SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Knighty Tin who wrote (114569)7/21/2008 12:29:12 PM
From: longnshort  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 132070
 
NYT REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; SHOULD 'MIRROR' OBAMA
Mon Jul 21 2008 12:00:25 ET

An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES -- less than a week after the paper published an essay written by Obama, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

The paper's decision to refuse McCain's direct rebuttal to Obama's 'My Plan for Iraq' has ignited explosive charges of media bias in top Republican circles.

'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece,' NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to McCain's staff. 'I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.'

MORE

In McCain's submission to the TIMES, he writes of Obama: 'I am dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it... if we don't win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president.'

NYT's Shipley advised McCain to try again: 'I'd be pleased, though, to look at another draft.'

[Shipley served in the Clinton Administration from 1995 until 1997 as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Presidential Speechwriter.]

MORE

A top McCain source claims the paper simply does not agree with the senator's Iraq policy, and wants him to change it, not "re-work the draft."

McCain writes in the rejected essay: 'Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. 'I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,' he said on January 10, 2007. 'In fact, I think it will do the reverse.'

MORE

Shipley, who is on vacation this week, explained his decision not to run the editorial.

'The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.'

Shipley continues: 'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq.'

Developing...

The DRUDGE REPORT presents the McCain editorial in its submitted form:

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.



To: Knighty Tin who wrote (114569)7/21/2008 1:31:17 PM
From: Pogeu Mahone  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 132070
 
With every new account C will send you a bottle:0)

July 21, 2008
In Tijuana, a Market for Death in a Bottle
By MARC LACEY
TIJUANA, Mexico — “Cocaine?” a hustler working Tijuana’s seedy Avenida Revolución called out on a recent night, his voice not the least bit muted.

“How about girls?”

When neither offering elicited the desired response, he tried another: “Cuban cigars?”

He could have continued for quite a bit longer reciting from Tijuana’s extensive menu of contraband. One product from this border town, though, trumps all others in terms of shock value: death in a bottle, a liquid more potent than even the strongest tequila.

The drug, pentobarbital, literally takes a person’s breath away. It can kill by putting people to sleep, and it is tightly regulated in most countries. But aging and ailing people seeking a quick and painless way to end their lives say there is no easier place on earth than Mexico to obtain pentobarbital, a barbiturate commonly known as Nembutal.

Once widely available as a sleep aid, it is now used mostly to anesthetize animals during surgery and to euthanize them. Small bottles of its concentrated liquid form, enough to kill, can be found not on the shelves of the many discount pharmacies in Tijuana but in its pet shops, which sell a wide variety of animals, as well as medications and other supplies for them.

“It is Mexico where Nembutal is most readily available,” says “The Peaceful Pill Handbook,” a book that lays out methods to end one’s life. Co-written by Philip Nitschke, founder of Exit International, an Australian group that helps people who want to end their lives early, the book is banned in Australia and New Zealand. In the United States, though, it is only a few mouse clicks away online.

The book, as well as seminars that Mr. Nitschke offers, lays out strategies for dying. The most trouble-free and painless form of suicide, he contends, is to buy Mexican pentobarbital, which goes by brand names like Sedal-Vet, Sedalphorte and Barbithal.

Those in search of the drug, so-called death tourists, scout out the veterinary pharmacies that abound in Tijuana. The shelves are fully stocked with tick medication for dogs, vitamins for horses and an array of bottles and boxes that make little sense to anyone but a veterinarian.

Mr. Nitschke’s book, however, provides glossy photos of the many versions of pentobarbital that are most suitable for suicide. Buying pentobarbital can be as easy as showing the pictures to a clerk and paying as little as $30 for a dose.

Pet shop clerks throughout Tijuana acknowledge that foreigners regularly inquire about the drug. “We’ve probably had 100 people come in asking for the drug in the last couple years,” said Pepe Velazquez, a veterinarian and owner of El Toro pharmacy.

Until El Norte, a regional newspaper, published an article recently that detailed how easy it was to buy pentobarbital — and how foreigners intended to use it — many store owners and clerks said they assumed the customers were using the drug to end the lives of their animals.

