Mike Gravel and Joe Lauria to join Think Youth for an interview.

Mark your calendars! Think Youth will be conducting what promises to be an exciting interview with Former United States Senator and Democratic Presidential candidate, Mike Gravel. Also joining us will be renowned investigative journalist, Joe Lauria.

Senator Gravel and Mr. Lauria will be discussing their book, “A Political Odyssey, The Rise of American Militarism and One Man’s Fight to Stop It,” which chronicles Senator Gravel’s life and career.

The interview will be published on Think Youth, both as an audio podcast and a written transcript, on Friday, August 15.

Is Bush to Blame for the Georgian War?

For the past several days there’s been heavy fighting in Georgia, particularly in the break away region of South Ossietia. But could Bush administration policies be to blame for the quick escalation in tensions that lead to all out war?

In 2002 special forces trained Georgian troops to fight in the Chechnya region, as part of his war on terror. Georgian forces received further training prior to the 2003 US violation of the “territorial integrity” of Iraq. The government has also received over $150 million in US aid for security purposes, and that’s on top of nearly $300 million for “effective governance.”

But why would Bush care so much about this tiny eastern European country? For one a major oil pipeline that skips both Russia and Iran runs through this country, supplying oil from the black sea to western countries. Secondly this conflict stems from the cold war, and feelings over the sphere of influence.

McCain meanwhile used the same strong arm tactics that sparked the conflict in the first place. He called for Russia to be removed from the G8, and said that Russia should immediately halt it’s military operations, while mentioning nothing of Georgia halting it’s action. While Russia should defiantly be condemned for jumping into another nations internal conflicts, it should be noted that the Georgian president activated his shiny new American trained army to begin fighting rebels in the province of South Ossetia.

Barack Obama meanwhile called on restraint from both sides, while also siding with an American ally. He made this statement, “I reiterate my call for Russia to stop its bombing campaign, to stop flights of Russian aircraft in Georgian airspace, and to withdraw its ground forces from Georgia.”

Republican Congressman Turns into Arms Dealer

That headline isn’t a crime in itself, plenty of politicians go to work for large defense contractors, who are basically arms dealers. The problem here is that a former Republican congressman, Curt Weldon (PA) is brokering arms deals with blacklisted countries like Iran and Russia:

Former congressman Curt Weldon is helping broker deals between Russian and Ukranian weapons suppliers and the Iraqi and Libyan governments as part of his new job with a private American defense consulting firm, Wired.com has learned.

Weldon, who is currently being investigated by the FBI over alleged corruption during his time in office, visited Libya in March to discuss a possible military deal, according to a letter describing the trip from Weldon to Defense Solutions CEO Timothy Ringgold. In May, Weldon, together with Ringgold and another company representative, traveled to Moscow to discuss working with Russia’s weapons-export agency on arms sales to the Middle East.

Both trips were part of the company’s effort to tap into the growing — and often legally murky — market for selling weapons from former Eastern Bloc countries to the Middle East and Afghanistan.

The reason this is described as legaly murky, is because he is operating as a middle man to supply countries with Soviet weapons they already have, and that were never manufactured in the US. While it may legally okay, it certainly is morally and politically dubious.

But doesn’t it seem like the party (Republicans) that likes to falsely flaunt a strong security record would have ties to selling weapons to former enemies, and other countries that regularly export anti-Americanism and terrorism? This reminds me of the situation last year when another Republican senator was charged with laundering money Al-Qaida and the Taliban.

Kucinich reads Bush Articles of Impeachment on the House floor

I flipped on my television at approximately ten-thirty Eastern time on Monday night, and I was pleasantly surprised to find Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) speaking on C-Span. Kucinich was talking about President Bush and his various crimes against the United States, and I soon became aware that the Representative was introducing Articles of Impeachment against President Bush (also known as House Resolution 1258).

Dennis Kucinich had begun his long trudge through the Articles two hours earlier, and he would continue his reading, to an almost empty House chamber, for nearly another three hours. There were 35 Articles in total, each one detailing a crime that Bush had committed that warranted impeachment. I congratulate Kucinich for having the courage and conviction to undertake this task.

A summary of each offense for each Article, as provided by the index of the Articles of Impeachment, reads as follows: Read more

2005 Bush Inauguration Violated Protesters Rights

A judge ruled that the Bush administration violated protesters rights of assembly and speech by keeping the protesters far at bay reports the Washington Post:

U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman found that the National Park Service violated its own regulations by giving the inauguration’s private organizers preferential treatment and extraordinary control over access to Pennsylvania Avenue. The Presidential Inaugural Committee roped off most of the parade route and allowed only those with tickets inside.

