Clinton, Obama Camps Battle Over talking to Castro, Chavez
WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has seized on Sen. Barack Obama’s debate assertion that he’d meet with Cuban leader Fidel Castro and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez as evidence that her top rival isn’t ready for the diplomatic stage.
In one of the sharpest exchanges of the Democratic primary campaign to date, the two camps fired off dueling memos Tuesday, with Obama’s campaign suggesting that Clinton had backtracked and the Illinois senator was offering a distinct departure from the Bush administration’s refusal to engage in diplomacy.
Clinton, in an Iowa newspaper interview, called Obama’s suggestion of a dialogue with a dictator “irresponsible and frankly naive.”
Her campaign also dispatched former Clinton Secretary of State Madeline Albright, who said in a conference call that the New York senator had struck the proper diplomatic tone, ruling out engagement until lower-level talks had been completed.
“Without having done the diplomatic spade work it would not really prove anything,” Albright said.
The back and forth came as front-runner Clinton seeks to position herself as best experienced to assume the presidential helm and Obama looks to present himself as a fresh alternative.
“What she’s somehow maintaining is my statement could be construed as not having asked what the meeting was about,” Obama told Iowa’s Quad City Times. “I didn’t say these guys were going to come over for a cup of coffee some afternoon.”
The Clinton campaign sought to portray Obama’s remarks as foolhardy, with a campaign memo that suggested he’d “committed to presidential-level meetings with some of the world’s worst dictators without precondition during his first year in office.”
Obama’s campaign portrayed his words as bold at a time when the U.S. image has been tarnished by the war in Iraq. He countered with a statement from Anthony Lake, former President Clinton’s national security adviser, who said a “great nation and its president should never fear negotiating with anyone.”
“Senator Obama rightly said he would be willing to do so, as Richard Nixon did with China and Ronald Reagan did with the Soviet Union,” Lake said. “After seven years of arrogant refusal to get into direct bargaining with others, surely it’s time for some fresh thinking.”
Talk of sitting down with Castro is heresy in Miami, where a large Cuban-American exile community remains bitter toward Castro and his rule. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, angling for a slice of the powerful Cuban-American vote after he fumbled a trademark Castro phrase several months ago, joined the fray, suggesting that Obama and former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., had “demonstrated a dangerous naivete.”
At the debate Monday, Edwards said “yes” when he was asked whether he’d meet with several such leaders within his first year, but he went on to say, “Senator Clinton is right, though.”
Susana Betancourt, 38, a board member and former president of the Miami-Dade Democratic Hispanic Caucus, said she thought the answers were in tune with the sentiments of a younger generation of Cuban-Americans, who think that the U.S. policy of isolating Cuba has accomplished little. But she acknowledged that Clinton’s answer was more politically savvy and probably would be better received in Miami.
(Corral, of The Miami Herald, reported from Miami.)
McClatchy Newspapers 2007
clinton has taken a page from the bush book on foreign policy. diplomacy is for wimps. bullys have no need to talk.
There is little discernible policy dispute. Obama is merely putting out soundbytes to the Democratic base without specifics or any evidence of intention to carry through. But Clinton seized on this sound byte as evidence of Obama’s failure to tow the orthodox line. Obama duly clarified his statement and stepped back into line. The fact that of the two Latin American leaders discussed Chavez was democratically-elected several times with overwhelming majorities is not discussed (which is to be expected as part of the front-runners’ orthodoxy).
It speaks volumes about the front-runners’ foreign policy views: Obama is open to making noises to fake out the base. Clinton is more orthodox in word and deed: she equivocates in word and does nothing. Edwards feigns to agree with both Obama’s soundbyte and with Clinton’s more “responsible” tone.
Another non-issue.
Meanwhile no one is covering Cindy Sheehan’s arrest outside of Conyer’s office, the executive order to seize the property of those who protest the Iraq war, how little time Gravel and Kucinich were given in the debate, how Kucinich was cut off when he spoke of Texting PEACE. Who cares what these 2 say anyway. If elected, as Gravel said..business as usual.
HR 333 Impeach Cheney NOW
HR 1234 End the WAR
HR 676 Non-profit healthcare for all
HR 808 Dept. of Peace
2008 President Kucinich
What pathetic cratures these democrats are.
I’m finished with this system. If this is democracy, than dictatorship is looking better all the time.
If the choice between an openly-admitted dictator who at least works for the benefit of, and defense of, the working-class majority, and a dictatorship in the guise of a “democracy” that works solely for the imperialist oligharchs who are bringing humanity to the brink of extinction by war and climate disaster, then please, PLEASE give me Fidel!
Castro and Chavez the “worlds worst dictators”??? Hardly. Just goes to show what an establishment hack Hillary is.
Both are establishment hacks! Kucinich is the only candidate that speaks the truth.
Well said skysonja and fred….
I’m starting to lose hope that D.K. will EVER get any decent coverage so his voice and message will actually be heard by those who need to hear it. I’m also disappointed in the “progressives” who continually nay-say him. My faith in this whole fucked up system is deteriorating exponentially with evey Obama/Clinton/Edwards show. (I mean de-bait.)
I would be interested to hear the argument as to why Chavez is an evil dictator. I’m guessing it has something to do with the fact that he is sitting on massive oil reserves but he doesn’t take marching orders from Washington. Of course, that is the greatest of all sins, as our former stabilizing presence in the Middle East, Saddam Hussein, found out the hard way.
One can be Hitler or Stalin, but if one takes orders from Washington with respect to energy policy — all is well. Conversely, one could be Jesus and be declared an evil dictator for refusing to follow US energy plans.
Noam Chomsky has written about this ad nauseum and proven it to be true.
I think it is important to note that candidate Clinton represents exactly what is wrong with politics in this country: stay the course, don’t rock the boat. There is no question as to Castro’s type of government, but not to talk, though useful in gathering votes, is pointless with regards to diplomacy. We’ve had years of that sort of government, and it is time for a change. Obama MIGHT fit that role, but to be honest, I feel he is slipping into “business as usual”. Candidate Kucinich appears to offer a possible alternative.
It is interesting to note the views that Chavez is a dicator unworthy of talking to (difficult to due when our leaders are sucking up his oil faster than drinking a slurpy), and yet such folks as the Musharif of Pakistan (sorry about the spelling), Mubarak of Egypt, and even ole Ghaddafi appear to be the golden boys now. Sorry Hugo, but I guess having a big mouth and even bigger ideas of right and wrong is viewed as a bad thing with our leader wannabes.
I once heard “Fake much” spoken as a way to describe disingenuous people.
Fake Much.
We need to see how we can have a positive effect on ours and on other peoples lives, as we work toward shared goals and dreams in our life”.
“Some men see things as they are and say why? I dream things that never were and say ‘Why not?” - George Bernard Shaw
Castro and Chaves are evil dictators because they dictate humane and caring policies for their people.
Those evil dictators try to distribute whatever little they have equatibly among their people, provide guaranteed health care and education to all.
Castro and Chaves take the freedom away from corporations to abuse, lay off at will, enrich CEOs at the expense of the working population, and prevent corporate mass media from poisoning the minds and souls of their people.
I prefer those dictators anytime to the worthless politicians we have in the USA.
Write in Chavez!
I wish we could have a leader like Chavez:
1. Cuts his and his congress wages in half
2. Often holds a 60% approval rating (almost 3X Bush’s)
3. Redistributes wealth from the rich to the mass majority poor.
4. Kicked out Oil companies and nationalized his countries oil
5. Defeated US funded and organized coup and recall
6. Dared to call Bush out for what he is, “the devil” in New York to cheers from the UN Audience.
Personally I would consider it an honor to meet with the man who regularly brings world leaders out of their comfort zones with populous every day Joe (or Jose) type speech and attitudes.
