I have to tell you, today I voted for Barack, and I cried. After I wrote this, I remembered that there was a wonderful video during the primaries, and I really did not feel the intensity of it until I voted in the general...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBVKsartJFs
At the U of A Student Union, I was just a few blocks from where I was when I heard that Dr. King was assasinated, and less then that far away from where I was when I heard that Bobby Kennedy was assasinated. The lifelong friend I was with on both of those days (and actually on the day we got the news about JFK), has since died of breast cancer. We had our children, passed middle age, and I wish she, and my Nana, who took me to my first civil rights march in Oakland, could be here now, and go with me to the polls.
There, at the Union, I was right on the Mall where I helped plant 444 crosses for Arizonans killed the Viet Nam war, including several classmates. Then again today, while walking back to work, I passed a corner where two ROTC students in uniform had tried to take a box of black armbands from me, destined for my department faculty for that Viet Nam moritorium day observance. One of our linebackers, "Bad Brad" who was in my English class, appeared suddenly, put his massive hand on my shoulder, and asked "Do you have a problem with my little friend here?' Brad was as tall as a tree, well over 300 pounds, and very black. Needless to say, these two little bullies scurried back into whatever rat-hole they had crawled out of to shove me up against the wall.
I moved back here in 2000. I work for right on the UofA campus. I am so blessed to be able to vote for Barack in a place where I was such an young college student activist, and to walk by these places that are connected to that past. I know Barack is not the perfect progressive candidate, but I believe that he can bring us together, and heal many of the ancient wounds.
The odd thing is, that McCain missed all of these years of the American Experience. I had friends and family members on the ground and at risk during the entire Viet Nam war, and prayed for there safe return every day. But two, two-year, tours were the max. John was in the hell-whole when Dr. King and Bobby were assasinated. He missed, through no fault of his own, the terrible shootings at Kent State, the Democratic Convention Riots, watergate and the impeachment hearings - he has failed to connect, and possibly this has a lot to do with it...
I also realized, when he seemed so unpreturbed by the horrible crowd behavior at the Palin rallys that he missed the horrible Wallace campaign, and all of the ugliness of those years. He just doesn't get it, because he missed the experience. Anyhow, I started this to tell you how I cried, and how much it meant for me to vote for Barack Obama, and his vision.
I have been off-line since just after the primaries, unless I go by a café, or stay late at work...and I can't deal with the negativity of the dem HQ crowds here, as I am more like my candidate in terms of knowing that inclusion and reaching out are only harder when all this division has become entrenched.
Every few decades, it seems as though we check into recovery with a democratic slate, and everything gets balanced back, we DO redistribute and life gets better... Presidents FDR, Kennedy, Clinton...and then we (yes we, red or blue) always seem to forget and go back to that addiction to power and greed, until we get so sick, and so divided -- and have to go back to rehab again.... Having watched this silly cycle for more than half a century I pray that we can cross back to being a great nation again, and finally kick the colonial attitude and all this false pride that just gets us in trouble.
Just to rekindle the hope, and keep us all energized over the next few days, one of my favorite campaign videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBk32JsV9l8
Barack, YES WE CAN! And we all need to, and will take up our part in rebuilding this great nation...
We Cassandras foresaw in 2002 (and went on public record) that just one of the major reasons why the US and UK must not invade Iraq was precisely because that would risk not one, but two more "Vietnams" ("Can't stay, can't leave" situations) - one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan.
If McCain, claiming to be the "experienced" presidential candidate, didn't see that obvious risk (although many of us life-long diplomatic and military experts were shouting about it) then his "experience" is so stymied by bad judgement that it counts for nothing.
As for Afghanistan, leaving it as G W Bush's unfinished business, to go into the Iraq maelstrom, alienated that wide 2002 international backing on whose money and support any hope of giving Afghanistan a chance to recover from the Soviet and Taliban years, was lost.
For what Afghanistan needed while the Taliban were quiescent licking their wounds was a realistic world-backed development plan to rebuild, continue the Taliban's no opium policy, and make Afghanistan a reasonably none- too-poor society - much as I saw it in 1970.
