This was in turn followed by a threat of resignation by the Chief of the IAEA in case Iran were attacked because "I don't believe that what I see in Iran today is a current, grave and urgent danger. If a military strike is carried out against Iran at this time … it would make me unable to continue my work,". Al Baradei also warned that any such an attack on Iran would turn the region into a ‘fireball’.

The picture is quite confusing, and in the absence of real transparency from any side, one is left with pure speculation. So what ‘facts’ can we decipher from the situation?

The new package of incentives:

A quick search through various news sources reveals that the package is comprehensive and far reaching.

Nuclear energy:

The package apparently does not require a halt to enrichment, but a freeze at the current levels for 6 weeks. In other words, Iran is being asked not to expand its capacity beyond current levels of enrichment until a full suspension is agreed in direct return for concrete incentives such as agreement on building a light water reactor based on state-of-the-art technology as well as legally binding guarantees for nuclear fuel supplies. Support is also offered for research and development in nuclear energy "as international confidence is gradually restored" and help in managing its spent fuel and radioactive waste. This actually means that Iran can continue with enrichment once ‘confidence’ is restored. Despite the senseless insistence on 'full suspension' these constitute a far-reaching concession by the Iran-6.

Political concessions:

This is the most surprising of the lot. The package offers support for Iran in playing an important and constructive role in international affairs. It would meet Iranian demands for cooperation "on non-proliferation, regional security and stabilization issues" as well as a conference on Middle East security issues. It says that a solution to Iran's nuclear issue would contribute to "realizing the objective of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction, including their means of delivery," This is a clear reference to dealing with Israel’s nuclear arsenal.

Trade:

The package also calls for moves toward normalizing Iran's trade and economic ties with the rest of the world by helping integrateTehran into "international structures, including the World Trade Organization." It also proposed the possible removal of restrictions on manufacturers exporting aircraft to Iran.

Agriculture:

It calls for helping Iran become fully self-sufficient in food through cooperation in modern technology and proposed civilian projects in environmental protection, infrastructure, science and technology.

The package also calls for helping Iranians take courses in areas like civil engineering, agriculture and environmental studies, and would also help Iran develop capacities to respond to disasters like earthquakes and other emergencies.

Iran’s own offer of unconditional talks

A few weeks before the new offer was presented, Iran presented its own package to the Iran-6 and the UN. The key element of this package was a regional consortium for uranium enrichment to be built in Iran in collaboration with international agencies and interested parties. This would be staffed by international experts and constantly monitored by them and the IAEA.

Iran’s package also took a comprehensive approach to regional security and foresaw a key role for Iran in future regional negotiations.

So what is the problem?

The problem has been that negotiations with the US and the Europeans have usually ended in a u-turn by the US as soon as the parties got close to agreement.

The last time Iran suspended its enrichment activities, the EU and the US reneged on their commitments in 2005. The US insisted on a permanent suspension of enrichment, and Iran withdrew its cooperation after a 2-year suspension period.

In early 2005, officials from the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency studied the idea of placing an enrichment facility inside Iran, but the US blocked the idea.

In the same year, a proposal by scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to end the standoff over Iran's nuclear program was also rejected by the Bush administration. The proposal argued for a dramatic shift in U.S.policy to help build an internationally run enrichment facility inside Iran to replace its current facilities rather than trying to halt Iran's efforts to enrich uranium.

So while the Iran-6 make much noise about a ‘lack of confidence’, the problem is actually as much the other way.

Speculation

At the same time as the Iran-6 have made some big concessions, in front of the cameras we have Bush and Brown threatening more sanctions and the Israelis threatening war. What could explain this schizophrenia?

One possibility is that this is a tactic to undermine the process once again. They could be trying to provoke Iran into confrontation. This does not really make sense because neither the UK nor the US is in a position to engage in conflict. Israel on the other hand is being heavily sidelined by this potential agreement. Could this also be the reason for Israel’s frantic peace-making with Hamas, Syria and perhaps also Hezbollah at this juncture?

Another likelihood is that they are trying to save face after years of confrontation when Iran is on the verge of being invited back into the fold. Whatever the outcome, Iran cannot be allowed to look like the winner in this. Rather, Iran should look like it capitulated while in fact the Project for the New American Century is in full retreat.

