Israel recalled its ambassador to Switzerland last night in protest over a meeting between the Swiss President, Hans-Rudolph Merz, and Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Mr Ahmadinejad was greeted by the Swiss President after landing in Geneva on Sunday where he was due to address a United Nations conference on racism today.

Mr Ahmadinejad, who has described the Holocaust as a “myth” and vowed repeatedly to “wipe Israel off the map”, was expected to launch another inflammatory attack on Israel when he addressed delegates on the opening day of the conference.

The Israeli Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, branded Mr Ahmadinejad a racist and expressed outrage at the special treatment accorded him.

Mr Lieberman also questioned why the conference’s opening day was being held on the eve of Holocaust Memorial Day:

“The fact that a racist like Ahmadinejad is the main speaker proves the true aim and nature of the conference,”

The Deputy Foreign Minister, Danny Ayalon, described the Swiss President’s meeting with Mr Ahmadinejad as pathetic and an embarrassment to Switzerland.

An Israeli Foreign Ministry official said:

“It is fair to say that the meeting between the Iranian President and the Swiss raised more than a few eyebrows,”

“We are extremely unhappy about it and our ambassador Ilan Elgar has been recalled for consultations,”

“We understand the Swiss are obliged to host the conference as part of their UN commitments, we understand that the Iranian President has to be given a visa. What we don’t understand is why the Swiss President greeted Ahmadinejad on arrival.”

The Geneva meeting is a follow-up to the UN’s first conference on racism in Durban, South Africa, in 2001, and is meant to take stock of progress in fighting racial discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance.

But after the first conference was dominated by criticism of Israel, in particular by Arab and Muslim nations, Israeli officials waged a campaign against the Durban II meeting, arguing it would be similarly marred by anti-Israel sentiment.

US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Germany and Poland joined in boycotting the conference because of concerns it would be used as a forum to bash Israel.

“Regrettably, we cannot be confident that the review conference will not again be used as a platform to air offensive views, including anti-Semitic views,”

The US President, Barack Obama, defended his decision not to send a delegation, saying that despite progress in negotiations in recent weeks, anti-Israel language in a draft final communique was “often times completely hypocritical and counterproductive”.

He told reporters in Trinidad:

“If we have a clean start, a fresh start, we’re happy to go to a future meeting”

Last night the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, thanked those countries that had boycotted the summit.

“Six million of our people were slaughtered in the Holocaust. Not everyone has learnt the lesson ,”

“While we commemorate them, a conference purporting to be against racism will convene in Switzerland. The guest of honour is a racist, a Holocaust-denier who makes no secret of his intention of wiping Israel off the face of the earth.”

The UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, decried Western nations for boycotting the conference.

“Some nations, who by rights should be helping to forge a path to a better future, are not here,”

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, said she was disappointed the US was not attending.

Technorati Tags: barack obama, Benjamin Netanyahu, Hans-Rudolph Merz, iran, Iranian President, Israel, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Switzerland

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad demanded on Wednesday that President Barack Obama apologise for past US “crimes” against the Islamic republic, after the new US leader extended a hand of diplomacy to Tehran.

The firebrand Iranian leader also called on Washington to withdraw its troops from across the world as a proof of Obama’s promised policy of change.

“You were standing against the Iranian people in the past 60 years,” Ahmadinejad said in an address in the western region of Khermenshah that was broadcast on state television.

“Those who speak of change must apologise to the Iranian people and try to repair their past bad acts and the crimes they committed against Iran,” he said, suggesting it could be a condition for any talks between the archfoes.

In an interview on Monday with Al-Arabiya television, Obama promised to lay down a framework for his policy towards Iran, whose leaders have long regarded the United States as the “Great Satan”.

Obama said:

“As I said in my inauguration speech, if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us,”

“It is very important for us to make sure that we are using all the tools of US power, including diplomacy, in our relationship with Iran.”

But Ahmadinejad on Wednesday launched a fresh tirade against the United States and said he expected “deep and fundamental” change from Obama.

“Meet people, talk to them with respect and put an end to the expansionist policies. If you talk about change it must put an end to the US military presence in the world, withdraw your troops and take them back inside your borders,” Ahmadinejad said.

“stop interfering in other people’s affairs.”

“If someone wants to talk with us in the language that (George W.) Bush used … even if he uses new words, our response will be the same that we gave to Bush during the past years,”

Tension between the two nations, which severed diplomatic relations almost three decades ago, soared over Iran’s contested nuclear drive, which many in the West fear is a cover for a secret atomic weapons program.

Bush – who famously declared Iran part of an “axis of evil” – refused to talk to Tehran until it stopped sensitive nuclear fuel work, but on Monday Obama extended a diplomatic hand.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Tuesday that a US envoy would join multilateral talks next week on Iran’s nuclear program.

