By Sarah Lovenheim | January 4, 2008; 5:12 PM ET
Republican Ron Paul is out with a new TV ad, set to run in New Hampshire through Tuesday's primary, stressing his military credentials.
Patriotic music booms. Soldiers salute. The announcer begins: "A proud military veteran who served our nation. Ron Paul salutes and supports our troops who protect and defend our freedom." A flag waves. The announcer continues, "But who do the troops support? Ron Paul. The record shows they're standing up for him." The ad concludes: "Ron Paul is their choice for commander-in-chief."
His campaign spokesman Jesse Benton said Paul "has long been a praised as staunch advocate for veterans' issues." Still, he "wants to bring the troops home from Iraq" because he would rather America "never again sends out brave soldiers to war unless doing so is necessary for our defense," according to Benton. Whether his anti-war message will appeal to New Hampshire veterans is hard to say.
I found this article at http://blog.washingtonpost.com/channel-08/2008/01/new_spot_troops_support_ron_pa.html
Showing posts with label peace. Show all posts
Showing posts with label peace. Show all posts
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Tea Party Rally Planned for Ron Paul
I got my information from http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=52638
Saturday, December 15, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com
Hundreds of Ron Paul supporters are expected to peacefully converge in downtown Boston on Sunday, December 16th at 1:00pm on the State House steps for what is anticipated to be the largest one day fundraiser for a presidential candidate – ever.
The event, dubbed The BostonTeaParty07, will coincide with the 234th anniversary of the famous Boston Tea Party of 1773 which is widely recognized as helping to spark the American Revolution.
The event in Boston on December 16th also corresponds to the second planned “Money Bomb” that Paul’s supporters have organized independent of his official campaign.
Supporters of the ten term congressman will begin the rally at 1:00pm on the State House steps and walk the Freedom Trail to Faneuil Hall where the doors will open at 2:30.
Inside Faneuil Hall banks of computers will be set up ready to securely process online donations made directly to Ron Paul’s official campaign site. Tea will be served while participants listen to lectures from prominent figures regarding the historical significance of the Boston Tea Party, the origins of The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as well as commentary on current events. Dr. Rand Paul, the candidate’s son, is also slated to speak.
Ron Paul stands apart from the other GOP presidential contenders by vigorously opposing the war in Iraq. Citing the Constitution as his guide, Paul opposes law enforcement or anti-terrorism measures that encroach on civil liberties. His views on small government extend to eliminating the IRS and The Federal Reserve. He favors limiting immigration and strengthening border security while promoting a foreign policy of “non-intervention”.
Ron Paul’s campaign made headlines on November 5th with its first “Money Bomb”, a one day fundraiser which netted over $4.3 million. The December 16th event seeks to surpass that number.
=====
BostonTeaParty07 was planned by members of Boston Ron Paul MeetUp #68 and paid for by Liberty League PAC
www.LibertyLeaguePAC.org
The event is not authorized by the Ron Paul 2008 presidential campaign
Saturday, December 15, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com
Hundreds of Ron Paul supporters are expected to peacefully converge in downtown Boston on Sunday, December 16th at 1:00pm on the State House steps for what is anticipated to be the largest one day fundraiser for a presidential candidate – ever.
The event, dubbed The BostonTeaParty07, will coincide with the 234th anniversary of the famous Boston Tea Party of 1773 which is widely recognized as helping to spark the American Revolution.
The event in Boston on December 16th also corresponds to the second planned “Money Bomb” that Paul’s supporters have organized independent of his official campaign.
Supporters of the ten term congressman will begin the rally at 1:00pm on the State House steps and walk the Freedom Trail to Faneuil Hall where the doors will open at 2:30.
Inside Faneuil Hall banks of computers will be set up ready to securely process online donations made directly to Ron Paul’s official campaign site. Tea will be served while participants listen to lectures from prominent figures regarding the historical significance of the Boston Tea Party, the origins of The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as well as commentary on current events. Dr. Rand Paul, the candidate’s son, is also slated to speak.
