In a motion made to U.S. District Judge Joe Billy McDade earlier this month, the Bush administration asked that Mazon be denied the right to argue the most fundamental issues driving alleged corruption in the handling of war-related contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mazon is a victim of the corruption and Halliburton’s drive for greed. But Halliburton is attached at the hip to President Bush. Vice President Dick Cheney, the architect of the illegal invasion of Iraq in March 2003, is the former CEO of Halliburton.

But many believe that once out of office in January, Cheney will return to head the company which is currently based in Houston but is moving its corporate headquarters to the United Arab Emirates, which does not have an extradition treaty with the United States.

It is ironic that Cheney’s company is willing to move to Dubai in the UAE, but Bush and Cheney were unwilling to allow Dubai to handle the security of American ports. It’s a great example of the hypocrisy that embraces the Bush administration’s misguided war and confirms suspicions the administration’s foreign policy are based mainly on greed.

And that’s why Mazon’s trial is so important.

The Bush administration has asked in a “Motion in Limine” made Sept. 2, 2008, that Mazon be denied the right to argue the following in this second trial:

- the defendant is being made a scapegoat by KBR, his former employer, and Halliburton Co., KBR’s former parent company, in connection with the charges against him;

- Halliburton, KBR and its executives and managers have framed the defendant or otherwise caused the government to improperly charge him;

- the government has acted in concert with Halliburton and KBR in order to improperly charge Mazon; and d) improper conduct by Halliburton and KBR in their handling of government contracts should exculpate the defendant.

The Bush administration filed this motion because Mazon sought to subpoena Halliburton’s CEO David Lesar. This motion is normally used to prohibit the submission of evidence that might hurt the defense, not the prosecution.

The government argued the issues would “confuse” the jury. But the truth is, the jury was confused by the charge. Mazon’s attorneys argued successfully that the alleged inflation of the contract Mazon controlled was in fact a simple miscalculation involving the conversion of U.S. Dollars into Kuwait Dinars.

This conversion problem has plagued many of the war related contracts. There are about 3.3 Kuwait Dinars for every dollar. When converted, the $1.6 million contract was about 5.5 Kuwait Dinars, except it was listed as $5.5 million “U.S. Dollars.”

Mazon beat the first attempt to convict him when a majority of jurors rejected the government’s argument in a trial that took place in April of this year. The jury was deadlocked.

The Bush administration will try a second time, moving the trial from Rock Island to Peoria. Apparently, the government believed Mazon’s foreign heritage – he is Ecuadorian – and his association with Arab contractors in the Middle East, would make him unsympathetic to the region’s Bible-belt constituency jury pool.

Trying Mazon in Rock Island was also an apparent attempt to take the case out of the scrutiny of the national media. It could have been tried in Washington D.C. insuring high profile media coverage.

But high profile media coverage would have refocused the issues from the weak case against Mazon to the bigger issues of Cheney, the culture of corruption that plagues Halliburton and the corruption that is the foundation of the Iraq War itself.

The Peoria trial, which begins this week, places the trial on a higher public plain. But the government had no choice after losing the first trial. The federal judge in the case, U.S. Justice Joe Billy McDade, is from Peoria and had to drive to and from Rock Island during the first trial. This second trial is convenient to McDade.

The Bush administration knows that if the second trial becomes a referendum on their failed policies in Iraq, the next jury might not deadlock. They might vote to acquit Mazon. A fair jury can conclude Mazon is being persecuted, not prosecuted, to protect Halliburton and Cheney.

Since the charges were first filed against Mazon five years ago, public attitudes about the failed war in Iraq have changed dramatically from blind support to open challenge. The public knows that Bush and Cheney, Halliburton’s former CEO, lied and misled Americans into supporting the Iraq invasion.

Why wouldn’t they also lie to protect Halliburton?

How are they protecting Halliburton? Well, if any other corporation with no national political clout had a similar track record of corruption and mismanagement and suspicions of price gouging, their contract would have been revoked within the first few convictions.

Despite 36 war related corruption convictions, Halliburton continues to enjoy a near exclusive headlock on hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan war spending.

