Friday, April 10, 2009

History from the Memory Hole

1976: Ford Gives Permission to Sell Nuclear Technology to Iran from

President Gerald R. Ford signs a presidential directive giving the Iranian government the opportunity to purchase a US-built nuclear reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. Iran, with support from the US, wants to develop a massive nuclear energy industry that has complete “nuclear fuel cycle” capability so fissile materials can be supplied self-sustaining basis. US companies, chief among them Westinghouse, stands to make $6.4 billion from the sale of six to eight nuclear reactors and parts. The shah has argued that Iran needs a nuclear energy program in order to meet Iran’s growing energy demand. Iran is known to have massive oil and gas reserves, but the shah considers these finite reserves too valuable to be spent satisfying daily energy needs. In a 1975 strategy paper, the Ford administration supported this view saying that “introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran’s economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals.” Top officials in the Ford administration—including Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, Chief of Staff Dick Cheney, and Paul Wolfowitz, who is responsible for nonproliferation issues at the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency—are strong supporters of Iran’s ambitions. Kissinger will tell the Washington Post 30 years later that the Ford administration was not concerned about the possibility of Iran using the facilities to produce nuclear weapons. “I don’t think the issue of proliferation came up,” he says. But Charles Naas, deputy US ambassador to Iran at this time, will tell the Post that nuclear experts had serious concerns about potential proliferation. Naas will explain that the administration was attracted to the nuclear deal “terms of commerce” and interested in maintaining good relations with the shah.
The article cites this link to the Washington Post.

Note, these guys wanted to give Iran not just a commercial nuclear reactor, but a full reprocessing facility for them to extract plutonium from spent reactor fuel rods.

And I love the bit about how the Ford Administration supported the Iranian idea that their 'oil and gas' reserves should be preserved. These days, you hear the right-wingers constantly ridicule the idea that Iran would want nuclear power reactors because they 'sit on a sea of oil'. Sometimes its fun to watch the same people switch sides on the same issue ... and do it with straight face.

I'd forgotten Paul Wolfowitz was in charge of the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Wow! That's like making John Dillinger the agent in charge of preventing bank robberies.

Gen. Odierno: US May Ignore Iraq Deadline Because of al-Qaeda

Gen. Odierno: US May Ignore Iraq Deadline Because of al-Qaeda on

In yet another sign that the Obama Administration’s “pullout” timeline for Iraq is not set in stone, General Ray Odierno told The Times today that US combat troops may remain in Iraq’s cities beyond the June 30 deadline mandated by the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). He pointed to increased trouble from al-Qaeda as the justification.

I keep saying the Obama plan for Iraq is identical to the Bush plan. Bush always promised a withdrawal sometime off in the future. Under Bush, we were told that we had to have all these troops there, but only until some 'milestone' came along. Elections, constitution, parliment ... the milestone kept changing, but the message was always the same. Keep the troops there now, but we'll withdraw in a year or so.

That's exactly the 'plan' Obama announced. That we have to keep all of these troops there until the national elections occurred. But, then we'll start to withdraw.

Except now, with the ink not even dry on the plan Obama announced a month or so ago, we are already being told that maybe the withdrawal can't happen as announced because of 'increased Al-Qaida activity'.

I'm thousands of miles away, but here's what I think I know from reading about the recent increase in violence in Iraq. The US had created a false peace in Iraq by paying some 100,000 Sunni fighters a monthly salary not to fight the US or the government. That program is ending. The announced plan was that the Iraqi government would take over paying these fighters, mostly by bringing them into the army.

Naturally, the Shiite government isn't real thrilled about paying for a hundred thousand armed men from their Sunni rivals. So, the number of of Sunni fighters who are still getting paid not to fight is much less than announced. This is causing tensions. A couple of weeks ago, the Shiite government started arresting the leaders of Sunni fighters. The Sunnis naturally fought back against the government forces. In the midst of this, someone started setting off bombs in the Shiite neighborhoods again.

So, the US basically bought a period of peace by buying off the Sunni fighters. Now the US is ending that program. Not at all surprisingly, the violence is returning. Yet, this is presented to the American people as 'increased Al-Qaida activity'. And, it shouldn't be a surprise at all that this is now presented to the American people as the reason that we can't even have the limited, partial withdrawal from Iraq.