Ron Paul stands apart from the other GOP presidential contenders by vigorously opposing the war in Iraq. Citing the Constitution as his guide, Paul opposes law enforcement or anti-terrorism measures that encroach on civil liberties. His views on small government extend to eliminating the IRS and The Federal Reserve. He favors limiting immigration and strengthening border security while promoting a foreign policy of “non-intervention”.
Ron Paul’s campaign made headlines on November 5th with its first “Money Bomb”, a one day fundraiser which netted over $4.3 million. The December 16th event seeks to surpass that number.
=====
BostonTeaParty07 was planned by members of Boston Ron Paul MeetUp #68 and paid for by Liberty League PAC
www.LibertyLeaguePAC.org
The event is not authorized by the Ron Paul 2008 presidential campaign
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Bush: Iran Must Explain Hidden Nuclear Weapons Program
By Scott Stearns
White House
11 December 2007
President Bush says Iran must explain why it hid a past nuclear weapons program from United Nations inspectors. VOA White House Correspondent Scott Stearns reports, Iran says it is enriching uranium only for a peaceful civilian program to generate electricity.
President Bush speaks about Iran during a meeting with Italy's President Giorgio Napolitano, not pictured, 11 Dec 2007
President Bush speaks about Iran during a meeting with Italy's President Giorgio Napolitano, not pictured, 11 Dec 2007
President Bush is trying to keep international pressure on Iran after last week's National Intelligence Estimate found that Tehran stopped its nuclear weapons program four years ago.
Mr. Bush says the U.S. intelligence report proves that Iran was lying to the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency.
"Iran must explain to the world why they had a program. Iran has an obligation to explain to the IAEA why they hid this program from them," he said. "Iran is dangerous, and they will be even more dangerous if they learn how to enrich uranium."
The president spoke following a meeting with Italian President Giorgio Napolitano during which the two men discussed the nuclear standoff.
Iran's Fars news agency says Tehran has begun a new round of talks with U.N. experts who are seeking information on past nuclear activities.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says the latest U.S. intelligence report is a step forward. He told reporters if further such steps are taken, the way will be open for resolving regional and bilateral issues
White House Spokeswoman Dana Perino called this "fanciful thinking."
"It's a very opaque society in Iran," she said. "The president asked for more information from our intelligence community. He got more information. And it confirmed what he thought to be true, which is that Iran was a threat, is a threat, and will certainly continue to be a threat if we don't stop them from obtaining that capability to have a nuclear weapon."
The Bush administration is pushing for another round of U.N. sanctions against Iran. Officials from the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China, and Germany are to discuss the draft of a new sanctions resolution Tuesday.
President Ahmadinejad says there is no legal basis for new sanctions against Iran.
White House
11 December 2007
President Bush says Iran must explain why it hid a past nuclear weapons program from United Nations inspectors. VOA White House Correspondent Scott Stearns reports, Iran says it is enriching uranium only for a peaceful civilian program to generate electricity.
President Bush speaks about Iran during a meeting with Italy's President Giorgio Napolitano, not pictured, 11 Dec 2007
President Bush speaks about Iran during a meeting with Italy's President Giorgio Napolitano, not pictured, 11 Dec 2007
President Bush is trying to keep international pressure on Iran after last week's National Intelligence Estimate found that Tehran stopped its nuclear weapons program four years ago.
Mr. Bush says the U.S. intelligence report proves that Iran was lying to the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency.
"Iran must explain to the world why they had a program. Iran has an obligation to explain to the IAEA why they hid this program from them," he said. "Iran is dangerous, and they will be even more dangerous if they learn how to enrich uranium."
The president spoke following a meeting with Italian President Giorgio Napolitano during which the two men discussed the nuclear standoff.
