The two sat and talked in the beautiful back garden of Downing Street. The conversation between Mr. Brown and Mr. Obama is expected to build on a meeting the two had in Washington in April 2008 – at the time the meeting was described as 'warm and wide-ranging'.

Last weekend both men were in Iraq - Brown on Saturday and Obama on Sunday - so they didn't bump into each other.

Since they’ve both made recent trips to the Middle East they have plenty to discuss – including troop withdrawal from Iraq.

After Obama’s successful tour of the Middle East and Europe, Britain's political elite will be hoping to get great photo ops with him – if his trip had not been successful some of the British leaders would have been conveniently ‘not available’.

  Before the meeting with Prime Minister Brown, Obama had a breakfast meeting with former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is now a Middle East envoy.

Mr. Blair's new role gave the two men lots to talk about. Obama has put the resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli question at the heart of his foreign policy - pledging to 'roll his sleeves up' from the moment he takes office, if elected.

  Senator Obama’s final meeting and last handshake of his trip will be with Conservative leader David Cameron, who he'll meet at the House of Commons.

The House of Commons is the lower house of the British Parliament (and more powerful than the upper house – House of Lords). Both Commons and Lords meet in the Palace of Westminster.  The Commons is a democratically elected body -- consisting of 646 members, who are known as ‘Members of Parliament’ or MPs.  

Thank you for that kind introduction and warm welcome. I want to begin by talking about an issue in this campaign that I know concerns you as it concerns all Americans: the war in Iraq. Thankfully, the news from Iraq today is much more encouraging than I could have reported to you last year.

Eighteen months ago, America faced a crisis as profound as any in our history. Iraq was in flames, torn apart by violence that was escaping our control. Al Qaeda was succeeding in what Osama bin Laden called the central front in their war against us. The mullahs in Iran waited for America's humiliation in Iraq, and the resulting increase in their influence. Thousands of Iraqis died violently every month. American casualties were mounting. We were on the brink of a disastrous defeat just a little more than five years after the attacks of September 11, and America faced a profound choice. Would we accept defeat and leave Iraq and our strategic position in the Middle East in ruins, risking a wider war in the near future? Or would we summon our resolve, deploy additional forces, and change our failed strategy? Senator Obama and I also faced a decision, which amounted to a real-time test for a future commander-in-chief. America passed that test. I believe my judgment passed that test. And I believe Senator Obama's failed.

We both knew the politically safe choice was to support some form of retreat. All the polls said the "surge" was unpopular. Many pundits, experts and policymakers opposed it and advocated withdrawing our troops and accepting the consequences. I chose to support the new counterinsurgency strategy backed by additional troops -- which I had advocated since 2003, after my first trip to Iraq. Many observers said my position would end my hopes of becoming president. I said I would rather lose a campaign than see America lose a war. My choice was not smart politics. It didn't test well in focus groups. It ignored all the polls. It also didn't matter. The country I love had one final chance to succeed in Iraq. The new strategy was it. So I supported it. Today, the effects of the new strategy are obvious. The surge has succeeded, and we are, at long last, finally winning this war.

Senator Obama made a different choice. He not only opposed the new strategy, but actually tried to prevent us from implementing it. He didn't just advocate defeat, he tried to legislate it. When his efforts failed, he continued to predict the failure of our troops. As our soldiers and Marines prepared to move into Baghdad neighborhoods and Anbari villages, Senator Obama predicted that their efforts would make the sectarian violence in Iraq worse, not better.

And as our troops took the fight to the enemy, Senator Obama tried to cut off funding for them. He was one of only 14 senators to vote against the emergency funding in May 2007 that supported our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. He would choose to lose in Iraq in hopes of winning in Afghanistan. But had his position been adopted, we would have lost both wars.

Three weeks after Senator Obama voted to deny funding for our troops in the field, General Ray Odierno launched the first major combat operations of the surge. Senator Obama declared defeat one month later: "My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now." His assessment was popular at the time. But it couldn't have been more wrong.

By November 2007, the success of the surge was becoming apparent. Attacks on Coalition forces had dropped almost 60 percent from pre-surge levels. American casualties had fallen by more than half. Iraqi civilian deaths had fallen by more than two-thirds. But Senator Obama ignored the new and encouraging reality. "Not only have we not seen improvements," he said, "but we're actually worsening, potentially, a situation there."

If Senator Obama had prevailed, American forces would have had to retreat under fire. The Iraqi Army would have collapsed. Civilian casualties would have increased dramatically. Al Qaeda would have killed the Sunni sheikhs who had begun to cooperate with us, and the "Sunni Awakening" would have been strangled at birth. Al Qaeda fighters would have safe havens, from where they could train Iraqis and foreigners, and turn Iraq into a base for launching attacks on Americans elsewhere. Civil war, genocide and wider conflict would have been likely.

Above all, America would have been humiliated and weakened. Our military, strained by years of sacrifice, would have suffered a demoralizing defeat. Our enemies around the globe would have been emboldened. Terrorists would have seen our defeat as evidence America lacked the resolve to defeat them. As Iraq descended into chaos, other countries in the Middle East would have come to the aid of their favored factions, and the entire region might have erupted in war. Every American diplomat, American military commander, and American leader would have been forced to speak and act from a position of weakness.

Senator Obama told the American people what he thought you wanted to hear. I told you the truth. From the early days of this war, I feared the administration was pursuing a mistaken strategy, and I said so. I went to Iraq many times, and heard all the phony explanations about how we were winning. I knew we were failing, and I told that to an administration that did not want to hear it. I pushed for the strategy that is now succeeding before most people even admitted that there was a problem.

Fortunately, Senator Obama failed, not our military. We rejected the audacity of hopelessness, and we were right. Violence in Iraq fell to such low levels for such a long time that Senator Obama, detecting the success he never believed possible, falsely claimed that he had always predicted it. There have been almost no sectarian killings in Baghdad for more than 13 weeks. American casualties are at the lowest levels recorded in this war. The Iraqi Army is stronger and fighting harder. The Iraqi Government has met most of the benchmarks for political progress we demanded of them, and the nation's largest Sunni party recently rejoined the government. In Iraq, we are no longer on the doorstep of defeat, but on the road to victory.

