Organizing for America | Nick Kimball's Blog: Obama for Commander in Chief Tour

Obama for Commander in Chief Tour

By Nick Kimball - Jul 16th, 2007 at 12:23 pm EDT

Comments | Mail to a Friend | Report Objectionable Content

Tags: Iowa, Iraq, military

***Update 8:10 pm***

Here in Des Moines, General Gration got a little more introspective in how he developed his support for Senator Obama.

When talking about his trip to Africa with Senator Obama, he went into more detail about their stop in South Africa. They went to Robben Island, where Nelson Mandela was imprisoned. As they stared out through the prison walls, General Gration was reminded of an anecdote his father taught him years ago:

“Two men looked out prison bars. One saw mud, the other saw stars.”

And that’s the optimism General Gration sees in Senator Obama. Despite all the negativity we see in the world, Senator Obama has a hopeful vision for the future. While he understands the reality of where we are, he knows where we need to go.

“Senator Obama wants to do something, he wants to bring our country to the future and give our children and grandchildren the country they deserve.”

And that’s why I, and a host of other general officers, and flag officers, who believe that Senator Obama is, among all the candidates, best qualified to be our next commander in chief.”

***Update 7:25 pm***

Well, we finished our long drive to Des Moines. And, after a little downtime, General Gration is ready for the last event of the evening – a BBQ in Des Moines!

That's Aaron, one of our local field organizers, on the grill. Nice work, Aaron!

We’re on a beautiful patio at the home of Ken Sovern. The general, B.J. and the guests are mingling during a little social hour. We should get started soon.

***Update 2:15 pm***

We’ve arrived at the Red Oak Fire Department and a group of about 40 local folks who are here to meet and listen to General Gration. One of our local organizers, Rory, introduced General Gration. Rory is a marine vet and is working in southwestern Iowa for Senator Obama.

General Gration has the audience capitvated. He’s talking about the trip to Africa he took with Barack and how it helped him gain an understanding for Barack’s core values.

“We’ve got to be able to match our policy with our heart. We need to use our influence to be partners for a better world. And that’s what Barack Obama believes.”

The general is now echoing a testament that Barack often talks about. The problems they saw in Africa are not just African problems. The fact that so many Africans – many of them women – suffer from HIV/AIDS is an American problem.

“Barack understands the full scope of our state power. He understands that our military is mighty, but it should only be used as a last resort. The decision to put our young men and women into harm’s way is the most important decision the Commander in Chief makes. It’s been awhile since we’ve had someone with the proper judgment to make that decision the right way. Senator Obama has it. He has both the judgment and the wisdom that gives me full confidence that he will make that decision the right way.”

Another veteran who is making the trip with us is B.J. Jackson. B.J. is an Iowan who was deployed to Iraq as one of the many National Guard soldiers who have served in Iraq.

He was at a Baghdad market buying supplies for his camp one afternoon when his vehicle ran over a land mine. He woke up in San Antonio several weeks later, with both legs amputated and his vocal cords severely damaged.

He is now dedicated to working with other injured veterans who are coming back and helping them get through the similar issues that he faced.

B.J. is moved by Barack’s dedication to caring for our veterans when they return from service. Senator Obama understands that our country makes a promise to our service members when they sign up – we will care for them when they leave the service.

B.J. has a very unassuming – yet confident – way about him. It’s the kind of attitude, demeanor and character that makes me so proud and comfortable that people like him are defending our country.

***11:20 am***

This week, I am traveling with General Scott Gration, a recently retired Air Force fighter pilot who commanded the operations overseeing the no-fly zones in Iraq, on a 13-stop Obama for Commander in Chief Tour across Iowa. We started off in LeMars this morning, where General Gration met with about 30 early risers at the American Legion.

General Gration has flown more combat missions over the Iraq no-fly zones than any other American. It is truly an honor to be traveling with such an esteemed military leader.

After spending 15 days with Barack in Africa last year, and getting to know him since then, General Gration has gained a deep understanding of the qualities that Senator Obama brings to the table as a leader. General Gration speaks of Barack’s “vision for the future, his clear understanding of the past and leadership that is unmatched by anyone.”

I’m trying to get General Gration to write a few thoughts for the blog later today. And I plan to update the blog from the road throughout our tour so be sure to check back this week as Iowans learn more about why Senator Obama makes the best next Commander in Chief.

