Manscape

Yes Tooby, the ABC News video embedded inside the Huffintonpost webpage is NOT TO BE TRUSTED.........George Will and Sam Donaldson are really Michael Moore and George Soros in disguise!!!

Please use the link to gain access to the ABC video contained within that is IMPERATIVE for all voters to see. Pass the link on and don't get distracted by assholes that move to de-legitimize the link because it originates in a "Huffington" post. Witness what conservative pundit George Will says about McCain and Sam Donaldson too. It is BEYOND comprehension how anyone could vote for such an unstable and quite obviously mind-failing John McCain, despite Republican party loyalty. The Republicans have propped up damaged goods (John McCain) in an attempt to extend the Bush disaster. The text below is transferred from the video. It is indeed painful to experience, especially when one considers this NUT as POTUS!! Remember..........PASS THIS VIDEO TO ANOTHER VOTER!! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/21/a...a_n_128055.html For John McCain, the panel discussion on This Week with George Stephanopoulos could not have been more brutal. Minutes after conservative columnist George Will declared that the Senator was decidedly un-presidential is his unexpected call for the firing of SEC Chairman Chris Cox, Sam Donaldson, the long-time ABC hand, said that McCain's erratic message on the economy again raised questions about his age. "I suppose the McCain campaign's hope is that when there's a big crisis, people will go for age and experience," said Will. "The question is, who in this crisis looked more presidential, calm and un-flustered? It wasn't John McCain who, as usual, substituting vehemence for coherence, said 'let's fire somebody.' And picked one of the most experienced and conservative people in the administration, Chris Cox, and for no apparent reason... It was un-presidential behavior by a presidential candidate." Donaldson then jumped in: "It was two days after the he said the fundamentals of the economy were strong. His talking points have gotten all mixed up. And I think the question of age is back on the table." It should be noted that McCain's call for the firing of Cox was dismissed right off the bat, as the president does not have the authority to axe an SEC chairman. The criticisms that Donaldson raised concerned the fact that McCain started the week by touting the fundamentals of the economy, before pivoting into fits of populist mantra and calling for increased regulation of the markets - position at odds with McCain's traditional economic philosophies. "When I say age," he explained, "I don't know the difference between finding your talking points and not delivering the right ones, we have seen him do this frequently but this last week was the worst. Between two stops in Florida, as you say, he had to revise his thinking about what he wanted to say about the economy, wanted to feel the pain suddenly than say everything is great." The whole, painful, episode crested with Will leveling an even harsher blow. "John McCain showed his personality this week," said the writer and pundit, "and made some of us fearful."

More Bush style communications...........aren't most Americans tired of the POTUS (and wannabes) screening audiences and questions and news media from their speechmaking? Here is glamourpuss continuing to evade the acid tests of the job she seeks, and this at a time when the nation is disgusted with presidential duplicity and the public distrust it all incurs ......... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080923/ap_on_...n.vIuMs5g4Gw_IE Palin bans reporters from meetings with leaders By SARA KUGLER, Associated Press Writer 50 minutes ago NEW YORK - Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, who has not held a press conference in nearly four weeks of campaigning, on Tuesday banned reporters from her first meetings with world leaders, allowing access only to photographers and a television crew. CNN, which was providing the television coverage for news organizations, decided to pull its TV crew, effectively denying Palin the high visibility she had sought. Palin planned to meet Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Colombian President Alvaro Uribe in New York on Tuesday as the United Nations General Assembly convenes this week. She also was expected to meet with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Those sessions and meetings scheduled for Wednesday are part of the Republican campaign's effort to give Palin experience in foreign affairs. She has never met a foreign head of state and first traveled outside North America just last year. The campaign told the TV producer, print and wire reporters in the press pool that follows the Alaska governor that they would not be admitted with the photographers and camera crew taken in to photograph the meetings. At least two news organizations, including The Associated Press, objected and were told that the decision was not subject to discussion. Palin has been criticized for avoiding taking questions from reporters or submitting to one-on-one interviews. She has had just two major interviews since Republican presidential candidate John McCain chose her as his running mate on Aug. 29. On Wednesday, McCain and Palin were expected to meet jointly with Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili and Ukrainian President Viktor Yuschenko. Palin was then to meet separately with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

You got balls and zero brains TOOBY, squeezing political drippings out of a soggy, inept Sarah Palin for your desperate Bulgeface thrust. America is bleeding buckets and you cling to deadendersville........NICE.......now try rising above the mud of your godshit bigotry and become part of the solution. Time is short. AFTER EIGHT YEARS OF TRAINRECK MONKEYBOY BUSH...............REWARD NO REPUBLICAN!!! http://www.newsweek.com/id/160080 OPINION When Atheists Attack A noted provocateur rips Sarah Palin—and defends elitism. Let me confess that I was genuinely unnerved by Sarah Palin's performance at the Republican convention. Given her audience and the needs of the moment, I believe Governor Palin's speech was the most effective political communication I have ever witnessed. Here, finally, was a performer who—being maternal, wounded, righteous and sexy—could stride past the frontal cortex of every American and plant a three-inch heel directly on that limbic circuit that ceaselessly intones "God and country." If anyone could make Christian theocracy smell like apple pie, Sarah Palin could. Then came Palin's first television interview with Charles Gibson. I was relieved to discover, as many were, that Palin's luster can be much diminished by the absence of a teleprompter. Still, the problem she poses to our political process is now much bigger than she is. Her fans seem inclined to forgive her any indiscretion short of cannibalism. However badly she may stumble during the remaining weeks of this campaign, her supporters will focus their outrage upon the journalist who caused her to break stride, upon the camera operator who happened to capture her fall, upon the television network that broadcast the good lady's misfortune—and, above all, upon the "liberal elites" with their highfalutin assumption that, in the 21st century, only a reasonably well-educated person should be given command of our nuclear arsenal. The point to be lamented is not that Sarah Palin comes from outside Washington, or that she has glimpsed so little of the earth's surface (she didn't have a passport until last year), or that she's never met a foreign head of state. The point is that she comes to us, seeking the second most important job in the world, without any intellectual training relevant to the challenges and responsibilities that await her. There is nothing to suggest that she even sees a role for careful analysis or a deep understanding of world events when it comes to deciding the fate of a nation. In her interview with Gibson, Palin managed to turn a joke about seeing Russia from her window into a straight-faced claim that Alaska's geographical proximity to Russia gave her some essential foreign-policy experience. Palin may be a perfectly wonderful person, a loving mother and a great American success story—but she is a beauty queen/sports reporter who stumbled into small-town politics, and who is now on the verge of stumbling into, or upon, world history. The problem, as far as our political process is concerned, is that half the electorate revels in Palin's lack of intellectual qualifications. When it comes to politics, there is a mad love of mediocrity in this country. "They think they're better than you!" is the refrain that (highly competent and cynical) Republican strategists have set loose among the crowd, and the crowd has grown drunk on it once again. "Sarah Palin is an ordinary person!" Yes, all too ordinary. We have all now witnessed apparently sentient human beings, once provoked by a reporter's microphone, saying things like, "I'm voting for Sarah because she's a mom. She knows what it's like to be a mom." Such sentiments suggest an uncanny (and, one fears, especially American) detachment from the real problems of today. The next administration must immediately confront issues like nuclear proliferation, ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and covert wars elsewhere), global climate change, a convulsing economy, Russian belligerence, the rise of China, emerging epidemics, Islamism on a hundred fronts, a defunct United Nations, the deterioration of American schools, failures of energy, infrastructure and Internet security … the list is long, and Sarah Palin does not seem competent even to rank these items in order of importance, much less address any one of them. Palin's most conspicuous gaffe in her interview with Gibson has been widely discussed. The truth is, I didn't much care that she did not know the meaning of the phrase "Bush doctrine." And I am quite sure that her supporters didn't care, either. Most people view such an ambush as a journalistic gimmick. What I do care about are all the other things Palin is guaranteed not to know—or will be glossing only under the frenzied tutelage of John McCain's advisers. What doesn't she know about financial markets, Islam, the history of the Middle East, the cold war, modern weapons systems, medical research, environmental science or emerging technology? Her relative ignorance is guaranteed on these fronts and most others, not because she was put on the spot, or got nervous, or just happened to miss the newspaper on any given morning. Sarah Palin's ignorance is guaranteed because of how she has spent the past 44 years on earth. (click on the link for the balance of this opinion piece...........on Sarah the Gimmick)

