Obama - Same old shit

Thought Obama was the saviour? Don't be a fool. He is no different to all other post-war Presidents:

Barack Obama's government was accused of "blackmail" after it emerged that America had threatened to withdraw co-operation in terrorist cases if a UK court ordered the disclosure of secret torture evidence.

In the first real test of the "special relationship" between Britain and the US since Mr Obama's inauguration, MPs and human rights groups called for an inquiry into the case that concerns the treatment of a British resident, Binyam Mohamed, still being held at Guantanamo Bay.

Secret CIA documents held by the Foreign Office detail the interrogation and treatment of Mr Mohamed, who claims he was brutally tortured after being flown by US agents to a secret prison in Morocco before his detention at the US naval base in Cuba.

Good work Messiah.

Palestine - Still a Dirty Word

It's amazing to think that it is considered a slur on your character if you have too much sympathy with the plight of the Palestinians:

Republicans in south Florida predict a 10% spike for McCain in the Jewish vote over the 24% polled by Bush in 2004. Their campaign line is that if Obama wins he will be the first pro-Palestinian US president since the foundation of the state of Israel. The Democrats hit back with leaflets showing Obama by Jerusalem's Wailing Wall wearing a yarmulka.

The fact that any candidate accused of showing sympathy with the impoverished and dispossessed still feels the need to distance himself from the most needy and align himself with the most powerful tells you all you need to know about the race for the presidency. 

Obama? Linked to Terrorism?? What About the Republicans?

Now, I am no great fan of Obama. Let's face it, he is still going to protect the capitalist system, despite its obvious failings. However, the very idea that he supports terrorism, whilst Sarah Palin and John McCain are somehow free from such associations, deserves some scrutiny. After all, they are members of a party that have strengthened Osama Bin Laden beyond even his wildest dreams. They fell for the trap and every single day they have provided more and more propaganda for Bin Laden's ideology. They have done the terrorists job for them and, in any other country, these leaders would be tried for treason. And yet bizarrely, their support for terrorism has been overlooked. A McCain victory would be a dream come true for Bin Laden. More aggression, more proof that the West wants to destroy Islam. What more could he ask for?

But that is not all. John McCain has stood shoulder to shoulder with a renowned terrorist in the Americas. A terrorist who wields immense power. A terrorist who is responsible for the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of ordinary people. A terrorist who is financially supported by the current Republican administration. So where is the proof for this outlandish claim? Well..........

John McCain and Sarah Palin - The Terrorist's Choice

Bolivia, Venezuela - Coups in Waiting?

It certainly appears that whilst the public are distracted by moose shooting censorship lovers and the second coming, the US government is once more attempting a spot of covert regime change in South America. As RickB has already noted over at Ten Percent, both Venezuela and Bolivia have now expelled their American ambassadors as a result of apparent attempts by the American government to remove these governments from power. It has also emerged that the American government may have been supporting officers within the Venezuelan army who are hostile to Chavez. According to The Guardian, Chavez said:

'...several Venezuelan military officers had been detained following an investigation by his intelligence services. During his televised address he played a recording of purported conversations between the alleged conspirators.

Earlier, the defence minister, General Gustavo Rangel Briceño, and a pro-Chávez TV host, Mario Silva, named several senior officers from the navy, air force and national guard as suspects.'

Not content with supporting anti-government forces in Venezuela, the US government has further attempted to smear Chavez by once more linking him to the Colombian drug trade and the FARC. Again, from The Guardian:

Separately, the US treasury accused three members of Chávez's inner-circle of materially assisting the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Farc), leftist guerrillas who traffick cocaine and are considered terrorists by the US and EU. Hugo Carvajal Barrios and Henry Rangel Silva are senior intelligence officials and Ramón Rodríguez Chacin was interior minister until this week when he unexpectedly resigned, citing personal reasons.

Venezuela's government acknowledges talking to Farc to negotiate hostage releases but denies funnelling weapons or drug money.

Visiting Britain this week, the US drugs czar, John Walters, repeated claims that Venezuela and Bolivia were taking over from Colombia in the export of cocaine.

It would be funny if it wasn't so serious. After all, the US government also play a key role in supporting terrorist organisations in Colombia. Despite Uribe's well documented links to human rights abuses, as well as his links to right-wing terrorists operating within his borders, the US government continues to fund his government to the hilt. If Chavez is guilty of aiding a 'terrorist organisation' in Colombia, Bush is equally guilty. And yet, in this world of inverted mirrors and perverse logic, Chavez is the threat and Bush is the solution. And if anyone thinks that Bush Terror Inc will cease trading come 2009, I am afraid they are very much mistaken.

