Maldini

Darfur Darfur? It’s the Oil, Stupid… China and USA in New Cold War over Africa’s oil riches By F William Engdahl, May 20, 2007 To paraphrase the famous quip during the 1992 US Presidential debates, when an unknown William Jefferson Clinton told then-President George Herbert Walker Bush, “It’s the economy, stupid ,” the present concern of the current Washington Administration over Darfur in southern Sudan is not, if we were to look closely, genuine concern over genocide against the peoples in that poorest of poor part of a forsaken section of Africa. No. “It’s the oil, stupid.” Hereby hangs a tale of cynical dimension appropriate to a Washington Administration that has shown no regard for its own genocide in Iraq, when its control over major oil reserves is involved. What’s at stake in the battle for Darfur? Control over oil, lots and lots of oil. The case of Darfur, a forbidding piece of sun-parched real estate in the southern part of Sudan, illustrates the new Cold War over oil, where the dramatic rise in China’s oil demand to fuel its booming growth has led Beijing to embark on an aggressive policy of – ironically – dollar diplomacy. With its more than $1.3 trillion in mainly US dollar reserves at the People`s Bank of China, Beijing is engaging in active petroleum geopolitics. Africa is a major focus, and in Africa, the central region between Sudan and Chad is priority. This is defining a major new front in what, since the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, is a new Cold War between Washington and Beijing over control of major oil sources. So far Beijing has played its cards a bit more cleverly than Washington. Darfur is a major battleground in this high-stakes contest for oil control. China Oil diplomacy In recent months, Beijing has embarked on a series of initiatives designed to secure long-term raw materials sources from one of the planet’s most endowed regions – the African subcontinent. No raw material has higher priority in Beijing at present than the securing of long term oil sources. Today China draws an estimated 30% of its crude oil from Africa. That explains an extraordinary series of diplomatic initiatives which have left Washington furious. China is using no-strings-attached dollar credits to gain access to Africa’s vast raw material wealth, leaving Washington’s typical control game via the World Bank and IMF out in the cold. Who needs the painful medicine of the IMF when China gives easy terms and builds roads and schools to boot? In November last year Beijing hosted an extraordinary summit of 40 African heads of state. They literally rolled out the red carpet for the heads of among others Algeria, Nigeria, Mali, Angola, Central African Republic, Zambia, South Africa. China has just done an oil deal, linking the Peoples Republic of China with the continent's two largest nations - Nigeria and South Africa. China's CNOC will lift the oil in Nigeria, via a consortium that also includes South African Petroleum Co. giving China access to what could be 175,000 barrels a day by 2008. It’s a $2.27 billion deal that gives state-controlled CNOC a 45% stake in a large off-shore Nigeria oil field. Previously, Nigeria had been considered in Washington to be an asset of the Anglo-American oil majors, ExxonMobil, Shell and Chevron. China has been generous in dispensing its soft loans, with no interest or outright grants to some of the poorest debtor states of Africa. The loans have gone to infrastructure including highways, hospitals, and schools, a stark contrast to the brutal austerity demands of the IMF and World Bank. In 2006 China committed more than $8 billion to Nigeria, Angola and Mozambique, versus $2.3 billion to all sub-Saharan Africa from the World Bank. Ghana is negotiating a $1.2 billion Chinese electrification loan. Unlike the World Bank, a de facto arm of US foreign economic policy, China shrewdly attaches no strings to its loans. This oil-related Chinese diplomacy has led to the bizarre accusation from Washington that Beijing is trying to “secure oil at the sources,” something Washington foreign policy has itself been preoccupied with for at least a Century. No source of oil has been more the focus of China-US oil conflict of late than Sudan, home of Darfur. Sudan oil riches Beijing’s China National Petroleum Company, CNPC, is Sudan’s largest foreign investor, with some $5 billion in oil field development. Since 1999 China has invested at least $15 billion in Sudan. It owns 50% of an oil refinery near Khartoum with the Sudan government. The oil fields (see graphic) are concentrated in the south, site of a long-simmering civil war, partly financed covertly by the United States, to break the south from the Islamic Khartoum-centered north. CNPC built an oil pipeline from its concession blocs 1, 2 and 4 in southern Sudan, to a new terminal at Port Sudan on the Red Sea where oil is loaded on tankers for China. Eight percent of China’s oil now comes from southern Sudan. China takes up to 65% to 80% of Sudan’s 500,000 barrels/day of oil production. Sudan last year was China’s fourth largest foreign oil source. In 2006 China passed Japan to become the world’s second largest importer of oil after the United States, importing 6.5 million barrels a day of the black gold. With its oil demand growing by an estimated 30% a year, China will pass the US in oil import demand in a few years. That reality is the motor driving Beijing foreign policy in Africa. Source: USAID A look at the southern Sudan oil concessions shows that China’s CNPC holds rights to bloc 6 which straddles Darfur, near the border to Chad and the Central African Republic. In April 2005 Sudan’s government announced it had found oil in South Darfur whoich is estimated to be able when developed to pump 500,000 barrels/day. The world press forgot to report that vital fact in discussing the Darfur conflict. Using the genocide charge to militarize Sudan’s oil region Genocide was the preferred theme, and Washington was the orchestra conductor. Curiously, while all observers acknowledge that Darfur has seen a large human displacement and human misery and tens of thousands or even as much as 300,000 deaths in the last several years, only Washington and the NGO’s close to it use the charged term “genocide” to describe Darfur. If they are able to get a popular acceptance of the charge genocide, it opens the possibility for drastic “regime change” intervention by NATO and de facto by Washington into Sudan’s sovereign affairs. The genocide theme is being used, with full-scale Hollywood backing from the likes of pop stars like George Clooney, to orchestrate the case for a de facto NATO occupation of the region. So far the Sudan government has vehemently refused, not surprisingly. The US Government repeatedly uses “genocide” to refer to Darfur. It is the only government to do so. US Assistant Secretary of State Ellen Sauerbrey, head of the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, said during a USINFO online interview last November 17, "The ongoing genocide in Darfur, Sudan – a 'gross violation' of human rights – is among the top international issues of concern to the United States." The Bush administration keeps insisting that genocide has been going on in Darfur since 2003, despite the fact that a five-man panel UN mission led by Italian Judge Antonio Cassese reported in 2004 that genocide had not been committed in Darfur, rather that grave human rights abuses were committed. They called for war crime trials. Merchants of death The United States, acting through surrogate allies in Chad and neighboring states has trained and armed the Sudan Peoples’ Liberation Army, headed until his death in July 2005, by John Garang, trained at US Special Forces school at Fort Benning, Georgia. By pouring arms into first southern Sudan in the eastern part and since discovery of oil in Darfur, to that region as well, Washington fuelled the conflict that led to tens of thousands dying and several million driven to flee their homes. Eritrea hosts and supports the SPLA, the umbrella NDA opposition group, and the Eastern Front and Darfur rebels. There are two rebel groups fighting in Sudan's Darfur region against the Khartoum central government of President Omar al-Bashir – the Justice for Equality