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...;refer=politics Obama, Not McCain, Shows Steady Hand in Crisis: Albert R. Hunt Commentary by Albert R. Hunt Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- For the first time since 1932 a presidential election is taking place in the midst of a genuine financial crisis. The reaction of the candidates was revealing. John McCain, railing against the ``greed and corruption'' of Wall Street, won the first round of the sound-bite war. He came out with a television commercial on the ``crisis'' early on Monday of last week, and over the next three days gave more than a dozen broadcast interviews. He and running mate Sarah Palin would reform Wall Street and regulate the nefarious fat cats that caused this fiasco. It was a great start. It then went downhill as he stumbled over his record of championing deregulation, claimed the economy was fundamentally strong, and flip-flopped over the government takeover of American International Group Inc. For his part, Barack Obama didn't come across as passionately outraged and wasn't as omnipresent or as specific. More revealing, though, was to whom both candidates turned on that panic-ridden morning of Sept. 15, and how the messages evolved before and after that day. McCain called Martin Feldstein, the well-known Republican economist and Reagan administration adviser, John Taylor of Stanford University, who served in President George W. Bush's Treasury and Carly Fiorina, once the chief executive officer of Hewlett-Packard Co. Obama called former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, and former Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. It was a mismatch. Towering Volcker Feldstein, for all his intellect, was ineffective in the Reagan administration; then-White House deputy chief of staffDick Darman cut him out of important action. Volcker, first at the Treasury and then as chairman of the Federal Reserve, was a towering figure in every way. Taylor is a well-regarded academic. In four years as undersecretary of the Treasury, he left few footprints. Summers, as both deputy secretary and secretary, left a lot. Fiorina is smart and quick; to put it charitably, Rubin will forget more about financial markets than she'll ever know. When it comes to governance, and either Democrat Obama or Republican McCain will inherit this miserable financial mess, the best guide is who they talked to, what they said, where they've been, and how knowledgeable they are. Obama's record and earlier speeches belie some of his more populist rhetoric. Yet they also suggest, as do his advisers, a much more activist government role than is likely under a McCain-Palin administration. Comfortable With Subject Obama called for the overhaul of the financial-regulatory system and tougher enforcement well before this past week's traumas. Detached observers who watched him last week, especially in a Bloomberg Television interview, were taken by how conversant and comfortable he was on the subject, despite his thin record. Few detached observers came away with that impression watching the Arizona senator. Much of the re-regulatory fever focuses on the Federal Reserve and any new agencies created to clean up the fiasco. Central, however, will be a more vigorous Securities and Exchange Commission, or whatever holds that investor-protection function. McCain displayed a sudden interest in the SEC last week when he demanded that Chairman Chris Cox be fired. When his campaign was asked if the senator had ever criticized the current commission's performance before, they failed to respond. All For Obama Tellingly, three former SEC chairmen, a Democrat, Arthur Levitt, and two Republicans, David Ruder and Bill Donaldson, have endorsed Obama. Levitt is a board member of Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News. Donaldson, who was tapped by Bush to head the SEC, says Obama called him last year about the financial-regulatory problems. He has never heard from McCain. ``Obama has been talking about the need for better financial regulation well before this crisis hit and has done some real thinking about it,'' says Donaldson, a lifelong Republican. ``McCain comes across as someone who suddenly realized changes have to be made.'' There is a case for McCain: it's if you believe in less regulation, that the government should get out of the way and let the markets work their will. No `Real Understanding' ``I don't think anyone who wants to increase the burden of government regulation and high taxes has any real understanding of economics,'' McCain said this spring at an Inez, Kentucky, town hall meeting, where he also declared ``the fundamentals of our economy are good.'' Until recently, he repeatedly invoked Ronald Reagan's calls for less regulation. He voted for the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley corporate-governance regulations -- then last year said he regretted that vote. McCain isn't averse to some regulations. He has strongly championed a greater federal role in campaign finance, tobacco and boxing. In each case, he saw a clear villain -- special- interest money, a tobacco product that puts profits ahead of lives, and unscrupulous boxing promoters. There has been little evidence that prior to last week he ever put financial firms in this category. Although he assailed excessive corporate compensation last week, McCain has opposed a tepid House-passed bill that would give corporate shareholders the right to cast a non-binding vote on compensation of top executives. Turning to Gramm The person he has turned to most for counsel on such matters is his ex-Senate colleague Phil Gramm. Gramm is a political Gordon Gekko, a brainy economist with a Darwinian view of markets and public policy. It's not easy to remember what the financial world looked like 10 days ago much less 10 months ago. Decisions that will be reached after this election will be the most important since the 1930s. Obama, as more than a few Democrats are complaining, hasn't been as quick, sharp -- or demagogic -- as they would like. McCain has been beset by deeper difficulties: an inchoate and inconsistent message that seems to reflect political exigencies more than principled convictions. On the financial crisis, last week belonged to Obama.

