freshwest
freshwest's Journal
Wow, you'd wonder why he would do that. None of those guys had the presence of FDR on crutches or
in his wheelchair. Can you imagine the current crop of shallow voters who want instant gratification, the American Idol crowd, would want a man like FDR today?I don't think he'd have any luck running a campaign. I can hear it now:
'Not able to stand up for himself, so he won't stand up for us; been waited on hand and foot, so can't know how hard our lives are; born into money, so he's one of them.'
And whatever they could think of to discount the man and not listen to him.
People were down to earth and had seen real suffering, not this first world angst, but the real thing. They were much more grounded back then and looked to ideas and character instead of the slick marketing and cheap thrills of today.
I hope we get back to the respecting of person's mind like that of Obama or Kerry and learning, even if not agreeing, just listening and thinking for a minute, not doing this media trained reaction. And soon.
Interesting take on Iranian financial support of Syria from Iranians:
Vox Pop: Iranians React To Events In Syria"...Please tell Iranian leaders that it is not necessary to support Syria. Just pay the pension of National Steel Company retirees, who have not received anything for three months." -- Ali from Tehran
"Those [Iranians] who have invested their dollars in Syria are afraid of the popular movement of the Syrian people because they'll lose their investments." -- Farshad from Meshkin*
"Tell the Iranian people to pray for Bashar al-Assad's defeat because, God forbid, if he wins then Syria has to be rebuilt with Iranian money" -- Soltani from Amol
"Iran's leaders care about Syria more than their own people." -- Balooch from Khuzestan Province
http://www.rferl.org/content/iran-farda-reaction-syria/25088946.html
The concerns of working people worldwide appear to be the same as ours. Enough money for social needs, wages, pensions. There is common ground to be made with them and unions are part of the Middle Eastern landscape.
*Wondering why he uses the word 'dollars'...
She said that for political reasons when she was still in office. Now it may come in handy. And if
you go into the article linked, it says it was the decision of the children. It is a done deal, it's not a a matter of anyone saying 'thanks, but no thanks.'With legal issues and possible loss of wealth here, it would be feasible for her, Marcus and the children, to take an extended holiday soon.
And like every characer who screams 'socialism' here, she and the family will find a way when she can get a benefit, just like Ayn Rand did. The 'producers' always feel they are entitled.
She can still complain like the baggers protesting the ACA did:
Iranian leaders said so, restated for political purpose, but their people know:
Iran ex-president says Syria government launched gas attacks: news agencyDUBAI | Sun Sep 1, 2013
(Reuters) - Former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said the Syrian government, a strong ally of Tehran, had carried out chemical weapons attacks against its own people, the semi-official Iranian Labour News Agency reported on Sunday.
"The people have been the target of chemical attacks by their own government and now they must also wait for an attack by foreigners," Rafsanjani said, according to ILNA. "The people of Syria have seen much damage in these two years."
(Reporting By Yeganeh Torbati, Editing by William Maclean and Andrew Heavens)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/01/us-syria-crisis-iran-rafsanjani-idUSBRE98007R20130901
Obviously taken from:
Iran's ex-president says Syria govt launched gas attacks | Reuters
http://iranian.com/posts/view/post/20074
UPDATE 2 - Iranian agency drops Rafsanjani remarks critical of Syrian government | Reuters
DUBAI, Sept 1 (Reuters) - An Iranian news agency quoted former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani as saying Syria's government had attacked its own people with chemical weapons, but later replaced the report with a different version that did not attribute blame for the raid...
"The people of Syria have seen much damage in these two years, the prisons are overflowing and they've converted stadiums into prisons, more than 100,000 people killed and millions displaced," he added.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/01/syria-crisis-iran-rafsanjani-idUSL6N0GX0G620130901?feedType=RSS&feedName=basicMaterialsSector&rpc=43
The Iranian based news agency later retracted that one part, even changed it to rebels, for reasons that are obvious. Since Iranian money has supported Assad for years and the Iranian people have not forgotten the 100,00 that were killed and another 300,000 permanently damaged by nerve gas:
Iranian Officials Walk Fine Line On Syria Chemical Weapons
...Iranians know all too well the horrors caused by chemical weapons. More than 100,000 Iranian soldiers and civilians are estimated to have been victims of the poisonous gas used by Saddam Hussein during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War. Many are still suffering the long-term effects of chemical agents.
Iran's support for Syria, which has already come under criticism by many Iranians, could become even more unpopular as more countries point the finger at the Syrian regime over the suspected chemical attack on August 21.
To justify its continued support for Damascus, Iran has the option of blaming rebels for the attack or simply ignoring the culprits and calling for the prevention of the use of chemical weapons...