Protesters were limited to small, specific areas, leading to a lawsuit by antiwar activists.

“The inauguration is not a private event,” Friedman said in his ruling. “The National Park Service, on behalf of the PIC, cannot reserve all of Pennsylvania Avenue for itself, leaving only the Ellipse and the northern part of John Marshall Park to protesters.”

This ruling could be overturned if it’s appealed. If it’s not protesters will have greater access to the presidents inauguration.

If you can remember Bush’s 2005 inauguration was more like the induction of communist hardliner. Fences kept everyone except for Bush donors and supporters from being near the event. Meanwhile snipers “guarded” the protesters, and tall metal fences blocked access to many parts of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Inside the event Bush spent tens of thousands on a bomb proof cage thrown. At least we have only 9 more months of Bush’s invasion of American freedoms and his wasteful spending.

President Bush Calls War “Romantic”

President Bush seems to have changed a bit since his days essentially dodging the draft for Vietnam. The Huffington Post reports that he recently said that fighting in Afganistan is “in some ways romantic.”

“I must say, I’m a little envious,” Bush said. “If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed.”

“It must be exciting for you … in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You’re really making history, and thanks,” Bush said.

There isn’t too much to say to that. Bush seems to fancy himself a general for toy soldiers. In reality, he has somehow become the commander-in-chief of a real army made of real men. In response, I would like to remind people of Wilfred Owen’s poem “Dulce et Decorum Est.” Here is the end of the poem.

If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori.

Bush has not been to war. When he knew that his name would soon be called and it would soon be his time to serve, he ran. Now, he says that he sees a good fight that he would be glad to take part in.

No. He doesn’t. He sees a game that he would like to play, and he wants more toy soldiers so that he can keep playing. War is not romantic, and it seems an insult to the brave men and women of the armed services to suggest that it is anything but hard gruesome work which should be avoided.

A Greater Appreciation for Peace

Eric Hall hailed from the fine city of Jeffersonville, Indiana. Jeffersonville is a city located on the Ohio River, just north of Louisville, Kentucky. “Jeff”, as its inhabitants have affectionately termed it, is part of Clark County, which was named for General George Rogers Clark (brother of William Clark of the Lewis & Clark expedition). The city of Jeffersonville itself was named for Thomas Jefferson, whose grid design was used as the layout for the city. Some of the localities that Eric Hall grew up with, in Jeffersonville, are Schimpff’s Confectionary (where you can get some of the best chocolate in the country, in my opinion), the Howard Steamboat Museum, and Mick’s Lounge (where the Papa John’s pizza restaurant chain was founded). Eric went to school at Jeffersonville High School, and he graduated from it in 2002. A little while after graduating high school, Eric joined the United States Army, as did many others from small towns where there were few opportunities. He found himself in favor of the goals of the Iraq War and desirous of contributing to the cause. My cousin went to the same school (from first grade through high school) and was friends with Eric, and that is how I first became aquainted with the story of Eric Hall’s Post Traumatic Stress disorder and the events resulting from it.

Read more

A Surge of Failure

Contrary to what the President has told us in recent months, the surge in Iraq is not working. It’s true that fewer people are dying compared to the mass casualties of previous years, and that Al Qaeda in Iraq is “on the run.” But the simple fact is that people are still dying, American soldiers are still dying, and that political stability for the country (the entire justification for the surge) has not even been accomplished.
Read more

Who Is Afraid of a Security Threat? That would be Rudy Giuliani

Our strong on crime and terrorism man canceled a trip to an office building when his security team was informed of an unspecified threat. On the other hand a headline like “Anti Terrorism Strongman, Giuliani Injured in Blast” wouldn’t look to good for his campaign. Let’s just hope the bomb would cause more than just an injury.

Anyways by running on a hate filled platform Giuliani only increases the odds of a terrorist incident happening to him or America. There’s a reason why most international terrorism occurs during Republican terms, and that’s because foreigners understand that Republicans are aggressive nationalists that will invade a nation, even just for financial gain.

No one wants wimpy foreign policy, but Americans should be especially fearful of bully based foreign policy, for that causes far more people to want harm to befall America. That’s why candidates that haven’t bullied other nations like Iraq, by declaring wars and then funding them without questions should be challenged for their positions.

Candidates like Kucinich and Obama have shown they are against the Iraq war and other needless violence, while others (including leading Democrats) have admitted to not being able to withdraw all troops from Iraq before 2012.

WHAT is so different about Iran?

It was recently reported on October 29th that the White House has no objection to the Egyptian nuclear program. Here is one instance of this article.

