The Osterley Times

Monday, February 04, 2008

Clinton lead dwindles ahead of Super Tuesday

As Super Tuesday draws inexorably nearer, all the signs are that Obama is closing the gap, and both Clinton and Obama are moving the argument on to which of them could actually beat whoever the Republicans put forward for the Presidency.

In an interview on ABC, he (Obama) suggested Clinton's history made her a polarising figure and that he was more electable. "I think I can get votes that Senator Clinton can't get," he said.

Meanwhile, Clinton was hitting back:

She stressed that as a battle-scarred veteran she could better withstand Republican attacks. "General elections are much more contested. The other side has no compunction about raising any issue against anyone they are running against," she said.

This was something that I thought Bill Clinton was hinting at before South Carolina , the notion that Obama is simply too nice to face down the Republican attack dog machine.

It's certainly an effective charge, the danger that - by electing Obama - the Democrats are once again electing a nice guy who will ultimately lose. However, Obama is countering this well with his argument that Hillary is someone who produces a very strong reaction in people and carries a lot of baggage. That's true as, even here in Britain, I have seen people react with instant revulsion when her name is mentioned. And this was amongst people with only a peripheral interest in politics.

What's undeniable is that Obama is giving Clinton a run for her money and, as Super Tuesday approaches, he's narrowing her lead in the polls to the point where her victory is not guaranteed.

Weekend polls confirmed the trend that Obama is closing the gap. A Washington Post-ABC news poll yesterday showed Clinton on 47% to Obama's 43%.
MSNBC-McClatchy, polling in key battleground states, also had Obama gaining on Clinton. He was ahead in Georgia, which has a large African-American population, by 47% to 41%. The poll even showed him catching up with Clinton in her own backyard, with a gap of only 7% in New Jersey. In Arizona, which had been thought to be for Clinton because of its large Latino population, she was on 43% and Obama on 41%.
The Pew Research Centre for the People and the Press said in its poll that Obama had made important inroads among white male voters, especially middle-aged and middle-income voters who had previously been solidly behind Clinton. It said he had picked up a significant share of John Edwards's support following his exit from the race last week. The poll put Clinton on 46% of the vote nationally, against 38%.

It now looks as if the Republican field, which has been impossible to read for so many weeks, has cleared to show McCain as the clear favourite - much to the chagrin of many on the right of the Republican movement - and the question for many Democrats is whether Hillary or Barack is the best candidate to take him on.

A question that appears to be splitting families:

Loretta and Linda Sanchez, the only sisters in the House of Representatives, have endorsed Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, respectively. And Penny Pritzker, a Chicago philanthropist, serves as Mr. Obama’s national finance chairman even as her brother, Jay Robert, holds fund-raisers across town for Mrs. Clinton.

“Within the family, for the first time you have different opinions,” Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Republican governor of California and Ms. Shriver’s husband, told The San Francisco Chronicle last week, around the same time Mr. Obama was calling his wife and coaxing her to his side. Three of Robert F. Kennedy’s children have endorsed Mrs. Clinton, while their mother, Ethel Kennedy, supports Mr. Obama, along with Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Caroline Kennedy and Representative Patrick J. Kennedy. “I’ve been in the family 30 years, and I’ve never seen that,” said Mr. Schwarzenegger, who has endorsed Senator John McCain.

As Super Tuesday approaches, Hillary's stroll to the Democratic nomination is far from guaranteed.

Click title for full article.

Sunday, February 03, 2008

Rachel Maddow "Personally Insulted" by Hillary Clinton

I have a lot of time for Rachel Maddow. Here she attacks Hillary's claim that she didn't know her vote in 2002 would result in the Iraq war, a claim which “personally insulted" her.

Ann Coulter: I'll Vote For Clinton if McCain's the Nominee

I've commented before on how McCain is loathed by the far right in the US, but even I never saw this coming. One of her complaints is that McCain has "led the fight" against what she calls "torture" at Guantanamo Bay. That's a reason to oppose his presidency.

I wonder how many Republicans - who have hitherto supported this woman's worst excesses - will now admit that our central charge against her is hereby proven: She's a bloody nutcase.

Domestic Spying Program Could Aid Terrorists, Experts Say

A new article written by six experts from Sun Microsystems, Columbia University, Princeton University, the University of Pennsylvania and California-based research giant SRI International have stated that George Bush's domestic spying programme could actually be an aid for terrorists were it ever to be hacked.

The data centers for the classified program are reportedly housed in "secure" rooms within telecommunications hubs around the country, and connect to operations buried within the NSA's highly classified facilities. But judging by past breaches, the authors conclude this system could be compromised also – from within or outside.
In 2004, hackers cracked a wiretapping function on a Greek national cell phone network. For 10 months, they intercepted conversations by the country's prime minister and its ministers of defense, foreign affairs and justice, and roughly 100 other officials and parliament members, the authors note. The hackers were never caught.

"Although the NSA has extensive experience in building surveillance systems, that does not mean things cannot go wrong," the authors state. "When you build a system to spy on yourself, you entail an awesome risk."

The NSA have, unsurprisingly, refused to comment on this story. However, the authors of the article have also spoken of the dangers insiders exploiting the system:

Just as dangerous is the possibility that an insider could access the system undetected, according to the experts. Poorly-designed surveillance technology used by the FBI relies on a "primitive" system to track people who use the operation to wiretap phone conversations, the authors say, creating what they call a "real risk" of an insider attack.

They note that convicted spy Robert Hanssen, one of the most destructive moles in the bureau's history, exploited similar weaknesses to steal information and follow the investigation into himself on FBI computers without leaving a trail.

In Britain the governments inability to carefully look after it's own data has been much in the headlines recently after HM Revenue & Customs lost two discs containing the personal information of 25 million people. The estimated worth of these discs for people seeking to engage in identity theft has been estimated at £3.12 billion.

Indeed, there are many of us who think that Gordon Brown is going to have to shelve his plans for all Brits to carry identity cards because public confidence has been so dented in the governments ability to safeguard some of the information it stores.

