[Kona_Silat]

LMAO @ the Obamabots.Why place your faith in someone who does not have an extensive polictical record?

[bravotwozero]

Political experience is not necessarily always a good thing, or something to be relied upon. **** Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz etc., all had plenty of political experience.

[Kona_Silat]

Originally Posted by bravotwozero

Political experience is not necessarily always a good thing, or something to be relied upon. **** Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz etc., all had plenty of political experience.

None of the folks you mentioned ran for president.

McCain-Jindal 08

[bravotwozero]

That is irrelevant. My point still stands.

[Jamroll]

Originally Posted by Kona_Silat

None of the folks you mentioned ran for president.

McCain-Jindal 08

Why would McCain be good for Muslims in your opinion?

[kenneth]

the Nader/Gonzalez peace in the Middle East campaign is aiming to be on the ballot nationwide in November.

Only Nader/Gonzalez stands with the courageous Israeli and Palestinian peace movements.

Only Nader/Gonzalez stands with the majority of Jewish Americans and Arab Americans which polls repeatedly show support a two-state solution as a way for peace in the Middle East.

Only Nader/Gonzalez would reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East.

Doubt it?

Then just listen to Barack Obama's speech from this morning to the militarist and right-wing American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Did Obama make one mention of the illegal Israeli blockade of Gaza's 1.5 million people and the UN-documented resulting humanitarian disaster there?

He did not.

Instead, Obama talked about "a Gaza controlled by Hamas with rockets raining down on Israel."

Did Obama mention U.S. government supplied Israeli firepower resulting in Palestinian civilian casualties in Gaza at a ratio of 400 to 1 (Palestinian to Israeli)

He did not.

Many peace loving Israelis and Jewish Americans will be disgusted by Obama's speech today.

Like the editor at the Israeli newspaper Haaretz who wrote that the Israeli government has "lost its reason" through the brutal incarceration, devastation and deprivation of the innocent people in Gaza.

Obama told AIPAC today that "we must isolate Hamas." (In its current form.)

Did he mention that a March 2008 Haaretz poll showed that 64 percent of the Israeli people want direct negotiations for peace between Israel and Hamas, while only 28% oppose it?

He did not.

Instead, Obama said this morning that "Egypt must cut off the smuggling of weapons into Gaza."

Did he say that Israel must stop bombing the people of Gaza?

He did not.

Obama this morning told AIPAC that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."

Did Obama mention that this pledge undermines the widespread international consensus two-state solution peace plan?

He did not.

So, in a nutshell:

In this critical election year, Nader/Gonzalez stands on these issues with the majority of Israelis, Palestinians, Jewish-Americans and Arab Americans.

Obama/McCain stand with the hard-line minority position of AIPAC.

With your generous help, Nader/Gonzalez will work to make the voices for peace heard throughout this election year.

Together, we will make a difference.

Onward

The Nader Team

http://http://www.votenader.org/

[kenneth]

Uncritical support for Israel's actions by Clinton, Obama, and McCain ensure continued Middle East hostilities after 2008

Resolving the conflict is essential to healing the rift between the West and Middle Eastern nations, say Greens, who note that the 60th birthday of Israel is also the 60th anniversary of the Nakba -- the 'catastrophe' for Palestinians


WASHINGTON, DC -- Green Party leaders urged the White House and Congress to recognize the 60th anniversary of the establishment of Israel as an occasion to press for long overdue human rights and equality for all Israelis, including Arabs and Muslims, and an end to the illegal occupation of Palestinian lands.

"The 60th birthday of Israel is also the 60th anniversary of the Palestinian Nakba," said Dr. Justine McCabe, co-chair of the International Committee of the Green Party of the United States. "Its founding was based on the ethnic cleansing of the native Muslim and Christian populations. Because of this formative injustice, instead of becoming a haven for Jews, Palestine-Israel remains insecure for all those living there. Peace in the Middle East depends on recognizing this historical injustice and taking steps to reverse it. It means ensuring full equality, human rights, and democracy regardless of religion or ethnicity, and it means withdrawingIsraeli forces from the occupied territories."

