Intelligence Officials: Dozens of Europeans Have Trained in Terror Camps in Pakistan

From ABC News:

Dozens of white Europeans have trained in terrorist camps in Pakistan's tribal regions in recent months, U.S. intelligence sources tell ABC News, in what officials fear may be the beginnings of a new breed of al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorism.

Government officials suspect the terrorists, recruited in Europe, have been dispatched to plan attacks against Europe and possibly the United States. The alleged terrorists hail from Britain, the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Romania and Estonia, sources said.

There is growing evidence that some European recruits may have already gone operational. Two of the suspects arrested in a September 2007 plot to kill American soldiers in Germany were native Germans, and U.S. officials say they are investigating whether they were trained in Pakistan.

Pakistan is the new Afghanistan:

Terrorist attacks against noncombatants more than doubled in Pakistan from 2006 to 2007, reflecting the growing violence in the country's turbulent tribal areas and new bombings against Pakistani government officials and security services, according to a report released Wednesday by the State Department.

The report also said the number of deaths from the attacks in Pakistan quadrupled in that time period, to 1,335 fatalities, casting doubt on the American-backed counterterrorism policies of President Pervez Musharraf that the new government in Islamabad is now reshaping.

The new statistics show that terrorist strikes against nonmilitary targets worldwide remained virtually unchanged in 2007 from 2006, at roughly 14,500 attacks, but the number of deaths from those attacks increased to 22,685 from 20,872, according to statistics compiled by the National Counterterrorism Center.

Press Roundup on Offshore Oil Drilling

Found on Cup of Joe Powell:

"The immediate, direct impact would, of course, be zero, since it takes years to bring new oil sources online. But what about the indirect impact that new drilling permits might have on perceptions of future supply? Might that help lower oil prices in the near term?

Maybe, but it's unlikely. Take ANWR first. A recent EIA study took a look at the impact that drilling in ANWR would have, and they concluded that it would probably reduce oil prices by 75 cents a barrel in 2025. A change that small two decades in the future almost certainly wouldn't have any effect on commodity traders today.

Huffington Post:

There are two prohibitions on offshore drilling, one imposed by Congress and another by executive order signed by Bush's father in 1990. Bush's brother, Jeb, fiercely opposed offshore drilling when he was governor of Florida. What the president now proposes would rescind his father's decision _ but the president took the position that Congress had to act first and then he would follow behind.

McClatchy:

An estimated 3 million gallons of oil have spilled from oil and gas operations in 73 incidents between 1980 and 1999, according to Oynes' agency. Environmental groups say the spills illustrate the ecological dangers of offshore drilling, but Oynes said the last significant spill was the 1969 blowout.

Patterson says his office records about 500 minor spills a year in Texas from vessels or off-loading incidents but said he does not remember a spill related to offshore drilling.

IHT interviews Chevron CEO:

Oil prices have jumped from around $25 in 2002 to about $140 a barrel recently. Are we in a bubble?

I am a believer that most of this is related to fundamentals. Those are concerns about supplies. Last year, oil supplies did not grow in total. What the market is looking for is more visibility in future oil supplies. That is one of the main drivers for the difference of between the prices five years ago and the prices we're seeing now.

NY Times:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and some other Republicans opposed to drilling have also held their ground. Ray Sansom, who is in line to become speaker of the Florida House, representing the coastal town of Destin, said Wednesday that he still opposes drilling. And former Gov. Jeb Bush, in an e-mail message, said that while he supported Mr. Bush’s efforts to develop domestic energy sources, “this does not diminish the long-term need to conserve and develop alternative sources of energy.”

LA Times Editorial:

Californians have been leery of coastal drilling since a devastating spill from an oil platform off Santa Barbara in 1969. Drilling proponents counter that new technology has greatly decreased the risk of spills, but they nonetheless still happen. And there's more to worry about than spills. Texas is not known for its beaches, which attract the detritus -- such as tar balls and empty oil drums -- from thousands of oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. Drilling releases a host of toxic chemicals, creating such problems as dangerously high mercury levels in fish.

