 |
| powered by hit-counter-download.com |
Bomber hits as Iraqis celebrate soccer win
A bomber detonated her suicide vest Saturday in a marketplace in Diyala province, targeting soccer fans who had just watched the Iraqi national team win a big match against China, authorities told CNN.
‘Special Weapons’ Have a Fallout on Babies
FALLUJAH - Babies born in Fallujah are showing illnesses and deformities on a scale never seen before, doctors and residents say.
The new cases, and the number of deaths among children, have risen after “special weaponry” was used in the two massive bombing campaigns in Fallujah in 2004.
After denying it at first, the Pentagon admitted in November 2005 that white phosphorous, a restricted incendiary weapon, was used a year earlier in Fallujah.
In addition, depleted uranium (DU) munitions, which contain low-level radioactive waste, were used heavily in Fallujah. The Pentagon admits to having used 1,200 tonnes of DU in Iraq thus far.
Many doctors believe DU to be the cause of a severe increase in the incidence of cancer in Iraq, as well as among U.S. veterans who served in the 1991 Gulf War and through the current occupation.
“We saw all the colours of the rainbow coming out of the exploding American shells and missiles,” Ali Sarhan, a 50-year-old teacher who lived through the two U.S. sieges of 2004 told IPS. “I saw bodies that turned into bones and coal right after they were exposed to bombs that we learned later to be phosphorus.
The following is a letter I've actually sent (in email and by POST, if you can imagine) to Obama's campaign.
To: Senator Barack Obama and/or his campaign staff
From: Phobrek Taz, Worcester, Massachusetts
Date: June 4th, 2008
NOTES:
I’m not actually crazy about boldfacing text, but I do it here to highlight the more important notes. Basically, if something isn’t boldfaced, someone wishing to skip over all my blather can just ignore it. Even though my writing and thoughts are simply a treasure to behold.
I imagine Senator Obama won’t be reading this himself, so if whoever’s reading this could add my name or vote (so to speak) on your tallies of comments that people make in such letters, I’d appreciate it.
Dear Senator Obama,
Congratulations! I’ve been rooting for you, and desperately want you to become the next president of the United States. And thank you – to you and all the people involved – for running a campaign that has genuinely inspired and excited people, unlike any other in my lifetime (I’m 38).
You’ve been my clear favorite over Hillary Clinton, and while so many felt she should have conceded, I’m actually content that she stayed in it. Somehow, for once, voters in every state actually got to have a say in these primaries (I think the Michigan/Florida debacle was handled as well as was possible). I think that this should be a talking point:
I’m glad we saw this process through to the end. To many, this process may seem unfair… in its scheduling of all of our states - and territories - causing them to have more – or less – impact on the results; and for the earlier states being able to create a perceived trend, that may feel limiting to those that come later. In 2004, the latter TWENTY-SIX primaries became largely moot, as candidate Senator Kerry became the presumptive nominee just after “Super Tuesday,” March 2nd. But this year, every state counted, even after the controversy surrounding Michigan and Florida, because: Senator Hillary Clinton stayed in the race, despite the badgering of the media, and the pundits… and she gave the people in every state and every territory the opportunity to have their vote counted… to have it mean something.
The important ideas here are:
To get people to understand that you desire due equity for all, regardless of their candidate, location, even their party. Right now, being inclusive is vital. You want absolutely everyone on board your train.
To, likewise, reach out to the Hillary supporters in particular, in a way even congratulating them, and her, for having the strength of will to never give up, and to make the full primary process mean something. People (understandably) love it when you tell them that they did the right thing, resisting the media’s demands that they do otherwise.