Clinton told reporters:

“With respect to Iran, there is a clear opportunity for the Iranians, as the president expressed in his interview, to demonstrate some willingness to engage meaningfully with the international community,”

Washington’s UN ambassador, Susan Rice, also pledged “direct” support for Tehran if it halts uranium enrichment, a process which makes fuel for nuclear plants but can be diverted to make the core of an atomic bomb.

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council – Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States – plus Germany (known as P5-plus-1) have offered Tehran economic and energy incentives in exchange for halting uranium enrichment.

But Tehran is pressing on with the work, insisting that its nuclear program is peaceful and solely geared toward electricity generation.

The Security Council has already adopted four resolutions demanding an enrichment freeze, including three which imposed sanctions on Iran for its defiance.

Representatives of the P5-plus-1 are expected to meet again next week in Germany.

On Wednesday Ahmadinejad said Tehran would

“wait, see and listen to what they (the United States) say and then consider what they do.”

“If there is a real change, we will welcome it.”

Technorati Tags: barack obama, iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President

Keeping Americans safe from further terrorist attacks on home soil was the greatest achievement of his presidency, the 43rd President of the US, George Bush, told the nation as he bade farewell in a final address at the White House.

In his 13-minute speech – in which he spoke robustly for his national security record and barely touched on the two wars he leaves behind – he was forceful in defending his Administration, humble about leading the nation, and gracious to his successor, Barack Obama, who will be sworn in on Tuesday.

Mr Bush sought to characterise his eight years in office as a struggle between two dramatically different systems – one led by fanatics with an oppressive ideology and the other based on the “conviction that freedom is a universal gift from God”.

As for the critics who have said he will be remembered as one of America’s worst presidents, and his disastrous approval ratings, he said: “Like all who have held this office before me, I have experienced setbacks.

“There are things I would do differently if given the chance. Yet

I have always acted with the best interests of our country in mind.”

He asked the American people to acknowledge that he was willing take the tough decisions, even if they did not agree with those decisions.

Much of the speech, delivered yesterday Sydney time, dwelled on his fight against terrorism after the attacks of September 11, 2001, and the impact they had had on him and the nation.

“As the years passed,” he said,

“most Americans were able to return to life much as it had been before 9/11. But I never did. Every morning I received a briefing on the threats to our nation. And I vowed to do everything in my power to keep us safe.”

He said setting up a Department of Homeland Security, reforming intelligence services and increasing the monitoring of terrorists’ movements. And he had “taken the fight to the terrorists”.

Afghanistan, he said, had changed from a nation where the Taliban had harboured al-Qaeda and stoned women in the streets to a young democracy that was “fighting terror and encouraging young girls to go to school”.

Iraq had gone from a brutal dictatorship and enemy of the US to a democracy and ally.
He said:

“There is legitimate debate about many of these decisions but there is little debate about the results,”

“America has gone more than seven years without another terrorist attack on our soil.”

Of other criticisms of his time in office – his handling of Hurricane Katrina, the rising numbers of Americans without health insurance, the contentious exercise of executive power and incursions into civil liberties – Mr Bush made only glancing references or said nothing. Of the economy, he said:

“When challenges to our prosperity emerged, we rose to meet them. Facing the prospect of a financial collapse, we took decisive measures to safeguard our economy.”

He acknowledged Americans faced a tough time but said “it would be far worse if we had not acted”. He gave no indication that he saw his Administration as culpable for the housing bubble and crisis that followed.

Mr Bush also named as achievements his work in Africa fighting AIDS, the No Child Left Behind Act, which he said had raised standards in schools, a pharmaceutical benefits scheme for seniors, and lower taxes.

He acknowledged the historic nature of Mr Obama’s election:

“Standing on the steps of the Capitol will be a man whose story reflects the enduring promise of our land.”

httpvh://au.youtube.com/watch?v=TnHhKX-gG20&fmt=22

Technorati Tags: bush, farewell, final address, george w. bush, speech

Aside from Gaza, Barack Obama’s next foreign policy crisis after taking office may be Iran and its nuclear program. Iran is well down the path of being able to enrich uranium on a large enough scale to produce a nuclear weapon. The International Atomic Energy Agency recently reported that Iran may reach this point this year.

An Iran with the ability to produce one or more bombs poses a true danger. One path for the new American administration would be to adopt the “North Korea” option and live with the threat. But this risks making an unstable and conflict-prone Middle East even more so.

In a crisis, Israel or Iran may be tempted to use nuclear weapons out of fear the other might do the same. There is also the chance other countries such as Egypt or Saudi Arabia may develop or acquire nuclear weapons. The United States could reduce these risks by providing missile defence and security guarantees to selective countries, but it is far from clear it would succeed.