And note, even though we are now starting to be told that we can't withdraw from Iraq, the plans for the escalation in Afghanistan and Pakistan continue. The idea that this was a 'redeployment' from 'the wrong war' to 'the right war' disappears. But, the escalation of Obama's war in Afghanistan and Pakistan continues.

If you liked the Bush wars, you gonna love the bigger, better, expanded Obama wars.

And, we are going to be about $2 TRILLION in debt for just this year alone. The last estimate I saw was $1.8 TRILLION, and that number keeps rising with each new estimate. So, here's where we get the bill for the bigger, better, expanded Obama wars.

Obama Seeks $83.4 Billion for Iraq, Afghan Wars

President Barack Obama will seek $83.4 billion in additional “emergency” funding for the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which if approved would bring the 2009 funding to around $150 billion and the overall costs of the two wars to nearly $1 trillion.

The request is in addition to the $534 billion military budget the administration unveiled earlier in the week. That budget was for fiscal 2010, and was an increase over 2009.

That's another $83 billion for just the rest of this year (until Oct 1 I believe). That's on top of the money that the Democratic congress had already approved last year for the wars in 2009.

It is simple. We can not afford these wars. We have to come home NOW!

Imagine, just for a moment, an $83 billion dollar program pumping money directly to homeowners. But no, we can't have that. Instead, we have to use it to go kill people on the other side of the world.

Thursday, April 9, 2009

Nigerian bribes

Swiss hold '$150m Nigeria bribes' from BBCNews

Hello, I'm a Swiss banker. We are holding $150 million dollars that was used by the American firm Haliburton to bribe some of our Nigeria customers. We are determined to return this money to the American people. As such, we've randomly selected your email address as the recipient of $1 million dollars.

To deliver this money to you, we need to collect some information from you. Your name and contact information, your social security number, and the number of the bank account where you would like the money deposited. To verify your identity, we would also need all your other bank account numbers, all PINS and secret codes to access those accounts, and also all of your credit card numbers.

When we receive this information, we will happily deposit $1 million of this Nigerian bribe money into your accounts.

Obama doesn't want Iran attack "before they are ready to have that actually happen."

Obama Team Debates Stance on Israeli Attack Threat by Gareth Porter and Jim Lobe of Inter Press Service via

Both Gary Samore, the new White House coordinator on weapons of mass destruction, and Ashton Carter, now under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, expressed support for a diplomatic strategy of exploiting the Israeli military threat to Iran at a forum at Harvard University’s Kennedy School last September.

Referring to negotiating with Iran on the nuclear issue, Samore said, "My view is that, unless it’s backed up by a very strong bashing alternative, it probably won’t be successful."

Samore called the threat of such an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites "a good diplomatic instrument" for the United States. Carter, who is also a non-proliferation specialist, referred to making the Iranians "wonder whether the Israelis are going to do something" as "not an unreasonable game to play."

But Samore also acknowledged that such a strategy could be dangerous. "[W]e have to be careful when we use that instrument," he said, "that the Israelis don’t see that as a green light to go ahead and strike… before we’re ready to have that actually happen."

Take very careful note of that last sentence ... "before we’re ready to have that actually happen." It reveals that all of the talk of 'diplomacy' is a smoke screen. Just like with Bush. Oh, the smoke is of a different color and smell from Bush's smoke. Obama's smoke doesn't seem quite so irritating to those on the left as Bush's smoke. But its all still just smoke.

Obama and the Democrats support a military attack on Iranian nuclear sites. There only concern is that it happens when they are 'ready to have that actually happen'.

That's the Democrats idea of an 'anti-war' candidate. Remember, Obama was the alternative the Democrats gave to voters as opposed to Hillary's call to 'obliterate' Iran back in the primaries.

An attack on Iran would start a war. The militarists fantasize about the Iranian people supporting us after such an attack. That would literally be the same thing as thinking the American people would long to return to the King of England after he burned Washington in the War of 1812. It is roughly the same amount of years since the revolution in each case.

An attack on Iran's nuclear sites would spread radioactive contamination around the bombed site. Some of these sites are in populated areas. Most of the Muslim world already knows we poison people with radioactivity using our depleted uranium weapons. This would only inflame these passions. And don't think the rest of the world won't still blame us even if the planes have Israeli markings and are flown by Israeli pilots.