Some relevant IAEA Reports for those interested:

Report of June 2008

Report of November 2007

Report of September 2007

Report of November 2006

Report of November 2005

Recommendation: Best to start with the earliest reports first in order to get a better picture of the chronology of events. A number of the issues were fully dealt with in earlier reports and are not mentioned in the later ones (e.g. traces of weapons grade plutonium found on equipment imported from Pakistan) because the IAEA was satisfied with Iran’s responses to these questions.

Niloufar Parsi is an Iranian-born graduate of Manchester University in the field of Development Studies. She has spent most of her professional life working with various development agencies globally, and is a keen political commentator under her chosen pseudonym.

We already have a lot of legislation charitably called Campaign Finance Reform designed to regulate the flow of money to political campaigns and not a lick of it makes a difference. Stuff like the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 and the like don't do all of what they need to do. Also they often raise serious constitutional questions about free speech.

While I like the so called Clean Money, Clean Elections approach it really doesn't do the job unless everyone follows it, and you know as well as I do we have a better chance of hand tossing a man to planet Mercury than getting our mess of politicians to play fair.

The reasons for this reluctance are simple, as I've said on my blog:

1. Taking corporate money lets politicians avoid thinking about or understanding issues 
2. It also insulates them from dealing with ordinary people.

Now I see the point that money is speech to a degree. After all, it does give you the ability to get your message across. But more importantly money is power, the ability to buy what you want. This is a basic Prosper rule of money, everyone expects something for their buck (Euro, Yen, Yaun, whatever).

If you give money to a beggar your expect to see him or her be happier or at least suffer less - thats your return and what you are buying. Buy a sandwich you expect a sandwich. Buy (I mean contribute money to) important people, expect them to do what you want.

Now why it's legal and moral for you to indirectly buy - through "campaign contributions"- a member of the executive or legislative branch while I can't do the same with the judicial branch is beyond me. Really, it should not be legal to “pay off“ any of these groups. It's all toxic to the Republic.

Unfortunately the courts seem to think "peaceable redress of grievances" means "accepting indirect payoffs" and there is not much we can do about that.

So long as any private money is in use, people can buy influence, and it means our Constitutional Republic is converted to a Plutocracy. For a recent example see the FISA sellout. Its a simple formula, TelCo “contributions” = FISA immunity. Simple elementary school math.

So what do we do? Well the answer is somewhat counter intuitive

Drop the limits of funding from any source. As long as it's reported, you can take money from any American concern in any amount you like

At the opening of the campaign offer federal funds to five candidates for each seat, from 5 different parties. Once the primaries are done, do the same for the general election. Any party that ops in many not opt out under penalty of jail time. (Yes jail, fines don't work. 3-5 years should deter.)

Here is where it gets tricky. We give the those who opted in either a fixed sum or 110% of what the highest opted out party raises, if any party chooses not to participate. Yes, I said 110%. That's more than what is raised. This trick sidesteps the messy Constitutional issues of free speech while harnessing the power of the tragedy of the commons and a little game theory to to make it a no win situation to fundraise. Now candidates have no incentive to fundraise and we have 5 choices per seat without any Constitutional concerns.

I figure once we remove the money we remove much of the taint, and as an added bonus, with all the competition, politicians will have to compete on the quality of ideas.

And thats a big part of what's lacking folks, good ideas.

Adam Benjamin Prosper was born in Colorado and now lives in Southern California. He is a blue collar guy, freelancer writer and occasional trouble maker. A. B. believes in honor, freedom, truth, justice, the environment and all that jazz. Most importantly, he believes in us the American People and our limitless capacity to make America great if we try. He blogs at http://www.abprosper.com

The outcry in Brazil following the torture of three O Dia journalists by Brazilian paramilitaries has brought about the creation of a congressional investigation of the milicias and, specifically, of those responsible for the crimes in the Batan Favela. Next week the commission will release a telephone number to the Brazilian public. Although the commission is guaranteeing anonymity, the information will most likely come in trickles and not a flood; many favela residents are already paying off paramilitaries for everyday services, including land-line telephones.

These congressional investigations are called Parliamentary Commissions of Inquiry (CPI in Brazil), and have been effective in the past. This is due to the power of the senate to move quickly and to access a broad swath of information–bank accounts, telephone records, personal information, etc. For more information on the CPI, here is a favorable article the NY Times published:

The investigation of the militias will not be an open-ended affair that fades into the background as more current events steal the spotlight. There is a set, 90-day period for the investigation, with the option to extend it for two more months if necessary. At the end of the first 90 days, the public will demand justice for those paramilitaries that committed the crime as well as a plan to deal with the militias in general, so the CPI knows it has to act quickly.

