MR Reports on Fukushima for KPFA

Flashpoints – July 4, 2011 at 5:00pm

Click to listen (or download)

 

KPFA– On this edition of Flashpoints, a nationally syndicated radio show, Peter Phillips and Mickey Huff from Project Censored and Abby Martin from Media Roots report the latest news and coverage from the Fukushima nuclear disaster.

On this edition of Flashpoints, a nationally syndicated radio show, Peter Phillips and Mickey Huff from Project Censored as well as Abby Martin from Media Roots report the latest news and coverage from the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
On this edition of Flashpoints, a nationally syndicated radio show, Peter Phillips and Mickey Huff from Project Censored as well as Abby Martin from Media Roots report the latest news and coverage from the Fukushima nuclear disaster.

Nuclear Regulators Colluded to Weaken Regulations

DEMOCRACY NOW– Three U.S. senators have called for a congressional probe on safety issues at the nation’s aging nuclear plants following a pair of new exposés. In a special series called “Aging Nukes,” the Associated Press revealed that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the nuclear power industry have been working in tandem to weaken safety standards to keep aging reactors within the rules.

Just last year, the NRC weakened the safety margin for acceptable radiation damage to reactor vessels. The AP report also revealed radioactive tritium has leaked from 48 of the 65 U.S. commercial nuclear power sites, often into groundwater from corroded, buried piping. Leaks from at least 37 of those facilities contained concentrations exceeding the federal drinking water standard—sometimes at hundreds of times the limit. We speak with AP investigative journalist Jeff Donn. [includes rush transcript below]

 

***

JUAN GONZALEZ: Three U.S. senators called for a congressional probe on Thursday on safety issues at the nation’s aging nuclear plants. The request from Democratic senators Barbara Boxer of California, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, and independent Bernard Sanders of Vermont comes following a pair of new exposés by the Associated Press. In a special series called “Aging Nukes,” the AP revealed that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the nuclear power industry have been working in tandem to weaken safety standards to keep aging reactors within the rules. Just last year, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission weakened the safety margin for acceptable radiation damage to reactor vessels.

AMY GOODMAN: The AP report also revealed radioactive tritium has leaked from 48 of the 65 U.S. commercial nuclear power sites, often into groundwater from corroded, buried piping. Leaks from at least 37 of those facilities contained concentrations exceeding the federal drinking water standard, sometimes hundreds of times the limit.

We’re joined now from Boston by Jeff Donn, who wrote the exposés for the Associated Press, the national writer for the AP and member of the AP investigative team.

Jeff, welcome to Democracy Now! Why don’t you lay out your exposés one at a time, what you found in light of what happened in Fukushima, what we’re dealing with here in this country?

JEFF DONN: Well, there are two big ideas. One is that, as you summarized, the nuclear industry and their government regulators have been working together to lower safety standards as aging nuclear systems and parts and plants come close to violating those standards and those rules. And that’s been a pattern for decades now, and we’re seeing a lot of it as these plants get older and older.

The other big idea here is that the plants have had piping buried underneath, underground, covered underground for so long the piping can’t be properly inspected. It’s rarely looked at carefully, visually. It’s rarely dug up. And it’s been so long now that a lot of that is corroding, and you have leaks, that we’ve documented, at three-quarters of the sites. And in fact, a Government Accountability Office, the congressional investigative arm, released—had a report released a day or two ago after our series, and in that they say the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the federal regulators say, you know what? There have been either leaks or spills—presumably many related to aging, some not, but radioactive leaks or spills—of tritium and other radionuclides at all the plants.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Jeff, the picture that you paint here, especially when you describe what’s happening at some of these plants, is really—it’s amazing, the extent of, in essence, the cracks, the corrosion. How exactly do they weaken the standards when they discover some of these problems at particular plants?

