The Polish government, which had been haggling with Washington for months, acted quickly to sign an initial agreement with Undersecretary of State John Rood just two days after the Russian invasion. Then, less than a week later, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was in Warsaw signing the formal agreement.

For months the Polish government had been asking for billions of dollars in aid. But this was quickly forgotten when Russia invaded Georgia. Prime Minister Donald Tusk rationalized the turnaround by saying Washington met Poland's "key demand," to add a battery of Patriot air and short-range missile interceptors. The Patriots, manned by the U.S. Army, will be in Poland next year.

Patriot

Even more important for Poland is the strategic cooperation agreement signed by Miss Rice and Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski that commits the U.S. to close cooperation if Poland is threatened by a third party. Any doubt who that third party is was dispelled on Aug. 15 when Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy chief of the Russian General Staff, suggested in a press conference that the missile defense site in Poland would be a "first priority" target in a conflict.

All this talk of future war with the United States and Europe shows that Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and President Dmitry Medvedev, despite their denials, remain wedded to Cold War thinking and confrontation with the West. This year's huge increase in oil and gas revenues enables Mr. Putin to pursue his goal of restoring Russia as a great power, including reestablishing a Russian empire.

Missile interceptors in Poland and a high-powered radar in the Czech Republic will protect Europe and the eastern U.S. against missiles from Iran, Pakistan and elsewhere in the Middle East. But it also cements the close relationship between the U.S. and countries formerly under Soviet domination. With U.S bases in those countries it will be more difficult for Moscow to pressure and intimidate them, which is why Russia's leaders so strongly oppose such bases.

Now that both the Czech and Polish governments have signed agreementsto hostU.S. missile defenses there no longer is any reason for Congress to withhold the funds to begin construction of the bases. The 2009 defense authorization passed by the House cuts $232 million from the amount requested for the interceptor site in Poland, another $140 million is cut from construction funds, and use of the funds is limited by a number of conditions.

Even though Iran continues to develop longer-range missiles and Pakistan, already equipped with nuclear-armed missiles, is in political turmoil, some Democrats still want to delay putting missile defenses in Europe. Rep. Ellen Tauscher, chairwoman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee, used to say that missile defenses in Europe would be destabilizing. Now that Russia has taken far more destabilizing military action, she argues for delay on grounds that the interceptors based in Poland must be extensively tested, even though they will be simpler 2-stage versions of a well-tested and deployed 3-stage interceptor.

The Senate is expected to debate the defense authorization in September, but Congress will be going home early this election year so there may not be time to complete action. But if the bill is considered in the Senate it will provide a chance to remove the cuts and restrictions in the House version. The separate defense appropriation bill has not been passed by either chamber and may not be, considering the short time left before recess.

Instead, defense funding probably will be included in the catch-all continuing resolution Congress must pass to keep the government operating when the new fiscal year begins on Oct. 1. But whatever the course of the 2009 defense bills, Congress should remove any impediments and fully fund the missile defense sites in Europe so construction can get underway.

Moscow has shown its determination to intimidate the countries it used to control. The Polish and Czech governments have shown their determination to confront the Russian bear. Now Congress should show its determination to defend both this country and our allies in Europe.

James T. Hackett is a contributing writer to The Washington Times based in Carlsbad, Calif.

As far as allegiances go, do you think that we should ally ourselves with the more civil, educated Islamists (Iran, Turkey) to fight against secular humanism and socialism? Should we simply nuke the Islamists, but deal with the Democrats on our own? Should we ally ourselves with the Greens, the Libertarians, and the Constitution Parties to wipe the Democrat party off the ballots, while leaving Islamism to fester uninhibited temporarily? Should we work to increase Israeli control over the Middle East, or should we take it for ourselves? Should we allow our corporations to deal with the Islamists, by forcing them to have economic ties with us? (Personally, assuming the last option can be intertwined with other options, I think that we have a lot to learn from Iran. For starters, I would advise you read up on Dinesh D' Souza and his articles about the culture war. One particular topic that I feel like we need to go into is abortion on demand, which makes us look foolish when there are other countries (not necessarily Iran, but Chile, for example) that are 100%, no exceptions, pro-life. We're going to have to go above and beyond many of their morals to make ourselves appealing to the rest of the world.)

I encourage discussion, but keep the whiny liberalism down, and don't be surprised if I don't respond to you immediately. Also, if you are a liberal, you had better be very careful with your slander. My wife is already trying to sue one of you (who will remain nameless) for slander against the Ixion household, and our family is currently very nervous about having to help Juan start to live on his own. Don't try her.

Alluding to Obama's stated willingness to personally meet with Iranian leaders as president, Palin charged, ""Terrorist states are seeking nuclear weapons without delay; he wants to meet them without preconditions. Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America; he's worried that someone won't read them their rights."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1220444324228&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

How blind we are in the USA.  Palin calls Iran a terrorist state, completely ignoring the terrorism we are sponsoring against Iran with groups like Jundullah etc.  Not to mention the terrorism we have always supported around the world through both official and unofficial violence. 

Then she talks of Iran seeking after the bomb.  There has never been the slightest credible evidence pointing to a nuclear weapons program in Iran.  Just allegations and a discredited laptop.  The US, on the other hand, threatens to use it's nuclear weapons on Iran on a regular basis.  And, Israel, holds undeclared stockpiles of nuclear warheads that number around 200 by most estimates.  All of the world is for a nuclear weapons free middle east except for the Israelis and the USA.  Get out of here with your nuclear hypocrisy Palin.  Go get yourself educated and then learn how to get the US out of it's wars instead of into them.

_______________

Daniel Ellsberg: The Next War

Submitted by BuzzFlash on Thu, 10/26/2006 - 3:36pm. Guest Contribution

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Daniel Ellsberg

A hidden crisis is under way. Many government insiders are aware of serious plans for war with Iran, but Congress and the public remain largely in the dark. The current situation is very like that of 1964, the year preceding our overt, open-ended escalation of the Vietnam War, and 2002, the year leading up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

In both cases, if one or more conscientious insiders had closed the information gap with unauthorized disclosures to the public, a disastrous war might have been averted entirely.

My own failure to act, in time, to that effect in 1964 was pointed out to me by Wayne Morse thirty-five years ago. Morse had been one of only two U.S. senators to vote against the Tonkin Gulf resolution on August 7, 1964. He had believed, correctly, that President Lyndon Johnson would treat the resolution as a congressional declaration of war. His colleagues, however, accepted White House assurances that the president sought "no wider war" and had no intention of expanding hostilities without further consulting them. They believed that they were simply expressing bipartisan support for U.S. air attacks on North Vietnam three days earlier, which the president and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara had told them were in "retaliation" for the "unequivocal," "unprovoked" attack by North Vietnamese torpedo boats on U.S. destroyers "on routine patrol" in "international waters."