CNN quoting Obama:

"When I hear McCain say that he is now in favor of the same oil drilling off the coast that he was opposed to just a week ago, what he doesn't tell you is that George Bush's own energy department has said that this would have no impact on consumers until 2030," he said, "no appreciable impact for the next 22 years. Something they're not telling consumers."

Press Roundup: Democrats Cave-in to Bush on FISA Bill

Hanlon's Razor's take on the FISA bill:

Here’s something I learned by dealing with 5 year olds. When you tell someone that you’ll take them for ice cream if they clean their room, but point out that even if they don’t you’ll take them for ice cream anyway, guess what? Exactly. If Obama doesn’t threaten a complete and total rejection of the bill so long as telecom immunity remains, then it’s going to stay.

Alternet on the same bill:

House Democratic leadership agreed to support the measure -- seemingly out of fear of losing conservative Democrats to an even weaker proposal. But it is the worst of both worlds. It contains just enough of a pretense of accountability to allow the legislators to claim a victory for civil liberties, as it sells out core principles of accountability and privacy.

Daily KOS quotes Senator Tom Udall:

The FISA bill we considered today would compromise the constitutionally guaranteed rights that make America a beacon of hope around the world.

Today's vote was not easy. I stood up to leaders of my own party and voted against this bill, because I took an oath to defend Americans and our Constitution, and it was the right thing to do.

More from Alternet:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claims that a key positive feature of the new wiretap "compromise" is that the bill reaffirms that the President must follow the law, even though the same bill virtually assures that no one will be held accountable for George W. Bush's violation of the earlier spying law.

TPM quotes Barack Obama:

"Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance -- making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses.

Slashdot:

"Today (June 20), Steny Hoyer is bringing to the House floor the latest FISA bill (PDF), which includes retroactive immunity for the telcos. The bill also is very weak on judicial review, allowing the telcos to use a letter from the president as a 'get out of liability free' card.

Infowars:

"The proposed FISA deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation," Senator Russ Feingold said today. "The House and Senate should not be taking up this bill, which effectively guarantees immunity for telecom companies alleged to have participated in the President’s illegal program, and which fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home. Allowing courts to review the question of immunity is meaningless when the same legislation essentially requires the court to grant immunity. And under this bill, the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S. with no connection to suspected terrorists, with very few safeguards to protect against abuse of this power. Instead of cutting bad deals on both FISA and funding for the war in Iraq, Democrats should be standing up to the flawed and dangerous policies of this administration."

McCain Hampered By Campaign Missteps

Its why McCain is going to lose...big:

Call it campaign growing pains. Or bad luck. Or a combination of the two.

By any name, Sen. John McCain is hampered by missteps and self-generated controversy in the early days of the general election campaign for the White House.

Take his most recent trip through several states and the Canadian capital, a five-day span during which he courted conservatives and independents alike, raised more than $10 million and began detailing his considerable differences with Sen. Barack Obama on energy policy.

Still, on Tuesday, he criticized his rival for proposing a windfall profits tax on the oil industry. The attack was complicated by McCain's earlier statement that he would consider the same thing.

The following day, he met with a group of Hispanics in Chicago. Aides who had kept word of the event secret were placed on the defensive within hours after one participant criticized some of McCain's comments.

On Thursday, the Arizona senator flew to Iowa, a likely battleground state in the fall, where he expressed sympathy with victims of severe flooding and pledged support for federal recovery aid. The event was overshadowed by President Bush's appearance elsewhere in the same state on the same day.

- Read more of this article from The Huffington Post

Ross Perot Wants more Focus on National Debt

The man who put the national debt on the political map in 1992 is back to preach the message again. We should be thankful to him again:

Ross Perot is jumping back into the political fray, this time with a stern warning that the country better start paying attention to the national debt.

The former presidential candidate has reemerged with a Web site spotlighting the soaring budget deficit: more than $9.3 trillion and growing.

