WHY DOES ABC'S CHARLES GIBSON PUT DOWN EARLY VOTING?

I saw Charles Gibson of ABC News argue last night that early voting was a bad idea, because early voters would cast their votes without complete information.

Oh, yeah! Gibson's argument sounds to me much like the Republican line that too many Democrats are voting early and therefore the government should prohibit early voting.

This campaign has been going on for the last two years. Why Gibson would ever imagine that voters deprive themselves of essential information by voting two weeks early is beyond me.

I voted for Barach Obama and have a pretty good idea of what Obama means for the political future. Nothing John McCain could say in the last week is going to change my mind.

I want a progressive change where tax policy is built upon sensible foundations. Where the government does something about global warming. Where health care is provided for all Americans. And above all, where the war in Iraq is brought to a speedy close.

Gibson wants to restrain people like me from voting early. I sense a partisan reason behind his argument. Maybe because he knows that most of the early voters favor Obama.

STOP U.S. ATTACKS ON SYRIA AND PAKISTAN

Stop American raids into Syria and Pakistan. They do much more harm than any benefit of catching some mid-level Al Qaeda sympathizer. They kill innocent women, children and villagers. The arouse intense anti-American sentiment that will last for decades. They spur bystanders to join the insurgency with the goal of killing American soldiers and officials.

BUSH TRIES "OCTOBER SURPRISE" WITH ILLEGAL SYRIAN RAID

Dan Froomkin has a good run-down in today's The Washington Post website of newspaper reaction to the illegal Bush raid of a Syrian village. The result of the incursion was the death of eight people, including one woman and four juveniles.

A survivor on BBC World News last night said that the soldiers ransacked the tents that people were living in, and when they finished and were about to depart, they opened fire without provocation.

Froomkin writes that Bush with this illegal raid is trying to craft another October surprise:

"By approving a U.S. military raid across the Iraqi border into Syria, Bush has changed the rules once again. On Sunday about two dozen special forces soldiers entered the country by helicopter and killed a suspected Iraqi insurgent leader, without the permission or cooperation of the Syrian government. Call it an October surprise -- if not, at least so far, the October surprise."

WHY DID U.S. SOLDIERS KILL EIGHT CIVILIANS IN SYRIAN ATTACK?

I caught a fragment of BBC Radio's interview of Richard Perle, notorious supporter of Bush's unwarranted invasion of Iraq, justifying the illegal U.S. incursion into Syria which left at least eight people dead, including one woman and four children.

Perle said it was "hot pursuit." Now "hot pursuit" is the legal doctrine that allows the police to follow someone into his home or onto his property after the police saw the person committing a crime. There is no need to first obtain a warrant.

How Perle thinks it is "hot pursuit" is beyond comprehension. Whomever the U.S. was looking for, that person was not running away. So some other justification for what appears an illegal violation of the U.N. charter and international law needs to be created.

Tell me, what is the difference between some jihadist exploding a bomb in a crowded Baghdad market and U.S. special forces entering tents in this Syrian town and shooting all the inhabitants? Are they not both terroristic acts?

The Syrians claim that the U.S. engaged in murder of unarmed civilians. A surviving Syrian young woman claims that the special forces opened fire on civilians in the tents before departing in their choppers. If the lady's account is true, then the United States engages in terrorism just as much as the crazed bomber in the market.

NO MORE U.S. MISSILES INTO PAKISTANI VILLAGES

The BBC reports that a U.S. unmanned drone fired missiles into a house in South Waziristan, killing 20 people.

As I wrote several times before, this illegal U.S. incursion into Pakistan must stop.

First, it is a severe violation of human rights. Each of those 20 people deserved to live and to live in peace and without fear of being blown to bits by an American bomb.

Second. Whoever in the White House thinks that the U.S. has a right to attack an agrarian village in Pakistan has no knowledge or concept of international law. Such an attack violates Pakistan sovereignty and is an insult to all Pakistanis.

