Al Gore Endorses Obama

FLINT, Mich. — Al Gore says he is backing Barack Obama and will do whatever he can to help him get to the White House.
In a letter to be e-mailed to Obama supporters, Gore says Obama has united a movement over the past year and a half.
The former vice president also asks for donations to help fund Obama's effort _ the first time he's asked members of his Web site AlGore.com to contribute to a political campaign.
Gore is one of the most popular figures in the Democratic Party, but he kept a low profile in the primary campaign. He's planning to appear with Obama at a rally in Detroit Monday night.

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE

Obama Addresses

Absent Black Fathers

(transcript)

Apostolic Church of God
Sunday, June 15th, 2009

Chicago, IL
Good morning. It’s good to be home on this Father’s Day with my girls, and it’s an honor to spend some time with all of you today in the house of our Lord.
At the end of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus closes by saying, “Whoever hears these words of mine, and does them, shall be likened to a wise man who built his house upon a rock: the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded upon a rock.” [Matthew 7: 24-25]
Here at Apostolic, you are blessed to worship in a house that has been founded on the rock of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. But it is also built on another rock, another foundation – and that rock is Bishop Arthur Brazier. In forty-eight years, he has built this congregation from just a few hundred to more than 20,000 strong – a congregation that, because of his leadership, has braved the fierce winds and heavy rains of violence and poverty; joblessness and hopelessness. Because of his work and his ministry, there are more graduates and fewer gang members in the neighborhoods surrounding this church. There are more homes and fewer homeless. There is more community and less chaos because Bishop Brazier continued the march for justice that he began by Dr. King’s side all those years ago. He is the reason this house has stood tall for half a century. And on this Father’s Day, it must make him proud to know that the man now charged with keeping its foundation strong is his son and your new pastor, Reverend Byron Brazier.
Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives, we are reminded today that family is the most important. And we are called to recognize and honor how critical every father is to that foundation. They are teachers and coaches. They are mentors and role models. They are examples of success and the men who constantly push us toward it.
But if we are honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that what too many fathers also are is missing – missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.
You and I know how true this is in the African-American community. We know that more than half of all black children live in single-parent households, a number that has doubled – doubled – since we were children. We know the statistics – that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.
How many times in the last year has this city lost a child at the hands of another child? How many times have our hearts stopped in the middle of the night with the sound of a gunshot or a siren? How many teenagers have we seen hanging around on street corners when they should be sitting in a classroom? How many are sitting in prison when they should be working, or at least looking for a job? How many in this generation are we willing to lose to poverty or violence or addiction? How many?
Yes, we need more cops on the street. Yes, we need fewer guns in the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. Yes, we need more money for our schools, and more outstanding teachers in the classroom, and more afterschool programs for our children. Yes, we need more jobs and more job training and more opportunity in our communities.
But we also need families to raise our children. We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception. We need them to realize that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child – it’s the courage to raise one.
We need to help all the mothers out there who are raising these kids by themselves; the mothers who drop them off at school, go to work, pick up them up in the afternoon, work another shift, get dinner, make lunches, pay the bills, fix the house, and all the other things it takes both parents to do. So many of these women are doing a heroic job, but they need support. They need another parent. Their children need another parent. That’s what keeps their foundation strong. It’s what keeps the foundation of our country strong.
I know what it means to have an absent father, although my circumstances weren’t as tough as they are for many young people today. Even though my father left us when I was two years old, and I only knew him from the letters he wrote and the stories that my family told, I was luckier than most. I grew up in Hawaii, and had two wonderful grandparents from Kansas who poured everything they had into helping my mother raise my sister and me – who worked with her to teach us about love and respect and the obligations we have to one another. I screwed up more often than I should’ve, but I got plenty of second chances. And even though we didn’t have a lot of money, scholarships gave me the opportunity to go to some of the best schools in the country. A lot of kids don’t get these chances today. There is no margin for error in their lives. So my own story is different in that way.
Still, I know the toll that being a single parent took on my mother – how she struggled at times to the pay bills; to give us the things that other kids had; to play all the roles that both parents are supposed to play. And I know the toll it took on me. So I resolved many years ago that it was my obligation to break the cycle – that if I could be anything in life, I would be a good father to my girls; that if I could give them anything, I would give them that rock – that foundation – on which to build their lives. And that would be the greatest gift I could offer.
I say this knowing that I have been an imperfect father – knowing that I have made mistakes and will continue to make more; wishing that I could be home for my girls and my wife more than I am right now. I say this knowing all of these things because even as we are imperfect, even as we face difficult circumstances, there are still certain lessons we must strive to live and learn as fathers – whether we are black or white; rich or poor; from the South Side or the wealthiest suburb.
The first is setting an example of excellence for our children – because if we want to set high expectations for them, we’ve got to set high expectations for ourselves. It’s great if you have a job; it’s even better if you have a college degree. It’s a wonderful thing if you are married and living in a home with your children, but don’t just sit in the house and watch “SportsCenter” all weekend long. That’s why so many children are growing up in front of the television. As fathers and parents, we’ve got to spend more time with them, and help them with their homework, and replace the video game or the remote control with a book once in awhile. That’s how we build that foundation.
We know that education is everything to our children’s future. We know that they will no longer just compete for good jobs with children from Indiana, but children from India and China and all over the world. We know the work and the studying and the level of education that requires.
You know, sometimes I’ll go to an eighth-grade graduation and there’s all that pomp and circumstance and gowns and flowers. And I think to myself, it’s just eighth grade. To really compete, they need to graduate high school, and then they need to graduate college, and they probably need a graduate degree too. An eighth-grade education doesn’t cut it today. Let’s give them a handshake and tell them to get their butts back in the library!
It’s up to us – as fathers and parents – to instill this ethic of excellence in our children. It’s up to us to say to our daughters, don’t ever let images on TV tell you what you are worth, because I expect you to dream without limit and reach for those goals. It’s up to us to tell our sons, those songs on the radio may glorify violence, but in my house we live glory to achievement, self respect, and hard work. It’s up to us to set these high expectations. And that means meeting those expectations ourselves. That means setting examples of excellence in our own lives.
The second thing we need to do as fathers is pass along the value of empathy to our children. Not sympathy, but empathy – the ability to stand in somebody else’s shoes; to look at the world through their eyes. Sometimes it’s so easy to get caught up in “us,” that we forget about our obligations to one another. There’s a culture in our society that says remembering these obligations is somehow soft – that we can’t show weakness, and so therefore we can’t show kindness.
But our young boys and girls see that. They see when you are ignoring or mistreating your wife. They see when you are inconsiderate at home; or when you are distant; or when you are thinking only of yourself. And so it’s no surprise when we see that behavior in our schools or on our streets. That’s why we pass on the values of empathy and kindness to our children by living them. We need to show our kids that you’re not strong by putting other people down – you’re strong by lifting them up. That’s our responsibility as fathers.
And by the way – it’s a responsibility that also extends to Washington. Because if fathers are doing their part; if they’re taking our responsibilities seriously to be there for their children, and set high expectations for them, and instill in them a sense of excellence and empathy, then our government should meet them halfway.
We should be making it easier for fathers who make responsible choices and harder for those who avoid them. We should get rid of the financial penalties we impose on married couples right now, and start making sure that every dime of child support goes directly to helping children instead of some bureaucrat. We should reward fathers who pay that child support with job training and job opportunities and a larger Earned Income Tax Credit that can help them pay the bills. We should expand programs where registered nurses visit expectant and new mothers and help them learn how to care for themselves before the baby is born and what to do after – programs that have helped increase father involvement, women’s employment, and children’s readiness for school. We should help these new families care for their children by expanding maternity and paternity leave, and we should guarantee every worker more paid sick leave so they can stay home to take care of their child without losing their income.
We should take all of these steps to build a strong foundation for our children. But we should also know that even if we do; even if we meet our obligations as fathers and parents; even if Washington does its part too, we will still face difficult challenges in our lives. There will still be days of struggle and heartache. The rains will still come and the winds will still blow.
And that is why the final lesson we must learn as fathers is also the greatest gift we can pass on to our children – and that is the gift of hope.
I’m not talking about an idle hope that’s little more than blind optimism or willful ignorance of the problems we face. I’m talking about hope as that spirit inside us that insists, despite all evidence to the contrary, that something better is waiting for us if we’re willing to work for it and fight for it. If we are willing to believe.
I was answering questions at a town hall meeting in Wisconsin the other day and a young man raised his hand, and I figured he’d ask about college tuition or energy or maybe the war in Iraq. But instead he looked at me very seriously and he asked, “What does life mean to you?”
Now, I have to admit that I wasn’t quite prepared for that one. I think I stammered for a little bit, but then I stopped and gave it some thought, and I said this:
When I was a young man, I thought life was all about me – how do I make my way in the world, and how do I become successful and how do I get the things that I want.
But now, my life revolves around my two little girls. And what I think about is what kind of world I’m leaving them. Are they living in a county where there’s a huge gap between a few who are wealthy and a whole bunch of people who are struggling every day? Are they living in a county that is still divided by race? A country where, because they’re girls, they don’t have as much opportunity as boys do? Are they living in a country where we are hated around the world because we don’t cooperate effectively with other nations? Are they living a world that is in grave danger because of what we’ve done to its climate?
And what I’ve realized is that life doesn’t count for much unless you’re willing to do your small part to leave our children – all of our children – a better world. Even if it’s difficult. Even if the work seems great. Even if we don’t get very far in our lifetime.
That is our ultimate responsibility as fathers and parents. We try. We hope. We do what we can to build our house upon the sturdiest rock. And when the winds come, and the rains fall, and they beat upon that house, we keep faith that our Father will be there to guide us, and watch over us, and protect us, and lead His children through the darkest of storms into light of a better day. That is my prayer for all of us on this Father’s Day, and that is my hope for this country in the years ahead. May God Bless you and your children. Thank you.