The Bush White House and it's supporters argue that this information is a "vital tool" in the war on terror but, because they are being so secretive about the programme, none of us really know just what it is that they are collecting.

And the safeguarding of all of this information is being left in the hands of a White House that managed to lose up to five million of it's own emails.

Under these circumstances, I would say that the authors of this article are raising a valid concern.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Bush, FISA, wiretapping, war on terror

US envoy: Iran gained from US invasions

The American ambassador to the United Nations is only saying what any first year student of history could have told George Bush long before he invaded Iraq: To do so will only strengthen Iran and turn it into a regional superpower.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq removed a key rival of Shiite Iran with the ouster of Saddam Hussein's Sunni-dominated government. Iran has friendly ties with the Shiites now in power in Iraq.

"It's helped Iran's relative position in the region, because Iraq was a rival of Iran ... and the balance there has disintegrated or weakened," Zalmay Khalilzad said while answering questions from students at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs. "And so one of the objectives of Iran, in my view, is to discourage a reemergence of Iraq as a balancer. And Afghanistan, too, the change was helpful to Iran."

I have always thought that one of the reasons Bush continually talks of Iran as aiding the insurgency in Iraq is because he does not want to leave office as the only US President in God knows how many years to have taken an action that strengthens Iran. And Iran is now infinitely stronger than it was before the neo-cons came to power. To this end they are searching for any excuse to put that genie back into the bottle.

And sanctions are, at the moment, the main weapon in the US arsenal.

This is why Khalilzad continues to talk of the need for sanctions and continues, like Bush, to talk about Iran's nuclear programme as if the NIE report - stating that Iran is no longer attempting to obtain a nuclear weapon - simply didn't exist.

Khalilzad said that Iran has the "right to have access for nuclear energy," and the United States is willing to work with Iran and other nations to assure they have "reliable access to fuel for nuclear reactors."

But he said there must be controls.

"Having this Iran have access to fissile material that brings it so close to a nuclear weapons capability, is just too risky for this region and for this world," Khalilzad said.

Of course, the contradiction in what Khalilzad is saying is that there is no way to have one without the other, unless Iran agree to give up their right to enrich uranium - which they are legally allowed to do under the NNPT - and agree to import rather than enrich uranium themselves.

And the reason that the US has been insisting that Iran suspend uranium enrichment is because they fear this is the first step to a bomb, even though the US's own NIE report has clearly stated that the Iranians gave up this ambition in 2003.

So why hasn't the US position changed in line with this new evidence, why do people like Bush and Khalilzad continue to talk as if the NIE report had never been published?

The nearest thing we will ever get to the truth comes from Khalilzad's recent statement.

It's because both of George Bush's major wars - in both Afghanistan and Iraq -increased the regional power of Iran (by wiping out two of it's major enemies) without Iran having to fire a single shot.

Bush and the neo-cons are anxious to correct that imbalance before they leave office. But, as I say, it's an imbalance that any first year student of history could have told them would be the inevitable consequence of their actions.

Click title for full article.

Saturday, February 02, 2008

Obama cuts Hillary's lead to Four Points as Kennedy Takes to the Road.

Hillary Clinton's eleven point lead has been cut to just four points by Barack Obama ahead of the Super Tuesday vote in the United States. The latest polling was also taken before the televised debate two days ago and before John Edwards dropped out of the race.

In the televised debate, Clinton and Obama, both conscious of the damage done to their campaigns and the Democratic party by their exchange of barbs in the last debate more than a week ago, were polite towards one another.
Both opted for safety first, with Clinton not wanting to endanger her poll lead with a gaffe and Obama not wanting to risk the momentum building behind him.
Obama stressed he had been opposed to the Iraq war from the beginning, unlike Clinton who voted for it in the senate. She probably scored over him on domestic issues, such as health, on which she demonstrated a stronger grasp of detail.
They both gave polite replies when asked about whether they would be prepared to unite to fight the November election as a team, with one as the presidential candidate and one the vice-president.
"Well, obviously there's a big difference between those two," Obama joked. Pressed further, he said: "Hillary would be on anybody's shortlist."
But sources in both camps yesterday suggested that there was no real prospect of what many Democrats regard as a "dream team" and that neither would be prepared to accept second best.

It's a real shame that they won't eventually form a dream ticket, but I suppose it's not really a surprise. Neither of these two is going to be content to play second fiddle to the other.

Meanwhile Ted Kennedy has taken to the stumps for Obama and is said to be drawing huge crowds:

“It’s like when Tony Bennett suddenly became hip again after the kids discovered him,” observed Bill Carrick, a Democratic strategist and former Kennedy aide who attended the rally. “It’s the same thing with Kennedy. He’s MTV now. And instead of jazz clubs, he’s doing the Hollywood Bowl.”

And, interestingly, Kennedy appears to be taking the same kind of role for himself as Bill Clinton is taking in Hillary's campaign: lobbying heavy punches so the candidate doesn't have to:

He rarely mentioned Hillary Rodham Clinton by name, but veiled shots were unmistakable. He praised Mr. Obama’s experience, resisting the big-money law firm jobs out of law school to work as a community organizer.

“Now that’s the kind of experience I want,” Mr. Kennedy said, a clear reference to Mrs. Clinton’s mantra about her “35-years of experience.” He praised Mr. Obama’s willingness to play a visible role in the debate over immigration (implying Mrs. Clinton did not) and opposing the Iraq war from the beginning (ditto).

Meanwhile Obama himself is covering the rest of the country like a dervish:

On Tuesday, he touched down in his grandfather's home town, El Dorado, Kan., where many residents did not realize until recently -- if at all -- that Obama has Kansas roots. From there, it was on to big rallies in Kansas City, Mo.; Denver; and Phoenix, followed by Los Angeles, where he tried during an hour in East L.A. to make an impression on Hispanic voters who know little about him. On Friday: Albuquerque, Santa Fe and Boise.

And, unlike Rudy Giuliani in Florida, the more Obama campaigns the more people seem to like him.

In each of the first four states where voting was sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee, Clinton maintained essentially level support in polls in the months leading up to the contests, while Obama saw a steady upward trajectory the more he campaigned.