Each of the assurances above had been false, a conscious lie. That they were lies, though, had only been revealed to the public seven years later with the publication of the Pentagon Papers, several thousand pages of top-secret documents on U.S. decision-making in Vietnam that I had released to the press. The very first installment, published by The New York Times on June 13, 1971, had proven the official account of the Tonkin Gulf episode to be a deliberate deception.

When we met in September, Morse had just heard me mention to an audience that all of that evidence of fraud had been in my own Pentagon safe at the time of the Tonkin Gulf vote. (By coincidence, I had started work as a special assistant to an assistant secretary of defense the day of the alleged attack -- which had not, in fact, occurred at all.) After my talk, Morse, who had been a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1964, said to me, "If you had given those documents to me at the time, the Tonkin Gulf resolution would never have gotten out of committee. And if it had somehow been brought up on the floor of the Senate for a vote, it would never have passed."

He was telling me, it seemed, that it had been in my power, seven years earlier, to avert the deaths so far of 50,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese, with many more to come. It was not something I was eager to hear. After all, I had just been indicted on what eventually were twelve federal felony counts, with a possible sentence of 115 years in prison, for releasing the Pentagon Papers to the public. I had consciously accepted that prospect in some small hope of shortening the war. Morse was saying that I had missed a real opportunity to prevent the war altogether.

My first reaction was that Morse had overestimated the significance of the Tonkin Gulf resolution and, therefore, the alleged consequences of my not blocking it in August. After all, I felt, Johnson would have found another occasion to get such a resolution passed, or gone ahead without one, even if someone had exposed the fraud in early August.

Years later, though, the thought hit me: What if I had told Congress and the public, later in the fall of 1964, the whole truth about what was coming, with all the documents I had acquired in my job by September, October, or November? Not just, as Morse had suggested, the contents of a few files on the events surrounding the Tonkin Gulf incident -- all that I had in early August -- but the drawerfuls of critical working papers, memos, estimates, and detailed escalation options revealing the evolving plans of the Johnson Administration for a wider war, expected to commence soon after the election. In short, what if I had put out before the end of the year, whether before or after the November election, all of the classified papers from that period that I did eventually disclose in 1971?

Had I done so, the public and Congress would have learned that Johnson's campaign theme, "we seek no wider war," was a hoax. They would have learned, in fact, that the Johnson Administration had been heading in secret toward essentially the same policy of expanded war that his presidential rival, Senator Barry Goldwater, openly advocated -- a policy that the voters overwhelmingly repudiated at the polls.

I would have been indicted then, as I was seven years later, and probably imprisoned. But America would have been at peace during those years. It was only with that reflection, perhaps a decade after the carnage finally ended, that I recognized Morse had been right about my personal share of responsibility for the whole war.

Not just mine alone. Any one of a hundred officials -- some of whom foresaw the whole catastrophe -- could have told the hidden truth to Congress, with documents. Instead, our silence made us all accomplices in the ensuing slaughter.

* * *

The run-up to the 1964 Tonkin Gulf resolution was almost exactly parallel to the run-up to the 2002 Iraq war resolution.

In both cases, the president and his top Cabinet officers consciously deceived Congress and the public about a supposed short-run threat in order to justify and win support for carrying out preexisting offensive plans against a country that was not a near-term danger to the United States. In both cases, the deception was essential to the political feasibility of the program precisely because expert opinion inside the government foresaw costs, dangers, and low prospects of success that would have doomed the project politically if there had been truly informed public discussion beforehand. And in both cases, that necessary deception could not have succeeded without the obedient silence of hundreds of insiders who knew full well both the deception and the folly of acting upon it.

One insider aware of the Iraq plans, and knowledgeable about the inevitably disastrous result of executing those plans, was Richard Clarke, chief of counterterrorism for George W. Bush and adviser to three presidents before him. He had spent September 11, 2001, in the White House, coordinating the nation's response to the attacks. He reports in his memoir, Against All Enemies, discovering the next morning, to his amazement, that most discussions there were about attacking Iraq.

Clarke told Bush and Rumsfeld that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, or with its perpetrator, Al Qaeda. As Clarke said to Secretary of State Colin Powell that afternoon, "Having been attacked by al Qaeda, for us now to go bombing Iraq in response -- which Rumsfeld was already urging -- would be like our invading Mexico after the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor."

Actually, Clarke foresaw that it would be much worse than that. Attacking Iraq not only would be a crippling distraction from the task of pursuing the real enemy but would in fact aid that enemy: "Nothing America could have done would have provided al Qaeda and its new generation of cloned groups a better recruitment device than our unprovoked invasion of an oil-rich Arab country."

I single out Clarke -- by all accounts among the best of the best of public servants -- only because of his unique role in counterterrorism and because, thanks to his illuminating 2004 memoir, we know his thoughts at that time, and, in particular, the intensity of his anguish and frustration. Such a memoir allows us, as we read each new revelation, to ask a simple question: What difference might it have made to events if he had told us this at the time?

Clarke was not, of course, the only one who could have told us, or told Congress. We know from other accounts that both of his key judgments -- the absence of linkage between Al Qaeda and Saddam and his correct prediction that "attacking Iraq would actually make America less secure and strengthen the broader radical Islamic terrorist movement" -- were shared by many professionals in the CIA, the State Department, and the military.

Yet neither of these crucial, expert conclusions was made available to Congress or the public, by Clarke or anyone else, in the eighteen-month run-up to the war. Even as they heard the president lead the country to the opposite, false impressions, toward what these officials saw as a disastrous, unjustified war, they felt obliged to keep their silence.

Costly as their silence was to their country and its victims, I feel I know their mind-set. I had long prized my own identity as a keeper of the president's secrets. In 1964 it never even occurred to me to break the many secrecy agreements I had signed, in the Marines, at the Rand Corporation, in the Pentagon. Although I already knew the Vietnam War was a mistake and based on lies, my loyalties then were to the secretary of defense and the president (and to my promises of secrecy, on which my own career as a president's man depended). I'm not proud that it took me years of war to awaken to the higher loyalties owed by every government official to the rule of law, to our soldiers in harm's way, to our fellow citizens, and, explicitly, to the Constitution, which every one of us had sworn an oath "to support and uphold."