The graphic below,put out by the Brazilian daily O Dia, shows the different actors; in the middle is the local command responsible for enforcement and recruitment; above are the politicians that give them a positive image in exchange for votes; to the right are the sympathizers and neighbors who act as lookouts; below is the recruited help–retired firefighers and policemen that help with the war on the ground; and to the left are the current civil police (PM or policia militar in Brazil) who fight the drug dealers for control and territory.

** Jeremy Tanner is a freelance journalist and an M.A. candidate in New York University's Global and Joint Studies program, currently doing a FLAS fellowship in Brazil. His distractions from writing about Latin America include surfing, traveling, learning new languages, eating foods he shouldn't, and dancing an erratic salsa.

The journalists—two men and one woman–were working undercover in Rio De Janeiro's Batan favela to expose the brutality of Brazil's paramilitaries, or milícias, when they were taken hostage by milícia members and tortured for seven hours.  According to O Dia, they were taken from a house that they had rented in the favela and were punched, electrocuted, and subjected to several rounds of Russian roulette and fake executions. 

The torture has infuriated citizens already angry over the Brazilian state's inability to clearly separate its criminals from its police officers.  A Copacabana resident who gave only her first name, Patricia, said, “I almost trust the dealers more than the police, once the police came while I was being robbed–I was so angry at the thief I slapped him, and the police went crazy and threw me to the ground and let him go."

The postcard scene of Ipanema beach is now also a site of information-gathering as citizen groups try to identify the perpetrators of the torture.  Hundreds of pamphlets are being passed out requesting anonymous tips from anyone who knows something about what happened on May 14. 

According to Amnesty International, the milícias are made up of off-duty police officers and firemen who have become notorious for their Elite Troop-esque renegade tactics used to combat crime within the favelas.  Batan, once controlled by the drug gangs, is one of the favelas now under the authority of the milícia.  Amnesty International has compiled testimonies from favela residents describing milícia extortion of payments for gas, electricity, transport, safety, cable TV; as well as for the forceful guarantee of votes to politicians and extra-judicial executions.

While the violent combat of drug traffickers is endemic to Rio's slums and is often supported by some of Brazil's hard line politicians, the torture of journalists cannot be justified.  The Minister of Justice Tarso Genro declared that it is just as important to fight the paramilitaries as it is to fight the drug dealers.

Brazil's Vice President José Alencar condemned the torture to O Dia, saying, “We are entering into a new period.  Brazilians need to become accustomed to being the children of a rich country, things of this nature cannot be happening.  That was something that happens in a third world country.  Brazil is a first world country and we cannot allow these things to happen.”

**Jeremy Tanner is a freelance journalist and an M.A. candidate in New York University's Global and Joint Studies program, currently doing a FLAS Fellowship in Brazil. His distractions from writing about Latin America include surfing, traveling, learning new languages, eating foods he shouldn't, and dancing an erratic salsa.

George shifted the weight of the heavy pack to his hip so he could sit down and pull his boots off. His shoulders ached, and he was not used to carrying the gun. He was almost used to seeing its blackness, but he was not accustomed to knowing he was carrying a weapon. With a grunt, George stretched his fingers forward and bent them to his heels. The boots came off with a sweaty squeak. Sand fell out.

He was more than used to seeing sand. The sun was very bright, and now that he was inside, his uniform, made of beige and gray sections that looked like machine-cut puzzle pieces, looked dark. George traced the patterns in his memory. He knew some of them by heart now. The spot on his back where the beige pieces looked like fingers, and the gray island halfway between his left elbow and shoulder. There was a large L, if you looked at it right and concentrated, near his heart. His daughter's names were written on the inside of his helmet.

It had been hard to explain things to Laura. It hurt him. He did not know where to begin. She thought he was losing his mind, and she cried. He cried also, wandering from room to room with his hands folded behind his back, rocking from side to side as the men in sunglasses and black suits watched him in confusion.

At first he was sure no one would believe him. But he turned on the charm and the conviction - it was not so easy as before, in so many of his speeches, because this time he meant what he was saying - and they came around. They understood.

Donny took it well, he seemed almost relieved. He'd served before. Dick cursed God and cursed him, said George would get him killed for no good reason, or out of guilt. But George wouldn't change his mind, and he didn't feel too bad about upsetting Dick. At long last he won Condi's respect, and Colin actually volunteered to go. He didn't want Colin to go, but he couldn't say no either. Both options seemed unfair.

