The Blue Dahlia
by Jennifer-Oksana
Show: Angel
Rating: R
Pairing: Cordelia/Other
Author Notes: Just a couple quick things. Only actually borrowed three songs in this, Bowies Rebel Rebel, the Weezer Hash Pipe song, and that song in the club which is from the Dance Dance Revolution video game. Felt like more. Thanks to Rum and Jaina for the read-over, and thank you so much for reading.
Story Notes: Story #2 in the old movie series and spoilers through the end of Angel S2.
Summary: Cordelia saves a young womans life, and gets involved in a world of glamour, sex, and drugs. But this friends secret may end up destroying both of them.

Similar posts: angel slim supreme

CHICAGO (CBS) A U.S. Supreme Court decision has been the talk of the nation on Thursday. A handgun ban in Washington, D.C. has been struck down by the high court.

As expected, strong reaction has been pouring in on both sides of this emotional issue.

Gun control advocates like Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley were outraged, while gun rights activists have already sued to overturn a similar ban in Chicago.

The 5-4 ruling specifically struck down a ban on handguns in Washington, D.C. The court ruled that the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns is incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment.

The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, and leaves most gun laws intact, but could invalidate Chicago's.

Chicago has a similar ban on handguns and within minutes of the high court's ruling, the Illinois State Rifle Association began the court fight to get Chicago's ban overturned as well.

In Chicago, unless your gun was purchased before the ban went into effect in 1982, it is illegal to possess a handgun within city limits. Only police officers, aldermen and a handful of others are exempt from the ban. While other firearms can be registered, under current law, handguns cannot be registered and are considered illegal.

But gun rights advocates hope to change that. The Illinois State Rifle Association filed a lawsuit with just that purpose in mind at 9:15 a.m.

"We want to overturn this ban. It's pretty onerous. It takes the right of self-defense away from every Chicago citizen," said Richard Pearson, director of the Illinois State Rifle Association.

The National Rifle Association also plans to file lawsuits in Chicago and several suburbs, as well as San Francisco, challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.

Illinois State Sen. Kirk Dillard said at least one-third of the households in his hometown, Hinsdale, have guns, one of the highest percentages in the state. He hailed the Supreme Court decision, saying, "I think the ruling today is good news. The criminals have guns, but law-abiding citizens should not have their rights jeopardized."

As pleased as Dillard and other suburban Republicans in DuPage County were with the Supreme Court ruling, in Chicago it was a very different story among top democrats.

Mayor Daley, a proponent of strict gun control laws, wasn't happy about the Supreme Court ruling, calling it "a very frightening decision."

"If they think that's the answer ... they're greatly mistaken. Then why don't we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West, you have a gun and I have a gun, and we'll settle it in the streets if that's they're thinking."

"It is frightening that America loves guns," the mayor said, "and to me, I think this decision really places those who are rich and those are in power, they'll always feel safe. Those who do not have the power do not feel safe, and that's what they're saying. If you're elected officials, you feel safe. You cannot carry a gun into a federal building. You cannot carry a gun into a federal court. So they're setting themselves aside, and really, they're saying to the rest of America that the answer to all the constitutional issues is that we can carry guns. And I just don't understand how they came to this thinking."

Gov. Rod Blagojevich said, "the decision of Supreme Court today is very scary and it's a big blow to those of us who believe in common sense gun laws so they ain't always right and on this case, they're wrong again."

Some experts said the Supreme Court left room for local handgun controls in Chicago and suburbs such as Morton Grove and Oak Park, to survive, but only after a significant rewrite.

Gun control activists Pam and Tommie Bosley hope strict gun control laws stay in place. They have been on a door-to-door anti-violence crusade ever since their 18-year-old son Terrell was shot and killed leaving a South Side church two years ago.

"We doin' it for these guys, the little guys and for you all, that's why we're out here I can't bring my son back," Tommie Bosley said as he lobbied neighbors on the South Side.

Pam Bosely said, "We protected him as much as we could, but as you say, he's not here, so with the guns out on the streets, there's no way you can save and protect your children."

Tommie Bosely said, "I think what's going to end up happening ultimately is you're going to have private citizens who are not equipped to use handguns taking the law into their own hands."

But gun rights supporters say that's exactly what some people are forced to do already -- defend themselves -- and guns can help them do that.

Alan Gottlieb, of the Second Amendment Foundation in the state of Washington, told reporters that Chicago's handgun ban has failed to stop violent crime.

That has been one of the mantras of the gun lobby.

But a supporter of Chicago's law responded that facts are stubborn things, noting that murder and other gun violence here are far lower than a decade agoe, claiming Mayor Daley's stringent gun enforcement deserves much credit.