It took me that long to recognize that the secrecy agreements we had signed frequently conflicted with our oath to uphold the Constitution. That conflict arose almost daily, unnoticed by me or other officials, whenever we were secretly aware that the president or other executive officers were lying to or misleading Congress. In giving priority, in effect, to my promise of secrecy -- ignoring my constitutional obligation -- I was no worse or better than any of my Vietnam-era colleagues, or those who later saw the Iraq war approaching and failed to warn anyone outside the executive branch.

Ironically, Clarke told Vanity Fair in 2004 that in his own youth he had ardently protested "the complete folly" of the Vietnam War and that he "wanted to get involved in national security in 1973 as a career so that Vietnam didn't happen again." He is left today with a sense of failure:

It's an arrogant thing to think, Could I have ever stopped another Vietnam? But it really filled me with frustration that when I saw Iraq coming I wasn't able to do anything. After having spent thirty years in national security and having been in some senior-level positions you would think that I might be able to have some influence, some tiny influence. But I couldn't have any.

But it was not too arrogant, I believe, for Clarke to aspire to stop this second Vietnam personally. He actually had a good chance to do so, throughout 2002, the same one Senator Morse had pointed out to me.

Instead of writing a memoir to be cleared for publication in 2004, a year after Iraq had been invaded, Clarke could have made his knowledge of the war to come, and its danger to our security, public before the war. He could have supported his testimony with hundreds of files of documents from his office safe and computer, to which he then still had access. He could have given these to both the media and the then Democratic-controlled Senate.

"If I had criticized the president to the press as a special assistant" in the summer of 2002, Clarke told Larry King in March 2004, "I would have been fired within an hour." That is undoubtedly true. But should that be the last word on that course? To be sure, virtually all bureaucrats would agree with him, as he told King, that his only responsible options at that point were either to resign quietly or to "spin" for the White House to the press, as he did. But that is just the working norm I mean to question here.

His unperceived alternative, I wish to suggest, was precisely to court being fired for telling the truth to the public, with documentary evidence, in the summer of 2002. For doing that, Clarke would not only have lost his job, his clearance, and his career as an executive official; he would almost surely have been prosecuted, and he might have gone to prison. But the controversy that ensued would not have been about hindsight and blame. It would have been about whether war on Iraq would make the United States safer, and whether it was otherwise justified.

That debate did not occur in 2002 -- just as a real debate about war in Vietnam did not occur in 1964 -- thanks to the disciplined reticence of Clarke and many others. Whatever his personal fate, which might have been severe, his disclosures would have come before the war. Perhaps, instead of it.

* * *

We face today a crisis similar to those of 1964 and 2002, a crisis hidden once again from the public and most of Congress. Articles by Seymour Hersh and others have revealed that, as in both those earlier cases, the president has secretly directed the completion, though not yet execution, of military operational plans -- not merely hypothetical "contingency plans" but constantly updated plans, with movement of forces and high states of readiness, for prompt implementation on command -- for attacking a country that, unless attacked itself, poses no threat to the United States: in this case, Iran.

According to these reports, many high-level officers and government officials are convinced that our president will attempt to bring about regime change in Iran by air attack; that he and his vice president have long been no less committed, secretly, to doing so than they were to attacking Iraq; and that his secretary of defense is as madly optimistic about the prospects for fast, cheap military success there as he was in Iraq.

Even more ominously, Philip Giraldi, a former CIA official, reported in The American Conservative a year ago that Vice President Cheney's office had directed contingency planning for "a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons" and that "several senior Air Force officers" involved in the planning were "appalled at the implications of what they are doing -- that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack -- but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objection."

Several of Hersh's sources have confirmed both the detailed operational planning for use of nuclear weapons against deep underground Iranian installations and military resistance to this prospect, which led several senior officials to consider resigning. Hersh notes that opposition by the Joint Chiefs in April led to White House withdrawal of the "nuclear option" -- for now, I would say. The operational plans remain in existence, to be drawn upon for a "decisive" blow if the president deems it necessary.

Many of these sources regard the planned massive air attack -- with or without nuclear weapons -- as almost sure to be catastrophic for the Middle East, the position of the United States in the world, our troops in Iraq, the world economy, and U.S. domestic security. Thus they are as deeply concerned about these prospects as many other insiders were in the year before the Iraq invasion. That is why, unlike in the lead-up to Vietnam or Iraq, some insiders are leaking to reporters. But since these disclosures -- so far without documents and without attribution -- have not evidently had enough credibility to raise public alarm, the question is whether such officials have yet reached the limit of their responsibilities to our country.

Assuming Hersh's so-far anonymous sources mean what they say -- that this is, as one puts it, "a juggernaut that has to be stopped" -- I believe it is time for one or more of them to go beyond fragmentary leaks unaccompanied by documents. That means doing what no other active official or consultant has ever done in a timely way: what neither Richard Clarke nor I nor anyone else thought of doing until we were no longer officials, no longer had access to current documents, after bombs had fallen and thousands had died, years into a war. It means going outside executive channels, as officials with contemporary access, to expose the president's lies and oppose his war policy publicly before the war, with unequivocal evidence from inside.

Simply resigning in silence does not meet moral or political responsibilities of officials rightly "appalled" by the thrust of secret policy. I hope that one or more such persons will make the sober decision -- accepting sacrifice of clearance and career, and risk of prison -- to disclose comprehensive files that convey, irrefutably, official, secret estimates of costs and prospects and dangers of the military plans being considered. What needs disclosure is the full internal controversy, the secret critiques as well as the arguments and claims of advocates of war and nuclear "options" -- the Pentagon Papers of the Middle East. But unlike in 1971, the ongoing secret debate should be made available before our war in the region expands to include Iran, before the sixty-one-year moratorium on nuclear war is ended violently, to give our democracy a chance to foreclose either of those catastrophes.

The personal risks of doing this are very great. Yet they are not as great as the risks of bodies and lives we are asking daily of over 130,000 young Americans -- with many yet to join them -- in an unjust war. Our country has urgent need for comparable courage, moral and civil courage, from its public servants. They owe us the truth before the next war begins.

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION

Daniel Ellsberg, a former official in the State and Defense departments who released the Pentagon Papers, is the author of Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers.

This originally appeared in Harpers.