JEFF DONN: Well, what they do first is that the industry comes to government, typically—this is the pattern you see—or sometimes government comes to industry and says, “We’ve got all these parts or systems that are coming close to the standard, even sometimes violating the standard. What do we do about it?” And so, they set off on a round of research—and the government does some of the research, the industry does some of the research—and they find, again and again, that the standards can be lowered. The operative phrase that you hear and you read again and again is that “the standards were overly conservative.” So then they find justification to lower those standards, and suddenly a group of parts or systems that were coming close to violating rules, or do violate the rules, are back within the rules. The other half of it is that the regulators sometimes can’t get the systems and parts back within the rules, so then they begin issuing waivers or amendments or special exceptions that still allow the nuclear plants to keep running.

AMY GOODMAN: I just want to go back to the tritium water. Explain the dangers of this and how this is possible all over this country and what exactly it means and what can be done to stem the leaks. I mean, you have Vermont. They are poised to shut down their plant.

JEFF DONN: Yeah, that’s a very good question, and it’s a little bit confusing to people, I think. Tritium itself, at the levels that it’s been released, is probably not a great health threat. It doesn’t penetrate the skin very well. It’s not like the gamma radiation that people were talking about in Japan. The main danger from tritium, the main health danger, is if you were to drink it. The EPA sets a limit for how much can be in drinking water. None of the leaks have entered drinking water in amounts that would violate the EPA limit so far.

Part of the problem—and the GAO report I was just talking about points this out—part of the problem is that the industry and the regulators don’t really have a good handle on what’s happening in those pipes and vaults and all that equipment under the ground, that they don’t have technologies that really allow them to see that very well. So, the GAO report says we don’t really know about how bad the leaks are. That’s one part of the problem. Another part—that’s a part that bears on public health.

Another part is that it raises questions about the integrity of the plants, about the integrity of their cooling systems. Some, not all, but some of this piping carries water that’s used to cool the reactors. And in an emergency, as we saw in Japan, you desperately need that water to cool the reactors, because the radiation produces a lot of heat, and you’ve got to keep it cool. So, that’s the other half of the problem: what do all these leaks say about the integrity of that piping and, even in a broader sense, about the integrity of a lot of parts that can’t easily be seen in nuclear power plants, like all those miles of electrical cable underneath the power plants that are needed by the operators to see what’s going on in the plant?

JUAN GONZALEZ: And Jeff—

JEFF DONN: So it raises a lot of questions that trouble engineers.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Jeff, doesn’t the presence of tritium also indicate that probably other radioactive materials like strontium or cesium might also be getting—leaking from these plants?

JEFF DONN: It does, because tritium—that’s a radioactive form of hydrogen, by the way, and that’s why it gets into water, H20. It does. Tritium moves through the soil more readily than some of those other radioactive substances, so it’s often—you often see it first. And then, there are lots of cases where you see other more powerful radioactive substances that do more health harm, in equal amounts, after you see the tritium. That’s—you’re right. That’s part of why the tritium is a concern.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you name names of plants? For example, let’s talk New York. What’s outside of New York City, of tens of millions of people, the plant and where it stands today?

JEFF DONN: Well, they’ve had—there are so many problems that it’s hard to enumerate them all. But, for example, they’ve had radioactive leaks from the spent fuel pools at Indian Point—the spent fuel pool. The spent fuel pool is where they keep the radioactive fuel after they’ve used it in the reactor, and that fuel remains thermally hot and radioactive for years to come, so you have to keep it cool, just like the fuel in the reactor. And they’ve had leakage from that spent fuel pool at Indian Point, which is about 25 miles north of New York City. And we know how important the spent fuel pools are in a different context in Japan, at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, because a lot of the radioactive—radioactivity that was released in the air there was from the spent fuel pool. So, there’s been a lot of focus on the spent fuel pools recently. And even the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Gregory Jaczko, has hinted recently that maybe we do need to look at the spent fuel pools in the United States and how securely we’re keeping the spent fuel.

AMY GOODMAN: And what about evacuation plans, I mean, at places like Indian Point? And you can go around the country.