I have no idea what Tuesday will bring, but I am thoroughly enjoying the process.

Click title for full article.

Lifeline for Pervez: Afghan Senate withdraws demand for death sentence

In a dramatic U-turn the Afghan Senate have withdrawn the confirmation of the death sentence of Sayed Pervez Kambaksh which has caused international outrage after he was sentenced to death for downloading a report on women's rights from the internet.

Here in Britain the case was highlighted by the Independent newspaper, which has had a huge impact, certainly in galvanising Britain's MP's to pay attention to this case:

The move follows widespread international protests and appeals to the President, Hamid Karzai, after the case was highlighted by The Independent and more than 31,000 readers signed our petition to secure justice for Mr Kambaksh. In Britain, the Foreign Secretary David Miliband, the Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg and the shadow Foreign Secretary, William Hague, backed the campaign, and there have been demonstrations in the Afghan capital, Kabul.

And apparently the Afghan President, Mr Karzai, has been inundated with emails from all over the world concerning this case. And yesterday, finally, the Afghan Senate let it be known that they were reconsidering their decision:

The Senate statement, read out by Aminuddin Muzafari, secretary to the upper house, said: "The position of the upper house regarding distributing anti-Islamic articles, via an Iranian website, was that the upper house approved of the prosecution of such acts by the judiciary. The nature of the sentence, considering the judiciary's independence, would be up to the court itself.

"The upper house respects the rights of the accused, such as the right to have a defence lawyer, the right of appeal and other legal rights. But approval of the death sentence, in the statement published recently from the address of the upper house, was a technical mistake."

It's not over by a long chalk but the very fact that the Afghan Senate have taken a step back already is certainly a good sign. Mr Kambaksh can now petition the court of appeal against both his conviction and sentence, and, afterwards, the supreme court. If he fails there, he can appeal directly to Mr Karzai, who is said to be taking "a keen interest" in the case.

It is being said that this decision by the Afghan Senate will now make it much easier for judges to commute Mr Kambaksh's death sentence. Specialists of the Afghan legal system are acknowledging that outside pressure has had a huge influence on this decision.

Selim Mohammed Nasruddin, an analyst of the Afghan legal system, said the upper house had "taken a really dangerous step in saying this journalist should be killed – it put tremendous pressure on the appeal courts. What they have done now makes it easier for the judges to commute the death sentence.

"It also makes it politically easier for Mr Karzai to free this man if he wants to. Those who are progressive in this country are glad this has happened. What is very worrying is that it took pressure from outside the country for the upper house to rectify this error."

If you haven't already signed the petition please consider signing it now and keeping the pressure on our government to make sure Karzai does the right thing. As the Independent says today:

More than 31,000 readers of The Independent have now joined the campaign to save Sayed Pervez Kambaksh - and yesterday's breakthrough shows the impact this petition has had. But the student's fate is by no means decided.

So add your voice to the campaign by urging the Foreign Office to put all possible pressure on the Afghan government to spare his life. Sign our e-petition at

www.independent.co.uk/petition

Click title for full article.

Friday, February 01, 2008

Olbermann Special Comment on FISA Telecom Immunity

If nothing illegal has been done, why do they need immunity?

Cameron praises Thatcher as 'one of the greatest prime ministers of all time'

Until Gordon Brown invited Thatcher - for reasons I still find hard to fathom - for coffee at Downing Street, even the Tories were uneasy over their relationship with one of the most contentious Prime Ministers in British history. Indeed, it was Theresa May - herself a Tory - who came up with the term "the nasty party" to describe how the British public had come to view the government's of Thatcher and Major.

Now however, since Brown's bizarre decision to invite the old witch round for elevenses, Cameron is free to publicly embrace her in a way which would have been unthinkable a few short years ago.

David Cameron lavished praise on Margaret Thatcher as "one of the greatest prime ministers of all time" last night, saying she had rescued the British people from "despair".

As he presented his predecessor with a lifetime achievement award, the Conservative leader described her as one of the "towering figures of the past 50 years".

The notion that Thatcher "rescued Britain from despair" is very much at odds with the memory of anyone who lived through her time in office.

Indeed, her time in office could probably be described as the epitome of despair. She campaigned to reduce unemployment by running on a slogan of "Labour isn't working" when the number of unemployed rose to one million. When she entered office she then introduced policies which she knew would increase the number of unemployed - she took the number to a record breaking four million - who she then renounced as "social security scroungers".

She devastated Britain as a manufacturing base and attacked Britain's mining community as "the enemy within".

There really is no way to amply describe how divisive a figure she is on the British political landscape. Indeed, such is the hatred she engenders even to this day that someone decapitated her statue when it was erected at the Guildhall Art Gallery in the City of London. Even Tony Banks, the left wing Labour MP and chairman of the Commons advisory art committee who paid for the statue, admitted it was "among our most controversial commissions".

Indeed, until now Cameron has been very careful to distance himself from some of Thatcher's most controversial remarks, especially her contention that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist.

Nor has the Thatcher camp issued any sort of apology for statements of this kind. In fact, when Cameron stated that Thatcher was wrong to have spoken of Mandela in this way, her former press secretary Bernard Ingham was quoted as saying, "I wonder whether David Cameron is a Conservative."

And now, partly due to Brown's coffee morning invitation, the woman who once said, "There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women, and there are families" and who denounced General Pinochet's arrest as a "kidnap" "which would do credit to a police state" is being hailed as "one of the greatest prime ministers of all time".

She once famously said "The lady is not for turning" and neither am I. Brown and Cameron can perform all the historical revisionism that they want, but nothing will ever make me revise my opinion of that hateful, divisive and cruel woman.

She devastated entire communities, she deliberately orchestrated division whilst rejecting the whole notion of consensus:

There are still people in my party who believe in consensus politics. I regard them as Quislings, as traitors... I mean it.

So you'll have to forgive me as I reach for the sick bag whilst Cameron and Brown attempt to publicly reinvent our collective memory of the Iron Lady. I remember that old witch far too well for this nonsense to carry any weight at all.

Click title for full article.