The Green Party has called for a cutoff of US military aid and a general economic boycott until Israel complies with UN directives demanding observance of human rights and an end to the occupation, displacement, and brutal treatment of Palestinians. The Green Party also supports the Palestinian right of return.

"At over 6 million, Palestinian refugees constitute the oldest and largest refugee population awaiting a resolution," said Steve Alesch, Green Party Nominee for Congress in Illinois (District 13) (Steve Alesch for Congress - IL 13). "2008 also marks the 60th anniversary of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 13 of which recognizes the right to leave one's country and return home. It establishes this right of return for all refugees to return home, regardless of how a conflict began."

(See "Why does the Green Party in the U.S. support Palestinians' Right of Return?", position paper by the Green Party's International Committee, Why does the Green Party in the U.S. support Palestinians' Right of Return?)

Greens warned that uncritical support for Israel by Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain, under the influence of AIPAC and other lobbies, and their rejection of talks with the democratically elected Palestinian government indicate a lack of seriousness about resolving the Middle East conflict.

Republican and Democratic administrations have made the US a dishonest broker in any peace deal, said Greens, who pointed to the recent revelation of President Bush's 2004 letter to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon endorsing the expansion and retention of Israeli Jewish settlements in the West Bank ("Israelis Claim Secret Agreement With US," The Washington Post, April 24, 2008).

Party leaders also condemned Sen. Clinton's threat to "obliterate" Iran if it should attack Israel with nuclear weapons; Iran does not possess nuclear weapons, while Israel does.

"Resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict is essential to healing the rift between the West and Muslim nations and establishing global security," said John Wages, Green candidate for Congress in Mississippi's First District (http://www.votejohnwages.com). "Peace will be achieved through nonviolent means -- negotiation, affirmation of universal human rights, democratic self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians, and respect for international law -- not through threats, terror, and military assaults."

"Greens have called for the one-state solution to be placed on the table. The two-state option is increasingly unfeasible, because the Israeli government, through the occupation, settlements, displacement of Palestinians, and destruction of infrastructure, has made it more difficult for an independent Palestinian state to emerge. The secular one-state solution may be the only one that can assure real political equality, democracy, and freedom for everyone in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories," added Mr. Wages.

http://http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=61

[Kona_Silat]

Originally Posted by Jamroll

Why would McCain be good for Muslims in your opinion?

Well, you have to ask, why Obama would be bad for Muslims. I just believe that candidates who are far to the left, as in being too liberal, is not a good choice for Muslims. An American Muslim should ask, do I want to vote for a candidate who represents a party that support gay marriage, abortion, and promotes anti-family values. Historically, American Muslims have always voted Republican because of conservative values.

[kenneth]

i just want you guys to know that there are alternative views and choices other than the two major parties when it comes to electoral politics in America.

[ChotooMotoo]

Political experience isn't all that important if you surround yourself with good experienced advisors. Lots of Presidents have come in with very little experience, and done very well because they had good advisors.

[bravotwozero]

Puppets of War: McCain, Obama and Hillary

[sixpakistan]

Originally Posted by Kona_Silat

Well, you have to ask, why Obama would be bad for Muslims. I just believe that candidates who are far to the left, as in being too liberal, is not a good choice for Muslims. An American Muslim should ask, do I want to vote for a candidate who represents a party that support gay marriage, abortion, and promotes anti-family values. Historically, American Muslims have always voted Republican because of conservative values.

John McCain isn't a real social conservative - and neither are most neocons - so that argument doesn't fly in this instance. He's pure neocon, through and through.

Ron Paul would've been great. Actually, you know who would've been even better than Ron Paul?

































IMAM JAYSH!

[bravotwozero]

Right-o. Moving on, I think the following expose on McCain is rather telling about how clueless and deluded the man really is, in addition to dispelling the myth that experience is necessarily good and/or important.

[bravotwozero]

Hopefully, Obama is Not a Used Car Dealer

By Imam Zaid Shakir

14 June 2008

In my article, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Barack Obama, and the Fate of America, I mentioned that one of the things viewed as unacceptable to the political mainstream in this country is “a fair and just solution to the problem of meaningful Palestinian statehood.” With his slavish remarks at the recent AIPAC conference, Senator Barack Obama, issued an uncritical endorsement of the program of the most right wing elements of the Zionist movement, and suggested, at least through his words, that he has no real interest in a fair and just solution to that problem.