Third. A military strike like this one killing ordinary Pakistani peasants does severe damage to the fight against militant Islamism and forever destroys any Pakistani goodwill towards the U.S., at least in the surrounding Pakistan areas. Military action cannot accomplish peace or uproot "terrorism." All it can do is exacerbate ill will between Pakistani Islamists and Americans.

So again I say, ground all U.S. war planes, whether manned or unmanned. Cease firing missiles into Pakistan. Stop the killing of civilians.

U.S. VIOLATES INTERNATIONAL LAW IN ATTACK AGAINST SYRIAN FARMING VILLAGE

The U.S. has finally admitted that it carried out an attack against a Syrian village some eight kilometers into Syrian territory. For the past 24 hours Washington issued no confirmation of the incursion.

This is clearly reminiscent of Colombian president Uribe's attack against FARC insurgents in Ecuador. It has no basis in international law and is a sure fire way to start another war, if not regional, even world-wide.

Katherine Zoepf reports in today's The New York Times web site:

"Syria’s state-run media also intensified its criticism of the United States on Monday, with the government newspaper Tishrin accusing American forces of committing “a war crime,” Agence France-Presse said."

I condemn the Bush gang for approving this attack which is a clear violation of Syrian territoriality. If the U.S. had any gripes about this poor Syrian farming village, it could have pursued a diplomatic course by talking to the Syrian government. It could have done so if it chose, but instead, Bush/Cheney resorted to military force.

The result is eight people dead, including one woman and four children. Not only is this a serious breach of respect for another country's sovereignty but above all it is a violation of the eight human beings who were gunned down by American special forces.

U.S. MILITARY VIOLATES INTERNATIONAL LAW BY CROSSING INTO SYRIA FOR MILITARY RAID

The BBC reports that U.S. airborne troops and four U.S. helicopters attacked a town eight kilometers within Syria this afternoon, near the Syria-Iraq border.

Reports the BBC:

"US helicopter-borne troops have carried out a raid inside Syria along the Iraqi border, killing eight people including four children, Syrian officials say.

"The official Syrian news agency Sana said the raid took place in the Abu Kamal border area, in eastern Syria.

"It said that American soldiers on four helicopters had stormed a building under construction on Sunday night."

Once again, there are reports of civilian deaths, including children. The BBC reports:

"The dead include a man, his four children and a married couple, the Syrian report said, without giving details of the children's ages.

"The village was named as Sukkiraya, 8km (5 miles) from the Iraqi border."

Second, why is the U.S. taking this action now, just 10 days before the presidential election?

And why must the U.S. violate international law by crossing the border into Syria and conducting a military raid? This is against the provisions of the U.N. Charter and international law. It is a clear violation to do this.

Here we see signs of Bush/Cheney machiavellian interference in the coming election. Do anything, even start another war, if it would help Republicans win the election. This is my suspicion until the facts prove otherwise.

U.S. AIRSTRIKE KILLS 8 MADRASSA STUDENTS IN PAKISTAN

Another military fiasco by the U.S. in Waziristan. American drones fired two missiles into a village madrassa, killing eight students.

The BBC reports on its web site:

"The school, in North Waziristan, is close to the residence of a fugitive Taleban leader, Jalaluddin Haqqani, witnesses told the BBC Urdu Service. At least two missiles, reportedly fired by pilotless US drones, hit the school early on Thursday."

Perhaps the U.S. was aiming the missiles at the Taliban leader but that is no consolation to the families of the dead students.

This whole military set of tactics that relies on the use of manned and unmanned aircraft needs to stop. It does more harm than good, and has made ordinary Pakistani villagers into allies of the jihadists and Talibanis.

When Obama is elected, I am hoping that he will put an end to the use of American war planes in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. The dropping of bombs or the firing of missiles from aircraft is notoriously imprecise, and almost always leads to unintended and cruel civilian casualties. It is totally unacceptable.