Iran denounces Bush's new accusations against Tehran

I've already spoken about how dull I thought Bush's State of the Union address was; simply a boring recitation of tired Republican Party talking points. I honestly think if you show future generations every State of the Union Address since 2003 and the invasion of Iraq it will be impossible for anyone to name the year that any particular speech was made such is the mind numbing repetition of the man. Were it not for the inclusion of the word "surge" late on in the game they would almost play out word for word.

Of course, the most recent State of the Union included the inevitable references to Iran, but what is most interesting here is the Iranian reaction to Bush's latest attacks. It's almost a yawn...

"The U.S. president's anti-Iran remarks lacked new points... unfortunately, Iranians have heard repetition of such baseless allegations over the past seven years and it is quite evident that the U.S. people and their representatives have got tired of listening to such allegations," Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini was quoted as saying in a statement.
Bush is now in the last year of his presidency and "he has made no remarkable achievements during the two consecutive terms at domestic or international level," and "he is unlikely to make good on its failures and defeats through putting the blames on others in order to cover up its weaknesses," Hosseini added.
"We advise the U.S. president in the remaining time to heed concerns of the American people which could be the damaging economic recession, violation of human rights through adopting undemocratic commands, severe nervous breakdown from which the U.S. servicemen suffering owing to loss of their hope in occupation of Iraq," said the Iranian official.

Bush, in the final year of his presidency, is taking the term "lame duck presidency" to new levels. I was reading the Independent over breakfast the other day and got to page eighteen before I realised that they had made no reference to his State of the Union address at all. It was simply as if it hadn't happened. I honestly can't remember that ever happening before.

And now we have the Iranians almost yawning as he threatens them...

What that man has done to US credibility around the world is simply astounding. Here Keith Olbermann spells out just how we got to the present position. Who could possibly take this man seriously?

Is it any wonder that what he says now is treated with such contempt?

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Official: End Justifies Means...

I really am naive enough still to find this shit shocking.

Here we have the Attorney General of the United States arguing that "shocking the conscience" is dependent on what end result would be achieved by the use of torture. I'm with Joe Biden on this. Mukasey's attitude shocks my conscience.

Hat tip to Digby who says it so eloquently:

It's really hard for me to believe that someone who used to be a federal judge can blow that sophistry in a congressional hearing with a straight face. If you don't know what they know, then you can't know in advance if what they know might save lives, right?

I honestly don't know why everybody's so hung up on waterboarding specifically at this point. If this is their legal understanding, then they can use the rack, they can break arms and legs and they can pull teeth out with a pair of pliers. There is no logical difference between any of that and waterboarding if the only moral and legal guideline is that "it might be used to save lives."

Indulge Me...

Apologies to American readers to whom this will mean little, but last night Cristiano Ronaldo scored the best free kick I have ever seen in my life. This is simply perfection.

The Dems Should Grow a Spine.

"Who do you want to see take the lead role in setting policy for the country: George W. Bush or the Congress?"

This is the question asked by a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll. It turns out that only 21% want policy set by Bush whilst a massive 62% want policy to be set by Congress.

Now, in the same poll, a majority of people - 53% - think it's a good thing that the Democrats are in control of Congress whilst 56% disagree with how the Democrats have done so far this year.

65% think that Congress has achieved "Not Too Much" this year and 51% of poll participants think this is the fault of "Bush and the Republicans in Congress".

A further 50% think that the policies being proposed by the Democratic leaders in the U.S. House and Senate would move the country in the right direction.

Perhaps it's time the Democrats grew a spine and realised that one of the reasons people have such a low opinion of Congress is that they are not doing enough to oppose the policies of Bush's White House. Bush can't get any more unpopular so why do the Dems keep rolling over and playing dead?

Click title for poll.

Sentenced to death: Afghan who dared to read about women's rights

George Bush has called Afghanistan's democracy "inspirational" and implied that, as it takes hold, other nations will seek to emulate it:

"I hope the people of Afghanistan understand that as democracy takes hold, you're inspiring others," Bush said while visiting Afghanistan for the first time. "And that inspiration will cause others to demand their freedom."
Bush said he was "enthralled" to see the progress being made in Afghanistan. As evidence of this progress, he pointed to the growth of an entrepreneurial spirit enabling Afghans to realize their dreams, to young girls going to school for the first time, to the country's free press, and to the standing-up of a well-trained military dedicated to the sovereignty of the nation.

However, Bush's soaring rhetoric is greatly undermined by the facts on the ground in that country, and especially by the case of Sayed Pervez Kambaksh, a young man recently sentenced to death for downloading a report from the internet which said that Muslim fundamentalists who claimed the Koran justified the oppression of women had misrepresented the views of the prophet Mohamed.

He passed this report around Balkh University - with the aim of starting a discussion on the matter - and was arrested and sentenced to death. He is charged with blasphemy.

Despite the intervention of many human rights groups the Afghan Senate yesterday voted to carry out the execution and urged President Karzai not to be influenced by Western pressure groups.

Demonstrations, organised by clerics, against the alleged foreign interference have been held in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif, where Mr Kambaksh was arrested. Aminuddin Muzafari, the first secretary of the houses of parliament, said: "People should realise that as we are representatives of an Islamic country therefore we can never tolerate insults to reverences of Islamic religion."

At a gathering in Takhar province, Maulavi Ghulam Rabbani Rahmani, the heads of the Ulema council, said: "We want the government and the courts to execute the court verdict on Kambaksh as soon as possible." In Parwan province, another senior cleric, Maulavi Muhammad Asif, said: "This decision is for disrespecting the holy Koran and the government should enforce the decision before it came under more pressure from foreigners."

The Independent have started a campaign to prevent the execution of Kambaksh which you can sign here.

It's a strange kind of democracy where one can be sentenced to death for challenging religious beliefs and it's certainly not one that I would call "inspirational" as Bush has done. The whole notion of blasphemy runs counter to the democratic ideal; that all ideas should circulate freely, not just our own.

The war in Afghanistan, which was fought to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist group, quickly morphed into a desire to remove the Taliban when it's primary aim proved elusive.