Visit: Blacks4Barack.org

To Watch Complete Speech

A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...Dedicated To TRUTH !

Why We Started...

Blacks4Barack !

Greg Jones B4B

In January of 2007, Barack Obama declared his candidacy for President of the United Staes. I had been following Obama ever since his powerful speech of Hope that he gave at the 2004 Democratic Convention. Since that speech, I followed Obama as intently as possible feeling that something was truly special about this man. I was extremely impressed with his stance against the Iraq War, a view he exposed at a time when being against the war made one so-called un-patriotic and a move that could have been political suicide. But he stuck to his beliefs and judgement (which later proved to be correct). I would say to myself....I hope Obama runs for President....that's who America needs !

In January, 2007 Obama did it. He announced his candidacy for President. I was extatic ! Here we had a person of great qualities, capabilities, character, judgement and leadership to put America on the right track....and he happened to be a Black Man !

I remember saying to myself that for the first time in my lifetime, there was the true possibilty of America's first Black President. I just knew that all blacks would automatically embrace their brother....and I felt that people of ALL races could eventually come to learn the greatness in this man.

But after Hillary announced her candidacy a bit later, I was sadly amazed at the polls which showed Hillary getting up to 82% of the black support. How could this be. Don't blacks know that Obama is the best choice. But the fact was, at that time the average black knew absolutely nothing about Obama....couldn't even pronounce his name. We knew that we had to do whatever we could to help the Black voter learn more about this qualified man....who happened to be black. So I, along with associates of different races who understood the importance and power of the Black vote started a net/grassroots organization, and named it Blacks4Barack.

The reason for that choice in names was simply that our goal, in our own humble way, was to inspire blacks in any way that we could, to be supportive of Obama....not an easy task considering the fact that Bill Clinton was so loved that he had already been deemed 'the first Black President'.

So we listened to every broadcast possible...every black radio talk show....read every article...just hoping to see some kind of positive support for Obama, particularly in the Black community. But what we found was more discrediting than support combined with crazy statements like 'is he black enough' or of course 'America's not ready for a Black President' just to name a few. (Although good folks like radio talk show host Warren Ballentine and the blog Jack & Jill Politics were particularly inspirational to us as they lead the way toward speaking out for Obama).

Over time, as people became more familiar with Obama, his support level gradually grew...although the slowest group to grasp on was the Black Community. Even 3 days before the first primary/caucus in Iowa, while polls showed him impressively in a strong second place, the black community was filled with doubters.

But, then he WON IOWA ! That was absolutely the most incredible occurance in black political history. A black man won in an all white state....IOWA ! WOW ! As we continued listening and reading the responses to this historic occurance we started feeling that this thing could really happen. If the Black voters would rally in unison behind this qualified black man....combined with the support of all races....we could truly have our First Black President.

Then there was New Hampshire...then Nevada...and when it came time for S. Carolina...the first state with a substantial number of black voters....fate was sealed. Obama had such an incredible victory due to 84% of all black voters voting for him over Hillary. That did it ! The talk shows...the articles...the talk everwhere was that of a movement filled with excitement. And the movement never stopped.

I am so very proud of my brothers and sisters of ALL races and particularly my black family, for rallying behind this highly credible man. I'm most thankful that the words of Dr. King are coming true....to be judged for the content of character...not the color of skin.

We've learned a lot through this historic journey. For one, white people are not as prejudiced as we may have thought. That America IS ready for a Black President....and that when we come together as one, mighty things can take place.

We've won round one with one major round to go. Now is the time for us to stay in Unity....while bringing as many as we can aboard the train toward progress. Get folks registered to vote. That is now the key !

Together, we WILL truly make a difference and we've all ready witnessed....Together...Yes WE Can !.....Yes We WILL !