He prayed and prayed for days, at every free moment. He wasn't sure what to do or what to ask for, he just prayed and slowly a conclusion grew in his mind and he knew what he needed to do. That was when he told them. He prayed even more after that, until his shins ached and he couldn't concentrate on his business.

One day, after all the weeks, he was sure it was going to happen. He had one last day to reconsider, and if he prayed again tomorrow it would all happen and be done. He wandered the long hallways all day, not because he was undecided, but because he wanted to appreciate the life he was leaving. It had become a burden. Now that he was preparing to leave it forever, he remembered what a blessing it had seemed on the first day, in the rain, when he took the oath from the shivering judge with the paper-white hands.

Panels of bulletproof glass screened him from strangers that day. They would not protect him anymore. He got up and prayed in the morning, his knees sinking into the red carpet. Laura was asleep now. Then at once, he did not feel the carpet anymore and he knew he was kneeling on concrete. He concluded his prayer and looked around, his pupils contracting in the bright light. They were all there.

They had proved so brave. Dick kept cursing him for a few days, but he was brave too. George had always known they had it in them. He was so proud. There were many meetings where they fought over nothing, bickered and shot nasty glances and barked at each other while leaning forward from soft chairs and straining their tailored suits. This, now, was right.

His mind was always busy with positions and charts and strategies, ideas and orders and dictates stumbling over each other like a pack of dogs. When he had a spare moment, he wondered who was President now, and Vice President and so on. It didn't seem important.

Especially now. Everyone else was dead, and he had suspected he would be the last to die. Donny was the first to go. He was guarding a line full of new police recruits, and a man drove a pickup truck full of C4 into the line. It was a chilly Wednesday morning when that happened, and the rest of the group stood around George as he placed Donny's charred helmet on a pike, because there was nothing else to left use for a memorial.

He didn't know for sure what had happened to Condi and Colin. They were killed within days of each other in Fallujah. He wished he had been there.

But George was there when Dick died. He'd been shot twice in the back on a dusty side road a few miles outside the Green Zone. He fell hard on his side and the blood rushed out. George ran to him. He shouldn't have done that, he knew, but he was sure God wanted him to live so he could learn something. The sniper disappeared and didn't fire again.

George pulled Dick into his arms and looked down at him. Suddenly he looked very young, as if the years were being washed from his face. George cried. Dick was in pain and the field medics knew it was hopeless from the start. But this new Dick, with the years stripped off him like brittle bark from a tree, looked up at George. He tried to smile, and then he said "Thank you" and reached for George's face before he died. His arm wilted and George knew he was the last one.

That was two days ago, or maybe three. It was hard to tell and didn't make much difference. He was going to die today. George had very little opinion on the subject. The truth of his death was omnipresent and therefore he could ignore it. He was dead now, changing his socks. He would be dead later, doing something else, and then he would die for good and not see Laura anymore. Not that he was going to see her anyway. He knew he was going to die before he said his last prayer that fateful day.

He thought of her as she must be today, going about her business, and about how she was as a young woman. He rolled the 'L' fabric between his fingers, adjusted his helmet and stood up again, preparing to go back on patrol and soon die. Eternity yawned in front of him.

Marley Jay is a New York-based writer working on a novel, "Welcome to the World of Tomorrow," in addition to fiction and short stories.  His passions include the works of Shakespeare, Howlin' Wolf and the Marx Brothers, along with the mystery of elephants.

But was the intelligence wrong? How much dissenting intelligence was there? Could our government officials have found out more?

In an interview with the Politico and Yahoo! News, President Bush said the intelligence was generally the same and turned out to be faulty.

"I don't think so. … Intelligence communities all across the world shared the same assessment. And so I was disappointed to see how flawed our intelligence was."

"Do I think somebody lied to me?" he said. "No, I don't. I think it was just, you know, they analyzed the situation and came up with the wrong conclusion."

Yes, they did analyze the situation. They came to the right conclusion. You took that conclusion and twisted it, and now you're blaming the intelligence.

Let's take a look at the intelligence the Bush administration ignored going into Iraq:

1. As early as 9/12 2001, Bush administration officials quietly questioned the claims. Richard Clarke, Bush's then counterterrorism advisor, responded to Bush's query whether Hussein was linked to the attacks.

