i can't believe the bullshit you just espoused. don't make excuses for Obama. It is immoral for him to justify the use of mercenaries no matter what!
you should know this. i know you know this. blackwater has NO ACCOUNTABILITY. Blackwater was created asa a 'private' offshoot of the CIA, built soley for the purposes of doing things that are totally illegal and immoral, and would be embarrassing for the US gov't if they were US gov't troops (which of course they are).
Blackwater uses ammunition that is illegal (dumb dumb bullets, which ensure deadly force, etc.), they use tactics that are illegal (kidnapping, torture, collective punishment), and they disgrace the already disgraced United States.
there is no moral excuse for employing mercenaries, and i am flabbergasted that you would make excuses for Obama's assertion that he would not rule out using mercenaries- that's a f*kin disgrace.

As far as Hillary is concerned, yer right, she hasn't done enough, but don't shoot her down for getting on-board, that's just stupid man. Force Obama to get on board by making it a rubementary expectation of both candidates. get them working together. Force Obama to endorse. It's a no-brainer.

Destroy Blackwater's support, don't make excuses for their existence. F*K!!!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Blackwater is a threat to all of America whether operating in Iraq or in New Orleans or anywhere within the United States..or the world..!

They are a private army and the potential for abuse in regard to Blackwater is huge...

Privatization by government for me be it Blackwater or the IRS or other has become just another word for Fascism..!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

[dripping with sarcasm]

No, that would never happen.

Mr. Obama's a saint. And saints don't lie, do they?

[end dripping with sarcasm]

Wake up Obama-dupes, because you're being lied to--and he's lying to you about much more than "ending the War in Iraq."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

buy into obamo or hillary as changing anything. anybody that doesn't see a large federal government that believes it can do whatever it want as part of the reason for militarism either wants to continue to believe in hopes and dreams or has drunk the federal kookaid. who cares about blackwater, its a symptom of a larger problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'll tell you, I don't have the complete solution for Iraq. I doubt any of the sassy posters on this site who are giving Obama and Clinton flack have a complete solution either. It is not a simple problem and there are numerous changing elements. By next January when a new president takes office, who knows what the situation will be. Bush may have dragged us into a war with Iran by that time.

Regardless, even at this moment, immediate withdrawal (which I'm in favor of) is not completely practical. John McCain's 100 more years is idiotic. Maybe a little more well reasoned solutions need to evolve (AFTER the presidential shift and information is more forthcoming). I have to Fault Jeremy Scahill for creating so many sound bites and giving the impression that Obama and Clinton are "Worse" than John McCain. I doubt that he really feels McCain is really better simply because McCain is honest about the 4 more Bush years he will give us. Jeremy, I admire you and your work. But say McCain is "better" because he is "honest" about taking an insane position is not really helping the debate.

Sure Clinton and Obama tell us they want to end the war. Sure they give us few solid details. But considering how the Bush administration has decimated our armed forces and how fragile the enlisted situation is, promising flat out that you will withdraw all the contractors would be disingenuous -- an obvious campaign promise. Which is worse: Saying you want to end the war, but you need to have options as to how to go about it -- or making promises that any rational and informed person can see as empty, just to get a few votes? I'd opt for the former. We are not in a good situation right now. We may have to rely on contractors for a while. Obama's attempt to put into law some sort of oversight (while difficult to enforce) is at least a step in the right direction. While Clinton's posturing for political points is just more of the same bull we usually get from politicians.

If you boil all this down, Obama is being honest, keeping options on the table, not making promises that he can't deliver, trying to get some accountability back in the system (which difficult to enforce or not, is better than the current situation of absolutely no accountability at all.) Clinton is making political points... but not really doing anything meaningful. John McCain is just plain lost.

Explain again why McCain is "better."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"What is leadership? Leadership means getting out in front of where people are and waking them up. Right now, given these violent possible threats to us and our families, we are sleeping.

Which is why I am formally coming out of the closet with my support for Senator Barack Obama. Of all the candidates running now, he is the leader on understanding the threat to the Constitution and actually taking action, not just mouthing soundbites, on the need to deny torturers space in our nation and to restore the rule of law.

"Lawyers for Gitmo detainees endorse Obama," read a recent headline on the Boston Globe's political blog. In the article, reporter Charlie Savage notes that "More than 80 volunteer lawyers for Guantanamo Bay detainees today endorsed Illinois Senator Barack Obama's presidential bid. The attorneys said in a joint statement that they believed Obama was the best choice to roll back the Bush-Cheney administration's detention policies in the war on terrorism and thereby to 'restore the rule of law, demonstrate our commitment to human rights, and repair our reputation in the world community.'"

