Friday, June 06, 2008

Johann Hari: If you really want to understand what this race is about, look at the two candidates' fathers.

Johann Hari has a really interesting article in today's Independent which insists that, if you want to know who Obama and McCain really are, then you must look at their relationship with their fathers. Both men grew up with absent fathers and both men wrote books about the subject but Hari, playing amateur psychologist, finds very interesting differences in the conclusions that both men came to.

At first glance, these slabs of non-fiction – Dreams From My Father by Obama, and Faith of My Fathers by McCain – are strikingly similar. They both tell the autobiographical story of an insecure young man who flails around for an identity, and finds it by chasing the ghost of his absent father to a dangerous place far beyond the United States. Yet Obama ended up writing a complex story of colonised people – while McCain wrote a simple celebration of the coloniser.
Obama senior was a Kenyan goatherd who watched his own father brutalised by British occupiers for the crime of being "uppity." When an aide worker recognised that Obama's father was bright, he arranged for his transfer to study in the United States. There Barack Obama Snr met Obama's mother, Ann Durham, a poor white girl from Kansas, married her, had a baby, and deserted both when the young Obama was two years old, abandoning them in Hawaii.

This had a profound effect on the young Obama:

As he grew up, Obama writes: "I was engaged in a fitful interior struggle. I was trying to raise myself to be a black man in America, and no one around me seemed to know exactly what that meant." He tried turning himself into "a caricature of black male adolescence." He tried living as a community organiser in Chicago. And – when his father died in a car crash – he tried to find it in Africa, by chasing his memory. But he discovered a father who had failed. Obama Snr. had left children strewn across the world. He had been blacklisted from the Kenyan government for speaking out against corruption; he sank into the bottle, and isolation.

It was in the slums of Kenya that Barack the son realised he was an American, tied inexorably to his country's freedoms and failings. There was no contradiction. He thought of his grandmothers – one watching her home burned down by colonisers, another hurrying at 6.30am to catch the bus to work in a bank in Hawaii – and understood: "They all asked the same thing of me, these grandmothers of mine."

Hari points out that the lessons Obama learns are what it is like to be a victim of colonialism, whereas the lesson McCain learns from his father is that colonialism is the only way to keep the natives in their place.

McCain also had an absent father, but his family were military royalty, and his father's absence was caused by serving his country at sea. McCain was taught to view his father's absence very differently from Obama. He writes, "you are taught to consider their absence not as a deprivation, but as an honour."

McCain also learns to have pride in the fact that he is descended from such noble stock. He writes:
"For two centuries, the men of my family were raised to go to war as officers in America's armed services." He writes of his "pride" in being descended from "the distinguished conqueror" Charlemagne.
The difference in the lessons the two men learned could not be more stark:

While Obama's father and grandfather were being whipped and detained without charge, McCain was being taught to revere the people doing it. He writes of his father: "He was a great admirer of the British Empire, crediting it with keeping 'a relative measure of peace' in the world for 'someplace in the neighbourhood of two hundred years.'" This is a view his son holds to this day – as we can see from the fact that his foreign policy adviser, Niall Ferguson, calls for the US to pick up where Britain left off. He describes his own childhood in the wreckage of Obama's Snr's Kenya as "a magical time" where "scarcely anything had changed since the days of White Mischief".

When McCain returned from his capture in Vietnam his father thought the lesson to be learned from the Vietnam war was that the US had not fought hard enough, that is should have bombed and killed even more people than it did. It appears to be a mindset that the son shares as he is still angered by what he sees as the "utterly illogical restraints on the use of American power". I suppose this is the same "utterly illogical restraint on the use of American power" which insists that it would not be wise to attack Iran as McCain seems so keen on doing.

So it is obvious that both these men learned very different things from the experience of having an absent father. Obama learned the horror of being occupied and colonised by another people, whilst McCain learnt that colonialism was sometimes the only way to ensure 'a relative measure of peace'.

Perhaps this is why both men look at Iraq and see very different things. And it's why Obama wants to withdraw and McCain would be happy to stay there for a hundred years.

Obama sees an occupied people resisting their occupiers, McCain sees a need to impose American will on recalcitrant natives.

I know which of those two mindsets I would like to see in the White House.

Click title for Hari's article. It's well worth reading.

Obama puts own stamp on party.

Barack Obama has hit the ground running as the Democratic presidential nominee by having a secret meeting with Hillary Clinton and also immediately insisting to the central party that they will, in future, abide by the same rules on accepting money from lobbyists as his own campaign.

The meeting with Hillary appears to have been designed to get her to back off from her public stance that she wants to be his Vice President, certainly that's the impression one gets from the noises now emanating from Hillary.

On Tuesday Mrs Clinton said she would be "open" to the idea of being Mr Obama's running mate.

But a statement from the Clinton campaign on Thursday said: "While Senator Clinton has made clear throughout this process that she will do whatever she can to elect a Democrat to the White House, she is not seeking the vice presidency."

It adds: "The choice here is Senator Obama's and his alone."

So the message has certainly been received by Hillary, this is now Barack Obama's party and not the party of the Clinton's. And he also laid down the rulebook for the party itself.

Under the new rules, the Democratic National Committee, which raises central funds for the presidential campaign, will take on board Obama's existing ban on donations from lobbyists who do business with the government as well as from political action committees - private interest groups set up to raise money in order to influence the outcome of elections.

Apart from highlighting Obama's determination to be a decisive party leader, the imposition of tighter funding rules allows him a clear line of attack against his opponent, John McCain. The Republican has been beset with troubles over lobbying, despite his reputation as a scourge of special interests having initiated legislation in 2002 to clean up political campaign finance. McCain's advisers are prominent lobbyists. The senator for Arizona was forced to dismiss several after his campaign was criticised for employing two aides from a firm that has worked on behalf of the Burmese regime.

The other in-built benefit of moving quickly on campaign funding is that it will cost Obama very little. He has already established a phenomenal money-raising machine, largely through small donations achieved through the internet.

The Obama campaign has raised $272m (£136m).

Obama has already established the best campaign funding machine in the history of political fundraising, by asking what is being reported as over 1.25 million people to donate small amounts. A staggering 94% of the money Obama raised was from donations of less than $200.

This is what gave him the financial clout to take on the Clinton campaign machine, tied - as it was - to traditional means of raising finance; which usually meant going to large donors with one's cap in one's hand.