Ragnarok,
Exactly. If you think about it, we are basically saying the State position of the U.S. is that any leader who acts as a legitimate disciple of Jesus Christ while in office, putting his faith to good works for his people — is evil.
I have actually been in heated discussions where intellectual Libertarians could not even compose themselves to exercise reason upon hearing the suggestion, “What’s wrong with take what you need and share the rest?”
I have never seen people so livid, so frothing at the mouth as a right winger upon hearing the suggestion that sharing is not a bad thing.
Power in the U.S. has stood the New Testament on its head. Good is bad. Black is white. Day is night. Blah blah.
Just a couple of things:
1.
A: By definition, Fidel Castro is a dictator, although some low-level officials in Cuba are democratically elected (municipal elections, for example feature communist party members who may be challenged by others as long as they run as independents.). Still, by definition, that makes Castro a dictator. In my personal opinion, that is irrelevant, because Cuba is better off under Fidel than certainly Batista or just about any other scenario.
B: Chavez is most certainly not a dictator, having been democratically elected multiple times and confirmed in a ridiculous recall election. Further, the Assembly in Venezuela was/is democratically elected. Therefore, on the few instances where they have given Chavez the ability to rule by decree, they are granting that power through the power of the people who democratically elected them. That makes Chavez ruling in the interest of the people, and that makes Chavez ruling democratically, not dictatorailly.
2. Clinton, Albright and Biden are 100% correct that you do not engage a foreign leader who is hostile to the United States without first being guaranteed through lower-level diplomats that the meetings will serve a purpose and not be used for propaganda. Senator Obama has shown time and time again that in any issue of foreign policy he is unqualified to lead. He said blatantly in the debate he would immediately engage the leaders of foreign nations in face to face meetings, which is irresponisible unless the prerequistes are met.
Alice, we have stepped through the Looking Glass and down the rabbit hole and now are somewhere between the Twilight Zone and the Outer Limits. The question was preposterous on its face. Bush and Cheney are chummy with the world’s worst dictators, including those of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Pakistan, and of course Reagan was chummy enough with Saddam to send Rumsfeld to give his best. The US has always coddled dictators and probably will for the foreseeable future, whether Republican or Democrat is in the White House.
And then to imply that Chavez, a democratically elected leader beloved by his people, the polar opposite of our deranged monkey put into office through fraud and Supreme Court dictate, is some murderous thug that our holy fascist annointed ones cannot stoop to actually meet personally, is so offensive to the sensibilities of any sentient being that it shocks the conscience.
Orwell could not even have imagined this.
Chavez… elected. Hamas… elected. Bush….. Cout de tat.
Who is the dictator really?
Good for Obama.
Clinton should stop looking at the “distorted miiror”. Then only she can see better the REALITY: who the REAL DICTATORS are and which are the ROGUE nations?
It is a pity that the US presidential candidate is still living in the ILLUSORY WORLD. Moreover, Madelene Albright defending her????????????????? The world knows Albright’s acts in the MiddleEast.
i’ll take dialogue over war any day. this shows clintons, and america’s arrogance.
This is precisely why I do not support Hillary Clinton. Her rapid move to the right does not play well in her home State. Cuba’s health care system is far superior to the U.S.’s and the average Cuban’s life span is longer. She is too afraid to speak the truth to be President.
The small group of billionaires who control the USA approve of Hilary, cause she wouldn’t upset the status quote.
Dennis Kucinich is the one who can/will transform the USA from some kind of psycho, child killing bully and hypocrit, into a respectable character that is a much better representative of the American people.
OSU, that’s good stuff. However, all our recent Presidents except Bush 41 had no foreign policy credentials. Reagan was from Planet Hollywood, so maybe interplanetary relations count for something.
Anyway, I think this is something that can be learned on the job, and I don’t think knowing the precise protocols beforehand is much of an advantage at all.
Clinton was a quick study on foreign policy. Of course, that guy is a quick study at everything, apparently. But, I’m not sure Obama is far down the IQ scale from ole Slick Willie. In fact, all three of the frontrunners strike me as very bright. Unfortunately, they all seem to be part of the existing apparatus and are not legitimate progressives.
Hillary’s claim to be a “modern progressive” is pretty laughable in particular. This is the former General Counsel of Wal Mart, a woman who was put to great use by Sam Walton to suppress the rights of Wal Mart workers, and was so successful, he called her “my little bulldog.”
If she’s a progressive, Che is a Fascist.
Don’t you dare bring Hamas into this discussion.
Just like some dictators can be good (Castro), some democratically elected parliaments can be bad (Hamas).
Any government that calls for the destruction of another state and the elimination of a specific group of people is immediate illegitimate. Hamas has called, time and time again, for the destruction of Israel, and many members have also called for the elimination of the Jewish people as a whole (although that is not “official” party policy, they allow it within their ranks). Contrast that with Castro who has never once called for their destruction of the United States, only US imperialism.
You lose all credibility in any serious discussion if you even imply Hamas is legitimate. I’ve said it before and I will say it again, please do not give very liberal and common sense people like me a bad name by supporting groups like Hamas.
Well you all live under a tripartite dictatorship :-Press, Elected and Financial.
Once in four years you are allowed to put a X on a sheet of paper, then buisness as usual.
As George Bush Jr said you could fool a lot of people all the time, concentrate on them
As far as foreign policy is concerned, the Clinton Administration was the most successful of the last 30 years, without a doubt. It’s not simply success, but also a matter of integrity, too, to admit when you’ve made a mistake.
The Clinton Administration achieved the following:
Stability in Bosnia and Herzogovinia
Stopped the genocide in Kosovo
Contained North Korea through responisible dipomacy
Actually eliminated the last of the WMD Iraq had and destroyed, strategically, other weapons sites
Failed in regard to Rwanda, but Clinton had the integrity to apologize profusely.
I don’t think I need to contrast that with the Bush II Administration or the embarrassment that was Reagan in Latin America. haha
First of all Mr Fidel Castro wouldn’t even talk to these cheap corporate lackeys. So, they’re arguing over nothing.
Second, these guys have proven that they will not talk to anyone as long as they have the bombs, the gunboats, the jet fighters, and the cheap canon fodder that goes with it. These guys can only talk to a selected group of captive audience in the military; the way Bush does all the time.
Third, what are they going to talk to Mr Castro about? Oh, Mr Castro, you’ve made us look like shit. You send thousands of doctors all over the world to heal people. You should like us send soldiers and bombs to kill, no?
OSUgradstudent: give it a rest. Obama wasn’t saying there wouldn’t be any preconditions for discussions. He was differentiating his approach from the Bush administration’s approach. This is a manufactured issue intended to curry favor with south Florida voters.
Good for Obama!!!!! We should by all means talk with Chavez who wether we like it or not is a hero to millons of people in Latin America, why? you might ask, well the answer is simple he is doing what they want to do, that is tell the US to stop telling them how to run their lives. If we are ever going to have friendly relations with Latin America we should start by understanding and talking with Chavez and other so called “left leaning leaders”, also he is hardly a dictator considering the support he has from his people. As far as Castro is concerned, who cares, lets wait and deal with the next guy, Castro will not last much longer.
Clinton’s hackneyed snarl at Obama is apt illustration why she is so widely distrusted. She constantly looks for what is safe and establishmentarian rather than take a bolder position that might result in real progress. Both Castro and Chavez are revered by a large majority of their people, and their tweaking the tail of the Yanqui goliath make them very popular. It would be so much better for everyone if they were accorded some dignity for their accomplishments instead of trying to paint them as weirdos. Bless Obama’s vision and willingness to face reality.
OSUgradstudent, HAMAS WAS ELECTED BY ITS PEOPLE. what is worse, calling for the destruction of a nation (hamas to israel), or actually destroying a people (israel to palestine)? OMG, while israel is starving palestine into submission, stealing their land, murdering their children, etc., etc. Hamas said some bad things about Israel. Holy Shit!
but on the substance of this article, this is a silly bunch of nothing. they are both itching to bomb iran, so who gives a crap whether obama “breaks” diplomatic protocal by saying he would do xyz? who makes these stupid diplomatic protocals anyway? God?
obama might as well have went YEEHAW like howard dean.
RE: SEN. CLINTON PISTOL WHIPS WEAKLING DEMOCRAT WHO SAYS HE’D TALK TO CHAVEZ
“Clinton, in an Iowa newspaper interview, called Obama’s suggestion of a dialogue with a dictator ‘irresponsible and frankly naive.’”
Whoah, Senator Clinton - it took GUTS to say that! Wotta man!
I am surprised time and time again to see how easily OTHERS are being labled either as dictators (like Chavez) or bad/evil (Hamas). Chavez is a dictator according to US definition because he does not represent the corporate companies as US government does, ignoring the plight of the common citizens. These people happily forget the fact that the US is a “police state” or a “surveillance state”. Hamas is evil/bad, even though elected by Palestinians, because they represent majority of Palestinians, not the US/Israel imperial interests. The reasoning goes: Hamas is bad because it has time and time again made statements about “the destruction of the state of Israel”. But the reality is it never did, it is the Israel which is butchering Palestinians. What about the US and the UK that literally destroyed the nation of Iraq? Aren’t they evil personified? It is a shame that some are still claiming legitimacy for the US inspite of its genocidal/terrorist acts around the world.
It is the other countries which should think whether they should have a dialogue with ROGUE nations, the US, Israel and the UK.
“Stay the course” Hillary has no room to talk when she voted for Bush’s war without doing her job to read the intelligence reports on Iraq.
Re: Through the Looking Glass
Hillary is just trying to be the Red Queen. She will do nothing to restore the Republic. Her presidency will be a disaster, followed by another Republican round which will destroy the country for good.
So one can presume that Pres. Hillary will only talk to the Israelis; the diminishing number of friends in Europe and the usual dark skinned lackeys.
Ms. Hillary’s attempt at telliing the American voter that Sen.Obama is naive as well as incompetent suggests that she assumes that the average voter is incompetent and is not able to judge for themselves who is naive; who is a political hack; who is a hypocrite; who is an opportunist etc,.
Before casting his/her vote the American voter needs to ask BIG MAMA Hillary who to vote for. Sen Obama must be hurting Sen Hillary bad for her to even make such a suggestion. Her outlook may be stigmatized by the facts that as a many a year resident of Illinois, Arkansas, DC and a quickie resident in NY state [ one is still at a loss as to how quickly Hillary became a bona fide resident as well as a Senator from a state that is home to Wall Street, the New York Stock Exchange, Goldman Sachs, Trump et. al. Would not surprise one to learn that Hillary might hold dual citizenship/passports.
One burning issue that may hurt Sen. Hillary is the one dealing with whether she would, if she became Prez. let Bill have the same small office and desk which did not serve as a tryst to the non-sexual interactions between her husband and Monica or she would keep it for herself.
Do not believe everything you hear from the republican corporate spin machine or in other words “The Free Press”. I watched the debate I’m sure Mr. Obama simply meant he felt talking to world leaders was a necessary policy, granted it does not follow the “war only policy” created by this the 3rd Bush administration, the first one started in 1980.
It was an American policy of past generations, prior to 1980. Ms. Clinton simply stated a more definitive answer but basically answered the question the same way. Good for Ms. Clinton and good for Mr. Obama to both stand for diplomacy and not war. Once again I ask why do we call the corporate news media in this country, “free press”?
Please correct me if I am wrong, but after 500,000 Iraqis died, someone asked Madeleine Albricht if she thought bombing Iraq was the right thing to do. She replied “I think it was worth it.” Do you think Albricht was an impartial judge?? I think NOT!
Basically when Obama was asked whether he would engage in diplomacy he said “yes” and Hillary said “no”.
Hillary needs polls, campaigners, and most of all corporations to tell her who she should meet. I want a leader…not a Stooge in the presidency.
If you want the same calculated seasoned, never knew what it was like to be an avg American, politician, then vote for the one who is most polished. If you want something different, if you want someone real vote for the new guy. His career reflects someone who is dedicated to serving his country without playing the political game.
But in the end either one is better than the uneducated, silver spoon, cowboys who want to expand Gitmo, and torture “Jack Bower Style”. The GOP is offering more Bush Style Goverment. They’re just plain disgusting.
GO 08AMA!!!!!
Is Hillary much different than Bush? Hardly. She and Bill ended welfare, decimated Habeas Corpus, bombed Yugoslavia and Baghdad and Sudan and killed hundreds of thousands. Give her a chance and she’ll do more of what Bush is doing.
Return her to Wal Mart, where she was once on the Board of Directors.
It’s foolish to try and claim Hamas is a well meaning friend of western civilization which PS.. we live in… Isreal is no better, dont get me wrong.. but hamas, despite being democratically elected is no friend to us… the statement by gandhi that hamas members never stated they were in favor of the destruction of israel is ridiculous.. and for any elected government to actively endorse the complete destruction of a nation and people is never okay, whether we do it or hamas does it. yes george bush, cheney are evil, but so is hamas and so is israel.. chavez not so much.. i like him.. castro, also not so bad… but realistically, i’d rather live here than in cuba… in america i get to choose where i work, what i eat, where i vacation, where i live… granted our government doesnt help the situation down there… but, i think we’re a little better off.. healthcare excluded of course.
I have a qusstion though, as progressives i often find us claiming that we supported going into afhanistan after OBL… but we disagreed with invading iraq (obviously) i also find that we often cite the US hipocracy of propping up pakistan and dealing with them despite being a dictatorship.. just wondering, how do we compromise the fact that we favor intervention in afghanistan while propping up pakistans dictatorship. one could argue that having any success in afghanistan requires the assistance of pakistan no? just curious what people think. thanks!
RE: OSUgradstudent July 25th, 2007 4:30 pm
“He said blatantly in the debate he would immediately engage the leaders of foreign nations in face to face meetings, which is irresponisible unless the prerequistes are met.”
“he would immediately engage the leaders of foreign nations in face to face meetings, which is irresponisible unless the prerequistes are met.”
It seems that to require prerequisites (”something that is necessary to an end or to the carrying out of a function”) before one begins face-to-face talks is plainly silly.
If one is willing to meet face-to-face that is the one and only prerequisite necessary.
Engaging in dialogue and staying engaged is the key to diplomacy.
Perhaps, the tragedy of American Diplomacy is that we have an under educated State Department lead by ideologues (an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology) that represent only the interests of multi-national corporations.
Next thing you know some fool will want to equitibly share lraq’s oil wealth. Oh wait a minute that was Bush’s idea; good idea in lraq, bad idea in Venesuela. AHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
We need another JFK somebody who will ship a boat load of Bush supporting Cubans to Cuba then forget about them, let ‘em swim back to Miam i!
Sounds like OSU gradstudent is well versed in compliant regurgitation of the elite “conventional wisdom” regarding Bill Clinton’s reign:
A couple of questions…
What “genocide” occurred in Kosovo BEFORE the United States bombed Yugoslavia for 78 days?