However, one of the major complaints that Bush and others cited against the Taliban was the extremity of their religious beliefs and the fact that they sought to impose those beliefs upon the whole country.

It's hard to see any "inspirational" difference between what's happening to Sayed Pervez Kambaksh and the kind of behaviour one could have expected from the Taliban.

Please consider signing the petition.

Click title for full article.

New York Post Endorses Obama.

Rupert Murdoch's New York Post has endorsed Barack Obama after the New York Times recently endorsed Hillary Clinton. It's a strange notion for Murdoch to be endorsing any Democratic candidate and it's certainly - after The Sun's endorsement of Blair in the British campaign - something of a poisoned chalice.

And the paper has not stopped at simply endorsing Obama but, as expected, it has also done something of a hatchet job on the Clinton's.

His opponent, and her husband, stand for déjà vu all over again - a return to the opportunistic, scandal-scarred, morally muddled years of the almost infinitely self-indulgent Clinton co-presidency.
Does America really want to go through all that once again?

It will - if Senator Clinton becomes president.

That much has become painfully apparent.

Bill Clinton's thuggishly self-centered campaign antics conjure so many bad, sad memories that it's hard to know where to begin.

Suffice it to say that his Peck's-Bad-Boy smirk - the Clinton trademark - wore thin a very long time ago.

Far more to the point, Senator Clinton could have reined him in at any time. But she chose not to - which tells the nation all it needs to know about what a Clinton II presidency would be like.

I've already said what I think about some of the tactics that Bill employed in South Carolina, but it really is a bit much to have to listen to this sanctimonious bile from the New York Post.

The New York Post supported George Bush whose election campaign was far nastier than anything that Clinton has engaged in. McCain was constantly referred to by Bush's supporters as "the fag candidate" and did so, as columnist Frank Rich noted,“even as Bush subtly reinforced that message by indicating he wouldn’t hire openly gay people for his administration.”

Then, of course, there were the dreadful rumours circulated about McCain's daughter:

Bush supporters in South Carolina made race-baiting phone calls saying that McCain had a “black child.” The McCains’ daughter, Bridget, was adopted from Mother Teresa’s orphanage in Bangladesh. In August 2000, columnist Maureen Dowd wrote that the McCains “are still seething about Bush supporters in South Carolina spreading word of their dark-skinned adopted daughter.”

So it's one thing for the New York Post to endorse Obama, but it's quite another to cite Bill Clinton's campaign tactics as having anything to do with one's reasons for doing so.

The Post had no such qualms when supporting a candidate whose campaign tactics were of a much darker hue.

Click title for full article.

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

End the Illegal Israeli Siege of Gaza - Empty Walls

The Largest Minority have made a new video concerning Israel's blockade of Gaza and have asked that it be spread around. Always happy to oblige:

The Palestinians are powerless, and rely on us for their survival. We’re the ones with the power to force Israel to adhere to international law. Any blockade, no matter how relaxed Israel claims, is far too inhumane to impose on a people already living under occupation, apartheid, and systematic ethnic cleaning. This is true terrorism, and our government makes it possible. Americans can not in good conscience support any politician who supports Israel without condition.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi: (202) 225-0100
The House of Representatives: 1-800-828-0498
Email your representatives here

FISA in 30 seconds

Humiliated Giuliani readies to endorse McCain

It's a funny old game politics. This time last year we were all talking about how McCain had blown it and how Giuliani was lining up to take the prize. Today it's a question of when, not if, Giuliani stands down and whether or not he will endorse McCain. (It's 90% certain that he will.)

McCain surely now steps into Super Tuesday as the Republican front runner and, for the first time since this battle for the Republican nomination started, as the favourite to take the prize.

With most of the the state's precincts reporting, Mr McCain pushed aside Mr Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, by 35 per cent to 31 per cent. He thus also bagged all 57 delegates that were up for grabs in the Sunshine State and can now expect a surge money into his campaign coffers.

His victory will thus provide a huge lift ahead of next week’s Super-Tuesday primaries in more than 20 states. It will surely also spur speculation of one more impossible endorsement in the days ahead – from California Governor, Arnold Schwarzengger.

Gathered in a Miami airport hotel, Mr McCain's supporters roared in delight as news of their candidate's narrow but vitally important victory was broadcast on giant television screens. Even until the last moments, most polling organisations had seen the state as too close to call.

"Our victory may not have reached landslide proportions but it was sweet nonetheless," Mr McCain told the cheering crowd, before paying tribute to all of his rivals – Mr Giuliani especially generously as the "exceptional American hero that he truly is".

I'm pleased to see Giuliani go, some of the things he has been saying on this campaign have been truly worrying; echoing, and sometimes even surpassing, the Bush regimes desire for violent intervention wherever they choose. Like Bush, he promised to "take whatever action is necessary" regarding Iran and, also like Bush - after the NIE reported that Iran had stopped attempting to build a nuclear weapon in 2003 - Giuliani was quick to tell us all that this made no difference to his opinion that Iran remained a threat. Facts were never going to get in the way of Giuliani's hate fest.

And the team he had built around him - which included Norman Podhoretz, the man who called for the bombing of Iran and who gleefully admitted that this would “unleash a wave of anti-Americanism all over the world that will make the anti-Americanism we’ve experienced so far look like a lovefest" - was certainly one of the most hawkish of any of the Republican candidates. So we can breath a slight sigh of relief as this particular Republican bampot leaves the stage.

However, as Johann Hari pointed out recently in the Independent, the myth of McCain as the Republican liberals can live with is just that: a myth.

He brags he would be happy for US troops to remain in Iraq for 100 years, and declares: "I'm not at all embarrassed of my friendship with Henry Kissinger; I'm proud of it." His most thorough biographer – and recent supporter – Matt Welch concludes: "McCain's programme for fighting foreign wars would be the most openly militaristic and interventionist platform in the White House since Teddy Roosevelt... [it] is considerably more hawkish than anything George Bush has ever practised." With him as president, we could expect much more aggressive destabilisation of Venezuela and Bolivia – and more.

Up until now the Republican battle has been a messy affair and one can only hope that, as the field narrows, more attention will be paid to just who John McCain actually is.