Obama has changed the process for ever and I feel sure that all future campaigns will study what he has done and emulate it.

He has cut the lobbyists out of the picture - and removed their influence from his administration - by putting the electorate in charge of financing his campaign, and by insisting, that to be an Obama supporter, it is not enough to have his bumper sticker on your car, you must actually do something; donate money, make phone calls, volunteer. It is this insistence that people get involved which has energised the young voters who have flocked to his campaign, the feeling that they are not passive witnesses to history but that they are actually it's players. They have an active role in bringing about change.

Obama already has an astonishing 750,000 people willing to volunteer for him between now an election day. That's an astonishing change in the democratic process all by itself.

This is why people like McCain and Clinton were so wrong when they dismissed this guy as someone trading in "just words". It showed their utter naivety at what Obama was actually doing. He's not kidding when he talks of a new kind of politics, and nothing is more indicative of this than his means of raising campaign funds and his way of actively involving the electorate in the process. Nay, his demanding that they actively become involved. One of his campaign tricks has been to ask the audience to hold up their mobile phones and to punch in a five digit text number sending their contact details to the Obama campaign team. Then, with people already hyped up from having seen him in person, his campaign team quickly contact these people and ask them to actively become involved.

This is all part of Obama's way of energising and changing the political landscape.

McCain doesn't know what he's up against. He is facing a tornado which I feel certain is going to blow him away.

Click title for full article.

Thursday, June 05, 2008

Obama Versus McCain.

I've already posted Fox's distressed reaction to the difference between the speeches given on the same night by the two candidates for the forthcoming election. But when you look at them side by side like this, which is how McCain planned for them to be viewed, this contest should be a non-starter. Obama should win by a landslide. He inspires, he reminds you of what is possible:



You can't help but think that, although McCain has a wonderful past, he offers absolutely nothing for the future. And that's what's elections should be about. Not what you've done, but what you are going to do:



As Bush famously said, "Bring it on!"

Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control

President Bush is attempting to negotiate an accord with Iraq which will guarantee a permanent US presence in Iraq, where the US would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law.

President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.

The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has claimed the United States is on the verge of victory in Iraq – a victory that he says Mr Obama would throw away by a premature military withdrawal.

America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 – 10 000 more than when the military "surge" began in January 2007. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now. The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. "It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty," said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal was signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American pawn.

Bush and his right wing nutters have always said that victory in Iraq would be signaled by an American withdrawal leaving behind a secure democratic Iraq. Bush can't simply declare victory whilst leaving thousands of troops permanently in the country. And to even attempt to do so just before a presidential election in which both Hillary and Barack have made it known that they would withdraw troops is shocking political maneuvering on Bush's part.

The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: "This is just a tactical subterfuge." Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft and the right to pursue its "war on terror" in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.

Mr Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called "strategic alliance" without modifications, by the end of next month. But it is already being condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing American attempt to dominate the region. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the powerful and usually moderate Iranian leader, said yesterday that such a deal would create "a permanent occupation". He added: "The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans."

Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is believed to be personally opposed to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition government cannot stay in power without US backing.

The deal also risks exacerbating the proxy war being fought between Iran and the United States over who should be more influential in Iraq.

Everything that has been wrong with the Bush presidency is inherent in this proposed agreement, which would force a government - reliant on the US for it's very survival- to push forward an agenda which they do not believe in.

It also undermines how dishonest the Bush administration have been regarding their long term plans for Iraq and the region. And the man pushing this outrageous deal from behind a curtain is, of course, Dick Cheney.

The Iraqi government wants to delay the actual signing of the agreement but the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney has been trying to force it through. The US ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, has spent weeks trying to secure the accord.

This immoral deal is simply further proof of the insanity which lies behind the neo-con world view. For all their talk of promoting democracy what they really promote is American dominance simply because the US has the military power to dominate.

This deal would be rejected, I think, by the majority of Americans never mind the number of Iraqis who would object to it. But I suppose Dick Cheney would simply mutter, "So?" when told of everyone's objections.

The current neo-con loons occupying the White House really do seem to believe that they have been elected as dictators until the next election and that the will of the people is utterly irrelevant outside of an election cycle.

This is a timely reminder of why McCain cannot be allowed to become President and carry out a third Bush term.

For years the neo-cons have bemoaned everyone else's lack of vision to use American military power the way they thought it should be employed. For the last seven years they have had their way and the results have been disastrous. Hundreds of thousands of people have needlessly lost their lives, American influence in the world is at an all time low, and we now find that they want to endlessly occupy a Middle Eastern country.

They are the most extreme people who have ever occupied the White House and America should punish the Republican party for ever allowing such people to lead them. And make no mistake, John McCain offers no break from this insane way of thinking, he simply offers more of the same.

The world wants America back. And only Obama can give us that.

And, when we hear insane proposals like this one, yesterday wouldn't be soon enough for it to happen.

Click title for full article.

Who he?

I have no respect at all for President Bush and regard his entire presidency as a catastrophic failure.

However, every so often I read something which brings me up short and has me thinking, "Even Bush couldn't be that dumb and out of touch, could he?"

This is the perfect example:

”Jan Schakowsky told me about a recent visit she had made to the White House with a congressional delegation. On her way out, she said, President Bush noticed her ‘Obama’ button. ‘He jumped back, almost literally,’ she said. ‘And I knew what he was thinking. So I reassured him it was Obama, with a 'b.' And I explained who he was. The President said, 'Well, I don't know him.' So I just said, 'You will.' " (New Yorker, 5/31/2004)
Well, he sure knows him now. As the man who is going to undo all the damage which Bush has inflicted not just on the US, but on the entire planet.

Click title for source.

McCain Speech Leaves Fox Speechless



The challenge McCain faces from Obama is best expressed here by many Republican supporters. McCain's oratory skills are simply shocking. He delivered this speech in front of hundreds of supporters whilst Obama whipped up a crowd of twenty thousand. And even Fox News appear to agree that McCain gave "one of the worst speeches" heard in years.

Elections are not speech making contests, but Presidents should be leaders and one of the ways to lead is to inspire people with your vision. McCain, in this case, fell woefully short, whilst Obama's speech on the same night was inspiring, graceful and memorable.