"But you know, we have looked several times for state sponsorship of al Qaeda and not found any real linkages to Iraq."

2. Beginning November of 2001, Defense Undersecretary Douglas Feith led a team to explore the relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Almost a year later, the team briefed Colin Powell and then-CIA director George Tenet on their findings. On September 25th 2002, Bush linked the two:

"They're both risks, they're both dangerous. The difference, of course, is that Al Qaeda likes to hijack governments. Saddam Hussein is a dictator of a government. Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn't, but the danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that Al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world."

In July of 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency found "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda has not been established, despite a large body of anecdotal information."

In April of 2001, the CIA drafted a report called Iraqi Support for Terrorism, that found "no credible information that Baghdad had foreknowledge of the 11 September attacks or any other al-Qaeda strike."

3. September 8th, 2002:

"We do know that he is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. We do know there have been shipments going into . . . Iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to—high-quality aluminum tools that only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs." -Condoleezza Rice

In April 2001, the Energy Department concluded that "while the gas centrifuge application cannot be ruled out, we assess that the procurement activity more likely supports a different application, such as conventional ordnance production." In September of 2002 when the CIA was preparing the NIE, the Department reminded them of their findings. The CIA ignored them.

4. In his September 28 radio address, Bush claimed:

The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq. This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year."

Until three weeks before, there was no National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq and WMDS. The CIA scrambled to complete one, later debunked by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: "Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."

5. His 2003 State of the Union addresses mentioned Iraq buying Uranium from African countries.

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

As early as March 2002, the intelligence community was divided about the link. During that month the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research published a report named "Niger: Sale of Uranium to Iraq Is Unlikely."

During July of that year, the Energy Department found "no information indicating that any of the uranium shipments arrived in Iraq" and the "amount of uranium specified far exceeds what Iraq would need even for a robust nuclear weapons program."

The 2006 Senate Select Committee on Intelligence confirmed this:
"Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessment that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake' from Africa. Postwar findings support the assessment in the NIE of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) that claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are 'highly dubious."

6. On February 3, 2003 Colin Powell presented the case for military action against Iraq to the UN.

"My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources."

He also claimed that "a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons [of mass destruction] to Al Qaeda."

Six days earlier, the CIA had concluded that the detainee "was not in a position to know if any training had taken place."

The intelligence was clearly accessible. It wasn't flawed. The Bush Administration ignored or distorted it, and our elected Congressman didn't question the former's claims.

Explaining the setbacks of the Iraq occupation aren't as simple as blaming intelligence.

Thanks Center for Public Integrity!

Michael Carper is a midwestern high school student. You can get daily news updates from his blog at http://2minutenews.wordpress.com.

Thank you, Fellow Americans. Thank you for making me believe that hope, enthusiasm, progress and hard work are again alive and well in our country. Thank you for reading my rants, and listening with open hearts and minds to my arguments on behalf of Barack Obama. Watching Senator Obama clinch the Democratic Nomination for President in my home state of Minnesota was HISTORICAL … for ALL of us.

When he first entered my radar while giving his moving and inspiring speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention, I thought "THIS guy should be the President". I haven't wavered in that thought since, and last night was a remarkable reward. That he gave his historical speech in Minnesota was a wonderful, private bonus … and my people rewarded Obama with their famous niceness, screaming out of their minds for him. Please take a moment to watch this memorable, epic evening here.

Exciting, right? I will readily admit that after Bush somehow won TWO elections (Well, he stole the first one. The second was inexcusable by whomever those voters were - and I hope that the current state of our country and it's worldwide bad reputation haunts them always for poking that poisonous chad), I lost all of my respect for our government, and a lot of my hope for our future. There is still five months of work to go to get Obama ELECTED PRESIDENT (!!!WOW!!!), but last night restored that hope.

We are AMERICANS. The whole world watches what we do, and the last eight years have not been good for us, or anyone worldwide. Looking at world headlines this morning, it seems possible that our position as a beacon of possibility may yet be capable of restoration.

Of course, politicians can do nothing alone. Judging from last night's rally (and every rally Obama has held since throwing his hat in the ring), he is not, and will not be, alone. Which is in itself remarkable. In my lifetime, I have never seen so many people inspired and galvanized to participate in the political process … so you see, Change has already begun.