These deaths are on the USA through Reagan's supply or at least intel given Saddam in the eight year war with Iran. As a bitter Iranian said:
"Our gassing was not a red line," wrote one Iranian on social media in reaction to the report.
http://www.rferl.org/content/iran-syria-fine-line/25087912.html
This is not the Reagan era. The USA, Iran, China, Russia and other nations are finding that what was appropriate according to interests in resources in the past, cloaked under belief in religion and ideology or bound by political and economic logic, will no longer hold. The values their people believe in now supercede such systems of thought.
But the world has moved significantly toward the humane with the CWC and major powers as well as small ones, reducing their WMD as never before and that should not be given up easily. Syria did not sign onto the CWC, neither did Iran, Israel or several others. They are less than 2% of the world but these weapons could cause havoc for the other 98% at any time. Russia has eliminated 90% of its total stockpiles of all kinds, the USA is still less than 60% destroyed. Most others are CW free at this time.
Some messages from Iranians agree with the government narratives, some do not:
Vox Pop: Ordinary Iranians React To Events In Syria
Text messages from Iran:
"Tell the Iranian people to pray for Bashar al-Assad's defeat because, God forbid, if he wins then Syria has to be rebuilt with Iranian money" -- Soltani from Amol
"Only with an iron fist is it possible to uproot the brutal dictatorship of Assad and free Iranians from his burden." -- Tavoos
"Iran's leaders care about Syria more than their own people." -- Balooch from Khuzestan Province
"Those [Iranians] who have invested their dollars in Syria are afraid of the popular movement of the Syrian people because they'll lose their investments." -- Farshad from Meshkin
There are even unsigned comments that welcome the USA removing Assad...
http://www.rferl.org/content/iran-farda-reaction-syria/25088946.html
Oil found in the Sudan 30 years ago caused the civil war. It was well known.
Chevron found it in 1983 and left in 1984. The USA got nothing out of Sudan, but other nations have. Congress made it illegal to do business there. We still have sanctions in place.
Sudan: Oil Money Is Fueling Civil War
by Karl Vick - June 11th, 2001
...The situation has further stoked Western outrage over the Sudanese government's human rights record. While no American companies are involved -- U.S. law prohibits them from doing business in Sudan -- the involvement of Canadian and European firms in extracting Sudanese oil has prompted "disinvestment" campaigns like those directed against firms that did business with apartheid-era South Africa.
"These are war crimes," said Eric Reeves, a Smith College professor who works against companies doing business in Sudan.
The criticism has fallen hardest on Talisman Energy Inc., a Calgary-based firm that was little known outside Canada until it bought a 25 percent stake in Sudan's most promising oil field. The Muglad basin is classic geography for oil, a sedimentary plain exposed by two plates being pulled apart. Unfortunately, the same area roughly defines the boundary between Sudan's north and south.
Except on maps, the country's two halves have never become one. The Muslim Arabs of the arid north historically preyed on the Africans who live in the wetter south and practice Christianity or traditional beliefs. British colonialists actually separated the two. National independence in 1956 was quickly followed by a sporadic war for southern secession. And although the fighting was in abeyance when Chevron Corp., the U.S. oil company, sank wells north of Bentiu in 1978, the discovery of oil helped renew the conflict in 1983...
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=86
The people of the USA have stood firm and have frustrated American oil companies who want to get Sudanese oil:
Oil Companies Complicit in Sudan Civil War, report alleges
Posted: 2011/06/20
...The main impetus for settling the dispute has been pressure from Europe and the United States, because the 20-year civil war hampered their ability to extract the enormous oil reserves that lie predominantly under the border region. Southern Sudan produces over 80 percent of all the country’s oil, which contributes around 70 percent of total Sudanese exports. US oil companies felt that they have been hampered by Washington’s uncompromising stance on Sudan, and felt marginalised by other foreign oil companies that were working more closely with the Khartoum regime...
http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=627199
The USA knows the oil is there and didn't go war to get it as alleged. Washington needs our votes to elect people strong enough to stand up to them, as some have. And they need to hear from us that we still care and don't believe in playing games with the lives of the people there.
More about the history of the Sudan and oil and the nations in charge of the oil business there that didn't stop what was going on:
Sudan: One Part Oil, Two Parts Religion Equals A Deadly Mixture
...Oil companies such as Canada’s Talisman Energy, Sweden’s Lundin Oil, Malaysia’s Petronas and China’s state-owned China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) are business partners of the government of Sudan...
China and Malaysia alone have over 60% ownership in the consortium Developing Sudanese oil. China provides diplomatic cover for Sudan via its seat on the UN Security Council Credit and a huge market. Sudan receives bridge loans from Malaysia to service its IMF Debt.
http://www.markswatson.com/sudoil.html
Role of Oil In Sudan
The US–backed 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) brought an end to the civil war in Sudan… but the threat of a return to conflict remains close because of the huge oil reserves, mostly located in the south, which fuels Sudan's economy.