The lawyers who signed this letter -- prominent names on the list included Washington lawyer Thomas Wilner, retired federal appeals court judge John Gibbons, and retired Rear Admiral Donald Guter, who was the Navy's top JAG officer from 2000 to 2002 -- applauded Obama for having stood up in 2006 against aspects of the Military Commissions Act. Unfortunately, his fight was ultimately unsuccessful -- which is why we are all still in danger. But unlike other candidates he truly fought and he understood the nature of the danger: "When we were walking the halls of the Capitol trying to win over enough Senators to beat back the Administration's bill, Senator Obama made his key staffers and even his offices available to help us," the lawyers wrote. "Senator Obama worked with us to count the votes, and he personally lobbied colleagues who worried about the political ramifications of voting to preserve habeas corpus for the men held at Guantanamo. He has understood that our strength as a nation stems from our commitment to our core values, and that we are strong enough to protect both our security and those values. Senator Obama demonstrated real leadership then and since, continuing to raise Guantanamo and habeas corpus in his speeches and in the debates."

I say this with regret: She and her husband really know how to run a country; they delivered eight years of peace and prosperity. But that is not enough right now. These are times that should try men's souls -- and women's also. In a closing society, a leader has to be willing to face down evil, engage it and call it by its name.

Remember: when activists started to push hard to raise awareness of the dangers of torture and indefinite detention, many on the Hill were scared to join the fight because it was then politically unpopular. But to me, if you are not really against torture -- always and under every political change in climate, and let us note that former torture victim and prisoner of war John McCain shamefully dropped his fight against the torture loopholes in the law as well -- then you are not really, in my view, fit to be an American President.

Gender has nothing to do with it. Race has nothing to do with it.

Integrity has something to do with it.

That is why Barack Obama has my vote. Of all the leading candidates, he is the only one on these issues who has consistently acted like a true American.

Naomi Wolf is the author of The End of America (Chelsea Green) and the co-founder of the American Freedom Campaign.

linked text

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THE TORRES-VIGNALI CONNECTION is explored in detail in a congressional report that resulted from Pardongate, when revelations surfaced that President Clinton granted clemency for Carlos Vignali Jr. — convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to 15 years in federal prison in 1995 — along with other convicted criminals and one-time international fugitive Marc Rich. The granting of clemency occurred after payments were made to Clinton’s brother-in-law, Hugh Rodham, the brother of former first lady, New York state senator and 2008 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Released in March 2002 by the congressional Committee on Government Reform, “Justice Undone: Clemency Decisions in the Clinton White House” details Hugh Rodham’s involvement in the Vignali affair, as well as the long business history Vignali once shared with George Torres.

The report takes to task top L.A. elected officials, including county Supervisor Gloria Molina, then–state Senator Richard Polanco, then–state Assemblyman Antonio Villaraigosa and U.S. Representative Xavier Becerra, among others, for lobbying on behalf of Vignali Jr., in light of his drug conviction and the fact that DEA agents long suspected Vignali Sr. to be involved in drug trafficking — along with Torres. While a member of the California state Assembly, Villaraigosa wrote the first letter on Vignali’s behalf on May 24, 1996.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY JOE!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cliton as usual, though she gets the inevitable, merciless, unending and juvenile vituperation and attacks, from our all the political geniuses that crowd into these sites to influence our judgements, to which she has had to grow acustomed, is easily aead of Obama, if only because she's a straight talker.
jp

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Please see www.discussrace.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How noble, but so vague. Obama has to stop the lawyer talk and make some definitive state-
ments. He makes a very good speech but will not commit on anything. It's tough to make a clear statement and then be proved wrong, but that's the way it is. Public scrutiny is part of the deal and he has to come to grips with it. We are entitled to ask questions. I like the guy but he seems so immature at times. Still not sure. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Both these candidates are like all the rest of the owning class... they know who they will need to hire to protect them from the revolt by the huddled masses.

They're soft on Blackwater because they're clients of Blackwater. Duh.

You think the ex-CEO of Countrywide hired them for personal security just for fun?! He knows there are some 200K people who lost their housing who also know where that bastard lives... he's not an idiot. He hired Blackwater to protect him, same as Hillary and Barack.

Word to the rich, beware... blowback is a serious probability. I bet a beer on it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Months ago i heard clinton extolling the virtues of private contractors, and suggesting that it be THEY who are left in iraq to guard embassies, outposts, bases, oil fields, etc. I have never ever heard anyone mention that or call her on it. I wish i could remember when and where the speech was.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

.... both forms of government in ancient Rome made extensive use of paid mercenaries, first in the army and the provinces, then in the city to "keep order". One more symptom of our decline as a nation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]