"We live in the greatest country in the history of man. We've been so successful for so long that we now take our success for granted," Perot says in a video posted on PerotCharts.com.

"Not since the Great Depression have we seen an economic crisis of the magnitude that we are facing today," he says.

He says the purpose of the site, which is not affiliated with any political party, is "to provide accurate information to every citizen about the serious economic problems facing our country."

Israel is Preparing to Attack Iran

The question all along was whether it would be the U.S. that did the bombing or Israel. Apparently King George has decided not to carry out the attack, since it would most certainly lead to his impeachment. You think we're paying a lot for oil now? You just watch how high it goes after Iran retaliates by cutting off the oil supply in the Middle East. And if the U.S. retaliates it could lead to World War III:

Israel carried out a major military exercise earlier this month that American officials say appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Several American officials said the Israeli exercise appeared to be an effort to develop the military’s capacity to carry out long-range strikes and to demonstrate the seriousness with which Israel views Iran’s nuclear program.

More than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters participated in the maneuvers, which were carried out over the eastern Mediterranean and over Greece during the first week of June, American officials said.

The exercise also included Israeli helicopters that could be used to rescue downed pilots. The helicopters and refueling tankers flew more than 900 miles, which is about the same distance between Israel and Iran’s uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, American officials said.

Israeli officials declined to discuss the details of the exercise. A spokesman for the Israeli military would say only that the country’s air force “regularly trains for various missions in order to confront and meet the challenges posed by the threats facing Israel.”

But the scope of the Israeli exercise virtually guaranteed that it would be noticed by American and other foreign intelligence agencies. A senior Pentagon official who has been briefed on the exercise, and who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the political delicacy of the matter, said the exercise appeared to serve multiple purposes.

One Israeli goal, the Pentagon official said, was to practice flight tactics, aerial refueling and all other details of a possible strike against Iran’s nuclear installations and its long-range conventional missiles.

A second, the official said, was to send a clear message to the United States and other countries that Israel was prepared to act militarily if diplomatic efforts to stop Iran from producing bomb-grade uranium continued to falter.

This appeared in Reuters earlier this month:

An Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites looks "unavoidable" given the apparent failure of sanctions to deny Tehran technology with bomb-making potential, one of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's deputies said on Friday.

"If Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it. The sanctions are ineffective," Transport Minister Shaul Mofaz told the mass-circulation Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper.

"Attacking Iran, in order to stop its nuclear plans, will be unavoidable," said the former army chief who has also been defense minister.

Most say US on Wrong Track: AP-Ipsos Poll

And it will only get worse unless something dramatic isn't done:

Wherever the nation should be headed, this isn't it.

The number of Americans who believe the country is moving in the wrong direction has risen sharply, to nearly eight in ten, amid soaring food and gas prices, falling home values and unending war. Just 17 percent say the country is going in the right direction, according to an AP-Ipsos poll.

The right-direction number is the lowest ever recorded by the survey, which began in 2003. When other surveys are taken into account, the general level of pessimism is the worst in almost 30 years.

And it's getting worse. The 17 percent positive reading was down from 24 percent just since April.

Those who said the country was on the wrong track totaled 76 percent of the people contacted in the survey, which was taken from June 12-16. That's up from 71 percent in April and 66 percent near the end of 2007.

Solution to the Zimbabwe Atrocities: Video

Apparently the people of Zimbabwe are all alone while they suffer horrific brutality and oppression. There is no hope that the UN or any other organization will come to their rescue. Its the same old story. The world ignores genocide in Africa. Why? No press coverage. And why no press coverage? No video or pics. The solution? The people of Zimbabwe should be armed with video cameras and camcorders. Such tactics were used with success, although for a limited time, in Burma and Tibet. It is the best solution in a world that doesn't care unless they see it on TV. It didn't happen if it isn't reported. We live in the YouTube age. The best weapon of against oppression: video:

The mutilated bodies of four young men bore witness yesterday to the latest atrocities of the Mugabe regime in the run-up to next week’s elections.