“We didn’t have any idea what they were doing,” said a sales clerk at a pet shop called California. “It’s for animals. Everything here is for animals. We thought they were giving it to their animals.”

It turns out that they were buying it for human consumption. Mr. Nitschke estimates that 300 members of his group, most of them from Australia but some from the United States and Europe, have bought the drug in Mexico in recent years. Some save it for when their health fails to the point that they no longer wish to live. In a few instances, buyers took the drug while in Mexico.

“To witness it, it looks as peaceful as can be,” Mr. Nitschke said of death by pentobarbital. “I usually recommend that they take it with their favorite drink since it has a bitter taste. I’ve never seen anyone finish their whiskey or Champagne. There isn’t enough time to give a speech. You go to sleep and then you die.”

But now that word is out that the drug is being used for human consumption, local authorities are seeking to clamp down on unauthorized purchases. Shops are now supposed to sell the drug only to licensed veterinarians who present a prescription.

Don Flounders, 78, has mesothelioma, a rare and deadly form of cancer usually linked to asbestos exposure. He had no problem getting pentobarbital when he traveled from Australia to Los Angeles in January and then crossed the border to Tijuana.

“I went into the first shop that was advertised as being a vet, and I showed the photo and they handed it over,” he said in a telephone interview from Australia. Getting it home was more of a challenge. It is illegal to bring pentobarbital into the United States, and Exit International says United States customs officers have seized the drug from at least three of its members. The group says no members have been caught with the drug by Australian customs officers.

But once he was home, Mr. Flounders, who advocates for euthanasia, talked to a television news crew about his purchase. He was filmed taking a bottle to a friend, Angie Belecciu, 56, who is dying of cancer and who helped to finance his trip to Mexico.

Both of their houses were later searched by the Australian Federal Police. Assisted suicide is illegal in Australia.

“It was an affront,” Mr. Flounders said of the raid. “I’m 78, and my wife is 85. I’ve got this incurable disease, and when four very big policemen came marching up the front steps it was very disconcerting.”

Neither Mr. Flounders nor Ms. Belecciu has used the pentobarbital, and charges have not been filed against either of them.

Another Australian who bought the drug in Mexico, Caren Jenning, was convicted in June of accessory to manslaughter because a friend, Graeme Wylie, who had advanced Alzheimer’s disease and had long expressed a desire to end his life, used it to commit suicide two years ago.

Also convicted of manslaughter in the case was Shirley Justins, Mr. Wylie’s partner, who opened a bottle of Nembutal purchased by Ms. Jenning and told him that if he took it he would die.

“The whole issue was whether this man had the mental capacity at the time he took the drug to end his life,” said Sam Macedone, Ms. Jenning’s lawyer. The court was apparently swayed by the prosecution’s argument that Mr. Wylie had such severe dementia that he was unable to make an informed decision to take his life.

Ms. Jenning has cancer, Mr. Macedone said. She faces up to 25 years in prison but probably has less than a year to live, he said. If he lodges an appeal, Mr. Macedone said, it will probably not be resolved until after her death.

He said it was terribly sad “that we put someone like this through all that when all she did was help a friend get where he wanted to go.”

Assisted suicide has emerged as an issue in Mexico, where the Senate voted in April to allow doctors to withdraw life-sustaining medicines from some patients but not to actively take steps to cause death. Euthanasia is also strongly opposed by the Catholic Church.

“It’s awful to me,” Mr. Velazquez, the Tijuana veterinarian and pharmacy owner, said of euthanasia. “I think people should live as long as God decides.”

All the publicity over the unauthorized use of pentobarbital has made it somewhat harder to find along Mexico’s northern border. “Oh, no, we don’t have that,” said a clerk at El Grano de Oro, the answer given by workers approached at six veterinary shops in Tijuana’s tourist zone on a recent afternoon.

At the seventh shop, however, just a few blocks off Avenida Revolución, the clerk said the drug was in stock. She reached up to a shelf behind her and pulled down a box of Sedalphorte, one of the brands Mr. Nitschke recommends. The package bore photos of a dog and a cat and said in bold letters that it could be sold only with a prescription.

Asked if she would sell it, the clerk gave a confused look. “Of course,” she said, ringing up a bottle for $45.