Yes - I'm afraid it's too late now. But then as Sweden's brilliant Count Oxenstierna told his would-be diplomat son in 1648 - "Do you not realise, my son, with what little wisdom the world is governed?" Especially with the Bush/Blair team in charge!
Obama, though, has the pragmatism, high intelligence, and common sense to work hard to mitigate the catastrophic folly of President G.W.Bush. He's the only one who could possibly handle this double "Vietnam" challenge.
For more on the current US electoral situation see our www.dipconsult.eu
The first security job of the next president will be to try to avoid both these new potential "Vietnams". How can McCain, let alone the totally inexperienced Mme Palin (with, we are told, a one in seven actuarial chance of being president by 2012) possibly succeed in this?
No - experience does not automatically qualify. Look at Cheney and Rumsfeld with perhaps more hands-on experience of security and defence maatters than anyone else. They got us into the worldwide catastrophe of Iraq. Not just military, but financial.
Curious that the overall cost of "Iraq" to date is around $700bn, financed by borrow-all-the-way: the same figure as is now assessed as needed to resolve the financial meltdown. The financial demands of "Iraq" are to a large extent responsible for this financial crisis.
For more of our work at JP Diplomatic Consultancy, France, please see our www.dipconsult.eu
As far as I am concerned, anyone who puts on the uniform and goes into harms way for their country or their community is a hero.
Let's get real about McCain though. It is a huge disservice to others who served in Vietnam to exagerate McCain's record. It is amazing how often you hear the lie that McCain was a fighter pilot. He didn't have the acuity for it, and lost 5 aircraft- one when he was joy riding - flying so low in Italy that he ran into power lines.
Right wingers like to play up the idea that McCain was a fighter pilot because it fits into a narrative they like to sell. The real story is closer to the real john mccain we see on the campaign trail.
Actually, McCain flew an aging bomber of Korean war vintage that was being phased out. The A-4 Skyhawk was 13 years old when he flew it in Vietnam and was being retired from front line service because it was unable to deliver bombs accurately and in quantity. Skyhawk missions consisted of flying in groups to target, staying together, trying to avoid getting shot down by AA or MIGs, dropping the bombs and beating a hasty retreat to the carrier.
This pretty much an accurate metaphor for McCain's style of campaigning since the convention. McCain is an aging bomber that travels in the safety of a pack of republican handlers, tries to get in avoiding Press AA fire, attempts to deliver a talking point, usually inaccurately and then when it bombs, he runs like hell.
In Vietnam, his total hours in combat over enemy territory was 20 hours. Twenty. Period. Grunts on the ground often did 7000 hours by comparison and were in situations where a cell in a prison would have sounded pretty good by comparison. This son of an admiral got 1.5 medals for every hour he was in combat.
McCain talks a lot about honoring our military, but when it comes to actions he is missing in action. This piece of work has the gall to staunchly oppose the GI bill like the one we honored WWII vets with. McCain says to vets, thanks, but his actions say no thanks.
For 26 years the cornerstone of John McCain's political career has been the 5 years he spent as a POW in North Vietnam. Time and again he has told us about his suffering, about how he defended our freedom by enduring torture, and about his resistance against his captors. He leaves it to others to speak of his courage and his glorious service. Rarely, however, does he or his supporters speak about his many collaborations with the North Vietnamese.
In his acceptance speech at the Republican Convention he said, "I fight for Americans. I fight for you." It appears that was not the case in 1967, or 1968, 1969, and 1970.
On November 9, 1967, just 14 days after his capture, he gave an interview to the Vietnamese Nhan Dan Today. He openly discussed his military assignment, planning and intelligence used for air raids on North Vietnam, and tactical details about his bombing mission. This interview is detailed in a recently declassified Department of Defense message dated November 11, 1967. That interview was dispatched to Prensa Latina in Havana, Cuba, where it was published.