Senator Obama said this week that even knowing what he knows today that he still would have opposed the surge. In retrospect, given the opportunity to choose between failure and success, he chooses failure. I cannot conceive of a Commander in Chief making that choice.

A new hope is rising in Iraq today. Across the country, Iraqis are preparing for upcoming provincial elections. And security has improved enough to permit the Iraqi government to begin seriously providing services and opportunities to the Iraqi people. This progress is encouraging but reversible if we heed those who have always counseled defeat when they now argue to risk our fragile gains and withdraw from Iraq according to a politically expedient timetable rather than the advice from the commanders who so brilliantly led this stunning turnaround in our situation in Iraq.

I said that the surge has succeeded, and it has. That is why the additional surge brigades are almost all home. I said we can win, and we will. I'm confident we will be able to reduce our forces in Iraq next year, and our forces will be out of regular combat operations and dramatically reduced in number during the term of the next President. We have fought the worst battles, survived the toughest threats, and the hardest part of this war is behind us. But it is not over yet. And we have come too far, sacrificed too much, to risk everything we have gained and all we could yet gain because the politics of the hour make defeat the more convenient position.

Because of the choice we made and all the surge has accomplished, the time will soon come when our troops can come home. But we face another choice today. We can withdraw when we have secured the peace and the gains we have sacrificed so much to achieve are safe. Or we can follow Senator Obama's unconditional withdrawal and risk losing the peace even if that results in spreading violence and a third Iraq war. Senator Obama has suggested he would consider sending troops back if that happened. When I bring them home in victory and with honor, they are staying home.

Senator Obama might dismiss defeat in Iraq as the current President's problem. But presidents don't lose wars. Nations do. And presidents don't fight wars. You do, the men and women of the greatest fighting force in the history of the world. The sacrifices you've made deserve to be memorialized in something more lasting than bronze or in the fleeting effect of a politician's speeches. Your valor and devotion have earned your country's abiding concern for your welfare. When our government forgets our debts to you, it is a stain upon America's honor. The Walter Reed scandal recalled not just the government but the people who elect it, to our responsibilities to those who risk life and limb to meet their responsibilities to us.

Those who have borne the burden of war for our sake must be treated fairly and expeditiously as they seek compensation for disability or illness. We owe them compassion, knowledge and hands-on care in their transition to civilian life. We owe them training, rehabilitation and education. We owe their families, parents and caregivers our concern and support. They should never be deprived of quality medical care and mental health care coverage for illness or injury incurred as a result of their service to our country.

As President, I will ensure that those who serve today and who have served in the past have access to the highest quality health, mental health and rehabilitative care in the world. The disgrace of Walter Reed will not be forgotten. Nor will we accept a situation in which veterans are denied access to care due to great travel distances, backlogs of appointments, and years of pending disability evaluation and claims. In addition to strengthening the VA, we should give veterans the option to use a simple plastic card to receive timely and accessible care at a convenient location through a provider of their choosing. I will not stand for requiring veterans to make an appointment to stand in line to make an appointment to stand in line for substandard care of the injuries you have suffered to keep our country safe. Whatever our commitments to veterans cost, we will keep them, as you have kept every commitment to us. The honor o f a great nation is at stake.

Let me close by expressing my gratitude for the contributions Hispanic-Americans have made to the security of the country I have served all my adult life. I represent Arizona where Spanish was spoken before English was, and where the character and prosperity of our state owes much to the Arizonans of Hispanic descent who live there. And I know this country, which I love more than almost anything, would be poorer were we deprived of the patriotism, industry and decency of those millions of Americans whose families came here from Mexico, Central and South America.

When you take the solemn stroll along that wall of black granite on the national Mall, it is hard not to notice the many names such as Rodriguez, Hernandez, and Lopez that so sadly adorn it. When you visit Iraq and Afghanistan you meet some of the thousands of Hispanic-Americans who serve there, and many of those who risk their lives to protect the rest of us do not yet possess the rights and privileges of full citizenship in the country they love so well. To love your country, as I discovered in Vietnam, is to love your countrymen. Those men and women are my brothers and sisters, my fellow Americans, an association that means more to me than any other. As a private citizen or as President, I will never, never do anything to dishonor our obligations to them and their families.

No story better exemplifies the sacrifices Hispanic Americans have made for our country than the story of Roy Benavidez. I have told it before, and this won't be the last time I tell it. All Americans need to hear it.

Roy Benavidez was the son of a Texas sharecropper, a seventh grade dropout who suffered the humiliation of being constantly taunted as a "dumb Mexican." He grew up to become a master sergeant in the Green Berets, and served in Vietnam. He was a member of that rare class of warriors whose service was so honorable and brave they are privileged to wear the Medal of Honor. He was decorated by Ronald Reagan, who said that if the story of his heroism were a movie "you would not believe it."

On May 2, 1968, in an outpost near the Cambodian border, Sergeant Benavidez listened on his radio as the voice of a terrified American, part of a 12 man patrol surrounded by a North Vietnamese battalion, pleaded to be rescued. Armed with only a knife, Roy jumped into a helicopter and took off with a three-man crew to rescue his trapped comrades.

When they arrived at the battle, the enemy was too numerous for the helicopter to evacuate the surrounded soldiers. It had to land seventy-five yards away from their position. After making the sign of the cross, Sergeant Benavidez jumped out of the helicopter as it hovered ten feet above the ground, and ran toward his comrades carrying his knife and a medic bag.

He was shot almost immediately, but he got up and kept moving. A grenade knocked him down again, shrapnel tearing into his face. He got up and kept moving. Reaching the Americans' position, he found four men dead, and all the others badly wounded. He armed himself with an enemy rifle, and began to treat the wounded, distribute ammunition and call in air strikes. He was shot again. He then ordered the helicopter to come in closer as he dragged the dead and wounded aboard. After he got all the wounded aboard, he ran back to retrieve classified documents from the body of a fallen soldier. He was shot in the stomach, and grenade fragments cut into his back. He got up and kept moving, and made it back to the helicopter.