Moreover, nuclear proliferation is not the only danger if Iran proceeds with its nuclear efforts. What Iran does directly and through such groups as Hezbollah and Hamas will continue to have a major and mostly adverse effect on the future of Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine. Iran is one of the Middle East’s most powerful countries. A nuclear Iran would probably act more aggressively, believing its nuclear capability afforded it considerable protection.

A second policy option would be for the US, Israel or both to attack Iran’s known nuclear installations. Such a pre-emptive attack would destroy some or even most of Iran’s nuclear facilities and materials. But some capability would probably survive, and the program could be rebuilt in a manner that would make a second attack much more difficult.

There would be serious consequences before then. Iran could be expected to retaliate by attacking US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, unleashing terrorist attacks throughout the region and the world, and interrupting the flow of tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. The last thing the world economy needs is a $200 barrel of oil, but this could be the result.

Both options – living with a nuclear Iran or attacking it – involve serious risks and costs. The best outcome would be one in which Iran was persuaded to freeze or suspend its nuclear efforts or, better yet, give up an independent capability to enrich uranium. It could be allowed a symbolic “right” to enrich, but any enrichment program would have to be so small as not to pose a strategic threat. The country would also need to be subject to intrusive inspections.

What would it take to eliminate Iran’s uranium enrichment effort?

To begin with, it would entail a diplomatic package that offered Iran access to nuclear energy but not physical control over nuclear materials. Economic sanctions hurting Iran’s troubled economy could be eased. Security assurances could be provided to Iran and normal diplomatic relations between it and the US and others established.

There is no guarantee Iran would accept such an offer. But it might, especially now the price of oil has fallen below $50 a barrel, a level that leaves Iran’s inefficient economy in worse shape than ever.

It would also help to make clear that Iran would face additional sanctions if it refused to accept a fair and reasonable compromise. Convincing Russia and China to support a package of requirements, incentives and penalties would be important. The odds Iran would accept such an offer might increase if the details were made public. The Iranian people may choose leaders in their June elections who can deliver a higher standard of living, over those who would run the country into the ground.

But it is possible Iran will reject any diplomatic compromise, even one put forward directly by the US. Obama and the world would then have to choose between tolerating an Iran with nuclear weapons or using military force to prevent this outcome. It is the worst sort of choice, as neither option is attractive. For that reason, it is all the more important that diplomacy be recast and given one last chance.

Technorati Tags: Bacak Obama, foreign policy crisis, gaza, iran, nuclear

THE US president-elect, Barack Obama, has confirmed that he will pursue a clear policy of engagement with Iran and press immediately for peace in the Middle East.

Speaking on the ABC News television program This Week, Mr Obama said he wanted to work directly with Iran – a country whose president has called for Israel’s destruction – to improve relations and halt a nuclear program that Tehran describes as peaceful, but the West believes is not.

“We are going to have to take a new approach,” he told the program’s host, George Stephanopoulos, in his first interview since arriving in Washington.

“My belief is that engagement is the place to start.”

Mr Obama said he wanted to adopt “a new emphasis on respect and a new willingness on being willing to talk” to the Iranians, while making it clear “that we also have certain expectations”.

The remarks suggest a clear departure from the often pointed and deprecatory speech that has prevailed between the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the US President, George Bush.

The New York Times reported on Sunday that Mr Bush had told the Israelis last year he had authorised covert action intended to sabotage Iran’s suspected effort to develop nuclear weapons.

Mr Obama also softened his pledge to close the US’s controversial prison at Guantanamo Bay within the first 100 days of his administration, saying it was proving a more complex task than he had thought.

As next Tuesday’s inauguration approaches, Mr Obama has scaled back some of the ambitious time frames he set himself during the election campaign and immediately after winning the election in November.

The withdrawal of troops from Iraq within 16 months may be adjusted depending on advice from the generals; the economic stimulus package that he hoped to sign on inauguration day is now likely to take until mid-February; and the timetable on closing Guantanamo is likely to be more protracted.

Washington will be pre-occupied this week with two important issues: the economy and the confirmation hearings for Mr Obama’s cabinet nominees.

Hillary Clinton’s hearing, on Tuesday, is expected to be straightforward because she has been extensively vetted in the past and because she is a senator.

But not all the hearings are likely to go as easily. Republican senators such as Arlen Specter, the party’s highest-ranking member on the judiciary committee, have voiced objections over Mr Obama’s choice for attorney-general, Eric Holder.

Mr Holder, a former undersecretary in the Attorney-General’s Department, is under fire over his role in the pardon by the former president Bill Clinton of the millionaire Marc Rich, often cited as one of the most egregious uses of such pardons.

