Peace and Justice Post

Barack Obama’s shock defeat in New Hampshire is being linked to the so-called Bradley effect, which suggests that although voters claim to support black candidates they will vote for the white runner on the day

Haroon Siddique
Wednesday January 9, 2008
Guardian Unlimited

Barack Obama. Photograph: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

It seems strange to be looking for the reasons for Barack Obama’s shock defeat in the New Hampshire primary. Just a few weeks ago Hillary Clinton was the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination to contest the presidential election but that was before the Illinois senator stormed to victory in the Iowa caucus.

His campaign seemed to have built up an unstoppable momentum, which was reflected in opinion polls that had him comfortably ahead. So how did the pollsters get it so wrong?

Continued . . .

War In Iraq, January 10, 2008

There were several major vote fraud issues to arise out of the New Hampshire primary…

by Paul Joseph Watson
(Prison Planet)

There were several major vote fraud issues to arise out of the New Hampshire primary revolving mainly around Ron Paul and Barack Obama, who were both seemingly cheated out of third and first places respectively as a result of rigged Diebold voting machines and deliberate malfeasance in the counting of hand-written paper ballots.

– Obama had a 13 to 15 point lead over Hillary Clinton heading into the primary. Nothing occured that boosted Hillary’s numbers immediately before the election, in fact immediately after the staged crying incident, many pundits argued it could only have harmed her chances. And yet Hillary somehow managed to instigate a near 20 point swing to defeat Obama by three per cent. If not for her 7% swing as a result of Diebold voting machines, Hillary would have lost to Obama. If Obama was struggling he would probably contest this bizarre outcome, but he is likely to accept the results simply to save face.

Continued . . .

Aljazeera.net

January 8, 2008 Thousands of Palestinians in Gaza have gathered to protest against the visit of the US president to the occupied West Bank in a bid to push forward talks between Israel and the Palestinians. The protesters gathered in Gaza City on Tuesday, saying that George Bush is indifferent to their condition. Bush will not visit the territory as part of his tour of the Middle East which starts on Wednesday. The protest was also against the ongoing Israeli siege of Gaza. Protesters carried 62 coffins symbolising those who have died because they have been unable to leave the area for medical treatment. Humanitarian crisis Al Jazeera’s Mike Hanna said: “If the US president’s motorcade ever travelled in Gaza City, he would see young school pupils and their parents and teachers demonstrating against the ongoing Israeli siege. Keep reading . . .

The Counterpunch, January 7, 2008

The Hostile President

By GIDEON LEVY

George Bush is coming to Israel this week. He will take pleasure in his visit. One can assume that there are few prime ministers with a giant photo of themselves with the U.S. president hanging on the wall in their home, as our Ehud Olmert boasted last week that he does, to his exalted guest, the comic Eli Yatzpan. There are also few other countries where the lame duck from Washington would not be greeted with mass demonstrations; instead, Israel is making great efforts to welcome him graciously. The man who has wreaked such ruin upon the world, upon his country, and upon us is such a welcome guest only in Israel.

A man is coming to Israel this week who has left a trail of killing, destruction and global hatred. Never has the U.S. been so despised as during Bush’s seven years in office, which abruptly brought his county back to the not-so-merry days of Vietnam.

He led the U.S., and the free world in its wake, into two brutal and completely futile wars of conquest, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. He sowed mass killing in these two wretched countries under the false pretext of a battle against global terror.

But the world after these two wars is not a better world or a safer one. And these two wounded countries feel no gratitude toward the superpower that ostensibly came to emancipate them from their regimes of terror.

Keep reading . . .

New York Times, January 9, 2008

CAMP LEJEUNE, N.C. — A former member of an elite Marine combat unit that operated last year in eastern Afghanistan testified Tuesday that his comrades appeared to have needlessly killed civilians after their convoy was attacked by a suicide car bomb.

Nathaniel Travers, a former Marine intelligence sergeant assigned to the 30-man Special Operations convoy that was patrolling on March 4 last year, testified in a military court here that a few marines fired at civilians and other unarmed noncombatants after the suicide bomber struck.

No marines have been charged with a crime in the episode. The hearing was held to determine whether troops had violated the laws of war.

Continued . . .

Not one news story about this week’s latest chapter in the administration’s ongoing effort to gin up a crazy war with Iran–the so-called “provocation” caused by Iranian naval speedboats approaching within 200 meters of a US destroyer–mentioned that the US, which sits some 7500 miles away from Iran, has sent a whole fully-armed armada into the Persian Gulf just off Iran’s coast.

Or that the Vice President actually flew out to an aircraft carrier that was part of that US armada, and threatened, from the flight deck, to have the US massively attack Iran.

Just who is provoking whom where?

Imagine, for a moment, that Iran had sent its navy to patrol in the Gulf of Mexico, in international waters just off of the coasts of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, and that its leader flew out to one of those ships and threatened to take out America’s oil infrastructure.

How do you think the US government would react? How do you think the American people would react?

Do you think the US would send naval vessels out to provokingly sail close to Iranian ships? Do you think the US might do more than that and maybe sink those ships? (Especially if at that very moment Iranian special forces were operating inside the US, creating havoc and supporting subversive elements, as US special forces are already doing in Iran.)

Well duh! Of course they would.

So what do we expect the Iranians to do in this situation? Just keep their fleet moored in harbors and watch the US fleet sail up and down the Gulf, and out in the Arabian Sea off their southern coast unchallenged?