The victims were murdered while defending the home of a local leader of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), as the campaign of terror against the opposition reached a new pitch.

They represent the most deaths in a single day since Robert Mugabe lost the presidential elections ten weeks ago. Three of the men were MDC youth activists in the sprawling dormitory township of Chitungwiza about 20 miles (30km) south of Harare. The fourth was a passer-by, abducted because he did not know the secret slogans and salutes used by the ruling Zanu (PF) youth organisation to identify supporters. All four had their skulls smashed, and some had their lips and genitals cut off.

Karl Rove Accuses McCain with Talking "Economic Nonsense"

Once again McCain alienates a major Republican political figure. This time around its no less than Karl Rove:

Obama and McCain Spout Economic Nonsense

Barack Obama and John McCain are busy demonstrating that in close elections during tough economic times, candidates for president can be economically illiterate and irresponsibly populist.

In Raleigh, N.C., last week, Sen. Obama promised, "I'll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we'll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills."

Set aside for a minute that Jimmy Carter passed a "windfall profits tax" to devastating effect, putting American oil companies at a competitive disadvantage to foreign competitors, virtually ending domestic energy exploration, and making the U.S. more dependent on foreign sources of oil and gas.

Instead ask this: Why should we stop with oil companies? They make about 8.3 cents in gross profit per dollar of sales. Why doesn't Mr. Obama slap a windfall profits tax on sectors of the economy that have fatter margins? Electronics make 14.5 cents per dollar and computer equipment makers take in 13.7 cents per dollar, according to the Census Bureau. Microsoft's margin is 27.5 cents per dollar of sales. Call out Mr. Obama's Windfall Profits Police!

It's not the profit margin, but the total number of dollars earned that is the problem, Mr. Obama might say. But if that were the case, why isn't he targeting other industries? Oil and gas companies made $86.5 billion in profits last year. At the same time, the financial services industry took in $498.5 billion in profits, the retail industry walked away with $137.5 billion, and information technology companies made off with $103.4 billion. What kind of special outrage does Mr. Obama have for these companies?

Sen. McCain doesn't support the windfall profits tax, but he can be as hostile to profits as Mr. Obama. "[W]e should look at any incentives that we are giving," Mr. McCain said in May, even as he talked up a gas tax "holiday" that would give drivers incentives to burn more gasoline.

This past Thursday, Mr. McCain came close to advocating a form of industrial policy, saying, "I'm very angry, frankly, at the oil companies not only because of the obscene profits they've made, but their failure to invest in alternate energy."

[...]Messrs. Obama and McCain both reveal a disturbing animus toward free markets and success. It is uncalled for and self-defeating for presidential candidates to demonize American companies. It is understandable that Mr. Obama, the most liberal member of the Senate, would endorse reckless policies that are the DNA of the party he leads. But Mr. McCain, a self-described Reagan Republican, should know better.

Ex-State Dept. official: Hundreds of detainees died in U.S. custody, at least 25 murdered.

Someone should be impeached for this. Guess who:

At today’s House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil Rights hearing on torture, Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, told Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) that over 100 detainees have died in U.S. custody, with up to 27 of these declared homicides:

NADLER: Your testimony said 100 detainees have died in detention; do you believe the 25 of those were in effect murdered?

WILKERSON: Mr. Chairman, I think the number’s actually higher than that now. Last time I checked it was 108.

Read the transcript and see video

FOX Top Story: "Blowing Stuff Up"

Fox is shameless when it comes to what they call news. This live coverage went on for several minutes. I did not witness anything being blown up.

Huckabee: Demonizing Obama is a ‘Fatal Mistake’

Republicans--are you listening. If you are basing your hopes on destroying Obama ask Hillary how much good that does:

Former GOP presidential contender Mike Huckabee called Barack Obama's candidacy "a landmark achievement" Tuesday, and warned fellow Republicans not to demonize Obama.