The fact that he doesn't hate immigrants and is genuinely opposed to torture is to be welcomed, but to be honest I would expect to find those sentiments in any rational human being. However, it is a huge mistake to look at those aspects of McCain and to imagine that, by doing so, one is seeing an accurate reflection of the whole man.

The fact that McCain is seen as the liberal Republican candidate is merely a sign of how far to the right the Republican party have slid. So goodbye Giuliani, but lets not celebrate a McCain victory. He's not so different from what we have now in terms of supporting military interventionism.

UPDATE:

It's interesting to see Michelle Malkin's reaction to a possible McCain nomination, based mainly on his stance on immigration.

But questions like this remain: How can McCain honestly reach out to conservatives when he defends his extremist campaign Hispanic outreach director who doesn’t believe in borders and when he boasts a national campaign finance chair and soft-money mogul who poured millions of dollars into the fight against English-language instruction in California, Planned Parenthood, and radical environmental fear-mongering groups?

And her readership are promising not to vote for McCain:

Carol…

I cannot in good conscience vote for John McCain.. If the country is going to hell, I’d rather Hillary, Barack, or the Dems can take credit for the destruction of the country than the Republicans.

Eric…

As a lifelong, politically active Conservative I’ve decided to vote Dem if McCain is the nominee. Why? Because I think that McCain will perform almost exactly like a Democrat and it is better to have the real thing in office rather than a Dem in GOP clothing. If McCain is elected and then performs poorly, because he acts like a Dem, he virtually guarantees a Dem win in 2012. However, if a Dem wins and runs things as they are dying to do then the GOP has a strong shot at 2012 and beyond.

What I find most interesting here is that even though Malkin complains that 20% of the people who took part in the Florida election were Independents or Democrats, that still mean that 80% of those who voted were actually Republicans.

So, does this mean that Malkin and the views of her readership are actually out of touch with the Republican base? I do find that intriguing.

I note a similar state of despondency over at Little Green Footballs. Perhaps these rather extreme hate sites are simply talking to themselves at times...

For example, I notice that over at the very right wing National Review Online they are taking a much more balanced view of the whole thing:

Someone who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is not your enemy, Ronald Reagan reminded us. McCain’s voting record is considerably better than that. Before Barry Goldwater said “go to work,” he first advised conservatives to “grow up.” The moment is at hand for Senator McCain and conservatives to acknowledge what conservative voters had repeatedly made clear: That they need each other.

Such common sense reveals the hate filled bile of the Malkins for just what it is.

Click title for full article.

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Barack Obama Responds to Bush's State Of the Union Address

I'm glad he heard the same speech that I heard:

Tonight, for the seventh long year, the American people heard a State of the Union that didn’t reflect the America we see, and didn’t address the challenges we face. But what it did do was give us an urgent reminder of why it’s so important to turn the page on the failed politics and policies of the past, and change the status quo in Washington so we can finally start making progress for ordinary Americans.

Tonight’s State of the Union was full of the same empty rhetoric the American people have come to expect from this President.

Ted Kennedy Endorses Barack Obama

Giuliani ends Florida campaign before dwindled crowds

It appears that Giuliani's bid for the White House is effectively over:

The former New York mayor invested all his hopes on winning Florida. He virtually ignored the early states, Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, and spent more than 60 days campaigning in Florida.
Polls suggest that strategy is going to fail and that, when the votes are counted on Tuesday night, Giuliani's hopes of the White House will be effectively over.
Only about 100 supporters turned out at the airport for a campaign stop billed as a "rally". They were noisy, drowning out his short speech with chants of "Rudy, Rudy", but the poor numbers suggest much of the energy has gone out of his campaign.

Rudy is insisting that the polls are wrong and that he is going to win Florida. He bases this claim on some 500,000 Republican votes which were cast via the state's early voting system before his campaign went into freefall, which he insists will be votes for him.

That may be wishful thinking, but for hyperbole to rally the troops, he really did reach out and hit the stars yesterday:

"We will win in Florida. We will win on February 5. We will win the Republican nomination and we will win the White House," the former Republican favourite claimed.

The extraordinary thing about Rudy's Floridian campaign has been that the longer he has remained in Florida, the more money he has spent there and the more they actually got to know him, the less popular he has become.

The sign on the side of his bus claims that "Florida is Rudy Country". We'll know soon enough...

Click title for full article.

His Last State of the Union.

The only thing Bush said in his entire State of the Union address which made me sit up and blink was his astonishing claim that the people of Palestine elected Abbas to look after their interests. I was under the illusion that they had elected Hamas for that function, but I suppose that claim was actually no more false than many of the other themes he was expounding.

It really was a tick list of the usual baloney. The surge is working, Iran must be confronted, and the US must pass immunity for telecoms companies who broke the law by assisting the US government to spy on it's own citizens. What one super patriot in the Republican party referred to as "a terrorist loophole".

Russ Feingold saw that for what it was:

"He once again attempted to bully Congress into giving broad powers to the executive branch far beyond what is necessary to protect the country from terrorists."

Oh, and the economy is slowing and tax cuts must, therefore, be made permanent. That, and many other of Bush's vacuous claims, had the right wing of the chamber on its feet. And as always, Bush phrased this wish to continue to give tax cuts to America's richest citizens in the most deceitful way possible.

"Members of Congress should know: if any bill raising taxes reaches my desk, I will veto it."

In other words, a refusal to make tax cuts permanent is actually a tax increase, rather than simply the ending of a short term tax break.

Oh, and he wants an end to "earmarks" and will also veto any bill which contains them. An argument which might carry more force and credibility had he not himself requested more than $15bn in "earmarks" last year.

But, more than anything, there was something of the wake about the whole affair. He referred at one point to "seven years ago" and it was impossible not to think that he was simply supplying a list of all the areas in which he has been found to be lacking.

His last minute attempt to push for peace in the Middle East only made me more aware than ever that this was the man who encouraged Israel to use force rather than to negotiate with the Palestinians; indeed, that this was the man who refused to call for a ceasefire during the Israeli Lebanon war, a refusal that led to Israel to all intents and purposes losing that war, the consequences of which are still to be determined.

