Sunday, October 30, 2005

Delhi blasts - Shocking! Responsibility?

I hope the Indian Government looks deeper at the techniques, issues and likely instigators, before associating these terror blasts with Islamists. To me, it points directly to the PNAC (Project for the New American Century) destabilizers. Remember that it was PNAC that put forward the vision for the invasion and occupation of Iraq!

For the full text, please visit today's entry (30th October 2005) at Jacob's Blog

Saturday, October 29, 2005

What Did the President and Vice President Know and...

Comment #39 posted on the blog of Congressman John Conyers jr.: jmatthan said on 10/29/05 @ 12:16am ET...

It warmed my heart today that during the release of the indictments, the first comment that flashed at the base of the CNN screen here in Finland was the comment by Congressman John Conyers Jr. that today was the beginning and not the end of the process.

It shows that Congressman Conyers Jr. is being watched and listened to like a hawk and what he says is of tremendous interest and value AROUND THE WORLD!

Thank you Congressman for being totally on top of the subject.

Friday, October 28, 2005

Iran's Irresponsible President

Comment posted by Jacob Matthan at October 27, 2005 02:26 PM

Was "shock and awe" and all its collateral damage of innocents who have been wiped off this universe already, the action of a responsible pResident and Prime Minister?

Which is more "responsible"?

A threat or a completed action?

Just a thought of double standards.

Strange reactions of war criminals

I was quite intrigued to read the reaction of war criminal Tony Blair ("Blair 'revulsion' at Iran threat") at the statement of Iran's President to wipe out Israel from the face of this earth.

I certainly do not agree with the Iranian President, but what was strange is the hypocritical reaction of Blair and Bush.

They do not want us to be revolted by their "shock and awe" attack on innocent Iraqis as they bombed them out of this universe, forever.

No, we must be happy at all those innocent people that they killed as "collateral damage" while Bush got possession of the Iraqi OIL aided by his lapdog.

We must be thrilled at the depleted uranium that these criminals have scattered all around Iraq and Afghanistan.

These are not threats. Must we be pleased with these criminal actions.

And these criminals ask us to be revulsed at a mere threat!!

Thank you war criminals, Bush and Blair - i prefer to listen to outbursts of threats rather accept than your criminal actions.

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

US Casualities in Iraq - 2000

Click to see enlarged image

US casualities in Iraq hits 2000

War Criminal charge vindicated

My charge in my blog entry Torch of Death of the New York Times Management being War Criminals is vindicated by this excellent piece of investigative blogism that appeared today in Huffington Post by William E. Jackson Jr.

William E. Jackson Jr.: COVER-UP: The Publisher and Executive Editor of The New York Times Sanctioned a Cover-up in a Criminal Investigation

It should no be painfully obvious that the top leadership of The New York Times sanctioned, and participated in, a scandalous--if not legally liable--cover-up in a federal criminal investigation into how the name of a CIA covert operative was divulged to the press as part of an act of revenge against a Bush Administration critic of the war in Iraq.

I await a reply from the New York Times Public Editor, Byron Calame!

Spineless bully US Senator Norm Coleman caught lying again

Galloway challenges the US Senate committee to charge him

The Respect MP George Galloway has thrown down a challenge to the US Senate homeland security committee to charge him with perjury and "I'll see you in court".

Galloway said that he was prepared to fly out immediately to the United States if Senator Norm Coleman, who heads the committee, was prepared to bring charges. The MP has just seen a press release from the committee which alleges that he gave "false and misleading testimony" on May 17. "I deny that absolutely. As I've said a thousand times, I've never benefited personally. Let Coleman bring these charges and I'll rebut them totally."

It is understood that senior Iraqi members of the deposed regime have made statements to the committee, including Tariq Aziz, Taha Yasin Ramadan, the former vice-president of the country, and Amer Rashid, the former oil minister. "I've never met Ramadan or Rashid but I do know that they are facing charges which may carry a death sentence. As is Tariq Aziz. He has been held incommunicado for two years - and we know what goes on in US-controlled prisons in Iraq - and we also know from his lawyers that he has been offered a deal to testify," said Galloway. "On the one hand the US government accuses these men of being homicidal maniacs, on the other they assert that their coerced testimony is utterly trustworthy. Well, let Senator Coleman bring them and his unnamed sources to court in a case against me, and we'll see what the world concludes."

