Senator Obama’s statement is in total conflict with the Coats-Robb op-ed article in the Washington Post which is supported by Mr. Dennis Ross, a major Middle East policy adviser of Senator Obama who should immediately fire Ross if he stands by his response to ACT.

I am also curious about the following. Mr. Obama promises to escalate our wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan if he becomes our next President. He will eventually need more Congressional funding to do this. Will the Democratic Congress persons have the guts to tell him: “yes, but give us a real time table for the withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan and Pakistan?” I seriously doubt they will do that because it is one thing to foist this demand on an unpopular President Bush but quite another on one of their own. Democratic and Republican politicians alike are very good at hypocrisy.

“As president, I will set a new direction in nuclear weapons policy and show the world that America believes in its existing commitment under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to work to ultimately eliminate all nuclear weapons. I fully support reaffirming this goal, as called for by George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, William Perry, and Sam Nunn, as well as the specific steps they propose to move us in that direction.”-Senator Barack Obama’s response to ACT. [1]

ACT/Arms Control Today is a leading journal devoted to nonproliferation and global security issues. ACT asked the presidential candidates questions on arms control and nonproliferation; from Russia to Iran, in regards to U.S. policy on cluster munitions and nuclear-armed India and Pakistan. Senator McCain’s responses have not yet been received, but he is on the record for renewing American commitment [on paper] to nuclear disarmament through strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, created in 1968, maintains that nuclear weapons proliferation can only be curtailed if nuclear countries make moves toward disarmament and the rest of the world is allowed to access civilian nuclear technology.

If the media were a sanctuary for dissent the candidates would have been grilled on America’s record regarding the NPT; and why the silence about Israel’s still un-inspected underground WMD facility and refusal to sign onto the NPT in light of the fact that we the people of America who pay taxes provide Israel with $7 million per day: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/usaid.html

“I strongly believe that media can be a force for peace. It is the responsibility of journalists to give voice to those who have been forgotten, forsaken and beaten down by the powerful.  It is the best reason I know to carry our pens, cameras and microphones out into the world. The media should be a sanctuary for dissent. It is our job to go to where the silence is.” -Amy Goodman [4]

IMAGINE: Media as a Sanctuary for Dissent
The Rest:

http://www.wearewideawake.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1078&Itemid=211

Ummm, will the test be multiple choice or true/false? Enquiring minds need to know.

The Read More link isn’t working.