http://mobile.washingtonpost.com/detail.js...rail_po&p=0 By Perry Bacon, Jr. AKRON, Ohio -- As he might put, Sen. Joe Biden is literally enjoying running for vice president, and he's not just saying that as an applause line. While Gov. Sarah Palin and Sen. John McCain are avoiding interviews with the press corps that follows them and Biden's running mate Sen. Barack Obama projects such an aura of cool liberal columnists are begging him to get more animated, the Delaware senator is at times gleefully expansive. "My staff says we have time for one more question, so let's take three more," he declared at a recent rally. He stays behind at each event to shake hands and takes pictures with anyone who wants, and he's brought his personal touch on the road -- close-talking, back-tapping and kissing older women on the cheek. He occasionally tosses a football on the tarmac before he takes off to his next city. His speeches include loads of references to his days playing high school football, quotes from his mother and father and his favorite terms: "literally" (usually when he means "figuratively"), "ladies and gentlemen" and "I mean this sincerely." And he's brought along a bunch of long-time aides on the road, including his niece Missy, who is running his reelection campaign for the Senate, where Biden has token opposition. Biden seems to enjoy having journalists following him around, if only to have more people listen to his running commentary on whatever springs to his mind. A CBS reporter following Biden around estimated Biden has done 80 interviews since he was named vice president, compared to two by Palin. But most of these interviews are with local television stations, as campaign aides are wary of shifting attention from what he says on stage. He holds few formal press conferences with the reporters on the campaign trail. But Biden loves to chat. As he toured the Pro Football Hall of Fame in Canton, Ohio, here today, two executives of the Hall talked to him about their favorite players. Biden declared at different times his love for the New York Giants, Philadelphia Eagles, Pittsburgh Steelers, Green Bay Packers and the Colts, at least before they moved from Baltimore to Indianapolis. Then, as he was discussing how much bigger football players are than they used to be, he approached two reporters who were standing nearby taking notes. "You look liked you played some, man," he said to one of the reporters. As the reporter said "no, I didn't," the candidate moved closer, tapped the reporter's upper chest and said "you need to work on your pecs." The reporters laughed. Biden then started talking about how he stayed up late to watch the Philadelphia Eagles-Dallas Cowboys game on Monday night, even though he had to do a bunch of interviews the next day on morning news shows. "So I said, 'I've got a big day tomorrow,' I said, 'I've got to go to sleep.' I got in the room, started searching the channels and they were replaying the Eagles game and I watched the whole damn game," he said. "I don't know what time it was, 2 o'clock in the morning. I'm bleary-eyed and thinking where the heck's my speech." Biden has had to shift from his usual ebullient tone in his speeches. When he was first picked, he said he would be a different kind of vice-presidential nominee. "I'm not going to be an attack dog," Biden told USA Today his first week on the campaign trail, noting that he and Obama had agreed that the Delaware senator would focus on being a positive advocate for Obama. "That was part of the deal. I'm not going to fool with my brand." But as Obama's campaign has shifted towards a more negative tone against McCain, Biden's tone has become louder and more fiery. His long rifts about the chemistry between his wife Jill and Michelle Obama and his excitement about being on the ticket have been replaced over the last few days with an at times careful reading of a detailed list of quotes from McCain and his advisers to cast them as "out of touch." He pronounced himself "angry" at how the Republicans have much damaged the country in his mind. But on the trail most of the time, Biden appears anything but angry. One of longtime aides said Biden had always dreamed of traveling with an entourage and huge crowds, but assumed that opportunity was over after his failed presidential run this year. Instead, the Delaware senator is still campaigning -- and sharing his every thought. After he talked about staying up late to watch the Eagles while at the football museum, he had more to add. He approached the reporters and, in a low voice, said, "I'm not allowed to say this, but I also like the Giants."

The contemporary definition of "PRIDE" in America is blindness to America's crimes against humanity AND the planet upon which we all live, crimes of American leadership upon the flock of entertainment saturated American gerbil/citizens (and too, being blind to that kind of American citizenry) while gleefully swallowing all the television hyperbole that casts the USA as god's gift to all nations. Maybe Michelle Obama GETS IT. Meanwhile, the mess that America has become (and growing by the day) is your PRIDE, TOOBY. You celebrate this American horror and HISS at those that call it for what it is. Tell your lover Rish Limpdick I said so! Sincerely and with pride, Manscape

BREAKING NEWS RETORT! Any legal effort to send Bulgeface John McCain and his Alaskan cupcake to the showers is to be APPLAUDED! How many of you would trust a surgeon that operated on the WRONG FOOT? AFTER THE BUSH MESS, REWARD NO REPUBLICAN THIS ELECTION!!

No assurance, no comfort, no compassion, no call for unity.........the place of any nation's leader to galvanize the citizenry during dark times is woefully missing in America today. Perhaps Bush the chimp is floating on Prozac...........or worse. Certainly many Americans would applaud the TOTAL absence of the disastrous Bush at the podium rather than witness his sickening god justified oratory white washing the epic mess he's made...........punctuated with his irritating trademark smirks. And so why should Bush be vindicated with a vote for circus sideshow buffoon Bulgeface John McCain? His campaign is loaded with Bush-like bumblings, cheap spectacle and a warful stinking attitude that would make shotgun Dick Cheney grin with his bottom teeth...........BUT..........Real Clear Politics now has Obama back on top via the average of numerous major polls.......good news for America looking to stop the gushing lacerated aorta the Bush regime and his 9-11 licensed nudniks did to our nation........ http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/ If you don't know who to vote for in November, trust your street sense, your sense of justice.........look at the MESS the nation is in and the disdainful regard we receive from our international neighbors...........reward no candidate that comes from the Bush camp/cult. Think about it.........and read the following which is the point of this post as the title indicates...........simply another elite disgrace in the monkey era of America: http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080918/...2fqCx9Ae7pK2ocA Is President Bush AWOL? Roger Simon Thu Sep 18, 7:32 PM ET Where’s George? The president, I mean. You remember him. Dubya. No. 43. Won a second term a few years ago. It was in all the papers. But where has he been lately? Where has he been during America’s worst financial crisis since the Great Depression? Nowhere. AWOL. Every now and then, when the stock market takes yet another sickening plunge, a few words issue forth from the presidential lips. A very few words. Delivered with the greatest reluctance. “I will continue to closely monitor the situation in our financial markets and consult with my economic advisers,” President Bush said Thursday in a two-minute address from the Rose Garden. That’s right, two minutes. Delivered, according to the official White House transcript, from 10:15 a.m. EDT to 10:17 a.m. EDT. Maybe you missed it. Maybe you were at work. Maybe the president doesn’t care. Maybe that’s the problem. George W. Bush will continue to draw a paycheck until noon on Jan. 20, 2009. (If there is still any money left in the U.S. Treasury to pay him, that is.) But what has he been doing to earn his pay lately? Not calming fears among his fellow citizens about their life savings, that’s for sure. On Monday, the Dow Jones industrial average dropped 504 points, its worst drop since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. But Bush did not address the nation that night. Instead, he held a state dinner for the president of Ghana. Gratin of Maine lobster, late-summer corn pudding, ginger-scented farm lamb and graham cracker crumble with cocoa pod shell was served. Eleven members of the cast of “The Lion King” came down from Broadway and performed. It was quite a bash. The Washington Post described President Bush and Ghanaian President John Kufuor as “ebullient.” I have nothing against Ghana. I have been to Ghana. I really liked the people there. And considering President Kufuor had Bush over for dinner in February when Bush was in Ghana, Bush was only being polite. (To honor Bush in February, Kufuor renamed a local highway the “George Bush Motorway.” Bush did not return the favor this week, perhaps because he intends to sell the naming rights to our federal highways for quick cash.) The toast President Bush gave to President Kufuor Monday was 383 words long. Bush’s Rose Garden address to the nation Thursday on the financial crisis was 263 words long. Could this be a case of misplaced priorities? Do you think? We are talking about a real crisis in America that is going to turn into a real panic unless the president does something. Modern presidents have assumed duties beyond their constitutional ones, and one duty is to provide guidance and leadership that establish calm and restore confidence in times of trouble. George Bush did this very well following Sept. 11, but he is not doing it now. The stock market swoons, home prices fall, job losses mount. But the president does not want to talk about it. Not really. And he certainly does not want to take any questions about it. He has not taken any questions on anything since Aug. 6. On Wednesday his press secretary, Dana Perino, explained why. “If you guys [i.e., reporters] had him in here, almost everything would be geared towards the election, and he is cognizant of that,” Perino said. “I mean, every time that I would think about maybe having a press conference, the news of the day would be such that we might be talking about lipstick on a pig, and the president is just not going to get involved in it.” In other words, the president is not going to get involved with restoring public confidence in our financial system because he is afraid somebody might ask him a question about politics. And because he doesn’t want to talk about politics (and why doesn’t he, considering he is supporting John McCain?), he won’t talk about anything. Does this make any sense? Calm any fears? Soothe any troubled minds? Does the president have a magic wand that can make the current crisis go away? No. That is my point. Because the president lacks a magic wand, he must use the tools at his disposal, one of which is the bully pulpit. He needs to sit down behind that big desk in the Oval Office and have a formal address to this nation. Then he needs to hold a news conference and answer questions, even the unpleasant ones. And if he wants to have “The Lion King” performed afterward, fine.