"Republicans will make a fundamental if not fatal mistake if they seek to win the election by demonizing Barack Obama," Huckabee told reporters in Tokyo, according to a report by Agence France-Presse.

Huckabee praised the country for getting "to a point where we did not see his color but we truly saw his charisma, his message and what he brought to the campaign trail."

"When people are really hurting — and they are right now — they're not looking at a person's race," he added.

Huckabee said he hopes John McCain beats Obama, but that Republicans should focus on policy differences, not race.

Amnesty: More than 1,000 Unaccounted for in Tibet

Does anyone care? The issue has died lately--just in time for a peaceful Olympics game. No boycott, no more protests:

More than 1,000 protesters detained during anti-government riots in Tibet three months ago have not been accounted for, a human rights group said Wednesday.

Amnesty International said a quarter of about 4,000 people detained by police during the riots in Tibet in March are unaccounted for. The others have been either released or placed under formal arrest.

The Olympic torch will pass through the Tibetan capital, Lhasa, on Saturday, and Amnesty's Asia-Pacific director, Sam Zarifi, said the event should draw attention to the missing and those in prison.

"There is very little information coming out of Tibet, but the information we have paints a dire picture of arbitrary detentions and abuse of detainees," he said. "With the torch relay about to enter Tibetan areas, this should be an opportunity to shine some light on the situation there."

It's all about those profits for big business:

The United States and China, concluding high-level economic talks, agreed to launch negotiations on an investment treaty that holds out the promise of greatly expanded opportunities for U.S. companies in China's vast market.

The two countries also pledged greater cooperation to deal with energy shortages and global pollution.

The agreements were announced Wednesday by Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., who said he believed the initiatives would produce "significant progress" on two priorities both nations share.

The announcements came as the two countries concluded two days of talks aimed at defusing simmering economic tensions. Paulson and Chinese Vice Premier Wang Qishan participated in a joint signing ceremony in the Treasury Department's ornate Cash Room to wrap up the fourth round of a series of talks known as the Strategic Economic Dialogue.

The announcement Wednesday represented a fleshing out of details of an agreement that was initially announced at the last round of talks in Beijing in December. Paulson said the framework would focus on five major areas -- electricity, air, water, transportation and conservation of forest and wetland ecosystems.

Cocaine Overdose Kills Baby, Father gets Life

Justice was done. Let this scum rot in jail. Hopefully this case will send a tough message:

A man whose teething infant son died after sucking on his father's cocaine-tainted fingers has been sentenced to life in prison.

Dennis Ray Driver, 26, was convicted Wednesday of felony murder for the overdose death of his 8-month-old son, Dennis Jr. The jury also fined Driver $10,000.

Driver said he fell asleep at his apartment on Dec. 28 with his son lying on his chest. When he awoke, the baby wasn't breathing. The infant died the next day at a hospital.

Driver had told investigators that he had chopped up cocaine and the baby later sucked on his fingers, prosecutor Murray Newman said.

Iraq Nears First Major Oil Service Deals

This is why we are in Iraq. Its about the oil:

Iraq is close to signing oil service deals with several major Western oil companies in an effort to boost its output capacity, the country's oil ministry said Thursday — the first major Iraqi contracts with big Western companies since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

If the Iraqi government thinks that those Western companies will leave their country, they are enormously naive:

The deals, once signed, are something of a stopgap measure to help Iraq begin to increase production until the country is able to approve a new national oil law — now held up by political squabbles among Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.

But they also could mark the beginning of an important long-term toehold by big Western companies into Iraq's potentially lucrative oil industry, by giving the companies a bidding advantage over other companies in the future.

You can bet those companies have ties to the Bush Klan:

Iraq's oil ministry spokesman would not name the companies set to get the deals.

But last December, four major companies — Royal Dutch Shell PLC, BP PLC, ExxonMobil Corp. and Chevron Corp. — submitted technical and financial proposals for the five oil fields and received counterproposals from the Iraqi side.