JEFF DONN: Well, that’s something that we’ll be saying more about on Monday, in a story that’s coming out on Monday. And I don’t want to get ahead of my employer, but I can tell you that we’ll be—we’ll have a lot to say about how much population growth there has been around the 65 nuclear—commercial nuclear power sites in the United States over last 30 years—we did a historical mapping analysis with mapping software—and where the evacuation plans that communities must make for evacuation, if it’s necessary around the plants, where they have weaknesses and where they haven’t kept up to date with the population growth.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Jeff, your articles also talk about the problems with the reactor vessels that enclose the reactors and that you found major problems, as well, there, in the documents that you obtained, the monitoring documents that you obtained from the government?

JEFF DONN: Yeah, it’s real interesting. One of the biggest areas of aging difficulties has been in so-called embrittlement of the steel around the reactors. And what that means is that if you bombard something with neutrons from a chain reaction, like the one that goes on inside these reactors, if you bombard steel with neutrons for years and years, it gets more brittle. And as it gets more brittle, like, say, a reed from the beach that maybe you brought home and it gets brittle, when it undergoes a force, it’s more likely to suddenly shatter, to break. And the reactor vessels are like that. The vessels are these gigantic steel tubs that surround the chain reaction, the radioactive fuel, and they provide a shield from it, and they hold it. They keep the area around it safe. And so, over the years, they’ve got increasingly brittle. There was even one reactor in the early 1990s, the Yankee Rowe reactor in western Massachusetts, that had to be closed largely because of concerns about its vessel getting brittle.

And as—fairly early on, actually, in the industry’s history, government and regulators started to notice that reactors were approaching the embrittlement standard for the vessels, and in some cases even violating that standard. And instead of saying, “OK, what can we do to get the reactors back within the standard? Is it possible to do a process called annealing, that would make them less brittle? Is it possible to replace them?” what the industry and the government did is they launched another round of research and decided, “You know what? We can back off a little bit on the standard and allow the vessels to become more brittle.” And that’s continued. There was a second round of this, that’s taken years, that just culminated in the last year or two, where they raised that safety standard again. Again, the same pattern, saying, “We didn’t need to be so strict.” In other words, “We didn’t need to be so safe. It’s safe enough.” Because the government and industry argue that, for all the changes, the reactors still remain safe—maybe not as safe as they were before, but plenty safe. That would be their argument.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to leave it there, Jeff Donn, national writer for the Associated Press, member of the AP investigative team, has done this series, “Aging Nukes.” We will continue to report on what you’re doing. Thanks so much, Jeff, for reporting to us from Boston.


Creative Commons License The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

Photo by Flickr user Paul J Everett

Hedges: Ralph Nader is Tired of Running for President

TRUTHDIG– The most important moral and intellectual voices within a disintegrating society are slowly discredited when their nonviolent protests and calls for justice cannot alter intransigent and corrupt systems of power. The repeated acts of peaceful civil disobedience, efforts at electoral and political reform and the fight to protect the rule of law are dismissed as useless by an embittered, dispossessed and betrayed public. The demagogues and hatemongers, the purveyors of violence, easily seduce enraged and bewildered masses in the final stages of collapse with false promises of vengeance, new glory and moral renewal. And in the spiral downward the good among us are reviled as naive and ineffectual fools.

There is no shortage of courageous dissidents in America. They seek to thwart the imperial disasters, looming financial insolvency and suicidal addiction to fossil fuel. They have stood in small knots on street corners week after week, month after month, year after year, to denounce the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have occupied banks, shut down coal-fired power plants, attempted to halt mountaintop removal, interfered with whaling ships and walked in blustery weather to the White House, where they were arrested. They are struggling to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza on a ship called the Audacity of Hope. But because the corporate state and the two major political parties are indifferent to principled calls for reform, and because the mass of the public still buys into the myths of globalization and the American dream, the plundering and destruction continue unimpeded.