The most important thing of all, in my opinion, is to reconcile w/Hillary and her supporters. One way to do this is to return her support: as everyone knows, she will now do her duty by supporting the Democratic candidate, but this doesn’t mean that it can’t go two ways. This talking point would be especially useful if you do not choose her as your running mate. Talking point:
I know that this is easier to say, now that this process is over, but while I know Senator Clinton will be supportive of myself and our party’s campaign for the presidency, that doesn’t mean that the support needn’t go both ways. Senator Clinton is (insert compliments here). Her interests, her perspectives, are clearly shared by half of those who voted in our primaries, and her (and our other candidates’) causes must also be supported, and adopted, and reflected as well as possible, in our campaign, and in our future administration. To not do so, would be to deny so many of our supporters a continued meaning to the votes that they have cast in these past few months. These voices must continue to be heard, and heeded, for to not do so would disempower, and disenfranchise, our own people.
This kind of talking point would be something to use when you announce your Veep. If it’s Hillary, you’d use it to lead up to your announcement; if you pick someone else, you’d make a point of saying this afterward. Not on that same day, but very soon afterward.
However, I actually think that you should choose to take on Hillary as the Veep. I didn’t think this for the longest time, because I felt like you shouldn’t have to, just because so many are suggesting it, and I personally believe that she’s been somewhat “co-opted” in her eight years since leaving the White House. A specific example is that she was such a champion of health care reform as First Lady, and then ended up having to succumb to the industry in order to get elected. She had to play ball. I don’t particularly blame her, as this is how government usually works. She could either play ball and get elected, or not get elected at all (not just because of this one example, but because of the overall, corrupt process).
You, however, have been more able to maintain your integrity, and you haven’t had nearly as much time to become tainted by this process either; and people know it. I’m sure it’s been tried, to push you into undesired directions, and I am sure that these influences will continue to try to manipulate you and everyone else in government, forevermore. It’s a sad part of the process. But you are our best hope of operating against that machine.
That said, lately I’ve come to believe that you actually should pick up Hillary as Veep. I’m very wary of both her and Bubba, but if they can be reined in, they could be very important in getting things done. They’ve got clout.
But much more importantly: in the end, even after you became the presumptive-presumptive-nominee, Hillary supporters were still coming out in droves, down to the very last primaries. That’s incredible. The upshot is: half of the party and its voters are passionate about getting her into the White House. Not a small chunk; not a third; HALF. They will not be easily appeased.
So many have said that if their candidate didn’t get the nomination, they’d either vote Republican, or not at all. This of course is bullshit, most of the time. When a candidate is still very much in the running, most supporters will make this silly ultimatum in an (ineffective) attempt at coercing others into switching sides. Regardless, they don’t want to say anything that suggests that their candidate will lose. If they don’t end up backing the Democratic candidate for the presidency, they’re either mentally disaffected, or are actually Republicans (same thing).
But in the end, there is only one vital thing that must happen: there must not be a Republican in the White House. That has got to be the primary goal; everything else is of secondary importance. Taking on Hillary as Veep is the one move that will give you a huge increase in your chances of winning. To not do this is to risk losing a lot of votes. Hillary truly does attract voters of specific demographics, different from yours, in large numbers. These people often seem like more conservative voters than you and your supporters (so I believe), and they really are the ones that might possibly end up voting for McCain. That cannot happen.
Besides appealing to the needed demographics, the Clintons (as a pair) do have their legacy. To some (myself included) that legacy isn’t necessarily very appealing, but everything is relative. The facts are: the Clinton Era came right before this tragic, devastating eight years of Bush tossing our country (and others) into the proverbial shitter. There is an attraction to returning to better times, to undoing these eight years, and the Clinton Era is connected to that for many people. Bush has driven every aspect of the United States into the ground, after inheriting what people see as being the (tainted but forgivable) Clinton legacy (whether they realize they see it as this or not). Taking on Hillary will give comfort to those that fared better (read: almost everyone) before this current administration took over, while you – at the helm – will still clearly signal a brand new day that will build off of a recognizable, perhaps even nostalgic, foundation.