Maria Ramirez couldn't agree more. She wears her son's picture close to her heart. It's all she has of him; 16-year old Matthew Michael Ramirez died in 2006 after someone pulled a trigger.

"I don't want another mother to wake up like I do...look in son's bed, praying it's a bad dream," Ramirez said. "These guns that are gotten legally in the first place end up becoming illegal on the streets."

Her black market sales fear was a concern for law enforcement, too. The people on the frontlines already respond to thousands of gun related calls every year.

"If the result of this ruling is more guns on the street it's going to make it more challenging for law enforcement," Daley said, predicting an end to Chicago's handgun ban would spark new violence and force the city to raise taxes to pay for new police.

Pearson said "I say that's probably untrue." Pearson said he believes crime only rises with gun laws like Chicago's "because criminal element knows people don't have a firearm for self defense."

That's one reason he was prepared to fight for an individual's Second Amendment rights. "Sure, I think it's an uphill battle freedom always is."

Pearson predicted that the fight that began with the filing of a lawsuit against Mayor Daley and the city at 9:15 a.m. Thursday would take between 18 months and two years to resolve. He said that if the Illinois State Rifle Association loses its lawsuit, it would appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

But Chicago's Corporation Counsel Mara Georges said the city shouldn't have to defend its gun law, because the Supreme Court's ruling doesn't apply here.

"Our ordinance continues to be valid law. The Supreme Court did not say that the Second Amendment right to bear arms extends to state and local governments and in fact, there's Supreme Court precedent that it does not."

The U.S. Supreme Court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Gun rights supporters hailed the decision. "I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a leading gun control advocate in Congress, criticized the ruling. "I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it," she said.

With an epidemic of gun violence in Chicago this year, Daley and other officials and activists have been lobbying for stricter state gun laws.

But some defenders of gun rights say just the opposite of Mayor Daley, arguing instead in favor of the theories of economist John Lott, now of the University of Maryland.

The onetime University of Chicago professor argued in his 1998 volume, More Guns, Less Crime, for a statistical correlation between laws allowing people to carry concealed handguns and a drop in crime rates. Lott theorized the crime rate dropped because criminals were deterred by the possibility of confronting an armed victim.

Lott also claimed the Chicago gun ban was to blame for an increase in crime.

Critics of Chicago's gun ordinance also say the law already aims to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and that law-abiding citizens should be allowed to possess any firearm they desire.

The Washington, D.C., gun ban was taken to the Supreme Court by way of the case of Dick Anthony Heller, 65, an armed security guard. He sued the District of Columbia after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection. His lawyers say the amendment plainly protects an individual's right.

North suburban Morton Grove was the first municipality in the country to enact a handgun ban, in 1981, according to the Encyclopedia of Chicago. The ban survived a court challenge, and the Chicago ordinance proposed by Ald. Edward Burke (14th) passed the following year, in the wake of assassination attempts on President Reagan and Pope John Paul II.

Evanston passed a handgun ban later in 1982, and Oak Park in 1984, among other municipalities.

Before Thursday, the last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.

Read more...

CHICAGO (CBS) A U.S. Supreme Court decision has been the talk of the nation on Thursday. A handgun ban in Washington, D.C. has been struck down by the high court.

As expected, strong reaction has been pouring in on both sides of this emotional issue.

Gun control advocates like Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley were outraged, while gun rights activists have already sued to overturn a similar ban in Chicago.

The 5-4 ruling specifically struck down a ban on handguns in Washington, D.C. The court ruled that the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns is incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment.

The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, and leaves most gun laws intact, but could invalidate Chicago's.

Chicago has a similar ban on handguns and within minutes of the high court's ruling, the Illinois State Rifle Association began the court fight to get Chicago's ban overturned as well.

In Chicago, unless your gun was purchased before the ban went into effect in 1982, it is illegal to possess a handgun within city limits. Only police officers, aldermen and a handful of others are exempt from the ban. While other firearms can be registered, under current law, handguns cannot be registered and are considered illegal.

But gun rights advocates hope to change that. The Illinois State Rifle Association filed a lawsuit with just that purpose in mind at 9:15 a.m.

"We want to overturn this ban. It's pretty onerous. It takes the right of self-defense away from every Chicago citizen," said Richard Pearson, director of the Illinois State Rifle Association.

The National Rifle Association also plans to file lawsuits in Chicago and several suburbs, as well as San Francisco, challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.

