Today on Bret Baier’s Fox All-Star Panel, Charles Krauthammer didn’t mince words when explaining the egotistical and narcissistic view of himself that Obama possesses when he claims to be  ”America’s First Pacific President”.

While in Asia, first Obama trashes George W. Bush and America overseas.  Later, Obama claims that he is the “First Pacific President“.    In a sickening display of disrespecting his predecessor while overseas, Obama then moves into his Messiah mode and says:

“There must be no doubt,” he said. “As America’s first Pacific president, I promise you that this Pacific nation will strengthen and sustain our leadership in this vitally important part of the world.”

After all, you know that American history and Presidential greatness didn’t begin until Obama took office in January, 2009.

On the panel (video below), Krauthammer gives many examples including John F. Kennedy and George H.W. Bush’s service in WWII…both of who ended up, literally, in the Pacific Ocean while fighting the War.

After that Krauthammer lays it on…..

“These people actually spent time in the deep Pacific, but in Obama’s mind it doesn’t anyway match the experience of the baby Jesus….excuse me….baby Obama growing up on some Pacific island.

The narcissism of the man is rather unbounded.”

Don’t hold back now Krauthammer!

After Nina Easton basically agrees and brings up other “Pacific” President examples….Krauthammer, correctly and sarcastically says:

“But, you see, everything in Obama’s life makes him world historical.”

Here’s the video.  It is worth watching the entire clip, but at 1:25 Krauthammer references Kennedy and Bush and at 1:45 he begins his “Baby Jesus/Obama” reference.

I could think of a lot more firsts that are much more appropriate. 

 Obama could be America’s:

• First Auto Company-Owning President
• First Bank-Owning President
• First Death Panel President
• First “Jobs Created or Saved” President
• First Community Organizer President
• First Man-Child President
• First Anti-American President
• First Chicago Thug President
• First 90-degree Bow Wow President
• First Marxist President
• First Military-Loathing President

First Pacific President?  Not so much.

~~By InsightAnalytical-GRL

We’ve be writing later about the strength of China, but lately there has been some talk rising about a possible bubble being created in China.  In the Telegraph (U.K.),  Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has written a piece which looks at what’s going on titled China has now become the biggest risk to the world economy.

This article shed a totally different light on the views of Larry Kudlow that I wrote about in my previous post, Larry Kudlow Has a Fit as Obama the “Declinist” Opens His Mouth in Japan; Says Obama is “Not His President”.

Evans-Pritchard argues that China is not going to take over as the growth engine of the world economy.  I’ve heard quite often that China cannot pull the world out of its economic troubles.  The stats that I’ve seen indicate that China, no matter how robust, simply is still too small an economy to accomplish this.

Evans-Pritchard has concluded that China’s policies” continue to play havoc with global trade and risk tipping the world into a second leg of the Great Recession.”

China’s military is close to fielding the world’s first anti-ship ballistic missile, according to U.S. Navy intelligence.The missile, with a range of almost 900 miles (1,500 kilometers), would be fired from mobile, land-based launchers and is “specifically designed to defeat U.S. carrier strike groups,” the Office of Naval Intelligence reported.

Five of the U.S. Navy’s 11 carriers are based in the Pacific and operate freely in international waters near China. Their mission includes defending Taiwan should China seek to exercise by force its claim to the island democracy, which it considers a breakaway province.

The missile could turn this region into a “no-go zone” for U.S. carriers, said Andrew Krepinevich, president of the Center for Strategic and Budget Assessments in Washington. (MORE)

As FOX fake news blasts Obama for bowing in Japan, and brags that Cheney never bent over, they forget about this: Bush practically frenched the Saudi King!  Talk about someone who kissed ass! 15 of 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia – so Bush/cheney chose to bomb Iraq! FOX, your anchors are the assclowns of the news!  So easy to condemn, but forget that Google can bring the reality of the past!

02/06/2002 - Updated 06:29 AM ET Official: 15 of 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were SaudiRIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) — Saudi Arabia acknowledged for the first time that 15 of the Sept. 11 suicide hijackers were Saudi citizens, but said Wednesday that the oil-rich kingdom bears no responsibility for their actions. America on alert • Full coverage index Previously, Saudi Arabia had said the citizenship of 15 of the 19 hijackers was in doubt despite U.S. insistence they were Saudis. But Interior Minister Prince Nayef told The Associated Press that Saudi leaders were shocked to learn 15 of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.

Good soldiers and good reporters are made under fire when an honesty of action and of words are fused.  We can learn from such fusion.  David Finkel began his recording of the 2-16 battalion, the Second Battalion, Sixteenth Infantry Regiment of the Fourth Infantry Brigade Combat Team, First Infantry Division, nicknamed The Rangers, in January 2007 and finished in June 2008.  He spent eight months with the 2-16 in Iraq, through blood, sweat, shit, dust, fear, bravery, breakdown, dismemberment, and death.  To his honor he reported only what he saw without padding, politics, or soapbox.  His The Good Soldiers is a tough emotional read but felt good to be trusted with an account the soldiers would respect.

The officers and soldiers on the ground in Iraq did not lose the war.  They fought and were maimed, broken, and died because they did their job well.  The disjointure between action on the ground and policy in Washington falls to the blame of the political leadership who understood nothing before and during.  Each chapter is prefaced by a timely and relevant quote from President Bush, but the Bush quotes could just as easily been paired with any number of statements made by administrative appointees and Congressional leaders.  We suffered a massive collapse of leadership at home; however, the 2-16 in Iraq did the suffering and then the suffering came home to their families.

Don’t read the book if you can’t stand the heat.  Don’t read the book if you think there are excuses for Washington.  Charles Marlin

Our president Barack Obama has caught a lot of shit recently for bowing to Japanese Emperor Akihito recently while on tour in Asia.

I don’t know why President Obama thought that was appropriate. Maybe he thought it would play well in Japan. But it’s not appropriate for an American president to bow to a foreign one,” said conservative pundit William Kristol speaking on the Fox News Sunday program, adding that the gesture bespoke a United States that has become weak and overly-deferential under Obama…

“We don’t defer to emperors. We don’t defer to kings or emperors, [said conservative voice Bill Bennett].

The gesture appears to have touched a particularly raw nerve among Obama critics who said the president has hastened America’s decline as a world superpower by being too apologetic and too deferential in his dealings with other world leaders.”

Please. Our world is on fire. The economy looks like a ravaged anus, unemployment is hitting record highs, we have wars on two fronts, and now we decide to shit our pants? President Obama bowed out of being polite and respectful. Remember when George W. Bush sent your son/daughter/husband/wife/father/mother to Iraq and got them killed for an unjust cause? That pissed you off, right? That didn’t make America look weak, no. It made us look idiotic warmongers. As long as people are scared, right? Japan took TWO ATOMIC BOMBS from us. I think we owe them a bow.

[Source Yahoo!]

OMG! (to steal a phrase from those much younger than I), LOL.  In fact, I can’t stop laughing.  I have been looking at one of the areas of tort reform that is hotly contested in Michigan, and I came across this marvelous quote from George Bush, acting as President back in 2004:

“Too many OB/GYNs aren’t able to practice their love with women all across this country.”–George Bush

Are you laughing too??  I am still laughing.  I think it’s particularly accurate considering some of the things I have heard about the manner in which OB/GYN’s “practice” medicine, instituting their opinions and “care” when women are in their most vulnerable and passive positions and physical states.  God, it doesn’t get really any better than that.   I had been looking at articles about how medical malpractice lawsuits would influence tort reform, and I came across that quote that had to be shared.

Where was I?  Oh yeah, talking about medical malpractice reform, but here is a good quote too:

In 2003, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies issued a devastating report detailing the scope and gravity of the safety of the U.S. health care system. Two studies showed that “at least 44,000 people, and perhaps as many as 98,000 people, die in hospitals each year as a result of medical errors that could have been prevented.” As the New York Times’ David Leonhardt found in September 2009, “After reviewing thousands of patient records, medical researchers have estimated that only 2 to 3 percent of cases of medical negligence lead to a malpractice claim.” And as Tom Baker, director of the Insurance Law Center at the University of Connecticut School of Law and author of The Malpractice Myth, noted in August, the rate of claims is going down:

“We have approximately the same number of claims today as in the late 1980s. Think about that. The cost of health care has doubled since then. The number of medical encounters between doctors and patients has gone up — and research shows a more or less constant rate of errors per hospitalizations. That means we have a declining rate of lawsuits relative to numbers of injuries.”

So, while health care costs more, causes the same injuries and people go to the doctor more, lawsuits have gone down because of tort reforms designed to protect doctors at the expense of patient rights.   That’s what I really wanted to get out when I found the quote about doctors and their loves.  I guess I will just have to put this in another post. I am laughing to hard at George Bush.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Republican Malpractice Myths (crooksandliars.com)
• Phoenix Medical Malpractice Lawyer Representing Doctors & Patients Talks About “Reform” (medicalmalpracticetutorial.com)
• White House offers medical malpractice initiative (cnn.com)
• Tort Reform is Industry Bailout; or Is Tort Reform Government Bail-out? (unaskedadvice.wordpress.com)
• Saul Segan: Tort Reform — Another Dangerous Scapegoat (huffingtonpost.com)

Remember that craziness from a few months ago when the Right went all bananas because secret-Muslim Barack Obama bowed to actual-Muslim Saudi King Abdullah? Well guess what? We’re at it again!

Over the weekend, Obama kicked off a swing through Asia with a stop in Japan. Naturally, he met Japanese Emperor Akihito, and he couldn’t help but bow. Check this out:

Predictably, the people at Fox News went insane:

The controversy grows over President Obama’s deep bow to Japanese Emperor Akihito Saturday, which was captured in a photo that touched off a weekend firestorm over presidential protocol.

By most accounts, it hasn’t been official protocol for a U.S. president, or any American, to bow to a foreign head of state or symbolic monarch. Other heads of state and officials, like former Vice President Cheney, have greeted the Japanese emperor with a handshake.

So then someone like Richard Nixon wouldn’t have bowed to a Japanese emperor, right?

Oh wait:

Of course the people at Fox News weren’t the only ones who were mad about Obama’s behavior. Check out this damning line from their story:

Following the encounter with the Saudi King, The Washington Times declared it a “shocking display of fealty” and an “extraordinary protocol violation.”

Likewise, Obama’s latest bow has critics fuming. One blogger called the act “treasonous.”

OH NOES! “One Blogger” has turned against Obama! Get back on Air Force One right now, Mr. President! A revolution is afoot!

Ugh, this is all just so retarded. Everyone knows there are only two appropriate ways for a U.S. President to greet a monarch:

The kiss/hand-hold combo

And the wink

For an actual, in-depth discussion about this nonsense, we refer you (shockingly) to Jake Tapper at ABC News.

Polar bears stranded on melting Arctic ice floes.

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell says he has the best interest of polar bears at heart, but he doesn’t intend to let the federal government’s expanded protection for bears get in the way of the state’s continued prosperity.

Like his predecessor, Sarah Palin, the governor is suing the federal government to overturn the listing of the iconic symbol of the Arctic as a threatened species, a move made last year that he believes could threaten Alaska’s lifeblood: petroleum development.

“Currently some are attempting to improperly use the Endangered Species Act to shut down resource development,” Parnell says. “I’m not going to let this happen on my watch.”

As Alaska North Slope wells dry up, the state is turning to potential offshore discoveries to refill the Trans-Alaska pipeline and ensure the long-term prospects of a $26 billion proposed natural gas pipeline. Protections for polar bears under the Endangered Species Act could thwart that, Parnell says, adding that they’re not needed.

“Alaskans have an excellent track record of both developing our natural resources and protecting our wildlife,” says Parnell, who replaced Palin when she resigned in late July.

That’s a position critics dispute after the 10.8-million gallon Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989, a 200,000-gallon North Slope pipeline spill in March 2006, and the state-funded killing of more than 1,000 wolves and hundreds of black bears since 2003 to increase moose and caribou populations.

Polar bears are regulated by the federal government like whales and seals. They spend most of their lives on frozen ocean water, where their main prey, ringed seals, give birth to pups in lairs. Warming of Arctic waters has significantly diminished the sea ice.

George W. Bush’s Interior secretary, Dirk Kempthorne, listed polar bears as threatened in May 2008, eight months after summer sea ice levels melted to their lowest recorded level ever: 1.65 million square miles, or nearly 40 percent below average since satellite monitoring began in 1979.

Most climate modelers predict a continued downward spiral, possibly with an Arctic Ocean that is ice free during summer months by 2030 or sooner.

The federal agency over two years however compiled an administrative record consisting of more than 175,000 pages including nine peer-reviewed scientific U.S. Geological Survey reports.

The most sobering conclusion: Projected changes in future sea ice will result in the loss of two-thirds of the world’s current polar bear population by 2050, including all of America’s. Researchers included the caveat that their assessment may have been conservative because Arctic sea ice decline likely was underestimated by the models used.

After the listing, Palin sued, saying the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision was not based on the best scientific and commercial data available as the law requires.

A month after he announced his full support for outer continental shelf petroleum development, Parnell said in October that the Endangered Species Act was being used as a “land use planning tool” instead of a species protection vehicle and the state filed new briefs in the polar bear lawsuit.

Alaska’s lawyers will argue that the research was flawed, that federal officials looked too far into the future and that modeling is uncertain. Especially troublesome, Alaska Attorney General Dan Sullivan says, is that for the first time, the federal government listed a species with high population numbers — 20,000 to 25,000 worldwide, up from 8,000 to 10,000 in the 1960s.

“Never before has a species been listed when the population of that species is at its highest, most robust,” Sullivan said. “It’s at all-time historical highs.”

The legal theory sets a dangerous precedent, he says, that could make Alaska the world’s largest zoo with no additional benefit to wildlife.

“Any species that lives in an Arctic environment could be listed under the ESA without regard to the current health or size of the species population,” he said.

Kassie Siegel, the attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity who wrote the original listing petition, expects the Alaska lawsuit to fail, saying state officials cherry-picked facts and ignored others.

Sport hunting in the 1950s and ’60s dropped polar bear numbers to dangerously low levels and led to a 1973 international treaty that limited hunting, she said. Polar bears rebounded when hunting was controlled but have fallen again with sea ice decline, including animals in the two best studied subgroups, western Hudson Bay and Alaska’s southern Beaufort Sea.

A 2006 USGS report estimated the Beaufort Sea polar bear population at 1,526, down from a previous estimate of 1,800 bears, a 15 percent decline. However, researchers said the study used different counting methods and the two estimates could not be statistically differentiated.

Siegel said an overall view of the research — declining cub survival, declining body size, diminishing sea ice — led to the listing decision, she said. Congress anticipated doubts but said decisions must be made on the best science, even if it’s incomplete, she said.

“The agency can’t just point to some remaining uncertainty and refuse to take action,” she said. “We want the agency to proactively protect species under this law.”

The stakes are high for Alaska. About 90 percent of Alaska’s general fund revenue budget is fueled by the petroleum industry. The trans-Alaska pipeline is running at less than one-third capacity and only high oil prices and a new method of taxing oil production have kept Alaska from slashing government services or looking for other revenue sources, such as a state income tax.

In a decade or so, offshore gas production could be crucial for a new large-diameter pipeline, a project for which Parnell’s revenue commissioner says there is no future alternative.

Questioned about the cost of fighting the federal government over the listing, Parnell says the cost of doing nothing was far greater.

“We’re going to take every step we can to fight for Alaskan jobs and our economy,” he says.

Dan Joling
Associated Press

En 2000, les futurs conseillers de l’administration Bush II, réunis au sein du groupe de réflexion « Project for the New American Century », rendent un rapport intitulé « Reconstruire les Défenses de l’Amérique » (1). Ce projet décrit la stratégie des forces armées américaines nécessaires pour la « Pax Americana » (2). Leur ambition est de créer une armée spatiale et de poursuivre le développement du bouclier anti-missile afin d’établir l’hégémonie des Etats-Unis.

Albert Wohlstetter (1913-1997) était professeur à l’université de Chicago et conseiller de la Rand Corporation. Il fut l’inspirateur du néo-conservatisme (4). En 1958 il préconise The Delicate Balance of Terror (5) l’utilisation d’armes nucléaires tactiques en liaison avec d’autres armes de précisions téléguidées suffisamment précises pour éviter les dommages collatéraux sur les populations civiles. (6) Ce faisant, il était un adversaire du traité de désarmement nucléaire signé entre l’Union soviétique et le gouvernement américain lequel restreignaient selon lui la créativité technologique des États-Unis tout en maintenant un équilibre artificiel avec l’URSS.

Le traité ABM (7), conclu en 1972 entre Nixon et Brejnev, force les américains à stopper officiellement la militarisation de l’espace. Le 8 mars 1983, en pleine « guerre froide » Reagan qualifia l’Union soviétique d’« Empire du mal » (25). Sa politique en matière de défense s’articulait autour de la doctrine « Paix dans la force ». Ainsi naquit « Star War » qui désigne le programme américain de défense antimissiles nommé « Initiative de défense stratégique » (IDS) (8) . Son lancement intervient le 23 mars 1983 . Il s’agit d’un projet de réseau de satellites pour détecter et détruire des missiles balistiques lancés contre les États-Unis.

Dix sept ans plus tard, en 2000, les néoconservateurs du PNAC (1) réclament la maîtrise de l’espace et constatent que leur programme, nécessitant une forte augmentation du budget de défense du Pentagone, ne pourra se réaliser qu’à l’occasion d’un événement d’une exceptionnelle gravité, tel qu’un nouveau Pearl Harbor. Donald Rumsfeld alors qu’il était administrateur de la Rand Corporation et juste avant qu’il ne devienne secrétaire à la Défense, a théorisé l’arme spatiale (9) . Son ambition était de créer un nouveau type d’armée et le fameux bouclier anti-missiles. Rumsfeld s’est demandé si le seul événement capable de galvaniser les énergies de la Nation et de forcer le gouvernement à agir serait une attaque destructrice contre le pays : un « Pearl Harbor spatial ». (10)

Delmart Vreland, agent des services secrets de la Navy (11), détaillera ce programme lors d’un entretien avec Mike Ruppert. Vreeland envoya en août 2001 une lettre aux autorités canadiennes dans laquelle il donne les détails concernant les attaques du 11 septembre.

Mike Ruppert : « Pourquoi étiez-vous à Moscou et en Russie fin 2000 ? » Vreeland : « J’avais été envoyé là-bas par le gouvernement des États-Unis et par l’ONI [Office of Naval Intelligence]. J’ai reçu mes ordres entre le 4 et le 7 septembre 2000. C’était pour travailler à l’ambassade canadienne sur des diagrammes et des projets concernant un système d’armes défensives [weapons defense system]. » Le nom de ce système de défense est SSST [Stealth Satellite System Terminator - Système de satellite furtif Terminator]. (12) . « La seule partie dont j’ai parlé publiquement est un élément relatif à des satellites réellement en orbite actuellement, qui ne sont pas à ce jour la propriété du gouvernement des Etats-Unis. Sur conseil de mon avocat je ne peux pas parler des autres composants. »

Vreeland donne une description du système ABM américain et précise que les satellites utilisés sont de type civil. Il rapporte ces informations pour donner du crédit à ses révélations sur le 11 Septembre. Ce qu’il a voulu nous dire c’est : « Vérifiez ce que je dis sur l’ABM et que personne n’a dit avant moi, et vous verrez que je dis la vérité sur l’affaire du 11 Septembre. »

Les attentats du 11 Septembre ont été le bon de sortie du traité ABM de 1972.

En juin 2001, eut lieu un exercice de simulation militaire appelé Amalgam Virgo (13). le visage de ben Laden apparaissait déjà sur le document d’état-major (14) Cet exercice impliquait l’hypothétique scénario d’une frappe d’un missile de croisière et ressemblait en tous points à l’attaque du Pentagone. Il sera cité lors de la commission d’enquête des attentats en 2004 mais aucune investigation ne sera menée (15) Autre coîncidence, le jour des attentats du 11 septembre se déroulait aussi un exercice de simulation de guerre nucléaire appelé « Global Guardian »(16). La marine faisait partie de cette opération et avait la capacité d’envoyer un missile sur le Pentagone grâce au système AEGIS (17). Venant de subir une agression terroriste inédite sur son propre sol et se considérant en guerre , les États-Unis réclament l’aval de la légitime défense. (18)

L’annonce du retrait du traité ABM est rendue publique dès le 13 décembre 2001. Le mardi 12 juin 2002, à Madrid, George W. Bush affirme qu’il est désormais « un vestige du passé ». Le lendemain, les Etats-Unis sont officiellement désengagés de ce traité. Ce retrait unilatéral fait sauter le verrou qui empêchait le développement du bouclier spatial. Non seulement ce programme retrouve une actualité, mais désormais c’est l’US Navy qui est en position centrale dans ce qui succède au programme IDS : la « National Missile Defense »(19) mise en œuvre par la « Missile Defense Agency » (MDA).

Cette attaque venue du ciel est vraiment une aubaine pour les va-t-en guerre néoconservateurs. En faisant voter au Congrès américain le plus gros budget de défense militaire (20), la guerre au terrorisme peut commencer en Afghanistan, fief des Talibans de Ben Laden et d’Al Qaida. La traque de ben Laden fut inefficace pendant 7 ans et étrangement, il n’est toujours pas inculpé par le FBI pour le crime des attentats du 11 septembre. (21)

Conclusion.

Au mois de mai 2008, le PNAC arrête la diffusion de son site internet. La doctrine des néoconservateurs est reprise par l’ « American Commitee for a Strong Europe » (22). Celui ci prévoit de reconstruire les forces armées européennes par l’intermédiaire de l’Otan et par l’adoption de la politique de défense commune du mini traité de Nicolas Sarkozy. Le projet de bouclier anti missile qui était une arme défensive devient maintenant offensif et nous rappelle les terribles heures de la crise des missiles de Cuba. (23)

Comme le dit Noam Chomsky : (24) « En isolant le pays (USA) des représailles, la défense anti-missiles garantira la capacité et la disponibilité des Etats-Unis à modeler l’environnement dans d’autres régions du monde. [...] La défense anti-missiles ne sert pas à protéger l’Amérique. C’est un outil visant à la domination mondiale. [...] L’installation d’un système de défense anti-missiles en Europe orientale est pratiquement une déclaration de guerre. »

1.http://www.reopen911.info/11-septem… 2 http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Am… 3 http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert… 4 http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%A… 5 www.rand.org/publications/classics/… 6 www.rand.org/publications/classics/… 7 http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trait%… 8 http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Gue…(politique) 9 http://fas.org/irp/congress/1998_cr… 10 www.voltairenet.org/article7624.htm… 11 www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/… 12 www.tldm.org/News4/satellite.htm 13 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalga… 14 www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/linksc… 15 www.dailymotion.com/Ashoka_lc/video… 16 http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global… 17 http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syst%C… 18 www.aidh.org/attacks/d01.htm 19 http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation… 20 www.voltairenet.org/article12253.html 21 www.voltairenet.org/article140501.html 22 http://libe-usa.blogs.com/CSE.html 23 http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crise_… 24 http://contreinfo.info/article.php3… 25 www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/vi…

Source : Geopolintel

Reportage sur le bouclier anti-missiles des USA

Un ancien détenu de Guantanamo, témoigne que le plus jeune prisonnier qu’il ait vu, était un jeune garçon de 9 ans, qui a été torturé comme les autres. C’est ce qu’a révélé un détenu britannique musulman, incarcéré pendant trois ans, dans la très controversée prison américaine de Guantanamo.

Ruhal Ahmed témoigne des atrocités commises contre les détenus à Guantanamo, dans une interview qui s’est déroulée vendredi, en marge d’une Conférence internationale sur les crimes de guerre.

Les témoignages préliminaires aux audiences de Commission de crimes de guerre de Kuala Lumpur, seront soumis à un tribunal en coordination avec la conférence sur les crimes de guerre en 2009, du tribunal pénal dirigé par le malaisien et ancien premier Ministre Tun D^r Mahathir Mohamad.

M. Mahathir, a déclaré que les décisions du tribunal pourraient être transmises à l’organisation des Nations Unies, pour action supplémentaire.

L’avocat malaisien Zainur Zakaria, a dirigé un comité de six membres, et a entendu, vendredi, les expériences de sept personnes qui parlaient de la torture physique et émotionnelle, quasi-quotidienne, par l’armée américaine, sur leurs liens présumés avec Al-Qaïda ou du mouvement taliban.

Ruhal, maintenant 27 ans, a été détenu en 2001, après que lui et trois pakistanais britanniques, Iqbal Gashaki, Shafiq Rasul et un ami Monir, se soient rendus au Pakistan, pour un mariage.

Dans un élan d’idéalisme, ils ont décidé d’aller voir la situation en Afghanistan, qui étant un bastion d’Al-Qaïda, a été bombardé par les forces américaines, en représailles pour les attaques du 11 septembre

« Une fois arrivés, après la perte de Monir, dans le chaos, nous avons été capturés par les combattants de l’Alliance du Nord qui nous ont remis aux Américains. Ils nous ont transportés à la prison de Guantanamo, dit-il.

« J’ai été interrogé des centaines de fois par le FBI, la CIA et la même MI5, battu et soumis à la torture continue, dégradation sexuelle, persécution religieuse et drogué », a-t-il déclaré.

Avec les mains et les pieds enchaînés et dans une position fœtale, sur le sol, tous les trois ont été accusés de faire des vidéos d’Oussama ben Laden, en Afghanistan.

Tous les trois, désormais connus dans les médias comme le “Tipton three” ont été libérés en 2004, sans inculpations, après avoir été forcés a signer un papier où ils reconnaissent leur participation à la vidéo.

Un autre britannique, le musulman Moazzam Begg, 41 ans, consterné par le sort du peuple Afghan, sous le régime Taliban conservateur, se rendit à Kaboul avec son épouse et ses trois jeunes enfants, mi-2001, pour ouvrir une école et de fournir des pompes à eau.

Ils ont fui à Islamabad, au Pakistan, lorsque les forces alliées ont attaqué l’Afghanistan, en octobre de cette année, il a été arrêté en janvier 2002 par la police pakistanaise et la CIA, enfermé dans une cave sans fenêtre, à la base aérienne de Bagram, pendant près d’un an.

Le gouvernement des États-Unis me considére comme un ennemi combattant, et a fait valoir que j’avait été formé dans des camps terroristes d’al-Qaïda, en Afghanistan. “Il n’a été inculpé d’aucun crime, et n’a pas été autorisé à consulter un avocat pendant tout ce temps, dit Moazzam, qui a été l’un des neuf britannique musulmans détenus.

En janvier 2005, il a été libéré avec trois autres, sans aucune charge retenue contre eux.

Le viol et les abus sur les femmes et les enfants, par les troupes américaines, étaient presque une affaire journalière, dans la prison d’Abou Ghraib, à Bagdad, a témoigné l’irakien Jameela Abbas Hameedi.

Jameelah, 54 ans, a été arrêtée dans la capitale irakienne en janvier 2004, avec toute sa famille, inculpée d’aider et de financer la résistance contre l’invasion de US.

« L’armée américaine m’a battue avec des tubes et une chaise en plastique, jusqu’à ce qu’elle explose. Un morceau de plastique a pénétré ma jambe et a causé une importante infection. J’ai eu à subir une intervention chirurgicale, à vif, » a déclaré Jameelah, qui a été également déshabillée dans la salle”noire” de la prison, et projetée contre les murs.

Sa seule fille et son neveu ont été battus et torturés nus, pendant six mois, jusqu’à ce que Jameelah avoue qu’elle aidait la résistance.

Elle a également décri d’autres tortures, comme la privation de sommeil, le stress, la nudité, l’utilisation de chiens pour effrayer et mordre les prisonniers, les menaces de mort et les abus sexuels.

Jameelah et sa famille ont été libérées en juillet 2004, sans aucunes accusations portées contre eux.

Source : News of Tomorrow

As Sarah Palin, the ex-former quitting Governor of Alaska, prepares to embark on her nationwide rural hamlet book tour it reminded us here at Lynnrockets’ Blast-Off of all of those other former Republican office holders who now have nothing better to do than offer their warped opinions to whoever (or is it, “whomever”, I’m never quite sure) will listen.

Public enemy number one is Newt Gingrich, the former disgraced and dethroned Speaker of the House. This guy was unceremoniously thrown out of the leadership position by his own party which prompted his resignation in 1998. Nonetheless, if you scan through your television channels any night during primetime, you are likely to see this wife-cheating bag of gas bloviating to some talking head about his vision of the future for the G.O.P. Does he not realize that the words, “Newt Gingrich” and “future” are mutually exclusive?

Next we have former New York City mayor, Rudolph Giuliani. Like the aforementioned Gingrich, this wife-cheating disaster of a Presidential candidate can be found nightly opining on all things political with the Fox News host of his choice. Of course he has nothing of substance to say. Vice President Joe Biden put it best when he said, “There’s only three things he mentions in a sentence — a noun, a verb, and 9/11. There’s nothing else!” That truly sums up Rudy in a nutshell.

How about former Vice President, Dick Cheney? He of the “dithering” remark regarding President Obama’s contemplative and non-knee-jerk method of deciding what course of action to take in Afghanistan. We all know that Cheney’s trigger finger reaction would be to simply go in there with all guns blaring and no real plan. After all, didn’t he use that method when he shot his best friend in the face? We also learned last week that while being questioned by the FBI regarding the Valerie Plame identity leak, Cheney answered questions by saying, “I don’t recall” more than two dozen times. Consequently, should anyone be interested in getting advice from this forgetful old fool. He might consider checking into the Ronald Reagan Memorial Alzheimer’s ward.

Today’s song parody will pay tribute to these and some other unemployed Republicans who will not go away. Please enjoy.

Please remember to click on the song link below to familiarize yourselves with this great tune and to have more fun singing along to the parody.

Celluloid Heroes song link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh23A2GptAQ&feature=PlayList&p=5AC4C35A0BBF1943&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=32

UNEMPLOYED ZEROES

(sung to the Kinks song “Celluloid Heroes”)

Everyone is a schemer and they are all fading stars
And everyone is so goofy, they all should be feathered and tarred
They’re not far from your own city
A creeping louse is on every street
They have no jobs so they walk the boulevard
Their careers ended in defeat

Just look at Scooter Libby,  George Bush spared him the jail yard
He lied for old Dick Cheney,  now finding work will be real hard
Condoleezza Rice was a princess
While she occupied her throne
But she lied about those weapons
Now no-one will throw her a bone

They ride in their nice cars as they drive down Unemployed Boulevard
Some that you recognize some that you wish you never heard of
People who lied and cheated while striving for fame
First they succeeded but now they suffer in vain

Rudolph Giuliani had a trio of wives
And if not for 9/11, White House dreams could not survive
Former Governor, Caribou Barbie
Was a lip-sticked dog with no bite
The blunders that Palin gave us
Will follow her the rest of her life

Cheney was thrown out like garbage
He shot his friend and he smiled
And then there’s George “Macaca” Allen
You’ve just got to love his style
And please don’t forget dear Larry Craig
With his stylish steel handcuffs
While in a Men’s Room stall he copped a feel
And then Idahoans had had enough

They ride in their nice cars as they drive down that Unemployed Boulevard
Some that you recognize some that you wish you never heard of
People who lied and cheated while striving for fame
First they succeeded but now they suffer in vain

Everyone is a schemer and they are all fading stars
And they all think they’re in show biz, trying to show on radar
And though some were successful
Now they must be on guard
Success walks hand in hand with failure
Along Unemployed Boulevard

Their sordid lives are a non-stop Hollywood tabloid show
A fantasy world of unemployed villains and zeroes
And those unemployed zeroes created so much pain
Those unemployed zeroes took us for a ride

They ride in their nice cars as they drive down that Unemployed Boulevard
Some that you recognize some that you wish you never heard of
People who lied and cheated while striving for fame
First they succeeded but now they suffer in vain

Those unemployed zeroes created so much pain
Those unemployed zeroes took us for a ride

Their sordid lives are a non-stop Hollywood tabloid show
A fantasy world of unemployed villains and zeroes
And those unemployed zeroes created so much pain
Those unemployed zeroes took us for a ride

Thought this video might be of interest to you.  It took ten months, but here is Bush’s first speech as a private citizen.

The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran by Robert Spencer, Regnery Publishing, Washington, DC ISBN 978-1-59698-104-1, 2009, $19.95, p. 232

By Fred Reiss, Ed.D

WESTMINSTER, California–President George W. Bush, in December 2006, issued greetings to the Muslim world on the occasion of the Islamic feast of Eid al-Adha, which commemorates both the Hajj and Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son. This past June, President Obama addressed the Muslim world in Cairo. Obama’s speech contained many platitudes about the compassionate teachings of the holy Koran, and quoted it by saying, “Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.”

In the wake of the recent Fort Hood massacre of army soldiers by what appears to be a lone Muslim US Army officer, Nidal Hasan, Islamic centers around the country issued press releases assuring the American public that the Koran condemns violent attacks on innocent people. Simultaneously, the Islamic Society of North America – the largest US Muslim umbrella body – also launched a special fund for the benefit of the families of the victims of the Fort Hood attacks. Yet, the website Answering-Islam.org notes that the Koran contains over one hundred verses calling Muslims to war with the Infidels, which author Robert Spencer says the Koran defines as anyone not submitting to Allah.

Prominent Muslim scholar, Anwar al-Aulaq, calling Nidal Hasan a hero, wrote on his blog
Nidal opened fire on soldiers who were on their way to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. How can there be any dispute about the virtue of what he has done? In fact the only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the US army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal.

Five of the Muslims accused of plotting the September 11 attack in a response to the government’s accusations wrote, “Therefore, killing you and fighting you, destroying you and terrorizing you, responding back to your attacks, are all considered to be great legitimate duty in our religion.” Last month, Dutch right-wing lawmaker Geert Wilders told an assembly of Temple University students, “Where Islam sets roots, freedom dies.”

So which face of Islam is the truth? Robert Spencer, Director of Jihad Watch, a program of the conservative foundation, David Horowitz Freedom Center, wrote The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran to direct the spotlight on a holy book mentioned by many, but read by few, including most Muslims. This is so, because translations of the Koran are not acceptable in the religion. The original language of the Koran is Arabic, and ninety percent of Muslims do not speak Arabic.

Spencer, who has been accused of Islamophobia, argues that he is not against Muslims. He acknowledges that The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran is not written from the Islamic frame of reference, and asserts, “whether the Koran really says what this guide claims it says can be easily verified. And if this guide reports its contents accurately, that couldn’t possibly be an act of ‘hatred’ or ‘bigotry’. If the Koran really curses Jews and Christians [Sura, meaning chapter] (9:30) and calls for warfare against them in order to bring about their subjugation (9:29), it is not Islamophobic.”
Spencer wins his argument. An Internet review of the various translations of the Koran shows that Spencer has encapsulated the message in the verses cited in his book, and clearly points out inaccuracies found in the Koran. For example, he shows that the Koran has a clear misconception about Judaism. Sura 9:30 begins, “The Jews said, ‘Ezra is the son of God.’” Of course, in Judaism neither Ezra, nor anyone else, is called “son of God.” Even the Jewish Messiah, God’s anointed, is referred to metaphorically as “the son of [King] David,” and “the son of Jesse.” Both are very human.

The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran is a succinct volume that moves quickly from the basics of “What is the Koran?” through its history and development, and into the details of its inherent theology and practices, including the Koran’s view of women. Thus, Spencer not only discusses war-mongering verses aimed at infidels, but also exposes the meaning of “nonviolent” verses, as understood by Islamic hearts and minds.

In his view, the previously cited congratulatory statements made by Bush and Obama convey one message to the Western world and a completely different one to the Muslims. To Christians and Jews, the message about Abraham conjures up images of the reward for a courageous father. God tells Abraham that he will become the father of a great nation. But, in all likelihood, the biblical message is lost on Muslims unfamiliar with the Book of Genesis. Abraham is a Muslim in the Islamic world. So is Moses, the patriarchs, Jesus, and so forth. In Sura 60:9, Abraham tells the people that unless they become Muslims there is nothing except animosity and hatred between them. To the Muslim mindset, according to Spencer, Bush holds up hatred as exemplary.

As far as Spencer is concerned, when Obama reminded the Muslims to be conscious of God and speak the truth, he makes out no better than Bush. In fact, the translation of Sura 9:119 is, “O believers, do not stray from the path of Allah, and be with those who are truthful.” So, Spencer appears to be right again, when he asserts that the Koranic passage is “actually about fighting unbelievers, and doesn’t remotely advocate peaceful coexistence.”

The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran is unrelenting in its assault on the Koran and Islam as a peaceful religion, except to fellow Muslims. On one hand, we have statements from Islamic organizations condemning terrorist attacks, such as the one on the World Trade Center. “We condemn, in the strongest terms, the incidents, which are against all human and Islamic norms. This is grounded in the Noble Laws of Islam which forbid all forms of attacks on innocents.” On the other, the Koran says (9:5), “When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful.”

Both sides are right. Jewish extremists would stone you to death should you transgress the Sabbath in Mea Shearim, and Muslim extremists believe they have a God-given obligation to convert you, subjugate you, or kill you. The words of moderate Islamic organizations show that Muhammad’s revelations can be reinterpreted. Spencer lays out a plan for dealing with both types of Muslims. His plan, some of which borders on the unconstitutional, includes monitoring mosques and Islamic schools in America for preaching or teaching extremists’ views. Spencer argues that interfering with the Muslim religion is one thing, but prosecuting anyone fomenting the overthrow of the government is not. The framers of the Constitution did not intend the Bill of Rights to be a death knell for the country.

The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran provides a deep understanding of the Koran and Muslims who believe in it, and offers a starting point for a legitimate debate on how to monitor a religion whose extremists advocate the elimination of Western Civilization. Is Richard Spencer an Islamophobic? Only if he is not telling the truth.

**
Dr. Fred Reiss is a retired public and Hebrew school teacher and administrator. He is the author of The Standard Guide to the Jewish and Civil Calendars; Public Education in Camden, NJ: From Inception to Integration; Ancient Secrets of Creation: Sepher Yetzira, the Book that Started Kabbalah, Revealed; and Reclaiming the Messiah.

As I alluded to in an earlier post, I believe that Obama’s subservient bow to the Emperor of Japan was an attempt to bring America down a notch or two (where it should be in Obama’s mind).  

Also, Obama, in his skewed anti-American mindset, was likely attempting to assure the Japanese Emperor that Obama is a “different” President that didn’t agree with the A-bombs being dropped on Japan.    That’s how I see it.

Those on the left have seen Obama’s bow as making amends for the “tortuous” and “alienating” policies of Bush…and showing respect and humility…you know, not being the cowboy….the “anti-Bush”.

But it seems the message Obama actually left with the Japanese was one of disrespect and a view of Obama as weak….and the message from the Japanese Emperor back to Obama was no bow…which likely is should be seen as an insult.

From Thomas Lifson at American Thinker:

Bad enough that Obama bowed down to another head of state yesterday. Even worse, he did not bother to learn how one bows in Japan, and just winged it.

….The one thing that virtually everyone who teaches bowing etiquette stresses is under no circumstance try to combine a bow with a handshake.

The Emperor appears to smile, which is something polite Japanese are taught to do when embarrassed.  Unlike just about everyone who comes into the Emperor’s presence, Obama obviously received no instruction on Imperial etiquette.

……Anyone with about two days’ familiarity with Japan knows about bowing. The average person in Japan bows dozens of times a day. You see it everywhere.

 

Another fundamental precept of the ordinary bow: it must be reciprocated. To do otherwise is a grave insult. Yet, we see in this short video clip that the Emperor did not even nod his head. To be honest, I am not sure the Emperor is ever supposed to bow back to anyone. He is, after all, according to Shinto, a god.

Watch it:

“The bow as he performed did not just display weakness in Red State terms, but evoked weakness in Japanese terms….The last thing the Japanese want or need is a weak looking American president and, again, in all ways, he unintentionally played that part.

Salon’s Glenn Greenwald calls the right wing of the American political spectrum on its constant state of fear:

The Right’s reaction to yesterday’s announcement — we’re too afraid to allow trials and due process in our country — is the textbook definition of “surrendering to terrorists.” …

People in capitals all over the world have hosted trials of high-level terrorist suspects using their normal justice system.  They didn’t allow fear to drive them to build island-prisons or create special commissions to depart from their rules of justice.  Spain held an open trial in Madrid for the individuals accused of that country’s 2004 train bombings.  The British put those accused of perpetrating the London subway bombings on trial right in their normal courthouse in London.  Indonesia gave public trials using standard court procedures to the individuals who bombed a nightclub in Bali.  India used a Mumbai courtroom to try the sole surviving terrorist who participated in the 2008 massacre of hundreds of residents.  In Argentina, the Israelis captured Adolf Eichmann, one of the most notorious Nazi war criminals, and brought him to Jerusalem to stand trial for his crimes.

It’s only America’s Right that is too scared of the Terrorists — or which exploits the fears of their followers — to insist that no regular trials can be held and that “the safety and security of the American people” mean that we cannot even have them in our country to give them trials.

He’s exactly right. When we let terrorists scare us into changing our essential American-ness, the terrorists win.

Cowboy up, America. And not in the faux, idoiotic W. cowboy sense.

Surely our justice system, our democracy, our Constitution can outshine the Spanish, British, Indonesian, Indian and Israeli systems. Or do Republicans, conservatives, neo-cons and religious right wingnuts really think so little of America?

Quotes of the Day:

The Question:

Should the 9/11 suspects go on trial in New York?

Quotes and Comments:

• “What the Obama administration is telling us loud and clear is that both in substance and reality the war on terror from their point of view is over,” Mr. Giuliani said on “Fox News Sunday.” “This seems to be an overconcern with the rights of terrorists and a lack of concern for the rights of the public.”

Why is Mr Giuliani so worried?

Related Links:

• US Govt
• 8th Anniversary of 9/11 Terrorist Attacks

Matthew Hoh tells why he resigned and why U.S. troops are not doing any good in Afghanistan. The people are fighting the U.S. troops because they have invaded their country. No good can come of the troops remaining there. Sending more troops will only lead to more troops being wounded and killed, and for innocent lives to be lost along with the “Taliban” dying also.

Malalai Joya’s story will be on our Blog every day for the next month. Please buy her book and visit her site.. Read her San Jose Mercury Opinion: “U.S. is doing no good in Afghanistan” here.
On Saturday, Nov. 7, Malalai Joya was at a gathering at San Jose State University in California to promote her book “A Woman Among Warlords” and to gather support for her people in Afghanistan. Malalai is a very brave woman to take on her own government and also the U.S. government, the occupiers of her country.

Malalai Joya signing her new book, A Woman Among Warlords, a JB photo

Our story on Malalai Joya can be seen here. Buy a copy of her book, “A Woman Among Warlords” here, or at your favorite bookstore. A great Holiday gift idea. The subtitle is “The Extraordinary Story of an Afghan Who Dared to Raise Her Voice”. Visit Malalai’s website here for more information on how you can help.

Open Letter From the Peace Movement to President Obama on His Upcoming Decision Regarding the Afghan War By Cynthia McKinney:

Dear Mr. President:

According to press reports, you intend to decide between November 7 and November 11 whether or not to send tens of thousands of American soldiers to Afghanistan. We are writing in advance of that decision to add our voice to those of Sen. Feingold, many House Democrats, and of a clear majority of Americans in urging you not to escalate this war, but rather to announce an immediate cease-fire followed by a withdrawal of all US troops in the fastest way consistent with the safety of our forces. We urge you to end the policy of using Predator drones to assassinate Pakistani civilians on the territory of their own country, in defiance of all concepts of international law. We also call upon you to cease all covert CIA and Pentagon operations in Afghanistan,Pakistan, and Iran.

No vital American interest is at stake in Afghanistan. Former Marine and State Department official Matthew Hoh is right: the US and NATO forces in Afghanistan have come to be viewed as invaders and occupiers, and the resistance they encounter has nothing to do with international terrorism. This war is futile, and now doomed to failure. There is no military solution to the problems that beset Afghanistan. Afghanistan and the rest of this tragically war-torn region need a Marshall Plan of peaceful economic development, through which some of the 15 million unemployed workers in our own country could find productive jobs. We have no confidence in the advice being given to you by military leaders like Gen. McChrystal, who has been implicated in torture in Iraq. Read the Full Letter Here.

* * *
Take Action Now: Pass our link to your friends right now. Call President Obama: To reach the U.S. Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 or 202-225-3121 Leave a message: No more Troops. End the War(s).We will demonstrate in 100 cities if President Obama sends ANY troops to Central Asia ! Call Leon Panetta at (703) 482-0623, CIA headquarters, leave a message: No More Drone Assasination attacks, and don’t attack Quetta. End the War(s) NOW.

Today, please tell your member of Congress and U.S. Senators to End the War in Afghanistan, sign this petition. Tell them you will march in 100 cities if President Obama sends ANY troops to Central Asia. If you live outside the United States, write to your leaders, End the War(s) Now.

As we close in on the end of this decade, I’ve thought a bit about what political storylines are likely to resonate into the next.  The United States will certainly still have troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq for years to come, and we’ve already learned that economic recovery is not an overnight proposition.   Inaction on important issues like climate change will defer some of the biggest challenges of the 2000’s to the 2010’s.  Or beyond.  No Child Left Behind has muddled America’s education policy and unintentionally led to a dumbing down of our schools.  The politicization of government agencies and the judicial branch questioned the autonomy of civil service and the rule of law.  I don’t really even need to mention Katrina or torture.  For many, there was little to like during the eight years of the Bush Administration.

Since leaving office in January, George W. Bush has laid low.  And for good reason – with a final approval rating of only 22%, Bush has become America’s favorite punching bag.

And yet here I am, about to defend him.  For all that Bush did poorly – and there was plenty – his commitment and dedication to the issue of global public health should be commended.  Lost in his Administration’s many failings was a triumphant success that, although not perfect, is said to have saved the lives of as many as 250,000 children and provided treatment options for up to 10 million people living with one of the world’s deadliest illnesses.

Designed to provide HIV/AIDS treatment for two million Africans and prevent seven million new infections, the President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) pledged an initial $15 billion to the global fight against AIDS. Announced during the 2003 State of the Union, many missed the significance of the proposal due to the buzz about potential war in Iraq and progress in the “Global War on Terror.”   Yet as Peter Piot, the first Executive Director of UNAIDS, explains, “The most powerful man in the world moved from the ‘m’ word to the ‘b’ word – from millions to billions. In that sense, PEPFAR not only brought money, but elevated AIDS issues to one of the big political themes of our time.”

PEPFAR’s initial goals were ambitious – to supply 2 million people in Africa much-needed anti-retroviral drugs that can save the lives of AIDS victims.  In 2002, 28.5 million people in Africa were HIV-positive, with 3.4 million new infections every year – yet only 50,000 people received anti-retrovirals.  By the time President Bush left office in 2009, 2 million people were receiving the drugs they need regularly, with more money pledged to increase access.  An additional 10 million currently receive care that can prolong life and ease the burden of living with the disease. In terms of treatment, PEPFAR has made a drastic difference in the lives of millions.

Treatment has vastly expanded under PEPFAR.

PEPFAR’s impact on prevention has been much more controversial.  In order to pass through a conservative Congress in 2003, the bill included a provision that required 1/3 of federal funding for prevention to go toward strict abstinence-only education programs.  The efficacy of these types of programs is the source of much concern, and for many champions of a well-rounded approach to prevention, the provision represented a huge let-down.  The result of this provision has been that only 27% of prevention spending goes to non-abstinence prevention strategies like contraception use.

However, in July of 2008 President Bush championed a renewed commitment to PEPFAR in the shape of a $48 billion reauthorization. Of this commitment, roughly $10 billion is devoted to expanding the fight to combat malaria and tuberculosis in Africa, and $39 billion to support continued efforts to provide treatment to AIDS victims and prevent future transmissions.  Though much of the additional funding is headed toward programs that promote abstinence as prevention, the provision in the law mandating this apportionment is now gone.

Very few Presidents have the political will to commit resources to the welfare of people outside the borders of the United States.  In that context, President Bush was a staunch ally in the fight to improve the standard of living of people worldwide. Opinions about the effectiveness of the programs funded by PEPFAR vary, but even critics recognize the impact PEPFAR has made in global public health efforts.  And though the world largely viewed the United States with dismay during the Bush years, our popularity in Africa remained high.

Bush had many failings as a President, but his willingness to lead on issues of international development deserves praise.  On the campaign trail, President Obama proposed to devote $50 billion toward the global fight against poverty – a move certainly based on the success of Bush’s efforts in the fight against AIDS.  This proposal has been relegated to the back burner since he took office, a fact that is unsurprising given the domestic economic turmoil of the past year.

Yet this past decade has shown that through dedicated campaigns like PEPFAR, real progress is attainable.  The world is on track to decrease by half the number of people living in abject poverty by 2015. Over 90% of children in all but two regions of the world (Africa and Central Asia) now have the opportunity to receive a basic education. Programs like PEPFAR have increased funding and resources to fight disease. Measles rates have declined 68% since 2000, and in 2006 the number of deaths from HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa decreased for the very first time.

The fight against poverty and disease is at a critical juncture.  The world once again looks to the United States for leadership, and it is time for President Obama to answer the call.