Witness your likely future........the new American fruit of countless meddling nitwits and those TV driven fools that enabled it all.......put another magnetic ribbon on your pigmobile and hail the chimp you so blindly adore! .............and oh yeah, be certain to vote for McCain and HIS BOSS Sarah the impailer because we need to "STAY THE COURSE"....... and after all, GOD commands it!! http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/091008.html Did al-Qaeda Succeed? By Robert Parry September 11, 2008 Ten years after the neoconservatives laid out plans for permanent U.S. global dominance – and seven years after the brutal 9/11 attacks gave them the opening to carry out those plans – the neocons instead have guided the United States onto the shoals of a political/military disaster and the prospect of rapid decline. This grim result from the neocons’ overreach is an unstated subtext of the U.S. intelligence community’s project for assessing the world in 2025, a point 17 years into the future when the United States is likely to have lost its current world dominance, according to a preview offered by the government’s top intelligence analyst. Speaking at a Sept. 4 conference in Orlando, Florida, Thomas Fingar, chairman of the National Intelligence Council, said the United States might still be “the preeminent power” in 2025, but that “American dominance will be much diminished.” Further, Fingar projected that the United States would see the greatest declines in the most important areas of global influence, the economic and the cultural, while likely maintaining military supremacy, which would be of lesser importance. “The overwhelming dominance that the United States has enjoyed in the international system in military, political, economic, and arguably, cultural arenas is eroding and will erode at an accelerating pace with the partial exception of military,” Fingar said. “But part of the argument here is that by 15 years from now, the military dimension will remain the most preeminent [but] will be the least significant – or much less significant than it is now.” In other words, U.S. intelligence is looking toward a future in which the United States may serve as the world’s policeman, but without the more subtle and profitable influence that comes from economic, cultural and political strength – known as “soft power.” Though Fingar did not tie the “accelerating” erosion of American power to the policies of the neocons and the Bush administration, it is hard to avoid that conclusion. In 1998, the neocons were unveiling their Project for the New American Century with its vision of never-ending U.S. global dominance. When potential threats did arise, the neocons argued, the United States must react with “preemptive wars,” striking before a rival could pose a serious threat. After the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush embraced these neocon theories, vowing to not just exact revenge on the 9/11 perpetrators but to wage a “global war on terrorism” with the ultimate goal of eradicating “evil” itself. Quick Pivot So, after invading Afghanistan and blasting al-Qaeda base camps, Bush made a quick pivot toward Iraq to fulfill the neocon dream of eliminating Saddam Hussein, a longtime thorn in Washington's side. The U.S. occupation of Iraq also would establish an American military outpost “East of Suez,” projecting U.S. power into the region, guaranteeing access to its oil and protecting Israel from its Muslim neighbors. However, the neocons’ neocolonial strategy foundered on the rocks of Iraq’s violent resistance and sectarian warfare. More than five years into the conflict, about 140,000 American troops are tied down in Iraq while a force of about 30,000 U.S. troops finds itself facing worsening security in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders not only survived the U.S. retaliatory strikes after 9/11 but exploited the Bush administration’s obsession with Iraq to reestablish themselves inside Pakistan, a nuclear-armed country. The damage to U.S. interests also extends beyond the war zones. The military adventures are putting the U.S. government more than $1 trillion deeper into debt, drawing away resources that the United States desperately needs to retool its industries, develop alternative energy sources and improve its education, infrastructure and health care. Plus, the neocon hubris about American dominance has alienated much of the world’s population, squandering goodwill built up since World War II. Instead of the nation that established the Nuremberg principles and wrote the United Nations Charter, the United States is seen as the country of Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and torture. In almost every corner of the globe – and especially in strategic regions such as Europe and the Middle East – respect for the United States as a beacon of political freedom and international progress has fallen to historic lows. While the rest of the world appears eager to get on with expanded commerce and technological competition, the United States looks like it can’t stop clumsily throwing its military weight around, amid chants of “USA, USA.” So, as U.S. intelligence continues work on its projections for 2025, the nation finds itself at a crossroads. It can give the neocons around John McCain another four-year lease on the White House – so they can keep doing what they’ve been doing – or the country can take another direction. As Fingar made clear in his Sept. 4 speech, the future of 2025 is not yet set in stone. It is only the intelligence community’s best estimate based on current dynamics. If those dynamics change, so can the future. Still, it appears that if al-Qaeda’s motive in attacking New York and Washington on 9/11 was to bait the United States into self-destructive actions in the Middle East and thus undermine America’s position in the world, bin Laden and his associates may have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there. Or go to Amazon.com.

After our growing reputation in the world for gluttonous consumption, spectacular hypocrisy, superficial fame and fashion trends........WHY NOT SARAH PALIN? She and McCain actually reflect what America is today. If you like monkey boy after all these years embarassing the nation with all hat and no cattle (but all the military fury the national debt can muster)..............you'll LOVE Sarah the Gimmick. Her level of substance and god god god embracings will warm even the most stellar American peabrain patriot. It's like Bush all over again............but with sex appeal! Here's glamour puss in her first direct interview which was embarassing! She was exposed for the Republican GIMMICK that she is..............SO WHAT?!!!! THIS IS AMERICA.........we LOVE PHONEYS......and we pray to god that the Jets cover the spread EVERY WEEK!!! VOTE FOR PALIN!! GOD COMMANDS IT!!! (and what's his name too.........bulgeface!) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080912/ap_on_...lin_interview_7 Palin tries to defend qualifications in interview FORT WAINWRIGHT, Alaska - John McCain running mate Sarah Palin sought Thursday to defend her qualifications but struggled with foreign policy, unable to describe President Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive strikes against threatening nations and acknowledging she's never met a foreign head of state. The Republican vice presidential nominee told Charles Gibson of ABC News in her first televised interview since being named to the GOP ticket that "I'm ready" to be president if called upon. However, she sidestepped on whether she had the national security credentials needed to be commander in chief. Palin, 44, has been Alaska's governor for less than two years and before that was a small-town mayor. She was McCain's surprise selection for the No. 2 slot on the ticket, raising questions about her readiness to serve in the White House, particularly during wartime. McCain has defended her qualifications, citing her command of the Alaska National Guard and Alaska's proximity to Russia. Asked whether those were sufficient credentials, Palin said: "It is about reform of government and it's about putting government back on the side of the people, and that has much to do with foreign policy and national security issues." She said she brings expertise in making the country energy independent as a former chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. She acknowledged that national security encompasses more than energy but said: "I want you to not lose sight of the fact that energy is a foundation of national security." Palin said other than a trip to visit soldiers in Kuwait and Germany last year — "a trip of a lifetime" that "changed my life" — her only other foreign travel was to Mexico and Canada. She also said she had never met a head of state and added: "If you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you." Pressed about what insights into recent Russian actions she gained by living in Alaska, Palin answered: "They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska." Foreign policy questions dominated the first of three interviews Palin was giving Gibson over two days. In the interview Thursday, Palin: _Appeared unsure of the Bush doctrine — essentially that the United States must help spread democracy to stop terrorism and that the nation will act pre-emptively to stop potential foes. Asked whether she agreed with that, Palin said: "In what respect, Charlie?" Gibson pressed her for an interpretation of it. She said: "His world view." That prompted Gibson to say "no, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war" and describe it to her. "I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation," Palin said, though added "there have been mistakes made." Pressed repeatedly on whether the United States could attack terrorist hideouts in Pakistan without the country's permission, she said: "If there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend." _Said nuclear weapons in Iran's hands are dangerous, and said "we've got to put the pressure on Iran." Asked three times what her position would be if Israel felt threatened enough to attack Iranian nuclear facilities, Palin repeatedly said the United States shouldn't "second guess" Israel's steps to secure itself. _Called for Georgia and the Ukraine to be included in NATO, a treaty that requires the U.S. to defend them militarily. She also said Russia's attack into Georgia last month was "unprovoked." Asked to clarify that she'd support going to war over Georgia, she said: "Perhaps so." "I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help," she said. _Said she "didn't hesitate" when McCain asked her to be his running mate. "I answered him 'yes' because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can't blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we're on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can't blink. So I didn't blink then even when asked to run as his running mate." _Contradicted an assertion she made at her former church that "our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Asked whether she thought the United States was fighting a holy war, she said she meant to convey that she agreed with Abraham Lincoln's quote that "I would never presume to know God's will or to speak God's words."

