goals and vision presented by Barack Obama. Notably-absent US and Israeli membership and participation in the Alliance are crucial if its good intentions are to be converted into potentially dramatic progress towards a common security rooted in our common humanity. US leadership and dialogue between warring nations is essential if there is to be peace in the Middle East. Sadly, the absence of that US proactive and positive intervention in recent years has created a void in which extremist elements have won out over more moderate ones and conflict has spread like a wildfire in that critical region.

Nobel-Peace-Prize-winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu says, “An enemy is a friend waiting to be made.” (4) Barack Obama understands that talking to so-called or even self-proclaimed enemies is essential if there is going to be any chance for peaceful resolution of conflicts. Some individual representatives of nations may speak of other nations being sworn enemies and of wiping them off the map (often for domestic political consumption), but without US dialogue to “give peace a chance”, those flames are only fanned further and there is little if any chance for cooler heads to prevail.

In addition to concrete on-the-ground steps for fostering understanding and cooperative relations among nations, such as those taken at the Alliance of Civilizations Forum in Madrid on January 15-16, 2008 (5), the AoC provides a setting in which constructive dialogue can take place. However, US involvement to bring all parties to the table and US pressure on all sides to bring them to agreement will be needed to settle long-running disputes.

I wonder what has happened to US leadership as a problem solver. Barack Obama’s insight gives me hope that the US will once again take its place as a confident leader to make real progress on issues like world development and world peace, two issues which both Obama and the Alliance of Civilizations program recognize as intimately related. A strong US role is needed in the AoC or some other similar initiative which can offer some hope for Middle East peace. Barack Obama offers the vision we need to lead again and for peaceful resolution of conflicts in the world to be paramount to US foreign policy.

1 Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: “Lessons from Iraq”; De Moines, Iowa; October 12, 2007 (available on www.barackobama.com)

2 Alliance of Civilizations Mission Statement; AoC website, www.unaoc.org

3 Barack Obama speech, “The American Moment: Remarks to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs”; Chicago, Illinois; April 23, 2007 (available on www.barackobama.com)

4 Comments by Archbishop Despond Tutu; video interview; Alliance of Civilizations website, www.unaoc.org

5 Major Outcomes of the Alliance of Civilizations Forum; AoC website, www.unaoc.org

Exploring Bill Richardson’s ‘New Realism’

Matthew Negrete — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:40:48 EST

In the January/February 2008 edition of the Foreign Affairs Journal, Democratic presidential candidate (at the time) Bill Richardson wrote an impressive essay titled, A New Realism: A Realistic and Principled Foreign Policy. The summary for this essay is as follows:

The United States needs a foreign policy that is based on reality and is loyal to American values. The next U.S. president needs to send a clear signal to the world that America has turned the corner and will once again be a leader rather than a unilateralist loner. Getting out of Iraq and restoring our reputation are necessary first steps toward a new strategy of U.S. global engagement and leadership.

You can also read essays from other presidential candidates on the Foreign Affair’s Campaign 2008 site. As a note, I have written my commentary on Barack Obama’s essay awhile back.

Friends Waiting to Be Made in an Alliance of Civilizations

Charles Penny — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:23:12 EST

However, in today’s tumultuous world, Spain would seem to have learned from its own experience. Spain’s version of 9/11 was 3/11, that tragic day in March, 2004 when 192 innocent lives were taken by terrorist bombers on early-morning commuter trains in Madrid. Instead of lurching to the right and pursuing a policy of war in a culture of fear as might have been expected, the Spanish people rose up and swept a progressive new president, José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, into power. He has taken a markedly different approach to addressing the fundamental issues dividing people in our world.

US leadership and dialogue between warring nations is essential if there is to be peace in the Middle East. Sadly, the absence of proactive US leadership and dialogue in recent years has created a void in which extremist elements have won out over more moderate ones and conflict has spread like a wildfire in that critical region.