Remember, there is no proof that Iran is trying to build a bomb. There is no proof that they have ever enriched fuel beyond reactor-grade levels. Anyone sensible is saying that it is years before Iran could have a bomb.

Yet, we have a Democratic administration that wants an attack on Iran, with the only condition that it occurs when they "are ready to have that actually happen."

This is the Democrats idea of an 'anti-war' candidate. This is the Democrats idea of 'peace'. And people wonder why I'm not a Democrat?

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Too much

Sometimes there's just too much to blog about ....

Obama Administration quietly expands Bush's legal defense of wiretapping program
by John Bryne on

Obama Praises Iraq War: 'Extraordinary Achievement' on

‘Progressive’ Warmongers: Liberals rally 'round Obama's war by Justin Raimondo on

Meet the New Escalators by Norman Solomon on

Obama's neoliberals by Jeremy Schahill via Socialist Worker

Card Check on the Ropes by Adam Turl on

Who's the Boss? by Uri Avnery on

The Tooth Fairy and the Defense Budget by Winston Wheeler on

With watchdogs like this...
by Nicole Colson in Socialist Worker

Bank-owning life insurers eligible for US bailout: Treasury from AFP via RawStory

Fusion center declares nation's oldest universities possible terror threat by Stephen Webster on RawStory

and, for all us former viewers of Battlestar Gallatica ....

Killer Robots—What Could Go Wrong? by Matthew Yglesias on American Conservative

China vs USA

China vs USA

Cyber-skirmish at the top of the world by Peter Lee in Asia Times

Landline, cell and Internet services in Tibetan areas were interrupted during the period of unrest. When the Chinese government became aware that Tibetan dissidents were using the video-sharing website YouTube as a text-free method to communicate, it shut it down. When image-sharing website Flickr emerged as a potential source of visual information, it was blocked. Tibetan radio broadcasts by Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Asia (RFA) and Voice of Tibet were jammed. A campaign against satellite dishes was intensified to limit the audience of VOA's direct-to-dish Tibet TV service. In order to cut off cell-phone based talk, text, and images, China r

Well, thank gawd we live in a free country where that can't happen here.

Should Obama Control the Internet? in Mother Jones

Should President Obama have the power to shut down domestic Internet traffic during a state of emergency?

Senators John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) think so. On Wednesday they introduced a bill to establish the Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor—an arm of the executive branch that would have vast power to monitor and control Internet traffic to protect against threats to critical cyber infrastructure. That broad power is rattling some civil libertarians.

The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (PDF) gives the president the ability to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any "critical" information network "in the interest of national security." The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president.

The bill does not only add to the power of the president. It also grants the Secretary of Commerce "access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access." This means he or she can monitor or access any data on private or public networks without regard to privacy laws.

Just because Obama used to say the word 'change' in every sentence, that doesn't always mean its 'change' for the good.

Mind Managers

Reflections on a Largely Forgotten Book: Herbert Schiller's The Mind Managers (1973) by Paul Street on ZNet.

There's a huge amount of useful information in this piece, and on a topic that I like to think and write about. That is the media manipulation of the psyche of the American public. I'm partly linking to this just so I can easily find this article again. :)

Just a short taste of what you'll see if you follow this link ....
Together these authors and books show how and why domestic U.S. democracy is undermined by concentrated corporate control of the means of communication and culture. As McChesney explained more than a decade ago, meaningful participatory democracy requires three interrelated things to be in place: (1) rough equality in wealth, income, and property ownership, since large class and socioeconomic disparities undercut the ability of citizens to act as equals and confer disproportionate political, policy, and cultural influence on those with superior resources; (2) a sense of community between individuals - a sense that each individual's well-being is positively connected to the common good, since a democratic political culture cannot take root in a society whose members are simply out to serve their own selfish interests; (3) an effective system of communications that accurately informs and engages the citizenry, encouraging their intelligent participation in political life. The need for accurate, un-biased information is especially urgent for viable democracy in a large and complex modern society like the United States, where the scope and scale of political and societal affairs is so vast and multifaceted as to be beyond immediate observation (McChesney 1997, 5-6)

These three critical prerequisites for meaningful participatory democracy are intimately interrelated with each other, McChesney noted. A society in which wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small elite will see its economic masters work to sustain and eternalize inequality through control of the communications system (media). The masters will own a disproportionate share of that media. They will insist upon a media that filters, shapes, "spins," and otherwise distorts information and shapes popular perceptions and values in ways consistent with continued ruling-class domination. That media system (whose ownership and control becomes ever more concentrated under capitalism) will privilege selfish and authoritarian values over positive notions of the common good and social justice.

