Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas urged the United States to push Israel to finally take action to move forward on the path to peace. “We shouldn’t lose another seven years searching for solutions.” His statement came on the eve of the arrival of Secretary of State Condi Rice who is making still another attempt to resolve differences between the two groups. Rice is caught in a dilemma because the Israel government continues building housing on the West Bank despite promises to the contrary they would cease such construction. Rice insists Israel must cease the construction, but her words apparently have scant impact on the Olmert government.
The situation is undoubtedly complicated by the reality President Bush is no longer a force since he will be departing within a few months. Abbas may insist there is need for Israel action now, but reality is until the arrival of a new president on the scene there is no way to pressure Israel to carry out agreements of the road map to peace.
Ayman Nour, founder of the liberal Ghad Party, wrote an open letter to Barack Obama that began, “the writer of these lines is a man about your age who was, and still is, dreaming like you of change and reforms.. in our countries, legitimate dreams,all too often turn into horrifying nightmares.” He argues his main crime was entering his name to run against a president who has been in office for over 27 years and brooks no opposition to his rule. Nour asks Obama to intervene on his behalf and help secure his release. Since Nour was imprisoned the US government has constantly been urging his release.
In one sense, the Nour case underlines issues confronting any American president. Is it American policy to support regimes which violate basic human rights? Can the US intervene in the domestic affairs of other nations in the name of freedom of speech? Egypt is a time bomb waiting to explode because a virtual dictator refuses to allow freedom. What will happen if Mubarak continues his authoritarian way of ruling?
Senator Hillary Clinton gave a masterful speech at the Tuesday evening session of the Democratic Convention. She directly confronted any of her supporters who are angry and ready to vote for McCain by challenging them as to whether the campaign for her nomination was about her or about the issues and ideas that she advocated. She emphasize to her supporters that John McCain stood for the opposite of everything they were fighting to achieve and a vote for him was a vote against women rights, against health care, and a vote for someone who is more likely to seek military solutions instead of diplomatic ones. She continually emphasized she was voting for Barack Obama and she urged them to return to the Democratic party and fight for its beliefs.
Hillary Clinton displayed passion, conviction, and a sincere commitment to support the Obama candidacy in the fight to end the Bush fiasco in America. She pointed out it was no surprise the Republican convention was being held in the twin cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis, since the twins of Bush and McCain could not be told apart when it came to their political and foreign policy beliefs. She specifically pointed out a major goal of her campaign was obtaining affordable health care for all in America, something opposed by McCain but supported by Obama.
There is no question Senator Clinton will be out campaigning for Obama and working to persuade women to follow suit. Her speech was undoubtedly the best she has ever given and it captured the admiration of everyone in the convention. She laid to rest any qualms that existed regarding her support for Senator Obama.
Posted in 2008 Elections, Barack Obama, Conservatives, Democrats, George Bush, Hilary Clinton, Human Rights, Liberals, Multicultural, Peace, Politics, Republicans, United States, War
Tagged Hillary Clinton, McCain, Obama
President Dimitry Medvedev made clear to Western nations his country was not afraid to challenge the European Union and the United States on recent events in Georgia. He announced a decree had been signed recognizing Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent nations. He insisted the decision was necessary because of Georgia policies that he termed as “genocide.” In defiant tones he said: “We are not afraid of anything, including the prospect of a new cold War. But, we don’t want t, and in this situation everything depends on the position of our partners.” His statement resulted in a dramatic drop in the Russian stock market which plunged 6.1%.
President Saakashvili interpreted the Medvedev statement as evidence that (Russia’s) invasion of Georgia was part of a broader premeditated plan to redraw the map of Europe.” The problem with the Saakashvili comment is that Georgia was the one which initiated the war, not Russia. If Georgia had not sent its forces into the two breakaway provinces, Russia would have remained on the sideline. How could Russia be responsible for a “premeditated attack” when everything revolved around Georgia’s decision to send or not send forces into the regions?