1 Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: “Lessons from Iraq”; De Moines, Iowa; October 12, 2007 (available on www.barackobama.com)

2 Alliance of Civilizations Mission Statement; AoC website, www.unaoc.org

3 Barack Obama speech, “The American Moment: Remarks to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs”; Chicago, Illinois; April 23, 2007 (available on www.barackobama.com)

4 Comments by Archbishop Despond Tutu; video interview; Alliance of Civilizations website, www.unaoc.org

5 Major Outcomes of the Alliance of Civilizations Forum; AoC website, www.unaoc.org

Don’t just Boot Bush – Reboot

Tony Loyd — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 11:09:06 EST

It’s pretty clear that the American people want to boot Bush & Co. out of the Whitehouse. Barack Obama’s message of change absolutely resonated in Iowa, stunning the country with an astounding win. Even on the Republican side, the insurgent who criticized the President’s “bunker mentality” beat the corporate Bush-apologist in Iowa. Change has been the recurring theme of this campaign so far. However, I think we need more than change. We need to not just boot out Bush: we need to reboot the system.

Benazir Bhutto and Pakistan

Matthew Negrete — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 23:46:21 EST

On Thursday, December 27, former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated during an election rally for her political party in Rawalpindi. Accordingly, Barack Obama has released his statement concerning her death:

I am shocked and saddened by the death of Benazir Bhutto in this terrorist atrocity. She was a respected and resilient advocate for the democratic aspirations of the Pakistani people. We join with them in mourning her loss, and stand with them in their quest for democracy and against the terrorists who threaten the common security of the world.

In the following commentary, I will focus on the unfolding events thus far, a brief historical background of Pakistan as it relates to Ms. Bhutto, and Pakistan policy.

CNN: 'Analysis: Bush's Pakistan policy -- forget "Plan B," time for "Plan C"'

Matthew Negrete — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 23:26:33 EST

The following is an analysis, Bush's Pakistan policy -- forget 'Plan B,' time for 'Plan C,' made by CNN White House correspondent Ed Henry.

Excerpt:

What's next for the U.S. in Pakistan?
That's the burning question President Bush must contemplate as he tries to get some down time for the New Year's holiday.
He has a slew of foreign policy challenges to confront in 2008 -- ranging from Iraq to Afghanistan, Iran and North Korea to name just a few.
Perhaps none is as pressing on January 1 as the unfolding crisis in the wake of the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.

Bhutto's assasination and the limits of American power

EDB — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 18:15:24 EST

Dear Mr. Obama:

Today's assassination of Benazir Bhutto is anther stark reminder that the world is a dangerous place and there's not a lot we can do about it, as long as we still insist on doing things on our own and rewarding only personalities who agree to be our friends.

By putting all of our chips into Musharaf's basket, the Bush administration has limited its options in how we can interact with other domestic political forces in Pakistan. No matter how we act, the US'll be seen as taking a particular side. No matter what we do, domestic forces will take Pakistan in a direction we can only pray will be peaceful. The US will remain powerless and discredited in Pakistan and in other countries where we have "picked a horse."

We need to move away from short-sighted alliances with dubious personalities at the expense of long-term progress.

Mr Obama - I have faith that you can return our foreign policy to one based on principles. I have faith that you can work with other nations to advance to collective good. I only pray that the world is still together enough for you to help fix it when your time comes.

The Democrats in the Final Iowa Debate: Winning the Hearts of Voters

Matthew Negrete — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 00:48:54 EST

The Democrats held a presidential debate this past Thursday, December 13, in Iowa. The contenders were Senator Barack Obama (IL), Senator Joe Biden (DE), Senator Hillary Clinton (NY), Senator Chris Dodd (CT), former Senator John Edwards (NC), and Governor Bill Richardson (NM). Former Senator Mike Gravel (AK) and Congressman Dennis Kucinich (OH) did not meet the criteria to attend the debate.

The Des Moines Register wrote in Why Kucinich isn't in the Democratic debate?:

Neither Dennis Kucinich nor Mike Gravel had a campaign office in Iowa by the Oct. 1 deadline, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission. Gravel also did not have any paid staff in the state by the deadline.