On January 1, 1968, 67 days after his capture, John McCain gave a lengthy interview to French television correspondent Francois Chalais. In that interview, McCain stated that he was taken to a hospital immediately after his capture, in contradiction to his acceptance speech where he says he was "dumped in a dark cell, and left to die." In fact, when asked how he was treated he replied, "Very well. Everybody is very nice to me."
On June 2, 1969, John McCain made a radio broadcast from North Vietnam. He stated, "I was a U.S. airman engaged in the crimes against the Vietnamese country and people. I had bombed their cities, towns and villages and caused more injury even death for the people of Vietnam. After I was captured I was taken from a hospital in (?) where I received very good medical treatment. I was given an operation on my leg, which allowed me to walk again, and a cast for my right arm which was badly broken in three repeat three places. The doctors were very good and they knew a great deal about the practice of medicine. I remained in the hospital for some time, I regained much of my health and strength." That's in sharp contrast to his acceptance speech, where he said, "They couldn't set my bones properly, so they just slapped a cast on me."
On January 24, 1970, GRANMA in Havana, Cuba published an extensive interview with McCain. The interview was conducted by Dr. Fernando Barral, a Spanish psychiatrist residing in Cuba. In that interview McCain talks about the US Command structure, his father's military position, and even gives his wife's address.
It would certainly be fair to ask Mr. McCain how could he, in good faith, take the Oath of Office for the President of the United States, when he could not live up to the Military Code of Conduct. The Code of Conduct specifically prohibits POW's from engaging in behavior like Mr. McCain's. Some would even call his conduct treasonous.
In his RNC acceptance speech, he declared, "My country saved me, and I cannot forget it. And I will fight for her for as long as I draw breath, so help me God." If John McCain's cowardly behavior while a prisoner of war is an example how he will fight for his country, then it's fair to conclude the the United States would be in deep trouble. Recently McCain was asked by a reporter how being a POW qualified him to be President. His answer? "Oh...please!" That may be John McCain's most truthful answer yet. What do you think?
By John Pedler, former diplomat now a diplomatic consultant.
(This item is taken from advice to clients of JP Diplomatic Consultancy)
Senator McCain claims he has the experience to be President citing on pretty well every opportunity that having been a prisoner of war in Vietnam and having backed the war in Iraq, he's the one with the qualifications to be Commander-in-Chief of the US armed forces.
But being a Vietnam veteran and consistently backing the war in Iraq just don't go together. They're incompatible.
Anyone - especially a 'vet' - familiar with that war an its disastrous end (I myself was there twice in 1968 the year of the Tet, and again in 1970) must surely have wanted at all costs to avoid a second 'Vietnam' style disaster. Yet that is precisely what Americans and we British have got by invading Iraq. With the US position in the world now seriously diminished, how best can we get out?
Yet it was not hard for us Cassandras to warn in 2002 that another 'Vietnam' was just what the US and the UK were likely to get by going it virtually alone to Baghdad. Let's look at what anyone who wanted to could readily have known by September 2002:
1. Obviously it would split US allies - the UK siding with the US, and France and Germany joining Russia in opposing. And so a split in NATO too: the one sure politico/military link binding the US and Canada to the EU.
2. It was also obvious that a Rumsfeld 'lite' invasion force and a shoe-string budget would not suffice, given the fissiparous nature of Iraq, to ensure a swift replacement of Saddam by a strong Iraqi government. Shi'ites were still fretting at their terrible losses after President G H W Bush failed to support them after calling on them to rise against Saddam; Sunnis would be out to preserve their supremacy without Saddam; Kurds would be seeking independence - and so on for the smaller ethnic groups.
3. There was the equally obvious folly of putting US forces to the west of Iran in Iraq well as to the east of it in Afghanistan (what would the US have done with Chinese forces in both Canada and Mexico?) That would end Iran's initial cooperation with the US in removing the Taliban (its enemy, in Afghanistan). And an Islamic revolutionary Iran striving to ensure its influence in its western neighbour (which, under Saddam, had waged the atrocious Iraq/Iran war) clearly bode ill for any US occupation of Iraq.