When most Americans face the nightmare before us, when they realize the irreversible devastation unleashed on the ecosystem and the economic misery from which they cannot escape, violence will have a broad and terrifying appeal. Those of us who demand a return to the rule of law and remain steadfast to nonviolence will find ourselves cast aside—the useful idiots Lenin so despised. I watched this happen in the social and political implosions in El Salvador, Guatemala, the Palestinian territories, Algeria, Bosnia and Kosovo. I watched the same cocktail of despair, economic collapse and callousness from a corrupt power elite mix itself into potent brews of civil strife. I watched the same untiring efforts by those who detested the violence and cruelty of the state, and the nascent violence and intolerance of the radical opposition. I covered as a reporter the disintegration that tore these societies apart. Those who held fast to moral imperatives, including Archbishop Oscar Romero in El Salvador and Ibrahim Rugova in Kosovo, were thrust aside and replaced with killers on both sides of the divide who embraced violence.

Continue reading about Hedges: Nader is Tired of Running for President.

Written by Chris Hedges

© 2011 Truthdig

Photo by Flickr user Nick Bygon

MR Cuts Through Obama’s Afghan Speech Rhetoric

MEDIA ROOTS- The following contains the full transcript of President Obama’s June 22 speech regarding the troop pullout in Afghanistan. All additional commentary is italicized.

President Obama on June 22, 2011

***

BARACK OBAMA: Good evening.  Nearly 10 years ago, America suffered the worst attack on our shores since Pearl Harbor. This mass murder was planned by Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network in Afghanistan, and signaled a new threat to our security– one in which the targets were no longer soldiers on a battlefield, but innocent men, women and children going about their daily lives.

We can’t actually go to trial to prove Al Qaeda’s involvement because Leon Panetta supposedly had OBL murdered by special operations trained killers. How do you like that for due process?

BO: In the days that followed, our nation was united as we struck at al Qaeda and routed the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Thanks to the dutiful stenographer-like news-casters and cowardly political elites, the Bush administration was able to amplify and carry the trauma onto millions of Americans. People whose lives would otherwise have been unaffected were suddenly subjected to fear, paranoia, anxiety, PTSD, anger, hate and manipulation.

BO: Then, our focus shifted. A second war was launched in Iraq, and we spent enormous blood and treasure to support a new government there. By the time I took office, the war in Afghanistan had entered its seventh year.

Let me just gloss over the million or so deaths in Iraq that were attributable to America’s invasion and the trillions of dollars pissed away to private contractors.

BO: But al Qaeda’s leaders had escaped into Pakistan and were plotting new attacks, while the Taliban had regrouped and gone on the offensive. Without a new strategy and decisive action, our military commanders warned that we could face a resurgent al Qaeda, and a Taliban taking over large parts of Afghanistan. For this reason, in one of the most difficult decisions that I’ve made as President, I ordered an additional 30,000 American troops into Afghanistan. When I announced this surge at West Point, we set clear objectives: to refocus on al Qaeda; reverse the Taliban’s momentum; and train Afghan Security Forces to defend their own country.

Some might say that the American and Coalition presence in Afghanistan and Iraq are to strategically control the resources there: oil, minerals, opium, etc.  Well, everyone’s entitled to their own opinion.

BO: I also made it clear that our commitment would not be open-ended, and that we would begin to drawdown our forces this July. [Nothing on the ground has really changed, but hey, it’s an election year.  I can’t spin my December 2009 escalation of troops in Afghanistan as having been effective if I don’t declare that we’ll be de-escalating now.] Tonight, I can tell you that we are fulfilling that commitment. Thanks to our men and women in uniform [To whom you should all be grateful — man, it’s easy to use the troops as props and political human shields — just tell your critics that they’re not supporting the troops no one will dare disagree with you!] our civilian personnel, and our many coalition partners, we are meeting our goals.