I also remember the promises he made prior to the Iraq war, the same promises that Blair used to try and drum up support for that conflict, that the road to a Palestinian state was through Baghdad, and that once Saddam was out of the way Bush would push his "road map for peace" in the region. More empty words and promises that were simply left to wither on the vine.

And, with words that seemed to echo those hazy days before he invaded Iraq, he turned to Iran:

"Our message to the people of Iran is clear: we have no quarrel with you, we respect your traditions and your history, and we look forward to the day when you have your freedom.
Our message to the leaders of Iran is also clear: verifiably suspend your nuclear enrichment so negotiations can begin. And to rejoin the community of nations, come clean about your nuclear intentions and past actions, stop your oppression at home and cease your support for terror abroad.
But above all, know this: America will confront those who threaten our troops, we will stand by our allies and we will defend our vital interests in the Persian Gulf."

He made a similar claim about having no quarrel with the people of Iraq before he invaded their country and turned their lives into a living Hell, but the only comfort the people of Iran can take from this message to them is that the man delivering it is heading out the front door and is, hopefully, too weak to come to their aid.

I strongly suspect the people of Iran do not want rescued in the same fashion that Bush supposedly "rescued" the people of Iraq.

So the Iranians, like many people around the globe, can take comfort from the fact that this is the last time this pompous little failure will get to make a State of the Union address. It's the last time we will have to listen to this tick list of Republican talking points which hardly changes even when NIE reports say the opposite of what the President has been claiming.

The defining moment of his Presidency will be when he landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln, resplendent in his flight suit, and then made a speech in front of a banner reading, "Mission Accomplished". It was the ultimate example of Bush's desire for reality to be what he wished it to be rather than what it actually was.

He will leave office with two unfinished wars still raging on, with hatred for the US around the globe at unprecedented levels, and having taken a $200 billion surplus and turned it into a $167 billion deficit.

Way to go, George. Don't let the door hit your arse on the way out!

Monday, January 28, 2008

SUPER TUESDAY: Will Not Decide the Nominations

Jubilant Obama wins Kennedys' endorsement

Barack Obama didn't just win in South Carolina, he totally wiped out Hillary Clinton in a way which no poll predicted.

With 55% of the vote, he more than doubled the share commanded by Hillary Clinton. If the polls were wrong in New Hampshire, where Obama seemed to be ahead only to lose narrowly to Clinton on the night, they were more wrong in South Carolina. Most showed the Illinois senator leading in a race that seemed to be tightening; pundits thought he'd be lucky to win by a double-digit margin. Instead this was a landslide: Clinton trounced by 28 points.

Having proven that he could win in predominantly white Iowa, he now has proven that he can also do so in states with large African American constituencies.

The task ahead of him in defeating the Clinton juggernaut is still gargantuan, but he heads into Super Tuesday with a new endorsement ringing in his ears; that of the daughter of John F. Kennedy.

"I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them," Caroline Kennedy wrote in The New York Times. "But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president – not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans."

Heady stuff indeed.

That endorsement will be echoed by her uncle today as Senator Edward Kennedy announces his backing for the man who has emerged battle-hardened but victorious from South Carolina. Senator Kennedy, whose endorsement carries immense weight among Democrats, had vowed to stay out of the nomination but was swayed, his associates said, by the bitter tone of the contest.

Another indication that Bill's heavy handedness has alienated some Democrats.

Both the Clintons and their allies had pressed Mr. Kennedy for weeks to remain neutral in the Democratic race, but Mr. Kennedy had become increasingly disenchanted with the tone of the Clinton campaign, aides said. He and former President Bill Clinton had a heated telephone exchange earlier this month over what Mr. Kennedy considered misleading statements by Mr. Clinton about Mr. Obama, as well as his injection of race into the campaign.

Mr. Kennedy called Mr. Clinton Sunday to tell him of his decision.

However, I think part of what Clinton was doing was sending a more subtle message to his party. He is asking if Obama has what it takes to face down the Republican attack dog machine and reminding Democrats that, when it's time to roll up one's sleeves and get dirty, that he has proven he has the ability to do so.

Watching all this from abroad I have to say it's a fascinating spectacle. I love the soaring rhetoric of Obama and his ability to inspire audiences and whip up such enthusiasm. However, Clinton touches a nerve when he hints that the last thing the Democrats need is another noble leader who ultimately loses the election.

I personally think that Obama could easily see off a McCain or Romney challenge, especially as both seem to be determined continue many of the dismal policies which have made the Bush presidency such a calamitous failure, but - nagging right at the back of my head - the doubt is there.

And it's that doubt that Clinton keeps nudging. It's another example of why he's the most effective politician the US has produced in the last thirty years. And it contributes to making the Democratic battle such a fascinating spectacle, even to someone across the ocean with no vote.

Click title for full article.

Chavez calls for anti-US alliance

It says rather a lot about the way George Bush's presidency has increased anti-American feelings across the globe and diminished actual US power that Hugo Chavez can so openly call for countries in South America to revolt against their northern counterpart.

Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez has called on other Latin American and Caribbean countries to form a military alliance against the United States.
The vehemently anti-US leader says Nicaragua, Bolivia, Cuba and Dominica should create one united force.
Mr Chavez, a long time critic of what he sees as US imperialism, made the comments after a summit of its leaders.

Of course, having already failed to oust him in a coup, and with their hands tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq, there is very little chance of the US making any kind of serious response to Hugo's remarks.

Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua and now the Caribbean island of Dominica are all members of a trade alliance known as the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, a group that takes its name from South America's independence leader, Simon Bolivar.

Mr Chavez has urged them to draw up a joint defence policy and create a united military force against US imperialism.

"If the US threatens one of us, it threatens all of us," he said, "we will respond as one."

America's meddling in South America has long been a source of anger for many across the globe.

During the cold war the US seemed obsessed with stopping communism from creeping into south America and, to that end, often interfered in the business of small nations.

However, under Bush's presidency, most of South America has turned socialist and no-one in the White House appears to have noticed.