4. Invading a second Islamic country would also, equally predictably, add gasoline to the worldwide 'clash of cultures' al Qaeda had deliberately ignited with 9/11. That would redound on the 'War on terror'. Saddam, brute though he was, was doing America's work for it in keeping Al Qaeda out of Iraq. Leading Republican national security guru Brent Scowcroft warned (Wall Street Journal, 15 Aug. 2002) 'An attack on Iraq at this time could seriously, prejudice, if not destroy, the global counter-terrorist campaign we have undertaken'.
5. Then there was yet another clear folly in giving Iraq military and financial priority over Afghanistan - G W Bush's perilous unfinished business. Downgraded, anyone could see that Afghanistan with its history of ejecting mighty invaders, could go so badly as to threaten another 'Vietnam' there too.
6. The war in Iraq was supposed to be about WMD. But it was ridiculous to invade a country that experts agreed had no nuclear weapons but might have them one day, when Russia, China, Japan and S. Korea were counting on America staying with them to oblige N Korea to give up the nuclear bomb it already had!
7. Above all, there was the lack - pointed out by the UK in mid 2002 - of clear plans for the swift replacement of Saddam, and an early exit from Iraq. Clearly, if ever there was one, a second 'Vietnam' threatened in Iraq. A 'Vietnam' likely to have far worse worldwide consequences than the US defeat in Vietnam in the '70s.
Anyone - particularly a Vietnam vet anxious to avoid another debacle - could have found out all this far more easily than we Cassandas did. We now know that both the State Department and the Foreign Office were issuing warnings for the White House and No 10. These were available to members of the Senate and the House of Commons. But McCain, like so many senators and UK Members of Parliament, evidently failed to take the trouble to brief himself on the secret information he could have had. Yet because of his experience he was the one senator who could and should have known all this and made a memorable speech in protest at G W Bush's call to war.
To sum up - to have had experience of war, and to have had years of indirect influence as a lawmaker over foreign affairs, does not in itself qualify someone to be President and Commander-in-Chief. McCain has had no 'hands on' experience of major command to judge him by. Only votes, speeches and influence. So the question is - do these demonstrate good judgment giving confidence that he would make a good Commander-in-Chief? In the light of the above, the answer has to be a clear 'No'.
There is one more point to make:
When I arrived in Vietnam in 1968 the Vietnamese colonel, who was liaison officer between President Khieu and the US Ambassador, told me that I would find that everyone from his boss Khieu to the woman in the paddy field to be anti-American. Rather an exaggeration, but, alas, I found it basically true. Why - because of the US use of 'hyper-power' on the ground (remember My Lai and several similar incidents?) and even more indiscriminately from the air.
From Vietnam I went Cambodia and found the same broad based anti-American sentiments due to the massive American bombing which was not confined to the 'Ho Chi Minh trail'. As is generally known, the backlash of hatred in the countryside gave the formerly barely significant Khmer Rouge the support it needed to achieve its auto-genocidal revolution.
In Phnom Penh, I interviewed the High Representative of North Vietnam. I asked him how he explained the large numbers who rallied to the communist cause. He told me: "If I kill your mother, brother, child you'll want to kill me. So the Americans are our recruiting sergeants. These people just want to fight them. Sometimes it worries me for none of them are communists".
Was Senator McCain so isolated in his prison cell that he never had knowledge of the war in which he fought and why it was lost? If so, he should surely have troubled to find out the facts from other veterans. What was the result of the near indiscriminate air war of which he was part? Did he not see that, faced with almost certain civil unrest in Iraq and insufficient boots on the ground, the US could once again find itself relying on massive fire power and air power in a war with large numbers of civilian casualties so causing the sort of anti-Americanism that occurred in Vietnam?
John McCain, with his experience of war and years monitoring foreign policy was perhaps the best qualified senator to speak out against an invasion of Iraq - at least until Afghanistan had been been secured and Al Qaeda denied its recruiting sergeant by resolving the Israel/Palestine running sore. But instead he supported President G W Bush and the neo-conservatives who were hoping to achieve such dominance in the Middle East that their goal of a 'New American Century' would come by establishing the 'unipolarism' they sought for the US.