(Ray Hanania is a Chicago-based columnist and radio talk show host. He can be reached at rayhanania@comcast.net.)

Obama: So John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007. You talk about the "surge," the war started in 2003. At the time, when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said you knew where the weapons of mass destruction were — and you were wrong. You said we were going to be greeted as liberators — you were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between Shi’a and Sunni, and you were wrong. …if the question is, who is best equipped as the next president to make good decisions about how we use our military, how we make sure we are prepared and ready for the next conflict, then I think we can take a look at our judgment.

Mary Kaldor is professor of global governance at the London School of Economics (LSE), and convenor of the human-security study group that reports to the European Union's foreign-policy chief Javier Solana

Links relating to this article and Mary Kaldor's other columns are available at diigo here.

The end of the Cold War did not lead to the dismantling of the military-industrial complex, which continues to exercise a powerful and pervasive political, economic and cultural influence on American society. Military spending fell after 1990 and the number of troops were reduced but research spending on advanced military technologiesw remained at its Cold War level, thereby constituting a permanent pressure to develop and produce new weapons systems. Moreover the Cold War narrative (drawn from the experience of World War II) about the role of the United States as a global leader in promoting democracy against its enemies through superior know-how, continued to dominate security thinking. Indeed the narrative was reinforced by the widespread argument that Reagan's decision to deploy cruise missiles was what ended the Cold War and by the experience of the 1991 Gulf War, which seemed to prove the salience of sophisticated technology. Throughout the 1990s, the United States continued to emphasise the importance of airpower and rapid decisive manoeuvre warfare incorporating new advances in information technology as the cornerstone of American strategy. And defence intellectuals continued to draw up scenarios in which these forces would be used to repel a new range of enemies from rogue states to terrorists. Indeed the immediate aftermath of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan was characterised by a mood of triumphalism about the American Way of War and the relevance of concepts like the Revolution in Military Affairs, Defence Transformation, or Netcentricwarfare.

Several years and thousands of casualties later, the atmosphere is very different. The worsening violence in Iraq and Afghanistan led to a serious questioning about the effectiveness of the US tactical approach. Moreover, despite the largest ever military budgets, there were shortages of troops and equipment suitable for ground wars because of the expenditure on large sophisticated systems. Many were arguing that success in regime collapse had created a vacuum of lawlessness filled by political insurgents and violent criminals and that efforts to attack insurgents using superior firepower merely increased opposition to occupation. On 10 January, 2007, President Bush announced a new military plan for Iraq, known as the `surge'.

The surge in Iraq was not just about an increase in troops, it was about a profound change in strategy and tactics, based on, to use the jargon, a population-centric approach. General Petraeus's `new thinking' emphasised, above all, the protection of civilians over and above force protection - a radical turn around in the way American forces are used. Instead of technology and firepower, the emphasis has been on bottom-up local security. His latest `Counter-insurgency Guidance' (published 8 July 2008) includes instructions like `Secure and serve the Population', `Live among the People', `Promote Reconciliation', `Walk', `Build Relationships', `Employ money as a weapons system', `Empower subordinates'.

The reduction in violence in Iraq over the past year and a half was mainly due to the fact that Sunni insurgents overwhelmingly switched sides, choosing the US rather than Al Qaeda, which, in turn, was in part but only in part a consequence of the new policy of direct population security by the United States. Instead of remaining behind protected enclaves and using firepower to attack insurgents, which usually involved so-called collateral damage, US forces spread out to population centres, not only providing security, but also helping to provide basic services and humanitarian relief. It then became possible to negotiate ceasefires with Shiite militias as well. (some argue that this was possible because ethnic cleansing had largely been completed in Baghdad). It also became possible to start to build much more effective Iraqi security forces than hitherto, incorporating many of the veterans of Saddam's army who had been dismissed by Bremer immediately after the American invasion. This strategy was, of course, combined with what is known as `kinetic force' to attack Al Qaeda as well as renegade Shiites like the `special groups' who did not respect the cease-fires; improved knowledge of the `human terrain' allowed the US to target these groups much more effectively. 