The pilot was shot and the helicopter crashed. Roy pulled the wounded from the wreckage and radioed for air strikes and another helicopter. He kept fighting until air support arrived. He was shot several more times before a second helicopter landed. As he was carrying a wounded man toward it, a North Vietnamese soldier clubbed him with his rifle and stabbed him with a bayonet. Sergeant Benavidez fought him hand to hand, to death. After rescuing three more soldiers, he was finally flown with them to safety.

Bleeding profusely, and completely immobile, a doctor thought him to be dead. Roy was placed in a body bag, before anyone discovered he was still alive. He spent a year in hospitals recovering from seven serious gunshot wounds, twenty-eight shrapnel wounds, and bayonet wounds in both arms.

It took thirteen years for Roy Benavidez to receive his Medal of Honor. But it didn't seem to matter to him. He stayed in the Army. The war, and his forgotten heroism never embittered him. He spent his retirement counseling troubled kids, encouraging them to stay in school and off drugs.

"I'm proud to be an American," Roy Benavidez said as he lay dying in a San Antonio hospital ten years ago. May God bless his soul. And may Americans, all Americans, be very proud that Roy Benavidez was one of us. I wouldn't want to live in a country that didn't recognize how much we needed such a good man.

I prefer to live in a bigger place. I prefer to live in a growing America, as proud of its variety as it is of the ideals that unite us. I prefer to live in a hopeful country. I prefer to live in Roy Benavidez' America. Thank you very much.

Als direkter Nachbar teilt Kanada mit den USA nicht nur die längste unbefestigte Grenze der Welt. Beide Länder verbindet ebenso eine eng miteinander verknüpfte Geschichte und Kultur. Darüberhinaus stellt Kanada den größten Energielieferanten und wichtigsten Handelspartner Amerikas dar. Wenn im Januar 2009 Barack Obama oder John McCain als frisch gewählter US-Präsident in das Weiße Haus einziehen wird, so ist dies für Kanada von großer Bedeutung. Wen also favorisieren Kanadier, wenn im November in den USA gewählt wird?

Die kanadische Öffentlichkeit verfolgt den Wahlkampf zwischen dem demokratischen und dem republikanischen Kandidaten ausführlich. Viele Kanadier haben außerdem Verwandte, Freunde oder berufliche Kontakte in den USA, so dass der Präsidentschaftswahlkampf stets präsent ist. Einer Harris-Decima Umfrage (Mai 2008 ) zufolge würden 55% der Kanadier ihre Stimme für Obama und lediglich 15% für McCain abgeben. In den USA liegt Obamas Vorsprung vor McCain bei vergleichsweise knappen 5%. Befindet sich Kanada also im Obama-Fieber? Und viel wichtiger: Ist diese Haltung mit tatsächlichen kanadischen Interessen zu vereinbaren?

Diese Fragen diskutierte John Ibbitson, zuständig für die US-Berichterstattung der größten kanadischen Tageszeitung Globe and Mail, in einem Essay und einer darauf folgenden Online-Diskussion im vergangenen Juni. Ibbitson argumentiert, dass, obwohl die überwältigende Mehrheit der Kanadier Obama favorisieren, Kanadas Interessen sich viel eher im Wahlkampfprogramm von Senator McCain wiederfänden. So sei Obama zwar in Sachen Außenpolitik und internationalen Themen der kanadischen Regierung in Ottawa näher als McCain. Die kanadisch-amerikanischen Beziehungen sind jedoch vor allem durch wirtschaftliche Verbindungen geprägt. So verfolge McCain eine Wirtschaftspolitik, die auf Freihandel setze und das Nordamerikanische Freihandelsabkommen (NAFTA) verteidige. Im Gegensatz dazu, so Ibbitson, treibe Obama eine protektionistische Wirtschaftsagenda vorran. Diese würde kanadischen Unternehmen den Zugang zum amerikanischen Markt erschweren und somit zentrale kanadische Interessen beschneiden.

Obamas Position zum NAFTA ist tatsächlich weit weniger deutlich. Während des Vorwahlkampfes in den stark industriell geprägten Bundesstaaten Ohio und Pennsylvania kritisierte Obama das Abkommen scharf. Er forderte, dass die NAFTA-Vereinbarungen zu Gunsten der amerikanischen Arbeiter notfalls neu verhandelt werden müssten. Darüber hinaus versprach er, die „Big Three“ der Automobilbranche (General Motors, Ford und Chrysler) in der Grenzstadt Detroit in ihrem Bestreben umweltfreundliche Autos auf amerikanischer Seite zu produzieren, zu unterstützen. Obamas Ziel, die USA von ihrer Ölabhängigkeit zu lösen, richtet sich ebenfalls gegen kanadische Interessen. Kanada ist mit 15% der größte Öllieferant der USA (es folgen Saudi Arabien und Venezuela mit jeweils 14% sowie Mexiko mit 12%). Zudem wurden in jüngerer Zeit weitere Ölvorkommen in Westkanada entdeckt. Sollte Obama gewählt werden, wirklich die Ölimporte drosseln und verstärkt die CO2 Emissionen beschränken, so hätte dies tiefgreifende Auswirkungen auf die kanadische Energieindustrie.

