RE: Cyrena / Joe6pak

Hey Cyrena ...

In your posting, you say that Pakistan is of concern
to Barack Obama, because Pakistan
laundered the money for the 9/11 operation ...
presumably provided by Saudi Arabia.

But Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s pastor,
advisor, and mentor of 20 years, said the jets that
crashed into the World Trade Center on 9/11,
killing over 3,000 Americans,
was done by the U.S. Government.

Which version is true? ... and, which version
does Barack Obama believe in?

Stephen,

You’re right about the semantics involved in the 1979 Embassy Hostage Crises in Iran.

Was that an ‘attack’, since any Embassy on any soil is considered sovereign territory of the whichever nation’s embassy it is?  Actually, it seems like that may actually be documented somewhere, rather than just a normative or customary agreement, but I don’t know where.

And yep, I agree that the neocons would certainly call it an ‘attack’ on US. But there again, that’s just standard US geopolitical hubris. And, standard operating procedure for oh so long now.

I mean, the list is endless if we start counting up the number of countries where the US has gone in and deposed a democratically elected regime, (like the CIA did in Iran with Mossadeq) installed their own puppet leader, which always leads to a revolt against it by the people of whatever the nation is, and then they act all wounded..like WE’VE been attacked.

And, as long as any nation state on the globe has either resources or a strategic geographical location that the US wants, they don’t stand a chance. As soon as they start talking about nationalizing their resources, they can expect either the US Britain, or both… to whack ‘em. Or at least the republicans can be counted on to do it every time.

At the end of the day, the goal is to prove to even the most lowly, that they CANNOT defy the US or the capitalist system that we’ve demanded all the globe mush accept on US defined terms. So, if anybody gets out of line, or shows any sense of independence in fighting it off, then we use them as an example to the rest of the world that disobedience or resistance to US hegemony will not be tolerated.

Castro’s Cuba got it, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, (how many US assassination attempts has he survived now?) Then of course more recently Saddam Hussein, and now they’ve demonized Ahmadinejad for years as well. Matter of fact, the playbook for attacking Iran is so identical to the one used for Saddam, that even a 5th grader would figure it out.

Meantime, I’m sure you’re right. That means that in terms of those semantics, the last time Iran attacked ‘another country’ was in 1979, in though the other country was in their sovereign state. Very interesting point of International concern there, eh? It’s definitely outside the standard perimeters of territorial jurisdiction.

Before that though? At least a couple of centuries.

joe6pak

I just occurred to me, when you claimed that even Obama knew or thought that Iran had nukes, that you are apparently geographically challenged. I had assumed that you knew the difference between Iran and Pakistan, and the difference between nuclear WEAPONS and nuclear energy used for civilian needs.
I guess I gave you too much credit.

So, I will at least go through that much with you. Get out your atlas, and see if you can follow along. Iran is considered a Middle Eastern nation state. PAKISTAN, is part of Southern Asia, just as India is. Are up with me so far?

Pakistan, IS of concern to Obama. Now why would that be? Well, because…PAKISTAN DOES HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS!! (So does India by the way). Not only that, but intelligence has shown that Pakistan is home to some of the more ‘extremist’ of the so-called terrorists that are allegedly part of georgie’s ‘war on terror’. Osama may be dead, but from what we’re supposed to believe, the area in and around Pakistan had been the hide out for he and some of his gang.

We also know that Pakistan was involved in laundering the money used for the 9/11 operation. (presumably provided by Saudi Arabia). So, we’ve got Pakistan there, in Southern Asia, (NOT ARAB by the way) and they’ve got nukes and presumed terrorists. That combination has in fact been recognized by Barack Obama as likely problematic. Of course your best friend george bush and his CIA are best buddies with Pakistan, so we’re supposed to think all is a-OK, there, and focus our attention on Iran.

Now, it would also appear that you don’t know the difference between a simple nuclear ENERGY program, and the manufacture of nuclear WEAPONS. There’s a difference. Nuclear energy can be used for many purposes. Like say…MEDICINE for example. Were you aware of that? And yes it can also be used for many of the other standard purposes that other energy sources are used for. (like oil). It remains subject to great debate on just how efficient it is as a source of civilian energy, because of the obvious dangers involved. But that is a topic for an entirely different conversation.

The only thing you need to understand is that what Iran has going is an energy program to provide energy to its civilian population, and that the program is monitored by the international watchdogs that are supposed to monitor it, and that it is perfectly lawful.

Now that you know the difference…go worry about Pakistan. Better yet…worry about Israel. They’ve got more nuclear WEAPONS than all the rest put together.

No joe...Obama does NOT see Iran as a threat, and neither does the IAEA, and neither do any of the scholars who have spent time (lots of it I might add) examining and analyzing ALL of the documents collected by the IAEA and the other agencies of the UN. And, that was BEFORE the most recent NIE report from the US itself, making clear that Iran had long since abandoned any plans to pursue nuclear WEAPONS.

As for the rhetoric on the ‘wiping off the map’ stuff...it’s so old, and so totally misinterpreted...(like Marshall, you cling to old rhetoric uttered in a culture and language that you don’t understand) that we’ve been over it a million times, and I’m not wasting anytime with you on it at this point.

I didn’t just start working on this joey6, I’ve been working on it a really long time, and so far, not you or any other person in this administration or any other one, is going to succeed in forcing Iran to give up what is a right granted to her by her participation in the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

That treaty ALLOWS for, PROVIDES for, Iran to develope a civilian energy program, and to acquire the technology. It goes even further in committing those states who are already in possession of nuclear techologies, to assist these non-nuclear states.

Consequently, Iran IS enriching uranium, and that is NOT A SECRET, because Iran has the RIGHT to enrich uranium, under the conditions as dictated by the NPT, as well as the IAEA, and that’s the way it is. Iran has a population of roughly 67 million people, and 70% of that population is under the age of 30. Again, they have every right to the technology for a civilian nuclear energy program, and there is NO evidence, (despite the UN, the IAEA, AND the US being ALL over Iran) that they are building WEAPONS.

Obama happens to be the ONLY one willing to TALK to Iran, and it’s NOT because he thinks they’re building weapons. It’s because the US should have been talking to Iran long, long, ago…instead of making it clear at the onset of their planned destruction of the Middle East, that Iran was next on the attack list after Iraq.

So, don’t bother me with your uninformed propaganda joe. You need to do a little research, and study some history of the Middle East, the relations between the US and Iran, (like when they once offered Iran nukes) and a whole bunch of other work.

Otherwise, your ignorance just keeps showing, and I’m not here to teach a class…least of all to you.

I won’t go so far as to say that you’re delusional, though of course that could be one of your many issues.

It’s more likely just ignorance based on old propaganda that you’ve been brainwashed with, and I don’t think there’s any hope for you.

People who believe everything they’ve been told, and never entertain the fact that it could be lies, will of course remain stupid...like you are.

Why cyrena would a country spend billions of dollars building not only a nuclear reactor program, but take the extra step of building a facility that only has but one purpose?

Iran has a uranium reprocessesing facility. Why would you build a reprocessing facility(s) if your goal was not to reprocess U235 (nuclear fuel) into U238 (weapons grade) and plutonium (weapons grade)?

Please enlighten us how this peaceful state of Iran, with the stated goal of, oh now what was that quote? Oh yeah. Here it is.

05 November 2005

Iran Threatens Israel

At a conference in Tehran, Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared that Israel, “must be wiped off the map.” Countries that recognize the Jewish state, he said, will “burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury.”

Iran is building a nuclear program as we sit here and type. Israel destroyed Iraq’s nuclear ambitions. There was NEVER any credible intelligence to show Iraq was rebuilding its program after the 1981 strike. None. How is this the same thing as Bush lying to everyone about it to build a case for war? Pressuring the intelligence community, squeezing them to produce evidence of a non-existant threat is a tactic at least as old as the bomber and missle ‘gaps’ of the 1950s. This is not the same thing. There is a ton of verifiable evidence of Iran’s plans for their nuclear-armed future.

You’re delusional.

Do you disagree? Why then would the United Nations go to all this trouble to produce this document?

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8792.doc.htm

SECURITY COUNCIL DEMANDS IRAN SUSPEND URANIUM ENRICHMENT BY 31 AUGUST,

OR FACE POSSIBLE ECONOMIC, DIPLOMATIC SANCTIONS

Resolution 1696 (2006) Adopted by Vote of 14 - 1 ( Qatar),

“If Iran were to develop a complete nuclear fuel cycle, it would possess the potential to break out of a peaceful program into nuclear weapons production.  Acquisition of reprocessing equipment and skills as well as the other components of the fuel cycle would clearly signal a latent nuclear weapons capability.”

http://www.bellona.org/english_import_area/internation al/russia/nuke_industry/co-operation/28445

One can certainly argue that Iran needs to have a nuclear capability to ‘keep up with the Joneses’ and maybe that’s all you’re trying to do with your post. I submit, however that a nuclear-armed Iran has threatened the use of a future capability, nuclear weapons, on an acknowleged enemy, Israel.

The nuclear umbrella idea has been around since Truman was dealing with Stalin over Berlin. The idea is a useful tool of both diplomacy and non-proliferation provided and here’s the big if, IF the other nation is unable to deliver nuclear weapons to your soil. Iran has no current ability to project that kind of firepower at US targets. That’s why the nuclear umbrella over Europe in the late 40s, 50s and early 60s became dubious when the Soviet Union produced enough ICBMs to destroy the US. The formula for the umbrella was this. Soviets invade Germany, the US cannot stop the advance of tanks so it nukes them. The USSR then nukes Paris. The US responds by nuking Moscow. Game over. As soon as the USSR could deliver about 200 warheads over US cities (R-7A) the equation changed. Do you trade Paris for New York? If the USSR attacks Edinbourough, do we nuke Stalingrad and sacrifice Chicago?

The nuclear umbrella would work in the middle east exactly as long as it took the Iranians to develop a missle with intercontinential range. Not an easy task, but you could expect an all out ICBM development effort, or a non-traditional delivery strategy (shipping containers into US ports). This idea could only be part of a much larger diplomatic effort because the treaties do not yet exist in theater.

This is not an offensive strategy effort on Clinton’s part. This is not the same thing as preventative or preemptive war. This is nuclear deterrance. Plain and simple.

Iran is a real threat. Even Obama knows that cyrena.

“When is the last century when Iran ‘attacked’ ANY other country?” Unfortunately, this invokes one of those fine points of semantics that neoconservatives love to exploit.  I believe that the normative (if not documented) convention is that any embassy counts as the “soil” of the foreign country occupying it.  So, when those Iranian students took over the American Embassy and held hostages, does that constitute an attack?  I am sure that any number of neocons would answer in the affirmative without a moment’s thought.

As you probably know, Gore Vidal has held to the position that the WTC attack was (and therefore should have been investigated and prosecuted as) a criminal (rather than “terrorist") act.  With the Shah overthrown, however, it is unclear that those students were violating any criminal code (presuming that Iran had a documented criminal code under the Shah in the first place).  This is not to side with the neocons but just to demonstrate that this area gets pretty gray once we get beyond knee-jerk responses.

Jackpine,

Thanks for spelling out the difference between preemptive and preventative war. I don’t think the difference has registered with anyone other than those of us who knew it before anyway. Both fall into the category of anticipatory defense, but there is a huge difference that most fail to grasp. Needless to say, Iraq and plans for Iran may be ‘called’ preventative, but since Iraq was not a threat, and since Iran is not a threat, this ‘preventative’ concept is totally illegal. The law does not allow us to attack Iran based on what they MIGHT get, to prevent them from getting what they ‘might’ get. Obviously, since Iraq didn’t have such plans either, the ‘preventative’ claim on that attack was illegal as well.

And, contrary to what joesixpack contends, Hillary’s plan is the antithesis of any scheme for non-proliferation. There’s a Treaty that is already devoted to the terms of non-proliferation, and Hillary’s plan is …like you said, even beyond what the current thugs have suggested. What she suggests here is in complete violation of the NPT, not to mention a few dozen other international agreements.

So thanks for the reminder. I had to go back and re-view that portion of the debate, since I don’t think it registered with me at the time, just how crazy she is. In this instance, even more dangerous than George.

“Umbrella” of nuclear deterrence? Yeah she’s dangerous. The point of nuclear non-proliferation is that NOBODY has nuclear WEAPONS. THAT is the deterrence.

Meantime, I’m sick of hearing about these non-existent, ‘what ifs’. What if Iran attacks Israel? This is bullshit. Has Iran EVER attacked Israel? When is the last century when Iran ‘attacked’ ANY other country? It defended itself against Saddam’s attacks, but Iran hasn’t ‘attacked’ any other nation in centuries, and it’s already been PROVEN (even though most of us already knew) that Iran doesn’t HAVE any nuclear WEAPONS, nor is Iran in pursuit of any nuclear weapons.

Consequently, this 5-year old demonization of Iran as a potential threat to ANYBODY, is no different than the lies they used to invade and permanently occupy Iraq. That said, it might be helpful for all of us to know that if and when Israel decides to attack Iran, or when the US does it on Israel’s behalf, it will be because that’s what the Terrorist Twins (the US and Israel) have planned long ago, and certainly not in prevention of anything from any other nation, specifically in the Middle East. No other nation in the Middle East, BESIDES ISRAEL, has possession of any nuclear weapons, nor any current plans to pursue them.

That’s not to say that Iran doesn’t have reason to be concerned by the fact that she is surrounded by India, Pakistan and Israel, who DO have them, putting them in a rather uncomfortable position. But so far, it would appear that Israel is the greatest threat to any Middle Eastern country. As a matter of fact, something has just come through my inbox from global research, that Israel is preparing for yet another attack on Lebanon and Syria. I’ve not yet read it, but here’s the link.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va& aid=8727

Nope, I have no idea if this was considered in Hillary umbrella plan. Neither Syria nor Lebanon has any nukes either. Just Israel.

I had hoped that TD would as well. They have not.

When I was searching for it myself, I did come across the same link that you’ve posted here. But, since it was in several other places as well, those were the links I came to first.

Again, thanks. I wouldn’t have known to look otherwise.

None of us can predict how Obama will “stand up to the toughest leaders on the World stage.” However, we have watched him stand up to Hillary, who is a pretty tough cookie!  In the current state of play, I think more of how he has stood up to her than I do of how she has stood up to him.  Take from that observation what you will.

Hillary never said she would preemptively attack an Iran that was about to deploy nuclear weapons. What she said was that a nuclear attack on Israel by Iran would result in a ‘massive retaliation’ and she is right. However I think we can be reasonable sure that she was hedging her bets. An attack on Israel by Iran would result in the nuclear destruction of twice as many targets in Iran. I believe the Israelis would bring their bombs out of the basement and do the heavy lifting themselves. The Jericho III ICBMs and sub-launch cruise missles would be a preferable method of delivery vehicle over the American-made F-15E or the F-16C/D. The response would be immediate and massive. Two or more cities destroyed would be a tragedy of unamaginable preportions.

Hillary talked about a policy of an American nuclear sheild over the Middle East to prevent the various states from trying to acquire nuclear weapons themselves. This is a non-proliferation strategy that would require more study, but on the surface is preferable to seeing Egypt, Saudi Araba and others joining the nuclear club.

In nuclear strategy, assured destruction is the only reason to have nuclear weapons in the first place. The often used phrase in Israeli defense circles is “never again” and I believe any nuclear fires over Haifa or Tel Aviv would look far too much like another holocaust for the Israelis to be expected not to respond in kind. In fact, I believe that Iran will never be able to deploy nuclear weapons before the Israeli air forces reduces the threat to ashes in a pre-emptive strike similar to the one on the Osirak reactor outside Baghdad in 1981. The stakes are higher this time and the targets are hardened and spread out. No easy task.

You mentioned that Ike ‘never did it’ and I’m not clear about what you meant exactly. Ike hated the ‘goddamn nukes’ seeing absolutely zero military uses for the things. Still that did not keep him from rattling the nuclear sabers over the Formosa Straits and the Korean penisula. He presumably believed what he was saying when he told the world that American thermonuclear bombs were to “be used as you would use a bullet”.

No rational person, especially once exposed to the awesome responsibility of controlling nearly 10,000 nuclear warheads, believes you can engage in a limited nuclear war. Hillary never got near the football, or held a security clearence that would have allowed her in the outer office of the Sit Room, but husbands and wives share stuff. The awesome responsibility of being commander-in-chief would have come up in the conversation of my merrage, that’s for sure. I have to believe that she knows what she is in for.

The more likely scenerio in my mind after an Iranian nuclear attack and the retaliatory strike by Israel would be the US stepping in with heavy deterrance and the promise of assured destruction of any nation that decided to become involved in an escalation of a limited war.

Beyond deterrance, nuclear weapons have no purpose. It would take great leadership to draw down the nuclear arsenals of the world. I believe Hillary could provide that kind of leadership. Nikita Kruchev thought very little of John Kennedy and after meeting him for the first time thought Kennedy was weak, privillaged and inexperienced. Kennedy eventually proved him wrong in the show downs of Cuba and Berlin. I just don’t believe that Obama has the stones to stand up to the toughest leaders on the World stage. I know Hillary would.

Cyerna
I did not place the source on TD for the Obama speech, I had hoped TD would do it itself. Here is where I heard the speech anyway.

http://www.jedreport.com/

Why has the media failed to pick up on the story that Sen Clinton laid out a foreign policy in that debate which actually extends the Bush Doctrine of preventative war. (Note on definitions: what our politicians like to call preemptive war is not, it is preventative war.  Preemptive war is when a threat is known, clear, and present.  Iraq and the plans for Iran are preventative.)

She talked about an “umbrella” of nuclear deterrence that covers all of Western Asia.  Now, that depends a little on how you slice up the globe, but, generally, you would include Pakistan through Persia to just past the Gulf States.

I know that she likes to channel dead Americans from history, but does she have to go with Gen Curtis LeMay?  If that outline from the debate is her foreign policy ideal, she’s now running to the right of the neo-cons.  Even Bush hasn’t gone so far as her “nuclear umbrella” idea.  By the way, “massive retaliation” in military parlance generally means nukes. 

She’s figuring (presumably) to lighten the conventional forces load in the ME in the same way that advisers (eg. Dulles) in the first Eisenhower administration figured to eliminate limited, theater wars like Korea...threaten the big bombs.  Ike never did it...would Clinton?

Lefeller,

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

The video of Obama Declare Independence Speech is actually widely available. Several of the videos are what they call ‘mash-ups’ which are shorter versions of what I guess the editors consider to be the most important parts.

But, I’m suspicious of those these days, (though it’s pretty difficult to take ANY of this speech out of context) so I’d recommend watching the entire thing for anyone who has time.

I’ve posted 2 links here, one is just over 19 minutes, and the other is about 23 minutes. (the latter includes the introductory “thank yous").

And yes...It is awesome. In terms of a campaign speech that clearly settles his entire purpose, this is his best.

The speech on race was excellent, but that was not a ‘campaign speech’. It was a critical message to the entire nation.

THIS one is a campaign speech that speaks to the people of Pennsylvania, and to the rest of us as well.

It was awesome and we can tell that the people of Pennsylvania thought so too!

http://roadkillrefugee.wordpress.com/2008/04/19/obamas -speech-at-independence-hall-declare-our-independence/

http://cbs3.com/video/?id=55802@kyw.dayport.com

Leefeller,

I missed this speech. Do you know where I might view it?

I’ll check on Truthout, and try a search. Let us know if you have a particular link to it.

Thanks

Asked at a party after the Wednesday ‘debate’, about the apparent favoring of her by George, Charlie, and ABC itself, Hillary said,

‘Those m*****-f****** sob’s better have favored me, I hocked my a** and c*** for the next f****** hundred years borrowing f****** money from the b****** Chinese to pay those c***s****** off, and stick the s***** end of the f******stick up Obama’s a** for a f****** change’.

At least in terms of ‘vetting’

This is designated as a ‘Special Issue’ and it is, in terms of the release date. I was surprised to discover it in my inbox, since this publication generally comes out on Thursdays.

At any rate, this is a bit of a revelation, since I know I wasn’t aware of it. Matter of fact, I recently discovered a far larger ‘bombshell’ in that the Pentagon under Bill Clinton was a ‘sponsor’ to the genocide in Rwanda, and then actively tried to cover it up. But, that is a lengthy report that many may have no interest in..since it was too far away from the ‘home front’.

THIS is not! (It also doesn’t surprise me).

I’m posting a few excerpts, and you can access the rest at the link.

“Now Senator Hillary Clinton (D, NY) has some explaining to do.

BlackCommentator.com has learned that Bill Clinton, while president, repeatedly praised the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC). This is an organization that many, including some whites and a former U.S. senator from Illinois, have called racist.

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups, the UDC is a neo-Confederate organization which is affiliated with such white supremacist groups as the Council of Conservative Citizens and the League of the South. Formed in 1894, the UDC limits its membership to women who are related to Confederate veterans of the “War Between the States.”

In 2000, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[a]lthough the UDC promotes an image of genteel Southern ladies…its publications” tell a different story, adding that recently the “UDC’s president, Mrs. William Wells, shared the podium with…white supremacist lawyer Kirk Lyons.”

In a 1989 UDC Magazine article, Walter W. Lee argued that “purchasers of the slaves” were actually victims of slavery, while “the worst suffering group among those engaged in the trade” were “the crews of slave ships.” Lee also made light of the horrific and deadly Middle Passage, claiming that “the sixteen inches of deck space allotted each slave is not all that much smaller that (sic) the eighteen inches that the Royal Navy allowed for each sailor’s hammock and the slaves rapidly had more room due to the much higher death rate.”

In her quest for the presidency, the U.S. Senator from New York has presented herself as a qualified expert on civil rights and a participant in the civil rights movement.

Senator Clinton has also put forth her belief that all candidates for the office should be thoroughly scrutinized, that no one should be immune, and all of the presidential candidates should be required to justify their stance on the issues before the voters and explain any contradictions that might arise.

Senator Clinton frequently speaks of her eight years experience “in the White House”. During that time Bill Clinton lavished praise on the United Daughters of the Confederacy. BlackCommentator.com has seen the following documents and presents copies of them here.

And…they are at the link.

http://blackcommentator.com/274/274_clinton_udc_printe r_friendly.html

Meantime, Billary obviously found no ‘conflict’ in entertaining Jeremiah Wright at the White House, and their praise for and association with the United Daughters of the Confederacy.

(I once worked with one of these women, but she wasn’t ‘Southern’. She was from Hermosa Beach).

Anyone out there in TD see Obama’s last speech?

“Time to turn the page and write a new page in history.”

Awsome, He kicks butt on the bigots of life.

Substance during the debate was absent for several reasons, one good and the other you decide.  One it did provide a practice run for Obama to have inane and stupidities placed in front of him so may respond at a later time against the Republicans.  Two, the main reason ABC asked fascinating questions about flag pins and is ABC is competing against Fox for being not the news, so the main goal was enabling ABC to entertain and compete with great pomposity to suggest to the public that they can be just like “Jack Ass” and “American Idol”.  ABC is there for them like Fox.

Read The Samson Option by Seymour Hersh. Israel got their help from the French in joining the nuclear club in the late 1960s. The best guess is they have as many warheads as they need. They are deployed on subs, in ICBMs and gravity bombs for use by the IAF. They have very low yield battlefield nuclear-tipped artillery and suitcase bombs that can be used as demolition devices. They are reported to have the most advanced ‘neutron’ bombs, devices that have very small explosive effects but are deadly for all living things for a short time.

The simple fact is that Israel has an unclaimed detterant that would need no assistance from the US strategic forces. You’ll know when the Iranians are close to deploying their own nuclear weapons. Your first clue will be IDF mushroom clouds in the Iranian desert.

No cure for cancer. You’re comparing me to cancer because I refuse to drink your delicious Kool-Aid? I’m the one with the problem huh? If you can’t recognize what a loser looks like, then I can’t help you. I point out those things that I see, while trying not to make judgments about those with opposing viewpoints. I don’t believe I have ever personally disparaged you, have I? Certainly not with your venom. I know for a fact I’ve never called you a biggot and a racist, even though you can seemingly find one behind ever tree.

Since when is it a crime to make an assessment of a man by the company he keeps? I believe in the old proverbs. A few come to mind with regard to Mr. Obama and you, cyrena.

Here’s one for Obama. I can’t help but feel like if these three people came to light in Hillary’s past, you wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss them.

“Keep five yards from a carriage, ten yards from a horse, and a hundred yards from an elephant; but the distance one should keep from a wicked man cannot be measured.” - Indian Proverb

Here’s one for you cyrena.

“Justifying a fault doubles it.” - French Proverb

Mr. Ayers exploded his bombs a long time ago. I have strong feelings for those who display non-violent protest but the Weather Underground killed people. I can forgive a person his sins if he is repentant. I believe Mr. Ayers renewed his anti-American hatred right after 9/11/2001. Yeah, so how old was Obama on 9/11/2001? Was he old enough to know the company he was keeping on the board of directors of the Woods Foundation? Oh wait, you think Obama should be excused because he knows other bad people too. As if that somehow makes any sense.

Here’s another one for Obama:

“Keep not ill men company, lest you increase the number.” - George Herbert

Try to remember this one cyrena before you again suggest that someone you’ve never met and only know from a few simple words and thoughts is as bad as a disease that kills millions of people every year, including children in my family:

“There is no virtue in being uncritical; nor is it a habit to which the young are given. But criticism is only the burying beetle that gets rid of what is dead, and, since the world lives by creative and constructive forces, and not by negation and destruction, it is better to grow up in the company of prophets than of critics.” - Richard Livingstone

Here’s one I try to live by:

“On their own merits modest men are dumb.  - George Colman “The Younger”

I’m a fan of Proverbs. Can you tell? I’m sure you’ll have some fun looking up some that you can use against me, or Hillary, but what’s the point? You’re guy is going to win. Doesn’t that make you happy enough? Why do we all have to love him too? Why do you feel like you need to destroy people who disagree with you?

People often react most strongly when they recognize their own faults in others. Is that why Hillary strikes such a nasty chord with you? You seem to like to personally attack people that disagree with you, and you seem to really enjoy it.

I’ve taken the deep breath , even though I was never ‘offended’ by your response to begin with. My response was actually to VinnietheSnake, because his stated purpose in the post was to deny that Obama had ever had any university/college ‘teaching’ experience, because according to VTS, he was ‘only’ a lecturer.

So in reality, the issues of staff privileges, pay, or anything else is semi-irrelevant to the point that at least VTS was trying to infer, which was that Obama shouldn’t be considered in terms of an ‘educator’.

And, if you’ve been a lecturer or other auxiliary member of any staff, such as Yale, Princeton, and MIT, then I’m sure you probably consider yourself to be an educator of sorts, and at the College/University level. I should also say that it’s perfectly fine for you to ‘preen’ a bit in appreciation of the response from the students.

We have a number of special educators like you in our own academic environment, including emeritus from Princeton; Professor Falk. He’s one of my very favorites. However, he’s considered a ‘visiting’ professor. So, would that make him less than college teacher, as VTS suggests about Obama and his experiences at the University of Chicago? I actually sat in on a lecture that he gave there, (Obama) as well as another couple of his talks over the past 4 or 5 years. As an academic myself, I very much enjoyed his presentations, and because they were related to my own field, I learned a great deal from them as well. Then again, I have a passion for learning and education in general.

Meantime, I also read the piece from Gary Willis…(actually read it early in the week) and I agree that it was excellent as well. Glad you linked the rest of us to it. I hope everyone will have an opportunity to read it.

Joe6pak,
In your standard attempt to diffuse your own antagonism and antipathy toward anyone of the ‘other’ (and particularly if they appear to have more money and/or opportunity than you) you questioning my memory of the high school where Barack Obama attended.
So you write:
• “SO you don’t “really remember it that way” or you choose not to to support your point?
My answer of course is that I “remember” it, THE WAY IT WAS!! How complicated is that? I wasn’t ‘affiliated’ with the school myself, and I never lived in Hawaii myself. It just happened that I had extended family members who WERE from Hawaii, and so I visited frequently. One of those extended family members happened to teach at that high school, and so I don’t remember it as anything that your wife would need to roll her eyes about. So what if it was on ‘another side of the island?” BFD. The Island has a whole bunch of sides, so I find it very revealing that you called it a ‘rival’ high school.
My POINT, was that the school was just a school, and you were trying to make it something other than that. Private schools in Hawaii are not unusual, just like my Catholic grammar school and Catholic high school weren’t unusual, and none of us represented any ‘rich class’ of the general population.
So, here’s a little mention of the school and what little it has to do with the fact that he happens to be running for the office of President.

Obama had multiethnic existence in Hawaii
Sections of potential 2008 candidate’s life drawing greater scrutiny

• HONOLULU - He was known as Barry Obama, and with his dark complexion and mini-Afro, he was one of the few blacks at the privileged Hawaiian school overlooking the Pacific.

Yet that hardly made him stand out.
Diversity was the norm at the Punahou School, one of the state’s top private schools. The 3,600 students came from a wide variety of backgrounds, with a blend of Polynesian, Asian, European and other cultures. Everybody in Hawaii is a minority.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17003563/

If ANYTHING, his life experience in such a diverse environment is a major plus to his resume. Aside from that, I’m real clear on the fact that nobody (other than you) much gives a shit where he went to high school.

As for Columbia and Harvard, do you have the same distain for the MBA the Georgie’s daddy BOUGHT him from that same institution?

As for Obama displaying ‘bad judgment’ in with Ayers, Wright, and Rezko, you’re again just displaying your own ignorance. I told you before that Ayres did whatever he was accused of doing when Barack was 8 years old, and Obama didn’t put any words into the mouth of Jeremiah Wright. (not that I don’t believe that what Jeremiah Wright said in those years-old sound bytes wasn’t TRUE, because of course it is, and he isn’t the only one to have said them.) But, the point is that Obama didn’t say them, and so your racism is showing by your constant attempt to wed him to those words.

As for Rezko, I honestly haven’t bothered to keep track of whatever dealings Obama had with him, because I don’t care about that either. But for those of you who have been so very desperate to ‘get something’ on him, it seems like I remember Obama responding appropriately.

So at the end of the day Joey, nothing has changed. You’re still a racist bigot, and I’m old enough, with enough experience to recognize you for what you are, and accept the fact that people like you will always exist. We haven’t found a cure for cancer either, so I accept that.

Now what happened to that picture I had of Jeremiah Wright at the White House chatting it up with Bill? I’ll look for it, even though that isn’t particularly interesting to me either.

When you renew you subscription to “Bigots are Us”, with all the great work you have done here on TD, hope you obtain the promotion you so seek.

bozhidar bob balkas,

Israel has had it’s Nukes for over 20 years now. I’m relative certain that no other nation, (besides the US) has any manning or other controlling powers over them.

The Israeli Defense Force, in conjunction with their other agencies would be the ONLY controlling forces there.

The US was NOT the ‘original’ supplier of Israel’s nukes when they first acquired them, and without some fairly in-depth research, it would be difficult (and nothing short of rumor and innuendo probably) to state that the US is currently supplying Israel with nukes.

I think we DO know that the US is currently supplying Israel with traditional weaponry, and that the US supplied the ingrediants for the carpet bombing that Israel did in Lebanon in the summer of 2006. But for the major nuclear devices that Israel has, it would take some time and energy to track them back to the US.

And again like I mentioned...Israel has LONG been in possession of a nuclear arsenal, but has simply never formally admitted to it, and has gotten away with it by refusing to enter into the Non-proliferation Treaty. In other words, for ALL the years that Israel has maintained ALL of their nuclear weapons, they’ve been unmonitored by the International community.

And, there you have it.

Reminds me that a while back Hillary introduced a bill into the Senate making flag burning a felony.

Now, this WOULD be an interesting issue on flag pins, and flags in general. (that they’re made in China).

Because..I got a very interesting lesson when we were going through that huge waste of time about the flag burning amendment.

Prior to that piece of nonsense, I had no idea that there is actually a stated protocol for ‘retiring’ or otherwise disposing of a flag that has become unusable. (Yeah, I knew about the certain way it’s supposed to be folded and all during it’s regular lifetime, particularly by the military, and we used to do that at school when I was a kid).

BUT, there is a protocol for what to do with them when they’ve become old, tattered, torn, stained, or otherwise unusable. In short, it’s not ‘patriotic’ to just throw them away, so they’re actually supposed to be...BURNED!

Well, the ones from China don’t ‘burn’ right. (and they’ve been importing the American Flag from China for long enough now, that many of them DO meet the requirements for the ‘retirement’.) The ones from China can be immediately detected from the material they use, as well as the way it is crafted. NOT the same flag we’re used to.

So, how cruel an irony is that? And, how can so many Americans be so superficially (and ideologically) wrapped up in that flag? The hypocrisy is disgusting.

RE: Robinson

“Once the meaningless inquisition about loose semantics and questionable acquaintances was done, Wednesday night’s debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton got interesting.”

GIVE ME A BREAK! ... questionable acquaintances ...

I WANT A PRESIDENT WHO REPRESENTS ALL AMERICANS

Here is Pastor Wright’s ‘Black Value System’
posted at his website. This is what Barak Obama
pledged an oath to for the past 20 years:
http://www.tucc.org/black_value_system.html

Pastor Wright gave Louis Farakan a life time
achievement award. Here is what Louis Farakan believes:
Posted at his own website.
http://www.noi.org/muslim_program.htm

It’ll be fun to see all the red faces and the chortling over the American Flag pin-in-the-lapels brouhaha when it is finally revealed that Republicans demonstrate their patriotism by having their genitalia pierced, and solid gold hoops with diamond-encrusted dangling elephants suspended, so they can recognize each other at their conventional orgies.

Remember, everyone does not get cable anyway rehashing is much easier then bringing up real issues that mean something.  For, if they did mean something, it would require some depth and discussion and we know the truth is forbidden.

I once read a story about Black Bert and saw a rock she hid behind before robbing a stagecoach. Sorry that was Black Bart. Bert and Bart could that be association?

Take a deep breath, cyrena.  Either you are being too serious, or I am being too frivolous.  That will have to be decided with a calmer mind!

Obama’s faculty credentials are probably a tempest in a teapot.  We don’t even know if VinnietheSnake meant to capitalize the first letter in “lecturer!” Hell, I’ve lectured at both Yale and Princeton (to pretty receptive classes in both cases, if I may preen a bit); but that does not give me faculty privileges at either of those venerable institutions.  MIT had Lecturers (capital letter), most of whom were either just finishing or had just finished their doctoral work.  My guess is that they did not count as faculty there but that they were probably paid better than Teaching Assistants.  Every university chooses both its titles and the semantics for those titles.

I hope you did not take my photographic reference as a serious answer to your question.  It was intended as a satirical jab on the “personal level” plane, rather than that of world leaders.  For my money Hillary’s “level” in that photo is about as “personal” as the in ones where she is chugging brewskis and shots in Pennsylvania.

To end on a non-frivolous note, EVERYONE (or at least those interested in substance) should read Gary Wills’ comparison of Obama’s race speech with Lincoln’s Cooper Union address at:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21290

Even with the pandering, I still have hope for change, this long drawn out divisive battle, which is getting old and heavy in its leaden soggy direction of non substance has become boring.  Now we are down to flag pins and who bowls the best. Of course real substance or discussion of issues cannot be, for pandering is the vote accumulator.  How low the pandering goes depends on the integrity of the person running.  Seems to me Hillary has Obama beaten in the Pandering department. 

Anyway, the Mass Media is like the Wizard of Oz for the munchkins, using a predetermined agenda directed from behind Media curtain. 

From the flag waving for the war to the dumping of Kucinich, Gravel and Paul, Mass Media has a selected direction for us, of course seldom in our best interests.  Getting people to vote against their best interests, by calling it something other than what it is does seem to work every time.

We may learn to disagree with integrity later, but your questions are also mine.  All of them are not being asked, and we know why.

I don’t know, Joe…

I can’t speak for everyone, but it’s not about Obama’s performance for me.  It’s about spending 45 minutes rehashing shit that the cable news has beaten to death already.  Neither Tuzla or Wright has any place in a real debate.

If everything were wonderful and rosy...if we faced no massive issues...then i suppose stuff like that is what we’d nitpick over.  But that’s not the case.

It was another case of the media distracting the people.  And that is how we get saddled with the leaders we end up with.

As an aside, Obama should be given some credit for not pulling skeletons out of Clinton’s closet on national television.

I just don’t understand why Charlie and George didn’t take the time to go in-depth into the question of whether it is truly patriotic to wear American flag lapel pins that are made in China.

SO you don’t “really remember it that way” or you choose not to to support your point?

Rival, different, another, the one on that side of the island… Yeah I know. Words matter. Should have known you’d pounce on one that has a sporting tinge to it.

Stupid question, huh? No pattern of poor judgment, huh? Who’s stupid? Let me count the ways…

Resko
Wright
Ayers

That’s three of the ones we know about, right? And before you start throwing Hillary’s baggage at me, I KNOW she has some names from her past. Your friend Barry is a blank screen. His past is now being trolled like hers. It’s only going to get worse. It is not only enough to damage him, it’s the fatal flaw in November. Fool yourself all you want about how it’s a NEW DAY and repeat your mantra of Hope and Change until you can sleep at night, but this guy is going to get DESTROYED in the general.

“Meantime, you’ve proven that you’re really, really, among the anti-intellectuals here. I guess anybody who attends Harvard Law should be immediately disqualified from holding public office, at least according to you.”

Oh have I? That hurts me. Really, really badly. No one who knows me and cares for me would give a rat’s ass what you think. I happen to love the hyper-educated. Just not you. Or Obama.

I never said that strong academic credentials disqualifies anyone for any job they might want. I was just pointing out that Barry isn’t the poor kid from the south side struggling to make his next student loan payment he want’s you to believe. I guess I must have stuck a painful nerve. You resorted to the politics of personal destruction! What would Barry think?

Why is it that every time someone makes a point about Obama and his resume, your answer can be found somewhere in Hillary Clinton’s past? I wasn’t talking about her. YOU are.

The most telling part of your response cyrena is that you infer that my views are racist. When all else fails in the arguement, or at least when you feel like it, throw race into it. That’ll help heal all our racial divides, right? I think it’s a DISTRACTION, frankly. Call the white guy a racist because he doesn’t jump on board the Obama Express to Loserville. No thanks. You lemmings have fun. Remember it’s not the fall that kills yeah. It’s the landing. Try to remember that when you’re watching state after state go McCain on that cold night in November when all your Hope and Change go down the drain. Make sure you recycle those Obama signs when you’re finished, OK?

Hey maybe they could have spent the first 50 minutes debating the Constitution being used as toilet paper and some of the dangerous precedents set by the gang of thugs in the WH. Would it not be instructive to get either person to state on the record how many signing statements they will create if elected? How about:"How long will it take you to shut down Guantanamo?"Will you do anything right now as a Senator and an Officer of the Court to stop illegal military tribunals and will you do anything when in office to stop them? How long will it take you to request that Congress repeal the Patriot Act and re establish Habeus Corpus, FISA, and the 4th Amendment? How long will it take you to fire the contractors in Iraq? How long will it take you to outlaw the revolving door between regulators and the industry
they’re hired to regulate? How about the same for military contractors? Will Hoot go back to doing Cowboy serials and will Snuffalupagus go back to palling around with Big Bird?

Stephen,

In the University of California system, Teaching Assistants are not regarded as ‘faculty’, even though they do the bulk of the grunt work.

The ‘instructor’ assigned to the course, who does the bulk of the course lecture, (tenured or not) is still regarded as TEACHING the course. The argument by VinnietheSnake was this…

• “…Facts can be found in the previous work done by the candidates, and saying Obama was teaching constitutional law implies he was a college teacher.  He was a lecturer!”

The context here, which is about as significant as the dust on a gnat’s ass, is that Obama was NOT a college ‘teacher’ (as in teaching Constitutional Law) but rather a ‘lecturer’. In the University of California system, that’s what our full tenured professors, associate professors, visiting professors, emeritus professors, and anybody else officially designated as the course instructor DOES. They LECTURE! That’s the structure of our educational system, at least in the UC system. University students attend LECTURES, for a designated number of course hours. MOST OF THE TIME, these designated instructors have either their doctorate or other equivalent degrees like Barack does…specifically JD or LLB degrees. Occasionally (and it’s always a lower division course) a course may be taught by a graduate student/phd candidate, who has already finished the Master’s portion of their graduate study, and THEY LECTURE as well.

So, there is no basis for Vinnie to claim, (as he implies) that Barack Obama was not employed as a faculty member COLLEGE TEACHER, at the University of Chicago, or at DePaul University, where he also taught briefly. In short, he was a FACULTY member there, and he TAUGHT Constitutional (and specifically Civil Rights) Law. Vinnie and others have troubles with that, and I’m not sure why. Actually, I AM sure, but there’s no reason to spell it out, since others can figure it out as easily as I can.

Meantime, here was my original question about the leaders of countries that Hillary knows on a ‘personal level”..

• “..Just exactly WHO are these ‘other nations” and WHO is it that she knows on this ‘personal level’?..

And then, I continue with this..

• “..So, if you know of some Middle Eastern nation states where HillarytheSnake knows the leaders on a ‘personal level’, BESIDES Israel and Saudi Arabia, it would be interesting to know…”
Based on this question, and specifically the part about, BESIDES (meaning other than) Israel and Saudi Arabia, I did appreciate your link to the photo with Ariel Sharon, but I was looking for leaders OTHER THAN ISRAEL’S leaders. That’s because most Americans are already well aware of Hillary’s personal relationship with the leaders of Israel, and the Israelis have already ‘selected’ her to be OUR next president as far back as 6 months ago. At least she was their democratic choice. Giuliani was their 1st choice.(I would try to find that Haartz article, except that I don’t wanna waste the time.)

But, you get my point. I’m not personally impressed with Hillary’s personal relationships with the leaders of Israel, or with her business dealings with the BCCI, or corrupt Arabs or Pakistanis. Those are all contacts that Hillary shares with the Bush Dynasty, and they haven’t been particularly valuable to US citizens.

So I was hoping that VTS could give us some other names and locations of ‘world leaders’ that Hillary has these personal level relationships with, since he mentioned that she’d be so good at bringing all of these nations leaders together to solve all of the world’s problems.

She HAS mentioned the ones she would REFUSE to talk to, (Iran) and suggested that Obama was ‘naïve’ for saying that he would. So, Bush, Clinton, McCain..at the end of the day, all the same.

I hope when Barack Obama becomes President he will accept the resignations of the FCC Commissioners who have been appointed by Republicans and will appoint commissioners who will revoke the licenses of the big networks.

They cheerleaded us into the war in Iraq and failed to properly cover the stolen elections in 2000 and 2004.

What more grounds are needed?

Always an interesting choice of words from you joe6pak..

Like this…

• “My wife taught at a rival high school nearby and when she heard that Obama attended Punahou she rolled her eyes because that’s where all the “Rich” kids went.”

A ‘rival’ high school? That’s unfortunate. Most folks don’t think of other schools as ‘rivals’, other than in terms of sports. Even that speaks to a typical ‘mentality’ and I’ll leave it to you to fill in the blanks there.

So, that’s where all the ‘rich’ kids went, eh? I don’t really remember it that way, and I’m actually familiar with the school. My stepmother is a native of Hawaii, along with the rest of her siblings, though they are Filipino. One of my stepmother’s sisters taught at that school, (though not when Obama was there) and she’s a nun. You seem to have some real class insecurities there joey. I too attended a Catholic school for 12 years, and none of us were ‘rich’. So, I hope your wife’s eyes didn’t become too afflicted from having to roll them at ‘rival’ schools.

As for this…

• “Would you hire someone who has a thin resume and then when you check his references you see a pattern of poor judgment? I sure as hell wouldn’t, but you’re a grown up, you can decide for yourself.”

It’s basically a really ignorant question, seeing as how resumes are contingent upon the job being sought. In respect to Obama’s ‘resume’ though, it’s not thin, and he’s not shown any pattern of poor judgment, so your question is stupid.

JUDGEMENT, character, and integrity are not measurable by resume, and they ARE important – critical for a POTUS. If only you’d made all of these same careful observations before you voted for Dick Bush, we wouldn’t now be so desperately in need of an Obama presidency.

Yep, poor judgment generally does have a tendency to come back around and kick one in the ass. Too bad the rest of us had to suffer for it as well.

Meantime, you’ve proven that you’re really, really, among the anti-intellectuals here. I guess anybody who attends Harvard Law should be immediately disqualified from holding public office, at least according to you.

Same with Columbia, eh? Gee, this could make it really tuff on the recruitment staff for those schools. Joey6pak says if you attend Harvard or Columbia, you can forget about ever getting a job in the public sector. You’ll automatically be tagged as ‘rich’ even if you aren’t.

Oh but wait..it’s OK if you’re ‘supposed’ to be rich. I mean, no problem for the bushies and Harvard. It’s just not OK if you aren’t really rich, and we know that black folks in America just aren’t.

Just like we know Barack Obama wasn’t and isn’t.

Even Slick Willie Clinton wasn’t rich. (actually, he was poor) But, he was smart, so he lucked up on some of those ‘good schools’ too. And then, he lucked up again, and “married into” money. Um humm...you’d be surprised how much money is hidden in not-so-plain sight in the poorest state of the nation.

The Clinton’s know where it is though.

Congratulations on killing your TV...nothing will make you more free.  Besides, anything you really want can be gotten on DVD or the internet.

Obviously, you’re using the word “intelligentsia” rather loosely.  I certainly take your meaning, but i believe that you’re giving them too much credit.  The media is clearly a large part of our problem.  It does not inform the population; it does not examine the existing power structures.

It is the circus to keep the masses entertained and distracted.

Keep the morons{us}focused on the inconsequential items."You had breakfast two tables away from a person who ordered bacon"."Does that mean you do not care about the health of the American public."The corporate takeover of government continues unabated as witnessed by a recent bill for tax cuts to corporations and our media is worried that if any body you ever dealt with made a statement sometime to somebody that could cause a headline.We are getting what we deserve.It seems that our current President passed all the criteria the media scrutiny would allow.How is that working out for you?

You may be aware of a recent book by Susan Jacoby, THE AGE OF AMERICAN UNREASON, which (so she claims) took, as its point of departure Richard Hofstadter’s ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM IN AMERICAN LIFE (which won the 1864 non-fiction Pulitzer Prize).  Those whom you call “pundits” are actually the prime agents of “American unreason” (my claim, not Jacoby’s).  They defy both etymology (from the Sanskrit PANDITA for “learned") and the key adjective in the SHORTER OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY definition, “knowledgeable.” They are nothing more than media performers (hired to sell pharmaceuticals, pet food, or whatever), skilled in nothing more than the rhetoric of domination.  The fact that they have been assigned the noun “pundit” makes yet another case for Max Weber’s argument that contemporary society suffers from “loss of meaning!”

I found the pundits at the last debates on ABC outrageous. The “debates” should be renamed “Pundit Trials.” The fact is that these overpaid pundits, who are part of the intelligentsia, do not have the same concerns that regular citizens have. It’s simply impossible due to the fact that they do not live among the citizenry but live and are part of the elite. Do you think that with their fat salaries they are really affected by the rise of oil prices? Do you really think they are concerned with the state of public schools when their kids are mixing with the elite in the safety of private schools? I was so offended by the fact that I had to watch over half the show before they finally dealt with the issues that concerns most people.  This is the only way we can get a real idea of where the candidates stand. I mean, who cares about the pins. The pundits certainly were not wearing them. Does that make them less patriotic?  Meanwhile, the Media is having a love fest with McCain and his life story and forgetting once again to deal with the issues. If they did, it would be clear that McCain’s policies are the continuation of the Bush and Neo-cons agenda. Last time I heard the citizenry rejected this agenda – clearly the Media has not. It is time for us to get our house in order - it is not ok to go to war and not pay for it. It is not ok to go to war and lie about it. It is not ok to talk family values and not support health care and job security. It is time to change the status quo! Shame on these pundits and their cohorts. Be aware that the masses will rise and be heard whether through the ballot box or their pocket books, but rise they will. It is only a matter of time. Meanwhile, I am shutting off my TV for good. I just cancelled my cable. I cannot take this propaganda trash any longer.

The Clintons’ Terror Pardons

It was nearly 10 p.m. on New Year’s Eve, 1982. Two officers on New York Police Department’s elite bomb squad rushed to headquarters at One Police Plaza, where minutes earlier an explosion had destroyed the entrance to the building. Lying amid the carnage was Police Officer Rocco Pascarella, his lower leg blasted off.

“He was ripped up like someone took a box cutter and shredded his face,” remembered Detective Anthony Senft, one of the bomb-squad officers who answered the call 25 years ago.

FALN bragged about the bloodbath, calling the victims “reactionary corporate executives” and threatening: “You have unleashed a storm from which you comfortable Yankees can’t escape.” By 1996, the FBI had linked FALN to 146 bombings and a string of armed robberies—a reign of terror that resulted in nine deaths and hundreds of injured victims.

On Aug. 7, 1999, the one-year anniversary of the U.S. African embassy bombings that killed 257 people