Galloway denies soliciting oil allocations or receiving "one thin dime" from the oil-for-food programme. He also denies any knowledge that his estranged wife, Dr Amineh Abu-Zayyad, received approximately $150,000 in connection with oil allocations. "I understand she has made a statement denying this and it certainly came as news to me because it has never been raised."

Galloway added that the fact that the Mariam Appeal, a political campaign, had received more than $446,000 from Jordanian businessman Fawaz Zureikat "cannot be news to anyone. The Charity Commission investigated the Mariam Appeal, it scrutinised every penny in and every penny out and totally exonerated me from benefiting financially through the campaign."

"It's Groundhog Day. I've already comprehensively dealt with these allegations – under oath in the High Court and the US Senate – to the Charity Commission and in innumerable media inquiries. It seems that Senator Coleman, raising them yet again, is suffering from acute attention deficit disorder. Hell clearly hath no fury than a US senator humiliated. It's a sneak revenge attack of the most contemptible kind."

"He has not had the decency to let me know the conclusions he and his cohorts have reached, nor even that he was holding a press conference to smear me. For a lawyer he has a strange concept of justice."

Galloway continued: "Let me once again repeat. I have never benefited from any oil deal and I have never asked anyone to act on my behalf. I have not made a penny out of oil deals with Iraq or indeed any other kind of deal. This ought to be dead, yet Norm Coleman parrots it once more, from 3000 miles away and protected by privilege."

"These attacks are being mounted against me as a sideshow to divert attention from the real grand larceny - $1.3bn missing from the defence department and $8.8bn from the oil accounts. All of which occurred under the US administration."

Galloway also cast doubt on the veracity and provenance of the documents 'discovered' in Baghdad by the Telegraph journalist David Blair. "At the conclusion of the appeal process in the libel case I will be revealing important new information about this," Galloway said. "However it is still the case that, despite Senator Coleman promising to do so, I have still not been furnished with the originals or been able to have them independently forensically examined. If you can call them originals because I understand these are mere photocopies. But even it these are genuine papers the fact remains that anyone's name can be written on a document. It does not mean that I received anything. How many more times must I say - I did not."

Sunday, October 23, 2005

Warmongering precedes Aid to destitute

I do not know how many of you watched the BBC interview of British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, and US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice.

The contents were significant.

The focus was on spreading the message of war rather on how they could help the many millions who have been devastated by the natural disasters.

The political beings in the US and the UK are spreading war rather than mercy.

Spreading mercy does not create wealth for their corporate buddies.

Spreading War creates the profits for the war machinery along with death and destruction.

I hope that these war criminals are hauled over the coals as soon as possible.

Torch of Death

In the past I have written to the New Ypork Times on several occasions about their coverage of events leading up to the Iraq War and their promotion and support of Judith Miller. None have been acknowledged. I did not post those as the rule in the New York Times is that correspondence should be exclusive to them.

However; the most recent email I have sent them is not so much about getting them to publish my letter but to charge them with War Crimes.

From: Jacob Matthan
Managing Editor of the New York Times,
Executive Editor of the New York Times,
Judith Miller of the New York Times, Byron Calam,
Public Editor of the New York Times,
Editorial Board of the New York Times,
"Michael M. Weinstein" Member of the Editorial Board of the New York Times
Date: 22-Oct-2005 09:42
Subject: War criminals - Torch of Death

Dear Sirs,

The admission by your Executive Editor, Mr. Bill Keller (Ref: "Editor Says He Missed Miller 'Alarm Bells' " by John Solomon, Associated Press Writer) indicates that, along with George Bush and Dick Cheney and their whole cabal of criminals who form part of the malAdministration of the US, your newspaper and its top management has to be brought before the International Court of Justice for War Crimes which has caused the death of hundreds of thousand of innocent Iraqi women and children.

It is pure rubbish that Mr. Keller claims "Judy seems to have misled Phil Taubman about the extent of her involvement."

The rest of the world knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The rest of the world also knew that your correspondent, Judith Miller, was an inveterate liar carrying the torch of death for George Bush and Dick Cheney.

If they did not, they are incompetent and have to be removed from their jobs!

I would like one good reason "Why Not?"

Jacob Matthan
Oulu, Finland

Col. Wilkerson destroys US Army

In an explosive speech delivered by Col. Larry Wilkerson, former Aide to former Secretary of State, General Colin Powell, he demolished the myth that the US has a "Professional Army", something that Democratic presidential hopeful, General Wes Clark, has been shouting at from the rooftops for the past couple of months. (All emphasis in the quoted text is mine.)