The change in strategy was the outcome of a broad debate in the Pentagon, especially among the Army and the Marines. My first intimation of change was when in 2005, I received an email from a beltway bandit (a Washington consultancy firm) appropriately named Hawk Systems Inc. They explained that they had received the contract from the Pentagon to `rethink the principles of war' and asked if I would contribute a chapter, relating to my work on `new wars' and human security. The book that came out of the project was circulated to all US staff colleges This year I was invited by the US Army War College to talk about `new wars' -a subject, that to my surprise, is now widely discussed.

Much of the new thinking derives from a strategic current within the US military that dates back to the US Marines 1940 Manual entitled `Small Wars'. This current of thinking lost the battle for strategy in Vietnam but remained alive in certain military circles. Much of the contemporary debate can be found in an online magazine entitled Small Wars Journal, which includes fascinating blogs from active servicemen about their experiences. One of the discussions, for example, is about the relevance of `fourth generation warfare', which refers to the impact of globalisation on war and the argument that nations have `lost the monopoly on force'. Another is about nation-building and the idea that `progressive stabilisation' capacity needs to be built in to combat units. Stabilisation is defined (in Defence Directive 3000 -05) as the effort to `create a secure and stable environment and to provide for the basic needs of the population to include food, water, sanitation and shelter.'

An article by Condoleeza Rice in the current issue of Foreign Affairs demonstrates how far this debate has gone. She is one of the more conservative members of the Bush Administration and it was she who famously said that it was not the job of American soldiers to accompany little girls to school. `In these pages in 2000' she writes `I decried the role of the United States, in particular the US military, in nation-building. In 2008, it is absolutely clear that we will be involved in nation-building for years to come.' She still insists that it is not the job of the military but nevertheless argues strongly for a capacity to provide `population security' in Afghanistan, which she defines as `addressing basic needs for safety, services, the rule of law, and increased economic opportunity.'

Of course, the `new thinking' is not uniformly shared. On the contrary, most of the US military retain what one `small wars' blogger describes as a `cultural aversion' to nation-building. In particular, the air force and the navy remain wedded to sophisticated systems capable of striking at long distance. In June, Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defense, dismissed the Air Force secretary and the air force chief of staff, ostensibly for `poor performance in securing of sensitive materials' ( it was discovered that four high tech electrical nose cones for nuclear missiles were sent to Taiwan instead of helicopter batteries -a mistake that is difficult to believe especially as it was not revealed for eighteen months!) But according to the New York Times, in a report that reflects the talk in the Pentagon, Gates was `frustrated about Air Force actions on weapons procurement, budgets, and the execution of the mission in Iraq.' It is the fact that there is a struggle going on and not simply a change of direction that underlines the character of what might be described as the new perestroika and offers the possibility of real change. 

So what are the implications of this debate and where will it lead? A first question is whether the reduction in violence in Iraq can be sustained. This depends not on what the US military do but on the politics of Iraq. Can the Iraqi government gain the support and trust of the population, which, in the end, is what makes stability possible? And, if not, and new violence erupts perhaps also involving the Kurds, will the old guard in the Pentagon be able to turn around and claim, as they did after Vietnam, that these military intellectuals messed up and what was needed was even more firepower? While many on the left would like to see the US defeated in Iraq and troops withdrawn in humiliation, this would have catastrophic consequences in Iraq and is likely to have perverse consequences for politics inside the US. On the hand, if stability is sustained, this could also strengthen the `new thinking'.

A second question is will the new population-centric approach be adopted in Afghanistan? This month, General Petraeus becomes commander of Centcom, in charge of both Iraq and Afghanistan. At present, despite brave words about reconstruction, the main thrust of American and British policy seems to be to attack the Taliban at long distance, especially in Pakistan. As the situation worsens and spreads to Pakistan, can the Iraq model offer an alternative? Is it possible to apply the same kind of nuanced approach to the Taliban that could result in the marginalisation or isolation of extremists? And if not, what are the limits of the `new thinking'? Are we `faced' with what the conservatives call the `long war', which will justify the continued acquisition of all kinds of new methods of killing? 