Army of Dude Reporting On Truth, Justice And The American Way Of War http://www.armyofdude.blogspot.com/ Monday, September 01, 2008 A Veteran's Case Against John McCain This November will mark the second time that I have been eligible to vote in a presidential election. I was barely nineteen years old when it came time to cast my ballot in 2004. Like any other teenager, I was clueless about the world of politics. I read only the front page of newspapers. I didn't know what a blog was, much less read them. It's safe to say that I was in the realm of the uninformed but not undecided; my parents were voting for George W. Bush. I shook his hand at a 5K in Dallas when he was still my governor. I figured that was good enough. My vote wasn't cast in a school gym or a courthouse. I filled out my absentee ballot on the floor of my company area in the closing weeks of basic infantry training at Ft. Benning, Georgia. Though our superiors were to remain apolitical during the process and not recommend one candidate over another, it was our first foray into the belief that the military heavily favors conservatives. They told us how badly in shape Bill Clinton left the Army, and any liberal was sure to do it again. My drill sergeant, "Hurricane" Harris, told us the news of who won in an unusual way. He asked those who voted for Kerry to raise their hands. A few hands went up in an embarrassingly slow movement. "Well, he didn't win!" Hurricane proclaimed with a laugh. Most of us breathed a sigh of relief. With an entire enlistment and a fifteen month tour in Iraq behind me, I'm a bit more in tune with politics and the candidates than I was four years ago. I consume news and information at an obsessive rate, but my attention is focused on veteran's issues and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't care about Obama's smugness or McCain's ridiculous amount of houses. I don't give a shit about Michelle's lack of patriotism or Cindy getting high on her own supply of painkillers. In the end, it comes down to the treatment of veterans and what to do with those sticky territories where we still have American soldiers under fire. I really want to like John McCain. He gets automatic points for being a fellow veteran and his well-known experience of a POW for 5 1/2 years. He should know the VA system like the back of his hand, I imagine. But by the belief that conservatives will always have the military in the tank, they can afford to burn us when it comes to pro-veteran and pro-military legislation. Even if some of us notice their betrayals, we still make up a tiny constituency. To them, we don't hold any sway. Otherwise they wouldn't treat us like scraggly dogs - smacking our nose after tossing us the table scraps. There are plenty of minuses in the column of John McCain regarding these issues, but I'll cover the main reasons he has turned me away from his vote this year. 1. Opposition to the new GI Bill This is the big one, the vote where veterans watched with bated breath to see if a new GI Bill would replace the outdated and underwhelming education benefits package. The outcome was literally going to change lives. With its passing, veterans could attend any school they want and have it paid for. If it was struck down, only a fraction of tuition costs would be covered. It came to no surprise that the bill was extraordinarily well received by politicians in an election year, but there were a few unsurprising holdouts. President Bush and his administration opposed it as being overly generous. My own senator, John Cornyn, opposed it for the same reason. When I called his office to learn why, his aide offered nothing more than it would encourage too many people to leave the service (that claim was later destroyed by the same report they cited). Cornyn stood by McCain as he offered his own watered down, toothless counter-bill, an insult to veterans who didn't luck out and land a slot in a military academy. It was a pathetic attempt to derail popular support for Webb's bill. When the time to vote came, only two senators sat it out. One of them was Ted Kennedy, at home recovering from his brain surgery. The other was John McCain. He managed to miss the vote not once but twice, his maverick image tarnished by not taking a stand with a vote after publicly opposing the bill. Much to the chagrin of Bush and McCain, the GI Bill passed resoundingly. But what followed after that was even more outrageous. Forgetting about the newfangled internet, McCain went out took credit for the GI Bill, using the imaginary transferability issue to claim victory: A lot of people put work into the bill. Politicians like Jim Webb and Chuck Hagel wrote and carried the bill under fire from Bush. Veteran's organizations like Vote Vets, IAVA, the VFW and American Legion helped to raise public awareness about the bill and lobby Washington. McCain, on the other hand, had a simple choice: to stand with fellow veterans and get the bill done, or side with the conservatives he hoped to woo in the election. Clearly, he went with the latter while taking the credit of the former. 2. The Elephant in Afghanistan For the life of me, I can't recall John McCain having any sensible plan for Afghanistan, a place more dangerous per capita than Iraq and with a fraction of the troops. While the surge brigades crowded Baghdad, Afghanistan demanded attention that still has not been met. Obama has pledged at least two brigades to be sent there, a decision that would immediately ease the chaos on the porous border with Pakistan. McCain cannot make that same pledge; those brigades would be tied up in Iraq waiting for that ever so vague moment of victory. We're starting to see the price of not enough eyes on the objective when bombs start falling. Our resources are elsewhere, and that hinders American forces in Afghanistan that are trying to keep a lid on escalating violence. 3. Underwhelming Voting Record I'll let the numbers speak for themselves here. IAVA scored legislative voting in 2006 after identifying what would benefit active duty servicemen and veterans. McCain gets a D, Obama a B+. It'll be interesting when they release the 2008 scores this fall. To read up on the methodology and to see a bunch of ®s get Ds, download this document. A little less damning is the Disabled American Veteran's group scoring, simply "with us" and "against us." John McCain scored 11 with us and 16 against us, with 5 not scored. And Obama? 17-1-1. 4. Plans for Leaving Iraq This issue is almost baffling in its simplicity. Obama's plan to get out of Iraq is pretty similar to what the Iraqis want. McCain opposes this, insisting on a blank check approach. There is no telling if McCain would reverse any agreement made by the two governments on a definite date of departure. Some might suggest that I should vote for McCain because he is a fellow veteran. These are the same people that suggested Kerry was a bad choice four years ago. Despite his many, many detractions, he still set foot in Vietnam when his opponent did not. Though Obama hasn't served, he has proven to have a positive impact when it comes to veterans. I admire McCain's past, but I cast much doubt on his vision of the future.

Honest answer? First McCain states he doesn't want to discuss the issue and then from his inner torment he pulls a Ronnie Raygun and says he doesn't remember (his vote). From this you conclude it was an "honest answer to the woman!" Wow..............you can maybe work for FIX NOOSE! Possibly, DO YOU REMEMBER the point of my posting was to OBSERVE the video recording for the abnormal behavior of a disturbed individual more suited for a padded cell than 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? No, you apparently didn't remember. You were too busy making excuses for a nut that wants the keys to the U.S. nuclear collection! Tell me Guesty, when does your hero bust his bulgeface through the American flag hissing, "HEEEEEEEEEEEEERE'S JOHNNY!!!?"