Mr Holder has admitted it was a mistake to support the pardon, but Mr Obama is under pressure because he has promised to ensure the Justice Department’s integrity is restored, and some Republicans see Mr Holder as a partisan figure.

There have also been concerns expressed about Leon Panetta, Mr Obama’s choice for director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Several senators, including some Democrats, have expressed concern about his lack of intelligence experience.

Mr Panetta was chief of staff to president Clinton and would have been part of White House security briefings, but has no direct intelligence experience in the agency or the military.

Mr Bush is also expected to ask Congress this week to release the second $US350 billion of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, after consultations with the Obama economic team. It is likely to include funds to help small business and to assist directly victims of foreclosure.

But many in Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, are angry at the lack of accountability for the first $US350 billion, which was used to help the big banks.

Technorati Tags: barack obama, iran, iraq

Approaching the November 4 US presidential election, Joe Biden confided that America’s enemies would quickly test an elected Barack Obama.
“Mark my words,”

Obama’s running mate warned all too presciently,

“it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy.”

“Watch. We’re going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

Almost on cue, terrorists last week snuck into Mumbai and temporarily crippled India’s largest city, targeting Americans, Israelis and Britons. One consequence is the heightened focus on the quality of Obama’s national security team, particularly his choice of secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Announcing her appointment this week, Obama gave Clinton a “to do” list that was a depressing reminder of Bush administration failures on the global stage:

• Two unfinished wars, old conflicts such as the Middle East no closer to resolution
• Newly assertive powers such as Iran putting pressure on the system

• Proliferation of nuclear bombs.

The president-elect then introduced Clinton as a tough campaign opponent of “extraordinary intelligence” and “a remarkable work ethic“. She will need both.

Steve Clemons, a director at the New America Foundation, says:

“Clinton will be playing on a three-level chess board. There’s the international economic crisis which will have foreign policy ramifications; there’s the 21st century issues of global justice such as refugees, poverty and genocide; and there’s the big strategic threats – the US has to have some new strategic plan other than walling itself off from those nations it doesn’t like or using its military power.”

Clemons says the former first lady’s first task will be in getting a

“quick makeover, to show she can work at multiple levels and that she can work in shades of grey”.

In campaign combat for the Democratic nomination, Obama and Clinton offered headline-grabbing policies short on detail. Clinton was particularly strident, threatening to “totally obliterate” Iran if it used nuclear weapons against Israel.
She was admonished by Obama:

“It’s important that we use language that sends a signal to the world community that we’re shifting from the sort of cowboy diplomacy, or lack of diplomacy, that we’ve seen out of George Bush. And this kind of language is not helpful.”

He now has faith that Clinton has the deftness necessary for America’s second most important job.
Her first challenge will be making sure the immediate does not overwhelm the important.
Until Mumbai, her talks with India and Pakistan probably would have been dominated by issues of Islamic extremism, the hunt for Osama bin Laden in the tribal regions on the border with Afghanistan, aid aimed at winning over the next generation of potential jihadists, and nuclear non-proliferation.

“sent tremors down the San Andreas fault of the region by inflaming relations between two nuclear-armed countries”

“This is going to take up a lot of Condi’s [current secretary of state Condoleeza Rice's] time and the new administration’s time.” And it won’t end there. “Different terrorist groups will be contriving challenges.” Even allies such as Israel might seek to test Obama. “These things do not travel in straight lines,” Clemons says.

“The challenge will be trying to achieve longer term outcomes instead of being caught being reactive to every situation.”

Iraq and Afghanistan:

The new team’s first and largest challenge will be the exit from Iraq and the adequate resourcing of Afghanistan – Obama’s “central front in the war on terrorism”. Their effectiveness is likely to be measured by success in Afghanistan, and experts argue that could be more elusive than in Iraq. “Afghanistan may be the ‘good war’, but it is also the harder war,” David Kilcullen, a former Australian army officer who until recently was Rice’s senior adviser on counterinsurgency issues, told The New York Times this week.

Most military experts warn that suppressing violence in Afghanistan – which had more insurgent attacks than Iraq between August and October – will not be as straightforward as it was in Iraq. The Afghan insurgency is rural, not concentrated in cities as in Iraq; the terrain is forbidding, tribal loyalties dispersed, warlords rich from narcotics and the Taliban and al-Qaeda receive relatively easy sanction in neighbouring Pakistan.

The Afghan army is tiny compared to population, Afghan police are ineffectual and there is little history of effective central government. In Iraq, centralised government was the norm. Building up a local force to step in when US and NATO forces have secured an area is therefore much more difficult.