And age does count - over seventy, energy inevitably dilutes, in most some memory problems set in: from some of his statements it seems this may be happening to him already And keeping up to date in a swiftly changing world becomes more difficult with age. The burden American presidents have to bear of being at once Head of State and head of government is heavy at any time. In the present grave world crisis it would challenge a much younger man. The problem - almost too late in the day - is to shift the major powers from Bush style confronation to an era of cooperation made possible by the end of the Cold War.
Let us look now at Barack Obama. Famously he opposed the Iraq war: a sign of good judgment particularly when most Senators and Representatives approved it.
Secondly what is it that makes good Commander- in-Chief? Eisenhower had been an overall commander, so had Grant, but Lincoln had never commanded a major unit, nor had F D Roosevelt - nor had G W Bush. Nor has McCain or Barack Obama. Pitt the Younger - who became UK Prime Minister at the age of 24 in the midst of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars had only had a bare year in government as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Yet he was a great success.
The qualities required? Exceptional intelligence and memory, pragmatism, readiness to learn (especially from mistakes), ability to lead the public and the Administration, ability to delegate and to choose the right cadres for the different tasks, capacity to work long hours when needed, incorruptability, calm in the face of setbacks, sincerity, loyalty, and almost above all profound common sense. Obama from his record, his writings, and his well run campaign appears to have many of these qualities. So he is by far the best bet to restore America' damaged image, and to do everything possible, after eight years of Bush confrontation, to usher in that so badly needed era of international cooperation.
To be fair I really should add that you can also probably thank Johnson, Rusk, and many others in both parties.
There is more money to be made in stalemate than in victory.
Vietnam launched its first satellite over the weekend to provide telecommunications, broadcasting and Internet links across the country.
Vinasat-1 was carried into space aboard an Ariane 5 rocket from the European spaceport in French Guiana at 7:17pm local time (10:17pm GMT) Friday evening.
* * *
Vinasat-1 was built by Lockheed Martin * * * Its footprint will cover all of South East Asia in addition to the eastern part of China, India, Korea, Japan, Australia and Hawaii.
The benefits of the satellite are that...
"With transmission capacity equivalent to 10,000 voice, Internet and data channels, or 120 TV channels, Vinasat-1 will help Vietnam bring telecommunications, Internet and television services to all isolated, mountainous and island areas where other means of transmission is not feasible," said Doan Hop Le, Vietnam's minister of Information and Communication, in a televised speech shortly after the launch.
The country is expecting economic gains from the telecommunications links that the satellite will support. At the very least it stands to save several million dollars per year in fees currently paid for leasing of transponders on satellites owned by other countries but also expects the services supported by Vinasat-1 will lead to growth in the economy.
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/144864/vietnam_launches_its_first_satellite.html
That doesn't sound like John McCain's Vietnam.
Jim Callahan
Orlando, FL (due west of Kennedy Space Center)
Listen to Lee Scott, a resident of Greencastle, Pennsylvania, Vietnam veteran, former NSA employee, explain why Hillary can't be an effective peacemaker in the Middle East...and why we need Obama now...
Click here to listen...1:35 min.
On September 6, 2006, Hillary Clinton crossed the aisle to vote with the Republicans against a Feinstein-Leahy amendment that would have limited the use of cluster bombs in Iraq. She protects children and young people? In her campaign rhetoric perhaps, but not in the real world.
Cluster bombs are the gift that keeps giving. I just read where on April 18, 2005 in Dong Ha, Quang Tri Province Vietnam, 24 year old Nguyen Van Chung was hunting for scrap metal. He accidentally uncovered a piece of ordnance with his hoe and was killed almost immediately from shrapnel wounds to the chest and throat.
This is the third accident to hit this family and the second resulting in death.