Thank You ALL !

Greg Jones

National Director

Blacks4Barack

A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...

Dedicated To TRUTH !

Colin Powell (Republican)

May Vote For Obama !

IAN BAILEY
June 13, 2008

VANCOUVER -- Colin Powell, the former Republican secretary of state, says he is not ruling out a vote for Barack Obama, the presumed Democratic nominee for president.
While Mr. Powell served in the administrations of two Republican presidents, he suggested yesterday his support for presumed Republican nominee John McCain is not a forgone conclusion.
He noted that although both he and Mr. Obama are black, he would not cast a vote for the Illinois senator on the basis of race. "I will vote for the individual I think that brings the best set of tools to the problems of 21st-century America and the 21st-century world regardless of party, regardless of anything else other than the most qualified candidate," Mr. Powell said at a news conference before delivering a speech to about 800 people attending a leadership forum at the Vancouver Convention Centre.
"Both of them certainly have the qualifications to be the president of the United States, but both of them cannot be," he said.

Mr. Powell has been supportive of Mr. Obama's successes, but was commenting after the senator recently clinched the Democratic nomination.
A 35-year veteran of the U.S. Army, Mr. Powell also noted he would not necessarily support Mr. McCain because of his extensive military service.
Asked whether he thought it was a difficult choice, he said: "I think so. Yes."

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE !

NBC's Tim Russert Dies

From Heart Attack....age 58.

Our sympathies to his family.

The New York Times is reporting that MSNBC's Tim Russert has died of a heart attack at the age of 58.
Russert suffered a massive heart attack and collapsed Friday afternoon in NBC's Washington bureau, according to the New York Post
Russert was in the tracking booth, recording a track, when he collapsed. He returned from Italy Thursday night.
TVNewser reminds us that "Around 1pmET this afternoon, Russert was conducting a political Q&A on MSNBC.com."

NOTE: Tim Russert was the last of the great journalists dedicated to truth. He will be greatly missed. He was a graduate of the college I attended (John Carroll University in Cleveland, Ohio) and I worry that truth in media will never be the same. (Greg Jones)

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE

A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org....Dedicated To Truth

Rezko: Feds pushed

for dirt on Obama

(Obama Has To Defeat Hillary, Bill,

The Media, GOP, McCain

and Bush Regime)

By KENNETH P. VOGEL
Imprisoned Chicago businessman Antoin “Tony” Rezko has accused federal prosecutors of improperly pressuring him to implicate Barack Obama in a corruption case. In a letter to the U.S. District judge who presided over his trial, Rezko, who was convicted this month of 16 corruption-related counts, including fraud and money laundering, called prosecutors “overzealous.” And he singled out what he said were their efforts to get him to turn on Obama, an Illinois senator and the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, and Illinois Gov. Rod Bagojevich. “They are pressuring me to tell them the ‘wrong’ things that I supposedly know about Gov. Bagojevich and Sen. Obama,” Rezko wrote in an undated letter released by the court this week. “I have never been party to any wrongdoing that involved the governor or the senator. I will never fabricate lies about anyone else for selfish purposes. I will take what comes my way, but I will never hurt innocent people.” Randall Samborn, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office in Chicago, wouldn't comment on Rezko's allegation. Rezko was a prominent fundraiser for Obama's campaigns for state Senate, U.S. House and U.S. Senate, though not for Obama’s presidential campaign. Though Obama was not implicated in any wrongdoing in the Rezko case, his name was mentioned sporadically during Rezko’s trial.

Obama’s campaign released a statement after the letter was made public, stressing that Obama hasn’t been accused of “any improper action or conduct involving Tony Rezko” and reiterating that he hasn’t been contacted for an interview or for any information about Rezko. “Nothing in this letter indicates anything to the contrary.” Still, Republicans have seized on the relationship between the two, which includes a real estate deal that enlarged the Obama’s Chicago homestead, to question Obama’s judgment. Blagojevich — who, like Obama, staked out an image as a political reformer — repeatedly found himself the subject of plenty of unwanted scrutiny during the trial, which prosecutors used to detail a complicated pay-to-play scheme involving state government boards and commissions. Chicago media have reported that Rezko is being pressured to cooperate with ongoing investigations of Blagojevich’s campaign and administration. But Rezko’s lawyer, Joe Duffy, told the Chicago Tribune that he did not know of any investigation into Obama’s dealings with Rezko. “I'm not aware of any impropriety related to Rezko and Obama,” Duffy told the Tribune. "At no point has the government ever asked me a single question about Obama or any wrongdoing involving Rezko and Obama." It’s not uncommon for prosecutors to try to get defendants to implicate more powerful or wealthy officials, said Stan Brand, who has represented scores of public officials both in private practice and as legal counsel to the U.S. House. “Prosecutors are always interested in trading up,” Brand said. “They put subtle and sometimes not-so-subtle pressure on people.” But proving that “they’ve actually crossed an ethical line and asked this guy to embellish or shade the truth in a way that’s helpful to them in some other case,” Brand said, is “a very difficult case to make absent some express coercion, which is very rare.” The letter, apparently written during the two-month trial, was actually a plea to allow Rezko to see his family. But its allegations about pressure to implicate Obama will surely give ammunition to partisans on both sides. For Democrats, Rezko’s claim dovetails with allegations that the Department of Justice targeted high-profile Democrats. For Republicans, it will be used to suggest Obama’s relationship with Rezko drew warranted federal scrutiny

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE

McCain Says Timetable

Troops To Return

Home From Iraq

'NOT IMPORTANT' !

Sen. John McCain appeared on the Today Show this morning and continued to promote his idea of a long occupation in Iraq. But whatever merits there may be for his message, his delivery is once again promising to get him into trouble.
When asked if he knew when American troops could start to return home, McCain responded:
"No, but that's not too important. What's important is the casualties in Iraq."

UPDATE: Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid has responded:
"McCain's statement today that withdrawing troops doesn't matter is a crystal clear indicator that he just doesn't get the grave national-security consequences of staying the course - Osama bin Laden is freely plotting attacks, our efforts in Afghanistan are undermanned, and our military readiness has been dangerously diminished. We need a smart change in strategy to make America more secure, not a commitment to indefinitely keep our troops in an intractable civil war."

UPDATE (11:00 AM): The responses are coming fast and furious from both parties, as the McCain hits back for his comments this morning:

McCain camp:
Sen. McCain has consistently opposed a timeline for withdrawing our troops from Iraq. And our friends on the opposite side of the aisle have a long history of attempting to twist Sen. McCain's words on Iraq. The fact that Sen. McCain opposes a timeline for withdrawal and is principally concerned about the safety of American troops and the security of Iraq is pretty much "dog bites man."
Meanwhile, the Dems are beginning to pile on. Here's Biden's response:
"Senator McCain's comment is evidence that he is totally out of touch with the needs of our troops and the national security needs of our nation. I think many of our brave soldiers and their families would disagree that it's 'not too important' when they come home.
UPDATE: Via HuffPost's Sam Stein, Sen. John Kerry ripped into McCain over the remarks:
Sensing political blood, Democrats pounded on John McCain, for saying that it was "not too important" when American forces were drawn down provided that casualty levels were acceptably low.