The White House “said it had little information about Egypt’s plans to relaunch its nuclear power program but declared itself ‘generally supportive’ of civilian atomic power.” White House Spokewoman Dana Perino, speaking shortly after Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak announced Egypt’s plans to build several nuclear power stations, “I don’t know a lot about it. In general, we are supportive of countries pursuing civil nuclear energy. It’s clean burning. It provides electricity in a clean-burning and affordable way for citizens.”

After decades of Egypt’s nuclear program being frozen, the current Egyptian president is thawing it out, and he SAYS that it will be used for peaceful purposes (which is what the leader of Iran has said). Egypt is an unstable Middle Eastern country. Now, how is this Egyptian nuclear program different from Pakistan’s, also an unstable Middle Eastern country? Evidently, it is not: we are perfectly fine and well with Pakistan having a nuclear program, and, additionally, a nuclear WEAPON. The Natural Resources Defense Council estimates that Pakistan has built as many as 48 nuclear warheads, while its chief rival, India, is estimated to have built only 30-35. The United States also seems to have few problems with India’s nuclear program. So, we are okay with Egypt, Pakistan, and India, three unstable Middle Eastern or Near East Countries, having nuclear programs and either having or potentially having a nuclear weapon. The same is the case with Israel and countless other countries. No problem with them having nukes, or in starting up a nuclear program. No difference between those countries.

So, what is so different about Iran? It is also an unstable Middle Eastern Country, and it has been accused of developing a nuclear program. George W. Bush, and many 2008 presidential candidates (Democrats too!), have said that they would do everything to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. “We must stop Iran!”, they resoundingly say. But what is so different about Iran when it is compared to other countries such as Egypt, Pakistan, and India? What is different? And don’t say anything like “Oh, Iran, they are sponsors of terrorism!” because you know just as well as I that the hands of Egypt, Pakistan, India, and others are not clean when it comes to terrorism. Pakistan is where Osama bin Laden is currently supposed to be hiding, and, judging by the fact that he has access to a dialysis machine and abundant black hair dye, he is being well taken care of (and not hiding out in some cave somewhere).

I would like to note that, with Iran, we are just talking about the threat of a nuclear weapon; they are years away from acquiring one, if that is what they truly intend to do (they say, like Egypt, that they are using their nuclear program for peaceful purposes only). And if Iran does indeed develop nuclear weapons eventually, would their nukes even be a threat to us? The United States of America spends the most money on defense out of all of the countries in the world, and we have a HUGE nuclear arsenal. If Iran even hinted that it would hit the United States with a nuke, they could easily be wiped off the face of the map by our extraordinary amount of weapons. Or if a nuke given to a terrorist organization was traced back to Iran, the aforesaid result could also occur. It is just not in Iran’s interest to take any kind of action against the United States, nuclear or otherwise.

And if they do truly intend to get a nuclear weapon, it will probably be used simply as a deterrant, because currently, no doubt, Iran feels threatened by the many countries currently around it that have nuclear weapons and by the various threats from the United States against Iran. For use as a deterrant was the very reason that Pakistan developed nukes: it was afraid of its nuclear neighbor, India.

My conclusion is that these situations with Iran and its fellow unstable Middle Eastern Countries are not different, from the perspective of an unbiased observer. However, from the perspective of a deluded politician who has already lied us into one war and hopes to start another…it may be convieniently different (just like Iraq).

It is my opinion that Iran’s nuclear program is the least of our worries and that this whole pile of rubbish about Iran and its imminent threat to the United States is just a political ploy, by George W. Bush and others, in order to get us into another war with Iran. Or, of course, it could just be another distraction from all of the serious problems (which the politicians just hate HATE to talk about) that are afflicting our country today. Did you notice at the last democratic presidential debate (on Oct. 30, on MSNBC) that there was much less talk about ending the Iraq War and a great deal more talk about Iran?

Please, if you have an explanation for why Iran is different, then absolutely post it here. I am so curious about why on earth Iran is any different from Egypt, Pakistan, or any of the Middle Eastern Countries that have nuclear weapons already or who are threatening to get nuclear weapons in the future. Why is Iran singled out?

And why is it assumed that Egypt’s nuclear program is being used for peaceful purposes, while it is assumed that Iran’s nuclear program is being used for malevolent purposes?

Will Bush Be Like Hitler and Start another World War?

I’m sure you’ve all heard about Bush’s World War Three comments.  In case you haven’t Bush has said “If Iran gets nuclear weapons it will be World War III”

I personally don’t see what would create World War III if Iran gets nuclear weapons. India, Israel, Russia, France, and several other countries acquired nuclear weapons and no war, much less a world war followed.  It seems the only conflict we’d have with Iran was if Bush decided he needed to do a “search and destroy” of nuclear weapons in Iran. Much like his failed operation in Iraq.