The New York Times reported Thursday that Shell, BP and Exxon Mobil, plus Total, were the four major companies close to signing deals, along with Chevron and some smaller companies.

Obama Opts out of Public Funding of Election

It is a smart idea for Barack Obama not to fall for McCain's hypocritical call for staying within the public funding of the presidential campaign. The Illinois Senator has an enormous advantage in fundraising relative to the Republican candidate. It would tantamount to unilateral disarmament for him stay within the public funding of the campaign. Wouldn't McCain done the same thing if he were in the same position and not Obama. Historically Republicans have had the upper hand. This time around the Democrats are in a superior position:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Thursday he has decided to forgo public financing of his election campaign against Republican John McCain.

The decision frees him up to collect money privately, which could be a help to him strategically ahead of November's election. During the Democratic primary, Obama smashed records for fundraising, largely on the success he achieved in raising money over the Internet.

"We've made the decision not to participate in the public financing system for the general election," Obama said in a video statement emailed to reporters.

Transcript: ABC News Interview of Barack Obama (6-16-08)

Read the entire transcript. Some excerpts below:

TAPPER: You talked about the need to change the status quo in education today.

OBAMA: Right.

TAPPER: But one of the ways that proponents of school choice say that the best way to change the status quo is to give parents, inner-city parents a choice. Why not?

OBAMA: Well, the problem is, is that, you know, although it might benefit some kids at the top, what you're going to do is leave a lot of kids at the bottom. We don't have enough slots for every child to go into a parochial school or a private school. And what you would see is a huge drain of resources out of the public schools.

So what I've said is let's foster competition within the public school system. Let's make sure that charter schools are up and running. Let's make sure that kids who are in failing schools, in local school districts, have an option to go to schools that are doing well.

But what I don't want to do is to see a diminished commitment to the public schools to the point where all we have are the hardest-to-teach kids with the least involved parents with the most disabilities in the public schools. That's going to make things worse, and we're going to lose the commitment to public schools that I think have been so important to building this country.

TAPPER: So it would help some kids, but overall it would be bad for the system?

OBAMA: I think it would be overall bad for most kids.

On National security:

TAPPER: Speaking of the Supreme Court, you applauded the decision that the Supreme Court made last week. The Bush administration says, no matter what people think about other programs, other policies they've initiated, there has not been a terrorist attack within the U.S. since 9/11. And they say the reason that is, is because of the domestic programs, many of which you opposed, the NSA surveillance program, Guantanamo Bay, and other programs.

How do you know that they're wrong? It's not possible that they're right?

OBAMA: Well, keep in mind I haven't opposed, for example, the national security surveillance program, the NSA program. What I've said that we can do it within the constraints of our civil liberties and our Constitution.

Obama opposes same sex marriage. Which is a courageous stand to take within in the Democatic Party:

TAPPER: OK, last one, and that is same-sex marriage is now going on in California.

OBAMA: Right.

TAPPER: You oppose same-sex marriage.

OBAMA: Yes.

TAPPER: Do you think that the fact that this is now going on in California, does that cause you to re-think your pledge to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act?

OBAMA: No. I still think that these are decisions that need to be made at a state and local level. I'm a strong supporter of civil unions. And I think that, you know, we're involved in a national conversation about this issue.

You know, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I also think that same-sex partners should be able to visit each other in hospitals, they should be able to transfer property, they should be able to get the same federal rights and benefits that are conferred onto married couples.

And so, you know, as president, my job is to make sure that the federal government is not discriminating and that we maintain the federal government's historic role in not meddling with what states are doing when it comes to marriage law. That's what I'll do as president.

TAPPER: Does it bother you, what California's doing?

OBAMA: No.