Iran's Fars news agency says Tehran has begun a new round of talks with U.N. experts who are seeking information on past nuclear activities.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says the latest U.S. intelligence report is a step forward. He told reporters if further such steps are taken, the way will be open for resolving regional and bilateral issues
White House Spokeswoman Dana Perino called this "fanciful thinking."
"It's a very opaque society in Iran," she said. "The president asked for more information from our intelligence community. He got more information. And it confirmed what he thought to be true, which is that Iran was a threat, is a threat, and will certainly continue to be a threat if we don't stop them from obtaining that capability to have a nuclear weapon."
The Bush administration is pushing for another round of U.N. sanctions against Iran. Officials from the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China, and Germany are to discuss the draft of a new sanctions resolution Tuesday.
President Ahmadinejad says there is no legal basis for new sanctions against Iran.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Monitoring Agency Praises U.S. Report, but Keeps Wary Eye on Iran
By ELAINE SCIOLINO
Published: December 5, 2007
PARIS, Dec. 4 — The International Atomic Energy Agency on Tuesday publicly embraced the new American intelligence assessment stating that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons effort, but in truth the agency is taking a more cautious approach in drawing conclusions about Iran’s nuclear program.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Joe Klamar/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
A report last month by Mohamed ElBaradei, the international agency’s leader, was less categorical than the American finding.
Enlarge This Image
Hasan Sarbakhshian/Associated Press
The International Atomic Energy Agency says it has "outstanding issues" about Iran’s nuclear enrichment complex in Natanz.
“To be frank, we are more skeptical,” a senior official close to the agency said. “We don’t buy the American analysis 100 percent. We are not that generous with Iran.”
The official called the American assertion that Iran had “halted” its weapons program in 2003 “somewhat surprising.”
That the nuclear watchdog agency based in Vienna is sounding a somewhat tougher line than the Bush administration is surprising, given that the administration has long criticized it for not pressuring Iran hard enough to curb its nuclear program.
But the American finding has so unsettled governments, agencies and officials dealing with Iran that it has suddenly upended commonly held assumptions.
There is relief, as one senior French official put it, that “the war option is off the table.” There is also criticism and even anger in some quarters that the American intelligence assessment may be too soft on Iran.
Israel, for example, on Tuesday took a darker view of Iran’s nuclear ambitions than the American assessment, saying that it is convinced that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons and that it has probably resumed the weapons program the Americans said was stopped in autumn 2003.
The British government said the international community should maintain pressure on Iran over its uranium enrichment efforts. “It confirms we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons,” a spokesman for Prime Minister Gordon Brown told reporters. He said the American assessment had also shown that past international pressure on Iran had succeeded “in that they seem to have abandoned the weaponization element.”
He added, “But it also tells us the intent was there, and that the risk of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons remains a serious problem.” That, he said, justified maintaining pressure on the Tehran government to abandon efforts to enrich uranium and to reprocess spent nuclear fuel, processes that could provide fissile material for nuclear weapons.
Iran’s foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, told state-run radio that Iran welcomed the change of opinion about its nuclear program. “Some of the same countries which had questions or ambiguities about our nuclear program are changing their views realistically,” he said.
A spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, Mohammad Ali Hosseini, said the report showed that American accusations about Iran’s secret weapons activities were baseless, reported ISNA, the Iranian student news agency.
“This report can be good news for U.S. allies so that they would change their unreasonable policies,” he said, ISNA reported.
The International Atomic Energy Agency’s public stance, and the main message of Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general, was to praise the new finding as proof that his agency had been right in its analysis.
The American assessment “tallies with the agency’s consistent statements over the last few years that — although Iran still needs to clarify some important aspects of its past and present nuclear activities — the agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran,” Dr. ElBaradei said in a statement.
He said the American intelligence assessment “should help to defuse the current crisis.”