In an election that is all about "change", McCain has simply no chance.

Obama resists pressure from Clinton for vice president role

As I said yesterday, I think the idea of a Clinton Vice Presidency is a dreadful one, for two main reasons.

Firstly, I don't think Obama can campaign on change and then run a White House that has both Hillary and Bill roaming it's corridors, issuing their own statements of policy. And, secondly, Obama cannot be seen to endorse a woman who has said he is not fit for the office that he is now running for. That would just be too odd.

Hillary burnt her own boats with her attacks on Obama's readiness to become Commander in Chief and she must live with the consequences of what she did. She has no-one to blame but herself.

I am pleased to say that reports coming out this morning indicate that Obama will resist Hillary's attempts to become his VP and that she will, at last, stand down for the sake of party unity.

Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, is gearing up for a tough face-to-face confrontation with his defeated rival Hillary Clinton over her demand to become the vice-presidential candidate.

The Obama camp, though anxious to pull the party together after a bitterly fought contest with Clinton, is hostile to the idea of having her on a joint ticket. They fear that having her and Bill Clinton in the heart of the campaign and in the White House would be disruptive.

Clinton is expected to end her campaign for the White House tomorrow, bowing to pressure from Democratic leaders to help the party unite around Obama as the nominee. Her exit arrived after signs of rising frustration from Democratic members of Congress at Clinton's refusal to concede the race or congratulate Obama for clinching the nomination.

Her decision not to concede but to take time to "consider" what to do next was simply gobsmacking. What in God's name made her think that she had anything to consider? The decision was never hers, it was the decision of the Democratic party and they had made their decision and decided that they wanted Barack Obama to be their next presidential nominee.

And it appears that it was only during shouting matches with Democratic leaders who had supported Hillary that she was finally brought to her senses.

Clinton aides said she made the decision following a late afternoon conference call with 22 Democratic leaders who had been supporting her campaign. One of those supporters, the New York member of Congress, Charlie Rangel, was visibly angry, chiding Clinton in TV interviews for failing to acknowledge Obama's victory.

Since March 5th I became confused at Clinton's campaign and what she hoped to achieve. It was obvious that she could not win and yet she went on. Her supporters became ever more shrill, believing in what could only be achieved with a miracle. Even yesterday, as Obama's victory was announced, a Hillary supporter was posting this on Taylor Marsh's site::
I am surprisingly happy for some reason tonight, it just feels weird, I cannot explain it. I was sad before regarding the nomination but after her speech tonight I feel electrified and energetic and have a certain hope in my heart that she will pull it off somehow. I feel that people will wake up soon, it has already started. This election never was about the DNC members and should never be about them, it should be about us, we the people and our candidate Senator Clinton.
It was the perfect example of how deluded Hillary's entire campaign had become, with supporters believing victory would somehow come simply because Hillary had lacked the grace to concede defeat.

What Hillary needs to do now is to concede and to urge her supporters to back Barack Obama. Some of them will never do so having been so whipped up into a frenzy by Clinton and others, but it is Hillary's duty - for the sake of the party - to make an impassioned plea for her supporters to fight for the candidate who will do the most to care for the causes which Hillary fought for.

Clinton is expected to make her official announcement at an event in Washington, according to her communications director Howard Wolfson. She told staff at her campaign headquarters to stop coming to work from tomorrow.

This was Obama's first big test. How to get Hillary off the ticket. He responded to her press hints that she would accept the Vice Presidency by announcing that he is commissioning three prominent Democrats to vet potential vice-presidential candidates.

It was a perfect way to signal that Hillary was not welcome without actually stating it.

The former Democratic president Jimmy Carter highlighted the dilemma when, in a Guardian interview, he said it would be a mistake for Obama to have her as his vice-presidential nominee.

"I think it would be the worst mistake that could be made," said Carter, who endorsed Obama on Tuesday night. "That would accumulate the negative aspects of both candidates." Lanny Davis, a close Clinton adviser and friend, was among those who yesterday launched petition drives and websites, and writing directly to Obama. Another supporter, Robert Johnson, founder of Black Entertainment Television, said he wrote to the Congressional Black Caucus urging members to push Obama to choose Clinton. He said he had spoken with her on Tuesday and she was "absolutely ready" to become vice-president.

There was terrible pressure for Obama to make Hillary his VP, but I feel this would have been, as Carter says, "the worst mistake that could be made", and I am very pleased that Obama appears to have dodged that particular bullet.

Click title for full article.

UPDATE:



Am I being too suspicious when I note that she is only "suspending" her campaign rather than ending it?

Wednesday, June 04, 2008

The Hole Marsh Has Dug For Herself.

This made me smile. The Washington Post have an article on Taylor Marsh in which her dilemma becomes painfully clear.

In recent weeks, as Clinton's withdrawal from the race has become all but inevitable, Marshall has tried to tiptoe toward leading her followers to accept Obama as the nominee. But every time she suggests that it might be over for Clinton, she is bombarded by comments to the contrary.

"My readers are really hurt. They've got their heart and soul in it," Marshall said. "I don't have that. I'm not angry with anyone. I just want [Democrats] to win."

I've watched recently Marsh attempts to have the mad people who comment on her blog consider voting for Obama and the shock and dire warnings that she gets about desertion from her readers every time she does so.

The problem for Marsh is that she has seen the visitors to her blog go through the roof the more outlandish she was against an Obama nomination. And the diehard Clintonistas she has been pandering to are simply not going to back Obama. They want Clinton or they fully intend to vote for McCain. Their main reason for supporting Hillary, as far as I can tell, is that she is a woman.

And they have backed Marsh as she has name called Obama supporters as "sexist" and "elitist" simply for preferring Obama to Clinton.

So what's Taylor going to do?

After the bile she has aimed towards the Obama campaign I, as someone who used to read her, have no interest at all in what she might want to say about Obama's campaign as November approaches, she has simply said too much and thrown far too much shit for me to care.

And if she tries to support the Democratic candidate, then the lunatics that have been giving her so many hits will desert her in droves as they keep threatening every time she even hints at offering Obama support.

So she really has made a Faustian pact. Those of us who used to read her no longer do, and the people who now read her will instantly hate her if she tries to be remotely supportive of Barack Obama.

She really has no-one to blame but herself for the bind she now finds herself in. She has been pouring gasoline on to the fire and the loons have been lapping it up.