Obama - Lipstick on a Pig

John McCain - More of the same?

It would certainly appear so. After all, much like Bush, John McCain is enthrall to the oil industry. Bush and McCain may not like each other very much (and many people don't seem to like either of them), but you could barely get a fag paper between the two of them (nb. US readers, fag=cigarette, not some offensive term for homosexuals). Expect more of the same attempts by the US to control oil supplies across the globe if McCain comes to power (God forbid - although the alternative ain't exactly on a different plain).

Since 1989, McCain has received around $700,000 from the oil industry. Furthermore, McCain has worked :

....tirelessly to advance the interests of the oil industry. For example, McCain’s tax plan gives the top five oil companies $3.8 billion a year in tax breaks. McCain meanwhile has voted against reducing dependence on foreign oil, has twice rejected windfall profits tax for Big Oil, and has voted against taxing oil companies to provide a $100 rebate to consumers. If that were not enough, McCain also made a risky political decision recently to back new offshore oil drilling in the US.

Vote McCain, and you most definitely get more Bush (in terms of the President, not women you misogynist fool). But it doesn't end there. What about McCain's supposedly superior experience in international affairs? Ok, put aside his comments about Iraq and Pakistan sharing a border. And don't mention his acknowledgement of the state of Czechoslovakia (ceased to exist in 1993). Despite these gaffes, McCain has a very serious agenda on the international stage, particularly as a result of his relationship with the International Republican Institute (IRI). And just what are his links to the IRI?

Since 1993, McCain has served as Chair of the outfit, which is funded by the U.S. government and private money. The group, which receives tens of millions of taxpayer dollars each year, claims to promote democracy world-wide. On the surface at least, IRI seems to have a rather innocuous agenda including party building, media training, the organization of leadership trainings, dissemination of newsletters, and strengthening of civil society.

The hottest country in which IRI currently operates is Iraq. According to the IRI’s own web site, since the summer of 2003 the organization “has conducted a multi-faceted program aimed at promoting the development of democracy in Iraq. Toward this end, IRI works with political parties, indigenous civil society groups, and elected and other government officials. In support of these efforts, IRI also conducts numerous public opinion research projects and assists its Iraqi partners in the production of radio and television ads and programs.”

Furthermore, the IRI has been instrumental in events in Haiti. Funding from the IRI was used to foment a violent coup in Haiti against the leadership of Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Funding was also used to support opposition parties in the country, and an IRI representative persuaded the opposition parties to avoid compromising with Aristide. It is highly unlikely that Senator McCain was unaware of these events, although it is equally hard to say that he authorised them. However, with such a background in backing violent coups against democratically elected governements, he is perhaps perfectly placed for the role of US president. And, should that day arrive, it doesn't take a genius to work out which country will be first in the firing line. Somewhere rich in oil perhaps?

Chevron Lobbyists Accused of 'Misleading Congress'

The Chevron/Ecuador scandal rumbles on:

Leaders from Ecuador's rainforest, suing Chevron over the "Amazon Chernobyl", are accusing the oil giant of misleading the Bush Administration and Congress to escape a potential $16 billion liability in an environmental lawsuit.

The indigenous leaders - from the Cofan, Secoya, and Siona tribes - are planning a trip to Washington, DC in September to talk directly with Members of Congress and the office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

"We are coming to tell the truth about Chevron's desperate attempt to quash the legal claims of thousands of vulnerable people in the Amazon rainforest who are struggling to survive due to oil contamination," said Pablo Fajardo, the lead Ecuadorian lawyer for the plaintiffs.

"These people deserve their day in court without interference from Chevron," he added. "Chevron must respect the rule of law."

The damages report prompted Chevron to disclose the liability to its shareholders for the first time, and to hire a slew of Washington lobbyists who have dedicated themselves to trying to block the extension of U.S. trade preferences for Ecuador. Luis Gallegos, Ecuador's U.S. ambassador, has said a failure to extend the trade preferences by the end of the year would cost the country 350,000 jobs and force 1.2 million people into poverty.

Among the lobbyists hired by Chevron are former Senators John Breaux and Trent Lott, and Mac McLarty, former White House Chief of Staff in the Clinton Administration. Their work has been focused on Ambassador Susan Schwab, the United States Trade Representative; key Members of Congress; and John Negroponte, Deputy Secretary of State.

Fajardo said the aim of Chevron's lobbyists is to use the threat of canceling trade preferences to intimidate Ecuador's government into extinguishing the legal rights of its citizens to save the country's economy.