You can also listen to the entire speech as well as the quesion and answer session as a video.

I don’t think, in our history, we’ve ever had a presidential involvement, a secretarial involvement, a vice-presidential involvement, an attorney general involvement in telling our troops essentially carte blanche is the way you should feel.  You should not have any qualms because this is a different kind of conflict.  Well, I’ll admit that.  I’ll admit that.  I don’t want to see any of these people ever released from prison if they’re truly terrorists.  I don’t want to see them released because I know what they’ll do.  I’m a former military man, 31 years in the Army.  They will go out and they will try to kill me and my buddies, again and again, and some of you people, too. 
So I understand the radical change in the nature of our enemy, but that doesn’t mean we make a radical change in the nature of America.  But that’s what we did, and we did it in private.  We did it in such privacy that the Secretary of State had to open the door into my office one day – we had adjoining offices and he liked to do that, and I never objected – he came through the door and he said, Larry, Larry, get everything, get all the paperwork, get the ICRC reports, get everything; I think this is going to be a real mess.  And Will Taft, his lawyer, got the same instruction from a legal point of view.  And Will and I worked together for almost a year as the ICRC reports began to build and come in, and Kellenberger even came in and visited with the Secretary of State.  And we knew that things weren’t the way they should be, and as former soldiers, we knew that you don’t have this kind of pervasive attitude out there unless you’ve condoned it – unless you’ve condoned it.  And whether you did it explicitly or not is irrelevant.  If you did it at all, indirectly, implicitly, tacitly – you pick the word – you’re in trouble because that slippery slope is truly slippery, and it will take years to reverse the situation, and we’ll probably have to grow a new military
We may have to do that anyway because my army right now is truly in bad shape – truly in bad shape.  And I’m not talking about the billions and billions of dollars of equipment it’s burning up in Iraq at a rate 10 or 15 times the rate its life cycle said it should be burned up at, but I’m also talking about when you have officers who have to hedge the truth, NCOs who have to hedge the truth .  They start voting with their feet, as they did in Vietnam, my war.  They come home and they tell their wife they’ve got to go back for the third tour and the fourth tour and the wife says, uh-uh, or the husband says, uh-uh, and all of a sudden your military begins to unravel.  And the signs are very concrete right now that the Army and the Marine Corps – to a lesser extent the other services because they’re not quite as involved in the deployments that we’re talking about here and the frequency thereof, the op tempo as we say it – problems are brewing.  Problems are brewing.

Col. Wilkerson says that General Powell will say nothing because he is a good soldier.

I disagree - General Powell will say nothing as he was a COLLABORATOR, and is a WAR CRIMINAL.

He might like to hide behind the ethics of his former Army uniform, but that shows he is a coward, just as I claim the Gen. Wes Clark cannot speak the truth.

They think about their buddies and the niceties about their realtionships with soldiers whereas the truth is that are the ones that trained and brought to the positions of power these sycophants that are now the Generals in the US Army.. Condemn the students means condemning themselves! The US version of the stiff upper lip.

It exposes that the training these old soldiers as Powell and Clark imparted and the examples they set were WRONG.

Hence they hide behind a facade of camaraderie.

Saturday, October 22, 2005

Nonpartisan GAO Confirms Security Flaws in Voting Machines

Comment #1 by me on Congressman John Conyers jr.'s blog: jmatthan said on 10/21/05 @ 1:37pm ET...

Great news Congressman. Your Ohio report has been fully authenticated by this report.

Cannot understand your implication that raising the subject can get one banned from the blog community.

America is not, therefore, a valid democracy!

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Does Judy Have a Security Clearance?

Comment #18 posted on Congressman John Conyers Jr.'s blog: jmatthan said on 10/18/05 @ 3:05pm ET...

Congressman Conyers Jr. should have mentioned the Geraldo Rivera case in his letter.

Remember Geraldo Rivera who had to leave Iraq after drawing a crude map in the sand during the invasion.

It is obvious that reporters had to sign a non-disclosure agreement, but that did not give them any right to gain access to top secret information, and if they did, they had no authority to reveal it in any way!