This debate was hosted by The Des Moines Register and was shown on Iowa Public Television, although some of the major networks, such as CNN, Fox News Channel, and others broadcast the event. It was moderated by the editor of The Register Carolyn Washburn. As a note, I found this debate to be much more civilized than the previous.

Kosovo: What Happens Now?

Matthew Negrete — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 23:51:36 EST

The United Nations deadline to figure out the future of Kosovo has come to an end on December 10. The European Union has failed to produce an agreement. So, the question now is, what happens next? As a note, you may want to read Dr. Mark Elrod’s Countdown on Kosovo.

Hillary Dealt the Losing Hand in Vegas, the Democrats Debate

Matthew Negrete — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 00:58:20 EST

On Thursday, November 15, the seven Democratic presidential candidates debated the issues in Las Vegas, Nevada at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas (UNLV). This debate was broadcasted on Cable News Network (CNN) with moderator Wolf Blitzer. As the title partially suggests, this debate further spiraled in the contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The candidates at this intense debate were Senator Barack Obama (IL), Senator Joe Biden (DE), Senator Hillary Clinton (NY), Senator Chris Dodd (CT), former Senator John Edwards (NC), Congressman Dennis Kucinich (OH), and Governor Bill Richardson (NM). Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel was not invited due to the CNN criteria-failure of raising $1,000,000, in which, his campaign has reported $240,000, thus far. In this post, I will highlight the foreign policy issues, as well as, the building rivalry between Senators Clinton and Obama, and why I did not like the quality of the debate.

The Dilemma: Justice vs. National Sentiment

Matthew Negrete — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 13:50:35 EST

Recently, I have come across an interesting story by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), EU positive on Balkan entry bids. The European Union is seeking to expand its membership to include western Balkan countries, which are Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Macedonia and Serbia. The main focal point will be the dilemma question that comes with membership. I will also focus on some of the recent and historic events in these countries as it relates to their entry bids. As a note, you may also be interested in reading my two posts related to the Balkans, The Kosovo Question and The Future of Kosovo.

Barack Obama on U.S. - E.U. Relations

Matthew Negrete — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 21:23:59 EDT

The following is the reply I received from Barack Obama concerning the question of U.S. and European Union relations.

The reply begins below:

EU - US relations, Iran and the need to work together

Unknown user — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 10:53:15 EDT

This week Obama comitted himself to an approach to Iran that the EU is already doing. In the last decade the EU has grown considerably in importance in global politics. Many nations in Africa, the Middle-east and Asia now turn directly towards the EU as an important power to co-operate with. Also the EU decided recently to a more unified EU foreign policy. This stresses the importance of the EU in foreign policy even more.

The fact is that Obama's foreign policy is in many ways in the same line as the general EU foreign policy. This opens new possibilities to improve EU-US relations. It also means that he can already state in the campaign that his foreign policy is more likely to find allies than the approach of Bush earlier or Hillary now.

After Bush there is obviously also a need for positive change in EU-USA relations I think that Obama should formulate a clear vision on this issue and combine this with the point that he is more likely to find allies if he will be president.

When it comes to Iran, environment, NATO (Turkey), Afghanistan etc. the USA needs the EU and vice versa. We need to work together again and the EU wishes to co-operate with the USA and waits for a president that will do this!

On Iran; Obama can make a difference towards Hillary by emphasizing the need of co-operation with the EU in stead of Hillary's unilateral approach. There are friends out there and we need to work together!

What do you think of this issue and approach?

p.s.: I am Dutch and politically active (voluntarily) on the European level for my own party here.