Change is what we need, and even if Senator McCain wants to abscond with that word to try and appear different from Bush - that is a joke. There is no comparison. If people have any brains in their heads, (often dubious these days) this will be the first time I've seen the entire map be bright blue. I loved that Obama held his rally in Minnesota ("That's the change we need, Minnesota!") for personal reasons, of course, but also because of how In Your Face it was, as the Republican Convention will be held this fall in the same building. Obama means business.

McCain and Obama side by side is a pitiful comparison. The one thing McCain has going for him is his status as a "War Hero". I respect that deeply, having recently visited the Vets in Walter Reed Hospital. However, McCain doesn't back the GI Bill to support those Vets. So none of them that I met support him either. To a man, every one I met was rooting for Obama. Taking away McCain's ONE main asset. "Experience" does not count when it comes with such clouded judgement. I would love to save time and money and do away with the General Election all together and just let Obama get to work today. Alas, we must go through the formalities, but the outcome MUST be President Obama, if we care about our country's future at all.

I would disagree with one aspect of Obama's speech last night - that we are better for having Hillary Clinton as a candidate. Obama has never been anything but gracious towards her, even amid her and Bill's despicable tactics directed at him (working for "Hard working WHITE Americans", even bringing up the possibility of assassination, God forbid. Filthy people.). Last night was no different. She did not congratulate or even acknowledge his historic night as the first African-American to become the Democratic Nominee for President, though it is fact and her campaign is finished. If her supporters don't get behind Obama in the face of a McCain nightmare of a Presidency, they are just as despicable. We are Americans, and it is not about parties or individuals, it is about COUNTRY, as Obama stresses every time. He has NEVER used race. He has ONLY been gracious. He has ALWAYS played by the rules. I bid the Clintons Good Riddance, as they have done none of the above. The era of dynasties is over. She cannot be Vice-President. She does not deserve it, she did not earn it, nor does she deserve the respect she thinks she does. She did not run a wonderful campaign. It was a mess of lies, deceit, bad management and cheating … and it is over.

So we turn the page towards Change. Towards Hope. Towards Positivity. Towards a new Restoration. We all want it. On The Nightwatchman's recent "Justice Tour", I saw it with my own eyes, all across the country. People are over it. They want to prosecute our current Co-President's, end this awful war, create new programs for the future, work hard, play hard, be INVOLVED … and they want to be proud of the U.S.A's efforts (AND its Government) again.

Let us turn "YES WE CAN!" into "YES WE DID" this fall - and let the healing begin.

God Bless America.

CJ Gronner is a writer living by the beach in Venice. She loves music, peace and telling stories. Stay tuned for more of them!

What could be of graver international concern than powerful corporations, both food manufacturers and drug manufacturers, adding to the destruction of life and wellbeing in hundreds of nations? Big Pharma corporations and Kellogg, Brown and Root, Halliburton, and Blackwater have manipulated to their satisfaction the functioning of the United States Department of State to do their bidding in contracts, programs.

The cumulative effect alienates all of the Islamic nations with their 1.2 billion inhabitants, and further besmirches America entrepreneurially in South America and in Africa. I am reminded of the policies we implemented in the second half of the 19th Century, destroying millions of Native Americans with a genocidal intent inherent in the policy of “Manifest Destiny.” I see massive similarities between the way LBJ floundered in Vietnam and the dealings of the Bush administration in Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. As a nation, we err terribly by tolerating and continuing such destruction. 

The next President must move to repair this obviously dangerous malaise by appointing an international healer as Secretary of State. I see no better person for this job than New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. Richardson’s elevation of the international political dialogue amongst the candidates, his early strident support for unequivocally ending the Iraq War, and his history as Secretary of Energy and UN Ambassador make him qualified. 

After 8 years of Halliburton running the State Department, military contractors running the Pentagon, Energy Corporations running the Department of Industry and writing legislation, and Big Pharma running the Food and Drug Administration: what choice is there? 

In his commencement address to the University of Pennsylvania Law School, Richardson challenged graduates to combine their new skills with passion, reason and courage, to work in the public interest. Richardson outlined America's past experience and current need for courageous leadership, and laid out initial steps for renewing America's relationship with the world by returning to its traditional support for human rights, the rule of law, and international law. He called on the United States to lead an international effort to protect people trapped in situations like Myanmar and Darfur, when their governments fail to protect their own people:

When in Philadelphia, it's customary to quote Ben Franklin. And he was right when he said, "An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest." (Of course, Ben probably didn't have to pay the interest on student loans.) But your investment has been more than just money and years. Whether you wanted to or not, you've invested part of yourself in this place. And it has returned the investment."