Tuesday, April 7, 2009


Petraeus: Military Reserves 'Right of Last Resort' for Threats Inside Pakistan from FoxNews

I found this through Progressive Review, which had it listed under the headline "PETRAEUS CLAIMS U.S. COLONIAL POWERS OVER PAKISTAN". Pretty accurate description.

What struck me was this paragraph.

The Pakistanis have expressed frustration over unmanned U.S. drone strikes to take out terrorist targets inside their border.

But Petraeus said the U.S. is mindful of perceptions in the region.

"It's hugely important that we be seen as good neighbors, as friends, certainly fierce warriors who will go after the enemy and stay after them -- but also as individuals who try to avoid civilian casualties whenever possible and are seen again as supporting the people and trying to help them achieve a better life," Petraeus said, specifically referring to the fight on the Afghan side of the border.

And on the Pakistan side of the border? I take it we are NOT interested in being seen as 'supporting the people and trying to help them achieve a better life?'

Actually, I don' think the US ever has been. In Pakistan, the US has supported a long line of military dictators, interspersed by a few stretches of corrupt but US-compliant civilian rule. We don't exactly have a long track record of 'supporting the people and trying to help them achieve a better life', now do we?

Afghanistan Was Never the “Good War”

Afghanistan Was Never the “Good War” by Bill Fletcher Jr, via World Can't Wait.

Sometimes I feel like I am reliving the era of President Lyndon B. Johnson. The era of 'guns and butter,' as they called it. At the same time that Johnson was launching his 'War on Poverty' he was escalating the US war against the people of Vietnam and Laos, as well as carrying out the
criminal invasion of the Dominican Republic (1965). Not only did these interventions (and others!) isolate the USA and set back the efforts of these various countries at self- determination, but they wrecked the US economy, siphoning off badly needed resources.

And, the one point he never quite touches in this article ..... Why on earth are we fighting in Afghanistan? What in Afghanistan is worth having human beings die? At least in Iraq, I could sorta understand the sort of evil, 'today-we-conquer-the-world', James Bond villan sort of thinking that said it was worth killing hundreds of thousands of people by attacking Iraq to gain control of the oil. But, Afghanistan?


Obama makes unannounced visit to Iraq by Reuters via

First, I'll believe we've actually made 'progress' in Iraq when a President can make an 'announced' visit. The fact that our great leaders have to sneak in and out of the country, even with their massive security details that can otherwise hold back tens of thousands of evil protesters, does not leave one impressed by the level of security in Iraq.

Then there's this lead to the Reuters piece ...
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama made an unannounced visit to Baghdad Tuesday, marking a new chapter in his strategy to wind down the unpopular war in Iraq and shift the United States' military focus to Afghanistan.

Really? How on earth does this mark 'a new chapter' in his winding down the war?

What's hilarious is watching Obama do exactly the same thing Bush used to do, but now its trumpeted as a 'new strategy' to wind down the war.

This is true not only for these furtive trips to Iraq for photo opportunities, but for the policy in general. Remember, it was always Bush's announced policy that the full level of troops would only stay in Iraq for six months to a year, and then start to withdraw. The catch was, we never got to the withdrawal part. There would always be some new reason why the withdrawal couldn't begin, and the troops would have to stay another six months to a year before the withdrawal can begin.

Obama's big new strategy for 'winding down the war in Iraq' is to keep the current levels of troops for the next year, and then start a slow withdrawal that will take two more years after that. Sound familiar?

What's hilarious is watching Obama do exactly the same thing Bush used to do, but now its trumpeted as a 'new strategy' to wind down the war.


A Coffin, a Flag, a Photograph by the NY Times.

Yes, the advent of the Obama Administration has brought great changes to America. Now, in a dramatic step, coffins of the people who die in our wars can once again be photographed. Ah yes, the world is indeed a different place.

The bad news is that there are still plane loads of coffins arriving back in the country. Real change of course would be to end these wars, and thus end the opportunity to photograph coffins at all.