Last, but important nonetheless, and also in the name of inclusion: so many people have remarked that this year’s field of candidates for the Democratic nomination has been a surprisingly excellent collection of people. While people have only been supporting you or Hillary for the last few weeks, there were others who received support and represent voters’ interests. Most people that support other candidates end up not voting for them, because the candidate’s status of “unelectable” means that they’re throwing their vote away. You are my choice of candidate, but my first choice would have been Dennis Kucinich, who has some notably different positions. Many people end up wishing their favorite candidate, or a particular platform plank, would be included in the plans and directives of the eventual nominee, and they are far greater than the number of votes reflected as the amount actually cast for these “unelectables.”
Based on this thinking, I think it would be wise to give real consideration to using one or more of these candidates in your administration, whether it be an appropriate cabinet position, or something else of a substantial nature. If you found that using a previous candidate was appropriate for one position or another, that would be another excellent move of inclusion. For instance, Bill Richardson would make an excellent Secretary of State, in my opinion. Besides exciting his supporters, such an appointment would also appeal to those who like him and his ideas, and his general demographic support, even though they ended up voting for and/or supporting some other candidate. I know many people that are big fans of both Richardson and Kucinich, who ended up voting for you over Hillary, even before it fell down to just the two of you.
Besides the appeal to various supporters, there plainly are some excellent people in that original field of candidates, that would be appropriate for positions even if they’d never been a part of the primaries. One other factor: people know these candidates. They’ve been all over TV, during their campaigns as well as the endless debates. The public likes being able to identify and understand the top people in the administration; I think that the public is developing an increasing recognition of the other major players, mostly meaning the main cabinet/advisors, UN ambassador, etc. Using such a person to occupy a space in your administration will increase inclusion (obviously, this has become my mantra), and show that their perspectives and causes are being sincerely represented for them at the highest levels. Obviously, there are other well-known players that would be popular and appreciated at various posts: an example that most easily comes to mind is the fantastic Richard Clarke, for instance.
I’ve only ever written a couple of letters to politicians – my senators, Kennedy and Kerry – but today, I have been so driven to write this letter, even knowing it will probably not make its way into the thinking of you or your campaign. But if it does, then this is the most important letter I’ve ever written. And I thank whomever for actually reading my long-winded notes.
Yours truly,
Phobrek Taz
Worcester, Massachusetts
The article, by Vanity Fair magazine's national editor Todd Purdum, suggested that Bill Clinton's personality had changed since his 2004 heart bypass surgery and said that there were reports of Clinton "seeing a lot of women on the road." - CNN
"So, I had Cheneys on both sides of the family — and we don't even live in West Virginia," Cheney cracked. After pausing for laughter from the crowd, Cheney added, "You can say those things when you're not running for re-election."
As the CNN item detailing this adds:
Afterward, West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd lashed out at Cheney for the "insult to all Americans." In a written statement, Byrd declared that Cheney showed "contempt and astounding ignorance toward his own countrymen" with the comments.Sadly, that weird old Byrd just went into the hospital tonight. Damn. First Our (drunken) Man Ted, now the aged one (I had no idea he was 3rd in line to the presidency... can you fucking imagine?). If Kennedy has to retire, we're pretty safe (but not completely) with his replacement being a Democrat. But for Byrd in West Virginia?
Hymes demonstrated the weapon by staging what CBS somewhat oddly called “a scenario soldiers might encounter in Iraq” — a handful of military volunteers, dressed as civilian protesters, who carried signs saying “peace not war” and threw objects at a small group of soldiers. A series of raygun blasts from half a mile away disrupted their chants and finally sent them running.
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisiton Sue Payton calls the Active Denial System a “huge game-changer” which “would save huge numbers of lives.” She told CBS, “It could be used to read someone’s mind, in effect. … If they continue to come at you, then you’re fairly sure … they’re probably a terrorist or an adversary who wants to do you harm.”
(skipping a paragraph)However, the failure to deploy the weapon as planned has raised suspicions that the real intention is to use it for domestic crowd control.
In 2006, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne was quoted as saying that the device should be used first on Americans, because “if we’re not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation. … If I hit somebody with a nonlethal weapon and they claim that it injured them in a way that was not intended, I think that I would be vilified in the world press.”
All together now:
