A few months passed and the infamous 'Don't ask, don't tell policy' seems to be gone for good. One must remember, however, that we owe its disappearance more to the group of 8 brave Republican senators who voted to repeal it rather than to the policies of the Obama administration on the subject.

As for Obama's policies on Iraq, I hail the end of combat operations in Iraq. We've got peace at last, albeit a very bloody one. Just yesterday there were over 60 Iraqis killed in an explosion and today about 20 more died in very similar circumstances. By the way, does anybody know when G.W. Bush's and T. Blair's trial for crimes against humanity is scheduled to start?

Obama supports?

So many significant events have taken place recently that it's really next to impossible not to overlook something important: Wikileaks have released a gigantic pile of documents on the Iraqi war, construction of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories has resumed at full speed and gay people of America, after a brief period of legal equality, are again being refused admittance to the American army.

What caught my attention, however, was a sentence from the BBC news article on the last of these events. The sentence explains clearly and concisely the other two developments as well. In the news item on the gay military ban on the BBC website, I found the following: 'President Barack Obama has said he supports getting rid of the policy, but his administration believes that overturning it immediately could cause problems for the military.' It says it all, doesn't it?

Firstly, the word 'immediately' is nothing more than a bad joke here as President Obama has been in office for almost two years now. Secondly, it would seem that it is the President who runs his administration, not vice versa, so his decision and support should always have the upper hand in any dispute with the administration. Besides, why should there be any dispute? Anybody opposing him in his own administration should be fired on the spot.

Summarising, it seems that the American President is no longer a decision maker in the country he has been elected to govern. So who is? And does it make sense to held presidential ellections in the first place as the elected president cannot fulfil a single promise from his campaign.

PS
Since I spotted that sentence in a BBC article, the article itself has been changed. Below a link to the new version of the article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/int/news/-/news/world-us-canada-11589638

The original article: 
Obama administration seeks gay military ruling stay

The White House has asked a US appeals court to suspend a judge's decision permitting gays to serve openly in the military, while it appeals against it.

The military began accepting gay recruits this week after a judge struck down the "don't ask, don't tell" policy barring openly gay people from serving.

The US defence department had warned gay recruits that an appeal could come.

Judge Virginia Phillips refused a request from the Pentagon this week to reinstate the ban.

The Obama administration says it wants the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco to grant an emergency while the government prepares its appeal against the ruling by the California judge.

President Barack Obama has said he supports getting rid of the policy, but his administration believes that overturning it immediately could cause problems for the military.

Beyond belief!

I was not really going to seriously pursue the topic of my previous entry, meaning 2003 invasion of Iraq and its consequences, until I bumped into this, shocking beyond belief:

Iraqi citizen murders servicemen suspects

The shocking matter here is not so much war crimes committed by British soldiers, that happens in every war, but complete lack of prosecution. Britain seems to be a country of relatively high judicial standards and yet there's so much negligence and ill will there.

To sum it up somehow, it is obvious that it doesn't really matter who starts a war or is a war criminal but only is who is the winner. Victors write history, losers are sent to the gallows.

Bliar's book signing

I was deeply sorry to hear that that champion of democracy and peace could have his book signing event disrupted by protesters. What a shame for all of them! Isn't Iraq after the war a more citizen-friendly, more democratic, and on top of that a safer place? And surely, there are no weapons of mass destruction there now and we don't have Colin Powell running around the UN Security Council building in New York with a vial of anthrax.

Seriously though, imho 2003 invasion of Iraq was 100% illegal war of aggression and those responsible should be put on trial and punish accordingly. Not rewarded with generous publishing royalties, that's for sure.