The Democrats Truly Square Off in the MSNBC-Pennsylvania Presidential Debate

Matthew Negrete — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:56:24 EDT

On October 30, 2007, seven of the eight Democratic presidential contenders faced off at Drexel University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It was moderated by Brian Williams and Tim Russert. The seven candidates that participated were Senator Barack Obama (IL), Senator Joe Biden (DE), Senator Hillary Clinton (NY), Senator Chris Dodd (CT), former Senator John Edwards (NC), Congressman Dennis Kucinich (OH), and Governor Bill Richardson (NM). Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel did not meet the three criteria to participate, which was based on not campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire, polled below 5 percent, and did not raise $1,000,000 for his campaign. Senator Gravel wrote his rebuttal at the Huffington Post, titled Why NBC and the DNC Want Me Out of the Debates.

This debate brought forth the first beginnings of the candidates taking their gloves off and making distinctions from Hillary Clinton. The debate covered several issues from Iran, Social Security, to UFO (unidentified flying object) sightings. This was probably the best debate since the discussion hosted by CNN and YouTube. With 63 days to the Iowa caucus, this intensity came at the right time. If you did not watch the debate, MSNBC has the transcript on-line.

The United Nations: Past, Present...and Future?

Matthew Negrete — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 22:25:27 EDT

This past October 24 was the 62nd anniversary of the United Nations. This supranational organization has faced many different situations under a number of secretary-generals. Where is the U.N. heading and how is its effectiveness? Before I can answer this question, I will briefly discuss two supranational predecessors. As a note, you may also want to read Emma's blog post, Why Obama should celebrate U.N. Day.

Are U.S. Ties with Turkey Deteriorating?

Matthew Negrete — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 23:56:34 EDT

This past week, the ties between the United States and Turkey have been strained. The escalation of events began with the passing of a non-binding resolution (known as House Resolution 106), through the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs. The question was whether events that took place during the First World War with Turkish pursuit of Armenians were considered genocide. The Foreign Affairs Committee has voted that genocide took place.

Union Leader: 'Sen. Barack Obama: Five years after Iraq war vote, we're still foolishly rattling our sabers'

Matthew Negrete — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:50:49 EDT

The following is a commentary by Barack Obama, Five years after Iraq war vote, we're still foolishly rattling our sabers, in the Union Leader.

[Commentary begins below]

The MSNBC New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Debate

Matthew Negrete — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 23:36:13 EDT

This past Wednesday, the eight Democratic Presidential candidates squared off in their seventh debate at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire. It was broadcasted on MSNBC with Tim Russert as moderator. The eight candidates who participated were Senator Barack Obama (IL), Senator Joe Biden (DE), Senator Hillary Clinton (NY), Senator Chris Dodd (CT), former Senator John Edwards (NC), former Senator Mike Gravel (AK), Representative Dennis Kucinich (OH), and former Governor Bill Richardson (NM). I will, as usual, analyze on the foreign policy issues of the debate.

The Defeat of U.S. Senate Amendments to Change Iraq Policy

Matthew Negrete — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 22:48:43 EDT

This past week was very important for Iraq policy proposals for the United States Senate. I will focus on four amendments brought forth by Senators John Cornyn (R-TX), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Carl Levin (D-MI), and Jim Webb (D-VA). I will also include how Democratic Presidential candidates (Senators Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and Chris Dodd) voted. Overall, the proposals for change in Iraq were defeated.

Jimmy Carter's Commentary 'Mixed message on nuclear weapons'

Matthew Negrete — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 13:19:15 EDT

The following is former U.S. President Jimmy Carter's commentary, Mixed message on nuclear weapons, which was published in the Chicago Tribune. He explains his position and critique on the current policy. The commentary begins below:

The Future of Kosovo

Matthew Negrete — Sat, 08 Sep 2007 18:41:53 EDT

Over the past several months, the agreement over the future of Kosovo has stalled. The United Nations (U.N.) has administered Kosovo, since the 1999 North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) campaign, which drove out the Serbian Army. The discussion concerns whether Kosovo should be granted independence from Serbia and what would be the best solution.

The Question of the 'Balancing Act' in Global Politics

Matthew Negrete — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 13:52:16 EDT

The events that have occurred during this decade, which includes the war in Afghanistan, the Iraq War, the growth of Iranian influence, among other issues, brings forth a very important question. Is the balance of political influence and power still an issue worth observing? This foreign policy analysis will bring forth many questions that could be fueled for discussion concerning the progression toward twenty-first-century foreign relations.