Pew Survey: What the World Thinks of the US

The Bush disaster might've done irreparably damage to the image of the United States worldwide:

This year's edition of the Pew Global Attitudes Project — a worldwide survey that has been around since 2002 — polled more than 24,000 people in 24 nations on a wide swath of topics, from their opinions on Iran and its nuclear program to which nation they think is doing the most damage to the environment (answer: We are. Also China.). Many of the report's conclusions are fairly obvious — the majority of countries surveyed describe their economic conditions as bad, and many citizens in Muslim nations consider America to be their enemy.

First, the important question — what does the world think of America? For the first time since the commencement of the Iraq War, there was a slight uptick in favorable attitudes towards the U.S., with positive views increasing since 2007 in half of the countries for which comparative data was available. Such statistics are good news for the nation, but perhaps not so much for George W. Bush, whose departure from the White House next January is the likely cause for the increases. Only three nations — Tanzania, Nigeria, and India — had majorities who expressed confidence in Bush's handling of world affairs. Each of the other 21 countries, by wide margins, held little to no confidence in President Bush.

Majorities in 39% of nations polled believe that whoever replaces Bush will change U.S. foreign policy for the better, though in 20 out of 23 nations surveyed, more people have confidence in Sen. Barack Obama than in Sen. John McCain. America also scores high ratings for the quality of its democracy. Majorities in two-thirds of countries surveyed say that the U.S. respects the personal freedoms of its citizens.

That's the good news. The bad news is that, "with few exceptions, the American economy is now seen as having a negative impact on national economies, both large and small, in all parts of the world," according to the study's authors. Additionally, the majority of nations included think that the U.S. is extremely influential in their nations — and that such influence is not a good thing. More than half the nations polled see the United States as the world's top polluter — and Americans are considered among the least concerned about the effects of global warming. The nation most trusted to "do the right thing in protecting the world's environment" — Germany.

We're not alone in the hate, though, because China parallels the United States in several of these categories: it too is criticized for its unilateralist approach to foreign affairs and its hands-off approach to environmental issues. China, though, is knocked for its anti-freedom attitudes, many of which have been brought to greater light in recent months as a result of this summer's Beijing Olympics. And most Asian and Western nations express skepticism and concern over Chinese-made products, many of which have been subject to recall in the past year.

Obama Won't be Able to Change Washington Despite Promises

Barack Obama is a decent and sincere politician. And he promises to change the ways of Washington. Unfortunately his aspirations won't be enough. He is one man. Obama will not be able to change a system that is ruled by a moneyed elite that been running things many decades. As long as he is a member of the two-party system he will never be able to change things. John McCain despite his dishonest talk about being a maverick is up to his neck in playing the Washington game. We need a revolution. And that doesn't come from above but the people. This article is from Newsweek:

I went to a party last Sunday night given by a friend, a well-known journalist, who is well connected in Washington and friends with various movers and shakers, particularly in the legal world. The conversation, after the expression of shock about the loss of Tim Russert, turned to Jim Johnson, the "consummate Washington insider," as the papers called him, who had been ousted as Barack Obama's veep vetter. The people I talked with seem to think Obama had been unwise to hire someone who had profited so mightily from his Washington contacts. Still, the general assumption seemed to be, of course, any new president will need to hire people who know the town, who are "wired" and get around.

Someone in my little group did try to wonder what it would be like if a president only hired outsiders, but he was quickly drowned out. Jimmy Carter had tried to go around the usual powers-that-be with his Georgians; to a lesser degree, Bill Clinton had tried that with his Arkansans, and before long his team was forced to bring in Lloyd Cutler, the late super lawyer and Washington wise man who seemed to enjoy rescuing rookie presidents from their neophyte mistakes. Besides, someone in the group asked, would it really be an improvement if Obama brought in a bunch of political fixers from Chicago?

There was a certain amount of worry that the Washington establishment was about to embark upon one of its periodic acts of cannibalism and start questioning the client relationships or legal involvements of other Washington insiders close to Obama--notably Eric Holder, another veep vetter who, as deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration, took part in the Marc Rich pardon. One of the lawyers at the party noted that few big-time lawyers could (or would wish to) withstand such guilt-by-association scrutiny. We all agreed it would be unfortunate if, say, Greg Craig was disqualified from taking a top job with Obama (whom Craig advises on foreign policy) because he has, necessarily, represented some shady types over the years as a white-collar defense lawyer at the law firm of Williams and Connolly.