Sudan's ruling National Congress Party has always denied there is a link between the CPA and oil. Recently the foreign minister of Sudan Ali Karti said the intention in signing the CPA was to end the war, and nothing more.
Khartoum has changed a lot since the war ended. Peace has boosted oil production to a half million barrels a day. The new prosperity is easily visible on the streets of the Sudanese capital. Skyscrapers are being built, new bridges constructed, fancy cars cruise the city, and foreign bank accounts are available and popular.
Hafiz Mohammed, an analyst based in Khartoum, thinks that oil revenue sharing is a key part of the CPA...
http://www.voanews.com/content/role-of-oil-in-sudan--112715444/157134.html
It's definitely not over. But all we could do was to sanction them. No one has invited us into Sudan.
Syrian groups have. I'd prefer Assad's trading partners to pressure him. Iran complained Assad used CW and object to anyone who uses CW. Assad may listen, as they are his sponsors.
General Wesley Clark's Take on Obama and Syria
Wesley Clark on Syria; he invokes Bill Clintonby Max Brantley - Sep 2, 2013
http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2013/09/02/wesley-clark-on-syria
It quotes from this article:
Wesley Clark: Syria vs. Kosovo
...As in the case of Syria today, there was no United Nations resolution explicitly authorizing NATO to bomb Serbia. But NATO nations found other ways, including an earlier U.N. Security Council Resolutionpage 105, to legally justify what had to be done. In Syria, the violation of the 1925 Geneva prohibition against the use of chemical weapons is probably sufficient justification. (The fact that Russia used chemical weapons in Afghanistan in the 1980s should be used to undercut Russian objections to strikes against Syria today.)...
The Kosovo campaign was also less tidily packaged at the time than it appears in retrospect. When the bombing began, NATO had not yet formulated its political conditions for halting the bombing. NATO nations hardened their views when the Serbs retaliated against the civilian population of Kosovo and neighboring Macedonia. These episodes are always fluid, but so long as your political coalition is well organized - and NATO was - objectives can be modified and clarified during the course of military action. Not every "I" has to be dotted or "t" crossed before initiating a strike...
Finally, Kosovo taught us that diplomacy can smooth over hostilities with nations that oppose your policy. At the outset of the Kosovo campaign, Russia pulled its liaison personnel out of NATO HQ, sent a representative into Belgrade, and belligerently threatened to send out its Black Sea fleet to interfere with NATO operations. Intensive diplomacy, including repeated visits to Moscow by Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, eventually brought the Russians into co-leading a diplomatic mission that culminated in Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic's acceptance of NATO conditions. Heated protests aren't insurmountable if there is persistent diplomacy before and after hostilities commence...
But President Obama has rightly drawn a line at the use of chemical weapons. Some weapons are simply too inhuman to be used. And, as many of us learned during 1990s, in the words of President Clinton, "Where we can make a difference, we must act."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/08/29/syria-wesley-clark-kosovo-nato/2726733/
Brantley goes on to say:
And, because after sleeping on it I'm still stunned by Republican Rep. Tim Griffin's sneering condescension on the issue, I'd like to repeat it in full here:
“It will be an uphill battle for the president to convince me because I think he has handled this entire situation quite poorly,” said Representative Tim Griffin, Republican of Arkansas. “And frankly I am reluctant to give him a license for war when, with all due respect, I have little confidence he knows what he is doing.”
Tim Griffin and other Republicans in Arkansas simply do not accept President Obama's legitimacy regardless of issue. It runs deeper than philosophical differences.
That is what it is, for them. Those who seek to make the case that the President is doing a Bush - Cheney PNAC action will fail. He is not their man. He has not, and will not. do as they want and they will never forgive him for not being their servant.
JMHO.
EDIT: I made an OP out of my reply here, and just added more information:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017143855#post21
The OP's video left the impression Clark verified Obama's proposed action was planned in 2001. That is not correct, as PNAC planned that in 1997.
The video has no date mentioned, making it appear new. I found the same video posted in 2011. It is video of a Democracy Now interview March 2, 2007.
Thus the premise the video channel is promoting is incorrect. I posted here since I know the BOG is into factual content.
I hope this will enlighten anyone here upset by it as it would be easy to be disturbed by this coming out now. But it did not come out now.
I noticed the comments on youtube, and there is more than one copy of this, that people are falling for this error. A quick google of Democracy Now, Clark, Seven Countries in Five Years, Syria, etc. yields a more factual picture than an undated video.
ATTENTION: THE BOG A PROTECTED GROUP AND NOT A FORUM.