As a result, starting next month, we will be able to remove 10,000 of our troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year, and we will bring home a total of 33,000 troops by next summer, fully recovering the surge I announced at West Point.

Notice how I cleverly don’t mention the amount of troops that would be left on the ground? Even after this fantasy withdrawal, there will still be 70,000 troops and even more contractors in Afghanistan, just as there are in Iraq.

BO: After this initial reduction, our troops will continue coming home at a steady pace as Afghan Security forces move into the lead. Our mission will change from combat to support. By 2014, this process of transition will be complete, and the Afghan people will be responsible for their own security. We are starting this drawdown from a position of strength. Al Qaeda is under more pressure than at any time since 9/11. Together with the Pakistanis, we have taken out more than half of al Qaeda’s leadership.

Nevermind that the global “War on Terror”— yes, the phrase which I retired rhetorically but in all other ways supported— has created more terrorists worldwide, more threats to US security, and has even caused the US government to turn on its own people.

BO: And thanks to our intelligence professionals and Special Forces, we killed Osama bin Laden, the only leader that al Qaeda had ever known. This was a victory for all who have served since 9/11.

The killing of one man has been worth spending trillions on the illegal, immoral US wars that have killed more than a million civilians?

BO: One soldier summed it up well. “The message,” he said, “is we don’t forget. You will be held accountable, no matter how long it takes.” [Isn’t that cute?  This anonymous soldier thinks there’s accountability in this world.]

The information that we recovered from bin Laden’s compound shows al Qaeda under enormous strain. Bin Laden expressed concern that al Qaeda has been unable to effectively replace senior terrorists that have been killed, and that al Qaeda has failed in its effort to portray America as a nation at war with Islam – thereby draining more widespread support. [I’m counting on you to not try and verify anything I’m saying by actually talking with people who might be brown and from other countries.]. 

BO: Al Qaeda remains dangerous, and we must be vigilant against attacks. But we have put al Qaeda on a path to defeat, and we will not relent until the job is done. [We will also keep killing, exploiting, torturing and waging war on people all over the world, and then pretend to express shock and incompetence when these victims retaliate.] In Afghanistan, we’ve inflicted serious losses on the Taliban [and in Mcchyrstal’s words, an “amazing number of people” who were not threats] and taken a number of its strongholds. Along with our surge, our allies also increased their commitments, which helped [de-] stabilize more of the country. Afghan Security Forces have grown by over 100,000 troops, and in some provinces and municipalities we have already begun to transition responsibility for security to the Afghan people.

In the face of violence and intimidation, Afghans are fighting and dying for their country [and mainly to kick us out of their country], establishing local police forces, opening markets and schools, creating new opportunities for women and girls, and trying to turn the page on decades of war. Of course, huge challenges remain. This is the beginning – but not the end – of our effort to wind down this war. We will have to do the hard work of keeping the gains that we have made [don’t ask for specifics about the “gains” I am referring to], while we drawdown our forces and transition responsibility for security to the Afghan government. And next May, in Chicago, we will host a summit with our NATO allies and partners to shape the next phase of this transition.

We do know that peace cannot come to a land that has known so much war without a political settlement. So as we strengthen the Afghan government and Security Forces, America will join initiatives that reconcile the Afghan people, including the Taliban. [Is that why we are paying members of the Taliban to “switch” to our side?] Our position on these talks is clear: they must be led by the Afghan government, and those who want to be a part of a peaceful Afghanistan must break from al Qaeda, abandon violence, and abide by the Afghan Constitution. But, in part because of our military effort, we have reason to believe that progress can be made.

The goal that we seek is achievable, and can be expressed simply: no safe-haven from which al Qaeda or its affiliates can launch attacks against our homeland, or our allies. We will not try to make Afghanistan a perfect place. We will not police its streets or patrol its mountains indefinitely. That is the responsibility of the Afghan government, which must step up its ability to protect its people; and move from an economy shaped by war [a war that we’ve had a huge hand in for decades ] to one that can sustain a lasting peace. What we can do, and will do, is build a partnership with the Afghan people that endures – one that ensures that we will be able to continue targeting terrorists and supporting a sovereign Afghan government [and as long as energy and mining companies can extract resources from the soil and seas in and around the country].