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0313-29.htm
How many Iraqi children died because of sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s?
http://www.geocities.com/iraqinfo/index.html?page=/iraqinfo/sanctions/sarticles.html
Clinton Dynasty, as any other Dynasty, is irrelevant on the World stage - where is my money that Mark Rich took with him in Switzerland..?
And what this tells all of us…?
The political process is in the hands of (mostly) charlatans - pure and simple - characters that belong to the time when the **medicine man in a travelling show** was all we could understand and need and be part of - did we ever went to the moon (an indication of advanced knowledge and somehow, progressive civilization) and how that **KNOWLEDGE** experience is affecting us in still believing that charlatans are the voice of a serious political process, which, few cases set aside, is, again, a DOCTRINE we believe as the ONE and ONLY - wake up, America - or, it might be too late - history has answers on that, more than one
And, by the way, check the Great Hero Donald Rumsfeld and his legacy when it come to ASPARTAME health effect -his little creation, jewel and a LOTTA $$$$
I don’t believe Hillary’s position. And I think Obama is just pandering to the far left and doesn’t really mean it.
Using Campaign Spending Limits to Get America Better Politicians is the Only Way to Solve America’s Problems Enough
Obama looks better to me every day. Clinton never appealed to me. Today she appeals to me even less.
Dr. Zimmerman,
the state department is not uneducated nor is it entirely full of idealogues.. it may be run by idealogues but it is certainly a balancing force and a reasonable force in US foreign policy and has been balancing right wing crazyness for 50years. Have you taken the foreign service exam? Do you know what it takes to be a state department officer? These people are anything but uneducated, they are truly the best and the brightest in any branch of government. They sacrifice their lives for diplomacy signing up and striving to be there knowing full well they’ll spend the first 10 years of their career in the most dangerous horrible places on earth. Now, if you were talking about your average cogressional legislative aid, i would agree with you.. they are truly ideologues and poorly educated.. i worked in a congressional office for some time… those people are DENSE… and trust me, nobody in washington gives a DAMN about anyone outside of washington, its like living on the moon.
Personally, I would like to see our next president go to Cuba immediately and meet privately with Castro while he is still alive. ___ The same way Lee Iacocca did.
Mend the fences and apologise to the world for the manner we treated the people of Cuba. Our president could do that with a ‘few’ others too. It would sure help to ease up a lot of shaky situations in the world.
Diplomacy first?__ Diplomacy is shaking hands and teling the damn truth. If the other guy betrays the new trust, that is a different matter. We could start by being the first to say,___I’m truly sorry.
Baby Bush was eager to take out Saddam to prove how much more macho he was than his daddy. Now, Hillary has to prove that she can be as brutal as any man. Meanwhile, Barak Obama has an
unprecedented understanding of what kind of human needs to be a president for our country. Read both of his books, and you will see he has the life experiences that give him a perspective that Hillary will never have. This country cannot afford another war monger in the White House, and Mrs. Clinton’s support of the Iraq war was real and genuine. She is destined to part of the problem not the solution.
She brags about her willingness to keep America the bully of the world. Mr. Obama, however, can understand that the basic premise of our foreign policy is like foreign aid, neither foreign nor aid. Bush’s quest for empire has failed. Clinton’s quest for continued American dominance will not further the cause of peace.
There are many Democrats who bring special perspectives and talents to the race. Kucinich understands how important peace is to a better world. Clinton is the establishment candidate. Edwards has a sense of how much we need to advance equality. Richardson is most able to navigate thorny diplomatic paths. Brarak Obama, however, is the only one who has world class charisma because he just “gets” it more. He does not have Hillary’s corporate bags to carry. Bill, Hillary, and Joe Liberman are not from the part of the Democratic Party that can brings us out of the morass that Bush has gotten us into.
This time we have to elect someone who is just not part of the pack.
Here is a quote from The Guardian Weekly, 07-20-07: “The first clear signs that Gordon Brown will reorder Britains’s foreign policy emerged last week when one of his closest cabinet allies urged the US to change its priorities and said a country’s strength should no longer be measured by its destructive military power.” Seems to me Obama is on the right track and he and Brown might make more positive headway for world peace and prosperity than the previous Blair/Bush cowboy team.
Good for you Obama.
Clinton and Obama are OWNED, OK? Shun these and all similar poseurs.
What kind of discourse between countries can we expect, with leaders like this? They are so totally controlled, and unable to think out of the box created for them. And in the end, they’ll be back together, on the same page- watch, this supposed differing in strategy is mere smokescreen. I’m so bored.
Hugo Chavez is probably my favorite leader in the world right now, and Fidel is a much better dictator than Bush! I would take either of them over any of the candidates we have going…(except maybe Kucinich). They are real revolutionaries on the side of the people — such a dangerous thing to be! I am so sick of the press and our politicians calling leaders who oppose our administration’s fascist policies “anti-American”. Speak for themselves! They are anti-Bush, anti-corporatocracy like the majority of Americans!
Hillary is so not a modern progressive. She is as right-wing and bought off as they come!
Claudius-right on-except I think she was asked about the 500,000 children
that had died as a result of the Bush-Clinton sanctions. These are some cold
folks.
Chavez is a “worst dictator” ?
Walmart Witch
“Clinton seeks to position herself as best experienced to assume the presidential helm and Obama looks to present himself as a fresh alternative”
She is not, and neither is he!
What sort of bad joke is this the Dimocrats are playing with these two clowns?
Bush is at least honest about his childish attempts to punish other countries by not talking to them. Hillary dresses it up in evasions about “diplomatic spadework” and “clearing the underbrush”.
“I’m also disappointed in the “progressives” who continually nay-say him (Kucinich)”
as long as Kucinich is part of the democ-rat-ic party he is tainted the same brush. If he is truly progressive he would be independant. There is no way in hell kucinich is going to become the democratic nominee so why does he still latch on to the party ?
I am no Obama enthusiast, but Clinton’s position is incredibly stupid, ignorant and/or dishonest. President Chavez — freely elected (or reelected or not recalled) in three successive elections monitored by international observers (including the Carter Center and the US-dominated OAS) — is a “dictator”? President Castro — repeatedly elected in admittedly one-party elections, but nevertheless elected — is a “worst dictator”? As compared with unequivocally unelected despots such as the King of Jordan, the King of Saudi Arabia, the self-designated “President” of Pakistan (who installed himself through a military coup)? After 7 years of Bush’s refusal to deal directly with the truly “worst dictator” of North Korea — accomplishing absolutely nothing until that “worst dictator” suddenly detonated a nuclear weapon, thereby proving himself a worthy negotiating partner — comes now candidate Clinton to tell us that it is “naive” to meet directly with other nations’ leaders whom she views as “worst dictators”? Apparently by her criteria, a regime which diverts national oil revenues to basic social programs for the impoverished majority of the people (the Chavez regime) is “worse” than a regime which lavishes national oil revenues on a relatively few members of the royal family (the Saudi regime); and a regime which manages to overcome a 45-year economic boycott by its gigantic neighbor and somehow succeeds in providing its largely impoverished population with world-class educational and health care systems (the Castro regime) is “worse” than a regime which receives massive financial aid from the same foreign giant and leaves most of its people in helpless poverty while developing and proliferating nuclear weapons (the Musharraf regime). Thank you, candidate Clinton, for exposing your values. Keeping in mind the Senate’s recent (two weeks ago) 97-0 vote finding Iran guilty of various fabricated “acts of war” against US troops in Iraq — and thus implicitly giving President Bush a green light to “retaliate” against Iran whenever he chooses (despite a pious “this isn’t an authorization to use force” proviso in the 97-0 condemnation) — I now am certain whom not to vote for in 2008: any Senator in this miserable, ignorant, dishonest, cowardly Congress.