Now, it's payback time.

If she tells the truth about wanting the Democrats to win, her readership is going to fall like a stone.

Listen to this parsing as she tries to explain the Washington Post article to her readers:
However, when I say I'll work against John McCain readers have said that means I'll vote for Barack Obama. So maybe on that I'm splitting reflections.
See, it's clear as muck. She wants a Democrat and will work against John McCain, but don't take it to mean that she will vote for Obama. How is it possible to want a Democrat to win and yet say that this should not be interpreted as saying you will vote for Obama? He's the nominee. Wanting the Democrats to win is wanting Obama to win.

This is the position she now finds herself in.

Sheeez.

Click title for full article.

How Hillary Clinton turned an air of certainty into a losing run

Hillary has always argued that it's not over until the lady in the pantsuit says it's over. But even a cursory glance through today's papers tells you that her obituaries are being written.

One of the best is Suzanne Goldenberg's in today's Guardian, arguing that Clinton's air of invincibility was destroyed by "fibs, overspending, poor organisation - and Bill."

Like many progressives I was willing to back either candidate, and even went as far as to look for ways to rationalise Bill's comments after South Carolina, but it was after her comments regarding Obama's eligibility to have passed some magic marker which showed fitness to be Commander in Chief, a marker which Hillary claimed both she and McCain had passed and Obama had not, that my patience with her became exhausted. I thought it was unforgivable for a Democratic candidate to attack another Democrat whilst giving a free pass to a Republican. And, as I and many others predicted at the time, she was merely giving the Republicans weapons to throw at the presumptive Democratic nominee, weapons that they are already starting to use:

Hours before the polls closed Tuesday in the final two Democratic presidential primaries, the Republican National Committee began circulating a video of Hillary Clinton questioning Barack Obama’s qualifications to be commander-in-chief, and acknowledging John McCain has this important presidential credential.
This was my final point of no return, but Goldenberg lists many other failings in Clinton's quest for the White House:
. A message out of step with an electorate that desperately wanted change.

· Failure to devise a plan B if she failed to knock Obama out of the race in Iowa or by Super Tuesday on February 5.

· Failure to build a grassroots organisation. The campaign, caught up in its self-created myth of invincibility, also lost track of spending, burning through $120m (£61m) so fast that Clinton could not run television ads in several key states in February.

· Mishandling the campaign's greatest asset - Bill Clinton - turning him into one of his wife's greatest liabilities.

She, and her campaign, were also far too slow to adapt when it became obvious that a public yearning for change were not responding to a campaign based on "experience".
The first signs that Obama could pose a serious threat to Clinton's ambitions emerged last summer. Field organisers in Iowa reported back to headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, that voters were cool to her emphasis on experience. Iowans wanted change, and anything associated with Washington was viewed as tainted.
And yet it was not until Mark Penn left the campaign in April that Hillary seriously started trying a different tack, namely that she was the only person who could beat John McCain.

Her campaign took far too long to correct its early mis-steps. Confronted with Obama's megawatt charisma, she wheeled out her campaign's resident rock star: Bill Clinton. But the spectacle of the former president, white-haired and red-faced, ripping into his wife's opponent dredged up memories of scandal and invective - a living example of the "old politics" Obama had promised to end.

While Obama's candidacy was looking forward, Hillary Clinton's just seemed to be looking back. The backlash against Clinton in South Carolina - which she lost by 29 points - carried on through February. In traditionally Republican states Clinton lost by staggering margins: 62 points in Idaho, 48 points in Kansas.

But even after February's spectacular defeats, Clinton showed surprising areas of strength - especially among white working class males. She retooled her message, portraying herself as a populist champion for working people.

As it turned out, Clinton's campaign was as badly prepared on finances as it was to countering Obama's appeal. After outsize spending on polling, consultants, and prime venues for rallies, her campaign was broke by February. Obama outspent her on television advertising in every state - and in some states her campaign ran no ads at all. Even in states where Clinton ran strongly - Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana - Obama's campaign was always better at getting its supporters to the polls.

By April, Clinton was forced to dip into the family fortunes, lending her campaign a total of $11m. Her campaign crossed the finish line $20m in debt.

I think Goldenberg is correct in many of the mistakes which she lists; however, it was the claim that white non-college educated voters would not vote for Obama which eventually destroyed the Clinton brand name in the eyes of many. Her campaign was always going to look as if it had been fashioned in previous decades, as that was Hillary's time, and that was the only way she knew to fight elections. So that was understandable.

What was not understandable - or forgivable - was her argument that the Democratic party should heed the wishes of racists. The role of the Democratic party is to fight against such viewpoints and I never thought I would ever see the day when a Democratic presidential candidate would put forward the views which Hillary claimed to espouse.

Hillary - and her supporters like Taylor Marsh - were arguing for victory at all costs, even if racists had to have their foul views acknowledged in order to accomplish it. That would have been a terrible stain on the Democratic party.

What's really sad is that these people - who are Democrats - simply couldn't see the utter awfulness of the argument which they were making, so blinded were they by their desire to win at all costs.

Obama rose above that, which is why he is so deserving of his victory.

Click title for Suzanne Goldberg's entire article.

Hillary Clinton Does Not Concede!



The Young Turks sum up exactly what I felt when I heard that Hillary was refusing to concede. It's simply astonishing that Hillary thinks she has things to consider. The will of the people means nothing to her. She cares about the opinion of her supporters and no-one else.

As is said here, "It's over, over, over...."

Barack Obama's Victory Speech on June 3, 2008

Part 1.



Part 2.



Part 3.



Part 4.



US elections: Obama wins Democratic nomination for president

Even as Hillary, disgracefully, refuses to concede defeat; the fact of the matter is that Barack Obama has passed the magic number of 2,118 delegates needed to secure the Democratic nomination.

After a 54-contest, five-month-long fight, Obama started the day 45 delegates short of the 2,118 he needed to cross the finishing line. A steady shift of support towards Obama throughout the day turned into a flood. Among those announcing their endorsements was the former president Jimmy Carter. A number of Clinton supporters also defected to Obama.

He was four short as polls closed in the South Dakota and Montana primaries, the last two contests. But South Dakota pushed him over the line in terms of delegates - even though he lost the state to Clinton.