[...]The fact is that Washington is largely dominated by people, some of them very smart, who get well paid to represent the status quo and fairly narrow interests.

These people are not by any means wicked or unjust or venal--some of the guests at the party had performed significant public service in one way or another. Many of them were Democrats who will vote for Obama. But I am sure that if you took a poll and asked them whether Obama could really change Washington-could really close loopholes on energy companies and raise taxes on the rich, reform the health-care system and significantly scale back the ill effects of global warming, substantially improve public schools or get us out of Iraq anytime soon--the answer would have been no, probably not. These "realists" might even want such changes, or most of them. But they know how Washington works. They might argue that Obama will need insiders if he really wants to change Washington (think of FDR hiring stock speculator Joseph Kennedy to be the first head of the Securities and Exchange Commission). But at the same time they have a strong appreciation for congressional gridlock and the countervailing powers of influence peddlers. They know that money--perfectly legal money--can trump idealistic campaign promises in a city thick with more than 30,000 lobbyists.

McCain Too Old to be President?

Obama won't say it but I will. The job of being President requires vigor. We cannot afford to elect someone who could be too weak physically to do the job. His mental lapses raises serious questions. John F. Kennedy might have been too sickly to be President in 1960. Reagan showed signs of Alzheimer's while in office. It is a legitimate issue:

According to a new poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, voters who do not like John McCain feel that way not because of the type of person he is, but because of his beliefs.

John McCain’s negatives among registered voters hit an all time high of 34 percent in a recent NBC/Wallstreet Journal poll.

The recent Pew Research Center poll asked voters to describe McCain in one word. The poll found the most common word voters associated with McCain was “old”. “Maverick”, “reformer”, “change”, and “independent” were not the words that came to voters minds.

McCain some how did manage to get voters to say; "honest," "experienced," "patriot," and "conservative".

Obama was able to use Hillary Clinton’s experience in the primary as a negative and could potentially use it against McCain as well. Voters do not see McCain as the change candidate and his experience in Washington could be used to show he is just another insider.

This from CNN:

Listen to some Democrats, and you'll think the 71-year-old Arizona senator is a man lost in a perpetual fog. He is "confused" and has "lost his bearings" or is "out of touch."

Listen to the McCain campaign, and you'll be convinced that Democrats are using those terms to exploit concerns that the presumptive Republican nominee is too old to effectively serve as president.

For his part, McCain tends to answer questions about his age with quips such as, "I'm older than dirt and have more scars than Frankenstein, but I've learned a few things along the way."

The first salvo of the general election's age war may have been launched in May, when Sen. Barack Obama argued in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer that McCain had "lost his bearings" while pursuing the Republican nomination.

The McCain camp claimed that Obama's use of that phrase was "a not particularly clever way of raising John McCain's age as an issue."

Last Wednesday, the issue reemerged when McCain appeared on NBC's "Today" Show and argued, as he has before, that "it's not important" when troops return from Iraq as long as casualties are held to a minimum.

Sen. John Kerry, an Obama supporter, said in a hastily arranged conference call that McCain is "unbelievably out of touch" and that it "is really becoming more crystal clear... that John McCain simply doesn't understand [the conflict]. He confuses who Iran is training, he confuses what the makeup of al Qaeda is, [and] he confuses the history ... of what has happened between Sunni and Shia."

Susan Rice, one of Obama's top foreign policy advisers, said that McCain had demonstrated a "pattern of confusing the basic facts and reality that pertain to Iraq."

When asked if he was trying to highlight the age issue through his choice of words, Kerry said it was "unfair" and "ridiculous" to make such an assertion. Rice said she was simply highlighting the fact that, in her opinion, McCain has his facts wrong.