We are all aware that the corporate media decides our elections. We can either rant and gnash our teeth, or we can fix things once and for all, simply, easily and without bloodshed: http://ni4d.us/
Gyptian, perhaps Dennis still “latches onto the party” because it is the best way to express his leftist ideas. If he ran as an independant or green, he would have to give up his seat in the house of representatives, and his seniority. That would mean goodbye to co-sponsoring hr676, and calling for Cheney’s impeachment, unless he wanted to do it from the sidelines, writing powerless articles to his group of internet fans like Nader does. But I suppose Dennis is a sellout for holding actual office, when he could could be refusing to have any contact with the progressive democratic caucus just because of what political party they belong to. Oh, but don’t you wish he would just give up his 30+ year career to satisfy a few people who can only think in generalizations.
First of all, Chavez is one of the most popular leaders and has been elected in, ah-um, three straight fair elections.
Why the heck WOULDN’T you meet with him. And he’s one of the most influential figures in this hemisphere, and indeed, the planet.
To not meet with Chavez would be idiotic and just shows how petty Clinton is as she strives for Cuban American votes, votes she ain’t gone get anyway.
As for Castro, not only should be met, we should freaking apologize for terrorizing his country since the early sixties, and pay reparations for all of the Cubans we’ve killed and factories we’ve blown up and crops we’ve poisoned there.
and that is why i hat hillary clinton. she is pretty much a neo-conservative. i mean she is not ignorant. she knows that chavez and castro are moral men. they help there people. she is just so calculating. she is playing to the crazy cubans in florida. what a bitch. she is shallow, hollow husk of person. she has no soul. i know this may sound weird but she is similar in many ways to dick cheney. think about it.
I very strongly believe that Hillary Clinton will win and become America’s first official fascist dictator. Bush is at best a quasi-dictator, he is helping to pave the path for the Hillary Clinton dictatorship, which will look so much more “politically correct” than her predecessors regime. It will also be a far worse nightmare for the entire globe.
During the Hillary Clinton dictatorship, there will be a terrorist attack like 9/11 or worse. Martial law will be declared, with a mixture of the police, military, national guard and Blackwater keeping order. Hillary Clinton and her cabinet will cleverly disguise their base of support by looking very “politically correct”. While ultimately being the puppets of mostly rich Christian whites, expect many minorities in her cabinet to serve as frontmen and frontwomen for the fascist regime.
Under Hillary Clinton, what little is left of the Constitution from after the Bush years will be destroyed due to the “War on Terror”. The Bill of rights will be totally suspended. Corporations will be let lose like never before to rape, pillage and exploit America and the rest of the world. Corporations will be allowed to sue other corporations, but individuals, and class-action lawsuits against corporations by trial lawyers will be illegal. The EPA, and SEC will either be shut down, or severely underfunded. A new Christian Constitution will be rewritten for sure, but to serve the interests of the ruling class and fascists. There will be a universal military draft, with the objective of totally “democratizing” the Middle East, first by invading Syria, then Iran. Invading Lebanon is also likely, to attempt to destroy Hezbollah. Venezuela will also be invaded. It is possible that left-wing revolts in Europe(and South America) may lead to the rise of anti-fascist governments, which the U.S would have to go to war against, using nuclear weapons. Canada will also be invaded, to protect the north flank in case of Chinese or European invasion. This basically means World War III.
Because of the “World War III”, all unions will be disbanded, the minimum wage abolished, and any kind of protest punishable by prison time. The end of affirmative action. I believe that Blackwater could form something like a Christian version of Hezbollah or the SS in being the vanguard fighting World War III around the world and keeping order in the U.S. Large concentration camps will be built in Mid America to house political prisoners/dissidents(we already have the largest prison population in the world). These camps will be run by super patriot Christian fundamentalists. They will have armies of ministers run special classes for brainwashing prisoners, to make them more “compliant” for the Judeo-Christo-fascist World Order.
The illusory “2 party” system will be maintained because it works so well for the ruling fascists. We will still be able to vote for senators, congressmen and governors, to give the illusion that we are still a “democracy”, but all the candidates must be certified fascist(working for the interests of the ruling class). Democrats will occasionally say things that sound “progressive” to make them seem different from the Republicans, but it will be entirely superficial(something the “2 party system” has already perfected). The “unpatriotic” Greens, Progressives and their parties will be abolished and their members jailed or given a chance if they undergo thorough pro-fascist “re-education” offered in schools. Hillary Clinton will turn over most of the media to Roopert Morduch and a few other trusted patriotic fascists. The entire print and television media will be modeled on Faux news, except more far to the right(is that even possible?). The Internet will become privatized and heavily censored. Commondreams and left-wing as well as moderate conservative news sources will no longer exist.
Hillary Clinton = just another stooge of the neocons. End of story.
sonomason,
I believe you are right. Thanks for the correction. Albright reminds me of my cold, mean 4th grade teacher.
At the risk of sounding sexist and insensitive, I have to say the woman is an imbeciloid.
Hugo Chávez enjoys the overwhelming support of his people! That has been confirmed time and again by election monitoring organizations from over twenty countries, including the US´s Carter Center, the OAS, the EU, etc.
And, lo and behold, the US still imports oil from Venezuela, a sine qua non for the status quo, bitch as they might…
It´s risible (French), or laughable (English). Hillary doesn´t know what she´s talking about: that´s clear.
I don´t think Obama would make a hill of beans´difference in US foreign policy–given the history of the US–but I have to say that for a potential candidate to say that he would engage with purported bogeymen is a salutary departure from the demonization that has characterized US foreign policy toward those it disagrees with.
Try this assumption, Hillary: Most countries would like to enjoy good relations with the US on equal terms. Why else would Venezuela send discounted heating oil to Massachusetts and New York?
Despite Mike Moore´s idolatry of you, I still think you´re a plain Jane!
Love,
Flavio
Let us have joyful talk with fresh beans. Every time and ever where. It is so delicious. Best of the pack.
[quote]Clinton, in an Iowa newspaper interview, called Obama’s suggestion of a dialogue with a dictator “irresponsible and frankly naive.”[quote]
you got to laugh at the stupidity of this woman. Is she forgetting all the US sanctioned dictatorships installed in Latin America for the benefit of US corporations or am I just imagining that ever happened.
Anyway Chavez is:
1) not a dictator.
2) the man.
It almost makes me want to relocate to Venezuela just to give the man a hand.
Clinton’s reaction places her, once again, squarely on the right,defending corporate interests and making it clear to those with money and power where she stands.
While Obama is not free of corporate ties and pandering, he does give voice to the other perspectives.
Why is it that the women who benefit the most from the hard fought battles of the women’s movement end up being so out of touch with how they achieved their political power?
If Obama really wanted to distinguish himself as a “fresh alternative” he might try publicly denouncing the statement that Chavez is a dictator. It would be easy enough for him to point tot he facts and decry Clinton and the rest of the Chavez demonizers for the liars that they are.
They could all learn a lesson from the “dictators”
you will never win the hearts and minds of the people if you kill and oppress them. Fidel is the leader of a popular revolution he could not have come to power without the support of the people. Their one party system doesn’t look much different then our two party system. We just keep changing the name of our dictator.
Oh OSUgrad Hamas…..Hamas….Hamas..
Why do think they elected Hamas.. because no one will talk them. They have been oppressed for 6 decades they will elect anyone who says they will fight the oppressors.
RE: WHY KUCINICH WORKS IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY vs INDEPENDENT
Io Q. Lellity July 26th, 2007 12:14 am
That is one finely argued post.
Further, in line w/your points, being a Democratic presidential nominee gives virtually the only opportunity in U.S. politics for a progressive to directly challenge and argue against the right wing views of the other Democratic contenders - before a national audience.