Sunday, October 16, 2005

Attack the Messenger

Harry Jaffe has a review of the book by Craig Crawford, "Attack the Messenger"

Crawford is the White House columnist for "Congressional Quarterly" and is regularly on "Imus in the Morning".

Crawford cites the March 2003 exchange between White House correspondent Helen Thomas and Ari Fleischer, then White House press secretary.

Thomas: “Does it bother the President that most of the world is against this war?”

Fleischer: “Helen, this is an issue where you and I will never agree when you state your premise about what the people think.”

Thomas: “This isn’t you and I. This is a very legitimate question.”

Crawford wrote: “Fleischer’s handling of Thomas is typical of what has become a refined method for politicians facing tough questions from reporters. Make the reporters the issue by accusing them of bias.”

Throughout his book, Crawford offers examples to support his argument. Does anyone see it his way?

Is it only the media that politicians attack in this way?

What about the newly created web site "Help Tom fight back," and the attack that Tom Delay has launched, with the latest "disparaging" information his legal team has dug up on Texas prosecutor Ronnie Earle.

Or what about the attack by these same "politicians", led by Tom Delay and Bill Frist, on the judiciary which stood firm on the case of the brain dead woman, Teri Schiavo, in Florida, for which pResident George Bush returned to Washington to sign a Bill meant for one woman! (Of course, I won't compare it with his speed of response when millions of people were at the brunt of Hurricane Katrina!)

No, the compliant media is not the only target, at present. It is all Institutions and those who dare to question the corrupt political establishment, both Republican and Democrat, that presently is milking the American people dry of their constitutional rights, not to mention their money.

Saturday, October 15, 2005

The NYT is clueless about the web

Comment posted by jmatthan on the TPM Cafe at 13:35 CET on 15 October 2005

I gave up reading both the print edition and the online edition of the NYT, except for the "objective" opinion columnists.

Of course, unreadable Friedman did not fit my test of "objective".

The NYT thought it was going to get some revenue out of me so as to promote their war mania and sycophant cheerleaders as Judith Miller!

What the NYT does not know is that I have many many ways to read columnists that I love and appreciate, like Krugman and Herbert, without the NYT getting a single cent.

Let us hope the NYT stays stupid about the web and its workings!

Three cheers that the mainstream American media is run by a bunch of nitwits!

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Congressman Conyers is so so far ahead...

Comment #5 posted by me on Congressman John Conyers jr's blog: jmatthan said on 10/11/05 @ 11:58pm ET...

Is it not absolutely superb how Congressman Conyers Jr. is so far ahead of the bunch of politicians. Even before anyone realises what the situation is, he in in there, like Mohammed Ali, hitting where it really matters!

I think in American politics there has never been another like him.

Selective memory?

Don't try to push us around, lord chief justice tells Labour, by Alan Travis, home affairs editor, Wednesday October 12, 2005, The Guardian.

Tony Blair is repported to have said:

"When the police say this is what we need to make this country safe, you have got to have good reasons to say no to that."

Does Blair remember what happened to Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder, at Stockwell Tube station, south London, on Friday 22nd July 2005?

Another case of selective memory by this war criminal?

Monday, October 10, 2005

Scott Ritter labels it correctly

British and American leaders likened to Nazi war criminals, by Andrew Sparrow, Political Correspondent (Filed: 08/10/2005)

Speaking in London at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Mr Ritter, who was a UN weapons inspector in Iraq between 1991 and 1998 and also the former UN Chief Weapons Inspector, said the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and the US pResident, George Bush, were "guilty of the crime of planning and committing aggressive warfare".

Tony Blair and George Bush were compared to Nazi war criminals.

"Both these men could be pulled up as war criminals for engaging in actions that we condemned Germany in 1946 for doing".

Mr Ritter said intelligence services had been correct to say that Iraq's missile programme had been destroyed soon after the first Gulf conflict of 1991. Mr. Ritter had delivered a report in 1992 stating that the programme had been eliminated. It had been met with "stony silence".

Mr. Ritter was told that Iraq still possessed 200 missiles. The inspectors returned to track down the weapons an, of course, they were never unearthed.

Thank you for speaking the truth Mr. Scott Ritter!

Sunday, October 09, 2005

"I Nominate Patrick Fitzgerald for the Presidential Medal of Freedom"?