Hamid Karzai’s weak government faces an election next year, making it difficult to replicate the “bottom up” strategy in Iraq, where tribal leaders were convinced to put down their arms and work with government, often in exchange for payments. In Afghanistan they wait for the government to fall.

Much of the responsibility for the redeployment of resources will fall to the Defence secretary Robert Gates but inevitably Clinton will be deeply involved, particularly in managing the relationship with Pakistan. She must extract greater Pakistani cooperation in removing terrorists’ safe havens or confront an even more difficult relationship should Obama make good his threat of unilateral action on Pakistani soil. Rising tension between India and Pakistan complicates the picture.

Middle East and Iran:

The Bush administration’s preoccupation with Iraq distracted it from the much larger problems of the Middle East, which have festered over the past eight years and become more complex thanks to Iran’s push for nuclear weapons. The Brookings Institute’s Martin Indyk says Obama must reprioritise and reorient US policy toward the Middle East: “For the past six years that policy has been dominated by Iraq. This need not, and should not be the case.”

Indyk says the priority should be curtailing Iran’s nuclear program and promoting peace between Israel, its Arab neighbours and Iran.

Others question whether US containment of Iran will work. Scholars such as Vali Nasr from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy argue the solution lies in a far more sophisticated understanding of the Arab stakeholders, and their inclusion in an American-sponsored regional security structure. Others talk of the need for a “grand bargain”, where the various causes of Middle East friction – disputed territory between Israel and Palestine, issues with Lebanon and Syria, a nuclear Iran, relations with Hezbollah and Hammas – are all on the table.

Restarting a serious effort toward Middle East peace is almost certain to fall mostly to Clinton, although the National Security Adviser, the former NATO commander General Jim Jones, is also likely to play an important role.

Clinton must judge how and at what level she engages with Iran, as Obama says he wants to do. The near-success in the six-party talks with North Korea have given the idea of diplomatic engagement with Iran more street cred. But it demands a rethink in how to deal with Iran, which could unnerve Israel. The North Korea talks made progress because threats of further sanctions and military intervention were matched with serious offers of assistance for the beleaguered nation including delisting of its American-imposed status as an “axis of evil” state. Iran may need more credible carrots and sticks, too.

Russian relations:

Nuclear proliferation:

An early issue for negotiation with the Russians, it was cited frequently by Obama as an area of priority.

The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty deals with weapons reduction by the two former nuclear superpowers and is due to expire in a year. Without renewal, the regime of verification goes out the window, says Matthew Bunn, of the Kennedy school of government at Harvard. “The issue for the incoming administration is whether to extend the treaty for a year, or try and push through a really good follow-on treaty. That, of course, is inextricably linked to the missile defence issue.”

Broader non-proliferation issues have gathered urgency as a result of Bush’s intrangience on treaty issues: the nuclear non-proliferation treaty expires in 2010 and is in desperate need of overhaul. Much work is to be done on securing nuclear materials around the world and Iran’s and North Korea’s nuclear ambitions remain.

Poverty, refugees and Darfur:

Obama spent the past year promising to tackle the tragedy in Darfur and direct American moral authority against poverty, AIDS and genocide. Invariably, these pledges drew huge cheers from supporters who saw his emphasis on these big picture issues as one of the main reasons for preferring him over Clinton.

Now, delivering on the promise falls to Clinton and Susan Rice – Obama’s nominee as UN Ambassador, and a former undersecretary on African affairs at the US State Department.

The stakes are high for this security team – politically as well as the risks each area of tension could unleash. Obama has raised expectations of his ability to put America on a different course; now he must deliver.

Clemons suggests he will be better off if his national security team operates outside the limelight. “They need to manufacture Nixon goes to China-type moments for Obama,” he says.

But can that really be Hillary Rodham Clinton’s modus operandi? We shall find out soon enough.

China:

China demands American attention for other reasons, not least American financial dependence on Chinese borrowings to help it through the financial crisis. How America engages with China on regulation of international financing and climate change will help set the tone of the future relationship, as will Clinton’s and Obama’s handling of it.

“The US cannot thwart China’s rise,”

John Ikenberry, professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University, says.

“But it can help ensure that China’s power is exercised within the rules and institutions that the United States and its partners have crafted over the last century.”

But it takes two to tango and Putin’s Russia, enriched by booming oil revenues, is flexing its muscles again.

Technorati Tags: Afghanistan, China, darfur, hillary clinton, iran, Midlle East, mumbai, Nuclear Proliferation, Russia

WASHINGTON – Barack Obama selected Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware late Friday night to be his vice presidential running mate, according to a Democratic official, balancing his ticket with an older congressional veteran well-versed in foreign policy and defense issues. Biden, 65, has twice sought the White House, and is a Catholic with blue-collar roots, a generally liberal voting record and a reputation as a long-winded orator.