But the agency has been frustrated by shrinking access for its inspectors in Iran, and Dr. ElBaradei also called on Iran to “accelerate its cooperation,” adding that the new American finding “should prompt Iran to work actively with the I.A.E.A. to clarify specific aspects of its past and present nuclear program.” He urged Iran to allow more intrusive inspections of its facilities.
Inside the agency, officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity under normal diplomatic rules, said that Iran must not assume that the American report relieves it of pressure to work with the agency, and that the country must do more to prove its good will.
“We are still worried about certain aspects of Iran’s nuclear program, and we need answers, particularly about so-called military aspects of the program,” said the senior official close to the agency.
Dr. ElBaradei’s most recent report to his agency’s 35-country board last month is less categorical in its conclusions than the American finding.
The agency acknowledged there were still “outstanding issues” regarding the scope and nature of the nuclear enrichment facility at Natanz and activities that could have military applications, Dr. ElBaradei said.
The American analysis twice describes the Natanz enrichment program as civilian, and omits the administration’s oft-cited analysis that there is no logical application for enriched uranium other than eventual military use. Referring to the finding’s characterization of uranium enrichment, the official allied with the international agency said, “We wouldn’t go that far.”
The official also refused to rule out the possibility that Iran might have programs involving centrifuges — the machines that spin enriched uranium — that it had not disclosed to the agency.
The agency plans to use the new assessment’s revelation that Iran had a nuclear weapons program in the past to pry more information out of it about its suspicious past activities.
“If they had a weapons program, they better tell us now,” the official said. “We need to know where they ended up with their program before they terminated it.”
John F. Burns contributed reporting from London, and Nazila Fathi from Tehran.
Published: December 5, 2007
PARIS, Dec. 4 — The International Atomic Energy Agency on Tuesday publicly embraced the new American intelligence assessment stating that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons effort, but in truth the agency is taking a more cautious approach in drawing conclusions about Iran’s nuclear program.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Joe Klamar/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
A report last month by Mohamed ElBaradei, the international agency’s leader, was less categorical than the American finding.
Enlarge This Image
Hasan Sarbakhshian/Associated Press
The International Atomic Energy Agency says it has "outstanding issues" about Iran’s nuclear enrichment complex in Natanz.
“To be frank, we are more skeptical,” a senior official close to the agency said. “We don’t buy the American analysis 100 percent. We are not that generous with Iran.”
The official called the American assertion that Iran had “halted” its weapons program in 2003 “somewhat surprising.”
That the nuclear watchdog agency based in Vienna is sounding a somewhat tougher line than the Bush administration is surprising, given that the administration has long criticized it for not pressuring Iran hard enough to curb its nuclear program.
But the American finding has so unsettled governments, agencies and officials dealing with Iran that it has suddenly upended commonly held assumptions.
There is relief, as one senior French official put it, that “the war option is off the table.” There is also criticism and even anger in some quarters that the American intelligence assessment may be too soft on Iran.
Israel, for example, on Tuesday took a darker view of Iran’s nuclear ambitions than the American assessment, saying that it is convinced that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons and that it has probably resumed the weapons program the Americans said was stopped in autumn 2003.
The British government said the international community should maintain pressure on Iran over its uranium enrichment efforts. “It confirms we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons,” a spokesman for Prime Minister Gordon Brown told reporters. He said the American assessment had also shown that past international pressure on Iran had succeeded “in that they seem to have abandoned the weaponization element.”
He added, “But it also tells us the intent was there, and that the risk of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons remains a serious problem.” That, he said, justified maintaining pressure on the Tehran government to abandon efforts to enrich uranium and to reprocess spent nuclear fuel, processes that could provide fissile material for nuclear weapons.
Iran’s foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, told state-run radio that Iran welcomed the change of opinion about its nuclear program. “Some of the same countries which had questions or ambiguities about our nuclear program are changing their views realistically,” he said.
A spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, Mohammad Ali Hosseini, said the report showed that American accusations about Iran’s secret weapons activities were baseless, reported ISNA, the Iranian student news agency.