Posted by Jacob Matthan on the Steve Clemons blog on October 9, 2005 03:21 AM

Sorry to appear so sceptical, but like the Butler and Hutton enquiries in the UK, the non-partisan 911 Commision in the US, and many more such examples, my feeling is that all this is hype. Patrick Fitzgerald will give the Bush malAdministration exactly what it wants - a whitewash with fingers pointing at the lowest levels of this criminal gang (as in the case of Abu Ghraib) to people such as in the Iran Contra Scandal pointing to Oliver North, who will take the fall on behalf of the higher ups and then be given the Presidential pardon.

Considering how Porter Goss, a Cheney puppet, is already protecting his inefficient bums in the CIA crowd, please don't hold your breath on this investigation into the outing of a CIA undercover operative, Valerie Plame, investigation!

Saturday, October 08, 2005

Nobel's Odd Choice: Mohamed ElBaradei and the IAEA

Comment posted by me on the Washington Note on Saturday 8th October at 10:51 CET


The only reason Colin Powell is sitting around with a face as red as a baboon's backside is because of Mohammed el Baradei.

That itself gives me great pleasure in congratulating Mr. el Baradei on recieving this award - but he also outed every single liar in this present US malAdministration, including Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, and Tenet.

It took a lot of guts to stand up and say in the UN that the Agency knew that the Niger papers were forgeries and also the truth about the alminium tubes, the magnets, etc., etc.!!

The IAEA was able to review correspondence coming from various bodies of the government of Niger and to compare the form, format, contents and signature of that correspondence with those of the alleged procurement-related documentation.

Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded with the concurrence of outside experts that these documents which formed the basis for the report of recent uranium transaction between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded. However, we will continue to follow up any additional evidence if it emerges relevant to efforts by Iraq to illicitly import nuclear materials.

Just read his statement to the UN "Transcript of ElBaradei's U.N. presentation", on Friday, March 7, 2003 Posted: 12:39 PM EST (1739 GMT), and that speech ALONE quaified Mr. el Baradei for this award. He was not cowed down by a totally corrupt US malAdministration.

Thank you Mr. el Baradei.

Bush and Blair punched on the nose

and kicked in the backside!

The choice by the Norwegian Nobel Committee of Mohammed el Baradei and the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) as the winners of the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize is the biggest possible condemnation of Bush and Blair.

It is important to remember that el Baradei is the man that Bush and his sidekick John Bolton worked tirelessly to get el Baradei kicked out of his position as the head of the IAEA. The harder they strove, the more support the rest of world gave this humble man.

With this being the 60 year comemorative anniversary of tragedies of Hiroshima and the Nagasaki Atomic Bomb attack committed by the Americans, this award again a sharp kick in the pants of the American philosophy of keeping weapons for themselves while trying to disarm the world.

Colin Powell, already sitting with his head between his legs and pulling constantly at his ears, is now looking redder in the face, very much like a baboons a***.

The humbleness of el Baradei, when he was interviewed on BBC World a couple of hours after his knowing of the award, was truly the height of genuineness of a man committed to his work AND his family.

When asked about what he would do with his share of the prize, he replied that it was something he would have to discuss with his wife as to what "causes" they will use the money for.

If the prize had been awarded just to the IAEA for their work, it could be understood that the Norwegian Nobel Committee was just doing a good job of giving the prize to an outstanding organisation. By naming el Baradei specifically in the award, the Norwegian Nobel Committee certainly booted the US down the stairs - and are we in the world glad for that!

el Baradei is 63, and in my opinion, the prize could not have gone to a nicer and thoroughly competent man who knows RIGHT from WRONG!

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

Steve Clemons on Judith Miller

Entry posted by Jacob Matthan at my Blog on TPM cafe at 11:00 on 5th Sept. 2005

Steve Clemons has just blogged his opinion on Judith Miller.

I wrote a series of letters to The Editors of New York Times...

13th March 2005:

Dear Editor,

I read with great interest your feature today, March 13th 2005

Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged News


Considering the Judith Miller / Ahmed Chalabi axis, is it not just a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

And where is your star reporter NOW?

17th March 2005:
Dear Editor,

Interesting how you covered in your Editorial of today the issue of the Chinese journalist who is being held incommunicado

"A Chinese Journalist in Peril"

It may have been more relevant if you had compared how much further the Chinese have to go to catch up with the USA, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, AND THE SPECIAL TORTURE FLIGHTS taking prisoners to Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Morocco, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan,...