Reader Comments	Comments RSS
Comments are closed for this post.

Thanks for Supporting Barack! | Report to Admin

By SFT Jul 16th 2007 at 4:18 pm EDT

General Gration & B.J. Jackson are wonderful messengers for Senator Obama. It is extraordinary that they are willing to share their enthusiasm an insight in Iowa. Thanks so much!

Re: Thanks for Supporting Barack! | Report to Admin

By Carol-STL-MO Jul 18th 2007 at 9:46 am EDT

General Gration & Mr. Jackson,

Thank You & God Bless

Thank you very much | Report to Admin

By wheelbarrow Jul 16th 2007 at 7:51 pm EDT

We are following our vets and heroes as they campaign for Barack. Keep us posted.

Expanding the Tour | Report to Admin

By ychelleh Jul 16th 2007 at 11:44 pm EDT

It would be wonderful if General Gration and the organizers of "Obama for Commander in Chief Tour" would expand the tour to other states. Please contact other veterans in other states to help in this endeavor.

IRAQ WAR Background who is fighting + why = how Barack Can bring Peace | Report to Admin

By Danielle Clarke USA Vietnam Vet Jul 18th 2007 at 12:46 pm EDT

I would love to hear the general reply to the following. I think he could fill in this country about the history of this group bilderberg that has craeted havoc around the world for many many years.

do a wiki on bilderberg

IRAQ WAR Background who is fighting + why = how Barack Can bring Peace

Brief:

1st you get who is attacking us.

2nd you get proof to who is attacking us.

3rd you get the reason why we have them attacking us.

4th you will see who started this whole chain that lead them to want to attack us.

5th you get to know that only a man like Barack Obama can be the one to stop them from attacking us.

6th you get Baracks understand of the world and the past 100 years.

LONG POST
Brief:
This war was planned many many years ago. Why do you think the saudi's are so many of the insurgents! Read this and understand the bilderberg world domination factor.

1st:
Here you can see how most are saudis attacking us in iraq:

2nd:
However, interrogations of nearly 300 Saudis captured while trying to sneak into Iraq and case studies of more than three dozen others who blew themselves up in suicide attacks show that most were heeding the calls from clerics and activists to drive infidels out of Arab land, according to a study by Saudi investigator Nawaf Obaid, a US-trained analyst who was commissioned by the Saudi government and given access to Saudi officials and intelligence =

Link

"50% of all Saudi fighters in Iraq come here as suicide bombers"
metafilter.com Found 11 hours ago
The "same people who attacked us on 9/11"? It may be the very latest talking point from the Administration , but it's actually true--altho it's not Al Qaeda in Iraq, but Saudis. Although Bush administration officials have frequently lashed out at Syria and Iran, accusing it of helping insurgents and militias here, the largest number of foreign fighters and suicide bombers in Iraq come from a third neighbor, Saudi Arabia .

Link

3rd:
make sure you read the whole article from someone living there and who knows the truth and the feelings of the people of saudi arabia

Full spectrum dominance.(America's Oil Wars)( Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order)(Book Review)
From: Arab Studies Quarterly (ASQ) | Date: 6/22/2005 | Author: Bevan, Brock L.

Stephen C. Pelletiere. America's Oil Wars.

William Engdahl. A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, (Ann Arbor: Pluto Press, [1992] 2004). 312 pp.

IRAQ, ON THE SECOND ANNIVERSARY (March 2005) of the United States led invasion and subsequent occupation, endures perpetual violence and a lack of normalization of life. Though the United States argued that Iraq had possessed so-called "weapons of mass-destruction" and had colluded with "terrorists" in the run-up to the invasion (that was neither declared a war by the United States Congress nor sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council), both allegations have proven to be false. (1) Pretenses for the invasion have shifted in the wake of the original casus belli deteriorating: the real reason for the invasion -ex posto facto- was to bring enlightenment in the form of "democracy" to the Iraqi people (and the Arab world) through preemptive war. (2)

Stephen C. Pelletiere, former senior political analyst at the CIA on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and professor of National Security Affairs at the United States Army War College from 1998 to 2000, argues that the ultimate occupation of Iraq from 2003 up to the present was a result of Saddam Hussein's attempt in the late 1980s and early 1990s to solidify the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). For Pelletiere "... the individual who was able to marshal the resources of so great (and powerful) an institution, and keep its members in line, would have been someone with whom to reckon." (3)