John McCain is a lot smarter than we thought.  He has answered the call and made the wise choice in picking Alaska's Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate.  It is obvious from watching the Palin's acceptance speech, she is the kind of real change we need in Washington.  She understands the plight of all of us in Middle America, but, more importantly, she understands that our very way of life is threatened by radical Islam. 

Warning

.

This video may contain images depicting the reality and horror of war/violence and should only be viewed by a mature audience.

linktv

Headlines coming soon!

[vodpod id=Groupvideo.1533945&w=425&h=350&fv=%26rel%3D0%26border%3D0%26]

Oh, not the old dude kowtowing to the base of his party while calling that being a "Maverick." That speech was a snoozefest. The old coot can't give a speech to save his life. Move over John, and let Sarah take over. She rocks! No, the American hero I'm talking about is Barack Obama. Tonight he crash-landed behind enemy lines: FOX's The O'Reilly Factor. It was quite the display of heroism and love of country.  O'Reilly may have busted his balls, but he couldn't break his will. It is clearly the most substantive interrogation of this election. Nicely done, Mr. O'Reilly. If Obama can face down you, he can easily handle Iran.

As the story goes, the Dutch had infiltrated the purported Iranian weapons project and were firmly ensconced when they got word that the Americans are about to launch a missile attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. They wisely decided to close down the operation and pull out.

Remember, the Israelis have been threatening to strike on their own for months: what's changed is that now, apparently, the U.S. has caved in to what is a blatant case of blackmail and has agreed to do the job for them.

We haven't heard much about Iran lately, at least compared to the scare headlines of a few months ago, when rumors of war were swirling fast and furious. The Russian "threat" seems to have replaced the Iranian "threat" as the War Party's bogeyman of choice. What we didn't know, however, is that the two focal points are intimately related.

According to this report by veteran Washington Times correspondent Arnaud de Borchgrave, the close cooperation of the Israelis with the Georgian military in the run-up to President Saakashvili's blitz of South Ossetia was predicated on a Georgian promise to let the Israelis use Georgia's airfields to mount a strike against Iran.

The main problem for Tel Aviv, in making its threats against Iran at all credible, has been the distance to be covered by Israeli fighter jets, which would have a hard time reaching and returning from their targets without refueling. With access to the airfields of "the Israel of the Caucasus," as de Borchgrave – citing Saakashvili – puts it, the likelihood of an Israeli attack entered the world of real possibilities. De Borchgrave avers:

"In a secret agreement between Israel and Georgia, two military airfields in southern Georgia had been earmarked for the use of Israeli fighter-bombers in the event of pre-emptive attacks against Iranian nuclear installations. This would sharply reduce the distance Israeli fighter-bombers would have to fly to hit targets in Iran. And to reach Georgian airstrips, the Israeli air force would fly over Turkey.

"The attack ordered by Saakashvili against South Ossetia the night of Aug. 7 provided the Russians the pretext for Moscow to order Special Forces to raid these Israeli facilities where some Israeli drones were reported captured."

Reports of anywhere from 100 to 1,000 Israeli "advisers" in Georgia do not bode well for the situation on the ground. With the Israelis already installed in that country, the logistics of carrying out such a sneak attack are greatly simplified. Israeli pilots would only have to fly over Azerbaijan, and they'd be in Iranian airspace – and within striking distance of Tehran.

Faced with this fait accompli – if the Dutch are to be believed – the Americans seem to have capitulated. In which case, we don't have much time. Although de Borchgrave writes "whether the IAF can still count on those air bases to launch bombing missions against Iran's nuke facilities is now in doubt," I don't see why the defeat of the Georgians in Saakashvili's war on the Ossetians has to mean the plan to strike Iran via Georgia has been canceled. Indeed, reading de Borchgrave's riveting account of the extent of the Tel Aviv-Tbilisi collaboration, one finds additional reasons for all concerned to go ahead with it:

"Saakashvili was convinced that by sending 2,000 of his soldiers to serve in Iraq (who were immediately flown home by the United States when Russia launched a massive counterattack into Georgia), he would be rewarded for his loyalty. He could not believe President Bush, a personal friend, would leave him in the lurch. Georgia, as Saakashvili saw his country's role, was the 'Israel of the Caucasus.'"

Saakashvili, a vain and reckless man, now has even more reason to go behind Uncle Sam's back and give the Israelis a clear shot at Tehran. With this sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of the Americans, the rationale for a more limited, shot-across-the-bow strike by the U.S. becomes all too clear.

After all, if the Israelis attacked, the entire Muslim world would unite behind the Iranians. If, on the other had, the U.S. did Israel's dirty work, with Tel Aviv lurking in the background, it would conceivably be far less provocative, and might even generate sub rosa support among the Sunni rulers of America's Arab allies. It's going to happen anyway, goes the rationale, and so we might as well do it the right way, rather than leave it to the Israelis, who have threatened – via "independent" commentators like Israeli historian and super hawk Benny Morris – to use nuclear weapons on Iran's population centers.

In terms of American domestic politics, the road to war with Tehran was paved long ago: both major parties and their presidential candidates have given the War Party a green light to strike Tehran, McCain explicitly and Obama tacitly, albeit no less firmly.

The stage is set, rehearsals are over, and the actors know their lines: as the curtain goes up on the first act of "World War III," take a deep breath and pray to the gods that this deadly drama is aborted.
~ Justin Raimondo

Source: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13401

Seriously, though, was that Benny Hinn introducing him around a little over halfway through?  Hmmm.  Not sure the Hinn-Hagee connection bodes well.  And the whole new "Country First" slogan is a little too reminiscent of Deutschland Über Alles for my comfort.

Brokaw admits McCain can't touch Obama from last week, or Palin from last night.  I agree, and this was the consensus at work, among a pool of pretty rabid Republicans [sic].

Finally, the Crypt Keeper comes out.  A rock star he's not.  Maybe he should've been partying with Keith Richards instead of ...whatever it was he has been doing the last several decades.

Palin again with the Israeli flag lapel pin... what gives?

Okay, is it just me, or was the delivery of the "I just can't wait to introduce her [Palin] to Washington" line just a little creepy, in a Chester the Molester kind of way?

Johnny Windsock is going on about knowing who he works for; does that include Charles Keating, and his modern moral equivalents?  And the cost of living crap:  how can someone who is not even aware of how many houses he owns credibly claim to "know what it feels like" to have food costs skyrocketing?  (And leave aside the fact that he self-admittedly has no idea how the economy works)

He's going on about the "Contract on America" and the Reagan Revolution, and how the Republicans [sic] have lost their way in DC.  He conveniently leaves out the part about his complicity in every misstep along the way.  The guy that opposed each iteration of the Bush tax cuts is going on about lowering taxes... how, exactly, does that work?