Interestingly, one Democrat senator has alreay been involved in this case on the side of the Ecuadoreans.....one Barak Obama. From February 2006:

Senators Barack Obama (D-Ill) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) have stepped up the pressure on Chevron, sending a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman urging him to ignore company's campaign to improperly exclude Ecuador from trade negotiations until the Ecuadorian government shuts down the lawsuit.

The senators write: "We are writing to seek your assurances that the U.S. Trade Representative will not allow negotiations over the Andean Free Trade Agreement to interfere with a case involving Chevron that is under consideration by the Ecuadorian judiciary, particularly one involving environmental, health and human rights issues that have regional importance. While we are not prejudging the outcome of the case, we do believe the 30,000 indigenous residents of Ecuador deserve their day in court."

Question is, will Obama stand by this letter when the time comes, or will he give in to pressure from the oil giant? Failing that, will Chevron increase the pressure so they can persuade the Bush administration of their case before it's too late (should there be an Obama presidency)? Or will Chevron fund a massive smear campaign against Obama? The people of Ecuador have a lot riding on the next couple of months. Let's hope that their day in court finally arrives.

More at Ecuador Rising.

McCain and Hagee - The Right Still Hate the Jews

And you thought Obama had problems with a preacher, that's nothing on John McCain.

US presidential hopeful John McCain has rejected the backing of a Church leader who said Hitler was carrying out "God's will" in chasing the Jews from Europe.

It comes after the comments by evangelical preacher Rev John Hagee, which were made in the 1990s, re-emerged on a US news website.

In a sermon, Rev Hagee said the Nazi leader was carrying out a divine plan to gather Jews into the Holy Land.

The Republican candidate described the comments as "crazy and unacceptable".

Senator McCain had been criticised for seeking the endorsement of the controversial minister.

Rev Hagee has also described the Roman Catholic Church as "the great whore" and a "false cult system", as well as suggesting that Hurricane Katrina was God's retribution for homosexual sin.

But while Senator McCain condemned those comments, he had not rejected Rev Hagee's endorsement until Thursday, when an audio recording of the preacher saying that God sent Hitler to help Jews reach the promised land was published on the Huffington Post website.

Which, given these comments were made in the 1990s, makes you kinda wonder why McCain solicited his support.

Bush Attacks Obama - Making Political Capital from Holocaust

What better way to make political capital out of the death of millions of Jews at the hands of the Nazis, than to make the following remark (in Israel no less) on Obama's foreign policy:

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before."

"As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Nothing like a good genocide to utilise a bit of cheap point scoring, eh? Although having said that, it is a bit of a cheek come from a member of a family that gave a fair amount of assistance to the Nazis. Somewhere, 11 million Jews weep.

Besides which, appeasement is very different to talking to your enemies. Appeasement implies giving in to demands. Talking most certainly does not.

Iain Dale - The Blogging Equivalent of The Emperor's New Clothes

I've never had much time for Iain Dale. He always seemed to be such a smug Tory bastard. That and the fact that he seemed to have nominated himself as spokesperson for UK political bloggers (not to mention that he is the very embodiment of all I hate round my neck of the woods). Quite simply, the rise of Dale has meant that a fall was inevitable and at some point people would realise his grasp on politics is weak to say the least. Hence his contribution to Comment is Free:

Yes they can?

Barack Obama and David Cameron have a lot in common: they're both young men in a hurry, facing opponents who were the future once

Yes, this piece was an attempt by Dale to draw some kind of parallel between Cameron and Obama. Now, I would be the first to admit that there is little real difference between any of the four major parties split between the US and the UK, but this smacks of desperation somewhat (nothing to do with the Tories failing to capitalise on Labour's misfortunes??). Perhaps, with articles such as this, Dale might finally be found out.

Even more interestingly, after receiving a well deserved ridiculing from readers of CiF, Dale posted the following on his website:

Oh dear, I seem to have upset the esteemed readers of COMMENT IS FREE. Last week, my Telegraph column was supposed to have been about what David Cameron can learn from Barack Obama. Sadly, it got overtaken by events and I was asked to write about Andrew Lansley instead. Anyway, rather than let a provocative column go to waste, I thought what better use to make of it than to wind up the Obama supporting fanatics of The Guardian. Judging from the comments beneath the article, I succeeded beyond my wildest dreams. Read the full column HERE.

Yes, seems rather like the response you would expect from a teenager doesn't it?? "Oh, I was only doing to wind them up." Indeed. Truly, Dale's blog is the very definition of the Emperor's new clothes.......and we can all see his winkle.