Perhaps the most pointed criticism, ironically, came from Sen. John Kerry -- no stranger to having Iraq comments be used against him in a political election context. Taking to a conference call with aides to Sen. Barack Obama, the 2004 Democratic nominee accused McCain of being "unbelievably out of touch," lacking a general understanding, and was having a "debate with himself" over the issue of Iraq. The alleged flip-flopper was now doing the alleging.
"The job of the Commander in Chief is to understand the fundamentals of the conflict in which you have the troops engaged. And it is becoming crystal clear that John McCain doesn't understand it," said Kerry. "This is an enormous flaw on his candidacy, which is supposedly hung on his ability to serve as commander in chief... There are series of contradictions in his statements that reflect a fundamental misunderstands of the conflict."

As evidence, Kerry ushered in McCain's misstatements on the historical conflict between Sunni and Shiites, his falsehood that Iran was arming al-Qaeda in Iraq (they're not), and the varying times in which the Arizona Republican has said he was against a South Korea style model of troop presence in the Middle East, something he now favors.
"This is not a small matter as far as I am concerned. And I think John McCain is offering a recipe to keep the military overextended," he said. "And our attention diverted from the real center of the war on terror which is Afghanistan and Pakistan."
As the conference call proceeded, the McCain campaign sought to stem the damage of the remark. In an email response to reporters, spokesman Tucker Bounds accused Obama of trying to hide his own "willingness to disregard facts on the ground," and insisted that "John McCain has always said, that [troop drawdown] is not as important as conditions on the ground and the recommendations of commanders in the field."

This, however, came only weeks after the McCain campaign had released an advertisement explicitly suggesting that violence in the country would be ebbed by 2013 - a clear indication that timetables were, in fact, important.
"He threw out 2013 as the date for American forces to be out of Iraq," said Susan Rice, Obama's foreign policy adviser. "And today he says he has no idea."
UPDATE (12:00): Another statement from the McCain camp, this one targeting Obama:
"The Obama campaign is embarking on a false attack on John McCain to hide their own candidate's willingness to disregard facts on the ground in pursuit of withdrawal no matter what the costs. John McCain was asked if he had a 'better estimate' for a timeline for withdrawal. As John McCain has always said, that is not as important as conditions on the ground and the recommendations of commanders in the field. Any reasonable person who reads the full transcript would see this and reject the Obama campaign's attempt to manipulate, twist and distort the truth."

Support The Troops....

VOTE OBAMA !!!

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE !

A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org....Dedicated To Truth !

Kucinich Files For

35-Count BUSH

IMPEACHMENT !

WASHINGTON — Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a former Democratic presidential contender, said Monday he wants the House to consider a resolution to impeach President Bush.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi consistently has said impeachment was "off the table."
Kucinich, D-Ohio, read his proposed impeachment language in a floor speech. He contended Bush deceived the nation and violated his oath of office in leading the country into the Iraq war.
Kucinich introduced a resolution last year to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney. That resolution was killed, but only after Republicans initially voted in favor of taking up the measure to force a debate.
Kucinich won 50 percent of the vote in a five-way House Democratic primary in March, beating back critics who said he ignored business at home to travel the country in his quest to be president.
___
Kucinich: http://kucinich.house.gov/

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE !

A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...Dedicated To TRUTH !

TIME FOR GOOD JUDGEMENT...

TIME FOR OBAMA !!!

IT'S OFFICIAL ! BUSH LIED

US INTO IRAQ WAR !!!

Article By: Arianna Huffington

For those of you who were understandably busy following the last round of the Democratic Nomination Ultimate Fighting Championship this past week (I won't give away the ending for those who have it TiVo'd), I'd like to call your attention to a major story you may have missed: the Senate Intelligence Committee's 200-page "Phase II" report on how the Bush administration used -- and abused -- pre-war intelligence in the run-up to the war in Iraq.
The Committee's conclusion: the president and his top officials deliberately misrepresented secret intelligence to make the case to invade Iraq. No surprise there.
But it's vitally important that we continue to reiterate and document the truth of what happened and who was responsible for perpetrating this fraud on the American public. And here's why: the war is still going on (and American soldiers continue to die as a result of the deception); the same people responsible for this debacle still have their hands on the wheel; desperate to cover their tracks, they continue to lie about how we got into this mess; and they are currently hitting all the same notes in agitating for war in Iran.
The report is a direct rebuke to the administration's continued claims that it was the intelligence that was faulty, and that Bush and co. were simply presenting what the C.I.A. had given them.
A statement released by committee chairman Jay Rockefeller makes it clear that the administration "on numerous occasions, misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq...in making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent."
The report doesn't use the word, but we all know what it's called when someone presents something as fact that's directly contradicted by the evidence. A lie. Not a mistake. A lie.
Some specifics from Rockefeller's statement (emphasis mine):
Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.
Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.
Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.
Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.
The Secretary of Defense's statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.
The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.
So much for the tired claim that "everybody in the world" agreed that Iraq had WMD, was a "grave and gathering threat," was in league with Al Qaeda, etc., etc., etc.
The report also details how a cabal very high up in the Pentagon and the Vice President's office got played by a group of shady Iranian exiles in order, as McCaltchy's John Walcott puts it, to "feed bogus intelligence on Iraq and Iran to senior policymakers in the Bush administration who were eager to oust the Iraqi dictator."
This meeting was brokered by neo-con All-Star Michael Ledeen, who is now one of those desperately agitating for war with Iran. The story reads like a bad spy novel.
In December of 2001, Ledeen and two Pentagon Iran experts met an Iranian named Manucher Ghorbanifar in Rome. Ghorbanifar sketched out his plan to overthrow the Iranian regime on a cocktail napkin. The plan involved, as the Senate report puts it, "simultaneous disruption of traffic at key intersections leading to Tehran," which would "create anxiety, work stoppages and other disruptive measures." Ghorbanifar asked for $5 million in seed money to get started.
This was not the first time Leeden and Ghorbanifar had met. Both are alumni of the Iran-Contra arms scandal. In fact, in 1984, the CIA had said that Ghorbanifar "should be regarded as an intelligence fabricator and a nuisance."
Operation Desert Gridlock never happened, but Ledeen continued to feed his dubious intelligence to an eager Pentagon, including giving Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith a 100-day plan which would provide evidence that Iraqi WMD had been secretly moved to Iran. On this, he was backed up by three Republican senators: Rick Santorum, Jon Kyl and Sam Brownback.
Eventually alarm bells went off in the CIA and State Department and an investigation of the Pentagon's contacts with Ghorbanifar was started. It was shut down after only one month, however, by Stephen Cambone, then Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence.
The reaction of Republicans to the Phase II report has been predictable. They're desperate for the public not to dwell on the truth about this war. And if they can't present contrary evidence to refute the report (and they can't, because it doesn't exist), they can at least sow doubt -- acting as if the report is the result of partisan bickering as opposed to the smoking gun of the Bush administration's tragic acts.
In fact, the committee vote on the report was 10-5, with Republicans Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snow voting with the Democrats."It rots the very fiber of democracy when our government is put to these uses," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse in response to the report.
It's no coincidence that a war built on lies continues to be conducted using lies ("the surge is working"). Mark Green proposes a way to end the cycle of deception: create a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. "This worked in a very different historical situation of South Africa and can work here as well," wrote Green on HuffPost. "South Africans who engaged in murder and violence were given amnesty if they confessed under oath to their crimes and knowledge -- but would be prosecuted if they didn't.... The largely successful effort led to both truth and reconciliation."
Richard Clarke echoed Green's proposal last week, and also suggested something each of us can do: "I just don't think we can let these people back into polite society and give them jobs on university boards and corporate boards and just let them pretend that nothing ever happened when there are 4,000 Americans dead and 25,000 Americans grievously wounded, and they'll carry those wounds and suffer all the rest of their lives."
If the leaders responsible for that suffering are not held accountable -- both at the ballot box and by being shamed and shunned as Clarke suggests -- we dishonor the sacrifices of the fallen, and make it likely that many more will endure a similar fate.