What is this? Kindergarten?

McCain: blah, blah, blah Obama

Crowd: Boo!

McCain: Yadda, yadda, yadda Obama

Crowd: Boo!

McCain: Easily disprovable lie about how he -- and the government -- are the answer to all our country's problems

Crowd: (ecstatic applause)

Here's an idea:  stop new government programs, end existing governmental meddling, and strongly encourage self-reliance?

Ugh. Vouchers.  (Wild applause)

Ouch!  Slam on unions, and Mr Palin is in the audience.  How's that gonna work?

Privatizing (rather than abolishing) Social Security has to be coming soon...

Wha???  Ron Paul's platform worked its way into Windbag's agenda?  End $700 billion in foreign aid?  I must've heard that wrong.  Of course, he's talking about just the "bad" guys, not all foreign aid.

Lies upon lies about how many and what quality of jobs he'll create, and how few and how bad Obama's jobs would be.  As if the market has no power to do anything without direct government oversight.  Sheesh!

Georgia.  Georgia, Georgia, Georgia.  He pretends to have a balanced view of foreign policy, and doesn't disclose his deep attachments to other global players.  Feh.  Politicians.

Expounding his international relations experience.  What this really is, is veiled threats of untold wars.  And he tries to cover by claiming "the good of the country" and "I hate war."  It's a wonder the earth doesn't swallow him up for telling such whoppers.

"I'll change things in Washington."  Why would someone who's been a DC insider for three decades and has a vested interest in the status quo want to change anything?  And why do these shills believe him?

Again, with the POW.  Does his record only have one track?

"I'm a uniter, not a divider."  Where have I heard this before?

Wow... did you know Ol' Windsock was a POW?

Okay, I understand it was nightmarishly difficult.  I understand being in a VC prison camp and being tortured was a horror to live through.  But to take that experience and use it as a gimmick to spend a lifetime in service of himself and the unitary power of the state, it just defies reason...  the state is not the people, and the government is not the nation!

I was never the same again.  I was not my own man anymore, I was my country's.

Is this a tacit confession that he is bought and paid for?  Or I again reading something Machiavellian into this?

And the close... I;m better than Obama... I know you can;t tell if you look... nationalism, fascism, corporatism... and a sprinkling of hard-to-buy populism.  Cue balloons.  I said, cue balloons.  Cue balloons NOW! CUE THE FU-- okay, that's better.

And I am finally, totally, completely and perhaps irrevocably offended now.  Playing Heart over the end of McSame's convention speech?  Barracuda, even?  Okay, so now they've gone and completely ruined the '80s for me.

Jerks.

For those who read and research information before making a judgment on issues and political news, they will easily see through the propaganda that is being promoted. In case you’re unaware, the McCain campaign raised $10 million dollars after announcing Palin as McCain’s running mate which coincidentally occurred the following morning after Obama’s acceptance speech.

Do I believe the Obama campaign raised the $10 million they say they did, absolutely not. Especially with three other AP stories reporting only an estimated $8 million dollars. This is yet another attempt by the Democrat Party to ease the anxiety attacks that are overwhelming their party followers. Why the anxiety attacks? Simple, if you only went on the mainstream media reports then you would know that Obama won the Election 10 months ago. Instead the Democrats can feel the Republicans breathing down their necks. America, we got it wrong in 2006 by giving Democrats the control of the House & Senate as they sit with a dismal 9% approval rating, let’s not make the same mistake twice.

Talking about his service in the military, and talking about being held as a Prisoner of War - I gotta say, no matter who you are, you have to respect John and any of our troops.

Talking about his time in the Senate, "committed to protect the American people," opposed to pork barrel spending and tax increases.

Talking about his family, his children.  "What a life, what a faith, what a family."  Nice quote.

The video is now over, and we are waiting for McCain to come out.

And Fred Thompson is now narrating, John McCain has now come out.  There's a huge roar from the crowd.

It's been about 2 minutes, all he's been able to get out so far is, "Thank you," over and over again.

"Tonight, I have a privilege given few Americans, a privilege of accepting our party's nomination for the President of the United States."  There you go, he is now OFFICIALLY the Republican nominee.

"In my life, no success has come without a fight," and this campaign wasn't any different.  He's saying that that's a compliment to his former opponents, and he's thanking them for now supporting him.  I think that's one of the last few times he'll need to try to bring bitter people over, people who had supported other Republican candidates, but not him.  Although he probably won't sway over any more Ron Paul supporters that he hasn't already won over.

He's saying he's grateful for George W. Bush, Laura Bush, George H. W. Bush, and Barbara Bush.  He said he's "indebted" to Cindy and his 7 kids.  I "can't imagine a life without the happiness you've given me. ... [Cindy] is more my inspiration that I am hers."  And that's good - showing he's a down-to-earth family man.  "And I know she will make a great first lady."

He's talking about his mother raising him as a kid, while his father was in the Navy, and he's thanking her now.  96 years old!  Wow - she doesn't look that old - Congratulations!

"I intend to earn [your trust]."

He's saying that him and Obama will go at it, "but you have my respect and admiration."  He's saying that they're both Americans, and that means more to him than anything else.  And that's showing that McCain is going to keep this a civil election, and that ultimately, both want the best for America.

"My friends, we're going to win this election!"  And that energized the crowd pretty quickly.  He's showing a lot of optimism going into this.  After we've won we'll "get this country back on the road to prosperity and peace."  And there's now a war protester, and they're all drowning her out with chants of "USA."  He can't get a word out.  "My friends, please don't be diverted by the ground noise and the static."  And the crowd has erupted.  "Americans want us to stop yelling at each other, OK."  Back to what he was saying, these are tough times, and he got interrupted again.  Anyway, talking about him showing that a McCain administration will turn the country around, and get us back on our feet.

He's just talked about Sarah Palin being his running mate, and that she'll make a great Vice President.  He thanked everyone for their warm welcome last night.  He's talking about her executive experience, energy, corruption, balancing budgets, taking on special interests, reaching across the aisle - he's emphasizing things that Obama, who is a rookie as well, hasn't accomplished.  And that's the difference of experience.  Both Palin and Obama are rookies, but Palin has actually DONE things!

"I can't wait to introduce her to Washington. ... Change is coming!"  And Palin and McCain will bring change to Washington (sure, not all of it will be good,  but most of it will).