Movement (JEM) and the larger Sudan Liberation Army (SLA). In February 2003 the SLA launched attacks on Sudan government positions in the Darfur region. SLA Secretary-General Minni Arkou Minnawi called for armed struggle, accusing the government of ignoring Darfur. "The objective of the SLA is to create a united democratic Sudan.” In other words, regime change in Sudan. The US Senate adopted a resolution in February 2006 that requested North Atlantic Treaty Organization troops in Darfur, as well as a stronger U.N. peacekeeping force with a robust mandate. A month later, President Bush also called for additional NATO forces in Darfur. Uh huh... Genocide? Or oil? The Pentagon has been busy training African military officers in the US, much as it has for Latin American officers for decades. Its International Military Education and Training (IMET) program has provided training to military officers from Chad, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Cameroon and the Central African Republic, in effect every country on Sudan’s border. Much of the arms that have fuelled the killing in Darfur and the south have been brought in via murky, protected private “merchants of death” such as the notorious former KGB operative, now with offices in the US, Victor Bout. Bout has been cited repeatedly in recent years for selling weapons across Africa. US Government officials strangely leave his operations in Texas and Florida untouched despite the fact he is on the Interpol wanted list for money laundering. US development aid for all Sub-Sahara Africa including Chad, has been cut sharply in recent years while its military aid has risen. Oil and the scramble for strategic raw materials is the clear reason. The region of southern Sudan from the Upper Nile to the borders of Chad is rich in oil. Washington knew that long before the Sudanese government. Chevron’s 1974 oil project US oil majors have known about Sudan’s oil wealth since the early 1970’s. In 1979, Jafaar Nimeiry, Sudan head of state, broke with the Soviets and invited Chevron to develop oil in the Sudan. That was perhaps a fatal mistake. UN Ambassador George H.W. Bush had personally told Nimeiry of satellite photos indicating oil in Sudan. Nimeiry took the bait. Wars over oil have been the consequence ever since. Chevron found big oil reserves in southern Sudan. It spent $1.2 billion finding and testing them. That oil triggered what is called Sudan’s second civil war in 1983. Chevron was target of repeated attacks and killings and suspended the project in 1984. In 1992, it sold it's Sudanese oil concessions. Then China began to develop the abandoned Chevron fields in 1999 with notable results. But Chevron is not far from Darfur today. Chad oil and pipeline politics Condi Rice’s Chevron is in neighboring Chad, together with the other US oil giant, ExxonMobil. They’ve just built a $3.7 billion oil pipeline carrying 160,000 barrels/day of oil from Doba in central Chad near Darfur Sudan, via Cameroon to Kribi on the Atlantic Ocean, destined for US refineries. To do it, they worked with Chad “President for life,” Idriss Deby, a corrupt despot who has been accused of feeding US-supplied arms to the Darfur rebels. Deby joined Washington’s Pan Sahel Initiative run by the Pentagon’s US-European Command, to train his troops to fight “Islamic terrorism.” The majority of the tribes in Darfur region are Islamic. Supplied with US military aid, training and weapons, in 2004 Deby launched the initial strike that set off the conflict in Darfur, using members of his elite Presidential Guard who originate from the province, providing the men with all terrain vehicles, arms and anti-aircraft guns to Darfur rebels fighting the Khartoum government in the southwest Sudan. The US military support to Deby in fact had been the trigger for the Darfur bloodbath. Khartoum reacted and the ensuing debacle was unleashed in full tragic force. Washington-backed NGO’s and the US Government claim unproven genocide as a pretext to ultimately bring UN/NATO troops into the oilfields of Darfur and south Sudan. Oil, not human misery, is behind Washington’s new interest in Darfur. The “Darfur genocide” campaign began in 2003, the same time the Chad-Cameroon pipeline oil began to flow. The US now had a base in Chad to go after Darfur oil and, potentially, co-opt China’s new oil sources. Darfur is strategic, straddling Chad, Central African Republic, Egypt and Libya. US military objectives in Darfur – and the Horn of Africa more widely – are being served at present by the US and NATO backing of the African Union troops in Darfur. There NATO provides ground and air support for AU troops who are categorized as “neutral” and “peacekeepers.” Sudan is at war on three fronts, each country – Uganda, Chad, and Ethiopia – with a significant US military presence and ongoing US military programs. The war in Sudan involves both US covert operations and US trained “rebel” factions coming in from South Sudan, Chad, Ethiopia and Uganda. Chad’s Deby looks to China too The completion of the US and World Bank-financed oil pipeline from Chad to the Cameroon coast was designed as one part of a far grander Washington scheme to control the oil riches of central Africa from Sudan to the entire Gulf of Guinea. But Washington’s erstwhile pal, Chad’s President for Life, Idriss Deby, began to get unhappy with his small share of the US-controlled oil profits. When he and the Chad Parliament decided in early 2006 to take more of the oil revenues to finance military operations and beef up its army, new World Bank President, Iraq war architect, Paul Wolfowitz, moved to suspend loans to the country. Then that August, after Deby had won re-election, he created Chad’s own oil company, SHT, and threatened to expel Chevron and Malaysia’s Petronas for not paying taxes owed, and demanding a 60% share of the Chad oil prieline. In the end he came to terms with the oil companies, but winds of change were blowing. Deby also faces growing internal opposition from a Chad rebel group, United Front for Change, known under its French name as FUC, which he claims is being covertly funded by Sudan. This region is a very complex part of the world of war. The FUC has based itself in Darfur. Into this unstable situation, Beijing has shown up in Chad with a full coffer of aid money in hand. In late January, Chinese President Hu Jintao made a state visit to Sudan and to Cameroon among other African states. In 2006 China’s leaders visited no less than 48 African states. In August 2006 Beijing hosted Chad’s Foreign Minister for talks and resumption of formal diplomatic ties cut in 1997. China has begun to import oil from Chad as well as Sudan. Not that much oil, but if Beijing has its way, that will soon change. This April, Chad’s Foreign Minister announced that talks with China over greater China participation in Chad’s oil development were “progressing well.” He referred to the terms the Chinese seek for oil development, calling them, “much more equal partnerships than those we are used to having.” The Chinese economic presence in Chad, ironically, may be more effective in calming the fighting and displacement in Darfur than any African Union or UN troop presence ever could. That would not be welcome for some people in Washington and at Chevron headquarters, as they would not find the oil falling into their greasy bloody hands. Chad and Darfur are but part of the vast China effort to secure “oil at the source” across Africa. Oil is also the prime factor in US Africa policy today. George W. Bush’s interest in Africa includes a new US base in Sao Tome/Principe 124 miles off the Gulf of Guinea from which it can control Gulf of Guinea oilfields from Angola in the south to Congo, Gabon, Equitorial Guinea, Cameroon and Nigeria. That just happens to be the very same areas where recent Chinese diplomatic and investment activity has focussed. “West Africa’s oil has become of national strategic interest to us,” stated US Assistant Secretary of State for Africa, Walter Kansteiner already back in 2002. Darfur and Chad are but an extension of the US Iraq policy “with other means” – control of oil everywhere. China is challenging that control “everywhere,” especially in Africa. It amounts to a new undeclared Cold War over oil.

This thread is completely dedicate to China against who trying harm it and to all people who love the freedom, justice and truth. In this thread we will know why the criminals trying to blackmails China across Tibet and Darfur by alleging that China is responsible for what happening there, but it will be clear that it’s not China. There are many people claim that they care about Darfur and Tibet, but in fact they are the one who responsible for all what happening there. Who defend Darfur and Tibet? USA and UK e.g. what a pathetic thing, they killing millions everyday then they defend the poor people. ( They should look to themselves before talking about the other people ).

Viva China:)

Why it should be a nation movement for Palestinian State, the Palestinians were already liveing on their land and fight against the English occupying forces. How you say that's no much interest in that region until the Jews showed up? I think you know that there were arab palestinians people live on this region, or should they be by Billions to prove that there are people live there.

Obama says would consider Gore for a Cabinet post Wed Apr 2, 2008 2:09pm EDT WALLINGFORD, Pennsylvania (Reuters) - Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Wednesday he would consider asking former Vice President Al Gore to become a top adviser should he win the White House. Asked at a town hall meeting if he would look at Gore for a possible Cabinet position, Obama said, "I would." The Illinois senator, who is vying with New York Sen. Hillary Clinton to become the Democratic nominee for president, also said there was no question Gore would play an important role in shaping his policies on climate change and that he already consults him on the subject. "I will make a commitment that Al Gore will be at the table and play a central part in us figuring out how we solve this problem," Obama said. "He's someone I talk to on a regular basis," Obama said. "I'm already consulting with him on these issues. Climate change is real. It's something we have to deal with now." Gore's consultations with the presidential hopeful are of interest amid speculation over whether he will publicly endorse either Obama or Clinton. The former vice president, who served with Clinton's husband, former President Bill Clinton, is considered one of the most influential of the so-called superdelegates in the Democratic Party who will play a role, along with delegates selected in state-by-state voting contests, in picking the Democratic nominee. Gore, who lost his own bid for the White House in 2000 to George W. Bush amid the disputed Florida voting, is highly regarded by many in the party. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last year for his work to try to halt the warming of the earth. (Reporting by Caren Bohan; editing by David Wiessler)

McCain says he knows economy better than Democrats Thu Apr 3, 2008 11:24am EDT WASHINGTON (Reuters) - John McCain on Thursday rejected criticism from his Democratic opponents over his experience on economic issues, saying that he understands the subject better than they do. Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have ridiculed the Republican presidential candidate over his December comment that economics was not his strong suit. "I know economics very well, certainly better than Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. So let's clear that up," McCain told CNN in an interview. The Arizona senator said he had been very involved in economic policymaking as a former chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee and as a strong supporter during the 1980s of former President Ronald Reagan's tax cuts. While campaigning in New Hampshire in December, McCain told the Boston Globe: "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should." The former Navy pilot and prisoner of war who has been outspoken on foreign policy issues in the Senate, said that he had been merely pointing out that he was not as steeped in economics as he was in international affairs. "I said it wasn't my strongest (suit) because I spent 22 years in the military and I've been a member of the Armed Services Committee and involved in every major national security challenge in the last 20 years," McCain said. Obama, an Illinois senator, and Clinton, a New York senator, have both highlighted the remark and accused McCain of lacking a plan to tackle the housing crisis and help a U.S. economy teetering on the brink of recession. The two Democrats, who are vying for the right to become their party's nominee to run against McCain in the November election, have suggested he would continue what they described as the failed policies of the Bush administration. McCain said he had plenty of plans for the economy, including ridding the federal budget of wasteful spending and seeking to ensure that people struggling with their mortgages can keep their homes. (Reporting by Caren Bohan and Jackie Frank, editing by Lori Santos and David Storey)

Obama raised more than $40 million in March Thu Apr 3, 2008 11:34am EDT By Caren Bohan CHICAGO (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama raised more than $40 million in campaign contributions in March, his staff said on Thursday. That followed a record $55 million the Illinois senator hauled in during February. The competition between Obama and his rival Hillary Clinton for campaign cash has been closely watched with the two locked in an intense battle to become the Democratic nominee to run against Republican John McCain in November. Obama, who leads Clinton in the number of delegates that will determine the outcome of the Democratic race, has strongly outpaced the New York senator in fundraising this year. Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said her campaign would not release its fund-raising figures for March until April 20, when she must file a report with the Federal Election Commission. "We knew that he was going to outraise us. He has outraised us over the last few months," Wolfson told reporters. "We will have the resources we need to compete and be successful." "Both of these campaigns are raising a considerable amount of money. We are both outraising Senator McCain," he said. Both Clinton and Obama have outraised McCain, an Arizona senator whose campaign ran short of money last year before the decorated Vietnam War vet started winning primaries. But Clinton has significantly less money available than her Democratic rival because of weaker fundraising and higher debt. Also, some of the money she has raised can only be used if she becomes their party's nominee. Clinton had some $10.9 million in cash left at the end of February compared with $31.6 million for Obama, according to an analysis of FEC filings by the Washington-based Campaign Finance Institute. The figures showed Clinton had significantly higher debts -- she owed $8.7 million, not including the $5 million she herself loaned to her campaign. Obama had about $625,000 in debt to be paid. Obama's campaign said the more than $40 million he raked in during March came from some 442,000 contributors, including 218,000 first-time donors. The average contribution level was $96, the campaign said. Obama suffered a loss of momentum in March with losses to Clinton in Ohio and Texas that broke a prior winning streak. But Obama has racked up some endorsements lately from prominent party figures including New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Pennsylvania Sen. Robert Casey. Obama, who would be the first black president, and Clinton, who would be the first woman to win the White House, have been campaigning heavily over the last few days in Pennsylvania, which holds its voting contest on April 22. Clinton is ahead in the polls. (Additional reporting by John Whitesides and Jeff Mason; editing by David Wiessler) (To read more about the U.S. political campaign, visit Reuters "Tales from the Trail: 2008" online at http:blogs.reuters.com/trail08/)

If you consider Israel as a country, can you tell me where it's border. If you consider Israel as a country, can you tell me how it created. If you consider Israel as a country, can you tell me where is the Israeli constitution. Because all of these things and many other things making me concerning about what happening in Palestine. And about the Vatican, there are nothing Vatican can do because Vatican have no power to stop these things.