And a third question, which follows from the first two, is whether the new approach can be used for global peace operations in the future or whether it is a more efficient form of American imperialism? Most `new thinkers' still insist that the US needs both a stability capacity and a war-fighting capacity. Indeed, some proponents of `new thinking' are suggesting that a capacity for both decisive military actions and stabilisation could enable the US to invade countries like Iran and Syria and simultaneously clean up the aftermath. At present, of course, US forces are much too over stretched but what if the US leaves Iraq and Gates succeeds in overall restructuring? 

This is why what happens in the forthcoming US elections is so important. The changes within the Pentagon need political direction. Are population security or stability operations viewed as a means to an end - defeating terrorists that might attack the United States, winning the War on Terror? Or is the goal population security globally, which might require the use of military force against those nihilistic terrorists or genocidaires who are not amenable to negotiation and who cannot be arrested? In other words, is the goal to protect the United States unilaterally or can there be a new understanding that American security depends on global security? In the first case, the `new thinking' continues to be viewed as a secondary or marginal activity for US forces. But if the aim is global security, the primary requirement is for a stabilisation capacity to end wars rather than fight them.

The incoming President needs to articulate a new narrative for US security policy based on the notion that population security (or I would say human security) is a world-wide goal rather than the War on Terror and that the US will strengthen multilateral institutions in order to develop the capacity to prevent conflicts as well as reducing violence and contributing to stability and reconstruction. That way, the new President will able to harness the current perestroika to a new post-Cold War political paradigm.

By various estimates, there are about 1.5 million to 2 million American Muslim voters, including several hundred thousand Pakistanis, in the United States. There is a significant concentration of Muslim vote in Florida and Michigan. If, as the anecdotal evidence suggests, Obama gets the lion's share of the Muslim American vote, then he could win the presidency by a thin margin of Muslim votes.

Is an Obama win good for Muslim-Americans or Pakistani-Americans? To answer this question, let's look at the first debate between McCain and Obama. Pakistan and Afghanistan figured prominently in the US presidential debate 2008 between Senators John McCain and Barack Obama. Here's the relevant transcript on the subject:

LEHRER: Afghanistan, lead — a new — a new lead question. Now, having resolved Iraq, we'll move to Afghanistan.

And it goes to you, Senator Obama, and it's a — it picks up on a point that's already been made. Do you think more troops — more U.S. troops should be sent to Afghanistan, how many, and when?

OBAMA: Yes, I think we need more troops. I've been saying that for over a year now.

And I think that we have to do it as quickly as possible, because it's been acknowledged by the commanders on the ground the situation is getting worse, not better.

We had the highest fatalities among U.S. troops this past year than at any time since 2002. And we are seeing a major offensive taking place — al Qaeda and Taliban crossing the border and attacking our troops in a brazen fashion. They are feeling emboldened.

And we cannot separate Afghanistan from Iraq, because what our commanders have said is we don't have the troops right now to deal with Afghanistan.

So I would send two to three additional brigades to Afghanistan. Now, keep in mind that we have four times the number of troops in Iraq, where nobody had anything to do with 9/11 before we went in, where, in fact, there was no al Qaeda before we went in, but we have four times more troops there than we do in Afghanistan.

And that is a strategic mistake, because every intelligence agency will acknowledge that al Qaeda is the greatest threat against the United States and that Secretary of Defense Gates acknowledged the central front — that the place where we have to deal with these folks is going to be in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.

So here's what we have to do comprehensively, though. It's not just more troops.

We have to press the Afghan government to make certain that they are actually working for their people. And I've said this to President Karzai.

No. 2, we've got to deal with a growing poppy trade that has exploded over the last several years.

No. 3, we've got to deal with Pakistan, because al Qaeda and the Taliban have safe havens in Pakistan, across the border in the northwest regions, and although, you know, under George Bush, with the support of Senator McCain, we've been giving them $10 billion over the last seven years, they have not done what needs to be done to get rid of those safe havens.