Inwiefern diese Wahlkampfrhetorik im Falle eines Sieges Obamas in tatsächliche Politik umgesetzt würde, ist an dieser Stelle nicht zu beantworten. Zweifel an Obamas harter NAFTA-Linie kamen jedoch bereits während des Vorwahlkampfes auf. So stellte sich heraus, dass Berater Obamas im kanadischen Konsulat in Chicago besorgte Botschaftsvertreter besänftigt und ihnen versichert hätten, dass die ablehnenden Äußerungen Obamas zum Handelsabkommen vor allem dem Wahlkampf geschuldet seien. Das Durchsickern dieses Treffens hatte zu einer zwischenzeitlichen Auseinandersetzung zwischen der kanadischen Regierung und Obamas Wahlkampfteam geführt. Der ehemalige amerikanische Botschafter in Ottawa, Gordon Griffin, ein Demokrat, versuchte nun zu beschwichtigen und erklärte: „Ich bin optimistisch, dass wir einem produktiven und konstruktiven Wechsel entgegensehen - und nicht einem Rückzug unseres Engagements in Kanada.“

Andere Stimmen sehen einen Sieg Obamas und dessen Konsequenzen im Hinblick auf kanadische Interessen weitaus kritischer. Raymond Chrétien, ehemaliger Gesandter Kanadas in Washington, orakelt, dass ein Obama-Sieg sowie ein großflächiger Sieg der Demokraten im Kongress im November bestehende Handelsabkommen wie den NAFTA wieder zur Neuverhandlung auf den Tisch bringen würden. Vor dem Hintergrund einer drohenden Rezession sei dadurch eine restriktivere Politik in Bereichen wie Handel, Immigration und den Grenzabkommen zu befürchten. So hätten sich bereits kanadische Wirtschaftskreise bei Premierminister Stephen Harper über eine ‚Verengung’ der Grenze zu den USA seit den Anschlägen vom 11. September 2001 beklagt.

Für wirtschaftsorientierte Kanadier wäre Barack Obama also nicht die logische Wahl. Dass sich trotzdem derart viele Kanadier in den Umfragen für Obama aussprechen, deutet darauf hin, dass besonders Themen, die auf einer ähnlichen Wertegrundlage basieren, eine große Rolle spielen: Der Umweltschutz, eine allgemeine Krankenversicherung und eine weniger konfrontative Außenpolitik. Ibbitson von der Globe and Mail erklärt: „Kanadier sehen in Barack Obama vielleicht den Premierminister, den sie nie hatten.“ Während in Ottawa seit jeher wenig inspirierende weiße mittelständische Männer regieren, repräsentiere Obama die multikulturelle Realität Kanadas, so Ibbitson. Obamas gern und viel zitierte multi-ethnische sowie internationale Herkunft bietet vielen Kanadiern eine breite Identifikationsfläche. Ibbitson bringt die Gefühle vieler Kanadier auf den Punkt: „Barack Obama sollte nicht zu den USA gehören. Er gehört zu uns.“

WHEN I and other Palestinian- Americans first knew Barack Obama in Chicago in the 1990s, he grasped the oppression faced by Palestinians under Israeli occupation. He understood that an honest broker cannot simultaneously be the main cheerleader, financier and arms supplier for one side in a conflict.

He often attended Palestinian-American community events and heard about the Palestinian experience from perspectives stifled in mainstream discussion.

In recent months, Obama has sought to allay persistent concerns from pro-Israel groups by recasting himself as a stalwart backer of Israel and tacking ever closer to positions espoused by the powerful, hard-line pro-Israel lobby Aipac. He distanced himself from mainstream advisers because pro-Israel groups objected to their calls for even-handedness.

Like his Republican rival, senator John McCain, Obama gave staunch backing to Israel's 2006 bombing of Lebanon, which killed over 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and the blockade and bombardment of the Gaza Strip, calling them "self defence".

Every aspect of Obama's visit to Palestine-Israel this week has seemed designed to further appease pro-Israel groups. Typically for an American aspirant to high office, he visited the Israeli Holocaust memorial and the Western Wall. He met the full spectrum of Israeli Jewish (though not Israeli Arab) political leaders. He travelled to the Israeli Jewish town of Sderot, which until last month's ceasefire, frequently experienced rockets from the Gaza Strip. At every step, Obama warmly professed his support for Israel and condemned Palestinian violence. Other than a cursory 45-minute visit to occupied Ramallah to meet with Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinians got little. According to an Abbas aide, Obama provided assurances that he would be "a constructive partner in the peace process." Some observers took comfort in his promise that he would get engaged "starting from the minute I'm sworn into office". Obama remained silent on the issue of Jerusalem, after boldly promising the "undivided" city to Israel as its capital in a speech to Aipac last month, and then appearing to backtrack amid a wave of outrage across the Arab world.

But Obama missed the opportunity to visit Palestinian refugee camps, schools and even shopping malls to witness first-hand the devastation caused by the Israeli army and settlers, or to see how Palestinians cope under what many call "apartheid". This year alone, almost 500 Palestinians, including over 70 children, have been killed by the Israeli army - exceeding the total for 2007 and dwarfing the two-dozen Israelis killed in conflict-related violence.

Obama said nothing about Israel's relentless expansion of colonies on occupied land. Nor did he follow the courageous lead of former President Jimmy Carter and meet with the democratically elected Hamas leaders, even though Israel negotiated a ceasefire with them. That such steps are inconceivable shows how off-balance is the US debate on Palestine.

Many people I talk to are resigned to the conventional wisdom that aspiring national politicians cannot afford to be seen as sympathetic to the concerns of Palestinians, Arabs or Muslims. They still hope that, if elected, Obama would display an even-handedness absent in the campaign.

Without entirely foreclosing the possibility of change in US policy, the reality is that the political pressures evident in a campaign do not magically disappear once the campaign is over. Nor is all change necessarily for the better.

One risk is that a President Obama or President McCain would just bring back the Clinton-era approach where the United States effectively acted as "Israel's lawyer", as Aaron David Miller, a 25-year veteran of the US state department's Middle East peace efforts, memorably put it. This led to a doubling of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, an upsurge in violence and the failed 2000 Camp David summit where Clinton tried to pressure Arafat into accepting a bantustan. A depressing feature of Obama's visit was the prominent advisory role for Dennis Ross, the official in charge of the peace process under Clinton, and the founder of an Aipac-sponsored pro-Israel think-tank.

Whoever is elected will face a rapidly changing situation in Palestine-Israel. A number of shifts are taking place simultaneously. First, the consensus supporting the two-state solution is disintegrating as Israeli colonies have rendered it unachievable. Second, the traditional Palestinian national leadership is being eclipsed by new movements including Hamas. And, as western and Arab governments become more craven in the face of Israeli human rights violations, a Palestinian-led campaign modelled on the anti-apartheid strategy of boycott, divestment and sanctions is building global civil society support. Finally, the demographic shift in Palestine-Israel toward an absolute Palestinian majority in all of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip will be complete in the next three to five years.

Making peace in this new reality will take leaders ready to listen and talk to all sides in the conflict and to consider alternatives to the moribund two-state solution, such as power-sharing, confederation or a single democratic state. It will require, above all, the courage, imagination and political will to challenge the status quo of Israeli domination and Palestinian dispossession that has led to ever more violence with each passing year.

Ali Abunimah is a Palestinian activist

The presumptive Democratic nominee from Illinois arrived in the English capital Friday night, fresh from a visit to France and a meeting with President Nicolas Sarkozy. The two expressed their friendship and mutual respect in an evening news conference Friday in Paris.

Obama's stop in London is more low-key than other appearances on his international tour. There are no major news conferences as Obama will speak with reporters outside 10 Downing Street after his talks with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

FULL STORY

By Leonard Doyle in Washington and Anne Penketh
Saturday, 26 July 2008

Gordon Brown's political nightmare will continue to haunt him today when he welcomes to Downing Street the man who is arguably the world's most popular politician.

Barack Obama arrived in London last night from Paris on his plane, nicknamed "Obama One", having conquered continental Europe and been anointed with headlines of "Obamania" in European newspapers.

After emerging from the aircraft – which has his catchphrase "Change we can believe in" printed on its side – a relaxed Mr Obama met the American ambassador, Robert Tuttle, and his wife, Maria, before greeting the waiting press. The presidential candidate and his entourage were then driven to their West End hotel, the Hyatt Regency London near Marble Arch, in a convoy of black Mercedes people carriers.

In Paris, where opinion polls mirror those across Europe by showing public support for his candidacy as US president, he appeared to have won the unofficial endorsement of President Nicolas Sarkozy, who praised him effusively at a news conference. Mr Obama and the French President emerged from talks that focused on the hot spots toured by Mr Obama on his international trip: Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan. Source Article

US coverage of tour reflects candidate's success with media, but polls will be test

The mood among the US media pack that joined Barack Obama's tour on Monday was grumpy and rebellious. The 40-odd journalists boarding the campaign's Boeing 757, dubbed Obama One, in Jordan had paid thousands of dollars to accompany him but missed the first four days of a trip that took him to Afghanistan and Iraq - and information was in short supply.

"People were frustrated and upset at the start of the trip," one of the pack confirmed yesterday. But they traversed an arc in the course of the week.

The Democratic presidential candidate and his media team turned the mood around as they travelled from Israel to the West Bank and on to Germany and France, with the final stop in London today. The press corps was appeased when Obama, who prefers to sit on planes with his iPod and press cuttings or a book, ignoring staff and journalists, made a rare trip to the back of the Boeing en route from Israel to banter with reporters. Even rarer, he had an off-the-record dinner with them, at a French restaurant in Berlin on Thursday.

The restoration of relations with the press shows in the coverage he received throughout the week. He has been hailed as presidential, cable networks covered his Berlin speech live and almost every major US paper carried on their front pages a picture of him in front of a crowd of 200,000 in Berlin. Source Article

Barack Obama may beat John McCain in November to be the next president of the United States. But if Europeans had a vote in this year's race for the White House, Mr Obama would be a shoo-in. Opinion polls show that Britons prefer him by three to one over Mr McCain, Italians by five to one, the French by eight to one and Germans by a landslide 10 to one. Perhaps after the Bush years Europeans would embrace any half-decent successor with this level of initial enthusiasm. But Mr Obama's popular appeal, here as in America, is a more positive phenomenon than that. His life story and his sure touch define him as something more than Mr Anyone-but-Bush. No American politician since John Kennedy - the comparison is inescapable - has provoked such widespread hope on this side of the Atlantic. No wonder that Mr Obama's tour of European capitals - Berlin Thursday, Paris Friday and London this weekend - has (not unfairly) been compared to a travelling rock extravaganza. What else is one to make of 200,000 Berliners turning up to hear a man who, whatever his hopes, is still only the senator for Illinois?

For that very reason, therefore, it is vital to be realistic as well as excited. The focus in Europe's relationship with Mr Obama needs to be on goals not gush and on doing rather than just feeling good. That means recognising that the main reason Mr Obama has come this week is not for our benefit but for his own. He is running for election in his country, not in ours, and he is concerned above all to send a message to Americans rather than Europeans. In domestic political terms Mr Obama has sought to use this foreign trip to show the voters that he has strong foreign policy credentials, to signal he is ready to be America's military commander-in-chief and to show that he would open a new chapter in America's relations with the rest of the world. How he handles himself will in the end be at least as significant for Americans as what he says. The size of the travelling press corps and the presidential-style choreography of the week-long trip are reminders that Mr Obama is here to talk to Americans above all. Source Article

Obama's staff has repeatedly said the trip is not political and not intended as a campaign trip

Oh, those crazy political spin doctors. Actually, I see the trip as a courageous and intrepid political manouvre, as I mentioned before. The fact that he pulled it off with such aplomb and grace makes me optimistic for the future of America.

Here's a video report from the BBC, well done as usual.

And here's a report from Truthdig containing details about his visit to France last night.

Dieser feine Unterschied zwischen einem echten Sinngefühl und seinem bloß projizierten Ersatz ist von äußerster Bedeutung. Das echte Sinngefühl steht im engen Kontakt mit dem Jetzt, mit dem, was jetzt ist. Aber es bleibt darin eben nicht kritisch distanziert, resigniert, zweifelnd und insbesondere nicht mißtrauisch stehen. Es redet sich nicht ein, man müsse erdulden, daß es so ist, wie es ist — weil es nun mal "immer" so sei, weil das eben "das Leben" sei, weil alles ohnehin mit dem Tod (bzw. mit Alter, Krankheit und Verzicht) ende oder weil nun mal die "Gesetzmäßigkeiten" des Lebens so seien.

In der öffentlichen Politik läßt sich der Unterschied leicht erkennen, und vor allem deshalb interessiert mich das Obama-Phänomen, das eben nicht zuletzt auch ein Phänomen der amerikanischen Kultur ist und der Wiederbesinnung auf ursprüngliche (übrigens auch indianische und schwarze) Werte dieser Kultur (ganz im Gegensatz zu den eher materiell orientierten Werten des weißen, puritanisch geprägten Bürgers). Der Unterschied zu deutscher Nörgelei und Resignation ist so augenfällig. Keiner wird ableugnen können, daß unser Land am Mangel an Visionen krankt. Dies ist aber nicht etwa nur ein Vakuum, und Visionen sind nicht irgendeine nette Dreingabe und Verzierung, sondern wo sie fehlen, kehrt sich die Kraft, die immer vorhanden ist, sich dann aber nicht mehr produktiv und konstruktiv äußern kann, gegen den Menschen und fängt an, ihn zu vergiften. Frustration macht sich breit. Dann wird von Kontrolle, von "mehr Sicherheit" geredet, dann macht man sich ans Überwachen und ans Kämpfen "gegen" alles "Schlechte", und merkt schon gar nicht, daß bereits dieses Kämpfen, das nach außen hin immer noch unter scheinbar positivem Vorzeichen steht (Kämpfen gegen Terror, Kämpfen gegen Krebs, Aids und andere Krankheiten, Kämpfen gegen Arbeitslosigkeit, Kämpfen gegen Ungerechtigkeit usw.), im Grunde gar nicht mehr positiv ist, sondern negativ, im Geiste destruktiv. Die Kraft, die nicht positiv freigesetzt wird, kehrt sich um und schädigt, vergiftet, sät Mißtrauen, Neid, Eifersucht, fängt an zu projizieren, wähnt sich zwar noch auf der Seite des Guten, ist aber selbst schon zu einer unguten Macht geworden, die auf lange Sicht immer viel mehr Schaden als Nutzen anrichtet.

Der Sinn von Visionen ist nicht, daß man Träumen als Schäumen nachrennt und sich in vage Spekulationen, in hohles Gerede und leere Kulissen flüchtet. Sondern der Sinn von Visionen ist ein ganz direkter und fühlbarer: Er setzt ein bestimmtes Grundgefühl frei, mit dem sich etwas anfangen läßt, hier und jetzt. Dieses Grundgefühl ist zutiefst heilend und versöhnend. In gewisser Weise ist es die unverzichtbare Voraussetzung für jegliche sinnvolle Handlung, für jedes konstruktive Projekt, aber auch für jedes Angehen gegen ungelöste Probleme. Wenn man mit dem Auto losfahren will, muß erst Benzin im Tank sein. Beim Skeptiker und kritischen Zweifler ist der Tank aber zu Beginn schon leer.

Hinter echten Visionen müssen aber zugleich immer auch konkrete Perspektiven stecken; genau das unterscheidet sie von Träumereien zum Zwecke der Täuschung und des Selbstbetrugs. Die konkreteste, zugänglichste und am direktesten verifizierbare Perspektive ist das Selbst und die Besinnung, die Rückbesinnung darauf — das ist zugleich immer mein Thema auf diesen Seiten (auch wenn es viele nicht merken, die dann denken, hier würde in "Äußerliches" abgewichen und sich dort verzettelt). Auch das ist zuerst eine Vision. Wer diese Vision nicht hat bzw. nicht finden kann, oder wer sich aus Trotz und Stolz gegen sie sträubt, der kann einem wirklich leid tun, denn der verlebt sein Leben wirklich sinn- und bedeutungslos. Was mir nun aber in letzter Zeit aufgefallen ist, das ist der Zusammenhang zwischen dieser zentralen Vision, die auf die Grundlage des eigenen Lebens und Daseins orientiert ist, und praktischen, gesellschaftlichen und "öffentlichen" Visionen. Wie will man denn ernsthaft beides voneinander trennen? Das kann eben nur der, der die erste Vision gar nicht verstanden und dem sie sich nicht erschlossen hat. Natürlich gibt es die, die meinen, sie hätten immer noch "nur mit sich selbst" zu tun und könnten sich dort in irgendeinen vermeintlich getrennten Bereich zurückziehen, zurück in ihr Kämmerlein, zurück in ihren Kopf, zurück in ihre eigene "innere Welt". Am besten noch unter dem Vorzeichen vorgeblicher "Nicht-Dualität". Absurder geht es nun wirklich nicht mehr!

Bevor sich einer hier kontinuierlich etwas vormacht, sollte er sich ehrlich und ernsthaft seiner eigenen Situation stellen und sich fragen, wie er sich damit fühlt. Wie offen er sich damit fühlt, wie glücklich, wie fließend, wie vertrauend, wie mutig und wie energievoll. Gibt es noch Grenzen, noch Schranken in ihm, und wie geht es ihm damit? Versucht er sie noch zu verteidigen, versucht er sich noch zu rechtfertigen, möchte er dann und wann noch zu einem Punkt des Rückzugs "zurück"? Unterscheidet er noch zwischen "ich und die anderen", zwischen "hier und dort", zwischen "gestern, heute und morgen"?

Ich will darauf hinaus, daß eine echte Vision aus diesem Ghetto des Egos herausführt und Schranken überwindet. Im selben Moment kommt Freude auf, und diese Freude ist das erste Anzeichen von wachsendem Vertrauen. Das Leben ist dann wieder ein gutes Leben, und nicht in erster Linie ein Problem.

Do you have some news to share to a Global Audience

- let a twinity media partner break the news !

The way I see it Politicians todays are full of shit. Take McCain for example, He talks about doing things for the working class but then forgets and talks about helping the rich. Then talks shit about Obama and his ways. Why doesn't he focused on his own agenda? Stop worrying about what the other is doing. They all make themselves look like idiots when they are running for office. Trying to make the other look bad. I really do not care who has what to say because when it comes down to it they really don't do anything about shit. They always seem to be focused on other countries instead of their own. We have problems as well. Why not focused on their own Country? That is why our economy is going to hell.

All I know from what I see, Obama seem to the only one that really cares in his own way. But if McCain becomes President of this already fucked up Country – thank you pres. Bush – we are done. As I watch him on TV I honestly think he is Racist. But some, his supporters, will say different. Remember no matter what you might say this is my opinion.

]]> http://imaginegate.wordpress.com/?p=5 Sat, 26 Jul 2008 07:31:36 +0000 imaginegate http://imaginegate.wordpress.com/?p=5 Captain Obama

Holy Toledo it's the first and official Barack Obama Superhero Toy!
Who else but ImagineGate Toys to bring you the first and only Barack Obama Superhero Toy!

Captain Obama is a superhero with extraordinary powers and unprecedented idealism dedicated to hope, freedom, and change for the American people. The origin story of Captain Obama was that he was born Barack Obama on the planet Earth. As a child he started to display superhuman abilities, which upon reaching maturity he resolved to use for good not evil. Keeping his secret identity hidden. Barack Obama lives among the humans as a social activist and community organizer, helping the impoverished and speaking for the unheard voices of America. When needed Superhero Captain Obama appears to fight crooked businessmen and politicians, demolishing run-down tenements, keeping a moral code of conduct and protecting the American way.

See more at www.CaptainObama.com

This toy is exclusively sold only at ImagineGate Toys. www.ImagineGate.com

We are the official Barack Obama Toy Headquarters.

Available in August 2008!

Pre-Order today as supplies are limited. www.ImagineGate.com

However, when I criticize Obama, as I so often do, I am almost always met with demands that I support Obama in order to "be a good Democrat".  Two things:

1.  I'm not a Democrat.

2.  You know your candidate is in SERIOUS trouble if you hear criticism of him and your first assumption is that it's from someone within your own party.

So we find this paradox.  Obama Supporters want to debase other Democrats by accusing them of somehow failing to be Democrats for not supporting Obama, but, at the same time, want to remind these other Democrats that they are Democrats in order to convince them to support Obama.  As a result, you find truly schizophrenic behavior amongst them.  It's an endless battle between their desire to see Obama get elected, and their disdain of people who dare to think differently than they.  (In the case of Obama Supporters, perhaps "think" is not the right word.  Oh well, you get the idea.)

Which force is stronger?  Their worship of Obama or hatred of others?  Will be interesting to see it play out.  In the meantime, if there are any Obama Supporters reading this, make up your mind - are Hillary Supporters "real" Democrats or not?

“The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand,” he said. "The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christians and Muslims and Jews cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.” (Obama in Berlin, 2008-07-24)

And just what "walls" are there between "countries with the most and those with the least?" We call them borders, of course. In other words...

“The borders between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand,” he said. The borders between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The borders between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christians and Muslims and Jews cannot stand. These now are the borders we must tear down.”

All courses of life have a beginning.  The beginning is perhaps the greatest part of the course. This is the point at which the course takes on life.  Now, there also happens to be many courses in one's life.  Some beginnings lead to ill fated courses while others lead to joy, peace, life, and truth.

What course are you on?  When did it begin? Are you at peace?

SWAT Music, Inc. is experiencing another beginning right now.  For example, this blog is the beginning to yet another avenue that God has set before SWAT Music to utilize and reach out to souls that God has selected.  SWAT Music recently restructured the SWAT Music, Inc. website in order to start out on a fresh course of action.  Many times God has a unique way of detouring us to new courses in life.  Those new courses give us opportunities to exhibit the lessons we have learned from previous courses.  The new courses give us opportunities for new beginnings.  Perhaps God is directing you to a new beginning in your life.  Mighty creations have beginnings.

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." - Genesis 1:1 - GOD

FUNNY: A hot-air balloon shaped as Darth Vader from Star Wars takes part in the Quik Chek New Jersey Festival of Ballooning. (Mel Evans, AP)

Ok so I have pretty much had a real hearty laugh as I always do at our news, back to reading it again after a little sanity vacation.

'A World That Stands as One'
Barack Obama addressed a crowd of 200 000 people in Berlin. Watch the video and read the speech.

Can someone please explain to me why it is acceptable that a political candidate from the States is doing speeches in foreign countries such as Germany.  I obviously don't understand, did I miss something? Is Obama the new US President? Please in all honestly I would love someone to explain this to me as I don't see the Presidential candidates from say France going around the world nor do I see the British candidates doing the same.  I am one confused blonde.  I am asking in all sincerity as I really would like to understand a bit more.

Cop held for car theft
A Johannesburg metro police officer has been arrested for being part of a vehicle theft syndicate that allegedly smuggled cars into foreign countries.

Who you going to call when they come for you? Call batman or the ghostbusters, doesn't really matter because he will be out pretty soon.  Much like the Chief of Police crashing his swanky car while intoxicated saying "Im shot drrrrrrank I kin wilk strit linnnne" Yers we believe you as well.  Best yet? All on video, makes funniest home videos look like childs play!

Wallets come out for Zuma
Free State African National Congress members and guests have pledged nearly R1.5m for ANC President Jacob Zuma's legal battles.

Let me just say that already the big guy in the judicial courts is in trouble for trying to "be super friendly" with the court judges involved in Zuma's case where he is being tried for corruption/fraud/bribery (you choose).  Now the main political party ANC, which he is president of, is sponsoring his legal fees.  Is it only me that thinks this smacks of ahem interesting?

Bush widens Zim sanctions
US President George W Bush has signed an executive order to expand sanctions against individuals and organisations in Zimbabwe associated with President Robert Mugabe.

I was speaking to a Zimbabwean the other day, yeah I know there are still some alive, about these sanctions.  The general consensus is "Why are there no travel bans on Mugabe himself???", a good question if you ask me.  Why are his bank accounts holding millions and billions not frozen? Why is he still living in such lush luxury while the people of Zim are suffering from the Sanctions? Perhaps it is my blondeness coming out again - yes I am brunette.

Can you imagine going to a shop and the shelves are bare? I am not talking about just one shop I am talking about all shops. Imagine not finding one loaf of bread to buy, milk, fruit juice, jam, toilet paper or washing powder... There is one place in Zim that has it all, there is a shopping centre on Mugabe's street, they even sell diesel jeans and rolex watches, cakes and 30 different types of bread... imagine.

If anyone can answer these questions you will make my day.

Thank you

P.S. Thank you Cape Town for standing up against a sadistic raisin!

VIDEO: Protest against Qwelane
Watch as members of the gay community gathered in Cape Town to protest Jon Qwelane's column.

I'm going back on news vacation

Princeton: (n) citizen (a native or naturalized member of a state or other political community)

Full text of speech available at the Sydney Morning Herald

The above is a chart stolen from the Washington Post of civilian deaths caused by the US in Afghanistan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/07/25/GR2008072500493.html?sid=ST2008072500498&pos=list

It seems that during my hiatus from the outside world during my recent move, the western press has started to pay modest attention to US military massacres of Afghanistan civilians a little bit more.  There's the above chart from the Wa. Post and there's also an article from MSNBC:

KABUL - U.S. and NATO military officials in Afghanistan have launched investigations into three separate U.S.-led airstrikes that Afghan officials say killed at least 78 civilians this month.

The investigations come during what U.N. and Afghan officials say is one of the deadliest years for civilians since the war began. In the first six months of this year, the number of civilians killed in fighting has increased by nearly 40 percent over the same period last year, according to U.N. data.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25844505/

When the initial Afghan government report came out showing that our boys massacred a wedding party full of women and kids along with the bride, there was not a peep to be found in any major US media outlets and there was just a small article in the UK daily, The Independant.  It's apparently not very newsworthy in the USA.

Obama has stated his policy of reducing troop levels in Iraq and sending those troops right on over to Afghanistan, but my guess is that the more troops we have over there, the more guns we will have pointing at Afghanistan civilians... especially since we can't even tell the difference between Taliban fighters and a wedding party full of women and children. 

Our military always talks about taking every measure to reduce civilian collateral damage, but what we are doing over there is just plain old wrong.  We drop bombs on whole neighborhoods in search of the so-called bad guys.  In the first place, this sort of technique would never be tolerated in the USA.  Is it ok to drop a bomb on a neighborhood because we heard there was an escaped convict there?  And then cry foul because the escaped convict was hiding among civilians?  thus making the deaths the fault of the bad guys since we can't help where the bad guys hide now can we?

In the second place, these so-called bad guys are often normal joes who have been so impacted by the US military presence (had family members killed by the US etc.) that they have taken up arms to protect what they have left. 

Let's get the heck out of there.  Iraq and Afghanistan.  There's no difference.  We should have stayed out of both places to begin with. 

You want another reason to get out of these places?  How about this one:  We killed a 14 year old boy who was fetching keys for his dad, an Iraqi newspaper editor. 

According to the U.S. statement, American troops were trying to recover a disabled vehicle in Kirkuk on Wednesday when multiple shots were fired at them from the taxi. One soldier was wounded, it said.

"The soldiers returned fire, killing a young Iraqi man in the taxi," the military said, adding that Iraqi police later detained the driver.

Taha insisted his son was not armed and said he didn't believe the taxi driver was either.

"My son was only 14 years old," he told The Associated Press. "He is neither a terrorist, nor a gun carrier. He didn't even know how to use a pistol. The only thing he knew how to use was the computer."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25854694/

We do way too much killing over there and we need to get out yesterday so another life is not lost to our protectors of freedom and democracy. 

Demi menjadi presiden Amerika Serikat, para kandidat presiden Amerika tak segan-segan menjual diri mereka pada Israel dan masyarakat Yahudi Amerika, dengan mengatakan bahwa mereka adalah sahabat Israel dan akan selalu mendukung Israel meski dunia tahu negara Zionis itu hingga kini masih menjajah tanah Palestina.

Salah seorang kandidat presiden AS yang berulang kali menyatakan akan mendukung Israel dengan cara apapun adalah Barack Obama. Bahkan untuk menarik simpati kalangan Yahudi Amerika, Obama menyatakan bahwa ia tidak pernah menjadi seorang Muslim dan ia tidak akan pernah mau membuka dialog dengan Hamas dan Hizbullah.

Obama mengungkapkan hal tersebut saat berkampanye di depan masyarakat Yahudi AS di Sinagog Boca Raton, utara Miami. Dalam kampanye itu Obama juga mengatakan bahwa ia adalah sahabat Israel dan akan selalu mendukung Israel

"Meski saya menawarkan dialog dengan para pimpinan Iran, bukan berarti saya tidak mengakui Iran sebagai ancaman bagi negara Yahudi, bukan berarti saya tidak pro-Israel, " kata Obama.

Obama bahkan menyebut Bush tidak banyak melakukan tindakan untuk membantu Israel dan pemerintahan Bush, hanya membuat kelompok Hamas di Palestina dan Hizbullah di Libanon makin kuat. "Sebagai presiden, saya akan melakukan apapun dengan kekuasaan saya untuk menghentikan Iran dari upaya mengembangkan senjata nuklir dan memaksa Iran untuk berhenti mengancam Israel, " kata Obama.

Sejumlah masyarakat Yahudi AS mengatakan, jika mereka memilih Obama, yang terpenting adalah dukungan Obama terhadap Israel. "Saya pikir komandan tertinggi kita sudah selayaknya tidak mengusulkan dialog dengan seseorang yang menyerukan penghancuran terhadap Israel, " kata seorang Yahudi Amerika Stephen Lippy.

Lippy melanjutkan, "Sebagai Yahudi, akankah saya memiliki orang kulit hitam? Tentu saja. Tapi... yang penting buat saya, presiden negara ini harus menegaskan dukungannya pada Israel dan sekutu-sekutu kami di Barat."

Di halaman parkir sinagog, sejumlah orang membagikan kertas berisi tulisan bahwa Obama pernah menjadi seorang Muslim. Namun Obama menolak tulisan di selebaran itu. (ln/al-araby)

sumber: eramuslim.com