Across more than 30 years in the Senate, he has served at various times not only as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee but also as head of the Judiciary Committee, with its jurisdiction over anti-crime legislation, Supreme Court nominees and Constitutional issues.

In selecting Biden, Obama passed over several other potential running mates, none more prominent than former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, his tenacious rival in dozens of primaries and caucuses.

Obama’s campaign arranged a debut for the newly minted ticket on Saturday outside the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Ill.

Hundreds of miles to the west, carpenters, electricians, sound stage gurus and others transformed the Pepsi Center in Denver into a made-for-television convention venue.

Tucked away in one corner were thousands of lightweight rolled cardboard tubes, ready-made handles for signs bearing the names of the Democratic ticket – once the identity of Obama’s running mate was known.

While Obama decided against adding Clinton to his ticket, he has gone to great lengths to gain the confidence of her primary voters, agreeing to allow her name to be placed in nomination at the convention and permitting a roll call vote that threatens to expose lingering divisions within the party.

Biden slowly emerged as Obama’s choice across a long day and night of political suspense as other contenders gradually fell away.

First Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine let it be known that he had been ruled out. Then came word that Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana had also been passed over.

Several aides to Clinton said the Obama campaign had never requested financial or other records from her.

Other finalists in the veep sweepstakes were Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and Texas Rep. Chet Edwards.

Among those on the short list, Biden brought the most experience in defense or foreign policy, areas in which Obama is rated relatively poorly in the polls compared with Republican Sen. John McCain.

While the war in Iraq has been supplanted as the campaign’s top issues by the economy in recent months, the recent Russian invasion of Georgia has returned foreign policy to the forefront.

In addition to foreign policy experience, Biden, a native of Scranton, Pa., has working-class roots that could benefit Obama, who lost the blue-collar vote to Clinton during their competition for the presidential nomination.

Biden was elected to the Senate at the age of 29 in 1973.

No sooner had word spread of his selection than McCain’s campaign unleashed its first attack. Spokesman Ben Porritt said in a statement that Biden had:

“denounced Barack Obama’s poor foreign policy judgment and has strongly argued in his own words what Americans are quickly realizing, that Barack Obama is not ready to be president.”

As evidence, Republicans cited an ABC interview from August 2007, in which Biden said he would stand by an earlier statement that Obama was not ready to serve as president.

Biden is seeking a new Senate term in the fall. there was no immediate word whether he intended to change plans as he reaches for national office. Biden dropped out of the 2008 race for the Democratic presidential nomination after a poor finish in the Iowa caucuses, but not before he talked dismissively of joining someone else’s ticket.

“I am not running for vice president,” he said in a Fox interview. “I would not accept it if anyone offered it to me. The fact of the matter is I’d rather stay as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee than be vice president.”

It was his second try for the White House. The first ended badly in 1988 when he was caught lifting lines from a speech by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock.

In the decades since, he become a power in the Senate, presiding over confirmation proceedings for Supreme Court nominees as well as convening hearings to criticize President Bush’s handling of the Iraq War.

Biden voted to authorize the war, but long ago became one of the Senate’s surest critics of the conflict.

Obama worked to keep his choice secret, although he addressed the issue broadly during the day in an interview.

“Obviously, the most important question is: Is this person ready to be president?” Obama told “The Early Show” on CBS. Second, he said, was: “Can this person help me govern? Are they going to be an effective partner in creating the kind of economic opportunity here at home and guiding us through some dangerous waters internationally?”

And, he added:

“I want somebody who is going to be able to challenge my thinking and not simply be a yes person when it comes to policymaking.

___

Associated Press writers David Espo in Denver, Angela K. Brown in Waco, Texas, Glen Johnson in Boston, Randall Chase in Greenville, Del., Bob Lewis in Richmond, Va., John Hanna in Topeka, Kan., Scott Lindlaw in San Francisco and Jesse Holland in Washington contributed to this report. Pickler reported from Chicago.

Technorati Tags: barack obama, Barack Obama Joe Biden, Barack Obama Vice President, Barack Obama VP, Barack Obama VP Pick, Biden For Vp, joe biden, Joe Biden Vp, Joe Biden Vp Pick, Obama Biden, Obama Biden 08, Obama Biden 2008, Obama Biden Ticket, Politics News

Earlier this evening Presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and John McCain took turns answering questions from mega church Pastor Rick Warren. The setting was Saddleback Mega Church, which is located in sunny Orange County, CA and also is one of the larger, more mainstream evangelical super centers of prayer. Both candidates are friends with Pastor Warren, the founder of the church and moderator of tonights forum, and came up with the idea of a dual candidate Q and A months ago.