"I'm not in the habit of breaking my promises to my country, and neither is Governor Palin," so you can count on us saying that we will turn this country around.  They have the strength, judgment, and experience to carry this out, he said.

"I don't work for special interests.  I don't work for myself.  I work for you."  And that was an awesome quote.  It both brings him down to earth, but also appeals to moderates.  He's talking about fighting corruption, no matter what party, and fighting big spenders in both parties.  And this is one of the things that I love about McCain - he's saying he'll veto any pork bills that come to his desk, and I love that policy.  It's time that we stop wasting money, and McCain will do that for us.

"I'd rather lose an election than see my country lose a war" - using the quote he used during the primary, but that is such a GREAT quote, and it's so true of John McCain and his "country first" slogan and policy.  Fortunately, the surge worked, and now McCain can go on to both win an election and help us win this war!

"I don't mind a good fight [and] I've had quite a few tough ones in my life. ... What you fight for is the real test.  I fight for Americans.  I fight for you."  Again, a great quote, and McCain will fight for Americans.  Obama has spent most of his time in the Senate campaigning, and before that, he was in the Illinois legislature, where he voted "Present" most of the time.

He's talking about making sure that the country where we have lost troops "will remain safe from its enemies."  And he's showing that he cares about these soldiers who have died overseas.

"We lost the trust of the American people when some Republicans gave in to the temptations of corruption ... when we made government bigger ... when we valued our power over our principles.  We're going to change that."  And he's again, showing that he will reform government, even if it makes Republicans angry.  "The party of Reagan and Roosevelt and Lincoln is going to get back to basics."  GREAT quote - as I was saying, Republicans have lost their small government principles, and McCain will bring us back to that.  He'll end big spending, and give the money back to the people where it belongs.

He's talking about "letting the people keep the fruits of their labor," cutting taxes, etc.

"We believe in the values of  families, neighborhoods. ... We believe in a government who doesn't make choices for you, but makes sure that you have choices to make for yourselves."  McCain will reduce spending and Obama will increase them (McCain said that).  He's saying that he'll cut spending, but Obama will raise it.  McCain will encourage jobs, but Obama's policies won't.  McCain says he'll cut the 2nd highest business tax in the world.  He said he'll double the child tax exemption to $7,000, and that's something that'll appeal to the middle class, as it should.

"Government assistance for the unemployed was design for the 1950s.  That's gonna change under my watch."  Thank you - the welfare system is so out of date.  We need to completely reform the system (I'd say get rid of it, but that won't happen, because the American church, who used to do what the government does now, can never take back the responsibility of caring for the poor).

Talking about finding employment at a decent wage.

"Track and reward good teachers, and help bad teachers find another line of work."  Or you could just fire them!  That was harsh, I know.  "Parents deserve a choice in the education of their children, and I intend to give it to them."  That's good, as long as it's not vouchers.  We don't let people get out of Medicare taxes if they won't use Medicare, so I don't see why we should do it for schools.  "I want schools to answer to parents and students" not unions and bureaucrats "and when I'm President, they will."  Great quote.  The school system (especially in Michigan, and ESPECIALLY in Wayne County needs reform!).  We need to cut spending where we can, where it's just being wasted and put it into areas that NEED money.

He's talking about more offshore drilling, and the crowd loved that - more "Drill baby drill" chants, using nuclear, power, wind, hydroelectric, and tide power plants.  "We must use all resources ... to rescue our economy from rising oil prices and restore the health of our planet. ... It's an ambitious plan ... but we've faced tougher challenges.  It's time to show the world how Americans lead."  That's good.  He emphasized that Obama doesn't like nuclear, and I LOVE nuclear power, as do a lot of Democrats I know.  We can't keep making excuses for every type of power plant we find.  There's downsides to all of them, but we can't just sit around waiting for the perfect energy solution.

Talking about Iran, and their terrorist-supporting administration.  Talking about Russia invading Georgia, in order to gain more control over oil.

"I know how military works. ... I know how the world works."  He's talking about knowing what is good in the military, and he said he knows the bad things that have happened in the military.  He will strengthen our military.  Talking about his grandfather, and World War II, and then dying the day after the peace agreement was signed - that shows you what he was living for.  He wanted to see America through the war safely - that is an American patriot for you!

"In America, we change things that need to be changed. ... The work that is ours is plainly before us.  We don't need to search for it."  From transportation fuel, to disaster response, to the way we train workers.  "We have to catch up to history, and we have to change the way we do business in Washington."  Emphasizing change is good.  He's showing that Obama won't change Washington, he hasn't.  McCain has been a champion of change, and when he's President, he will CONTINUE to change Washington.

"I will fix problems that need to be fixed.  I will reach out my hand to anyone to get this country moving again.  I have that record and the scars to prove it.  Senator Obama does not."  Great quote there - and showing that Obama has been a DO NOTHING Senator, but McCain has done stuff, even when it wasn't popular.

"We can do anything we put our minds to.  I'll ask Democrats and Independents to serve with me.  My administration will" be transparent.  And he's shown he'll have Independents - I think he'll have Lieberman in his cabinet.

"I've never lived through days, good or bad, that I haven't thank God for the privilege."  Good quote there.  Now he's saying that he "was blessed by misfortune ... [in] serving with heroes."  He's talking about being captured by the Vietnamese, talking about getting ready to go out for his 23rd mission.  He's saying that he was doing stuff for his own pleasure and pride.  Now he's talking about being put into the cell.  Once they found out who his father was, they took him to a hospital, putting him simply in a cast, not setting the bones properly.  Saying that he couldn't even feed himself, that he was no longer living for selfish independence.  Talking about being with 2 men.  "Those men saved my life."  Talking about him being offered to leave early, but he refused, because there had been men shot down before him.  And that got a huge response from the crowd, as it should - he's an American hero, and now they're shouting "hero" - but he is a hero.  He's an American patriot and hero.

He's saying that after he turned down their offer, they abused him more than ever, and they eventually broke him.  He said he was ashamed, but a friend told him that he had fought as hard as he could, and no man can fight alone, but to get up and fight.  "I fell in love with my country when I was a prisoner in someone else's. ... I loved it because it was not just a place, an idea, a cause worth fighting for.  I was never the same again.  I was never my own again anymore.  I was my country's."  That was a GREAT quote.  It shows how much dedication he has to his country.  He doesn't care about himself, but about all of us.