An Important Week in Endorsements and Foreign Policy

Matthew Negrete — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 20:08:00 EDT

This past week is one of the most memorable moments for Barack Obama and U.S. foreign policy in newscasts. Senator Obama has received two important endorsements and laid out his plan for Cuba. Also, several important figures have taken positions on the future of Iraq and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

The ABC Iowa Democratic Debate

Matthew Negrete — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:01:04 EDT

Yesterday, the Democratic Presidential hopefuls participated in the ABC Iowa Debates. It was part of a special edition of This Week, moderated by George Stephanopoulos. The presidential candidates present at this debate were Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd, and Mike Gravel. The issues debated included experience, prayer, education, and other issues. I will analyze what I felt were noteworthy moments concerning U.S. foreign policy issues and my critique of the debate and Barack Obama’s performance.

Clarence Page's Column 'Obama's international melodrama'

Matthew Negrete — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:37:18 EDT

I came across a column from Clarence Page, titled, Obama's international melodrama. In particular, I found his question on "actionable intelligence," noteworthy.

The AFL-CIO Democratic Presidential Debate

Matthew Negrete — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 21:07:47 EDT

This past Tuesday, seven of the eight Democratic Presidential candidates debated in the AFL-CIO Forum at Soldier Field in Chicago. It was broadcasted on MSNBC and moderated by Keith Olbermann. The candidates addressed and answered the questions on issues ranging from Obama's counterterrorism strategy, the growing influence of China, to the outsourcing of jobs. The seven candidates, who wooed current and potential supporters, were Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and Bill Richardson. The only presidential contender not invited was Mike Gravel. The controversy was surrounded by the AFL-CIO contending that Gravel did not fill a questionnaire on time. He has called the AFL-CIO's reason a poor excuse, since he has worked with labor issues for many years. I will analyze the foreign policy issues that I found noteworthy.

From Samantha Power's Campaign Memo on Barack Obama's Foreign Policy

Sheldon from Doylestown — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:02:12 EDT

From the Barack Obama Campaign memo penned by Samantha Power, a former journalist and Harvard professor who is advising the campaign:
August 3, 2007
To: Interested Parties
From: Samantha Power -- Founding Executive Director, Harvard University Carr Center for Human Rights Policy
Re: Conventional Washington versus the Change We Need

"Barack Obama defied conventional wisdom and opposed invading Iraq. He did so at a time when some told him that doing so would doom his political future. He took that risk because he thought it essential that the United States 'finish the fight with bin Laden and al Qaeda.' He warned that a 'dumb war, a rash war' in Iraq would result in an "occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."

"Barack Obama was right; the conventional wisdom was wrong. And today, we see the consequences. Iraq is in chaos. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the threat to our homeland from terrorist groups is 'persistent and evolving.' Al-Qaeda has a safe-haven in Pakistan. Iran has only grown stronger and bolder. The American people are less safe because of a rash war."

"Diplomacy: For years, conventional wisdom in Washington has said that the United States cannot talk to its adversaries because it would reward them. Here is the result:

'The United States has not talked directly to Iran at a high level, and they have continued to build their nuclear weapons program, wreak havoc in Iraq, and support terror.
The United States has not talked directly to Syria at a high level, and they have continued to meddle in Lebanon and support terror.
The United States did not talk to North Korea for years, and they were able to produce enough material for 6 to 8 more nuclear bombs.

'By any measure, not talking has not worked. Conventional wisdom would have us continue this policy; Barack Obama would turn the page. He knows that not talking has made us look weak and stubborn in the world; that skillful diplomacy can drive wedges between your adversaries; that the only way to know your enemy is to take his measure; and that tough talk is of little use if you're not willing to do it directly to your adversary. Barack Obama is not afraid of losing a PR battle to a dictator - he's ready to tell them what they don't want to hear because that's how tough, smart diplomacy works, and that's how American leaders have scored some of the greatest strategic successes in US history.