Illinois State Sen. Kirk Dillard said at least one-third of the households in his hometown, Hinsdale, have guns, one of the highest percentages in the state. He hailed the Supreme Court decision, saying, "I think the ruling today is good news. The criminals have guns, but law-abiding citizens should not have their rights jeopardized."

As pleased as Dillard and other suburban Republicans in DuPage County were with the Supreme Court ruling, in Chicago it was a very different story among top democrats.

Mayor Daley, a proponent of strict gun control laws, wasn't happy about the Supreme Court ruling, calling it "a very frightening decision."

"If they think that's the answer ... they're greatly mistaken. Then why don't we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West, you have a gun and I have a gun, and we'll settle it in the streets if that's they're thinking."

"It is frightening that America loves guns," the mayor said, "and to me, I think this decision really places those who are rich and those are in power, they'll always feel safe. Those who do not have the power do not feel safe, and that's what they're saying. If you're elected officials, you feel safe. You cannot carry a gun into a federal building. You cannot carry a gun into a federal court. So they're setting themselves aside, and really, they're saying to the rest of America that the answer to all the constitutional issues is that we can carry guns. And I just don't understand how they came to this thinking."

Gov. Rod Blagojevich said, "the decision of Supreme Court today is very scary and it's a big blow to those of us who believe in common sense gun laws so they ain't always right and on this case, they're wrong again."

Some experts said the Supreme Court left room for local handgun controls in Chicago and suburbs such as Morton Grove and Oak Park, to survive, but only after a significant rewrite.

Gun control activists Pam and Tommie Bosley hope strict gun control laws stay in place. They have been on a door-to-door anti-violence crusade ever since their 18-year-old son Terrell was shot and killed leaving a South Side church two years ago.

"We doin' it for these guys, the little guys and for you all, that's why we're out here I can't bring my son back," Tommie Bosley said as he lobbied neighbors on the South Side.

Pam Bosely said, "We protected him as much as we could, but as you say, he's not here, so with the guns out on the streets, there's no way you can save and protect your children."

Tommie Bosely said, "I think what's going to end up happening ultimately is you're going to have private citizens who are not equipped to use handguns taking the law into their own hands."

But gun rights supporters say that's exactly what some people are forced to do already -- defend themselves -- and guns can help them do that.

Alan Gottlieb, of the Second Amendment Foundation in the state of Washington, told reporters that Chicago's handgun ban has failed to stop violent crime.

That has been one of the mantras of the gun lobby.

But a supporter of Chicago's law responded that facts are stubborn things, noting that murder and other gun violence here are far lower than a decade agoe, claiming Mayor Daley's stringent gun enforcement deserves much credit.

Maria Ramirez couldn't agree more. She wears her son's picture close to her heart. It's all she has of him; 16-year old Matthew Michael Ramirez died in 2006 after someone pulled a trigger.

"I don't want another mother to wake up like I do...look in son's bed, praying it's a bad dream," Ramirez said. "These guns that are gotten legally in the first place end up becoming illegal on the streets."

Her black market sales fear was a concern for law enforcement, too. The people on the frontlines already respond to thousands of gun related calls every year.

"If the result of this ruling is more guns on the street it's going to make it more challenging for law enforcement," Daley said, predicting an end to Chicago's handgun ban would spark new violence and force the city to raise taxes to pay for new police.

Pearson said "I say that's probably untrue." Pearson said he believes crime only rises with gun laws like Chicago's "because criminal element knows people don't have a firearm for self defense."

That's one reason he was prepared to fight for an individual's Second Amendment rights. "Sure, I think it's an uphill battle freedom always is."

Pearson predicted that the fight that began with the filing of a lawsuit against Mayor Daley and the city at 9:15 a.m. Thursday would take between 18 months and two years to resolve. He said that if the Illinois State Rifle Association loses its lawsuit, it would appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

But Chicago's Corporation Counsel Mara Georges said the city shouldn't have to defend its gun law, because the Supreme Court's ruling doesn't apply here.

"Our ordinance continues to be valid law. The Supreme Court did not say that the Second Amendment right to bear arms extends to state and local governments and in fact, there's Supreme Court precedent that it does not."

The U.S. Supreme Court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Gun rights supporters hailed the decision. "I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a leading gun control advocate in Congress, criticized the ruling. "I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it," she said.

With an epidemic of gun violence in Chicago this year, Daley and other officials and activists have been lobbying for stricter state gun laws.

But some defenders of gun rights say just the opposite of Mayor Daley, arguing instead in favor of the theories of economist John Lott, now of the University of Maryland.

The onetime University of Chicago professor argued in his 1998 volume, More Guns, Less Crime, for a statistical correlation between laws allowing people to carry concealed handguns and a drop in crime rates. Lott theorized the crime rate dropped because criminals were deterred by the possibility of confronting an armed victim.