A video of his family mourning his loss is here along with an eyewitness account of the accident (caution: graphic content).
http://www.cpi.org/cpiblog/archives/000291.php
Clear Path International has now served over 1500 victims of unexploded ordnance and their families in 3 countries.
The interactive site — http://www.footnote.com — is a Web re-creation of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial on the National Mall. The site allows access to thousands of pages of casualty records and agency photos. People can search by name, hometown, birthdate, tour date, or dozens of other categories.
Such information now is typically found only at National Archives locations, including the headquarters in College Park, Md., and by poring through files organized by topic. That makes searches a hit-or-miss proposition with long odds of finding relevant information, the agency said.
Personally, I don't think McCain is going to last as the Republican candidate until November. Not only is he clueless, but he's got a gigantic Native American problem which is made current by the fact that western lands are being targeted for mining not just coal but uranium.
The Navajos have a good case against him for legislating the removal of the Dineh-Navajo from their homes on the Black Mesa, as detailed here.
Read More »If it hurts the co-president's pride to go begging the people, whom her husband's campaign manager called "trailer trash" and worse, to vote for her (and Wet Willie).
How much Barack really wants my vote, since he considers anyone who wears a US flag pin to be a lesser person than him. Surely, he wouldn't want someone he disrespects to vote for him. ;-{) (of course he would)
Why Alec Baldwin is still living here. He promised to leave if G.W. won the last election. ;-{) Read More »
That is supposing that after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor we attacked China!
And then FDR went on to trash the military, the reserve, Walter Reed, the Federal Budget Surplus, so bankrupting the gov't. making any Federal Safety net impossible for the next generation, and castigating all political opposition for their support of Nazis and or Tojo, and finally emasculating every Federal Agency with appointments of incompetents!
Now that's an analogy!
MB
By comparison, in Iraq today we have approximately 154,000 soldiers for over 26,783,383 Iraqis, or, approximately one person in uniform for every 174 Iraqis.
South Vietnam had an area of approximately 65,000 square miles, as opposed to 168,805 square miles for Iraq. There were about 8.26 American soldiers for every square mile of in South Vietnam. Today in Iraq there is only 0.91 of a soldier for every square mile of Iraq.
What this means is that the American soldier serving in Iraq must not only protect 484% more people as his (or her) Vietnam counterpart, but also must also 806% more land area. Read More »
The People Running The United States Government and Businesses Can't Be The Baby Boomers. They Don't Act The Same.
Read On In Extended..........
Read More »"If we cannot muster the resolve to defeat this evil in Iraq, America will have lost its moral purpose in the world and we will endanger our citizens," the president said.Mr. President, you seems to be confused about what is really happening in Iraq. While it's convenient for you to simply call it "evil," it does a disservice to our men and women in uniform on the streets of Baghdad policing an insurgency and civil war. If you care about solutions and not politics you would recognize this reality, but instead you are in denial. And another thing, Mr. President: in case you have not been paying attention for the last 5 years, YOU lost our moral compass the moment you mislead this country into an unnecessary war. And your actions have directly increased the danger to American citizens at home and abroad.
"If we leave Iraq before the job is done, the enemy will follow us here."
Mr. President once again it would serve our country better to do away with the slogans and start talking real strategy. Your slogan is not a strategy and it is also a lie: When we leave Iraq, the Iraqi people will be fine. They will be happy we left, and they will get on with the job of rebuilding their country. Let's remember Vietnam, when the war apologists claimed the same thing you claim today.. that "If we leave, Communism will follow us home and the entire region will be thrown into chaos." Well, we know that was not true. We know the only thing propelling the region into chaos was the continued presence of our military in an impossible and ill-advised mission. Nor did communism follow us home... it died in Vietnam on it's own. No thanks to our civilian "Commanders in Chief" I might add.
"If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible," Bush said.Mr. President, clearly Congress HAS passed a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, and clearly the American people know who to hold responsible for its failure to advance: You.
At that moment, those two individuals, Johnson and McNamara, stopped being military leaders and became, instead, mass murderers.
Read More »
Posts