Of course, our efforts must also address terrorist safe-havens in Pakistan. No country is more endangered by the presence of violent extremists, which is why we will continue to press Pakistan to expand its participation in securing a more peaceful future for this war-torn region. [How do we know they’re violent?  We’ve got their calling cards in our Rolodexes.  And they’ve got receipts from subsidized weapons sales from American dealers.] We will work with the Pakistani government to root out the cancer of violent extremism, and we will insist that it keep its commitments. For there should be no doubt that so long as I am President, the United States will never tolerate a safe-haven for those who aim to kill us: they cannot elude us, nor escape the justice they deserve.

Don’t bother asking about justice for American politicians. I believe in the double standards afforded by American exceptionalism. We are an empire– laws and justice are for other people.

BO: My fellow Americans, this has been a difficult decade for our country. We have learned anew the profound cost of war — a cost that has been paid by the nearly 4500 Americans who have given their lives in Iraq, and the over 1500 who have done so in Afghanistan – men and women who will not live to enjoy the freedom that they defended. Thousands more have been wounded. Some have lost limbs on the field of battle, and others still battle the demons that have followed them home.

Yet tonight, we take comfort in knowing that the tide of war is receding. [Let me frame that in a way that makes war a phenomena that is caused by the pull of celestial bodies and gravity, rather than the design and greed of men.]  Fewer of our sons and daughters are serving in harm’s way. [Don’t ask who put them there.]

We have ended our combat mission in Iraq, with 100,000 American troops already out of that country. [Don’t ask how many tens of thousands of troops remain, and how many contractors are still cashing nice checks in the name of freedom and democracy and liberation. Did I mention that June was the deadliest month for the US Army in Iraq since 2009?] And even as there will be dark days ahead in Afghanistan, the light of a secure peace can be seen in the distance. These long wars will come to a responsible end.

As they do, we must learn their lessons. [Let me ignore the lessons of Vietnam and from every other war in history. That way, I can choose  lessons that won’t preclude future military interventions.]  Already this decade of war has caused many to question the nature of America’s engagement around the world. Some would have America retreat from our responsibility as an anchor of global security, and embrace an isolation that ignores the very real threats that we face. Others would have America over-extend ourselves, confronting every evil that can be found abroad.  

That thing in Libya that I’ve done—yeah, don’t think about that…

BO: We must chart a more centered course. Like generations before, we must embrace America’s singular role in the course of human events. But we must be as pragmatic as we are passionate; as strategic as we are resolute. When threatened, we must respond with force – but when that force can be targeted, we need not deploy large armies overseas. When innocents are being slaughtered and global security endangered, we don’t have to choose between standing idly by or acting on our own. Instead, we must rally international action, [by pressuring the UN and then broadly interpreting UN resolutions, such as UNSCR 1970] which we are doing in Libya, where we do not have a single soldier on the ground, but are supporting allies in protecting the Libyan people and giving them the chance to determine their destiny.  

When we’re attacked by Libyans in years to come, remember, act surprised!

BO: In all that we do, we must remember that what sets America apart is not solely our power – it is the principles upon which our union was founded. We are a nation that brings our enemies to justice while adhering to the rule of law [don’t mention torture, don’t mention torture], and respecting the rights of all our citizens. [Never mind that privacy is completely eradicated in this country and that big brother is watching your every move.] We protect our own freedom and prosperity by extending it to others.  

That nut-grab at the airport is just a friendly freedom fondle! 

BO: We stand not for empire, but for self-determination. That is why we have a stake in the democratic aspirations that are now washing across the Arab World. [Even though, admittedly, we propped up and befriended those very dictators that are now getting overthrown… see, it’s useful to American politicians to have an American public so ignorant of history.]  We will support those revolutions with fidelity to our ideals, with the power of our example, and with an unwavering belief that all human beings deserve to live with freedom and dignity. 