If you are considering voting for John McCain............or want to gauge the depth of blind partisan politics that exists among the support base for the Republican presidential candidate.............this disturbing video is vital to witness. After almost eight years of a dangerous nincompoop as POTUS and the idiot image he has burned into the minds of a stunned world...............take a careful view of John McCain in this video and look for indications of an absolute nut. "McCain Squirms Out of Answering on Women's Health Care Issue" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q8obHEULLg

http://therealmccain.com/

Any surprise that a voices from god glamour puss was chosen to run interference for bulgeface?

Yeah.....women will FLOCK to vote for anti-choice Sarah Palin ........the glamour puss NEW "BUSH" "voices from god" cult edition........yeah.........that's what the nation needs........McCain's Hail Sarah pass!!! http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008...-war-gods-plan/ Forget the charges of inexperience, the earmarks, the suppression of an ongoing investigation, the fondness for the AIP, the lack of foreign policy knowledge. All that matters to some is that Sarah Palin loves Jesus, and that she's a woman. In fact, newly released video of the governor shows just how easily she mingles religion with politics. God's will, in her eyes, is something we can use to further our political ambition. Here she is on the building of a new natural gas pipeline: "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get the gas line built, so pray for that." Sometimes you need to ask for a little help from the man upstairs, and sometimes you simply follow His clearly laid out plan: "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [u.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's will." Like President Bush, Palin employs the holy spirit to justify her policy positions. If it's something you want, like an oil pipeline, you pray He'll help you get it built. If it's a badly mismanaged war (McCain's words) then it's all part of God's plan, be patient. To recap why the religious right is so excited about Palin, she wants to: Ban all abortion. Teach creationism in public schools. Abolish sex education. And fight wars that are "God's will." We may already have a clue as to why Palin and her husband like the AIP so much: It's an offshoot of a larger organization that wants to see the constitution re-written so as to conform to biblical law. What about Palin? Maybe once she's allowed to hold an honest-to-God press conference, we can ask her.

You may be sure I'll vote Republican when the candidate warrants. Meanwhile, write your favorite political cartoonist when they caricature someone publicly famous showing a bulging face or a moonface or a monkey face...........call them "juvenile" for their tradition to do so! Sexist remarks (and links) will correspond to sexist exploitation for votes. You may also be sure that many shallow Americans (and those numbers are vast) will choose the glamour puss ticket just because of sexism. Hey Bill, thank you for your comments and isn't it wonderful I'm not running for office? If so, I'd have to s**k up to any number of...........................

Seems like BULGEFACE is picking out his next wife rather than his VP!!! I like a hot looking woman in a tacky outfit, but not for VPOTUS!! Also, there's something SUSPECT about a glamour puss dressed tacky like Ms. Palin is in the following link standing against freedom of reproductive choice for the women of America. [link removed] The Borough president of Brooklyn has a far more important job than the governor of Alaska. 2,528,050 people live in Kings County (Brooklyn), while Alaska is a state with a population of 670,000. Forget about Brooklyn arguably being at the center of the world while wasteland Alaska is a......backwater. (don't think with your PRIDE any Alaskans out there, please think with your brain) I don't automatically hold it against anyone, particularly someone making public affecting decisions, that carefully varies a stand upon an issue.............but I think it STINKS that tight skirt beauty queen Sarah Palin's gives the OOO-RAH, "I-am-a-rock" VP nomination speech as if she didn't flutter a bra-strap during the process. Read the following: Palin backed 'bridge to nowhere' in 2006 http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/elec...ge_N.htm?csp=34 ..................yeah..............something very Tammy Faye Baker about a proposed vice president dressing very "sexy time" thumping the holy bibicular!! McCain the Bulgeface always was shameless. He strike out swinging on three pitches with his new trophy wife.........errrrrrrr...........VP!

It's a given that how a candidate runs his campaign will mirror how he will run his administration! That's one huge admiration for Barack Obama, his brillaint campaign of Internet savvy, grassroots fundraising via the Internet and stunning voter registration. On the other hand there's Bulgeface. Lobbyists up the ass on his campaign staff.....Public, no, private, no, public campaign funding convulsions....attack ads reflecting his legendary anger issues and now THIS! (What a crazy nation we must be to even entertain a scenario that Bulgeface John McCain might be president!!) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080815/ap_en_...e_browne_mccain Jackson Browne sues McCain, RNC over song in ad By ANTHONY McCARTNEY, AP Entertainment Writer Fri Aug 15, 1:37 AM ET LOS ANGELES - Jackson Browne doesn't want John McCain running on anything fueled by his lyrics. The singer-songwriter sued McCain and the Ohio and national Republican committees in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles on Thursday, accusing them of using his song "Running on Empty" without his permission. The lawsuit claims the song's use was an infringement of his copyright and will lead people to conclude he endorses McCain. The suit says Browne is a lifelong liberal who is as well-known for his music as for being "an advocate for social and environmental justice." The advertisement mocks Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's contention that if U.S. drivers got regular tuneups and drove on properly inflated tires, they could save the same amount of oil that would be gained by offshore drilling. According to the suit, "Running on Empty" plays in the background of the ad criticizing the remarks. Robert Bennett, chairman of the Ohio party, said the ad was pulled when Browne objected. He called the lawsuit a "big to-do about nothing." McCain spokesman Brian Rogers disavowed the ad, saying it wasn't a product of the Republican presidential candidate's campaign. Browne's lawsuit contends the Ohio Republican party released the ad on behalf of McCain and the RNC. The RNC did not return a phone call seeking comment. The suit notes that other musicians, including ABBA and John Cougar Mellencamp, have asked McCain to stop using their work. Browne's attorney, Lawrence Iser, called the ad's use of the song "reprehensible." The 59-year-old singer claims his reputation has already been damaged and is seeking more than $75,000 in damages. Browne released "Running on Empty" — the song and an album by the same name — in 1977. According to the lawsuit, the album has sold more than 7 million copies. Browne's financial success has aided Democratic candidates over the years. Campaign finance records show he contributed $2,300 to Obama's presidential campaign last year and $2,000 to the Illinois senator's campaign coffers in 2004. http://www.jacksonbrowne.com/