To deafening applause, he told a 20,000-strong victory rally in St Paul, Minnesota: "Tonight, we mark the end of one historic journey with the beginning of another - a journey that will bring a new and better day to America. Because of you, tonight, I can stand before you and say that I will be the Democratic nominee for president of the United States.

He was generous towards Clinton. "Our party and our country are better off because of her, and I am a better candidate for having had the honour to compete with Hillary Rodham Clinton," he said.

The crowd was responsive to the conciliatory message, loudly cheering Clinton three or four times.

However, Hillary - true to form - has refused to actually accept that she has been defeated.

Although several Obama supporters in St Paul said they expected Clinton to behave graciously, she refused to concede or suspend her campaign.

Instead, Clinton said she wanted time to reflect before making her next move. "In the coming days, I'll be consulting with supporters and party leaders to determine how to move forward with the best interests of our party and our country guiding my way," she said.

In a sign of hard bargaining with Obama's team over the next few days, she said she had won the votes of 18m Americans and she wanted their views respected.

What utterly appalls me about this is that the defeated candidate feels that she is in a position to negotiate at all.

Holed up at her home in Chappaqua, New York, during the day, she and Bill Clinton discussed options over the phone with a host of aides and supporters. One of four members of Congress who spoke to her urging her to press for the vice-president slot reported her saying: "I am open to it."

She also will negotiate about the transfer of her staff to Obama's campaign team, about help with her campaign debts, the possibility of jobs in his administration if he wins the presidency and incorporation of some of her policy positions, particularly on healthcare.

I am utterly opposed to Clinton being even considered for the Vice Presidency, having already said that Obama had not passed the threshold which she and McCain apparently had to become Commander in Chief. And I have no real interest in whether or not Obama pays the debts Clinton occurred whilst throwing the kitchen sink at him, but I do think - had I been allowed to donate to his campaign - that I would not be happy to see my money go towards the woman who has behaved so disgracefully over the past few months.

At this moment in time Hillary should be congratulating Obama and asking that her supporters rally behind him. She is not. That speaks volumes.

She is continuing trying to trade; putting her interests, as always, before the interests of the party.

The mindset that allows this detachment from reality was best summed up by one of Taylor Marsh's commenters, who said:
I am surprisingly happy for some reason tonight, it just feels weird, I cannot explain it. I was sad before regarding the nomination but after her speech tonight I feel electrified and energetic and have a certain hope in my heart that she will pull it off somehow. I feel that people will wake up soon, it has already started. This election never was about the DNC members and should never be about them, it should be about us, we the people and our candidate Senator Clinton.
Even when it's over, they are still waiting for us to see the light. They are "the people" and it's about them and, "our candidate Senator Hillary Clinton". This is the level of delusion that Hillary has whipped up amongst her supporters, and it's what's behind her comment when she states that she is the "leader of an 18 million strong movement".

I can't think of the number that John Kerry could have claimed to represent after his defeat to Bush at the last election, but it would have far outweighed 18 million. However, the simple fact was that he lost and that nearly never wins any prizes.

The difference here is in the assumption that Obama needs what Hillary has to offer, which is what spurs her to try and negotiate.

However, anyone who has followed this campaign through sites like Taylor Marsh's must have serious doubts that Hillary could actually deliver many of her supporters to Obama, unless he was to offer her the VP position, which I would contend is a serious non starter.

Obama can't possibly be president with both Bill and Hillary wandering around his White House carrying out their own agenda, which is why I think negotiation with her is simply a no brainer.

Thankfully, Obama's campaign are moving on.

Obama's main strategist, David Axelrod, also made it clear the general election is on - no matter what Clinton says or does. "One campaign ends today and another begins. We are very excited for that."

I am not remotely surprised by Hillary's churlish and selfish behaviour, indeed, it is simply a continuation of the deluded mindset which she has been displaying for months now.

She no longer matters. What matters now is that Barack Obama has broken through the barrier to become the first ever African American nominee for the American presidency.

"You chose to listen not to your doubts or your fears, but to your greatest hopes and highest aspirations," he told a delirious victory celebration for 17,000 supporters in a sports arena in St. Paul, Minnesota. Another 15,000 gathered outside the arena and in nearby pubs where a "primary happy hour" carried on into the night.

"Tonight, we mark the end of one historic journey with the beginning of another," he said declaring that without nuance or hesitation he would carry the flag and oust the Republicans from the White House.

"Tonight, I can stand before you and say that I will be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States," he said.

The era of the Clinton's is over, whether Hillary acknowledges it or not, and the era of Barack Obama is just beginning. To those of us who have been inspired by Obama's message of hope, in a political landscape normally fashioned by fear, today is a great day.

Click title for full article.

Tags: , , ,

Tuesday, June 03, 2008

Sanchez condemns "catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan."

Retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who commanded ground troops in Iraq from 2003 to 2004, has written a new book "Wiser in Battle: A Soldier's Story" in which he talks of the Bush administration's "catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan."

He also talks of the neo-con mindset which led to the catastrophe that is the Iraq war.

In 2006, I was forced to retire by civilian leaders in the executive branch of the U.S. government. I was not ready to leave the soldiers I loved. The Army was my life. Service to my nation was my calling. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, I watched helplessly as the Bush administration led America into a strategic blunder of historic proportions. It became painfully obvious that the executive branch of our government did not trust its military. It relied instead on a neoconservative ideology developed by men and women with little, if any, military experience. Some senior military leaders did not challenge civilian decision makers at the appropriate times, and the courageous few who did take a stand were subsequently forced out of the service.
Are the Bush administration going to accuse Sanchez of hating the troops?

And, despite Bush always claiming that the generals make the decisions - (step forward Petraeus) - Sanchez gives a very different reading of what's actually taking place on the ground.
During that first year of our nation's occupation of Iraq, I observed intrusive civilian command of the military, rather than the civilian control embodied in the Constitution. I saw the cynical use of war for political gains by elected officials and acquiescent military leaders. I learned how the pressure of a round-­the-­clock news cycle could drive crucial decisions. I witnessed those resulting political decisions override military requirements and judgments and, in turn, create conditions that caused unnecessary harm to our soldiers on the ground.
Sanchez is actually saying that political interference in military decisions harmed soldiers on the ground. That's an awful long way from the picture that Bush has been painting of a Commander in Chief being guided by military generals on the ground.