It's bizarre. Much as I loathed the Reagan presidency and it's goals, there was at least an intellectual consistency; under Bush there is none.

That's why the man who declared his intention to export democracy to the Middle East can now find himself offering $20 billion arms deals to Saudi Arabia, one of the least democratic nations in the region; it's like he's literally making it up as he goes along.

What I find interesting here are not so much Chavez's comments but rather how they fit into a narrative that has developed under the Bush presidency. Chavez joins Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong-il in sticking a finger up at the American empire, knowing full well that Bush is far too tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan to be able to anything about it.

The neo-cons claimed that they were going to use America's military superiority to impose what they saw as a new American century upon the world. And yet, after seven years of their military imperialism, the US appears weaker on the world stage than it was before they began their failed experiment.

And that is because the central theme of the Bush presidency - the Bush doctrine - which is basically an arrogant policy of preemption - has failed to produce any viable, sustainable, results on the ground. Which is why people like Chavez can now openly call for people to unite against the US.

It's just another tiny example of the many, many ways that the Bush presidency has actually weakened the US global position.

UPDATE:

There's a great article in today's New York Times magazine that explains this phenomenon much more eloquently than I could. It's well worth reading:

Waving Goodbye to Hegemony

Turn on the TV today, and you could be forgiven for thinking it’s 1999. Democrats and Republicans are bickering about where and how to intervene, whether to do it alone or with allies and what kind of world America should lead. Democrats believe they can hit a reset button, and Republicans believe muscular moralism is the way to go. It’s as if the first decade of the 21st century didn’t happen — and almost as if history itself doesn’t happen. But the distribution of power in the world has fundamentally altered over the two presidential terms of George W. Bush, both because of his policies and, more significant, despite them.

It says this about Chavez:

Hugo Chávez, the country’s clownish colonel, may last for decades to come or may die by the gun, but either way, he has called America’s bluff and won, changing the rules of North-South relations in the Western hemisphere. He has emboldened and bankrolled leftist leaders across the continent, helped Argentina and others pay back and boot out the I.M.F. and sponsored a continentwide bartering scheme of oil, cattle, wheat and civil servants, reminding even those who despise him that they can stand up to the great Northern power.

Click title for full article.

Sunday, January 27, 2008

Gaza's falling wall changes Middle East map for ever

Up until now Mubarak has appeared simply unwilling to do anything to stop the steady stream of citizens from Gaza flocking into his country to stock up on goods that they have long been denied by the Israeli blockade.

Now, however, despite pressure from Israel and the US, he appears to be going further than ever and actively endorsing the actions of Gaza's citizens.

North Sinai Governor Ahmed Abdel-Hamid said that "Palestinians will continue to cross until they get all their needs of commodities and foodstuffs" in response to an Israeli lockdown on the impoverished territory of 1.5 million.

Egyptian security forces have been "instructed to facilitate the Palestinians' passage and guide them to the places where they could get their needs," Abdel-Hamid said.

He said he was coordinating with the Ministries of Social Solidarity and Industry "to secure large amounts of commodities and products to meet the needs of the Palestinians in the country" because many Egyptian shops were now out of stock.

The United Nations said at least 700,000 Gazans -- nearly half the territory's population of 1.5 million -- have poured into Egypt to stock up on desperately needed supplies since the heavy steel wall was blasted open on Tuesday.

Like everyone else I presumed that the wall breach would be a one day wonder and that the citizens of Gaza would soon be herded back into their open prison. However, as we enter day four it's impossible not to think that, having tasted freedom, the people of Gaza will simply not accept this Israeli imposition upon them when Israel decides she wants to further punish these people for crimes that they did not commit.

There's a very interesting article by Peter Beaumont in the Guardian which asks whether or not Gaza's falling wall will herald in a new phase in the Middle East.

They came and went in lorries and gas tankers, in flatbed trucks loaded with cattle and sheep, in coaches and mini-buses, loaded by the dozen in the backs of trucks, all shuttling across Gaza's southern border. Four days ago they went on foot like refugees, but yesterday for the first time the trucks drove through and it felt like an unstoppable momentum had been reached.
They carried generators and goats, diesel and huge piles of carrots and cabbages. But most of all they carried the message that Israel's long blockade of Gaza is over. 'I want to get some cheese,' says Ameera Ahmad, after crossing the border from Gaza into Egypt yesterday. 'And honey. Look, crisps! I haven't seen a bag of crisps for months.'
So walls fall down. Not only physically, blasted down on Gaza's border with Egypt last week with dynamite and cutting torches, but in the mind as well.
The four short days since Hamas blew down the six-metre metal border wall built by Israeli soldiers before the withdrawal of Israeli settlers and troops has forged a confusing new reality on the ground. What first was being treated as a holiday from the oppressive conditions of Gaza under Israeli siege, by yesterday was taking on the attributes of an entitlement - one for long refused.

He makes a very interesting point regarding the feeling of entitlement. The simple truth, as Gandhi illustrated in India with regard to British rule, is that the Israelis cannot continue to hold one and a half million people prisoners unless those same people acquiesce in their imprisonment.

Once those people have tasted freedom, once they have breached the wall and not been instantly driven back, then the size of the injustice that has been perpetrated against them becomes not an abstract notion, but a cold clear fact.

700,000 people have crossed that border in the last four days. Some of them for the very first time:

Ameera, 24, texts her husband to ask if there is anything he wants brought back from Egypt. 'Oh!', she says suddenly in a quiet, happy voice, surveying a pretty vista of open fields, without walls or boundaries that cannot be crossed without risk. 'This is my first time out of Gaza.'

Once they have tasted life outside of the prison, they will forever know what lies on the other side of the wall. And it would take quite an army to hold back 700,000 people who know that their imprisonment is unjust.

What I viewed four days ago as a wonderful day out at the shops for the people of Gaza is assuming a whiff of permanence. Things might simply never be the same again. If the people of Gaza move in sufficient numbers then no army in the world would dare try to face the international outrage that would accompany any attempt to lock them back in their jail.

Perhaps Mubarak is realising this new reality.

Click title for full article.