Fox News - Laugh Out Loud Funny

One of the 'benefits' of coming to Spain is the chance to catch a bit of Fox news. Even though I am forced to pay for Sky news whether I want to or not, I choose not to line Murdoch's pockets further by paying his over inflated subscription. Yes Biased BBC fans, even if I did not own a TV, I would still be forced to pay money to keep Sky operating. The difference with the BBC is.......??

Anyway, just a quick glimpse of Fox and it is easy to see why American's are a little confused about the world. Take today for example. Sean Hannity, the puffed up right-wing windbag, was interviewing Karl Rove (laughingly dubbed 'the architect' - is that because he labours over grand designs which ultimately fail to deliver??) about the forthcoming American election. So far, so typical. What had me gasping with astonishment, however, was their description of Barak Obama. Obama is, according to Rove, a man of the "far-left". Far-left!!!!!?????? I laughed so hard I nearly choked. In what friggin' world could Obama ever be described as "far-left"???? Of his policies, which are particularly linked to far-left ideology??? I can barely think of one. Try to make a similar comparison in the UK, and almost everyone would laugh in your face. It strikes me as rather similar to pointing at an opponent and shouting "fascist" before running in the other direction. "Far-left"???? Obama is a representative of the Republican Lite party, a party that has never embraced that ideals of socialism, but has been as craven in its rush to support the rich as the Republicans. I worry for the state of America when brain dead experts like Rove and Hannity can openly claim such utter nonsense. And don't even get me started on Liebermann's appearance...........

Stop the Black Man

Melanie Phillips is at it again. This one is truly vile. So vile, I almost vomited all over my computer. Here's the opening to her sickening rant against Barack Obama (someone who isn't exactly in tune with my political beliefs):

Barack Obama belongs to the Trinity United Church in Chicago whose pastor is Rev Dr Jeremiah A Wright Jnr. Here is the church’s website. From it you will see that the church is committed to what looks suspiciously like black supremacism. Dr Wright promotes ‘black power’ and ‘black liberation theology’, under which adherents must have.......

That's about as much as I can take at the moment. If you have a strong stomach, feel free to read the rest. And if you are so inclined, post a comment expressing your utter disgust with this vile woman (whilst also considering the reaction if a similar article was written about a Jew, rather than a black man).

Howard Employing Familiar Tactics

John Howard (the loonies choice for US President) is making a bit of a name for himself as a future senior spokesman for the imperialists (come the end of the Bu$h years). His latest statement was aimed to destabilise a candidate running for election in another country (a bit of a no-no unless you are a loony). Howard has said of Barak Obama's presidential campaign:

"I think that will just encourage those who want to completely destabilise and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory. If I were running al-Qaida in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying ... for a victory, not only for Obama but also for the Democrats."

Of course, this kind of comment is a gross mis-judgement by Howard. Public opinion in America is moving away from the pro-war rhetoric of Bush and his allies (of which Howard is one of the more vocal), and towards a less aggressive policy. By highlighting the difference between Bush and Obama, Howard might actually help voters swing towards the Democrats. Whatever an ally of Bush has to say now would be widely ignored as the public shift away from the disastrous policies of the past six years. Even Republicans have recognised this statement for what it is, outside interference in the political process. Jon Cornyn, a Republican senator from Texas, said:

"I would prefer that Mr. Howard stay out of our domestic politics, and we'll stay out of his domestic politics."

However, Howard isn't only attempting to criticise a US presidential candidate, it is an attempt to frame the debate leading up to the Australian elections at the end of the year. Howard is in a spot of bother in Australia at the moment. His main opponent, Kevin Rudd (an opponent of the Iraq war), is in a very commanding position in the most recent polls. According to an ACNielsen poll, Rudd has the highest approval rating of any opposition leader for 35 years. Rudd is also leading Howard as preferred prime minister by 48% to 43%. Furthermore, the poll found that, if an election were held now, the Labor party would lead the government by 58% to 42%. It doesn't take a genius to see what Howard's preferred tactic is. He will use the same tactics as the Republicans used in the 2004 elections, a vote for the opposition is a vote for the terrorists. Howard will attempt to scare the Australian public into voting for him, rather than his opponent. There is no doubt that Howard is gearing himself towards a vicious election campaign, and this opening salvo is just the tip of the iceberg.

Obama and Cheney

Interesting piece in The Guardian today:

Now here's a thing. Did you know that Mareen Duvall, a great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather of Democratic hopeful Barack Obama, was also a great-great-great-etc-grandfather of Republican veep Dick Cheney? Well, courtesy of some remarkable and important work by US genealogist William Addams Reitwiesner, we can now reveal that he was. Amazing, really.