But, of course, The New York Times editors, correspondents and reporters like Judith Miller may not have been paid, like Armstrong Williams and male prostitute James Guckert and others, to report on these rather painful home truths?
7th July 2005:
Dear Editor,

I must compliment the New York Times on its absolutely great Editorial "Judith Miller Goes to Jail" which appeared online today.

I really laughed myself into the ground.

I have never seen such brilliant comedy writing as when I used to read the MAD magazine in the mid sixties.

Keep up the good work and you will have us all buying your newspaper to have a jolly good laugh.

As they say in the Reader's Digest

"Laughter is the Best Medicine".

Judith Miller a Reporter?

I was under the impression that she was the New York Times "woman who engaged in intercourse for money" who kept Ahmed Chalabhi happy so that she could get a good story for your comedy paper!!

Is she now doing time in jail for her similar activities with someone other than Chalabhi?

19th July 2005:
Dear Editor,

Sam Smith could not have hit the nail on the head any harder than he did. He has very exactly shown that Judith Miller was not being a correspondent on this issue as she wrote no article about the matter.

She is protecting a felon and for that deserves exactly what she got, to sit in jail till she realises what she has done.

The New York Times, in trying to protect Judith Miller, is only protecting its own interests as it was the newspaper that used Judith Miller and her "source", Ahmed Chalabhi, to drum up the support for an illegal war.

The New York Times is also a felon in this instance. saying a mere sorry is no answer. The Senior Editors of New York Times need also to serrve their time if "journalism" and "journalists" are to be done justice.

22nd July 2005:
Dear Editor,

I read with great interest your Editorial, "A Jar of Red Herrings", published on July 19, 2005.

What are thoose great principles that Judith Miller's that she stands for?

1. " is her willingness to accept the legal consequences of her principled stand" -

Where was this editor when Judith Miller was parroting Ahmed Chalabi's vile and false information?

2. "It's up to the reporter and editor to determine whether information given under a promise of confidentiality is reliable." -

But the cream of all the exceedingly amusing statements in your editorial when it comes to Judith Miler was:

3. "Journalists should not tailor their principles to the politics of the moment."

Thanks for the humour.

First Thoughts on Miers...

Comment #15 posted on Congressman John Conyers Jr.'s blog: jmatthan said on 10/4/05 @ 11:39pm ET...

Dear Congressman,

The appointment to the Supreme Court is not an appoitment to the Executive Branch. Just as election to the Congress and Senate is not a question of advice and consent to the pResident's whims.

Appointment to the Supreme Court is not a question of this pResident appointing someone for HIS term period but a "lifetime" appointment.

It is not question here of "advice and consent" at all. It is an equal responsibility of the Senate (and Congress) to determine the suitability.

The Committee that interviewed John Roberts was a "miserable failure". They rolled over hardly understanding the role they were supposed tö play. They were grandstanding!

I hope that you will play a lead role in pointing out that this is not a case of "Advice and Consent" AT ALL. It is a question of choosing a "qualified" individual for this job. Even a waiter in a restaurant has to have some qualifications as otherwise you have another "Brownie" in this office.

Obama - all talk, no action

Comment posted on DailyKos on Wednesday 5th September at 05:45 CET

I agree almost whole-heartedly with the contents of the blog entry, "Senator Obama", by cpa1.

I was greatly impressed by the speech Barrack Obama gave at the Democratic Convention. But that was all it was - "a speech".

Thereafter, he has shown he is hardly a Democrat but another "Bush and corporate apologist", clearly highlighted by his voting record in the Senate.

He is a wimp, unlike other members of the Black Caucus. He cannot hold a candle to someone like Congressman John Conyers Jr. in terms of talking people through the issues of the day.

Obama likes playing to the gallery. He thinks he is being diplomatic and mature, but by his actions, only his total immaturity shows through like a great light.

And the Republicans are playing him like a fiddle! They play, Obama sings.

Obama started his Senate life but graciously receiving emails from the world public. Since he started getting emails he did not like, as from me, he has closed his access!! They bounce.

Speaks volumes, and after his Convention speech. now the true Obama can be seen through with his actions.

I am not an American, I do not live in America, I am not white, I am not a Muslim and I care a damn what happens IN AMERICA..

But I am concerned about the rape of MY world by members of this US Government and a weak and compliant "US opposition" represented by people like Obama.

And what surprises me is that the majority of Americans, represented by people as Obama, are living like ostriches with their head buried in the sand!