The questions were far from “softballs”, and ranged from their stance on abortion to Supreme Court Justice nominations. Both Obama and McCain received the same line of questioning, and to keep it fair McCain, who went on after Obama, was sequestered in a soundproof room backstage so he could not hear the answers his opponent was giving.

• Obama on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas:

“I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas,” said the presumptive Democratic nominee. “I don’t think that he…” the crowd interrupted with applause. “I don’t think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the constitution. I would not have nominated Justice Scalia though I do on think there is any doubt about his intellectual brilliance. Because he and I just disagree.”

• Obama on Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts:

“John Roberts I have to say was a tougher question only because I find him to be a very compelling person in conversation, individuals,” replied Obama. “He is clearly smart and very thoughtful. I will tell you that how I have seen him operate since he went to the bench confirms the suspicions that I had and the reasons I voted against him… One of the most important jobs of the Supreme Court is to guard against the encroachment of the Executive Branch on the power of the other branches. And I think he has been a little bit to willing or eager to give an administration whether it is mine or George Bush’s more power than I think the constitution originally intended.”

• Obama on America’s greatest moral failure:

“Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Saturday that America’s greatest moral failure is its insufficient help to the disadvantaged. Obama noted that the Bible quotes Jesus as saying “whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me.” He said the maxim should apply to victims of poverty, sexism and racism.”

• Obama on his definition of Marriage:

“I am not someone who promotes same-sex marriage,” but went on to say that his marriage and faith were “strong enough” to support civil unions for gay and lesbian couples.”

As I stated above, John McCain is still in the middle of his session on stage. So I am going to wait until he is done, and then provide his answers (as I did above with Obama’s responses). So check back shortly and those will be available.

Technorati Tags: barack obama, Barack Obama Gay Marriage, Barack Obama Rick Warren, Barack Obama Saddleback Forum, Barack Obama Supreme Court, Home News, john mccain, John McCain Rick Warren, John Roberts Executive Powers, Obama Clarence Thomas, Obama John Roberts, Obama Nominations, Obama Rick Warren, Obama Saddleback Church, Obama Scalia, Obama Supreme Court, Obama Values, Politics News, religion, Rick Warrenm, Saddleback Forum, video

Some of you may have read the piece I put together yesterday regarding Republican candidate John McCain’s growing problems with military personnel, both active and retired. Well it turns out that it may be worse then even I though – and there are numbers to prove it. As this mornings papers rolled out, we began seeing headline after headline focusing on the Military and their overwhelming support for Senator Barack Obama, with money to prove the statement, which otherwise would be understandably laughable.

The New York Post, a publication that is often as friendly as can be to the Republican cause (and Paris Hilton’s latest up-skirt) reported the new fund raising totals coming from mean and women in the armed forces. These figured include both active and retired personnel:

“Obama has collected $335,536 from 859 enlisted men and women, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. McCain – a decorated former Vietnam POW – has received $280,513 from 558 military personnel.”

And making matters worse for poor ‘ole John McCain is this daunting number -another finding courtesy of the latest polling:

“And the gap is especially pronounced among members of the military stationed abroad, including in Iraq. Obama got $60,642 from 134 troops there, compared to McCain’s $10,665 from 26 troops – a 6-to-1 edge.”

Wow, a 6-1 margin is really quite impressive, moreso when you factor in mcCain’s claims to be all things millitary, and the candidate who speaks for the troops.

“U.S. soldiers have donated more presidential campaign money to Democrat Barack Obama than to Republican John McCain, a reversal of previous campaigns in which military donations tended to favor GOP White House hopefuls, a nonpartisan group reported Thursday.

Troops serving abroad have given nearly six times as much money to Obama’s presidential campaign as they have to McCain’s, the Center for Responsive Politics said.

The results also are striking because they favored Obama, who never has served in the military. McCain meanwhile, is a decorated war veteran who spent nearly five years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. The Arizona senator graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy and had a 22-year career as a naval aviator.

Obama has opposed the war in Iraq and says he would withdraw combat troops within 16 months. McCain has been a steadfast supporter of the war, saying he would withdraw the troops only when conditions on the ground warrant it.

“Obama will work tirelessly to uphold this nation’s sacred trust with its veterans, to ensure they are not forgotten after they return home and he will provide our troops with the leadership they deserve, as well as the support they and their families need,” Obama spokesman Nick Shapiro said.”

It sure is going to be fun watching the folks over at McCain headquarters try to spin their way out of this pot hole of a situation. What will make it even better is outlets such as FOX News, adding into the spin – claiming that somehow these clear cut, in your face numbers are anything less then a reality check to McCain and company.