See also Media Can Now Cover Coffins Coming Home -- But What About the OTHER Missing War Photos? by Greg Mitchell at Editor and Publisher magazine.

For whatever reason, the media in the U.S., in the weeks and then years after that rarely showed the full face of war, despite the brave and remarkable efforts, and wishes, of countless press photographers and cameramen. Bloody scenes, featuring Americans, almost never made the U.S. media, while being widely shown abroad, and on the Web. When they did appear, protests from the government or readers seemed to set the media off this path. Dead Iraqis got more play, but not nearly to the extent called for.

Is this a joke?

Saudis Report Plot To Assassinate Obama from CBS News.

The man, who was carrying an Al-Jazeera TV ID card in the name of M.G., confessed after his arrest that he was planning on stabbing the U.S. president with a knife during the Alliance of Civilizations summit held in Istanbul, adding that he had three other accomplices to help him execute his plan.

He was going to "stab" Obama? Are you kidding me? Have you ever seen the security detail that surrounds a President? No one with 'journalist' credentials would ever even get close enough to try to stab a President. Ever see those four or five guys who are built like football players, who wear nice looking suits, but who's eyes never leave the crowd and who always stand next to the President? And of course, anyone getting into the same room with the President goes through at least a metal detector. And we are supposed to believe that there was a serious plot to 'stab' Obama? Give me a break.

Whole thing sounds like a 'wag-the-dog' type of media story to me (go rent that 1990's movie if you haven't seen it lately). Especially the part about the Al-Jazeera credentials. Note if you read the article, the people at Al-Jazeera strongly deny that they'd ever seen this guy before. Hmmm, who are the relatively small group of countries that hate Al-Jazeera and try constantly to discredit Al-Jazeera?

Oh, note also the line about how the purported assassin "confessed after his arrest" to Turkish police. Was that after the 5th electric shock or the 10th electric shock?

And, note the fine print in the article that says the man never actually even got to a venue where Obama was going to be present. It doesn't say where he was arrested, or how the police learned about his 'plot'.

Whole story stinks to high heaven to me. And it says a lot about the American corporate media that the editors at CBS are spreading it around like its a serious story. I'd have thought any honest editor would have just fallen over laughing when they first saw this ... and never would have run the story.

There's good reason why I block all the American news networks from my TV set, and why I don't ever watch the 'network news'. This story is a wonderful example. Its just garbage, and it seems to be designed to inflame passions.

Sunday, April 5, 2009

Political landscape

57% want America to take military action against North Korea on PoliGazette

Interestingly, a broad consensus exists among voters: 57% favor a military response, 28% are not sure, while only 15% oppose it. 15% is a remarkably low percentage. Support for military action is, as you’d expect, higher among Republicans (66%) than under Democrats (52%), but the difference is relatively neglible.

Here's what I consider key information in this poll. Military action is supported by more than a narrow majority, but its not an universal opinion. The flip side would be that 43% of Americans don't favor military action. Stand among 10 average Americans, 5 would be in favor, 4 opposed, and one wavering in the middle.

But, the key point to me is that a majority in BOTH parties favor war. The majority is much slimmer in the Democratic Party, but its there (52-48%).

The antiwar forces are split between the two parties. Neither is marginal. Put three average Republicans in a room, and one of them doesn't favor military action. That's not a small fringe group. That's a sizeable portion of the Republican party.

The anti-war votes are split between the two parties, holding a minority in each. The margin is smaller in the Democrats, but the pro-death forces in the Democratic party hold the tactical edges of controlling the money, the power and the rules within the party, thus marginalizing the half the party that opposes such military action.

The thing to do would be for the anti-war forces on both the right and the left to come together in one joint anti-war party. This would command a powerful 40% position in a three-way election. By taking that one simple step, of leaving the existing parties, both Republican and Democrat, and forming one unified anti-war party, we would become the strongest political faction in the nation.

Of course, right now the right and left anti-war forces are split, and they barely talk to each other. We need to unify to have strength, but any attempt is met by vocal cries of hatred. For example, think back to last year and the flood of negative comments from the left towards Ron Paul's campaign.

Today, the rebels on the right and the rebels on the left agree on most of the key issues facing this country. For example ...