The peculiar instability that was prevalent in the Persian Gulf region prior to 1988-1989 allowed the United States to execute its version of a global racket. It involved allowing instability to flourish in order to create a reason for the autocrats in the Persian Gulf to exchange their "petro-dollars" for United States-made armaments. That these armaments were often of no use to the states buying them made no difference. Pelletiere contends that the "historic juncture" that occurred in the late 1980s "imperiled America's position in the Gulf." The concurrence of events that was the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the Iraqi defeat of Iran in their near decade-long war, and the consolidation of OPEC with high-absorber states in control of policy posed a challenge to the hegemony of the United States in the region and (as a result of the geopolitical significance of petroleum) in the world.

Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, challenged the hegemony that the United States exercised in the region by invading Kuwait in 1990. The problem for the United States was manifold, starting with the threat that a strong Iraq would pose to the Washington's allies in the region; continuing onto the elevated position of power Baghdad would sustain with Kuwait integrated into the state; and ending with the additional prestige Iraq would have over petroleum resources on a global level. Iraq, once cornered by the shenanigans of the George H. W. Bush administration, attempted to accommodate Washington's dictates while saving face, but to no avail. (4) Iraq's mistake turned out to be the perfect opportunity to enact a modified version of plans developed under former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger in the 1970s to seize oilfields in the Persian Gulf from weak sheikdoms such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. (5)

As a result of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the United States justified a military ground presence in Saudi Arabia. According to the story pushed by Washington, iraq posed a threat to the integrity of the Saudi Arabian kingdom, or at least the continued dynastic power of the al-Saud family. Thus, the al-Saud family gained "protection" from the United States but paid for it in terms of the cost of the war against Iraq in 1990-1991 as well as in terms of lost legitimacy. As Pelletiere says "... the decision to stay on [after the conclusion of the conflict in 1991] infuriated some elements of Saudi society, and instances of sabotage against the Americans began to proliferate." (6)

Whereas Pelletiere roots his analysis on the specificity of Iraq and its particular history in terms of leadership under Saddam Hussein, William Engdahl emphasizes the global dimension to the conflict. Engdahl is trained as an economist and writes for various financial publications on issues of energy, politics, and economics. In his A Century of War: Anglo-American Politics and the New Worm Order, the reader is exposed to the long history of petroleum and how the change from coal as the major fuel altered the world. (7) Engdahl states "War in Iraq was about the very basis of America's 'national security,' of future American power. America's role as the sole hegemon was the unspoken reason for the war ..." (8) In making that statement Engdahl highlights the international monetary system that has been in place since the end of Second World War.

Unlike other countries that are constricted by issues such as balance of payments and debt, the United States developed a system whereby it issues a fiat currency that the rest of the world must use. At the end of the Second World War, America's unique position made sense in that it held the majority of global gold reserves and had an economy not shattered by war like in the United Kingdom, France, or Germany. Moreover, the United States dollar, at the time, was still exchangeable for gold. All this would change on 15 August 1971 when the United States "... announced formal suspension of dollar convertibility into gold, effectively putting the world fully onto a dollar standard with no gold backing, thereby ripping apart the central provision of the 1944 Bretton Woods system." (9)

Engdahl notes that "The American Century, stripped of the rhetoric of freedom, peace, and democracy, was based on clear US hegemony among nations." (10) He continues:

It rested on two pillars. The one pillar was the
uncontested role of US military power, a dominance which
no combination of powers had been able to challenge since the
end of the Second World War in 1945. The Soviet Union
ultimately collapsed amid ruin in the effort to challenge that
hegemony ... The second pillar of American power was the
uncontested role of the dollar as world reserve currency. (11)

After gold no longer backed the dollar as a result of Nixon's action in 1971, another marker was to take its place: black gold. Thereafter, the denomination of petroleum sales in the international market place was to be exclusively in the dollar. The fact that the United States had a never-ending supply of greenbacks whereas every other country had to obtain dollars in order to purchase the petroleum required for economic growth put Washington in an extremely powerful position. (12) Engdahl refers to this series of events as the replacement of the gold standard with the "petrodollar standard."

Both Pelletiere and Engdahl see different cliques operating behind the scenes of nominal political channels in order to ensure their particular goals. Engdahl cites New York and London financial circles as well as the Seven Sisters (the major international petroleum companies) as designing American policy. Pelletiere often mentions the "complex," meaning the military-industrial complex that former President Dwight Eisenhower so famously warned about while allowing it to grow. The difference in the two lies in the breadth of analysis. Engdahl paints a larger, more in-depth, picture of United States action globally.