Israel and the USA are probably the most dangerous nuclear powers, and have been the only nuclear powers to initiate war since 2001. The US invaded two countries, and Israel bombed civilians in the 2006 Lebanon War. Meanwhile Iran has engaged in zero armed conflict in the same time period.

Besides who is Bush as the mediator of Nuclear/WMDs/Bio Weapons? As commander in chief his military flew nuclear weapons over the United Sates. Even though the nuclear weapons where deactivated, an aircraft crash or other midair disaster could have caused an aerial dirty bomb to be dispersed. If the US can make such mistakes endangering it’s own citizens, how can Bush complain of the possibility of terrorists abilities to steel nuclear material from the Iranian military?

It’s time for a reality check. Any global conflict originating in the Mideast would be a result of Bush’s destabilization of the Mideast.

Republicans Flash Bang Democrats

While Americas brave men and woman are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have senators and representatives fighting to censure their political foes. Both from the Republican and Democrat legislation has been issued to both censure and endorse various partisanship groups view points on the war.

And this is exactly what Republicans want. By distracting Democrats with silly comments from Rush Limbaugh, they are taking time that could be used for finding solutions to end the war. Headlines such as “Dems Slam Limbaugh’s Free Speech” distract Republicans from hearing the true bad news about Iraq. They also serve as a diversion for Democrats from being motivated by negative war headlines.

Someone in congress (how about the uniter, Barack Obama) needs to introduce legislation condemning these recent bills to censure free speech. This is exactly why Washington is dysfunctional, because every representative is looking out for their home district, and their home peoples votes.

By the way, next bill up on the GOP agenda: to censure the Oakland Port Authority, for a very unfortunate mistake.

No Word Yet on Who Will Pay for Iraq

The Democrats tried to find a way to fund the Iraq war, by creating a tax surcharge. Top Democrats, and Republicans as a whole blasted the idea. The idea reported by MarketWatch actually seemed simple and responsible:

The proposed legislation, offered by House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., and Democratic Reps. John Murtha of Pennsylvania and Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, would require low- and middle-income taxpayers to add 2% to their federal taxes, according to news reports, while higher-income taxpayers would see a surcharge of 12% to 15%.

Obey said the measure would help draw a contrast between President Bush’s threat to veto several Democratic spending measures because they exceed his fiscal 2008 budget request by around $22 billion.

“Just as I have opposed the war from the outset, I am … opposed to a war surtax,” said Pelosi, D-Calif., according to the Associated Press.

Someone needs to pay for this war. Obviously the oil money we where promised would finance a war that would go no higher than $50 billion, has gone somewhere else. Probably in Bushes pocket. But my idea for war financing is even better, how about congressional districts that support the Iraq war - as determined by their representatives votes - would have to the tax burden.

This puts the Republicans where their mouth is. First it funds this “All so important war,” which everyday is looking more like a Bush/Vigilante setup (Bush gets to put oil money in his pocket, hateful conservatives gets to watch Blackwater shooting brown people). And besides money, Al-Qaida has warned that anyone who pays taxes, is as guilty as Bush for Iraq and Afghanistan. So why not have the people who support this war be the sole bearers of the blood and money?

Democrats: The True Pro Life Party

Each persons life is valuable. But first, subtract anyone born in the Middle-East, Africa, or anyone else not part of the “White male, Christian, power structure.” And then you’ve got the lives Republicans support.

For a party that claims to value life so much, it is shock they would allow the US to occupy Iraq, when it is obvious that we are the reason for the death of over 500,000 Iraqis. Plus nearly 4000 Americans have died in Iraq. Being for life doesn’t stop once a baby is out of the womb, but is a process that extends to caring for the widow and the fatherless, the elderly, and the blind.

The Bible even states, “He [God] defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing.” Christians can’t just expect clothing and food to drop from the sky, if God provides us with the resources we should help. In the Bible there where even “taxes” required that assisted the less fortunate (Leviticus 27).

And probably the biggest difference between Christian conservatism and true Christianity, is that God came to give people freedom from sin. But God didn’t come to enslave human kinds to Christianity, he gave us choice. And thus Christians should use other means besides legislating the Bible to help people from sinning.

If Christan conservatives are really behind saving life, then yes they should abandoned the Republican party - which when compared to liberals - has done nothing to end abortion. They should rally behind a party that will at least stop the deaths of pregnant woman, children, and innocent men in Iraq. There’s no need for them to make a third party, because they already have one that supports more Biblical ideologies than the GOP.

Next Page »