  • Clean up election systems, have free and fair elections which are open to all parties to partcipate on an even level.
  • End the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, don't start any new wars, bring the troops and the money home.
  • Stop the trillions of dollars of public money from going into the banks.
  • Stop spying on Americans. Restore lost civil liberties and rights.

That's plenty for people to do during any two-year span between elections. Why not agree to do this, then run a unified anti-war party in the next elections? Combine all the anti-war forces in a three-way race, and we are the leading party. If the Democrats and Republicans show their true colors and unify to try to defeat the anti-war party, then at least we are in a two-way race and starting with 40% of the vote. Our voices would be heard in such an election.

Unity. Its the only way to succeed.

Should Obama Control the Internet?

Should Obama Control the Internet? on

The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (PDF) gives the president the ability to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any "critical" information network "in the interest of national security." The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president.

The bill does not only add to the power of the president. It also grants the Secretary of Commerce "access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access." This means he or she can monitor or access any data on private or public networks without regard to privacy laws.

By now, we all know that in the time of war, all of our so-called 'media', will repeat the government's message uncritically and with no investigation. We all know that the 'media' will block any alternative points of view from being heard. We all saw this quite clearly in the run-up to the Iraq war in 2002 and 2003. And, various crisis' since, like the question of bombing Iran, have shown us that nothing has changed.

The one place where people have been able to turn for alternative news, facts that are 'inconvenient' to the government (like Iraq not having WMD's for example), and other points of view has been the internet.

So, now the US government feels it needs the power to shut down the internet by executive fiat any time it feels there is a crisis.

We have to be aware that sometimes rule by the Democrats can be much more dangerous than rule by the Republicans. If this had been Bush proposing this drastic curtailment of freedom, there would have been loud screaming from all sectors.

A democracy can only exist if citizens have access to information. A democracy is supposed to be a system where the power resides with the people, and in order to exercise that power, the citizens need good information about what is really happening. Any move to try to shut down access to such information is a direct blow to democracy in America.

If you want to know what's 'anti-American', you are looking at it.

Typical Obama

Obama outlines sweeping goal of nuclear-free world from AP via

Sounds great. A nuclear free world. And this is what I mean by typical Obama. Obama is always very good at telling us about the problems we already knew we faced. And on the vague level of sound-good talk, he always shines. A 'nuclear-free world' sounds wonderful.

So, what's the first steps towards getting there?

He offered few details of how he would accomplish his larger goal and acknowledged that "in a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up."

Like I said, typical Obama. When you look behind the pretty words to see what he's really proposing, there's nothing there. Typical Obama. "All hat, no cowboy" is a phrase I've learned since I headed west.

In this case, as the world's leading nuclear power, the obvious thing for the US to do is to start taking unilateral steps to reduce its own nuclear weapon stockpiles. We have so many of the damn things, we could easily do this while still not affecting "America's security". Besides, from which country in the world are we protecting ourselves with these evil things?

But no, Obama puts no details into his proposal. Here's some obvious ones that he could have put out there ....

  • Stopping the development of new nuclear weapons that the US began under Bush
  • De-targeting the strategic nuclear weapons we have. Its hard to believe that nearly 20 years after the fall of the Soviet Union we still have these things on a hair-trigger alert status. Why?
  • Unilateral cutbacks by the US in our nuclear weapons forces and stockpiles. We have plenty to destroy the world many times over. Why not give up some of those as a first step to try to lead the rest of the world to the goal Obama says he wants to achieve?

This is typical Obama. On the surface, it sounds very good. But, there's nothing real behind it. And by now, we should have all learned that Obama is very weak on following through with these things that sound good. We've had close to two years of this from Obama. Two years worth of speeches that sound good, but which have nothing behind it. And by now, we should know that Obama never does anything.

Don't believe me. Go talk to all those union-activists who worked on his last campaign under the very minimal promises of a new law that would make organizing a union a fairer process. Go ask them how the EFCA is going?

Watch Obama's actions. This is all just hot-air, and by now we should all know not to pay any attention to Obama's hot air. Watch for actions. So far, they are missing. Except for the real reason he's made this speech which is that he is continuing the same war-mongering bluster towards North Korea that was the Bush policy. With no real actions, the rest of the speech is just feel-good cover for that continuing Bush policy.

Hot-air speeches with no details, but which sound really good. While at the same time, continuing Bush's saber-rattling and war-mongering. Welcome to Obamaland.