Lott also claimed the Chicago gun ban was to blame for an increase in crime.

Critics of Chicago's gun ordinance also say the law already aims to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and that law-abiding citizens should be allowed to possess any firearm they desire.

The Washington, D.C., gun ban was taken to the Supreme Court by way of the case of Dick Anthony Heller, 65, an armed security guard. He sued the District of Columbia after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection. His lawyers say the amendment plainly protects an individual's right.

North suburban Morton Grove was the first municipality in the country to enact a handgun ban, in 1981, according to the Encyclopedia of Chicago. The ban survived a court challenge, and the Chicago ordinance proposed by Ald. Edward Burke (14th) passed the following year, in the wake of assassination attempts on President Reagan and Pope John Paul II.

Evanston passed a handgun ban later in 1982, and Oak Park in 1984, among other municipalities.

Before Thursday, the last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.

Read more...

Hugging Israel - Thus was headlined the front page top story in one of the Hebrew-language dailies cluttering the counter of the Arcaffe coffee shop on Jerusalems Hillel Street Thursday morning.

The words were splashed in large print over a three-quarter-page color photograph of euphoric US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama embracing his wife in front of applauding crowds.

Nor can there be any doubt that the energetic, silver-tongued, ramrod-straight young man made inroads into Israeli public opinion when he addressed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Convention in Washington DC Wednesday.

By comparison, his Republican rival, John McCain, was something of a damp squib when he spoke at the same event 48 hours before.

Obama wowed the six-thousand-plus-strong crowd and Israelis who saw him on TV or the Net as he hit button after button he just knew would resonate in the heart of the Jew.

On the Israel-US relationship and Israels security:

I want you to know that today Ill be speaking from my heart, and as a true friend of Israel. Friends who share my strong commitment to make sure that the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable today, tomorrow, and forever. the bond between Israel and the United States is rooted in more than our shared national interests its rooted in the shared values and shared stories of our people. And as President, I will work with you to ensure that it this bond strengthened. We know that the establishment of Israel was just and necessary, rooted in centuries of struggle, and decades of patient work. But 60 years later, we know that we cannot relent, we cannot yield, and as President I will never compromise when it comes to Israels security. Not when there are still voices that deny the Holocaust. Not when there are terrorist groups and political leaders committed to Israels destruction. Not when there are maps across the Middle East that dont even acknowledge Israels existence, and government-funded textbooks filled with hatred toward Jews. Not when there are rockets raining down on Sderot, and Israeli children have to take a deep breath and summon uncommon courage every time they board a bus or walk to school. Let me be clear: Israels security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. There are those who would lay all of the problems of the Middle East at the doorstep of Israel and its supporters, as if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the root of all trouble in the region. These voices blame the Middle Easts only democracy for the regions extremism. They offer the false promise that abandoning a stalwart ally is somehow the path to strength. It is not, it never has been, and it never will be. Our alliance is based on shared interests and shared values. Those who threaten Israel threaten us. Israel has always faced these threats on the front lines. And I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israels security. That starts with ensuring Israels qualitative military advantage. I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat from Gaza to Tehran. Defense cooperation between the United States and Israel is a model of success, and must be deepened. As President, I will implement a Memorandum of Understanding that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade investments to Israels security that will not be tied to any other nation. First, we must approve the foreign aid request for 2009. Going forward, we can enhance our cooperation on missile defense. We should export military equipment to our ally Israel under the same guidelines as NATO. And I will always stand up for Israels right to defend itself in the United Nations and around the world.

On the Holocaust:

When the Americans marched in, they discovered huge piles of dead bodies and starving survivors. General Eisenhower ordered Germans from the nearby town to tour the camp, so they could see what was being done in their name. He ordered American troops to tour the camp, so they could see the evil they were fighting against. He invited Congressmen and journalists to bear witness. And he ordered that photographs and films be made. Explaining his actions, Eisenhower said that he wanted to produce first-hand evidence of these things, if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to propaganda. I saw some of those very images at Yad Vashem, and they never leave you. And those images just hint at the stories that survivors of the Shoah carried with them. Like Eisenhower, each of us bears witness to anyone and everyone who would deny these unspeakable crimes, or ever speak of repeating them. We must mean what we say when we speak the words: never again.

On the peace process:The long road to peace requires Palestinian partners committed to making the journey. We must isolate Hamas unless and until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israels right to exist, and abide by past agreements. There is no room at the negotiating table for terrorist organizations The Palestinian people must understand that progress will not come through the false prophets of extremism or the corrupt use of foreign aid.