Technorati Tags: 2008 Campaign, 2008 Election, Afghanistan, Afghanistan War, barack obama, Barack Obama 2008, Campaign Donations, george w. bush, iraq, Iraq war, john mccain, Military, Politics News, troops

Since the Bush administration literally took power back in 2000 we have seen an increase in both ego maniacal neo-conservatives such as Richard Pearle, Duncan Keith, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, etc. and the saber rattling which in one case – Iraq – has turned into an abyss of chaos which includes unprecedented monetary sacrifice and most important, the life’s of over 4,000 men and women of our armed services. But the neo-cons have a new target in sight, and they have been honing in on them for some time now – of course I am referring to none other then Iran – which continues to appear as being the “next country on the list” for the fringe right in Washington.

Before we get into the meat and potatoes of this look at the connection between the neo-con right wing here in America and Israel and the ratcheted up sabre rattling of Iran, let me first get a couple of things out there.

1. I fully recognize that Iran, and more specifically their current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are not the “good guys”, or “scapegoats” per se. The current leadership in Iran has acted egregious, irresponsible and at times utterly despicable on a number of occasions. I do not carry the belief that they are simply the victims of anything besides their (and by their I am referring to Ahmadinejad) actions.
2. This piece is more about illustrating the perverted agenda of the neo-conservative right in regards to their foreign policy, which can be summed up fairly accurately by using the analogy “throwing gas on the fire.”

OK, now that we’ve gotten that out of the way we can begin.

“Washington’s neocons are alive and well, advising both John McCain and President Bush. Now many are saying Bush should permit Israel to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities after Election Day before the new president takes office. ANP investigates as we chase down John Bolton, Bill Kristol and Frank Gaffney to see how far ahead these hawks are thinking. And a new report says the whole plan could backfire.”

Accompanying the article above is an in depth report focusing on this connection. I have gone ahead and attached the video below – one which I strongly recommend you view, especially if you feel strongly one way or the other on this specific issue:

You may have noticed in the above explanation of the report that Hutchins mentions a “new report that says the whole plan could backfire.” He is referring to a newly released analysis conducted by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security which was subsequently highlighted in an article which ran in the Washington Post.

The studies finding show that an attack, or “strike” against Iran’s nuclear facilities would only delay their progress towards successfully manufacturing atomic weaponry, it would not - under any circumstance – completely thwart Iran’s efforts or ability to continue on the path they currently are on:

“The analysis by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security found that Iran’s uranium facilities are too widely dispersed and protected — and, in some cases, concealed too well — to be effectively destroyed by warplanes. And any damage to the country’s nuclear program could be quickly repaired.

The core of Iran’s program is its huge uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, where thousands of machines called centrifuges create the uranium fuel used in making nuclear energy. Although Iran says its efforts are intended for peaceful energy purposes, its stocks of enriched uranium could be used to build nuclear weapons.

Despite heavy fortification, the subterranean Natanz plant could be heavily damaged in an airstrike using bunker-busting bombs or missiles. But the centrifuges could be replaced rapidly, perhaps in hidden underground facilities, the ISIS report said. Iran is known to have constructed bunkers inside mountain tunnels near Natanz and other major nuclear sites.

According to Albright, an Israeli or U.S. attack would result in broader popular support for Iran’s ruling clerics and could lead Tehran to sever ties with the U.N. nuclear watchdog.

“Iran would likely launch a ‘crash’ program to quickly obtain nuclear weapons,” Albright said in an interview. “An attack would likely leave Iran angry, more nationalistic, fed up with international inspectors and nonproliferation treaties, and more determined than ever to obtain nuclear weapons.”

Will this stop John Bolton’s appearances on FOX where he stumbles and bumbles endlessly about the need for military action against Iran now, or will this study be taken into account by William Kristol before he writes his next “attack, attack, attack” op-ed? The answer simply put is no it won’t.

In all reality I don’t think anything or anyone could change the minds of neo-cons like Bolton and Kristol – and that folks is what makes them neo-cons opposed to just “tough minded”. They refuse to use facts and rational discourse – they have their minds set on one thing, military action, and once they find their next target nothing can change their tact. This was evident in both the run up, all the way through to the debate present day over the U.S. involvement in Iraq.

Sad, scary, and just another reason to get off your behinds and vote for Barack Obama in November. Because (and I know this might sound off base, but in all reality it isn’t) if you though Bush was war hungry, McCain will really knock your socks off.

Technorati Tags: American News Project, ANP, backfire, Frank Gaffney, iran, Iraq war, Israel, john bolton, Neo Conservative, Neo-Con, Neoconservatives, nuclear weapons, Politics News, pre-emptive war, video, Warwire, William Kristol