"If you find faults with our country, make it a better one. ... become a teacher, enter the ministry, run for public office ... teach an illiterate adult to read. ... Our country will be better and you will be happier, because nothing is better than to serve a cause other than yourself.  I'm going to fight for my cause every day as your President. ... With hard work, strong faith, and a little courage, great things are always within our reach.  Fight with me, fight for what's good for our country, fight for opportunity for all.  Stand up and defend our country from it's enemies.  Stand up for each other.  Stand up and fight.  We're Americans, we never give up, we never quit, we never hide from history, we make history."  And you couldn't even hear him anymore, the crowd was just overwhelmingly loud.  They were just cheering and cheering him on.  "Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America."

There you go - McCain emphasized his moderate views, his reformer views.  He also emphasized his conservative views, but showed that he's not dedicated to the party, but the American people.  He is dedicated to the American people, and will fight for them if that means opposing Republicans, Democrats, terrorists, or anybody else.

Overall, I'd give it an 9/10.  It was REALLY good at the end, but at other parts, it just didn't click with me.

Now, the balloons are falling as McCain and Palin's families are on the stage now.  The crowd is still going wild.  Sarah Palin just said, "They're beautiful" (at least I think that's what she said - there's no mic, I'm trying to read lips).

The balloons are continuing to fall, and the crowd is still cheering, it's just a fun atmosphere.  McCain and Palin are going out and waving to the crowd, smiling together.  The McCains and Sarah Palin are now walking the crowd, and that is going to wrap up my coverage of the Republican National Convention.  Thank you for reading, and come back here for updates all through until November!

Done Analyzing,

Ranting Republican
:: :: :: :: ::

In reading the interviews throughout the various Internet sites, it is apparent that Obama seems upset that the Republicans are doing exactly the opposite of what Obama has seen the mainstream media doing for the past 19 months. This difference is that the Republicans are attacking, attacking, attacking.

Along the way Obama brought up the hot ticket item currently for the Republican Party in that of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. He commented, “I assume she wants to be treated the same way guys are treated…I’ve been through this for 19 months, she’s been through this for, what, four days so far?” He later went on to say, “I’ll let Governor Palin talk about her experience. I’ll talk about mine.” My question is why does he make this comment after trying to make an assumption about the treatment of Palin?

The truth of the matter is Palin ripped the Obama-Biden ticket (primarily Obama) apart during her acceptance speech this past Wednesday night, so I cannot blame him for not wanting her to tear him to shreds. She was berated for 5 days, stayed in her hotel room and wrote an eloquent speech that should have been dedicated to those who doubted her the most during that 5 day stretch.

Following all of this commotion, Obama’s top strategist, David Axelrod said, “She tried to attack Senator Obama by saying he had no significant legislative achievements. Maybe that’s what she was told…” It is apparent that this is only talking points as yet again the Obama campaign cannot supply the proper backing to support their rhetoric they spew.

Truth be stated, Palin came out with the guns-a-blazing and was a true “maverick” in delivering her acceptance speech. The funny thing is there was such outrage for her standing up for herself, but if she hadn’t taken the course she did, the Democrats would have walked all over her questioning her ability to lead if she hadn’t criticized those who were critical of her.

Bush Capitulates, Concedes to Obama Timetable - McCain Takes Credit

Did the surge work, or did Bush concede to timetables in concert with election cycle?

Whose strategy is on top here?

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0808/S00351.htm

http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/4546/81/

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=95535

http://www.tri-cityherald.com/920/story/286203.html

It is far from the case, however, that the world has been drawn up into clearly defined and conflicting “camps” of regional and world dominance, less still into “imperialist” and “anti-imperialist” camps. Much as the United States government talks of spreading “democracy”, they support Islamist death squads in Iraq in an effort to impose stability by force; conversely, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, who speechifies at length about “imperialism” is in fact a supporter of the wars against - and occupation of - Iraq and Afghanistan, and has imposed IMF neoliberal reforms. For his part, the “anti-imperialist” Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez is an outspoken supporter of Russia and its ally Serbia, and while waxing lyrical about the sovereignty of South Ossetia he has no qualms about excusing the oppression of Kosova and Chechnya.

The only force which can consistently oppose militarism and national chauvinism is the international workers’ movement. We call for the maximum unity in organisation and in action of the working class, across borders and regardless of nation-states, to fight all of our rulers. Nowhere in the world are working people in power; no country in the world is “in transition to socialism”.

Indeed, most of those who speak at today’s meeting would call themselves “socialists” or “Marxists” - yet how many of them pose, in the here and now and in the context of the war, the development of a movement of the working class capable not only of stopping the war, but having the potential to go further and making actual revolutionary change? This would be considered insane—revolution is something for the history books and speeches to the faithful few. The idea of a communist revolution from below was long ago separated from the day-to-day, “real” politics of the traditional left. They will prefer a “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” standpoint... and thus collapse into one variant or another of support for the governments of Iran, Russia or whoever else is in dispute with the United States and Britain. Those who would “refuse to condemn” an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear installations merely have a mirror-image of this position, with no serious regard for what impact such an attack would have in retarding the workers’ movement in struggle against the Islamist regime. Let us be quite clear: any form of support or excuse-mongering for one or another government necessarily entails a let-up in the class struggle.

But maybe the class struggle is not really that central for the left. Certainly there has been far too little talk in the movement of the strike which took place four months ago demanding the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. On May 1st dockers in the United States organised in the ILWU union staged a strike shutting down all 29 West Coast ports for a whole day and - in an amazing display of international working-class action - Iraqi dockers at the ports of Khor Alzubair and Umm Qasr staged a strike in solidarity with their US counterparts.

The school students’ walk-out at the time of the Iraq war and teachers’ strikes at a few schools were excellent, and the bigger demos were inspiring. But reminiscing about the 15th February 2003 march and these actions serves no purpose, and giving the increased threats of war in the Middle East and the Caucasus, there is no place for self-congratulation... But what did the Stop the War Coalition produce in February? A book called Five years on: why we are still marching. Perhaps a better subject for enquiry would have been “Five years on: so why are we still marching?”.

At each demonstration the SWP grandees tell us that “we will keep on marching until the troops come home”... never mind the fact that the ever-smaller marches put hardly any pressure on the government and rarely make the news. This is not just censorship: of course the BBC (and most ordinary people) don’t care if 10,000 lefties turn out for a demo. That is what lefties do. It is no more noteworthy than 10,000 people going to watch Millwall play.