Clinton Says She's in US Presidential Race to Stay By Jim Malone Washington 31 March 2008 Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton is sounding a defiant tone in response to calls from some supporters of rival Barack Obama that she quit the presidential race. Meanwhile, the presumptive Republican candidate, Senator John McCain, has begun a week-long tour aimed at reintroducing himself to American voters. VOA National Correspondent Jim Malone reports from Washington. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton talks about the economy as she campaigns at the Capitol Diner in Harrisburg, Pennyslvania, 31 Mar 2008 The two Democratic candidates campaigned in Pennsylvania in advance of the primary there on April 22. Opinion polls give Clinton a lead in Pennsylvania and the New York Senator has been quick to cite them as she fends off suggestions from Obama supporters that it is time for her to quit the race. "You know, there are some folks saying we ought to stop these elections," she said. "I did not think we believed that in America." Senator Clinton continues to get help from her husband, former President Bill Clinton. He argues against the view that the lengthy nomination battle will hurt the Democratic Party. "We are strengthening the Democratic Party. Chill out! We are going to win this election if we just chill out and let everybody have their say," she said. Some prominent Obama supporters have urged Clinton to quit because they believe there is no way she can catch the Illinois Senator in the race for party nominating delegates. Sen. Barack Obama speaks at a town hall meeting at Thaddeus Stevens College of Technology in Lancaster, Pennyslvania, 31 Mar 2008 But Senator Obama has yet to join those calling on Clinton to withdraw. "My attitude is that Senator Clinton can run as long as she wants," he said. "Her name is on the ballot and she is a fierce and formidable competitor." Some Democrats fear the party could be torn apart if the nomination race goes all the way to the party's national nominating convention in Denver in late August. Analysts have suggested party leaders may eventually turn to a respected figure like former Vice President Al Gore to mediate between Obama and Clinton before the convention. But Gore showed little interest in that in an interview with the CBS program 60 Minutes. "I am not applying for the job of broker," he said. Sen. John McCain delivers a speech at Mississippi State University in Meridian, during his Service to America tour, 31 Mar 2008 While the Democrats focus on Pennsylvania and nine other upcoming nominating contests that go into June, Republican John McCain has begun an effort to reintroduce himself to the American public. McCain began a biographical campaign tour in Mississippi, where he recalled the influence of his father and grandfather, both of whom were admirals in the U.S. Navy. "My grandfather was an aviator and my father was a submariner. They were my first heroes," he said. "I have been an imperfect servant of my country for many years. But I am their son, and they showed me how to love my country, and that has made all the difference for me, my friends, all the difference in the world." Later this week, McCain is scheduled to speak in Maryland at the U.S. Naval Academy, from which he graduated, and a Naval air station in Florida where he trained as an aviator. McCain spent five-and-one-half years as a prisoner of war after being shot down over North Vietnam in 1967.

Clinton-Obama Race Spurs Party Switches By JULIA SILVERMAN – 4 hours ago PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Matthew Buckingham, a stay-at-home father in Portland's suburbs and lifelong Republican, is fired up about voting for Sen. John McCain in November. But on May 20, the date of Oregon's unexpectedly consequential presidential primary, Buckingham's choice for the primary is still up in the air: Should it be Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, or Sen. Barack Obama? Like nearly 10,000 Oregonians — and thousands more voters in other late-primary states — Buckingham has temporarily switched his party affiliation in order to be able to vote in the red-hot Democratic primary. "The bottom line is, this is the first Oregon presidential primary I have ever voted in my life that actually could matter, and I am not going to pass up that chance just because I am registered with the wrong party," said the 45-year-old Buckingham. "I want to make sure whoever gets in there, it is someone I can live with." Many voters say they have made the switch to grab the chance to have a voice they never thought they'd have, in a historic race that conventional wisdom had predicted would be decided on Super Tuesday in February. Some renegade conservatives, though, will admit to switching in order to drag out the Democratic primary as long as possible in the hope of bruising both candidates along the way. Talk radio hostess Victoria Taft, a familiar Republican voice in the Democratic-leaning Pacific Northwest, said that even in her wildest dreams, she never imagined urging her listeners to vote for Clinton. But these days, Taft is firmly on the New York senator's bandwagon, along with national conservative talk radio heavyweights like Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham. "I want to vet (Illinois Senator) Barack Obama more than Hillary," said Taft, whose daily program during prime evening drive-time reaches about 30,000 people. "We know what she is all about, but we don't know a stinking thing about him." Her urging has resonated with listeners like Deborah Whisler, a Tigard-area retiree, who changed her registration from nonaffiliated to Democratic after hearing Taft on the radio. "I almost can't say this without choking, but I'm going to vote for Hillary Clinton," Whisler said. "Just on the basis of finding out more about each candidate." None of the major candidates reflects her views on immigration policy, Whisler said. Still, in November, she said she'll "hold my nose," and vote for McCain. In Oregon alone, in the past seven weeks, nearly 10,000 voters have refiled as Democrats, more than 1 percent of the state's 764,000 registered Democrats. More than 3,500 of them were Republicans; almost all of the rest had been nonaffiliated voters. In Pennsylvania, where the primary is set for April 22, the Democrats have registered a staggering 235,000 new voters since last fall, pushing their numbers to more than 4.1 million for the first time. In West Virginia, which votes on May 13, the increase has come in the form of a swell in nonaffiliated voters, said Democratic Party executive director Tom Vogel, after the Democratic primary was opened to independents for the first time in recent history. "We are sure there are Republicans who are switching to vote in our primary, whether they honestly want to vote or if they have more malicious purposes to try to get the candidate of their choice to run against," Vogel said. Elections officials in two other late-voting states with closed primaries, North Carolina and South Dakota, said there was so far no evidence of widespread party switching there. And in Kentucky, where the primary is scheduled for May 20, there won't be any chance for party-hoppers, thanks to a state law specifically designed to prevent so-called "party-raiding." "If you want to change your party affiliation to be eligible to vote in the upcoming primary, you have to change it by December 31st," said Les Fugate, a deputy secretary of state in Kentucky — a date that came months before anyone in Kentucky dreamed their primary votes could matter. In Ohio and Texas, the two key states widely acknowledged to have kept Clinton's presidential bid alive when she won their March 4 primaries, Republicans and independents voted for Clinton and Obama in roughly equal numbers, helping to solidify her wins. That was a departure from previous states with "open primaries," like Virginia and Missouri, where anyone can vote for any candidate despite their affiliation, in which Obama had won handily among Republicans and independents. Nick Shapiro, Obama's communications director in Oregon, said that if an organized effort to strategically cast conservative votes for Clinton did exist, it was a sign that "conservative Republicans are worried that Barack Obama can unite this country, and will get support from not only the Democrats, but independents and Republicans and propel him into the White House." Isaac Baker, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, however, called it "encouraging that independents and Republicans are switching to the Democratic Party, and joining our call to dramatically change course." The all-time high for registered Democrats in Oregon came in November 2004, when a serious get-out-the-vote effort for that year's presidential race pushed the total above 820,000. But both campaigns expect record-breaking turnout for the May 20 primary, mirroring other states. Oregon voters around the state offer a variety of reasons for switching. The chance to participate was key for 19-year-old Bryant Stegall, a part-time student from Southern Oregon who said he's leaning toward Obama. If Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, he said, he'd probably flip back to the Republican McCain. Seventy-year-old Mary Nelke, of Ashland, Ore., said she made the switch because she's fallen for Obama and the promise she hears in his voice. "Whether he is a Democrat or a Republican, he is our hope for the future," she said. "The economy is desperate, we need to make peace with the world. I am a grandmother — I look, and I think, I have to stand up and do what I think is right." As for Taft — no relation to William Howard Taft, the one-time GOP president from Ohio — she said she's hearing every day from more voters who plan to heed her call. "If she (Clinton) gets a bump in Oregon, she may just be on to Puerto Rico," Taft said. Puerto Rico votes June 1.