We've always known that this was a perfidious lie, but now, finally with this book, Sanchez confirms it.

And no sentence in his book deserves to undercut the myth of the Republicans love of the armed forces more than this one:
Over the fourteen months of my command in Iraq, I witnessed a blatant disregard for the lives of our young soldiers in uniform.
Sanchez should know. He was there. And that is what he witnessed. "A blatant disregard for the lives of our young soldiers in uniform."

This book deserves to have the same amount of attention that McClellan's is having, for what it says is just as important and undercuts all of the lies that Bush has been trading on since the invasion.

Click title for full article.

'Obscene': Mugabe's arrival at food summit provokes outrage

So Mugabe flies into Rome, which he is only allowed to do because the EU travel ban excludes any United Nations events, to attend a food summit.

The man whose policies have resulted in the starving of his people, this unelected little tyrant, has the sheer gall to sit there whilst other nations discuss food policies. It's beyond bizarre.

"Robert Mugabe going to Rome for the food summit is like Pol Pot going to a human rights convention," said Lord Malloch-Brown, the Foreign Office minister for Africa, referring to the mastermind of the Cambodian genocide.

The British representative to the meeting, Douglas Alexander, the International Development Secretary, said Mr Mugabe's appearance was "obscene".

"This meeting is supposed to be about increasing the supply of food," Mr Alexander told BBC Radio, "while his policies have exactly the reverse effect in Zimbabwe." His presence in Rome was "an affront to all Zimbabweans who are suffering hunger, destitution and poverty as a direct result of his rule". That view was echoed by representatives from the United States, Australia and the Netherlands.

I know that Britain is always loathe to directly interfere in Zimbabwe's affairs lest Mugabe be able to play the old colonialism card that he has been touting for decades now, but I do think the international communities reaction to this tinpot dictator has been utterly disgraceful.

We have sat silently by while he brutalises any opposition to him within his own country, and now he gives us the finger by attending an international convention on food, whilst his own people face the largest inflation rate in the world and empty shelves in the shops.

Meanwhile, in Zimbabwe, as Mugabe and his wife take in the grandeur of Rome:
Death squads haunt the land: as reported on The Independent's front page yesterday, the tortured and broken body of one of Mr Mugabe's most courageous opponents, Tonderai Ndira, was found weeks after he had been dragged from his home in his underwear. In recent months, tens of thousands of Zimbabweans have fled abroad to escape the hunger, violence and desperate poverty of their homeland, where inflation is running at 165,000 per cent.
There is understandable outrage that Mugabe should be attending such an event, but we have brought it upon ourselves. Our reaction to this man has simply been spineless. We continue to look to Mbeki of South Africa to do something when it is obvious to one and all that Mbeki is never going to do bugger all about this.

Douglas Alexander, the British International Development Secretary, is facing calls that he should boycott the conference.

Some Labour MPs tabled a Commons protest motion calling for Mr Alexander to stay away and criticised ministers for double standards on Zimbabwe. Harry Cohen said: "It's unbelievable that Douglas Alexander should turn up at the same conference as Robert Mugabe after the boycott by Gordon Brown. There is a total lack of consistency and double standards by the Government." He warned: "Mugabe is facing elections and is going to play this for all it is worth ... Douglas Alexander is playing into his hands. And it will do no favours for the opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai."

The calls for a boycott were supported by Ian Gibson, the former Labour chairman of the Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology, who said it was "shocking" that Mr Mugabe should be attending a conference on food shortages when he had wrecked the food economy of his own country.

"I don't think Mugabe will listen to a word a British minister says," said Mr Gibson. "Douglas Alexander should take his lead from Gordon Brown and stay away." But Mr Brown's official spokesman insisted last night that the minister would attend the UN meeting as planned.

Far more important than boycotting any meetings would be a UN decision to force election monitors into Zimbabwe ahead of the second election.

The people of Zimbabwe have spoken, we should be taking steps to make sure that they are heard.

Click title for full article.

Clinton camp in two minds over exit plan

I'm sorry, but I find this bloody ridiculous. Barack Obama is now only 45 short of the 2,118 delegates he needs to seal the Democratic nomination and we hear that there are discussions in the Clinton camp about when to gracefully throw in the towel.

Some of her team are pressing her to bow out gracefully and endorse Barack Obama. But die-hard loyalists are advocating she put her campaign on hold, hang on to her delegates and wait to see what turns up between now and the Democratic convention in August.

Clinton has organised a party in her home state, New York, to mark the end of the primary season with tonight's contests in South Dakota and Montana.

At her party she will thank her campaign workers for their efforts over the past five months. An insider said he would be shocked if she used the occasion to concede, insisting she had not yet made a final decision about her next move.

On Sunday Clinton refused to disclose her intentions. "We'll see when Tuesday and the day after Tuesday comes," she said. "My political obituary has yet to be written, and we're going forward. It's not over till it's over." But her campaign sent out emails to some staff advising them they were being laid off as of tonight.

I've said before that I no longer think a dignified exit is possible for the woman who has clung on far longer than she ever should have done, but to fail to concede now is simply silly.

The super delegates will declare soon enough and make the decision for her, surely it would be better before that point to gracefully concede, rather than wait until your defeat is written into stone by others?

However, disgracefully, some of her supporters are putting forward their reasoning as to why she should not concede.
Even her fiercest supporters accept Obama will pass the magic number - if not tonight then very soon after that. Their last-ditch strategy is for her to hang on until the convention, when the nominee is formally adopted, in the hope that some scandal will be unearthed by then that would so damage Obama that he would haemorrhage support from superdelegates. Some Clinton voters have also threatened to lead a mass exodus of women from the Democratic party.
So, she might refuse to concede defeat in the hope that some scandal might break and derail the Obama campaign? So we now have a fellow Democrat hoping that a scandal might hit the presumptive Democratic nominee? Could this entire affair possibly have less class?

"I think its pretty clear that she is not conceding." Elleithee said, "I think its pretty clear that she is staying in this race. She is going, in the coming days, to be aggressively courting uncommitted superdelegates aggressively courting unpledged delegates, making the case to them that she is a candidate best ready to take on John McCain."

When asked directly when Clinton will step aside, Elietthee told reporters, “as she has said dozens and dozens of times she is in this race until we have a nominee...Until there is a nominee she is going to try to win support."

