I came across this statement from British Parliamentarian George Galloway and found it well worthy of mention, even though I'm probably coming in late. It is a message that I believe all American Progressives should read and consider:
"..Americans are reaching out a hand in these e-mails, looking for us to understand how miserable it must be, to be a progressive person, living in a country like the U.S. today, which is governed by such a motley crew!
And, I’m going to make it one of my missions, to spread the word of the existence of this mass of people, These 10’s of millions of people that are out there in the U. S., who feel the same way as we do.
And, we have to link up! I think you have to find unity amongst yourselves. There’s no doubt that there is no single movement in the U.S. in the way that there is in Britain, for example, around the STOP THE WAR COALITION which managed to bring under it’s umbrella, more or less, every anti-war, anti-globalization strand of opinion!
And, thus we had the 2,000,000 people march on the 15th of February, two years ago!
You’ve had huge demonstrations. But, you often find 2 organizations organizing demonstrations, sometimes more than that! Now, it must be possible, for a great people, an accomplished people, a "can-do people" like the people of the United States of America, to put aside differences and to come together as ONE movement, even where people reserve the right to ‘paddle their own canoes’, to have their own agendas, to go off from time-to-time, to push their own campaigns.
That’s all fine. But, there must be ONE umbrella! There must be ONE rubric under which it’s possible, to mobilize the millions of people who, I’m now convinced, exist in the U.S. and, who are real allies to the rest of the world. After all, we are trying to change a situation, in which your country and mine, have become the two most hated countries in the world!"
"I wasn't here to melt the hearts of the two members the committee that turned up for the hearing. I was speaking beyond these walls to the watching television audience at home. And I came not as the accused, but as the accuser.
So I don't suppose I did much beyond embarrassing the Sen. Coleman with the absurd thinness of what he had to put on the table. But I hope that I reached a broader public, with my broader case, against the war, against the sanctions, and against the mother of all smoke screens, which is what this Senate committee on investigations is engaged in."
"I really don't view our relationship as one of quid pro quo," George W. Bush told Britain's ITV1 television in an interview about the G8 Summit, the agenda of "climate change," and the obvious talk about the U.S. "owing" Tony Blair, seeing that Britain so willingly joined the Iraq War effort.
"If this looks like Kyoto, the answer is 'no'. The Kyoto treaty would have wrecked our economy," said Bush.
Tony Blair's diplomatic reputation is on the line, and will be measured by how much Blair can get Bush to support bold initiatives on Africa and climate change. On the issue of climate change, diplomats say the Kyoto Protocol (intended to curb greenhouse gas emissions) will not even rate a mention in the summit’s final communiqué because Bush rejects the treaty as 'fundamentally flawed'.
John Hulsman, who examines trans-Atlantic relations for the Heritage Foundation, has a good quote about the overall expectations for this summit, regarding Bush and Blair:
"Bush will give in some on the money and Blair will give in some on the accountability."
...and the public will not rest easy, regardless of any Bush/Blair compromise.
Public protests against free trade, globalization and the Iraq war have already geared up and will soon be in full swing.
I enjoyed reading Scott Shane's NYT front-page news article about Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame. My only problem with the article is that it leads people to believe that Robert Novak was in a vaccuum when he (and any newspaper that carried his syndicated column) carelessly "outed" Plame in print. Bob Novak was fed information by someone in government - someone from the Executive, no less. Why did Scott Shane never mention this not-so-insignificant fact somewhere in the article? It is solely material to the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, which Mr. Shane found worthy of a mention in his article. I saw a good line at the Common Ills, which said:
"..the issue of crime goes to the government, not (sorry to disappoint) to Robert Novak. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act does not cover Novak (unless he's something more than a bad journalist)."
Unless mainstream journalism is factual and all-inclusive, the public will not get a clear understanding of what this case is about.
ParaPundit believes that President Bush's deceitful 4th of July speech for 2005 was an insult to the revolutionaries who founded the United States of America.
In that speech, Bush said:
"At this hour, our men and women in uniform are defending America against the threats of the 21st century. The war we are fighting came to our shores on September the 11th, 2001."
Defending America in Iraq? I wonder who the President thinks he's still fooling?
This past week, the PBS News Hour has been interviewing three soldiers and one Marine about their experiences in Iraq. On the News Hour last night, I heard Former Army Staff Sgt. Gregg Bumgardner say that he is disturbed whenever it is said that the soldiers are "defending America" because, before the war, Iraq was surely not the haven for terrorists that it has become today. In other words, Iraq was not the same threat as that posed by the 9/11 terrorists - and we created this new haven for terror by bringing the war to Iraq's homeland. Remember - this is coming from a soldier returning from Iraq, not from some armchair warrior. When the transcript becomes available, I will post a link to the comment so you may read the words verbatim.