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE !

VOTE OBAMA '08

VOTE...JUDGEMENT !

Majority of Iraqi Legislators Want

U.S. Out of Iraq....SOON !

In a letter to Congress, dovetailing with yesterday's testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight, thirty-one Iraqi legislators, representing a majority of the Iraq Parliament, have expressed "widespread disapproval of the proposed U.S.-Iraq security agreement if it does not include a specific timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. military troops."
We, the undersigned members of the council, wish to confirm your concerns that any international agreement that is not ratified by the Iraqi legislative power is considered unconstitutional and illegal, in accordance with the current rulings and laws of the Iraqi Republic. Furthermore, any treaty, agreement or "executive agreement" that is signed between Iraq and the United States will not be legal and will not enter the stage of implementation without first being ratified by the Council of Representatives, in accordance with Article 61 of Section Four of the Iraqi constitution, which gives the Iraqi government's legislative power, represented by the Council of Representatives, the exclusive right to ratify international treaties and agreements.
Likewise, we wish to inform you that the majority of Iraqi representatives strongly reject any military-security, economic, commercial, agricultural, investment or political agreement with the United States that is not linked to clear mechanisms that obligate the occupying American military forces to fully withdraw from Iraq, in accordance with a declared timetable and without leaving behind any military bases, soldiers or hired fighters.
The chorus of disapproval is of substantial consequence, as it will require a two-thirds majority of the Iraqi Council of Representatives to ratify the security agreement that is currently being hashed out by Iraq and the United States. Congressman Bill Delahunt, who impaneled yesterday's hearings, has co-sponsored a bill with Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro that "bars funding for any agreement that has not been approved by Congress."

OBAMA '08

The Judgement We Need !

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE !

A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...Dedicated To Truth !

'Anything Not To Go Back"

Soldiers Practicing "Self Harm"

To Avoid Multiple Iraq Tours

As an internist at New York's Mount Sinai Hospital, Dr. Stephanie Santos is used to finding odd things in people's stomachs. So last spring when a young man, identifying himself as an Iraq-bound soldier, said he had accidentally swallowed a pen at the bus station, she believed him. That is, until she found a second pen. It read 1-800-GREYHOUND. Last summer, according to published reports, a 20-year-old Bronx soldier paid a hit man $500 to shoot him in the knee on the day he was scheduled to return to Iraq. The year before that, a 24-year-old specialist from Washington state escaped a second tour of duty, according to his sister, by strapping on a backpack full of tools and leaping off the roof of his house, injuring his spine.
Such cases of self-harm are a "rising trend" that military doctors are watching closely, says Col. Kathy Platoni, an Army Reserve psychologist who has worked with veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. "There are some soldiers who will do almost anything not to go back," she says. Col. Elspeth Ritchie, the Army's top psychologist, agrees that we could see an uptick in intentional injuries as more U.S. soldiers serve long, repeated combat tours, "but we just don't have good, hard data on it." Intentional- injury cases are hard to identify, and even harder to prosecute. Fewer than 21 soldiers have been punitively discharged for self-harm since 2003, according to the military. What's worrying, however, is that American troops committed suicide at the highest rate on record in 2007—and the factors behind self-injury are similar: combat stress and strained relationships. "It's often the families that don't want soldiers to return to war," says Ritchie.
Soldiers have long used self-harm as a rip cord to avoid war. During World War I, The American Journal of Psychiatry reported "epidemics of self-inflicted injuries," hospital wards filled with men shot in a single finger or toe, as well as cases of pulled-out teeth, punctured eardrums and slashed Achilles' heels. Few doubt that the Korean and Vietnam wars were any different. But the current war—fought with an overtaxed volunteer Army—may be the worst. "We're definitely concerned," says Ritchie. "We hope they'll talk to us rather than self-harm." (end)

We need Barack Obama for President to end this mindless occupation of Iraq !

SUPPORT THE TROOPS...

Bring Them Home !!...VOTE OBAMA !!!

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE !

FINALLY.....THE END

HILLARY CONCEDES !


WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton ended her historic campaign for the presidency on Saturday and told supporters to unite behind rival Barack Obama, closing out a race that was as grueling as it was groundbreaking.
The former first lady, who as recently as Tuesday declared herself the strongest candidate, gave Obama an unqualified endorsement and pivoted from her role as determined foe to absolute ally.
"The way to continue our fight now to accomplish the goals for which we stand is to take our energy, our passion, our energy and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama, the next president of the United States," she said in a speech before cheering supporters packed into the ornate National Building Museum, not far from the White House she longed to reign in.
"Today as I suspend my campaign, I congratulate him on the victory he has won and the extraordinary campaign he has won. I endorse him and throw my full support behind him and I ask of you to join me in working as hard for Barack Obama as you have for me," the New York senator said.
With that, Clinton placed herself solidly behind her Senate colleague from Illinois, a political sensation and the first black to secure a presidential nomination.
For Clinton and her supporters, it was a poignant moment, the end of an extraordinary run that began with an air of inevitability and certain victory. About 18 million people voted for her; it was the closest a woman has come to capturing a nomination.
Joining her on stage were her husband, the former president, and their daughter, Chelsea, before she took their leave as she addressed the crowd.
Obama secured the 2,118 delegates needed to clinch the nomination Tuesday after primaries in South Dakota and Montana. He planned to spend the weekend at home in Chicago.
Clinton supporters began lining up at dawn to attend the farewell address. A smattering of Obama backers showed up as well, saying they did so as a gesture of party unity.