“This report can be good news for U.S. allies so that they would change their unreasonable policies,” he said, ISNA reported.
The International Atomic Energy Agency’s public stance, and the main message of Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general, was to praise the new finding as proof that his agency had been right in its analysis.
The American assessment “tallies with the agency’s consistent statements over the last few years that — although Iran still needs to clarify some important aspects of its past and present nuclear activities — the agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran,” Dr. ElBaradei said in a statement.
He said the American intelligence assessment “should help to defuse the current crisis.”
But the agency has been frustrated by shrinking access for its inspectors in Iran, and Dr. ElBaradei also called on Iran to “accelerate its cooperation,” adding that the new American finding “should prompt Iran to work actively with the I.A.E.A. to clarify specific aspects of its past and present nuclear program.” He urged Iran to allow more intrusive inspections of its facilities.
Inside the agency, officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity under normal diplomatic rules, said that Iran must not assume that the American report relieves it of pressure to work with the agency, and that the country must do more to prove its good will.
“We are still worried about certain aspects of Iran’s nuclear program, and we need answers, particularly about so-called military aspects of the program,” said the senior official close to the agency.
Dr. ElBaradei’s most recent report to his agency’s 35-country board last month is less categorical in its conclusions than the American finding.
The agency acknowledged there were still “outstanding issues” regarding the scope and nature of the nuclear enrichment facility at Natanz and activities that could have military applications, Dr. ElBaradei said.
The American analysis twice describes the Natanz enrichment program as civilian, and omits the administration’s oft-cited analysis that there is no logical application for enriched uranium other than eventual military use. Referring to the finding’s characterization of uranium enrichment, the official allied with the international agency said, “We wouldn’t go that far.”
The official also refused to rule out the possibility that Iran might have programs involving centrifuges — the machines that spin enriched uranium — that it had not disclosed to the agency.
The agency plans to use the new assessment’s revelation that Iran had a nuclear weapons program in the past to pry more information out of it about its suspicious past activities.
“If they had a weapons program, they better tell us now,” the official said. “We need to know where they ended up with their program before they terminated it.”
John F. Burns contributed reporting from London, and Nazila Fathi from Tehran.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Ron PAUL and Kucinich on Peace
Kucinich and Paul face other potential repercussions for putting the life and death issue of war and peace before party loyalty. Both are incumbent congressmen and if they are unsuccessful in getting their party’s presidential nomination will seek re-election to Congress. Will they find themselves with a well-funded primary challenger? And, if elected, will they find their committee assignments downgraded? Will they be appointed to subcommittee or committee chairmanships or passed over in favor of party loyalists? There are many ways for a political party to punish lack of party loyalty. So, Kucinich and Paul deserve a great deal of credit for publicly standing up for peace before party.
And, Kucinich and Paul did not just come out in opposition to the current disastrous occupation of Iraq. They came out more broadly for an end to the aggressively interventionist U.S. foreign policy that is dominated by militarism. This is the type of paradigm shifting policy change that is needed in U.S. foreign policy.
The fact that the U.S. spends as much as the whole world combined on the military ensures that every other aspect of American civil life is underfunded. It is why the debt is increasing, infrastructure is failing, the U.S. remains addicted to oil, college is overpriced, health care for all unachievable, and pre-school for children widely unavailable. If the U.S. wants to build economic security at home it needs to stop spending half the federal government’s discretionary spending on the military. If we want to build security from terrorism the U.S. needs to stop creating enemies faster than we kill them. If the U.S. wants “them” to stop hating “us” we need to stop behaving like an empire.