And until we do, Americans here at home are not going to be safe.

LEHRER: Afghanistan, Senator McCain?

MCCAIN: First of all, I won't repeat the mistake that I regret enormously, and that is, after we were able to help the Afghan freedom fighters and drive the Russians out of Afghanistan, we basically washed our hands of the region.

And the result over time was the Taliban, al Qaeda, and a lot of the difficulties we are facing today. So we can't ignore those lessons of history.

Now, on this issue of aiding Pakistan, if you're going to aim a gun at somebody, George Shultz, our great secretary of state, told me once, you'd better be prepared to pull the trigger.

I'm not prepared at this time to cut off aid to Pakistan. So I'm not prepared to threaten it, as Senator Obama apparently wants to do, as he has said that he would announce military strikes into Pakistan.

We've got to get the support of the people of — of Pakistan. He said that he would launch military strikes into Pakistan.

Now, you don't do that. You don't say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things, and you work with the Pakistani government.

Now, the new president of Pakistan, Zardari, has got his hands full. And this area on the border has not been governed since the days of Alexander the Great.

I've been to Waziristan. I can see how tough that terrain is. It's ruled by a handful of tribes.

And, yes, Senator Obama calls for more troops, but what he doesn't understand, it's got to be a new strategy, the same strategy that he condemned in Iraq. It's going to have to be employed in Afghanistan.

And we're going to have to help the Pakistanis go into these areas and obtain the allegiance of the people. And it's going to be tough. They've intermarried with al Qaeda and the Taliban. And it's going to be tough. But we have to get the cooperation of the people in those areas.

And the Pakistanis are going to have to understand that that bombing in the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad was a signal from the terrorists that they don't want that government to cooperate with us in combating the Taliban and jihadist elements.

So we've got a lot of work to do in Afghanistan. But I'm confident, now that General Petraeus is in the new position of command, that we will employ a strategy which not only means additional troops — and, by the way, there have been 20,000 additional troops, from 32,000 to 53,000, and there needs to be more.

So it's not just the addition of troops that matters. It's a strategy that will succeed. And Pakistan is a very important element in this. And I know how to work with him. And I guarantee you I would not publicly state that I'm going to attack them.

OBAMA: Nobody talked about attacking Pakistan. Here's what I said.

And if John wants to disagree with this, he can let me know, that, if the United States has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out.

Now, I think that's the right strategy; I think that's the right policy.

And, John, I — you're absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say. But, you know, coming from you, who, you know, in the past has threatened extinction for North Korea and, you know, sung songs about bombing Iran, I don't know, you know, how credible that is. I think this is the right strategy.

Now, Senator McCain is also right that it's difficult. This is not an easy situation. You've got cross-border attacks against U.S. troops.

And we've got a choice. We could allow our troops to just be on the defensive and absorb those blows again and again and again, if Pakistan is unwilling to cooperate, or we have to start making some decisions.

And the problem, John, with the strategy that's been pursued was that, for 10 years, we coddled Musharraf, we alienated the Pakistani population, because we were anti-democratic. We had a 20th-century mindset that basically said, “Well, you know, he may be a dictator, but he's our dictator.”

And as a consequence, we lost legitimacy in Pakistan. We spent $10 billion. And in the meantime, they weren't going after al Qaeda, and they are more powerful now than at any time since we began the war in Afghanistan.

That's going to change when I'm president of the United States.

MCCAIN: I — I don't think that Senator Obama understands that there was a failed state in Pakistan when Musharraf came to power. Everybody who was around then, and had been there, and knew about it knew that it was a failed state.

From this debate transcript and prior statements, it is clear that Sen McCain is far more knowledgeable about Pakistan than Senator Obama. Mr. McCain has also repeatedly stressed diplomacy and close working relationship with Pakistan and demonstrated his commitment by his actions such as several visits and phone conversations with Pakistani leadership recently and in the past. On the other hand, Mr. Obama has made aggressive statements about Pakistan without making serious effort to understand the issues faced by Pakistanis in FATA.