'Barack Obama's judgment is right; the conventional wisdom is wrong. We need a new era of tough, principled and engaged American diplomacy to deal with 21st century challenges."

"Nuclear Attacks on Terrorist Targets: For years, Washington's conventional wisdom has held that candidates for President are judged not by their wisdom, but rather by their adherence to hackneyed rhetoric that make little sense beyond the Beltway. When asked whether he would use nuclear weapons to take out terrorist targets in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Barack Obama gave the sensible answer that nuclear force was not necessary, and would kill too many civilians. Conventional wisdom held this up as a sign of inexperience. But if experience leads you to make gratuitous threats about nuclear use - inflaming fears at home and abroad, and signaling nuclear powers and nuclear aspirants that using nuclear weapons is acceptable behavior, it is experience that should not be relied upon.

"Barack Obama's judgment is right. Conventional wisdom is wrong. It is wrong to propose that we would drop nuclear bombs on terrorist training camps in Pakistan, potentially killing tens of thousands of people and sending America's prestige in the world to a level that not even George Bush could take it. We should judge presidential candidates on their judgment and their plans, not on their ability to recite platitudes.

"Vision: American foreign policy is broken. It has been broken by people who supported the Iraq War, opposed talking to our adversaries, failed to finish the job with al Qaeda, and alienated the world with our belligerence."

Barack Obama's Counterterrorism Strategy

Matthew Negrete — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:40:39 EDT

Yesterday, Barack Obama gave his speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars addressing terrorism. He, indeed, has given a comprehensive speech. His strategy is broken down into areas that include switching the battlefield from Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan, political and economic solutions, improving intelligence and security, and improving the American-image. A certain portion of his strategy to counter terrorism has received much controversy. As president, Obama has mentioned possible military intervention in Pakistan. I will critique on this subject, as well as, other parts of his speech that I found noteworthy.

Barack Obama’s Diplomatic Leadership

Matthew Negrete — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:18:11 EDT

This past Monday, the eight Democratic presidential candidates describe their positions in the historic CNN/YouTube Debate at the Citadel in Charleston, South Carolina. I will focus on a particular moment that has received news coverage. This pertains to the very brewing controversy between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton concerning diplomacy.

The Democratic Presidential CNN/YouTube Debate

Matthew Negrete — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:13:11 EDT

This past Monday, the eight Democratic presidential candidates held their fourth discussion on the main issues in the historic CNN/YouTube Debate at the Citadel in Charleston, South Carolina. This debate was formatted on questions via video that were submitted by YouTube users. Then, CNN selected what they perceived were the best and most creative questions, and they were played live during the debate to the Democratic candidates. The contenders for the presidential nomination included Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Mike Gravel, and Chris Dodd. If you missed the debate, you can watch it on YouTube.

Foreign Affairs: Renewing American Leadership

Lisa Beyer — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:51:57 EDT

I was drawn to this article by a blog post on MYBO.

This article really delves into my concerns about where America stands as a global leader, and Barack's vision for our future touches me very deeply and is one of the key reasons why I support Barack Obama to be President of the United States.

If you have limited time to read, please take 10 minutes to read the whole article by clicking the link below.

Foreign Affairs: Renewing American Leadership, By Barack Obama, July/August 2007

Summary: After Iraq, we may be tempted to turn inward. That would be a mistake. The American moment is not over, but it must be seized anew. We must bring the war to a responsible end and then renew our leadership -- military, diplomatic, moral -- to confront new threats and capitalize on new opportunities. America cannot meet this century's challenges alone; the world cannot meet them without America.

We can be this America again. This is our moment to renew the trust and faith of our people -- and all people -- in an America that battles immediate evils, promotes an ultimate good, and leads the world once more.

Link to original MYBO blog that draw my attention to this amazing article!