Pelletiere uses smaller brush-strokes and localizes the conflict to the Persian Gulf. They both agree on the nature of the United States occupation of Iraq as being imperialist. Again, the notion of American occupation of the Persian Gulf in order to exercise direct control over petroleum resources and indirect influence over the region was aired in 1970s. Engdahl notes that "In 1975, [James] Akins related, plans to find a pretext to send U.S. troops to occupy vital Mideastern oilfields had been encouraged by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger." (13)

The George W. Bush administration exploited the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in 2001 in order to further United States interests that predated the end of the Cold War. As Engdahl states, "[t]error was to replace communism as the new global image of 'the enemy.' (14) The new terrorists could be anywhere and everywhere. Above all, as the was defined in Washington, they were mostly to be found in the Islamic regions which also happened to control most of the world's oil reserves." (15) Pelletiere focuses on the fact that the United States needed to relocate from its Saudi bases and:

Rather than seeking to resolve this situation peacefully, the
[George W.] Bush administration (egged on by the neo-cons)
tried to force the issue by exploiting the horrific attacks on
[the] Twin Towers and the Pentagon. (16)

Pelletiere continues by stating that any United States base(s) in Iraq that persist will be under "continual seige." But, he thinks that this state of continual siege will be a benefit to the military-industrial complex as it will allow for justification for "continued subsidization at higher and higher levels" and "will practically ensure underfunding of social programs in the United States."

Engdahl suggests a greater plot. Stating that the era of "cheap oil" was coming to an end, Engdahl argues that:

... the looming depletion of a major share of world oil and gas,
due to take effect around the end of the first decade of the
century, sometime around 2010 or 2015, perhaps even sooner,
would explain the drive to unilateral military action in Iraq by
the Bush administration, despite the enormous risks. (17)

By controlling Iraq, the United States would have a firm grip on the heart of the remaining "cheap oil" sources. Iraq--having been kept in a state of siege for the last 25 years--was ripe for development into the next Saudi Arabia. In a sense, Washington's support for the Iraq-Iran war, its active participation in the First Gulf War, and its active participation in the siege of Iraq from 1991 to 2003 were all indicative of the will to keep Iraq as primarily an exporter of petroleum and not a user of it. (18) With Iraq as a base of future operations, America projected its military might and showed its ability to control the financial resources of the world by using its fiat currency to sustain astronomical debts incurred from its massive spending on armaments. Engdahl states the United States "now commanded a near monopoly of future energy resources. The Pentagon had a term for it [control of the world reserve currency, military hegemony, and direct control of resources]--'full spectrum dominance.' It meant that the United States should control military, economic and political developments, everywhere."(19)

Pelletiere and Engdahl, challengers of the White House espoused reasons for war in Iraq, offer their readers insights into the operation of American imperial designs. Pelletiere concentrates his analysis on Iraq and its history. Engdahl provides a global approach to the vagaries of United States intervention in the Persian Gulf. They both agree that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was engineered and without any legitimate casus belli. Engdahl's detailed exposition on how the control of Iraqi oil--and derivative influence over the Persian Gulf region--produces United States power over economic competitors that are energy-dependent (e.g., China, Japan, Germany, and France) and reinforces the role of the dollar present a solid explanation of Washington's action. (20)

ENDNOTES

(1.) David Kay, transcript of Newshour with Jim Lehrer, 29 January 2004, . Kay states that his team launched to find Iraq's supposed "weapons of mass destruction" by the Bush administration found "program activities" related to missile development and atomic weaponization yet "the large stockpile of actual weapons, chemical and biological weapons simply have not yet been found." Regarding a "terrorist" connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda, no link has ever been proven. Pelletiere suggests that the attacks on the Twin Towers in 2001 were a result of the presence of United States troops in Saudi Arabia. He notes that "[t]o this day, Americans do not know what went on with those attacks [on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon], and there is every reason to believe that this is the case with their leaders as well." P. 135.

(2.) The term "preemptive" has seen much usage in order to describe the United States invasion of Iraq. However, Iraq posed little threat to its neighbors let alone the United States as it had neither the weapons to inflict damage on the United States nor the capacity to deliver the weapons. Thus, preemptive should be read as unilateral and without provocation from Baghdad.