BANG ZOOM............. http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/081108b.html Neocons Now Love International Law By Robert Parry August 12, 2008 It’s touching how American neoconservatives who have no regard for international law when they want to invade some troublesome country have developed a sudden reverence for national sovereignty. Apparently, context is everything. So, the United States attacking Grenada or Nicaragua or Panama or Iraq or Serbia is justified even if the reasons sometimes don’t hold water or don’t hold up before the United Nations, The Hague or other institutions of international law. However, when Russia attacks Georgia in a border dispute over Georgia’s determination to throttle secession movements in two semi-autonomous regions, everyone must agree that Georgia’s sovereignty is sacrosanct and Russia must be condemned. U.S. newspapers, such as the New York Times, see nothing risible about publishing a statement from President George W. Bush declaring that “Georgia is a sovereign nation and its territorial integrity must be respected.” No one points out that Bush should have zero standing enunciating such a principle. Iraq also was a sovereign nation, but Bush invaded it under false pretenses, demolished its army, overthrew its government and then conducted a lengthy military occupation resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths. The invasion of Iraq also wasn’t a spur of the moment decision. In the months after the 9/11 attacks, Bush proclaimed an exceptional right of the United States to invade any country that might become a threat to American security or to U.S. global dominance. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Bush’s Grim Vision” or see our book, Neck Deep] When asked questions about international law, Bush would joke: “International law? I better call my lawyer.” The neocons’ contempt for international law goes back even further – to the 1980s and the illegal contra war against Nicaragua and the invasion of Panama. Only in the last few days have the neocons discovered an appreciation for multilateral institutions and the principles of non-intervention. Despite this history, leading U.S. newspapers don’t see hypocrisy. Instead, they have thrown open their pages to prominent neocons and other advocates of U.S.-led invasions so these thinkers now can denounce Russia while not mentioning any contradictions. On Monday, the Washington Post’s neoconservative editorial writers published their own editorial excoriating Russia, along with two op-eds, one by neocon theorist Robert Kagan and another co-authored by Bill Clinton’s ambassador to the United Nations, Richard Holbrooke. All three – the Post editorial board, Kagan and Holbrooke – were gung-ho for invading Iraq, but now find the idea of Russia attacking the sovereign nation of Georgia inexcusable, even if Georgia’s leaders in Tblisi may have provoked the conflict with an offensive against separatists in South Ossetia along the Russian border. “Whatever mistakes Tblisi has made, they cannot justify Russia’s actions,” Holbrooke and his co-author Ronald D. Asmus wrote. “Moscow has invaded a neighbor, an illegal act of aggression that violates the U.N. Charter and fundamental principles of cooperation and security in Europe.” And to top matters off, the authors accused Russia of breaking an even older international covenant: “Beginning a well-planned war … as the Olympics were opening violates the ancient tradition of a truce to conflict during the Games.” The New York Times ran an op-ed by neocon columnist William Kristol, who also condemned Russia’s aggression without indicating any remorse for his own enthusiasm for U.S. invasions of countries that Washington didn’t like. Wearing Blinders While major U.S. news outlets may be comfortable wearing blinders that let them see only wrongdoing by others, the rest of the world views the outrage from Bush and the neocons over Russia as a stunning double standard. This larger problem is that the Bush administration – along with its neocon allies and many establishment Democrats – have lost any credibility with the world community when it comes to invoking international law. Bush has applied these legal principles a la carte for years (for instance, ignoring the Geneva Conventions when he chooses), and many longer-serving U.S. officials have viewed events through the lens of American exceptionalism for decades. For instance, even as the Reagan administration condemned terrorism in the 1980s, it secretly armed the Nicaraguan contras who engaged in acts of terrorism inside Nicaragua. In 1990, when President George H.W. Bush denounced Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, everyone conveniently forgot that he had invaded Panama in 1989. It has been as if the rules moved on separate tracks, one set for the United States and one set for everyone else – and it was impolite to notice. Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, however, it has become harder to ignore Washington’s double standards. Also, after the five-plus-year fiasco in Iraq, the Bush administration must confront both the limitations on its own imperial reach and the fact that it has done grave damage to the protocols of international behavior. As Russia is now demonstrating in its conflict with Georgia, other big powers may want to play by the same do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do rules laid down by the United States. It is a case of Washington, Bush and the neocons reaping what they have sown.

READ AND THINK! http://wiredispatch.com:80/news/?id=289432 Aug 10 (Reuters) - Georgian forces pulled out of the breakaway South Ossetia region on Sunday after three days of fighting and Russian troops took most of the capital. Here is a chronology of events in South Ossetia: November 1989 - South Ossetia declares autonomy from the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic, triggering three months of fighting. December 1990 - Georgia and South Ossetia begin a new armed conflict which lasts until 1992. June 1992 - Russian, Georgian and South Ossetian leaders meet in Sochi, sign an armistice and agree the creation of a tripartite peacekeeping force of 500 soldiers from each entity. November 1993 - South Ossetia drafts its own constitution. November 1996 - South Ossetia elects its first president. December 2001 - South Ossetia elects Eduard Kokoity as president. In 2002 he asks Moscow to recognise the republic's independence and absorb it into Russia. January 2005 - Russia gives guarded approval to Georgia's plan to grant broad autonomy to South Ossetia in exchange for dropping its bid for independence. November 2006 - South Ossetia overwhelmingly endorses its split with Tbilisi in a referendum. Georgia's prime minister says this is part of a Russian campaign to stoke a war. April 2007 - Georgia's parliament approves a law to create a temporary administration in South Ossetia, raising tension with Russia. June 2007 - South Ossetian separatists say Georgia attacked Tskhinvali with mortar and sniper fire. Tbilisi denies this. October 2007 - Talks hosted by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe between Georgia and South Ossetia break down. March 2008 - South Ossetia asks the world to recognise its independence from Georgia following the West's support for Kosovo's secession from Serbia. March 2008 - Georgia's bid to join NATO, though unsuccessful, prompts Russia's parliament to urge the Kremlin to recognise the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. April 2008 - South Ossetia rejects a Georgian power-sharing deal, insists on full independence. August 2008 - Georgian forces attack South Ossetia's capital Tskhinvali to re-take the breakaway region. Russia says its troops were responding to the assault and Georgia's Saakashvili says the two countries were at war. -- Georgian forces pull out after three days of fighting. Russia says its troops control most of Tskhinvali. -- Russia bombs a military airfield outside Tbilisi. -- Russia says that the death toll in fighting stands at 2,000. Georgia said on Friday that it had lost up to 300 people killed, mainly civilians. Source: Reuters North American News Service