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE !

McCain Now Supports Bushs'

Plan To Spy On Americans !

The New York Times reports today on how John McCain has flipped his position on warrantless wiretapping to look very similar to George Bush's. Below are a couple paragraphs from the article that reflect how John McCain has flip-flopped toward Bush:
A top adviser to Senator John McCain says Mr. McCain believes that President Bush's program of wiretapping without warrants was lawful, a position that appears to bring him into closer alignment with the sweeping theories of executive authority pushed by the Bush administration legal team.
In a letter posted online by National Review this week, the adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, said Mr. McCain believed that the Constitution gave Mr. Bush the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor Americans' international phone calls and e-mail without warrants, despite a 1978 federal statute that required court oversight of surveillance...
...But Mr. McCain had previously stopped short of endorsing the view that Mr. Bush's program of surveillance without warrants was lawful all along because a president's wartime powers can trump statutory limits.
Andrew C. McCarthy, a National Review columnist who has defended the administration's legal theories, wrote that Mr. Holtz-Eakin's statement "implicitly shows Senator McCain's thinking has changed as time has gone on and he has educated himself on this issue."
And Glenn Greenwald, a Salon columnist and critic of the Bush administration's legal claims, wrote that the statement was a "complete reversal" by Mr. McCain, accusing the candidate of seeking "to shore up the support of right-wing extremists."

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE !

CLINTON TELLS SUPPORTERS:

GET BEHIND OBAMA !

On a Thursday afternoon conference call with top donors to her campaign, Sen. Hillary Clinton pledged "total support for Barack Obama," according to one participant on the call who spoke to the Huffington Post. Alan Patricof, a key fundraiser, also said there was "absolutely no mention" of a possible vice presidential slot during the conversation, which was moderated by campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe.
"She was terrific," Patricof said. "She told everyone she was 100 percent supportive of Barack Obama and the DNC. She said she wanted everyone on the phone to be supportive -- and said she herself intends to do events on behalf of the nominee and the party. ... She was real upbeat, there wasn't the slightest bit of remorse or recriminations. It was all totally positive, looking forward. I was very impressed, and admired her for that."
Patricof said that while there was no vice presidential speculation, the New York Democrat said she would make herself available for in-person events alongside Obama, and told her donors she hoped they would organize events on his behalf as well.
The potential wedding of Clinton's big donor fundraising operation to Obama's record breaking, grass-roots powered juggernaut has been the subject of much anticipation in Democratic circles, especially considering the Democratic National Committee's latest edict -- prompted by the Obama campaign -- that it will forswear all lobbyist and PAC donations from now through the election. With Sen. John McCain not having hamstrung his party's national committee in the same way, and given the large advantage the Republican National Committee already has in cash-on-hand, it's a testament to Democrats' fiduciary confidence that no one seems to be worried about missing the lobbyists' money.
Craig Holman from Public Citizen's Congress Watch project told the Huffington Post that Obama has little to lose by rejecting lobbyist and PAC direct contributions -- which thus far only accounted for $3.1 million of the DNC's total $77 million raised this year. But he said the impact of the new Obama-initiated DNC policy might have greater consequences down the road when lobbyists are also forbidden from organizing, bundling or otherwise steering donations toward the party. "The only real hard numbers we have right now are direct lobbyist contributions. [The new policy] will present a much greater challenge when lobbyists are not allowed to play an active role in hosting fundraisers, or bundling contributions," Holman said, noting that the new disclosure system -- required by ethics reform that Obama championed in the Senate -- has yet to go into effect because of a dormant FEC. That means disclosure of the extent to which lobbyists are responsible for filling campaign coffers beyond direct contributions remains murky. "I don't think we'll have a good picture of that until later in the summer, when the FEC gets up and going," he said.
Beth Dozoretz, a longtime fixture as a high-dollar Democratic Party fundraiser and a Clinton backer during primary season, said no matter the lobbyists' total impact as fundraisers, "Obama has changed the game" to the extent that they won't be missed, at least for now. "I think while we will lose some amount of money [by banning lobbyist contributions], we will have participation on the Internet that is unparalleled and will more than make up for it. This is not a 'maybe' prediction. He [Obama] has demonstrated his ability like no one else. ... The major donor money proportionate to that of smaller donors is much smaller than it's ever been. I think now that we're all coalescing around our nominee, both candidates' constituents [will continue to donate] from 25 dollars to thousands of dollars. The potential is extraordinary. Having been a fundraiser for all these years, to see the Democrats have this broader reach, I just think it's great for the system and for the party."
Pressed on the question of whether any Clinton backers may wind up harboring residual bad feelings sufficient in scope to keep their pocketbooks closed, Dozoretz said she was certain that wouldn't happen. Dozoretz also brushed off McCain's Tuesday night speech, in which he referenced the pundits and party elders who "decided" Obama would be the nominee, in an apparent attempt to capitalize on sore feelings among Clintonites. "Three words. The. Supreme. Court. You can quote me on that," she said.
"As much as people may feel disheartened at the moment, I am absolutely certain that because of Senator Clinton's leadership, people wil rally around Obama quickly and decisively -- with her at the helm of that effort." (from huff post)

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE !

A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...Dedicated To Truth !

SENATE REPORT:

BUSH REGIME LIED US INTO WAR !