The Headline should read:
“Clinton shoots self in the foot”
The ‘tween Demo fighting is the sort of thing voters will not put up with this election. It’s a sure sign of weakness and a distraction from what the people have on their minds right now: Impeachment, stopping the war, and bringing the troops home.
Mrs. Clinton wanting to show she is tough, is the reason that most folks, read that women, will not vote for her — she presents no clear alternative to the bravado machista bullies we have there now.
In this exchange Barak seems much more thoughtful in foreign diplomacy, something we miss around here now.
At last a clear distinction between the two leading candidates. So far the campaign has been a complete bore, with most candidates espousing the same ole cautious middle of the road rhetoric.
I don’t know about you but I would like to see a candidate take chances and say exactly what they are thinking and not give vague generalized answers to profound important questions.
We all know that candidates must move to the center if they wish to get elected. Honesty and candor while laudatory only manages to get you a second tier rating as witnessed by Dennis Kucinich
But quite frankly I am sick and tired of Hillary Clinton and her extremely cautious (conservative) stance on the war and foreign policy. She is very much like a chameleon that changes her position when the polls run against last week’s position. Unfortunately Americans have a short memory and do not take notice of the fact that her foreign policy ideas are a disaster and she basically votes the way the Israeli lobby tells her to. As a Senator from NY you cannot get elected without the support of the Israeli lobby and she is still their puppet.
Is this what America really needs a DLC democrat who differs only slightly from W. Only Kucinich had the courage to vote against a ridiculous quagmire war. All the other major candidates in the debate were gullible enough to be fooled by the lies promoted by the white house.
Obama was of course correct in his response about whether he would talk with other countries considered our enemies. I would certainly trust his foreign policy judgment more than I would trust Hillary but I am still uncertain about Obama especially since he voted with the banks and credit card industry to support the bankruptcy bill, which showed me that he is also susceptible to lobbying pressure.
I guess we will all have to take a wait and see attitude before finalizing our decisions. But I fully intend to support and vote for Kucinich in the primaries.
Whoa
“Don’t you dare bring Hamas into this discussion.
Any government that calls for the destruction of another state and the elimination of a specific group of people is immediate illegitimate.”
Are you saying the state of Israel is illegitimate?
“Irresponsible and frankly naive”.
Sounds like neocon, Empire-building language to me.
“The United States can masquerade as a superpower for only so long before reality forces us into a rude awakening. We will soon wake up to the fact that we can no longer sustain our current lifestyle, support our military, and fight wars on borrowed money and imports - as one by one our creditor nations refuse to renew their loans to us. Our foreign lenders can plainly see there is no way we can ever repay these loans on a declining industrial manufacturing base with fewer American-owned wealth producing companies remaining in America after thousands of them have been sold to foreign interests in recent years.
These foreign loans are strategic - designed to lull us into a sense of apathy. Foreign lenders are postponing our country’s painful reckoning and muting the warning signs that would normally accompany such massive and untenable deficits. The undeniable effect (whether it is their goal or otherwise) is to hollow out our ownership, control, and ability to sustain ourselves until we are no longer a threat to other world economic powers.” -Published 07/20/07 by Tom Rafter http://www.economyincrisis.org/articles/show/1100
After you read the “complete” article by Tom Rafter, you might want to google “Sovereign Wealth Funds” and look at their potentially devastating implications for the debt-ridden United States.
The U.S. borrows about $2.5 billion per day to keep our heads above water while these politicians give themselves a pay increase every year and outsource our manufacturing plants along with the Middle Class who built this country.
I love Kucinich too. But mainstream America will not elect Kucinich in ‘08, and as they get to know Obama, they like him more and more–making him much more electable across the board. As a bi-racial man, Obama has spent a lifetime learning to parse his words carefully so as to speak his truth and caring without offending (which Hillary, despite her greater years, has not learned to do as well because she gets so gleefully excited, like a little kid, really, about lawyerly going for the jugular when she (imagines) she has an opportunity.) Although Obama will make mistakes during the campaign and a presidency–everyone does–Hillary, bless her fearful white provincial upper-class ivy-league Sunday-schooled ambitious little heart (and I agree that she is smarter, braver, tougher and more giving than 99.9999999999999% of the people in the world are, including me, so I’m not saying she isn’t wonderful–just not the president we need in ‘08), Hillary may eventually self-destruct by thinking/saying many things as outrageous and revealing as she did at this time–and will eventually, I hope, realize, along with her husband, that Obama deserves her support for the presidency.
Obama knows how to offer a higher answer springing from truths in his heart and mind, without confusing or offending, and his sometimes cryptic answers always further the dialogue in positive ways. Of course we should befriend and have relationships with everyone, including our “enemies” in order that they someday become our friends (unless you prefer eternally beating them into submission….which Bush only does with enemies he’s created by declaring them such, because he wants to justify taking what they have….) Diplomats and statesmen are trained for many long years only to talk with friends? The whole point of diplomacy is to get to where “enemies” can communicate and exchange their points of view, caring, and concerns, and become friends….
You Kucinich fans out there…and I am very much among you…you don’t have to be against Obama to be for Kucinich so please stop tearing him down. Give him a chance to grow and prove himself–his learning curve is phenomenal and if he can survive a candidacy, he’ll have proved himself capable of leading a country….
Having voted for Nader so many times, I am finally, along with Obama, willing to work from the sad state of affairs in this country now, which is a two almost-identical party system. But both parties will ultimately nominate whomever they think will win it for them, and Obama could win.
Maybe a President Obama will initiate changes leading us away from a two-party system. I’m quite sure if he thought he could get elected that way, he would have joined the Green Party long ago, but he doesn’t think that will work. I don’t either.
I have not yet seen Obama sell out to anyone. My only fear is that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and I’d hate to see Obama (or Kucinich, for that matter) have to struggle against the temptations of that much power….) Clinton already has…with only mixed success…. Keeping that power seems to have become as important to her as using it well, unfortunately…. Although I hope I’m wrong.
Nancy Pace responds to breaking news at www.epharmony.com
Something I noticed about Clinton in the last “debate”. Watch for the smug, self-satisfied expression on her face after she responds and the tone of:
“Irresponsible and frankly naive”
as well.
Her scolding is the same pattern of Kerry admonishing Dean on his “even-handedness” comment referring to the IP conflict.
Both broadcast their allegiance to the social order and power brokers.
“At the debate Monday, Edwards said “yes” when he was asked whether he’d meet with several such leaders within his first year, but he went on to say, “Senator Clinton is right, though.” ”
This rules out Edwards as a serious candidate having just admitted he’d do the ‘wrong thing’ if he was president and probably do the ‘right thing’ if he was allowed on Clinton’s ticket.
Properly speaking out of both sides of his mouth like a true hopeful.
“Any government that calls for the destruction of another state and the elimination of a specific group of people is immediate illegitimate.”
Hamas is calling for nothing of the sort. What nonsense!
They only refuse to aknowlewge the nonsensical Isreali “right to exist”. States are diplomatically recognized - i.e. an ambassador and embassy is established, but there is nothing called “right to exist”.
Even if they did recognize the Isreali “right to exist” wht does it mean? Hamas HAS stated several times that they would be willing to recognize an Isreal that “exists” within the 1967 borders, provided that Israel recongizes a completely free and independent Palestine and that refugees have the right to return to their homes in either Palestine or Israel.
And lets be clear here, calling for the elimination of a state is no calling for killing anyone. A state is not a people, in fact, more often than not, a state is an instrument of opression of a poeple. I’d love to see the end of the current republic called the United States - that doesn’t mean I want to kill anyone, I only want to kill an organization that has always imperfect and after 218 years point has degrraded to a condition beyond repair.