(3.) Stephen C. Pelletiere, America's Oil Wars'. (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004), p. ix. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) was created during a conference in Baghdad that took place from 10-14 September 1960. The original members of the cartel included Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela.

(4.) Ibid., p. 105. "Once the United States had determined to oppose the invasion [of Kuwait], it seems to have resolved on making war, with the result that all of the Iraqis' maneuvers to initiate negotiations went unheeded."

(5.) Glenn Frankel, "U.S. Mulled Seizing Oil Fields in '73: British Memo Cites Notion of Sending Airborne to Mideast," The Washington Post, 1 January 2004, page A01.

(6.) Pelletiere, p. 150. The unrest caused by the United States basing troops in Saudi Arabia was a two-way street. It disturbed the sensibilities of Saudis keen on protecting Mecca and Medina from infidels and this anger was channeled against the monarchy as well as against Americans.

(7.) William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order (Ann Arbor: Pluto Press, 2004).

(8.) Ibid., p. ix.

(9.) Ibid., p. 128. The United States was forced to decouple the dollar from the gold standard due to the low value set on the price of gold, $35 per fine ounce. For more on the Bretton Woods system, see Michael Hudson's Super Imperialism : The Origin and Fundamentals of U.S. Worm Dominance (Sterling, VA: Pluto Press, 2003).

(10.) Ibid., p. x.

(11.) Ibid.

(12.) Ibid., p. 154. Engdahl calls OPEC's decision in 1975 to accept only dollars for petroleum "curious" since the agreement remained in force "despite enormous losses to OPEC as the dollar gyrated up and down through the next decade and more."

(13.) Ibid., p. 218-219. James Akins was a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia.

(14). Ironically, the United States funded jihadi groups in the successful effort to keep the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan in the 1980s.

(15.) Ibid., p. 252.

(16.) Pelletiere, p. 150.

(17.) Engdahl, p. 262.

(18.) Ibid., pp. 268-269. Engdahl argues that the oil shock in 1973 was rigged at Saltsjobaden, Sweden during at meeting of the Bilderberg group. The jump in oil prices had the result of creating a huge pool of so-called 'petrodollars' that could not be invested in the countries that accrued them. Thus, they were invested in Europe and the United States instead of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Besides strengthening the dollar in the wake of the decoupling from the gold standard, the price shock had the effect of placing developing countries in a perpetual debt cycle since their raw materials did not rise in price as the cost of dollar-denominated petroleum did. See pp. 130-141.

(19.) Ibid., p. 269.

(20.) At the end of 2000, Iraq began to price its petroleum in Euros. See Charles Recknagel, "Iraq: Baghdad Moves to the Euro," Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 1 November 2000, < Link. Although not devastating to Washington at the time, was a highly symbolic move on Iraq's part. Switching to dominated petroleum sales in Euros was an attack on the United States dollar as world reserve currency and as the United States as hegemon.

Brock L. Bevan holds a master's degree in Middle Eastern studies from the American University of Beirut. Formerly, he was grants administrator at the Washington, DC-based Jerusalem Fund.

4th:
You can see how the group BILDERBERG has run all the american elections ever since.

MY BLOG: = "Its long but true"

"When we change presidents, it is understood to mean that the voters are ordering a change in national policy. Since 1945, three different Republicans have occupied the White House for 16 years, and four democrats have held this most powerful post for 17 years. With the exception of the first seven years of the Eisenhower administration, there has been no appreciable change in foreign or domestic policy. There has been a great turnover in personnel, but no change in policy. Example: during the Nixon years, Henry Kissinger, a council member and Nelson Rockefeller protégé, was in charge of foreign policy. When Jimmy Carter was elected, Kissinger was replaced by Zbigniew Brzezinski, a council member and David Rockefeller protégé.

BILDERBERG CANIDATES

Link

5th:
I know It is a little long but it gives you the full insight to why we went to war and how Barack has this knowledge and will use it to broker that peace with a group of people who have been used and abused by many around the world. Only Barack Obama has the ability to broker that peace. They would never trust the good old white boy network that has run roughshod over them for the last hundred years.

6th
Baracks understanding of the big picture

Link

Content on blogs in My.BarackObama represents the opinions of community members and in no way should be interpreted as endorsed or approved by the campaign.