McCain Plans To Continue The

Lie

Article by Seth Colter Walls

More than five years after the initial invasion of Iraq, the Senate Intelligence Committee has finally gone on the record: the Bush administration misused, and in some cases disregarded, intelligence which led the nation into war. The two final sections of a long-delayed and much anticipated "Phase II" report on the Bush administration's use of prewar intelligence, released on Thursday morning, accuse senior White House officials of repeatedly misrepresenting the threat posed by Iraq.
In addition, the report on Iraq war intelligence harshly criticizes a Pentagon office for executing "inappropriate, sensitive intelligence activities" without the proper knowledge of the State Department and other agencies.
In addition to judgments that could prove troublesome for the White House and make waves in the presidential race, the report also contains some stinging minority reports from Republican committee members who allege that Democrats turned the intelligence review process into a "partisan exercise."
However, when the GOP controlled the intelligence committee and steered its "Phase I" reporting on the use of Iraq war intelligence, critics complained that tough questions about the Bush administration's actions had been kicked down the road, and thus required a second round of fact finding -- dubbed "Phase II." The committee's delay in producing that full report to the public was seen by Democrats as evidence of a stonewalling campaign executed by President Bush's Republican Senate allies.
Former Committee Chairman Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) often vacillated over whether or not the report was worth completing, first promising in 2004 that the work would be finished, and then calling it a "monumental waste of time" later in 2005. When Democrats gained control of the Senate after the 2006 midterm elections, they gained a majority of seats on the committee and set the course for the production of the final reports. Whether by partisan design or simple chance, however, the committee managed to save some of the best questions for last.
The "Phase II" report states -- in terms clearer than any previous government publication -- that there was no operational relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, that Bush officials were not truthful about the difficulties the United States would face in post-war Iraq and that their public statements did not reflect intelligence they had at the time, and, specifically, that the intelligence community would not confirm any meeting between Iraqi officials and Mohamed Atta -- a claim that was nevertheless publicly repeated.
"Before taking the country to war, this Administration owed it to the American people to give them a 100 percent accurate picture of the threat we faced. Unfortunately, our Committee has concluded that the Administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence," Rockefeller said in a statement provided to The Huffington Post.
"In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed. ... There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate."
In a minority report authored by Sens. Orrin Hatch, Christopher Bond and Richard Burr, the Republicans accuse committee Democrats of committing a key error of governmental logic. "Intelligence informs policy. It does not dictate policy," they wrote. "Intelligence professionals are responsible for their failures in intelligence collection, analysis, counter-intelligence and covert action. Policymakers must also bear the burden of their mistakes, an entirely different order of mistakes. It is a pity this report fails to illuminate this distinction."
The key findings released by Rockefeller and his divided committee brings the five-part "Phase II" of the committee's report on prewar intelligence to completion. The investigation's first phase was released on July 2004, and two less controversial parts of "Phase II" were declassified in September 2006.
The potential election year impact of these latest findings is uncertain. On the stump, Sen. John McCain has explained his support of the "surge" strategy in Iraq by saying the country has become the "central front" in the war on terror -- a framing that attempts to shoot past the question of Iraq's status in the terror hierarchy during the 2003 campaign waged in Congress to authorize military action.
Still, the breadth of the Committee's citations of examples in which the Bush administration's comments were not supported by intelligence could reignite public dissatisfaction over the war. According to a release from Rockefeller's office that was provided to The Huffington Post, these examples include:
-- Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.
-- Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.
-- Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.
-- Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.
-- The Secretary of Defense's statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.
-- The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.
"It has been four years since the Committee began the second phase of its review," Sen. Dianne Feinstein wrote in her note attached to the report. "The results are now in. Even though the intelligence before the war supported inaccurate statements, this Administration distorted the intelligence in order to build its case to go to war. The Executive Branch released only those findings that supported the argument, did not relay uncertainties, and at times made statements beyond what the intelligence supported."

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE !

A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...Dedicated To Truth !

EVEN IN DEFEAT...

IT'S ALL ABOUT HER

(What Does SHE Want?...WHO CARES !)

By Bob Cesca

It's hip today to step back and allow Senator Clinton some breathing space in order to proceed through the various stages of whatever on her way to eventually -- some day -- conceding this nomination process to Presumptive Nominee Barack Obama. And I'm not exactly sure why the Clintons deserve such latitude -- especially this year and at this dangerous time in our national saga. After all, there's a gigantic OxyContin-buzzed Republican crap-bot bearing down on our presumptive nominee, and yet we're being forced to sit here and wait for Senator Clinton to finally step off.
"What does Hillary want? What does she want?" Senator Clinton asked last night. What does she want? Seriously? This misguided and self-centered attitude is what ultimately doomed her campaign.
It should never have been about what she wants -- or, now, what she's demanding as ransom in exchange for releasing her supporters. Senator Clinton is effectively holding up the works and delaying the big show even though she has spent too many weeks inexplicably bolstering Senator McCain's chances over Senator Obama in November -- even though every second she's remained in this race, despite the mathematical reality, she has forced Senator Obama to keep his army divided, when it ought to have been raging forward in a unified, fist-pumping head-first frontal assault against the nefarious Bush Republican political machine.
But she's Senator Clinton and she gets to do and demand whatever she wants for some reason. Even if it means diminishing the nominee and boosting the Republicans. Even if it means a victory for Senator McCain. Even if it means the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade. Even if it means 100 more years (or whatever McCain is saying today) in Iraq. Even if it means, as Thom Hartmann said yesterday, "More death."
This is one of several reasons why the Clinton campaign ultimately lost: because the Clinton campaign was all about Senator Clinton when, in the hearts and minds of a majority of Democrats, this nomination process was never about Senator Clinton and her ambitions and her famous name and her famous husband and her 3AM phone calls and her war stories and her scars. To wit: "Yes she will." Not only did her actual message fade away in lieu of her campaign's embarrassing attempt to mock Senator Obama's message, but her hackish spoof version of the Obama slogan was configured to be all about her (the Obama message is grounded in the collective "we"). Yes she will. Fortunately for us, Senator McCain has started to do the same thing -- mocking Senator Obama's far-superior branding. And, thankfully, Senator McCain looks a thousand times slimier doing it.
The Clinton campaign should never have been about her. This election, even before anyone officially declared, has always been about the evolution of the modern liberal movement and, more importantly, a newly evolved modern liberal movement gathering the required ammunition necessary to roll back the destructive and often criminal policies of the last 28 years -- and to do so in a way that might actually stick to the wall. And here in June 2008, while Senator Clinton dawdles around the stage doing her best to muscle the presumptive nominee while talking about what she wants, the horrible prospect of a McCain presidency hisses its way towards the zero barrier and the dismantling of American democracy nears the point of no return.
Senator Obama (or even if it had been Senator Clinton) needs a mandate in November. He needs an overwhelming electoral victory in order to have the political capital required to rebuild the nation in the aftermath of the terrible psychobombs George Bush and Dick Cheney have been detonating throughout this decade. And yet, here we sit. Talking about Senator Clinton and what she wants.
What happens if she isn't offered the vice presidential slot? Will she continue to stomp her feet and draw attention away from the nominee? Yes she will. Will she carry her campaign (in name and support only) to the convention? Yes she will. Will she continue to distract attention away from challenging Senator McCain's awfulness? Yes she will. So should she be offered the vice presidential slot, then? No she shouldn't.
Because a would-be Obama-Clinton campaign would end up being entirely about the Clintons. What they said; what they're doing; who's in control; do they get along; is she undermining him from within. Me, me, me. And besides, if she really wanted to be on the ticket, she wouldn't have engaged in this infuriating slash-burn-point-clap strategy in the first place -- a strategy which, by the way, continued through last night's speech.
But even after Senator Obama surpassed the original threshold of 2,025; even after he agreed to allowing the reinstatement of the Michigan and Florida delegates despite the previously and unanimously accepted sanctions; even after he surpassed the new threshold of 2,118 and also nears the bogus 2,209 number that the Clintons made up last month, Senator Clinton and her supporters continue to paint the Obama victory as somehow illegitimate. And Senator Clinton refuses to accept the notion that she is holding back the larger campaign -- the most important campaign of our time -- a campaign that isn't about her or even about Senator Obama. It's a campaign about turning the tide on 28 years of Reaganomics and environmental destruction and foreign policy blowback.
It's not so difficult, Senator. And even though I honestly believe that he's a crazy squirrel-munching hooplehead, here's Mike Huckabee's concession, for example:
Ladies and gentlemen, I called Senator McCain a few moments ago. It looks pretty apparent tonight that he will, in fact, achieve 1,191 delegates to become the Republican nominee for our party.
I extended to him not only my congratulations, but my commitment to him and to the party to do everything possible to unite our party, but more importantly to unite our country, so that we can be the best nation we can be, not for ourselves, but for the future generations to whom we owe everything, just as we owe previous generations all that they have done for us.
That's about right (even though it's in the name of a screwy, failed conservative movement).
We have an insanely challenging task ahead of us. Not just in defeating super-crazies like Mike Huckabee and Senator McCain, but also in confronting and debunking the corporate media's ridiculousness (i.e. "What's Obama's problem? Why can't he connect with the racist whites?"). And that's before November. If he manages to overcome the race-baiting 527 ads and all of the sinister e-mail whisper campaigns and the dubious voting machines, Senator Obama will have to achieve more in his first 100 days than most presidents have achieved in two full terms.
And yet, here we sit. Waiting for Senator Clinton to decide what she wants. This routine -- be it Senator Clinton's defiance, or the party's deferential behavior toward her -- illustrates exactly why this party, and liberalism with it, must change. And while we wait here in some kind of twisted Pollyanna limbo, Senator McCain is measuring the White House Residence to see if his Craftmatic adjustable bed will fit through the door.