He continued “until there is a nominee we are going to still work to become that nominee. When asked when they would determine a nominee would be selected –- because the Clinton campaign has refused to accept fully the 2,118 number –- Elleithee said, “we're exploring -- she has said before she wants to have this to be resolved before the convention -- we are reviewing our options.”

Eliethee continued, “We do not expect that a nominee will be clear tomorrow night … she is mostly going to be working the phones and meeting with these delegates."

When asked why Clinton was spending tomorrow in New York at an event the campaign is calling a "victory party," Clinton’s spokesperson said, “it’s a good way to close out this phase of the campaign is come to New York bring all of her supporters together, have a big celebratory election night party as we move into the next phase of the campaign which is obviously the courting of these delegates.”

Her entire campaign has been horrible, so why am I remotely surprised that it's going to end horribly as well?

Her supporters continue to live in a fantasy world where victory is always possible and probably just over the next hill.

It's the exact same mindset that Bush and McCain use to justify continuing to stay in Iraq. "Things just might improve any second now", so let's not "cut and run".

Hillary and her supporters are just as distanced from reality as the administration they hope to replace. Now that's saying something.....

Click title for full article.

Monday, June 02, 2008

The Clintons have not just lost the nomination, they've lost the heart and soul of the Democratic Party.

Shortly after Texas and Ohio, when anyone paying attention knew that Hillary simply could no longer defeat what her supporters referred to as "the maths problem", I used to be amazed at how so many broadsheets - both here and in the US - continued to talk as if we were still witnessing a very close race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

What a difference a couple of months makes.

Hillary has just pulled of a massive 68% to 32% victory over Obama in Puerto Rico which the Guardian have referred to as "her swan song" and the Independent have labelled her campaign's "death throes."

What's taken newspapers so long to report accurately on the narrative that has actually been developing here?

Did it suit their purposes to make out that a contest, which was essentially over, was actually "neck and neck"?

Ridiculously, her campaign continue to make the argument that the super delegates should plonk for her, which isn't so much wishful thinking as further proof that her campaign team are either shameless or simply barking mad.

"Well clearly, it ultimately comes down to the delegates. But I think it's very important to note that Hillary Clinton will have received more votes than anyone ever running for president on either side in primary battle," her campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe stressed on ABC television.
The claim that she has received more votes than anyone ever running for president is based on counting Michigan, where Obama's name was not even on the ballot paper, and discounting several caucus states from the tally.

The fact that Obama was awarded delegates from Michigan would appear to undermine the logic of the Clinton camps argument, but they have given up on logic a long, long time ago.

And the fact that Obama was awarded those delegates points to a much more telling truth:

Mr Ickes was signalling Hillary and Bill Clinton's fury at party leaders who once cowed before them. It was as clear a sign as any, according to the respected NBC political analyst, Chuck Todd, that "the Democratic National Committee is not somehow controlled by the Clintons ... any more."

"This is Barack Obama's party now. He's already been winning the outside game. He now won the inside game," Mr Todd said.

At the beginning of this campaign Hillary, with her name recognition and her twenty point lead, appeared unassailable. Somewhere along the line the Clintons lost not only the nomination but the heart and soul of the Democratic party itself.

Her campaign was vicious and nasty and, at times, appeared more concerned with damaging Obama than John McCain. She threatened to throw the kitchen sink at Obama and then went on to do just that.

I am terribly pleased that such a cynical campaign has floundered, but I also feel that she would never have been able to go on as long as she did had newspapers been reporting the true story of where both the candidates really stood regarding their chances of obtaining victory.

However, by refusing to concede when victory became impossible, Hillary fatally traded away the Clinton magic for the support of a bunch of people who now threaten to vote Republican come November. That was a very bad deal any way you look at it.

Click title for full article.

US accused of holding terror suspects on prison ships

Human rights lawyers are claiming that the US is operating a series of floating prisons, utilising prison ships in an attempt to conceal the numbers and whereabouts of detainees.

Details of ships where detainees have been held and sites allegedly being used in countries across the world have been compiled as the debate over detention without trial intensifies on both sides of the Atlantic. The US government was yesterday urged to list the names and whereabouts of all those detained.

Information about the operation of prison ships has emerged through a number of sources, including statements from the US military, the Council of Europe and related parliamentary bodies, and the testimonies of prisoners.

The analysis, due to be published this year by the human rights organisation Reprieve, also claims there have been more than 200 new cases of rendition since 2006, when President George Bush declared that the practice had stopped.

It is the use of ships to detain prisoners, however, that is raising fresh concern and demands for inquiries in Britain and the US.

According to research carried out by Reprieve, the US may have used as many as 17 ships as "floating prisons" since 2001. Detainees are interrogated aboard the vessels and then rendered to other, often undisclosed, locations, it is claimed.

This is one of the many reasons why such a great number of Europeans yearn for the day that Barack Obama takes over as US president and brings these disgusting practices to an end.

We want America back. We want a US who would never dream of behaving like a third world dictatorship, no matter what the circumstances.

It's hard when reading the following to believe that we are discussing the USA at all:

Reprieve will raise particular concerns over the activities of the USS Ashland and the time it spent off Somalia in early 2007 conducting maritime security operations in an effort to capture al-Qaida terrorists.

At this time many people were abducted by Somali, Kenyan and Ethiopian forces in a systematic operation involving regular interrogations by individuals believed to be members of the FBI and CIA. Ultimately more than 100 individuals were "disappeared" to prisons in locations including Kenya, Somalia, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Guantánamo Bay.

I mean the use of the word "disappeared" when referring to prisoners is the kind of thing one associates with dictatorships, it's certainly not a word that one would expect to come across in relation to the world's leading democracy and sole superpower.

And yet, under the leadership of George W Bush, such words are now routinely used to describe people held by the US.

What is the need for such secrecy? If the US has proof against these men why can't this evidence simply be presented before a court of law?

Clive Stafford Smith, Reprieve's legal director, said: "They choose ships to try to keep their misconduct as far as possible from the prying eyes of the media and lawyers. We will eventually reunite these ghost prisoners with their legal rights.

"By its own admission, the US government is currently detaining at least 26,000 people without trial in secret prisons, and information suggests up to 80,000 have been 'through the system' since 2001. The US government must show a commitment to rights and basic humanity by immediately revealing who these people are, where they are, and what has been done to them."

26,000 people are currently being denied the basic right of Habeas corpus. People should be marching in the streets over this, but we appear to have become overwhelmed by the illegality of the Bush administration and beaten into submission. The British Labour government which, according to it's traditions, should be loudly opposing what is taking place, acts as if it is a silent partner.

Andrew Tyrie, the Conservative MP who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on extraordinary rendition, called for the US and UK governments to come clean over the holding of detainees.

"Little by little, the truth is coming out on extraordinary rendition. The rest will come, in time. Better for governments to be candid now, rather than later. Greater transparency will provide increased confidence that President Bush's departure from justice and the rule of law in the aftermath of September 11 is being reversed, and can help to win back the confidence of moderate Muslim communities, whose support is crucial in tackling dangerous extremism."

The Liberal Democrat's foreign affairs spokesman, Edward Davey, said: "If the Bush administration is using British territories to aid and abet illegal state abduction, it would amount to a huge breach of trust with the British government. Ministers must make absolutely clear that they would not support such illegal activity, either directly or indirectly."

Where I disagree with Andrew Tyrie is in the notion that trust is merely being lost amongst the moderate Muslim communities. Trust is actually being eroded across the board amongst everyone who believes in civil liberties and the basic rule of law.

The Bush administration has been an abomination and I feel sure one day books will be written about this disgraceful period in American history.

However, when history condemns Bush and Cheney for what they have done, a special chapter should be set aside to discuss Blair and Brown and the silent complicity they offered as human rights were shredded.

Click title for full article.

Return of soldiers' remains greets release of Hizbullah spy

Israel released a suspected Hizbullah spy yesterday and, in return, received the remains of Israeli soldiers, sparking speculation that even more exchanges are on the way; with the most obvious candidate being the young Israeli soldier whose kidnap in Gaza was quickly followed by the kidnap of two other Israeli soldiers on the Lebanese border, ostensibly, starting the Israel-Lebanon war. That young soldier was named Gilad Shalit.

Ehud Olmert invaded Lebanon and the Gaza strip in an effort to find Gilad and the two other Israeli soldiers whilst refusing to engage in the kind of prisoner swap which Israel routinely indulges in.

I said at the the time that I thought Israel's behaviour was disgraceful, especially as we all knew one day she would do the very thing she was refusing to do at the time of the war.

The country that Hariri rebuilt, against all the odds, after years of civil war and after a twenty year Israeli occupation, is being systematically torn to pieces. It's bridges, it's power plants, it's roads, it's buildings, it's airport, are all being levelled. Even the viaduct has been broken.

Beirut, the "Paris of the East", is being reduced to rubble.

And for what? For what?

When all this rampant, disgraceful destruction is over, the Israelis will still have to carry out their prisoner swap if they want their soldiers returned.
And now, having brought about billions of dollars worth of damage in Lebanon, and killing God knows how many people, Ehud Olmert is arranging the same prisoner swap which was on offer two years ago.

Had he embarked on this course then, the Israel-Lebanon war - which he lost - would never have had to be fought. It's the final proof, were any more needed, of how unfit he is to hold his office.

Israel freed a convicted Hizbullah spy yesterday and received what was believed to be the remains of Israeli soldiers in return, sparking speculation of a bigger prisoner exchange between the enemies.

Nassim Nisr, the son of a Jewish mother and Lebanese Muslim father who migrated to Israel as an adult and became a citizen, was deported by Israeli security officials after serving a six-year sentence for passing information to the Iranian-backed militia.

Israeli security officials delivered Nisr to the Red Cross and the UN, who ushered him across the border to a hero's welcome in the Lebanese border town of Naqoura, where a Hizbullah official told the crowd it had released the remains of Israeli soldiers.

Of course, Israel is denying that what we are witnessing is a swap of any kind.

Israel said it was surprised by the gesture and denied it was formal trade. "At the moment we are saying nothing," a spokesman for Israel's prime minister, Ehud Olmert, said.

Israel are demanding the release of the two soldiers whose kidnap - shortly after the kidnap of Gilad Shalit - was instrumental to the invasion of Lebanon.

Israel has also been demanding the return of two soldiers, Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, whose capture by Hizbullah in July 2006 culminated in the outbreak of war, but the militia has refused to reveal whether they are still alive.

I am slightly appalled that Gilad Shalit is not even mentioned in this article, but I've written before about how this young man has been erased from the storyline of this particular period of Israeli history.

Thousands of people died and millions of pounds worth of damage was done to Lebanon's infrastructure to ensure the return of Eldad Regev, Ehud Goldwasser and Gilad Shalit.

And now, finally, after all that unnecessary mayhem, Olmert, at last appears to be doing the deal. Israel may be denying that a deal is being done but the Europeans are making noises which confirm that negotiations are taking place.
While Israel played down suggestions of a larger deal, the German foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who has been mediating between the parties, said: "I am happy that preliminary steps were taken in that direction and hope that this creates a positive dynamic, building mutual trust."
However, even whilst this swap is being arranged, young Gilad Shalit has been, once again, removed from the narrative.

The war, which was ostensibly to guarantee his rescue, eventually became about destroying Hizbullah, and it's original objectives were forgotten. As I said at the time:
It should be obvious to even the most casual observer that, if the goal of this operation is to ensure the rescue of kidnapped soldiers, then it is time for a rethink. The mission is not going to plan.

But the mission has changed, the original reasoning has been discarded, the aims of the war are now the complete destruction of Hizbullah.


And, with that change of mission, young Gilad Shalit lies, like a thrown away photograph, floating down a gutter.


But I remember Gilad.
The mother of Ehud Goldwasser has recently condemned Olmert for refusing to "pay the price" to secure her son's release and the father of Gilad Shalit has been reduced to asking people to send his son 21st birthday cards via the United Nations.

Now, at long last, Israel appears to be willing to do a deal to secure the rescue of Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser. It's a deal they should have done two years ago before so many needlessly died.

And, once again, young Gilad Shalit has dropped out of the narrative.

But I remember Gilad. And so should you. And we should all never forget how many died because Olmert refused to do then what he is doing now.

Click title for full article.

UPDATE:

We must also not forget the influence of the neo-cons in this war.



Nor will anyone who witnessed it ever forget this classic exchange.