America needs to be impeccable in our own human rights behavior — and that should begin with immediately closing Guantanamo prison and all secret detention facilities, and providing all prisoners everywhere with access to legal counsel. If the US expects others to take us seriously, we need to take ourselves seriously by honoring our own values and all international treaties, including the Geneva Conventions. Once we have re-established ourselves as a nation that honors human dignity, we can begin once again to promote it worldwide. We must join and support enthusiastically the International Criminal Court, so that leaders who engage in or allow crimes against humanity know they will be held accountable. We should reward countries that respect the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and negotiate, constructively but firmly, with those who do not.

America must also renew its commitment to the rule of law and to multilateral cooperation. We must put aside the failed unilateralism of the Bush administration and re-engage our leadership role in institutions like the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and the Organization of American States. 

As a diplomat and a public servant, I look at past presidents who had the courage to buck their party line and go against the conventional wisdom to make great gains for our country. It took courage for Truman to reinvest into post-war Europe-including Germany– with the Marshall Plan. It took courage for the anti-communist Nixon to open China. It took courage for Carter to do what he did at Camp David. It took courage for Reagan to meet with Gorbachev at Reykjavik. 

It will take courage to renew America's relationship with the world…. a good place for us to start would be to lead an international effort to protect people trapped in situations like Myanmar and Darfur, where their governments fail to protect their own people. The "responsibility to protect" is a principle that has been unanimously endorsed by 150 heads of state at the 2005 UN World Summit. Such a norm would first demand action to prevent crimes against humanity. But should prevention fail, then the right to protect requires economic, political, diplomatic, legal, security and– in the last resort-a multi-lateral, UN sanctioned military intervention to stop an atrocity from occurring. 

The US has a special role to play in stopping genocide, especially in Africa where the two most horrendous recent human rights abuses have taken place, in Rwanda and now Darfur. History teaches that if the US does not take the lead on ending these abuses, no one else will. We just need to courage to do the right thing. We need to work with our international partners and the United Nations to devise practical mechanisms that will enable the world community to respond quickly, legally, multilaterally and effectively to stop genocide and other great human rights abuses. The norm of national sovereignty is important, and should be preserved, but it is moot when governments fail to protect their own citizens from great suffering.

In 1980, Stephen Fox founded New Millennium Fine Art, a Santa Fe gallery specializing in Native American and Landscape, and is very active in New Mexico Legislative consumer protection politics, trying above to get the FDA to rescind its approval for the neurotoxic and carcinogenic artificial sweetener, Aspartame.

In a strictly legislative context, his most important writing has been for the Hawaii Senate.

In his capacity as Contributing Editor of the Santa Fe Sun News, Fox recently interviewed Mikhail Gorbachev.

[Editor's Note: Stories like this underscore the need for aid to countries we have military operations in. War disproportionately affects the poor. -- Jason Rosenbaum]

Sayed Ali (not his real name) said he sold his 11-year-old daughter, Rabia, for US$2,000 to a man in Sheberghan city, Jawzjan Province in northern Afghanistan to feed his wife and three younger children.

With food prices in Afghanistan having soared over the past few months and the 40-year-old father unable to find work, he said had no other choice but to sell his daughter to save his family from starvation.

“Even animals don’t sell their children, because they love them and want to die for them, not to mention human beings. For too many days I stood next to roads and asked people for work, but always ended up disappointed. I couldn’t go home empty-handed and disappoint my starving children, so I used to scavenge in garbage and collect leftover food.

“I would lie to my family and say I bought them food from the market. But now it’s even hard to find anything edible in the garbage because of [increasing] food prices. People now eat all their food because it’s very expensive and also the numbers of those who scavenge in garbage has increased.

“Because I am illiterate, no one will give me a job. I am illiterate because of war and poverty. I didn’t go to school because my parents wanted me to work. My children also don't go to school and they’ll also be brought up illiterate like me.

“How can someone sell his own child? It’s like selling your eyes or selling your heart!

“As no one would give me work I had no other option but to sell my lovely daughter. I sold her only to save the rest of my family. I sold her only to buy food for my younger children who otherwise would have died from hunger.

“I know people will say I am a cruel and merciless father who sold his own child, but those who say so don't know my hardship and have never felt the hunger that my family suffers.