First, the map. I am unable to import this complex map, but if you are interested it is on page 4, early in the paper. There are very many nuclear sites spread throughout this large, by Middle East standards, country. Israel only has about 100 planes capable of making a bombing run. The U.S. has more, but do we have enough? Many in the military think we do not. These are just the known sites. What are we missing? 

    The following is an excerpt from early in the paper, which I believe is a fairly accurate assessment of our problem........"The case for game-changing diplomacy is based
on three key judgments. First, military strikes
would at best delay Iran’s nuclear program, and
likely cement rather than weaken Iranian com-
mitment to nuclear weapons. If undertaken
without broad international support, military
strikes would undercut American prestige and
power, complicate already challenging situations
in Iraq and Afghanistan, and make prospects for
progress on Middle East peace even more distant.
Thus, military strikes should be seen as a highly
problematic last resort, to be considered only
after all other options have failed.

Second, given the differing interests and views
of key players including Russia and China, there
is no realistic possibility that the current U.S.
position — of applying coercive pressure on the
Iranian leadership to cause it to give up its right
to enrich uranium — will work. Thus, the United
States and the international community should
pursue the more limited and urgent near-term
goal of getting comprehensive verification in
place, while continuing to work to convince Iran
that it is in its interests to forego enrichment.
Third, if properly vetted with U.S. friends and
allies, a diplomatic initiative on Iran will help
build U.S. credibility internationally, while at
the same time increasing the likelihood of an
acceptable resolution to the nuclear standoff.
Depending on the Iranian response, it may also
serve other American interests, including stabiliz-
ing Iraq and Afghanistan and further suppressing
al Qaeda. Thus, while its success is by no means
guaranteed, game-changing diplomacy is the best
available option for the next American president.

To summarize, bombing will at best delay Iran, and probably make it more likely the Iranians will pursue nukes as aggressively as possible. Next, Iran has friends, including Russia and China which will support it against sanctions. Venezuela should be in that group also. Reaching a diplomatic solution with Iran, could restore our international reputation, and make it more difficult for Al Qaeda to function.

Each author in this paper covers slightly different areas related to their expertise. They discuss options up to and including invading and occupying Iran. Bombing and/or invading would cost much in lives and dollars, and may not work. Aggressive, realistic diplomacy is our best hope they argue. One last key quote.

"The search for an alternative to the prevailing
strategy of tough talk coupled with incongru-
ously mild diplomacy (small sticks because China
and Russia will not wield them, small carrots
because the United States will not proffer them)
will grow urgent early in 2009 unless the Bush
administration takes some action to change the
game in its last months in office. The textbook
solution to the diplomatic impasse, well described
by Dennis Ross in his paper in this series, is
some strategy of turbocharged sticks and turbo-
charged carrots, preferably closely coupled."

How much it will cost us to resolve this diplomatically, must be weighed against the costs of a military intervention. This time let's do it before we invade.

Steve

briggsmedia

The US and Israel were building airstrips in Georgia to attack Iran from when the idiot Saakishvili attacked South Ossetia. The first thing the Russians did was take out the Israeli hardware.

[vodpod id=Groupvideo.1533017&w=425&h=350&fv=%26rel%3D0%26border%3D0%26]

see

Scott Ritter on RNC, Biden and Possibility of Attack on Iran

US invade Pakistan — but no complaints from the ‘international community’ By William Bowles

The Hidden War (History of South Ossetia & Abkhazia)

The Bush Administration Falters in a Geopolitical Chess Match

Russia takes a stand

Georgia

A McCain ad wrongly claims Obama plans "painful tax increases" for working families.

McCain ad cherry-picks Obama remarks on Iran, twisting his meaning.

McCain misfires as he attacks Obama's home purchase.

A new McCain ad calls Obama a celebrity (true) who says he'll raise taxes on electricity (false).

A McCain TV spot falsely insinuates that Obama canceled his visit because "the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras."

McCain ad says Obama's the guy to thank for emptying our wallets at the filling station. We say that's ridiculous.

There's lots more where these came from!

Check the facts, go to Fact Check.org

Thursday, September 04 2008 @ 11:54 AM CDT

Thousands of college and high school students are walking out of class on the final day of the RNC, to demand an end to the occupation in Iraq and money for schools, not war. Students are converging on the steps of the State Capitol for a rally and mock trial. Police have already detained volunteers handing out leaflets for the strike and high school administrators have warned student organizers about organizing a walkout.

Contact: Ty Moore @ 612.760.1980

AT THIS MOMENT THOUSANDS OF HIGH SCHOOL AND COLLEGE STUDENTS FROM ACROSS THE TWIN CITIES TO WALKOUT TO PROTEST THE RNC

STUDENTS CONVERGE ON THE STATE CAPITOL TO DEMAND AN END TO THE WAR IN IRAQ ON THE 4th DAY OF THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION

[TWIN CITIES - Thursday September 4th] Thousands of college and high school students are walking out of class on the final day of the RNC, to demand an end to the occupation in Iraq and money for schools, not war. Students are converging on the steps of the State Capitol for a rally and mock trial. Police have already detained volunteers handing out leaflets for the strike and high school administrators have warned student organizers about organizing a walkout.

Organizers anticipate thousands of students to walkout and convergence to the State Capitol for a rally featuring music and various speakers at 12 PM and will conclude with a peaceful march to Harriet Island to join demonstrators for the Peace Island Picnic and a symbolic mock trial of the war criminals. The trial itself will be audience-interactive and feature testimony from the real-life victims of the government's actions, including members of Military Families Speak Out. The verdict will be decided at Harriet Island, where all in attendance will be the given the role of the jury to decide the fate of the war criminals, represented by giant puppets of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Big Oil Bob.

The message of the student strike will be clear: The presence and policies of the RNC officials is unwelcome here. While the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul roll out the red carpet for the convention, "we say no to business as usual while the people responsible for the killing of hundreds of thousands of ordinary Iraqis, Afghans, and U.S. soldiers come to our city to plot their next steps" said Desarae Walker, a sophomore at the University of Minnesota. "We are tired of paying for a war with no end in sight."

Youth Against War and Racism, a Twin Cities-based high school anti-war and counter-military recruitment group. This will be the 4th walkout in the last 3 years organized by YAWR. Previous walkouts have drawn up to 2000 youth from the Twin Cities and surrounding suburbs in spirited, enthusiastic displays of civic engagement and opposition to the war in Iraq. Youth Against War and Racism's most recent victories include winning restrictions on military recruiters in Minneapolis high schools in February 2008.

###

Obama explains his flip flop and how he would prevent Iran from going nuclear in the interview.