Actually, it’s not so much that we care about congruence of ideals—I mean, look at China. Where it suits the interests of the economic elites and warprofiteers, we’ll turn a blind eye to human rights. Though sometimes I wish we could censor the internet like China does, so we could prevent ugly reports pointing out American hypocrisy from being accessed.

BO: Above all, we are a nation whose strength abroad has been anchored in opportunity for our citizens at home. Over the last decade, we have spent a trillion dollars on war [actually close to three or five], at a time of rising debt and hard economic times. Now, we must invest in America’s greatest resource – our people. We must unleash innovation that creates new jobs and industry, while living within our means. We must rebuild our infrastructure and find new and clean sources of energy. And most of all, after a decade of passionate debate, we must recapture the common purpose that we shared at the beginning of this time of war. For our nation draws strength from our differences, and when our union is strong no hill is too steep and no horizon is beyond our reach.

Let’s not talk about 800 military bases, or the fact that US military spending costs more than 2 billion dollars a day. I hope no one looks up the employment effects of military spending either.

BO: America, it is time to focus on nation building here at home. In this effort, we draw inspiration from our fellow Americans who have sacrificed so much on our behalf. To our troops, our veterans and their families, I speak for all Americans when I say that we will keep our sacred trust with you, and provide you with the care, and benefits, and opportunity that you deserve.

I met some of those patriotic Americans at Fort Campbell. A while back, I spoke to the 101st Airborne that has fought to turn the tide in Afghanistan, and to the team that took out Osama bin Laden. Standing in front of a model of bin Laden’s compound, the Navy SEAL who led that effort paid tribute to those who had been lost – brothers and sisters in arms whose names are now written on bases where our troops stand guard overseas, and on headstones in quiet corners of our country where their memory will never be forgotten. This officer – like so many others I have met with on bases, in Baghdad and Bagram, at Walter Reed and Bethesda Naval Hospital – spoke with humility about how his unit worked together as one – depending on each other, and trusting one another, as a family might do in a time of peril.

That’s a lesson worth remembering – that we are all a part of one American family. Though we have known disagreement and division, we are bound together by the creed that is written into our founding documents, and a conviction that the United States of America is a country that can achieve whatever it sets out to accomplish. Now, let us finish the work at hand. Let us responsibly end these wars, and reclaim the American Dream that is at the center of our story. With confidence in our cause; with faith in our fellow citizens; and with hope in our hearts, let us go about the work of extending the promise of America – for this generation, and the next. May God bless our troops. And may God bless the United States of America.

Transcript of Obama’s Speech, Commentary written by Smedley Butler’s ghost

Photo by flickr user family mwr

Greece Blocks Departure of all Gaza-bound Ships

HAARETZ– The Greek government issued a statement on Friday, saying that the departure of ships with Greek and foreign flags from Greek ports to the maritime area of Gaza has been prohibited. The statement explained that this is in a bid to prevent a breach of Israel’s naval blockade.

The Greek government stressed that local Hellenic Coast Guard Authorities must take all appropriate measures to implement the decision. It also warned that the broader maritime area of the eastern Mediterranean Sea will be continuously monitored by electronic means for tracking the movement of ships trying to participate in the flotilla.

Naval authorities have already implemented the order, blocking both an American and Canadian ship planning to participate in the pro-Palestinian Gaza flotilla set to take place next week.

However, in light of Greece’s decision to block all ships heading to the strip, the flotilla has been delayed further.

American activists attempted to set sail from Greece toward Gaza on Friday aboard a boat dubbed “The Audacity of Hope”, defying calls from Israel to cancel and the ban by Athens.

Read full article about  Greece Blocks Departure of all Gaza-bound Ships.

© 2011 Haaretz

Photo by Flickr user Poster Boy NYC