True, that's right { suddenly you became a wise man }

Actually, there is no different. The three of them {Obama-Clinton- MacCain} given Israel the sacrifices.

Oh really:rolleyes:, you are a student law just like me, so let's debate like law students. Why you interesting in China domestic affairs like the zionists, let every country deal with that alone, but did you saw China attacked any country under any false arguments like USA, of course not and I will give you and mrcool a gift to show you how USA hold number one in Guinness Book of World Records as the Country with the Most Foreign Interventions. As will as the zionists controlling USA which mean that they who made all these disasters. SOUTH DAKOTA 1890 (-?) Troops300 Lakota Indians massacred at WoundedKnee. ARGENTINA 1890 TroopsBuenos Aires interests protected. CHILE 1891 TroopsMarines clash with nationalist rebels. HAITI 1891 TroopsBlack revolt on Navassa defeated. IDAHO 1892 TroopsArmy suppresses silver miners' strike. HAWAII 1893 (-?) Naval, troops Independent kingdom overthrown, annexed. CHICAGO 1894 TroopsBreaking of rail strike, 34 killed. NICARAGUA 1894 TroopsMonth-long occupation of Bluefields. CHINA 1894-95 Naval, troopsMarines land in Sino-Japanese War KOREA 1894-96 TroopsMarines kept in Seoul during war. PANAMA 1895 Troops, navalMarines land in Colombian province. NICARAGUA 1896 TroopsMarines land in port of Corinto. CHINA 1898-1900 TroopsBoxer Rebellion fought by foreign armies. PHILIPPINES 1898-1910 (-?) Naval, troopsSeized from Spain, killed 600,000 Filipinos CUBA 1898-1902 (-?) Naval, troopsSeized from Spain, still hold Navy base. PUERTO RICO 1898 (-?) Naval, troopsSeized from Spain, occupation continues. GUAM 1898 (-?) Naval, troopsSeized from Spain, still use as base. MINNESOTA 1898 (-?) TroopsArmy battles Chippewa at Leech Lake. NICARAGUA 1898 TroopsMarines land at port of San Juan del Sur. SAMOA 1899 (-?) TroopsBattle over succession to throne. NICARAGUA 1899 TroopsMarines land at port of Bluefields. IDAHO 1899-1901 TroopsArmy occupies Coeur d'Alene mining region. OKLAHOMA 1901 TroopsArmy battles Creek Indian revolt. PANAMA 1901-14 Naval, troopsBroke off from Colombia 1903, annexed Canal Zone 1914. HONDURAS 1903 TroopsMarines intervene in revolution. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1903-04 TroopsU.S. interests protected in Revolution. KOREA 1904-05 TroopsMarines land in Russo-Japanese War. CUBA 1906-09 TroopsMarines land in democratic election. NICARAGUA 1907 Troops"Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up. HONDURAS 1907 TroopsMarines land during war with Nicaragua PANAMA 1908 TroopsMarines intervene in election contest. NICARAGUA 1910 TroopsMarines land in Bluefields and Corinto. HONDURAS 1911 TroopsU.S. interests protected in civil war. CHINA 1911-41 Naval, troopsContinuous occupation with flare-ups. CUBA 1912 TroopsU.S. interests protected in civil war. PANAMA 1912 TroopsMarines land during heated election. HONDURAS 1912 TroopsMarines protect U.S. economic interests. NICARAGUA 1912-33 Troops, bombing10-year occupation, fought guerillas MEXICO 1913 NavalAmericans evacuated during revolution. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1914 NavalFight with rebels over Santo Domingo. COLORADO 1914 TroopsBreaking of miners' strike by Army. MEXICO 1914-18 Naval, troopsSeries of interventions against nationalists. HAITI 1914-34 Troops, bombing19-year occupation after revolts. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1916-24 Troops8-year Marine occupation. CUBA 1917-33 TroopsMilitary occupation, economic protectorate. WORLD WARI 1917-18 Naval, troopsShips sunk, fought Germany for 1 1/2 years. RUSSIA 1918-22 Naval, troopsFive landings to fight Bolsheviks PANAMA 1918-20 Troops"Police duty" during unrest after elections. HONDURAS 1919 TroopsMarines land during election campaign. YUGOSLAVIA 1919 Troops/Marinesintervene for Italy against Serbs in Dalmatia. GUATEMALA 1920 Troops2-week intervention against unionists. WEST VIRGINIA 1920-21 Troops, bombingArmy intervenes against mineworkers. TURKEY 1922 TroopsFought nationalists in Smyrna. CHINA 1922-27 Naval, troopsDeployment during nationalist revolt. HONDURAS 1924-25 TroopsLanded twice during election strife. PANAMA 1925 TroopsMarines suppress general strike. CHINA 1927-34 TroopsMarines stationed throughout the country. EL SALVADOR 1932 NavalWarships send during Marti revolt. WASHINGTON DC 1932 TroopsArmy stops WWI vet bonus protest. WORLD WAR II 1941-45 Naval, troops, bombing, nuclearHawaii bombed, fought Japan, Italy and Germay for 3 years; first nuclear war. DETROIT 1943 TroopsArmy put down Black rebellion. IRAN 1946 Nuclear threatSoviet troops told to leave north. YUGOSLAVIA 1946 Nuclear threat, navalResponse to shoot-down of US plane. URUGUAY 1947 Nuclear threatBombers deployed as show of strength. GREECE 1947-49 Command operationU.S. directs extreme-right in civil war. GERMANY 1948 Nuclear ThreatAtomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift. CHINA 1948-49 Troops/Marinesevacuate Americans before Communist victory. PHILIPPINES 1948-54 Command operationCIA directs war against Huk Rebellion. PUERTO RICO 1950 Command operationIndependence rebellion crushed in Ponce. KOREA 1951-53 (-?) Troops, naval, bombing , nuclear threatsU.S./So. Korea fights China/No. Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, and against China in 1953. Still have bases. IRAN 1953 Command OperationCIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah. VIETNAM 1954 Nuclear threatFrench offered bombs to use against seige. GUATEMALA 1954 Command operation, bombing, nuclear threatCIA directs exile invasion after new gov't nationalized U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua. EGYPT 1956 Nuclear threat, troopsSoviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; Marines evacuate foreigners. LEBANON l958 Troops, navalMarine occupation against rebels. IRAQ 1958 Nuclear threatIraq warned against invading Kuwait. CHINA l958 Nuclear threatChina told not to move on Taiwan isles. PANAMA 1958 TroopsFlag protests erupt into confrontation. VIETNAM l960-75 Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threatsFought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in l968 and l969. CUBA l961 Command operationCIA-directed exile invasion fails. GERMANY l961 Nuclear threatAlert during Berlin Wall crisis. LAOS 1962 Command operationMilitary buildup during guerrilla war. CUBA l962 Nuclear threat, navalBlockade during missile crisis; near-war with Soviet Union. IRAQ 1963 Command operationCIA organizes coup that killed president, brings Ba'ath Party to power, and Saddam Hussein back from exile to be head of the secret service. PANAMA l964 TroopsPanamanians shot for urging canal's return. INDONESIA l965 Command operationMillion killed in CIA-assisted army coup. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1965-66 Troops, bombingMarines land during election campaign. GUATEMALAl 966-67 Command operationGreen Berets intervene against rebels. DETROIT l967 TroopsArmy battles African Americans, 43 killed. UNITED STATES l968 TroopsAfter King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in cities. CAMBODIA l969-75 Bombing, troops, navalUp to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos. OMAN l970 Command operationU.S. directs Iranian marine invasion. LAOS l971-73 Command operation, bombingU.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside. SOUTH DAKOTA l973 Command operationArmy directs Wounded Knee siege of Lakotas. MIDEAST 1973 Nuclear threatWorld-wide alert during Mideast War. CHILE 1973 Command operationCIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president. CAMBODIA l975 Troops, bombingGas captured ship, 28 die in copter crash. ANGOLA l976-92 Command operationCIA assists South African-backed rebels. IRAN l980 Troops, nuclear threat, aborted bombingRaid to rescue Embassy hostages; 8 troops die in copter-plane crash. Soviets warned not to get involved in revolution. LIBYA l981 Naval jetsTwo Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers. EL SALVADOR l981-92 Command operation, troopsAdvisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash. NICARAGUA l981-90 Command operation, navalCIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution. LEBANON l982-84 Naval, bombing, troopsMarines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim positions. GRENADA l983-84 Troops, bombingInvasion four years after revolution. HONDURAS l983-89 TroopsManeuvers help build bases near borders. IRAN l984 JetsTwo Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf. LIBYA l986 Bombing, navalAir strikes to topple nationalist gov't. BOLIVIA 1986 TroopsArmy assists raids on cocaine region. IRAN l987-88Naval, bombingUS intervenes on side of Iraq in war. LIBYA 1989 Naval jetsTwo Libyan jets shot down. VIRGIN ISLANDS 1989 TroopsSt. Croix Black unrest after storm. PHILIPPINES 1989 JetsAir cover provided for government against coup. PANAMA 1989 (-?) Troops, bombingNationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed. LIBERIA 1990 TroopsForeigners evacuated during civil war. SAUDI ARABIA 1990-91 Troops, jetsIraq countered after invading Kuwait. 540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel. IRAQ 1990-? Bombing, troops, navalBlockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; no-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south, large-scale destruction of Iraqi military. KUWAIT 1991 Naval, bombing, troopsKuwait royal family returned to throne. LOS ANGELES 1992 TroopsArmy, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising. SOMALIA 1992-94 Troops, naval, bombingU.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction. YUGOSLAVIA 1992-94 NavalNATO blockade of Serbia and Montenegro. BOSNIA 1993-? Jets, bombingNo-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs. HAITI 1994 Troops, navalBlockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup. ZAIRE (CONGO) 1996-97 TroopsMarines at Rwandan Hutu refugee camps, in area where Congo revolution begins. LIBERIA 1997 TroopsSoldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners. ALBANIA 1997 TroopsSoldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners. SUDAN 1998 MissilesAttack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant. AFGHANISTAN 1998 MissilesAttack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies. IRAQ 1998-? Bombing, MissilesFour days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions. YUGOSLAVIA 1999 Bombing, MissilesHeavy NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo. NATO occupation of Kosovo. YEMEN 2000 NavalUSS Cole, docked in Aden, bombed. MACEDONIA 2001 TroopsNATO forces deployed to move and disarm Albanian rebels. UNITED STATES 2001 Jets, navalReaction to hijacker attacksonNewYork,DCAFGHANISTAN2001? Troops, bombing, missilesMassive U.S. mobilization to overthrow Taliban, hunt Al Qaeda fighters, install Karzai regime, and battle Taliban insurgency. YEMEN 2002 MissilesPredator drone missile attack on Al Qaeda, including a US citizen. PHILIPPINES 2002-? Troops, navalTraining mission for Philippine military fighting Abu Sayyaf rebels evolves into US combat missions in Sulu Archipelago next to Mindanao. COLOMBIA 2003-? TroopsUS special forces sent to rebel zone to back up Colombian military protecting oil pipeline. IRAQ 2003-? Troops, naval, bombing, missilesSaddam regime toppled in Baghdad. US and UK forces occupy country and battle Sunni and Shi'ite insurgencies. Clashes on border with Syria. LIBERIA 2003 TroopsBrief involvement in peacekeeping force as rebels drove out leader HAITI 2004-05 Troops, naval Marines land after rebels oust elected President Aristide, who was advised to leave by Washington. PAKISTAN 2005-? Missiles, covert operationCIA airstrikes on Al Qaeda refuge villages kill civilians SOMALIA 2007 Missiles, navalAC-130 strikes; naval blockade and Cruise missile attacks against Islamist rebels About Africa. Israel is number one importer of African diamonds, which finances African civil wars

Mine Economic Left/Right: -2.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.00

What you mean?:thinking:

ANALYSIS Obama collapse in final contests may be Clinton's best hope Senator Hillary Clinton listening to her introduction at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, on Monday. (Mike Mergen/Bloomberg News) By Adam Nagourney Published: March 24, 2008 WASHINGTON: To listen to some of the discussion about the Democratic presidential contest these days, one would think that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton should have spent Easter weekend at her home in Chappaqua, New York, writing her withdrawal speech and preparing for her return to the Senate. Make no mistake about it; Clinton's task in trying to overtake Senator Barack Obama of Illinois is daunting. And it grew even tougher last week, when the collapse of efforts to redo the Florida and Michigan primaries almost certainly ended her hope of narrowing Obama's lead in pledged delegates and being able to claim a majority of the popular vote when the voting is done. But it is still not impossible. There remains at least one scenario where Clinton could win. It is an increasingly unlikely one and one that could traumatize the Democratic Party. Still, it gives succor to her supporters, and presumably Clinton herself, and is something to keep in mind watching the two of them head toward the endgame of their contest. The electorate that matters most now are not the voters waiting to go to the polls in the 10 nominating contests that remain between now and June. Instead, it is the superdelegates - the elected officials and party leaders who have automatic status as uncommitted delegates and whose votes are needed to put either Obama or Clinton over the top. There are about 800 of them and they are going be weighing two main arguments: Obama's contention that the Democratic rank-and-file has expressed its will and superdelegates should not overturn it, and Clinton's brief that she offers the party the best chance to defeat Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican, this fall. Obama's side of the argument has become almost unassailable, while Clinton's is, at the least, open to debate. Clinton's best hope now is that Obama, as a candidate, suffers a political collapse akin to what has happened to the subprime mortgage market, a view shared by aides in both campaigns. How could that happen? First of all, Clinton not only has to win Pennsylvania on April 22; she has to swamp Obama there. And she has to go on and post a convincing win against Obama in Indiana, a state where the two appear evenly matched. Results like that would serve to underscore concerns among some Democrats that came after Clinton beat Obama in Ohio, suggesting he was having trouble getting blue-collar white voters into his column. That is one constituency that aides to McCain see very much in play this fall. Along the same lines, Clinton would get some wind if she trounces Obama in the June 3 contest in Puerto Rico. Obama has had trouble with Clinton in competing for Latino voters. And that has been duly noted by McCain's aides who said they are beginning to see a general election upside - among Hispanic voters in a contest against Obama - to the problems that McCain's support of immigration legislation caused him in the primaries. That is one reason why the endorsement that Obama won last week from Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who is one of the country's leading elected Hispanic officials, had significance going far beyond the Democratic nominating contest. But neither of those two factors would be enough. What Clinton is going to need is for Obama to suffer a collapse in polls by the time superdelegates are being pressed to make up their minds. Could that happen? The most pressing question now is the extent to which Obama has succeeded in dealing with the incendiary statements made by his former pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright Jr., which rocked his candidacy last week. Obama won huge praise for the speech he gave addressing his relationship Wright and the state of racial relations in the country. But in this case, as a political matter, the audience that counts is general election voters - not Democratic primary voters, party leaders, editorial writers or television commentators. Two months is a long time, and it is simply too soon to say if the political imprint of an acclaimed speech by Obama will begin to fade, overcome by the potent images of Wright at the pulpit. Superdelegates are by nature political animals. They appreciate the potential political price if they are perceived as overturning the will of voters, and blocking what so many Democrats view as a historic candidate. They are also hungry to win the White House and, in many cases, more committed to the success of the Democratic Party than to the fortunes of any specific candidate. They surely will pause if polls two months from now show McCain with a sudden and sizable lead over Obama. All of which is to say that while all this could happen, it is going to take a near-perfect confluence of forces in Clinton's favor, a turn of luck that has evaded her this year.

I challenge you that you can't get any proof that palestinians mistreated in Egypt and you can't call them 2nd class citizens in the arab states they are not citizen in Egypt or any arab state they are just refugees. But in Israel they are Israeli citizens and they treating like tenth class citizens. If we use the palestinians to pawn them to further our wars. so can you tell me why we signed peace treaty genius. You always trying to put an imagine that the west stand aganist Israel and that not true because all the west guarantee the safe of Israel and they make a race on it.

I will add some information to your knowledge, that Ahmed Maher was the former foreign minister of Egypt. When the palestinians said to him "You are collaborating with the killers of Muslims," they said that because {I think you don't know because you didn't bother yourself to read the article} Egypt and Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel, the said that not because that Egypt killing the palestinians like Israel. This is big different and we doing so much to make them understand our plan and situation. If you read the article which you post, you will read that the arab states have fought four wars against Israel in the name of Palestine. But you always come and hallucination about what you don't know.

First of all, when I say arab nation, I mean all of them Christians,Jewish and Muslims arab. The arab nation didn't treated the palestinians bad like you said and if you have a proof, I'm all ears. I didn't said that it's good if we killed any palestinians, because anyone who allow to himself to kill, he just a devil. But there is a big different when you kill and regret about what you done, or kill by a curriculum methods and be proud by what you doing.

Who imposed a brutal siege on Gaza? Israel Who cut the electricity power and consequence from that many palestinians patients died in hospitals ? Israel Who treat the arab as third class and always alleging the democracy? Israel Who refusing the return of palestinians refugees? Israel Who emphasize on the Jewish of state? Israel I can make a big list for you Now you come and say that the arab countries responsibe for what happening for the palestinians.

Now I nut and idiot, and both of you have the absolute truth, what a dogmatic sense. I have point of view and you both have another one, it's ok, let's face the two point of view and instead of insulting me, face my arguments by your arguments and before you told the other people to educate themselves told yourself to learn how to debate or talk with the other people politely. If you want to talk about China, China is much better than Zionist global system. China get the needs of chinese pepole by peace, in the other hand USA and the global system get there needs by wars and bloodshed and I can prove that. That's why the most of nations see Chaina best than current global system. The Zionism responsible for what happening in Africa. The Zionism responsible for most of evil in this poor world. I can make a special thread about it if you wish.