Writes the BBC:

"Witnesses told the BBC that the missiles destroyed nearly half of the school building in the Dande Darpakhel area near Miranshah, the main town in the North Waziristan tribal region.

"At least six people were injured in the attack, witnesses say. It is still not clear whether there were any foreign fighters among the dead students or whether it is linked to Mr Haqqani or his son, Sirajuddin.

"Local people have said that most of the injured were local students at the seminary. . . "

"In recent weeks the United States has launched many missile strikes against suspected militant targets in the Afghan border region.

"Washington says the strikes are used against militant targets, but correspondents say that intelligence failures have sometimes led to civilian casualties.

"Figures compiled by the BBC Urdu service show that some 80 people have been killed in a number of suspected US missile strikes in South and North Waziristan region over the past month.

"Earlier in October a suspected pilotless American drone fired missiles in North Waziristan, killing at least six people, Pakistani intelligence officials said."

LARRY KUDLOW CALLS OBAMA SOCIALIST FOR HIS FAIR TAX POLICY, YET KUDLOW SUPPORTS NATIONALIZATION OF AMERICAN BANKS

Some thoughts on the comments of several of CNBC's commentators on the crisis with the rating agencies and with the controversy surrounding the 700 billion+ rescue of financial institutions. As to the credit agencies, many observers including myself accuse the agencies, such as Standard & Poors and Moody's, of awarding high ratings to junk bond issues not on the basis of the poor underlying credits but because of the large fees able to be generated.

Larry Kudlow on CNBC's Kudlow & Co. claims that Argentina's president, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, is a "socialist" for trying to nationalize private pensions. Has Kudlow ever looked in his mirror and saw himself for what he really is, the "great American socialist" for his support of government ownership of U.S. banks? Kudlow also calls Obama a socialist. Kudlow, the "great American patriot," as he likes to call himself, obviously does not like Obama's sensible tax policy, yet he foolishly supports a multi-billion dollar wasteful government nationalization of AIG and American banks.


As to Michelle Cabruso Cabrera, Kudlow's acolyte, she tries to blame the government for the sins of the rating agencies, claiming that the government is mainly responsible because she claims it has refused to allow new entries into the ratings business, and this lack of competition is what caused the ratings fiasco.

Hey Michelle, please cite chapter and verse to back up this far-out position that the government restricts the number of ratings entities. It turns out that S&P, Moody's, et al., prostituted their role of giving an impartial judgment on the value of credits if they could earn more money. A junk credit could be turned into a golden AAA if enough money were paid to these guys. The whole ratings industry stinks. And you try to deflect blame by saying it is the government's fault.

As to government prevention of competition, I have a test for Cabruso Cabrera. Start your own ratings agency and see how much business you can get. Not a lot I would expect. So much for your silly "the government bears responsibility for not allowing competition" argument.

BUSH PLEDGES AMERICAN AID TO SAAKASHVILI OF 1 BILLION, EU KICKS IN ANOTHER 3 BILLION

The U.S. and the European Union have decided to pledge some 4.5 billion dollars to Georgia for aid in rebuilding the infrastructure destroyed in its foolish war with Russia this past August.

So it seems that if a former Soviet-bloc country starts a war with Russia and then gets trounced, it can rest assure that the Western World will bail it out and extend it aid. This seems a dangerous precedent and a moral hazard.

Furthermore, even though he ordered the war and the shelling of Russian civilians in South Ossetia, Georgian president Saakashvili receives praise from world leaders like Bush who have used him as a front man against Putin, Medvedev and Russia. Saakashvili has it made. Of the 4.5 billion in aid, how much do you think his cut will be?

Forget about Saakasvili's crackdown on Georgian newspapers and dissidents who wanted more freedom of the press and more democratic protections of civil rights. The world does not give a care about these things or lack of civil protections in Georgia, only that Saakashvili has provoked the great Russian bear.

One last point. How come there is no pledging of aid for the civilians in South Ossetia who were on the receiving end of Georgia's unprovoked shelling and lethal missiles?