“I know other poor people who don’t have children and say, if necessary, they will blow themselves up [in a suicide attack] and kill other people in order to feed their families.

“I hope the government will hear my voice and help people like me to find jobs and feed our families.”

Copyright © IRIN 2008. All rights reserved.

Fernando Lugo, an ex-bishop, had won the presidency in Paraguay as a liberal. For the first time in 60 years, Paraguay was to have a leader not from the Colorado Party. Up until now, elections were simply a passing of the torch. This time, Blanca Ovelar gracefully conceded the victory, ending years of what many saw as a dictatorship.

Paraguayans no longer scared to show their support flooded the streets chanting, "Paraguay! Paraguay! Paraguay!" Fireworks went off throughout the night. Many missed work on Monday. I was lucky enough to be inside the country at the time and to understand a bit better why there was so much joy.

Weeks before the elections, the capital city of Asuncion was covered in red, the color of the Colorado Party. Their banners said, "Somos 1, Somos ANR (We're 1, We're Colorado)," referring to their listing number on the ballots. Unlike in the US, here there seemed to be no laws governing distribution of propaganda. Every open wall, tree, lamp post, car, and shirt was covered; everything was red.

Yet, even with the advertising blitz, the polls leading up to the election showed a majority of the population supported Lugo, with Blanca a close second. My coworker's girlfriend, the night before the election, explained that she had been pulled aside several times at work (she's a nurse at a public hospital) and asked who she would vote for. She had to respond Blanca, she had to wear the red shirt, and she had to make sure nobody knew she was supporting Lugo. Shades of 1984 or Nazi party propaganda raced through my head.

For some it's worse. My friend's father had to wear Colorado gear, tell his wife she couldn't mention Lugo, dress his son in Red, and so on. He eventually did vote for Blanca, because the ruling party doubled his salary for one month.

I was lucky enough to help my Paraguayan mother bring her entire family out to vote. Over 60 percent of eligible Paraguayan voters voted last Sunday. In some places they reported more than 90 percent turnout - all in a country with few paved roads and where owning a motorcycle is impressive, much less a car. Compared to typical US turnout, I felt ashamed.

The actual voting process is much like in America. Each member of my family was assigned a polling place and a table to vote at based on their address and last name. My sister was unsure of where she was to be voting so she called her friend, a young leader in the Colorado Party. This friend looked her up by last name and was able to tell her where she was voting, who else was at the table, and how many votes they expected from that table.

Once at the table, there was about a 40-minute wait as people went in alone, no children, no friends, nobody. (After the media reported that the Colorado party was paying children to act as spies on voters, this rule was instituted.) The ballot seemed to me to be especially easy to understand, complete with pictures, colors, and big boxes for voting marks. There was only one reported incident of vote manipulation, when a group of Colorado party members was asked to move away from the front of a polling place. Other than that, everything seemed very peaceful. Afterward, my family had an asado (bbq) and watched the election returns on television.

For the first time since my arrival in Paraguay, my mother asked that I not leave the house that night because she was worried about violence. This fear was hard to understand; peaceful changes of leadership in America are so natural. But nobody knew if it would be peaceful here. Some even expected a full coup from the current president, Nicanor Duartes Frutos.

Several Senators running on Lugo's ticket in the interior of the country had been murdered in the weeks leading up to the election. As the numbers started to come back after the polls closed at 4 pm, my mother started crying. Finally she confessed that she had watched friends and family be tortured or simply disappear under the Colorado regime. We watched as people filled the streets of downtown crying, chanting, hugging, cheering. It was over; they could finally show their faces. They could finally say that they did not agree with the ruling party, that they wanted change, that they wanted hope.

When I asked my mom why people voted for Colorados for so many years she gave me three reasons: First, many voters are either a politician or in a politician's family. They are extremely well off and don't want to see their money disappear. Second, someone in many people's family works for the government and they don't want to loose that income. Third, many were simply afraid.

My mother said she thought there was a big change this year because the younger generation does not know what it's like to live constantly in fear. They don't worry about losing their jobs so much as wanting more for themselves. (She told me that when she was 25, torture was normal.) She also thought some accredit the change this year to the inability of the Colorado party to commit as much election fraud due to the increased number of international observers.

Whatever the reason, Paraguayans voted for change this week. They deserve our respect.

KTB graduated from Northwestern in 2006, worked in a law firm for a year, and then escaped the country to do good. She is planning on pursuing a dual degree in law and public health.