I’m not saying that Iran’s decision to move aggressively to challenge US naval power off their shores is necessarily the wisest move, but at least American journalists and editors ought to have the decency and ethics to point out to readers and viewers that it is the US, not the Iranians, that are provoking things here.

If and when there is a US attack on Iran, you can bet the pretext for it will be some act by Iran that the US media will present as a “dastardly” attack on innocent US forces. What we’re seeing with this coverage of the latest confrontation between US and Iranian vessels is that we will not be getting the real story.

As long as the Bush/Cheney administration continues to have that huge armada of war-primed vessels hugging Iran’s coast, it is the US that is the aggressor, and it is the Bush/Cheney administration that must get the blame for the consequences.

The American corporate media will also be responsible though, for our domestic news organizations are playing the willing propagandists here as willingly as did Pravda or TASS in the old Soviet Union.

Dave Lindorff is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His latest book, co-authored by Barbara Olshansky, is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and now in paperback). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

Information Clearing House
By Jim Lobe

08/01/08 “IPS” — WASHINGTON – Amid reports that the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush is considering aggressive covert actions against armed Islamist forces in western Pakistan, a new survey released here Monday suggested that such an effort would be opposed by an overwhelming majority of Pakistanis themselves.

The survey, which was funded by the quasi-governmental U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) and designed by the University of Maryland’s Programme on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), also found that a strong majority of Pakistanis consider the U.S. military presence in Asia and neighbouring Afghanistan a much more critical threat to their country than al Qaeda or Pakistan’s own Taliban movement in the tribal regions along the border with Afghanistan.

Only five percent of respondents said the Pakistani government should permit U.S. or other foreign troops to enter Pakistan to pursue or capture al Qaeda fighters, compared to a whopping 80 percent who said such actions should not be permitted, according to the poll, which was based on in-depth interviews of more than 900 Pakistanis in 19 cities in mid-September.

Keep reading . . .

AFP, January 9, 2008

HAVANA (AFP) – – With fireworks, outdoor speeches and a message from their ailing iconic leader, Cubans late Tuesday celebrated President Fidel Castro’s triumphal entry into Havana 49 years ago at the head of his revolution.

“I cannot forget that on a day like today I had the honor of being welcomed by the people of this capital 49 years ago,” Castro, 81, said in a statement read out on television to mark the occasion.

Thousands of revelers gathered at the La Punta square opposite the Tres Reyes del Morro castle to see the sky lit up by fireworks and attend cultural events on “Illuminated by Victory” night organized by the Union of Communist Youths (UJC).

As expected, the celebrations did not include an appearance by Castro, who has only been seen on television since he underwent gastrointestinal surgery in July 2006 and handed over power “temporarily” to his brother Raul, 76.

A power boat criss-crossed Havana Bay pulling a huge lighted sign bearing “Viva Fidel,” on one side, and “Viva Raul” on the the other.

“Cuba’s youth makes a gift of this event to all Cuba. We’ll light up the city like (Castro’s) victory lit up our people forever 49 years ago,” UJC chief Cesar Hernandez told a cheering crowd.

On January 1, 1959 Castro and his communist guerrillas overthrew the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista (1952-1958) and took a triumphal, week-long tour of the country from east to west with his men that ended in Havana, where he took power.

Huffington Post, Jan 7, 2008

Amb. Edward Peck

Searching for something that might be meaningful and potentially productive in the overall context of the title, I offer a recommendation: Think about the words we use.

For just a moment, consider the basic issues related to Palestine. Then think about how those issues are consistently buried in bland, euphemistic, totally misleading words and phrases, perhaps generated for the very purposes they have so resoundingly achieved: obscuring and distorting the reality of what is being done in Palestine and to the Palestinians, suppressed in their own homeland.

Think about the words used during the recent Annapolis photo-op. They were a major reason for its fully predictable total failure, and a principal contribution to every previous failure by America to present itself as, and achieve the goals of an honest broker.

Essentially, the final agreement was to consider beginning discussions that might lead to a start in undertaking further efforts to get around to doing something. To underline the true nature of this seminal achievement, the meeting was promptly followed by Israel announcing construction of 370 additional houses in the Har Homa settlement in Occupied Palestine, and the demolition of six more homes in Arab East Jerusalem. Now that’s real statesmanship.

Think. Every use of the phrase ‘Occupied Territories’ suggests that there are alternative views, and implicitly denies that it is Occupied Palestine. That is the only correct description of the core problem, a source of profound global concern. ‘Occupied Palestine’ must be clearly identified in all statements made on the subject, or else a biased, one-sided view is presented.

Continued . . .

AFP, Jan 8, 2008

TEHRAN (AFP) – – Iran on Tuesday rejected US charges that its naval forces threatened to blow up American ships in the Strait of Hormuz, amid renewed tensions ahead of US President George W. Bush’s visit to the region.

US defence officials said five speedboats from the naval forces of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards menaced three US warships in the strategic waterway on Sunday, radioing a threat to blow them up.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice described the incident as “provocative” and “dangerous”, amid fears such an insolated encounter could spark a major confrontation between the two foes.

But Iranian officials expressed bewilderment over the US version of events, saying the encounter was a routine question of identification that ended with nothing special to report.

“What happened between the Guards and foreign vessels was an ordinary identification,” Ali Reza Tangsiri, commander of the Guards naval forces in the region, told the Mehr news agency.

“No special engagement took place between the Guards and the foreign side,” he said, adding that the Guards naval forces had a right to control and identify “any vessel entering Persian Gulf waters” to the northwest.

State television quoted an unnamed Guards source in the region as saying: “No threatening message was transmitted.”

Continued . . .