Beyond the debate specific to Pakistan policy, the most oft-repeated phrase by Senator McCain was “I don’t think Sen Obama understands”, while Obama repeated “I agree with John” more often than any other phrase. Just these two phrases capture the essence of the tone of the debate on foreign policy.

Looks like the post-Palin bump could be over, folks. Now imagine what the lead might be if you included currently unregistered voters?

There’s more data from, and analysis of, the latest polls here. And it includes the rather worrying statement:

“There is continuing evidence in the survey that any new national security threat, such as the September 16 attack on the US Embassy in Yemen, could work to the advantage of McCain, who was rated as likely to be an effective commander in chief by an overwhelming 82 percent of voters, compared to a 59 percent rating for Obama.”

- which I find both fascinating but also disheartening. When I heard about the attack in Yemen, I sighed and shook my head. It’s so awful, more loss of life; and it’s more evidence that current American policy just doesn’t work. The United States is hated even more since Bush and neocons started their ‘war on terror’. They have actually helped to make the world a more dangerous, not safer, place. Terrorist attacks have increased and the Bush administration has failed to make America itself secure. Please, please, Obama and Biden: make the American people aware of this.

For one Muslim, the decision to vote for Obama this November was simple, as he writes in the Muslim Americans for Obama blog:

“You ask! Why are Muslims supporting Obama?
In short he is the BEST candidate for the job in 2008.”

Asghar writes in the same blog that Muslims simply need to be heard and he believes Obama will take the time to listen.

“Obama has, on the other hand, argued for pulling out of Iraq (Muslims want this), diplomacy (Muslims want this), and unity (everyone wants this). Obama is far better suited to understanding the complexity of our now thoroughly globalized world than most people in Washington and Muslims Want a person who can see things from their perspective. More than anything Muslims need to be understood and here's a guy that just might be able to deliver.

I think we as the Muslim American community would be foolish to squander this opportunity to make our voices heard.”

For Asian American Christine, who lives in Seattle, the feeling of being understood is why she supports Obama, as she explains in the Asian Americans Pacific Islanders for Obama blog.

“As an Asian American, I believe that Barack Obama speaks for me. I believe that he understands the problems that my family faces and I trust him to be my president.”

John Martin, a member of Republicans for Obama, writes about former U.S. President, Ronald Reagan.

“Each generation sees farther than the generation that preceded it because it stands on the shoulders of that generation. You're going to have opportunities beyond anything that we've ever known. -President Reagan commencement address, Notre Dame University, May 17, 1981

President Reagan had an undying hope in America's future. His hope was grounded in a faith in our institutions, in our traditional beliefs, and in the genius of those who created the founding documents on which our nation was built. Reagan's view was also the product of his life. From his time growing up in small town Illinois, he saw each generation work to provide for its children, and to help ensure that their children's opportunities were greater than their own.”

Martin then goes on to compare the former president to Obama and how he has inspired today’s young Americans.

“If Reagan were to give his commencement speech in 2008, he would find few believers. Today's generation knows that theirs is a nation in crisis. They know that the challenges they face are unlike those that any other generation of Americans have had to endure. They want a break from the past, and they want to begin to shape their future as they address the challenges they've inherited.
This generation has already shown what it is capable of. They've taken a relatively unknown Senator and have build a campaign unlike any other in recent memory. Today's under 40 crowd is responsible for taking our economy out of the doldrums of the early 1990's and into the 21st century, and they continue to lead the world with their innovation. While most of the nation sits at home in front of the TV, or shops at the mall, Americans as young as 18 fight our enemies on fronts throughout the world.

The risk in this election is not in handing the country over to our next generation of leaders, as some have suggested. The risk is in believing that the next generation will be unable to meet the challenges they face.”

Across the Atlantic, a UK blogger writes in the shared site The World Wants Obama, that Obama losing the election will, essentially, mean Americans having a lack of concern for the world.