Sadly, at least one peace group, Friends Committee on National Legislation, is turning its back on these real peace candidates. FCNL whose slogan is “War is Not the Answer,” has published a voter guide that excludes Kucinich, Paul and Gravel – the three candidates who really believe war is not the answer. FCNL readers will not learn about these peace candidates in their on-line voter guide. Why? FCNL decided on an arbitrary cut-off point in polling that excludes these candidates. All the candidates that are included keep the military option for Iran on the table and do not advocate cutting military expenditures, only one (Bill Richardson) calls for complete withdrawal from Iraq. Are these “war is not the answer” candidates?
For Kucinich and Paul this stab in the back from a peace group comes at a bad time. Kucinich recently won a straw poll by the progressive Democracy For America and in early returns Kucinich is leading in the Progressive Democrats of America straw poll. Paul has been doing extremely well in straw polls around the country as well as in fund raising and in some polls is bettering candidates like John McCain. Both seem to be getting some traction but if the peace movement is not going to even report on their positions – a movement which should be the base of their support – then what hope do they have?
Sadly, the FCNL view is not uncommon among peace voters. Too many look at which candidate is most likely to win. Peace voters need to learn that voting for peace candidates is the way to increase their power. Voting for candidates who support the occupation or waffle on whether they will remove the troops in their first term is voting against the interests of peace. It is voting for war as the primary instrument of foreign policy and empire as the goal of U.S. policy – because that is the view of the candidates covered by FCNL. Peace voters need to have the courage to vote for peace candidates.
Paul and Kucinich differ on many issues – Paul is a free-market thinker who sees the solutions to economic disparity, lack of access to health care, poor education, the environment and the housing crisis in less government and more market-based solutions. Kucinich, while agreeing with Paul on bolstering civil liberties and individual rights, sees the solution to health care as ending the for-profit dominated health insurance industry and replacing it with a non-profit single payer system provided by the government. Similarly on environmental issues Kucinich favors a major government investment in alternative energy that is clean and sustainable, Paul doesn’t. Kucinich favors abortion rights, Paul opposes federal government involvement in abortion.
Peace voters have a choice between two solid peace candidates with two very different views of government and the economy, but they have more. Mike Gravel is another long-term peace advocate who has been active against war since the Vietnam era. Some peace voters may also see a candidate in Governor Bill Richardson who favors a complete withdrawal from Iraq, but is keeping the military option on the table for Iran and does not advocate shrinking the U.S. military.
And, in the General Election, peace voters will have other options no matter what the two establishment parties decide. The Green Party recently acquired a new member in Cynthia McKinney. The former Member of Congress recently registered as a Green in California and filed with the FEC to seek the Green presidential nomination. She has been strongly anti-war for her whole career and during her last congressional term sought impeachment of President Bush for his illegal invasion of Iraq.
Ralph Nader, the long-time consumer activist and former presidential candidate who has been working against the Iraq invasion and occupation since before the war began, is also considering a run for the presidency, possibly as a Green or as an independent. He has tirelessly worked to end the Iraq occupation and throughout his career has been an advocate for less spending on the military and more spending on the necessities of the people. Nader has also been a long-term advocate for impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney for their deceptions and manipulations that led to the Iraq invasion.
Another Green candidate worthy of mention is Jared Ball. He is an assistant professor at Morgan State University in Baltimore, has a radio show in Washington, DC, and is founder of FreeMix radio which puts together a monthly hip-hop compilation. He is a veteran of Desert Shield/Desert Storm and an opponent of the Iraq occupation.
The Libertarian Party also has several candidates running and they are likely to nominate a peace candidate as well. The LP’s official position on the Iraq occupation is: “It is time for U.S. forces to withdraw from Iraq as quickly as possible in a manner consistent with the safety of our troops.”
Peace voters will have choices in 2008. There are several candidates who oppose both the Iraq occupation and the use of aggressive military force as the dominant approach to foreign policy. Peace voters make up the majority of Americans, but will they have the courage to vote their convictions or will they be manipulated by the two parties and the corporate media? Will they work and financially support peace candidates? It is a test for the peace movement to see whether it as the courage to put peace first.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