___________________________________________________________________________
Thank you,
Lisa Beyer

Precinct Deputy Captain in Las Vegas Precinct 6475
My Barack Obama Display Name: Lisa Beyer
My Space Page
My Silver State Diary
My SNFO Testimonial

Media Chair for the SNFO Media & Blogging Committee
Southern Nevada for Obama - A Grassroots Campaign Effort

Did you know...
On January 19, 2008, Nevada will be the 2nd state in the nation to caucus for a presidential nominee!
Democrats will meet at their designated sites at 11:00 a.m. on Saturday, Jan. 19, 2008

Click Here for NV Democratic Presidential Caucus FAQs

Clark County Residents: Click Here to Find Your Precinct

Barack Obama's Foreign Affairs Essay

Matthew Negrete — Sat, 07 Jul 2007 17:11:00 EDT

In the July/August 2007 magazine issue of Foreign Affairs, Barack Obama wrote a very interesting foreign policy essay titled, Renewing American Leadership. He discusses topics that affect the U.S. and global community, such as security, ending the war in Iraq, the future of the military, the threat of nuclear weapons, restoring U.S. image abroad, and reestablish American trust in foreign policy matters. I will analyze some areas of this essay that I found interesting and noteworthy.

Third Round of Presidential Debates

Matthew Negrete — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 18:49:48 EDT

The third Democratic Presidential debate, called the All-American Presidential Forum, took place this past Thursday at Howard University, a historical African-American university. The eight contenders each tried to win over African-American voters with issues, such as racial profiling, HIV/AIDS, Hurricane Katrina, and the current situation in Africa. The eight candidates that participated were Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Mike Gravel, and Chris Dodd.

Gordon Brown Moves in, Tony Blair Moves on

Matthew Negrete — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:07:04 EDT

Today, after serving a decade in office, Tony Blair steps down as British Prime Minister. Blair’s chancellor, Gordon Brown, has become Britain’s new Prime Minister. Blair had vowed to serve his full third term, but pressures within his Labour Party led him to leave early. One of the reasons for his unpopularity was his initial and continuing support for the War in Iraq. As he was leaving, Tony Blair commented on the issue, "I am truly sorry about the dangers that they (British soldiers) face today." He continued to reaffirm his decision stating that the war was not in vain.

The Palestinian Conflict

Matthew Negrete — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 00:00:52 EDT

The recent events concerning the Israelis and Palestinians have caused a possible setback in peace talks. These complications have begun last week when the Palestinian group, Hamas, took control of the Gaza Strip. In response, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who belongs to the rival group, Fatah, set up an emergency government, excluding Hamas. The United States and Israel offered their support for President Abbas’ decision. Today, the Egyptians have suggested hosting a Middle East summit, which will include Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and the U.S. Earlier this week, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter criticized U.S. and Israeli policy toward the Palestinians. I will focus on how Carter’s critique has substance.

The New Hampshire Presidential Debates

Matthew Negrete — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 22:51:04 EDT

This past Sunday, the eight Democratic Presidential candidates concluded their second debate at Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire. The same eight from the first debate included Barack Obama, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd, and Mike Gravel.

The Kosovo Question

Matthew Negrete — Wed, 16 May 2007 00:19:33 EDT

This week, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss issues ranging from missile defense to discussing the future status of Kosovo. Although the development of a missile defense system is a hot topic, I would like to discuss the latter, since it has not been given considerable attention since the NATO campaign in 1999.

Peace in the Middle East

Matthew Negrete — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:14:13 EDT

Peace in the Middle East has been a longtime goal ever since the expiration of the British Mandate of Palestine in 1948. This process has followed a series of up-and-downs over the decades. Israel and the Arab states fought several conflicts, which included the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, 1956 Suez conflict, Six-Day War of 1967, and the October/Yom Kippur War of 1973, among others. I would like to note that Israel took control of the territories during the 1967 war, which constituted the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights (Syria), Sinai Peninsula (Egypt - though this would be settled in 1979), and Shebaa Farms (dispute over whether it is part of Lebanon or the Golan Heights).