“If Americans choose McCain, they will be turning their back on the rest of the world, choosing to show us four more years of the Bush-Cheney finger. And I predict a deeply unpleasant shift. Until now, anti-Americanism has been exaggerated and much misunderstood: outside a leftist hardcore, it has mostly been anti-Bushism, opposition to this specific administration. But if McCain wins in November, that might well change. Suddenly Europeans and others will conclude that their dispute is with not only one ruling clique, but Americans themselves. For it will have been the American people, not the politicians, who will have passed up a once-in-a-generation chance for a fresh start - a fresh start the world is yearning for. And the manner of that decision will matter, too. If it is deemed to have been about race - that Obama was rejected because of his colour - the world's verdict will be harsh. In that circumstance, Slate's Jacob Weisberg wrote recently, international opinion would conclude that “the United States had its day, but in the end couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race.”

Even if it's not ethnic prejudice, but some other aspect of the culture wars, that proves decisive, the point still holds. For America to make a decision as grave as this one - while the planet boils and with the US fighting two wars - on the trivial basis that a hockey mom is likable and seems down to earth, would be to convey a lack of seriousness, a fleeing from reality, that does indeed suggest a nation in, to quote Weisberg, “historical decline”. Let's not forget, McCain's campaign manager boasts that this election is “not about the issues.” Of course I know that even to mention Obama's support around the world is to hurt him. Incredibly, that large Berlin crowd damaged Obama at home, branding him the “candidate of Europe” and making him seem less of a patriotic American. But what does that say about today's America, that the world's esteem is now unwanted? If Americans reject Obama, they will be sending the clearest possible message to the rest of us - and, make no mistake, we shall hear it.”

Approximately 20,000 voted globally in the primary. The Asia Pacific (AP) Region broke strongly for Obama 72.6% - 25.6%. Globally, it was Obama 65.8% - 32.5% over Clinton in the Global Primary, conducted Feb. 1-12. Primary Results - Asia Pacific Region

All 22 countries in a BBC World Service poll would prefer Democratic nominee Barack Obama elected US president instead of his Republican rival John McCain. Obama is preferred by a four to one margin on average across the 22,000 people polled.
Australia has among the largest majorities favouring Barack Obama’s election as US president and saying America’s relations with the rest of the world would improve under an Obama presidency. Obama win preferred in world poll

We need all the help we can get to find US citizens who support Obama and register them to vote by Absentee ballot. This will be a very close election!! Every vote counts!! Please do not delay - register to vote and request your absentee ballot NOW!!

Here in Sydney Australia, enthusiastic Democrats turned out to support Obama's Bridges To Hope. And indeed, it was hard to keep them in one place for a photo. So enthusiastic, so hopeful; as we all are.

Eight years ago America was at peace, was respected in the world and had a booming economy. Now we are mired in an unnecessary and hugely expensive war, our allies have deserted us, our economy is in the toilet and our civil liberties have been stolen. John McCain voted with George Bush 90% of he time, and if elected he will continue to enact policies that destroy America. He ants to overturn Roe v Wade and take away a woman's right to control her own body. He wants to drill in Alaska for a small amount of oil, even though he knows it would make no difference whatsoever to the current fuel crisis and would destroy one of the few pristine wildernesses we have left.

McCain has said "100 years in Iraq would be fine with me." How many more American men and women in uniform have to die because of Republican arrogance and lies? Vanity Fair has estimated the Iraq war has cost $3 trillion already. How many more trillions of dollars, dollars that we could be using to help Americans pay for health care, education, clean energy, are we going to burn in Iraq?

The choice couldn't be more clear. Obama wants to protect Americans' rights, McCain wants to take them away. Obama wants to get us out of the quagmire that is Iraq and support our troops by bringing them home; McCain wants to keep them there for 100 years and throw away countless thousands of American lives on a failed war based on a lie. Obama wants to invest in clean energy, create jobs and spark economic growth to deal with the fuel crisis. McCain wants to destroy one of the few pristine wilderness areas left in America to drill for oil, which would increase oil supplies by less than 1 per cent and would not be available for use until 2017. Obama wants to lower taxes for the middle class and lower-income Americans; McCain wants to raise them.