Is the Cuban American vote that critical? Hillary Clinton is stuck on the very tired and worn out party line. And her positon as regards Castro and Chavez are worn out and invalid. Cuba is not going away after Castro’s death and we Americans and especially Hillary Clinto, should abandon any illusions that the Cuban people are going to rush into the streets, begging our return after the death of Fidel Castro.
Hugo Chavez has been demonized by the Bush administration and the American press simply because he wants to reclaim recsources that rightfully belongs to Venezuela, their OIL.
Even with a guns to their heads elected Iraqui representative have not bowed to the OIL GIVE AWAY legislation force fed them by US and British interests. Why should be believe that Venezuela will voluntarily delivery their weath into our hands.
Hillary, give up now and just go home.
If we had dealt with al Qaeda through international policing it’s true AFAIC the threat would have been reduced [in addition to having acted on Brooks’ Lesson Four]. Of course we didn’t, and now we have Pakistan to worry about.
It’s really strange none of the Dem candidates try to teach Americans a la Perot anything about what has been going down in this world. Save I guess Gore on climate, and Edwards is ok on domestic. In the brief forum I watched Gravel was trying to do this in regard to “the war on drugs,” but when it comes to income taxes, as much as I wish he was right…and as much as bueaucracy is a problem…he is SO wrong.
How is any candidate going to catch Americans up on what’s been wrong with our projected Realpolitik approach? Since 9/11 there have been a lot of good books on the subject…right at this moment it looks like there are two new ones.
Despite her distancing from Obama on this question, I have to hope we can survive through Hillary and that DK will have a shot later, and that if South Floridians are swayed by her in 08…their votes will actually count! I have to hope this, cause I can’t be sure that what is there to replace the violence and the Realpolitik will have been adequately expressed/ articulated/demanded by the next election. Or second best would be Obama after he boned up a little. The only thing remotely said in line with Lesson Four so far has been Kucinich’s outspokenness with regard to offshore tax havens. That logic is the only logic with a prayer of a chance…because it is the ONLY true and pertinent logic capable of uniting a divided house (in terms of the terroist threat, and the myriad other security issues joined with this take…not to mention funds for programs).
In the meantime, what Kucinich has said about violence in America1 will no doubt end up day by day resonating as more and more significant. Whether on the highways or elsewhere it’ll come more and more into all of our lives. We’re sitting here trying to straighten out the world and our own towns’ll keep coming apart. That is without that change in direction we all agree on.
The statements prior to this post above in regard to Kucinich are encouraging, right on, and give me hope.
1http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=62819
correct url for above post is
http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=62819
Superscript didn’t work here.
adamhewitt99 July 25th, 2007 8:56 pm
“Have you taken the foreign service exam? Do you know what it takes to be a state department officer? These people are anything but uneducated, they are truly the best and the brightest in any branch of government. They sacrifice their lives for diplomacy signing up and striving to be there knowing full well they’ll spend the first 10 years of their career in the most dangerous horrible places on earth.”
Clever misdirection here: Before one serves the State Department one must get “security clearance.” Security Clearance eliminates the ones that are not “ideologues (an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology) that represent only the interests of multi-national corporations.”
Certainly most are well meaning people in the civil service hired part of the State Department, but when it comes to overthrowing the government of Chile on September 11, 1973 where were the civil service workers.
You seem to be a well-meaning person and I think that we agree that throw the baby out with the bath water serve no one well. Let’s agree that we need to get fully educated people to take the State Department to higher standards.
My history is a bit rusty but I believe that Hillary Clinton
has in the past had ties to a right Cuban exile group called
the Cuban American National Foundation. Her brother is (or was) married into a Cuban Exile family. I believe he ran
for US Senate in Florida in 1994 as a Democrat. I recall
that Bill Clinton tightened the embargo on Cuba than it
was in even the Reagan-Bush 1 years. This is one reason that
Florida went for Clinton in both 1992 and 1996. The Ellian
Gonzales situtation forced Clinton to go against the CANF’s
wishes and proably helped Bush take Florida in 2000(along
with other things). This could be why Obama’s statement
pushed a button with Senator Clinton. I see this as a very
negative indication of what Clinton”s Latin American policies would look like.
The late Harvard Professor of Psychiatry John Mack, who wrote a Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) once wrote, regarding the 1991 Gulf War, that, “The United States aspires to play a constructive role in the peace process that will follow this frightful war. But our ability to do so will depend on achieving political maturity, which would enable us to empathize with the plight of troubled and needy people in cultures unlike our own. Were we to acknowledge our own imperialistic proclivities, as T.E. Lawrence did of Britain’s, the higher values to which we hold ourselves would likely compel us to admit that international political confrontations do not yield to aggressive ultimata and purely military solutions. In the meantime, there is a real danger that the exuberant misapplication of our extraordinary technological capability and military power will cause further terrible suffering and bring the world to the edge of annihilation.”
Our presidents, as Noam Chomsky has pointed out in his book “Failed States” are prone to imperial ambitions. And this, regardless of political party. As they say, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” It is, and will be, something the Congress and the people will have to constantly battle the presidency about (if they choose to do their jobs).
CLAUDIUS I correct you because you are not right. Let’s get it straight. Albright was talking about the former Yugoslavia and all the killing there, not about Iraq. ( I know. It’s hard to keep all the various killing fields straight.)
CLAUDIUS You are correct. Albright was speaking of the pre-war sactions imposed on Iraq and the thousands of deaths that ensued.
Goes to illustrate the difficulty of keeping straight all the places America’s recent and present masters have inflicted such misery on the world.
Samski, Edwards did say Hillary is right, but___ then he continued that she was only correct in that perhaps not talking to other world leaders during the first year of office.
Of course Edwards has to play the tight rope game if he wishes to be a running mate of Clinton or Obama should he lose the primary.
He screwed up when he joked about her coat though, he’s dead meat with her now. Never, ever criticize a ladies clothing. Well, maybe I’m wrong there,__ is Hillary a lady?
Up there at 11:37 AM I wrote something carelessly.
A lot of us realize that at this juncture to attempt to reach societal goals by politics is a long shot. I guess that’s why Wendell Berry for one stresses the role of work from private individuals to assist whomever. Still, as far as I’m concerned…if I’m gonna advocate any politics I might as well give it my best shot. Give the idea the lucidity it needs.
I wrote that Obama would be second best in 2012. When I wrote it I was thinking about his remark with respect to Chavez and Castro…which might have been a little idealistic. But when we look at politics for what it is…it’s incumbent on us to gauge how much it will bend (thus Chartreuse Muse presents the idea that it was Nader who yielded up to us Bush in 2000–I don’t buy it but it’s the kind of scenario you have to avoid). There are, as far as I can see, two aspects to gov when we’re estimating its propensity to become more progressive. In the first place there is (to paraphrase) the dept of Realpolitik. Owing to its nature it’s gonna change slow. We have Tenet pointing out failures, and we have Powell pointing out failures. I’m not gonna keep blastin’em. That they are making these points now is a good sign. But the dept of R will not likely IMO be ready for the change Obama would favor in 2012, perhaps in 2016…maybe 2020 or who knows? One thing for sure though: after Bush and Cheney are gone invasions will be thought out. I think that much more dramatic changes in domestic politics OTOH may be unavoidable. Edwards is right to hit the nowhere towns and the nowhere people now in his campaigning. What does it say? Well, it says something that will be extremely clear after eight more years of foreclosures, no universal healthcare, and no REAL exports. By then the impact of NAFTA not just on us but on Mexico too will be crystal clear to everyone. So, by 2012 I’d say Keynesian and New Deal thinking will be back in demand. But in 2012…EVEN IF YOU REMIND THEM THAT CUBA OFFERED AMERICA THE USE OF ANY OF ITS AIRSTRIPS POST 9/11…there may be little re-interpretation of the world out there among functionaries jostling for position within the bureaucracies that controls the dept of R. So you definitely don’t want to hand that job to someone with no drive to do it in the first place. You can’t even put it all on the leader. It’s gotta be something we the people bring about. It seems to me that Edwards himself could actually help guide the domestic revisions. Obama would propose the most timely foreign policy posture, but it’s possible neither Edwards nor Obama would be able to switch the dept of R over to focusing on “the swamp” or “modern jihad” [a book btw] as opposed to blowback generating adventurism. Kucinich would be the likely candidate IMO to succeed at this. Who knows, the other two might get savy (but they haven’t said anything on this score to my knowledge). Arguably there are others…Kerry could have IMO and Murtha could have. Kerry had the exact experience required but the swiftboaters whipped up a diversion. His fellow Americans didn’t even know about this experience.