On Jerusalem:

Any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israels identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.
On the arming of Hamas:

Egypt must cut off the smuggling of weapons into Gaza.

On Syria:

Syria continues its support for terror and meddling in Lebanon. And Syria has taken dangerous steps in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, which is why Israeli action was justified to end that threat. It is time for this reckless behavior to come to an end.

On Israels prisoners of war, Gilad Schalit, Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser:

We will not forget them and we will bring them home.

And on Iran, to which Obama devoted the largest section of his speech:

There is no greater threat to Israel or to the peace and stability of the region than Iran. The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race, and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its President denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat. We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That starts with aggressive, principled diplomacy without self-defeating preconditions, but with a clear-eyed understanding of our interests. We have no time to waste. We cannot unconditionally rule out an approach that could prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. We have tried limited, piecemeal talks while we outsource the sustained work to our European allies. It is time for the United States to lead. There will be careful preparation. We will open up lines of communication, build an agenda, coordinate closely with our allies, and evaluate the potential for progress. Contrary to the claims of some, I have no interest in sitting down with men like Ahmadinejad just for the sake of talking. But as President of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing if, and only if it can advance the interests of the United States. Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel. Sometimes there are no alternatives to confrontation. But that only makes diplomacy more important. If we must use military force, we are more likely to succeed, and will have far greater support at home and abroad, if we have exhausted our diplomatic efforts.

It is worth noting that Obamas address at AIPAC was his very first public appearance since clinching the nomination over his arch-rival Hillary Clinton. Clearly foreign policy is going to play a large part in an Obama administration.

By comparison, US President George W. Bush entered the White House eight years ago determined to eschew foreign issues in favor of focusing on the domestic front.

But 9-11 sucked the still untried Bush and his unsuspecting country right into the Middle East.

While Bushs primary efforts were directed at Afghanistan and Iraq, he was pulled inexorably into dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict until, in the last three years of his double term, he homed in on making healing this sore with his two-state solution the cherry he wanted to leave on top of his presidential record.

While Obama stressed that a US led by him would not pressure Israel We must never force Israel to the negotiating table - the hopeful Democrat emphasized that he is ready to dive right in:

As President, I will work to help Israel achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security. And I wont wait until the waning days of my presidency. I will take an active role, and make a personal commitment to do all I can to advance the cause of peace from the start of my Administration.

In an article that appeared in The Jerusalem Post Thursday, two Israelis from the Institute for National Security Studies analyzed the McCain and Obama speeches :

Research Fellow Roni Bart and Research Assistant Limor Simhoni concluded that those who believe that Israel requires a US administration that does not pressure it into following a path that it does not want to take, and is committed to stopping the Iranian danger through military means, if necessary, will prefer McCain over Obama.

Otherwise, those who feel that Israel needs a US administration that will impose a direction on it that it might otherwise not pursue, and that the danger of a nuclear empowered Iran does not necessitate the use of military force will prefer Obama over McCain.

Nevertheless, the analysts said, there is a word of caution for members of the latter group. While Obama allows himself to express relatively balanced positions already at the election campaign stage, it is possible that after he is elected, his policy will reflect his original critical positions.

Bart and Simhoni opined that what develops in the Israeli- conflict depends more on what happens between the sides than the extent and nature of the involvement of any US administration.

On the other hand, the continued presence of the US in Iraq almost entirely depends on the next US administration.

How the US will deal with the Iranian danger - through more effective diplomacy and/or implementing the military option would mainly depend on Washington.

Concluded the writers: It seems, then, perhaps more than in other elections, that the particular Democrat or Republican who will enter the White House will to a large extent shape the future of the Middle East.

A personal note: In a Skype chat conversation yesterday I emotionally banged out the following:

Well, I just listened to Obama - and I did not get sick, I got scared. Based on what I heard I would vote for him. He has an extra-ordinarily gilded tongue and a powerful, clear message. He was MUCH stronger than McCain on every level - and he will get the US Jews vote and Israels Jews will root for him. He will win the White House, and I fear he will bring a peace agreement into existence between Israel and the Arabs that will drag the US into the darkness of the valley of judgment. All of us who oppose him will be seen to be bigots, enemies of peace, enemies of America. This man, with Hillary at his right hand, is a leader whose time may have come. If so, God help America.

For the record my interlocutor thought my was a bit thick.

Time will tell.

All information >>> angel slim supreme

The best top 10 >>> angel slim supreme

See more: >>> angel slim supreme

News >>> angel slim supreme

See more: >>> angel slim supreme

angel slim supreme <<< hot news

angel slim supreme <<< hot news