Passport Files of 3 Candidates Breached, Officials Say By HELENE COOPER and MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM Published: March 21, 2008 WASHINGTON — The State Department said on Friday that it was investigating several incidents in which the passport files of all three presidential contenders were improperly accessed by employees. The breaches involved electronic files that contained personal information about Senators Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain. A State Department spokesman declined to say what was in those files, but he said they were likely to contain biographical information and passport applications. Mr. Obama’s passport file was breached on three separate occasions earlier this year and as recently as last week, by three employees working for independent contractors who did not have authorization to access the information. The breaches occurred on Jan. 9, Feb. 21, and March 14, according to The Associated Press. The State Department’s computer system had flagged each incident, but senior department officials were not informed until they looked into the matter, after receiving inquiries from a reporter on Thursday, a department spokesman said. “That information didn’t rise up to senior management levels,” the spokesman, Sean McCormack, said at a Friday news conference. “That should have happened.” Two of the employees were fired, Mr. McCormack said. The Associated Press reported that they had worked for Stanley, Inc., a company that provides administrative support and services to government groups and is based in Arlington, Va. Stanley signed a five-year, $570 million contract with the State Department earlier this week to work on the department’s passport database. The third employee also accessed Mr. McCain’s file, but was only reprimanded and remains employed. Mr. McCormack speculated that “imprudent curiosity” had motivated the employees’ actions. “That is our initial take on the matter,” Mr. McCormack said in a hastily arranged conference call on Thursday night, after The Washington Times published a report about the incident involving Mr. Obama. “We are not being dismissive of any other possibility,” Mr. McCormack quickly added. But at Friday’s news conference, he appeared to take umbrage at the suggestion that the breach was an instance of political foul play. One reporter, Lambros Papantoniou of the Greek daily newspaper Eleftheros Typos, asked a question and noted in passing that “the whole story looks like a new Watergate scandal.” Mr. McCormack interrupted. “You know what? You know what? That is so outrageous,” he said. “You just lost your privilege.” Mr. McCormack refused to acknowledge the reporter for the remainder of the news conference. So far in their investigation, State Department officials have not found additional breaches of files belonging to the presidential candidates who are no longer running. “If they come across any other incidents, of course, they are going to report those,” Mr. McCormack said. Mrs. Clinton’s passport file was breached last summer during a training session for State Department employees. A trainee was encouraged to enter a family member’s name into the passport database for training purposes, Mr. McCormack said. Instead, the trainee entered Mrs. Clinton’s name. Mr. McCormack said the trainee was promptly admonished. Earlier on Friday, before the breaches of the files of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain were disclosed, Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, said she personally apologized to Mr. Obama. “I told him that I was sorry and I told him that I myself would be very disturbed if I learned that somebody had looked into my passport file,” she said. Mr. McCormack, the spokesman, said that Ms. Rice also apologized to Mrs. Clinton, and was planning to speak to Mr. McCain later in the day. In a statement issued by his campaign, Mr. McCain called on the government to respect its citizens’ privacy. “It appears that privacy was breached, and I expect a thorough review and a change in procedures as necessary to ensure the privacy of all passport files,” he said. Mr. Obama, speaking to reporters in Oregon on Friday, said he appreciated Ms. Rice’s apology. But he called for the passport situation “to be investigated diligently and openly,” preferably by a Congressional committee “so that it is not simply an internal matter.” “One of the things that the American people count on in their interactions with any level of government is that if they have to disclose personal information, that is going to stay personal and stay private,” Mr. Obama said. “And when you have not just one, but a series of attempts to tap into people’s personal records, that’s a problem, not just for me, but for how our government is functioning.” Howard L. Berman, a California Democrat who is the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, issued a statement on Friday that his committee would also look into the breaches. Mr. Berman compared the incidents to a similar breach in 1992 involving a State Department file on then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton, which occurred amid rumors that Mr. Clinton had tried to renounce his citizenship to avoid the draft while he was a Rhodes scholar at Oxford during the Vietnam War. The 1992 incident, Mr. Berman said, “also was characterized as isolated and nonpolitical when the news initially emerged. This time, as then, Congress will pay close attention to the depth of executive branch involvement in the rifling of presidential candidates’ passport files.”

Richardson backs Obama By: Matthew Bigg Fri Mar 21, 2008 7:14 PM EDT PORTLAND, Oregon (Reuters) - Sen. Barack Obama won a coveted endorsement from New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson on Friday while the State Department apologized that employees snooped into the Illinois Democrat's passport files and those of his two main White House rivals. The backing from the Hispanic governor is a victory for Obama and could improve his chances of winning over Latino voters who have leaned toward New York Sen. Hillary Clinton. A Clinton adviser dismissed the endorsement as not significant at this stage in the race. Obama and Clinton are in a heated battle to represent the Democrats against the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, in the November 4 presidential election to succeed President George W. Bush. In an embarrassment to the Bush administration, the State Department on Friday revealed that the passport records of all three major candidates had been improperly viewed by three contract employees and by a regular department staffer. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called Obama, Clinton and McCain to apologize and the State Department said it was conducting an investigation and would look at how to tighten its systems to prevent such privacy violations. "It is deeply disturbing, what's happened," Obama told a news conference. "When you have not just one but a series of attempts to tap into people's personal records, that's a problem not just for me but for our health in this country and so I expect a full and thorough investigation." Clinton, who was spending the Easter holiday at home off the campaign trail, said in a statement she would follow the probe closely. The incident revived memories of the political firestorm that erupted in 1992 after State Department officials searched former President Bill Clinton's passport and citizenship files when he was a Democratic presidential candidate. HELPING WITH HISPANICS? Richardson, who served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and energy secretary during the Clinton administration, chose to abandon the former president and his wife, saying it was time for a new generation to lead. "Your candidacy is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for our nation and you are a once-in-a-lifetime leader," Richardson said as he stood next to Obama in Oregon. Clinton and Obama had cultivated Richardson's backing in part because the Hispanic politician could garner support among the Hispanic community, the fastest-growing segment of the electorate and a potentially vital voting bloc. Richardson praised a speech Obama gave on race earlier this week and said it touched him as a Hispanic. "This is a man who understands us and who will respect us," he said in Spanish. Hispanics largely backed Clinton in nominating contests on "Super Tuesday," with polls showing her winning two-thirds of the Latino vote in several states, and it was unclear whether they might shift to Obama because of Richardson's endorsement. Clinton's chief strategist, Mark Penn, on a conference call with reporters, dismissed Richardson's potential impact this far into the race. "I think that, you know, perhaps the time when he could have been most effective has long since passed," he said. "We both have our endorsers, but I don't think that it is a significant endorsement in this environment." While saying his "great affection and admiration for Senator Clinton and President Clinton will never waver," Richardson, 60, added: "It is now time for a new generation of leadership to lead America forward." A skilled negotiator and diplomat, the popular governor has been mentioned as a possible vice presidential candidate or secretary of state in a Democratic administration. He also is a superdelegate who would have a vote in the nominating contest if neither Obama nor Clinton win enough delegates during the primaries. Obama leads Clinton in the state-by-state contest to amass delegates who will formally select the Democrat to face Republican McCain. The Arizona senator, who pulled ahead of both Obama and Clinton in some national polls this week, was finishing up an overseas trip with a Congressional delegation that visited Iraq, Israel, Jordan, France and Britain. (Additional reporting by Arshad Mohammed; writing by Arshad Mohammed and Jeff Mason; editing by Sandra Maler)

If there any country mistreat it's people I totally against it, but why USA alaways interfere in certain circumstance even there is no mistreat, let every country handle it alone or USA made itself the world policeman. I don't think that Syria or Jordan mistreated palestinians and even it's happened one time surely it was an accident and you can't compare it with the Israeli curriculum genocide and apartheid.

Good, the justice is the core of the right My name is Samir