Don't look to "FIX NOOSE"...Rish Limpie...Sean and Adams apple Ann for the realities in Georgia, the former Soviet Union state...........use the Internet and keep an open mind. President Barack Obama will need all the openly informed American citizens he can get if we are to stop the fall of the nation. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/...8206290341.html South Ossetia: Inside Georgia but dependent on Russia The collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s spurred a separatist movement in South Ossetia, which had always felt more affinity with Russia than with Georgia. It broke away from Georgian rule in a war in 1991-92, in which several thousand people died, and continues to maintain close ties with the neighbouring Russian region of North Ossetia, on the north side of the Caucasus. The majority of the roughly 70,000 people are ethnically distinct from Georgians, and speak their own language, related to Farsi. They say they were forcibly absorbed into Georgia under Soviet rule and now want to exercise their right to self-determination. The separatist leader is Eduard Kokoity. In November 2006, villages inside South Ossetia still under Georgian control elected a rival leader, former separatist Dmitry Sanakoyev. He is endorsed by Tbilisi, but his authority only extends to a small part of the region. Around two-thirds of South Ossetia's annual budget revenues of around $30 million (€19.9 milllion) come directly from Moscow. Almost all the population hold Russian passports. They use the Russian rouble as their currency. A peacekeeping force with 500 members each from Russia, Georgia and North Ossetia monitors a supposed truce. Georgia accuses the Russian peacekeepers of siding with the separatists, which Moscow denies. Sporadic clashes between separatist and Georgian forces have killed dozens of people in the last few years. © 2008 The Irish Times ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://www.thenational.ae/article/20080810...=globalbriefing Georgia picks a fight it is unlikely to win Paul Woodward, Online Correspondent Last Updated: August 10. 2008 9:20PM UAE / August 10. 2008 5:20PM GMT “The conflict between Russia and the former Soviet republic of Georgia moved toward all-out war on Saturday as Russia prepared to land ground troops on Georgia's coast and broadened its bombing campaign both within Georgia and in the disputed territory of Abkhazia," The New York Times reported. "The fighting that began when Georgian forces tried to retake the capital of the South Ossetia, a pro-Russian region that won de facto autonomy from Georgia in the early 1990s, appeared to be developing into the worst clashes between Russia and a foreign military since the 1980s war in Afghanistan." The Times said: "After days of heavy skirmishing between Georgian troops and Russian-backed separatist militias in the breakaway republic of South Ossetia, Mikhail Saakashvili, the Georgian president, went on television on Thursday evening to announce that he had ordered an immediate unilateral ceasefire. "Just hours later his troops began an all-out offensive with tanks and rockets to 'restore constitutional order' to a region that won de facto independence in a vicious civil war that subsided in 1992. "From that moment events began to spiral out of control. As the 70,000 citizens of a self-styled republic of 2,500 square kilometres huddled in their basements, Georgian troops seized a dozen villages and bombarded the capital, Tskhinvali, with air strikes, missiles and tank movements that left much of it destroyed." In The Guardian, Mark Almond noted that: "today in breakaway states such as South Ossetia or Abkhazia, Russian troops are popular. Vladimir Putin's picture is more widely displayed than that of the South Ossetian president, the former Soviet wrestling champion Eduard Kokoity. The Russians are seen as protectors against a repeat of ethnic cleansing by Georgians. "In 1992, the West backed Eduard Shevardnadze's attempts to reassert Georgia's control over these regions. The then Georgian president's war was a disaster for his nation. It left 300,000 or more refugees 'cleansed' by the rebel regions, but for Ossetians and Abkhazians the brutal plundering of the Georgian troops is the most indelible memory. "Georgians have nursed their humiliation ever since. Although Mikheil Saakashvili has done little for the refugees since he came to power early in 2004 - apart from move them out of their hostels in central Tbilisi to make way for property development - he has spent 70 per cent of the Georgian budget on his military. At the start of the week he decided to flex his muscles. "Devoted to achieving Nato entry for Georgia, Saakashvili has sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan - and so clearly felt he had American backing. The streets of the Georgian capital are plastered with posters of George W Bush alongside his Georgian protege. George W Bush avenue leads to Tbilisi airport. But he has ignored Kissinger's dictum: 'Great powers don't commit suicide for their allies.' Perhaps his neoconservative allies in Washington have forgotten it, too. Let's hope not." In Time magazine, Tony Karon said: "Whether or not the effect was intended, Moscow now appears to be using Saakashvili's strategic overreach to teach a brutal lesson not only to the Georgians, but also to other neighbours seeking to align themselves with the West against Russia. Saakashvili is appealing for Western support, based on international recognition of South Ossetia as sovereign Georgian territory. 'A full-scale aggression has been launched against Georgia,' he said, calling for Western intervention. But given Nato's previous warnings, its commitments elsewhere and the reluctance of many of its member states to antagonise Russia, it remains unlikely that Georgia will get more than verbal support from its desired Western protectors. Saakashvili appears to have both underestimated the scale of the Russian backlash, and overestimated the extent of support he could count on from the US and its allies. The Georgian leader may have expected Washington to step up to his defence, particularly given his country's centrality to the geopolitics of energy - Georgia is the only alternative to Russia as the route for a pipeline carrying oil westward from Azerbaijan. But Russia is not threatening to overrun Georgia. Moscow claims to be simply using its military to restore the secessionist boundary, which in the process would deal Saakashvili a humiliating defeat. "Although its outcome is yet to be decided, there's no win-win outcome to the offensive launched by Georgia with the goal of recovering South Ossetia. Either Saakashvili wins, or Moscow does. Unless the US and its allies demonstrate an unlikely appetite for confrontation with an angry and resurgent Russia in its own backyard, the smart money would be on Moscow." Returning to a theme from the US Democratic primaries - the test that every American president can face in addressing an unforeseen crisis - Ben Smith wrote in Politico: "When the North Caucasus slid into war Thursday night, it presented Senators John McCain and Barack Obama with a true '3am moment,' and their responses to the crisis suggested dramatic differences in how each candidate, as president, would lead America in moments of international crisis. "While Obama offered a response largely in line with statements issued by democratically elected world leaders, including President Bush, first calling on both sides to negotiate, John McCain took a remarkably - and uniquely - more aggressive stance, siding clearly with Georgia's pro-Western leaders and placing the blame for the conflict entirely on Russia.”

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/elec...es_N.htm?csp=34 Growing diversity in swing counties favors Obama WASHINGTON (AP) — Minority Americans have been flocking to the nation's "swing counties," hotly contested areas that could play a crucial role in this year's election. That's got to be good news for Barack Obama, bidding to become the first black president. Blacks and Hispanics are moving to counties that already were racially diverse, such as Osceola in central Florida and Mecklenberg in North Carolina, home to Charlotte. They also are moving to key counties that remain predominantly white, such as Lake in Northeast Ohio, Lehigh in eastern Pennsylvania and Oakland outside Detroit. If this year's election is as close as the past two, demographic shifts in these counties could make a big difference. The racial changes reflect national trends: 93% of all counties are less white than they were at the start of the decade, according to new Census estimates. But the changes are even more profound in swing counties of potential battleground states, counties that were decided by razor thin margins in 2000 and 2004 and could decide statewide winners this year. "The key this time is there are a fair number of battleground states that are becoming more diverse, and maybe diverse enough to make a difference," said William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. "The diversity used to be mainly in pretty safe states, like Texas, California and New York," he said. The Census Bureau last week released 2007 data on race, age and Hispanic origin for all 3,141 counties in the nation. The Associated Press used the data to analyze 129 key counties in 14 states expected to be the most competitive in this year's presidential election. Each county was decided by no more than 5 percentage points in the past two elections, and each sits in a state that could go either way this year. The analysis showed that from 2000 to 2007, minorities made up a growing share of the population in all but 12 of the swing counties. The changes happened among every age group, even seniors, though they were much more pronounced among the young, including those too young to vote. Obama, who had a white mother and black father, overwhelmingly won the black vote in the Democratic primaries, and he is polling more strongly than Republican John McCain among Hispanics. Both candidates are targeting voters under 30. But while young voters have increased their turnout in recent elections, they are still less likely to vote than any other age group. Obama "may be generating excitement," said Vincent Hutchings, associate professor of political science at the University of Michigan. "But is he generating enough enthusiasm to excite people who lack a formal education and are disproportionately young, and not likely to vote?" Hutchings said the demographic changes could affect this year's election, but he expects the impact to be greater in future elections as young minorities, particularly the booming Hispanic population, become older and more politically active. The Census numbers are based on estimates, and in some counties changes in racial composition are small enough to be statistically insignificant. But the trend is clear: The nation is becoming increasingly diverse, even more so in areas that have been decisive the past two presidential elections. The AP analysis looked at counties in Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. Nevada also was analyzed because it is a competitive state this year. None of the state's counties met the criteria for swing counties in the previous two elections, but each has become more diverse since the decade began. Some states are more competitive than others, and many of the counties remained overwhelmingly white. But given the closeness of the past two presidential elections, even small changes could make a difference in competitive states. For example, Lake County, just northeast of Cleveland, is still 92% white. But since the start of the decade, the number of Hispanics has grown by 73% and the black population has increased by 47%. The number of whites has dropped slightly in a county that President Bush narrowly won in 2000 and 2004. Hillsborough County, N.H., home to Manchester, is still 89% white. But the number of Hispanics has grown by 57% and the number of blacks has increased by 56%. The white population has increased by just 2% in a county that Bush barely won twice. The nation's minority population has grown through higher birthrates and immigration. As a result, the share of minorities increased between 2000 and 2007 in every state but Hawaii and the District of Columbia. Nationally, the white population grew by just 2% in that time, while the number of blacks increased by 10% and the number of Hispanics grew by 29%. In the swing counties examined by the AP, the black population grew by an average of 18% and the number of Hispanics increased by 45%. The white population on average grew by less than a percent in the 129 counties. "In many ways demographic differences are the raw material for party politics," said John Green, director of the University of Akron's Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics. "If the election is close, it could come down to small demographic changes in some areas."