Obama’s defenders will argue that he had no choice. He had to make the kind of remarks he made if he hopes to be elected president in November. They are right, if in fact Obama is just another politician, a used car dealer who will say anything to clench a deal. In that case, in order to clench the deal with the Zionist lobby, and in order not to be smeared as the “Hamas” candidate, Obama did have to say what he said.

However, if Obama is the candidate of change, as his campaign declares, if he is the candidate who has built his formidable war chest with small contributions from ordinary Americans, as he boasts, and if he is hence not beholden to the entrenched Washington lobbying establishment, then he definitely did not have to say what he said.

By promising to renounce any Palestinian claims to Jerusalem, he eliminated any meaningful chance for a negotiated settlement to the Palestinian conflict by declaring his opposition to the one point Palestinian negotiators are not willing to compromise on, the retention of Jerusalem as the capital of a future, viable Palestinian state.

By insinuating an unwillingness to talk with the leaders of Hamas, he compromised the most promising pillar of his diplomatic strategy, one designed to demonstrate his movement away from the Bush/Cheney doctrine of preemptive, no room for diplomacy militarism—namely, a willingness to talk, in good faith, with our enemies.

If this is an example of the reality of the an Obama-led foreign policy, it leaves little room for the vaunted change he speaks of. While appeasing in the wildest way the most bellicose elements of the Zionist movement, his statements run counter to the wishes of the majority of Israelis, and leave virtually no room for either Palestinian or Israeli peace activists.

They also send a very clear message to Muslims and Arabs, both in this country and globally. If I could summarize that message it would be, “I need neither your good will, nor your support.” While that may be true domestically, in light of the political weakness of the Muslim community in this country, it would certainly not be true globally.

If Obama’s value as an “African American” candidate is largely symbolic, As Michael Eric Dyson and others, including this writer have argued, then that symbolic value extends beyond the African American community, and America at large. It extends to the people of the world. If Africans, Asians, Europeans and Latin Americans view the thus far successful Obama candidacy as a symbol of a changed social and political climate in America that is a harbinger of policies that will bring the interests of the American empire into closer alignment with the interests of the rest of the world, then the Palestinian issue is a litmus test of sorts as to the sincerity of any American politician to pursue a new type of politics. In this regard, Obama has failed miserably.

Why is that so? In his brilliant assessment of the “electability” of Obama, A Bound Man, Shelby Steele mentions that the greatest question surrounding Obama is that we really do not know exactly what he stands for. Steele asks, fittingly, what are the principles or issues that Obama is willing to give his life for? We do not know. Despite spending twenty years with Minister Jeremiah Wright, we know he would not risk everything for his church or his pastor. Despite his advocacy for the underdog and the downtrodden, we know he was not willing to go out on a limb for the Palestinian people. Despite his opposition to the war in Iraq, we know, in light of his comments at AIPAC, he will not wager everything for peace in the Middle East. We do not even know if Obama believes Jerusalem is the undivided capital of Israel, as he declared in his AIPAC speech, or a final status issue to be decided between the two sides through negotiations, as he “clarified” a day later. Which of these two positions is he willing to risk everything, possibly even the presidency, defending?

Steele is of the opinion that unless Obama can answer this question, “What does he really stand for?” he will not be elected, because eventually the public will see through him, especially when John McCain can answer this question so clearly and readily. It remains to be seen if his assessment is accurate.

In fairness to Obama, he was not in an easy position when he stood before the assembled forces of AIPAC. What was he to say? He could have simply said that as President he would bring together all of the parties to the conflict and help to facilitate negotiations that lead to a lasting peace in the region that respects the fundamental interests of all involved.

Many will argue that would be too difficult a demand to place on anyone aspiring to the presidency of the United States. Just as it would be too difficult to ask such an aspirant to encourage Israel to abide by UN Resolutions as readily as Syria or Iran are encouraged to do so. Perhaps that is true if we were dealing with normal politicians. Indeed, that would be asking too much. However, Obama has made a case to the country that he is not a normal politician. Maybe he isn’t. Hopefully, he is not a used car dealer either.

Carrying the Word