A Not-So-Modest Proposal: A Solution for Iraq Part I

Justin from Orlando, FL — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:16:57 EDT

Iraq, originally cobbled together by acts of the British Empire after centuries of Ottoman rule as three, ethnically-separated governates, is experiencing the severe pangs of nationalism in the form of a bloody civil war. The Kurds, Shi’a, and Sunni are re-enforcing their regional boundaries as sectarian violence continues throughout the country, forcing even those who had once ethnically co-mingled during the Ba’athist regime of Saddam Hussein to flee to the relative safety of ethnically-defined enclaves. In the middle of this civil strife are the American armed forces, whose initial military victory – the deposing of Sadam Hussein – seems distant and ineffectual in hindsight’s prevailing clarity.

The status quo consisting of the continued American occupation of Iraq punctuated by increased periods of military activity has not and will continue to not produce lasting results. While periods of increased scrutiny on insurgent and milita-aligned elements may create some immediate changes, those have always been and will continue to be shallow and short-lived victories. The complexities of the Iraqi situation makes it so that military force alone cannot win the day; violence begets violence and will continue to fail in creating a tenable political situation acceptable to all vested parties. A new strategy grounded in the realities of the current situation and in bold diplomatic maneuvers offers the only hope of returning peace to a beleaguered and war-weary Iraqi people.

More reasons for a President Obama to cancel odious international debt

DenverInternational — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 05:42:00 EST

The following article covers two important aspects international debt. First, it provides a concise definition of odious debt as debt incurred for the purpose of benefiting agents of a state rather than the state itself. Secondly, there are companies, called 'vultures', that buy up international debt so as to make a profit on the backs of the 'debtors' (the people unfortunate enough to live in the country where state agents incurred debt). The next president needs to formulate a just policy of debt relief that controls these vulture funds as well as removing odious debts from the backs of the innocent people paying them.

Zambia: let the looters pay the vultures

. . .

In "Odious Debts and Vulture Funds: Making a Case for Repudiation of Sovereign Debt," Backer argues that Donegal ought to be able to seek repayment for its purchase of Zambian debt from the public officials who incurred the debt on behalf of the citizens of Zambia, but not for their benefit.

Backer says he has written how the doctrine "would distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate state debt on the basis of the purpose for which it was incurred. Debt incurred for the benefit of the nation, whether or not well used, would remain the obligation of the state. Debt incurred for the benefit of the agents of a state, whether as a consequence of corruption or for some other illegitimate purpose, would be deemed to be the personal debt of the agent, against whom the creditors could proceed. Creditors making loans to a state would have the obligation of satisfying themselves of the legitimacy of the loan before it is incurred.

"As a consequence," continues Backer, "the application of the odious debt doctrine in this way can continue to support the integrity of the secondary capital markets – the Zambian debt can still be collected. But it also furthers international public economic policy – the Zambian state is relieved of the obligation for the debt, repayment falls to the party actually responsible for its incurrence, that is the officials who acting for their own interests purported to incur a debt for Zambia. Donegal International ought to be able to seek repayment of the debt – but only from the agents of the state for whose benefit the loans were made, and not against the Zambian state itself. In the future, Donegal International will assess the value of secondary market transactions with this in mind."

In other words, Donegal International, and other vulture funds, would learn to beware: if the loans were to crooks, it is the crooks they must chase payment from.

"To the extent that issues of legitimacy and corruption play a greater role in the validity of debt contracts and to the extent that courts take seriously the separability of a state from its officials (and thus apply more vigorously an ultra vires rule) courts will begin to apply some of the great insights of modern odious debt doctrine. And that is a step in the right direction," Backer added.

A further court hearing on the Zambian case is scheduled for March 9 to ascertain legal liability and cost. It is thought that the court will not allow Donegal to claim full repayment from Zambia and will likely set the amount closer to the agreed upon price at the time of purchase.

The case is being heard in the English courts because the purported settlement agreement stated that in the event of a dispute, the parties should submit to the English jurisdiction.

For the High Court judgment in full, please see:
BBC: high court judgement