IF YOU CANNOT RESPECT OBAMA, THE ADMINISTRATION, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OR THOSE WHO DO, PLEASE RESPECT THE SOP AND CONSIDER NOT POSTING.
THANK YOU.
Agreed. PNAC's plans were concieved long before 9/11, and GWB was put in office to carry it out.
PNAC was a think tank formed in 1997 and finally closed down in 2006:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
It has nothing to do with the current conflict, and Obama is not doing what PNAC scheme called to be done. First was Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.
Some RWNJs thought we would take over Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Israel. Note Gary Bauer was part, along with John McCain.
A quick search of Bauer gave the results including the American Christian Zionists, of which Keyes, Haggee, Norris, Beck and Hal Lindsey and Falwell were listed.
Don't forget that Reagan had addressed Falwell's college, Liberty University and held the same views, or so it is said by Wikipedia.
That is not what Obama is made of and he has not followed their plan despite their calls for him to do so.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/people/gary-bauer
I wish all involved in the PNAC think tank were put in prison for what they did. Not holding my breath, though.
Clark was running against GWB when he said this, most likely. See EDIT below. He was an independent who decided that despite having worked with many Republicans, he was a Democrat. He then supported Obama in 2008.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Wesley_Clark#2004_presidential_campaign
NOW, let's read General Wes Clark's words THIS week on Obama and Syria:
Wesley Clark on Syria; he invokes Bill Clinton
by Max Brantley - Sep 2, 2013
http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2013/09/02/wesley-clark-on-syria
It quotes from this article:
Wesley Clark: Syria vs. Kosovo
...As in the case of Syria today, there was no United Nations resolution explicitly authorizing NATO to bomb Serbia. But NATO nations found other ways, including an earlier U.N. Security Council Resolutionpage 105, to legally justify what had to be done. In Syria, the violation of the 1925 Geneva prohibition against the use of chemical weapons is probably sufficient justification. (The fact that Russia used chemical weapons in Afghanistan in the 1980s should be used to undercut Russian objections to strikes against Syria today.)...
The Kosovo campaign was also less tidily packaged at the time than it appears in retrospect. When the bombing began, NATO had not yet formulated its political conditions for halting the bombing. NATO nations hardened their views when the Serbs retaliated against the civilian population of Kosovo and neighboring Macedonia. These episodes are always fluid, but so long as your political coalition is well organized - and NATO was - objectives can be modified and clarified during the course of military action. Not every "I" has to be dotted or "t" crossed before initiating a strike...
Finally, Kosovo taught us that diplomacy can smooth over hostilities with nations that oppose your policy. At the outset of the Kosovo campaign, Russia pulled its liaison personnel out of NATO HQ, sent a representative into Belgrade, and belligerently threatened to send out its Black Sea fleet to interfere with NATO operations. Intensive diplomacy, including repeated visits to Moscow by Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, eventually brought the Russians into co-leading a diplomatic mission that culminated in Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic's acceptance of NATO conditions. Heated protests aren't insurmountable if there is persistent diplomacy before and after hostilities commence...
But President Obama has rightly drawn a line at the use of chemical weapons. Some weapons are simply too inhuman to be used. And, as many of us learned during 1990s, in the words of President Clinton, "Where we can make a difference, we must act."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/08/29/syria-wesley-clark-kosovo-nato/2726733/
Brantley goes on to say:
And, because after sleeping on it I'm still stunned by Republican Rep. Tim Griffin's sneering condescension on the issue, I'd like to repeat it in full here:
“It will be an uphill battle for the president to convince me because I think he has handled this entire situation quite poorly,” said Representative Tim Griffin, Republican of Arkansas. “And frankly I am reluctant to give him a license for war when, with all due respect, I have little confidence he knows what he is doing.”
Tim Griffin and other Republicans in Arkansas simply do not accept President Obama's legitimacy regardless of issue. It runs deeper than philosophical differences.
That is what it is, for them. Research shows the OP is incorrect and failed, with all due respect, to make the case that Obama is doing a Bush - Cheney PNAC action here.
EDIT: I found a dated video. This one is not, and is used as a smear by the channel rather than a honest appraisal of Clark's position today. It has been mentioned more than once here at DU, but it does NOT reflect his thinking on Obama or Syria in 2013.
This same video as is in the OP was posted in September of 2011, but the interview posted on the Democracy Now website on March 2, 2007.
Not everyone is likely to get their feelings hurt. Most people don't have a vested interest in lies.
The 'Patriots' have a view of humanity and history as skewed as the leaders of the Confederacy.
I grew up surrounded with the trappings of it. I cannot be offended by the truth.
Place of origin prejudice or regionalism, speaks to the shallowness of the speaker, not the infinite variety of the human race.
Just sayin'
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Dec 10, 2010, 11:36 PMNumber of posts: 53,661