UPDATE 7:26PM EDT: ABC News is reporting that Senator Clinton will suspend her campaign and endorse Senator Obama on Friday. Congressman Rangel and 23 other members of Congress called her today and told her that it was time. Rangel, a Clinton supporter, in particular was "angry" and thought Senator Clinton's speech was "rude," according to NBC's Andrea Mitchell just now on MSNBC.

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE !

Revealed: Bushs' Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control
Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace

and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors
By Patrick CockburnThursday, 5 June 2008

A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.
The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.
But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.
The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has claimed the United States is on the verge of victory in Iraq – a victory that he says Mr Obama would throw away by a premature military withdrawal.
America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 – 10 000 more than when the military "surge" began in January 2007. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.
The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now. The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. "It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty," said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal was signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American pawn.
The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: "This is just a tactical subterfuge." Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft and the right to pursue its "war on terror" in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.
Mr Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called "strategic alliance" without modifications, by the end of next month. But it is already being condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing American attempt to dominate the region. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the powerful and usually moderate Iranian leader, said yesterday that such a deal would create "a permanent occupation". He added: "The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans."
Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is believed to be personally opposed to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition government cannot stay in power without US backing.
The deal also risks exacerbating the proxy war being fought between Iran and the United States over who should be more influential in Iraq.
Although Iraqi ministers have said they will reject any agreement limiting Iraqi sovereignty, political observers in Baghdad suspect they will sign in the end and simply want to establish their credentials as defenders of Iraqi independence by a show of defiance now. The one Iraqi with the authority to stop deal is the majority Shia spiritual leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. In 2003, he forced the US to agree to a referendum on the new Iraqi constitution and the election of a parliament. But he is said to believe that loss of US support would drastically weaken the Iraqi Shia, who won a majority in parliament in elections in 2005.
The US is adamantly against the new security agreement being put to a referendum in Iraq, suspecting that it would be voted down. The influential Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has called on his followers to demonstrate every Friday against the impending agreement on the grounds that it compromises Iraqi independence.
The Iraqi government wants to delay the actual signing of the agreement but the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney has been trying to force it through. The US ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, has spent weeks trying to secure the accord.
The signature of a security agreement, and a parallel deal providing a legal basis for keeping US troops in Iraq, is unlikely to be accepted by most Iraqis. But the Kurds, who make up a fifth of the population, will probably favour a continuing American presence, as will Sunni Arab political leaders who want US forces to dilute the power of the Shia. The Sunni Arab community, which has broadly supported a guerrilla war against US occupation, is likely to be split.

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE !

Pres. Jimmy Carter Says Unity Ticket
Would Be
'Worse Mistake'


A host of prominent Democrats are pushing for an Obama-Clinton unity ticket — but Jimmy Carter isn't one of them.
The former president, who publicly endorsed Barack Obama shortly before polls closed Tuesday in the final two primary states, told a London newspaper that a joint ticket between the two former rivals would be "the worst mistake that could be made."
"That would just accumulate the negative aspects of both candidates," Carter told the Guardian, saying that both candidates' vulnerabilities could overshadow that the ticket if the two team up together.
"If you take that 50 percent who just don't want to vote for Clinton and add it to whatever element there might be who don't think Obama is white enough or old enough or experienced enough or because he's got a middle name that sounds Arab, you could have the worst of both worlds," he said.
This is not the first time the former president has expressed doubt in the success of a unity ticket. Speaking at a Houston event late last month, Carter called the prospect "highly unlikely," and said other potential picks could better serve the Illinois senator.
"I think it would be highly unlikely for Obama to ask her to take it," he said then. "Because I don't see how it would help his ticket. I think he needs somebody like a [former Georgia Sen.] Sam Nunn, but I won't name others. But I think if he asked her, she would take it."
Carter largely stayed on the sidelines during his party's prolonged presidential nomination fight, though the Georgia Democrat had long hinted his preference for Obama. Speaking with Sky News last month before he made his endorsement, Carter said that once the final two contests had been held June 3, it would be time for Clinton to give up her presidential bid.

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE !

HILLARY TO QUIT RACE FRIDAY

WILL ENDORSE OBAMA !!!

ABC News has learned Sen. Hillary Clinton had a conference call today with members of Congress and superdelegates in which there were discussions about her plans for getting out of the race, according to two Democratic sources.

Sen. Hillary Clinton. D-N.Y., said goodbye to her campaign staff Wednesday -- many of whom were told they would not be needed past Friday. (File photo)(Charles Dharapak/AP Photo)
All indications are Clinton will get out of the race by Friday.
Two sources tell ABC News a Friday event was discussed in which Clinton would be flanked by congressional supporters.
Despite the settled delegate math — Sen. Barack Obama needed 2,118 delegates to win and has 2,166 to Clinton's 1919, according to ABC News' delegate scorecard, — Clinton had said she will take a few days to think about her next move.
But some of her most loyal backers have begun to publicly urge her to exit the race and unify the Democratic Party behind Obama.
"Unless she has some good reasons — which I can't think of — I really think we ought to get on with endorsements [of Obama] and dealing with what we have to deal with … so we can move forward," New York Congressman Charlie Rangel told ABC News' Kate Snow.

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE !