Der Spiegel:

Barack Obama, the man most Europeans would like to see elected the next US president, plans to visit Berlin, Paris and London soon. The Democratic candidate is looking for statesmanlike images to boost his campaign and German politicians will be hoping some of his popularity rubs off on them.

What will the new US president mean for Europe? And above all, what will he want from Europe? A group of Europeans and Americans recently engaged in heated debate on the subject on the sidelines of a trans-Atlantic conference at California’s Stanford University.

Charles Kupchan, the former top advisor to Bill Clinton and one of America’s best experts on Europe, gave a less than euphoric assessment. What will happen, he asked his audience, if the popular Barack Obama comes to Europe as US President and demands much more help in Afghanistan or Iraq? How will the Europeans respond?

These difficult questions won’t arise in earnest until next year at the earliest but German politicians will soon be able to meet Barack Obama in person. The Democratic contender made a surprise announcement at the weekend that he plans to visit Europe during the election campaign. In addition to Paris and London, he also intends to visit Berlin.

“France, Germany and the United Kingdom are key anchors of the trans-Atlantic alliance. And I look forward to discussing how we can strengthen our partnership in the years to come,” said Obama.
Continue Reading »

From Dodd and Feingold:

“This is a deeply flawed bill, which does nothing more than offer retroactive immunity by another name. We strongly urge our colleagues to reject this so-called ‘compromise’ legislation and oppose any efforts to consider this bill in its current form. We will oppose efforts to end debate on this bill as long as it provides retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies that may have participated in the President’s warrantless wiretapping program, and as long as it fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans.

“If the Senate does proceed to this legislation, our immediate response will be to offer an amendment that strips the retroactive immunity provision out of the bill. We hope our colleagues will join us in supporting Americans’ civil liberties by opposing retroactive immunity and rejecting this so-called ‘compromise’ legislation.”

Contact your Senator and ask them to join these Patriots in protecting Civil Liberties

1 (800) 828 - 0498
1 (800) 459 - 1887
1 (800) 614 - 2803
1 (866) 340 - 9281
1 (866) 338 - 1015
1 (877) 851 - 6437

Green Diva Review
COTAM is a non-profit organization dedicated to political activism by spreading progressive, socially conscious ideas through the use of eco-friendly T-shirts primarily. On the backs (and fronts) of supportive celebrities like Natalie Portman, Jamie Lee Curtis and of course Tim Reynolds, they’ve helped to broadcast these simple, but powerful messages. It worked for me!
Full Review

LED’s Rock and Reduce Reuse Recycle Rethink

Brave New Films imagines what birth control options women would have if a Senator with a zero rating from Planned Parenthood and NARAL ProChoice America were elected President. Watch it:

TUESDAY EVENING: The Clerk of the House is expected to read the articles of impeachment, which should take about 5 hours, at the conclusion of which Rep. Kucinich will make a motion.

Rep. Robert Wexler is the first to cosponsor and will be on Keith Olbermann today.

CALL THE MEDIA!

Email Your Congress Member - Congress has 72 hours to table it, send it to committee, pass it, or reject it.

The full text of the articles is available here
Continue Reading »

Think Progress:

Last week, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) sought to excuse his constant and vociferous cheerleading for the Iraq war in 2002 and 2003 by claiming that “every intelligence agency in the world” believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction:

I know why I supported [the war] because I believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction as did every intelligence agency in the world and every assessment.

Unfortunately for McCain, the Senate Select Intelligence Committee released the final two sections of its report today on the White House’s use of prewar intelligence, which proves the wide discrepancies between war hawks’ claims and intelligence available at the time. Chairman Jay Rockefeller said his committee “has concluded that the Administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence”:

In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed. … Sadly, the Bush Administration led the nation into war under false pretenses.

The report also notes that pre-war statements by Bush administration officials “regarding the postwar situation in Iraq” — including Vice President Cheney’s infamous declaration that the U.S. would be “greeted as liberators” — “did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.”

Like Cheney, McCain was not shy about assuring Americans that we would be “greeted as liberators.” Right before the war began, McCain told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews that “absolutely” a “large number of Iraqis” will “treat us as liberators“:

MATTHEWS: Are you one of those who holds up an optimistic view of the post-war scene? Do you believe that the people of Iraq or at least a large number of them will treat us as liberators?

MCCAIN: Absolutely. Absolutely. [Hardball, 3/12/03]

In fact, the Senate Intelligence report on pre-war statements specifically notes a pre-war intelligence report that directly refuted this claim. A January 2003 Intelligence Community Assessment acknowledged that “Iraq was a deeply divided society that likely would engage in violent conflict unless an occupying power prevented it.”

Update: In a statement, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said that the Senate Intel report confirms that “the Bush Administration engaged in a misleading marketing campaign to rush the country to war.”

Update: Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), a member of the Intelligence Committee, said in a speech today that it “rots the very fiber of democracy when our government is put to these uses.”

Update: Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) is also calling for a full review of congressional testimony by former Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

The Independent, UK:

A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq’s position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.

The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has claimed the United States is on the verge of victory in Iraq – a victory that he says Mr Obama would throw away by a premature military withdrawal.

America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 – 10 000 more than when the military “surge” began in January 2007. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now. The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. “It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty,” said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal was signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American pawn.

The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: “This is just a tactical subterfuge.” Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft and the right to pursue its “war on terror” in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.

Mr Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called “strategic alliance” without modifications, by the end of next month. But it is already being condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing American attempt to dominate the region. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the powerful and usually moderate Iranian leader, said yesterday that such a deal would create “a permanent occupation”. He added: “The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans.”

Iraq’s Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is believed to be personally opposed to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition government cannot stay in power without US backing.

The deal also risks exacerbating the proxy war being fought between Iran and the United States over who should be more influential in Iraq.

Although Iraqi ministers have said they will reject any agreement limiting Iraqi sovereignty, political observers in Baghdad suspect they will sign in the end and simply want to establish their credentials as defenders of Iraqi independence by a show of defiance now. The one Iraqi with the authority to stop deal is the majority Shia spiritual leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. In 2003, he forced the US to agree to a referendum on the new Iraqi constitution and the election of a parliament. But he is said to believe that loss of US support would drastically weaken the Iraqi Shia, who won a majority in parliament in elections in 2005.

The US is adamantly against the new security agreement being put to a referendum in Iraq, suspecting that it would be voted down. The influential Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has called on his followers to demonstrate every Friday against the impending agreement on the grounds that it compromises Iraqi independence.

The Iraqi government wants to delay the actual signing of the agreement but the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney has been trying to force it through. The US ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, has spent weeks trying to secure the accord.

The signature of a security agreement, and a parallel deal providing a legal basis for keeping US troops in Iraq, is unlikely to be accepted by most Iraqis. But the Kurds, who make up a fifth of the population, will probably favour a continuing American presence, as will Sunni Arab political leaders who want US forces to dilute the power of the Shia. The Sunni Arab community, which has broadly supported a guerrilla war against US occupation, is likely to be split.

Think Progress:

During his speech before the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) touted the success of America’s divestment campaign from South Africa’s racist apartheid regime and proposed a similar policy towards Iran:

We should privatize the sanctions against Iran by launching a worldwide divestment campaign. …Years ago, the moral clarity and conviction of civilized nations came together in a divestment campaign against South Africa, helping to rid that nation of the evil of apartheid. In our day, we must use that same power and moral conviction against the regime in Iran, and help to safeguard the people of Israel and the peace of the world.

Years ago, McCain lacked the “moral clarity and conviction” to consistently support divestment from South Africa. Despite voting to override President Reagan’s veto of a bill imposing economic sanctions against South Africa in 1986, McCain voted against sanctions on at least six other occasions:

– 1985: Voted To Recommit Anti-Apartheid Act To Foreign Affairs Committee Postponing Sanctions Against South Africa: McCain voted to postpone for one year the imposition of any sanctions against South Africa, permitting the president to waive the sanctions if he determined that the African National Congress had not renounced violence. [HR 1460, Vote 129, 6/5/85, Failed 139-282, D 7-238; R 132-44; I 0-0]

– 1985: Voted To Allow U.S. Firms Continue Investing In South Africa: McCain voted to let U.S. firms continue investing in South Africa if their units comply with a code of worker rights. [HR 1460, Vote 110, 5/21/85, Failed 148-256, D 3-227; R 145-29; I 0-0]

– 1985: Voted Against Requiring Immediate Withdrawal Of U.S. Investment From South Africa: McCain voted against imposing a total ban on U.S. exports to South Africa. [HR 1460, Vote 128, 6/5/85, Failed 77-345, D 77-167; R 0-178; I 0-0]

– 1985: Voted Against Establishing A Commission To Study Apartheid In South Africa And To Recommend Sanctions: McCain voted against establishing a commission to study apartheid in South Africa and to recommend what sanctions the United States should impose on the government. [HR 1460, Vote 126, 6/5/85, Failed 108-310, D 6-235; R 102-75; I 0-0]

– 1985: Voted Against Imposing Sanctions Against South Africa: McCain voted against imposing sanctions immediately against South Africa. [HR 1460, Vote 130, 6/5/85, Passed 295-127, D 239-6; R 56-121; I 0-0]

– 1986: Voted Against Considering Imposing Economic Sanctions Against South Africa: McCain voted against providing for House floor consideration of the bill to impose economic sanctions against South Africa. [HR 4868, Vote 159, 6/18/86, Passed 286-127, D 238-4; R 48-123; I 0-0]

McCain’s schizophrenic voting record on divestment undermines his lofty campaign rhetoric and moral platitudes. McCain was as slow to recognize the importance of “helping to rid that nation of the evil of apartheid” as he is quick to consider bombing Iran.

TPM

During his press conference today in Baton Rouge, John McCain declared in strong terms that he’s voted for every investigation of Hurricane Katrina.

The only problem, as the DNC has been pointing out to reporters, is he voted twice against Democratic proposals to investigate the levee failures.

After a local reporter at his Baton Rouge press conference asked why he voted against forming a commission to investigate the levee failures in New Orleans, McCain insisted that he supported every investigation — and added that he was “not familiar” with what the reporter was talking about:

McCain voted against establishing a commission to investigate the levee failures, in a September 2005 party-line vote in which all Republicans voted against the Democratic proposal. He then repeated that party-line GOP vote against a similar Dem proposal in February 2006.

Late Update: McCain spokesman Brian Rogers e-mailed us the following comment:

“It doesn’t bode well for Senator Obama’s pledges to run a campaign of hope and change when on the first day of the general election he’s launching the same tired negative attacks that the American people are so sick and tired of. As Sen. McCain said, he wasn’t familiar with the specific votes the questioner was asking about. Instead he was speaking to his strong support for the Homeland Security Committee’s comprehensive, bipartisan investigation of Hurricane Katrina, which was already fully underway when these other proposals were suggested.”