How right is Gail.
The Out Standing Marker Credit Debt of the US is running in to several TRILLIONS, more than 70 trillion. It will never be able to service the loan nor pay off the capital. In other words every one and every thing is owned by private bankers.
”Let me control the issue of a nation’s currency I care NOT who writies its laws”
So Democrats , Replicans it does NOT matter.
Gail July 26th, 2007 9:55 am
“Irresponsible and frankly naive”.
Sounds like neocon, Empire-building language to me.
“The United States can masquerade as a superpower for only so long before reality forces us into a rude awakening
Hello: Bushwa Blues July 26th, 2007 3:36 pm…
I tend to side with you on many of your speculations and forecasts, and wish to go one step further into realm of speculation.
What if I said the “top” democratic candidates already agreed to a back-room orchestration with the designed purpose of aligning the country’s splintered left? Edwards goes rural, suburban and labor, national disaster relief– full on domestic issues. Obama goes idealistic, lofty, aspiring for the “greater good” liberalism “can” forward, while sending out strong support for AIPAC. Clinton goes pragmatic, realist, hard-nosed, and tough- and AIPAC. Kucinich secures those who are antiwar, protest voters who want change –highlighted by the creation of a Peace Department. What if they all believed the four parts (tolerated the fifth, ie Kucinich)? What if the areas they all respectively focus on are delegated as such? What if they aren’t really opponents, but are all in it together with the intent of forming a “winning team”?
My presumption is the backdoor deals have already been made, where top candidates will combine their funds to take out the GOP hold on US politics. This strategy is disseminated among the voters in catch phrases like, “don’t split the party”, while underlining the point that the Democrats have not controlled the House since 1995.. Clinton/Obama, 2008 is what I think the Democratic Party has wagered as their best bet.
1)domestic, labor, edu, relief
2)soft policy, with a bat
3)hard policy, with sensible shoes
4)aipac
and, the “tolerated,”
5)antiwar, protest -peace dept.
———————————————-
.
And as far as the so-called “spoiler” Ralph Nader goes, here is a link to a PDF file (see upper right margin) of the report titled,
Ralph Nader’s Campaign Strategy in the 2000 U.S. Presidential Election Burden American Politics Research.2005; 33: 672-699 (Barry C. Burden, Harvard University)
Burden’s research disproves the alleged argument that Nader intended to spoil the 2000 election. As, well, the argument that Nader took enough votes away from Gore doesn’t appear to hold up. In fact, a great number of the Nader voters of 2000, wouldn’t have voted for either Gore or Bush had Nader not run. Anyway, quite a good read for those interested.
Unfortunately, one must purchase the article or go to a public library that subscribes to the journal. Online search engines like, Proquest, only offer the abstract. Nonetheless, the reference is provided for anyone who is interested in minor party strategy and impact.
http://apr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/33/5/672
-Rob
Don’t know if this trend was on the increase during 41-43 years or not; don’t remember any mention of stats germane. But you’d think it would be germane to Obama’s message in general. You see, he’s not down into this nitty gritty yet…which is more back-up for my assumptions above.
Rape Cases on Indian Lands Go Uninvestigated
Jul-25-2007, All Things Considered
…Department found that Native American women are two and half times more likely to be raped than other women. The majority of victims said they were raped by men from outside the reservation,…
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12203114
7/26 segment “Legal Hurdles Stall Rape Cases on Native Lands”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12260610
or today access both from…
http://www.npr.org/search.php?text=native+american+women&sort=DREDATE%3Anumberdecreasing&aggId=0&prgId=0&topicId=0&how_long_ago=0
RP, I just tried a long post and it doesn’t show on my screen (I won’t try to repost it tonight as I’ve experienced delayed takes here prior). Maybe this short one’ll show up right away.
The scrubbed names on voter registries in FL make everything way too compicated as far as I’m concerned.
I don’t know what they’re doing. The big problem is what the voters understand. Obama’s position on talking to C&C sounds great, but so far he hasn’t risked any mention (too deep) of offshore tax havens. You’d think they’d get someone to advise on explaining these matters to the voters [Moyers & Frontline have done so fairly well eg], or perhaps it’s perceived as way too much of a gamble.
Thanks for mentioning the “American Politics Research” article. About 95% of pdf’s are now, however, too loaded for my dial-up even to get one sentence.
By standing up against the Cultural Genocide of the Cuban people by Comandante Fidel Castro’s unconstitutional dictatorial military apparatus, Hilary Clinton has dared to take a position unpopular among a few (mostly Stalisnist), but by no means all progressives. No less important her judgement demonstrates a far deeper understanding of Cuban history than Obama.
Any questions, anyone?
Enrique I. Alonso
Citizen of the Republic of Cuba
By standing up against the Cultural Genocide of the Cuban people by Comandante Fidel Castro’s unconstitutional dictatorial military apparatus, Hilary Clinton has dared to take a position unpopular among a few (mostly Stalisnist), but by no means all progressives. No less important her judgement demonstrates a far deeper understanding of Cuban history than Obama.
Any questions, anyone?
Enrique I. Alonso
Citizen of the Republic of Cuba
“Enrique I. Alonso July 26th, 2007 8:33 pm
By standing up against the Cultural Genocide of the Cuban people by Comandante Fidel Castro’s unconstitutional dictatorial military apparatus, Hilary Clinton has dared to take a position unpopular among a few (mostly Stalisnist), but by no means all progressives. No less important her judgement demonstrates a far deeper understanding of Cuban history than Obama.
Any questions, anyone?
Enrique I. Alonso
Citizen of the Republic of Cuba”
What have we changed in Cuba by refusing to talk to them for nearly 50 years? We talked to the USSR, which had a repressive government that posed a much greater threat to us than Castro ever has or ever will.
Just what sort of “Propaganda” would Hugo and Fidel gain by talking to Hillary? Silly argument!
This nonsense is why I hated High School.
GO KUCINICH!!!
Ahh Green Jello, so simple, so correct. Thanks.
Evelyn, I didn’t catch the entire debate - what was Edward/Clinton’s rationale for not speaking to ‘those’ countries in the first year, too busy fixing the US?
VAGreen asks me: “What have we changed in Cuba by refusing to talk to them for nearly 50 years? We talked to the USSR, which had a repressive government that posed a much greater threat to us than Castro ever has or ever will.”
Talk to whom? There is no constitutional government in Cuba ever since Batista suppressed our constitution on March 10, 1952 with generous US military, economic and political assistance. Are you suggesting the US should talk to the bunch of criminals, who by pretending to rise against Batista, further betrayed the Cuban constitution and perpetuated our Cultural Genocide?
The USSR was not created because the US colluded against the czar, as it did with Batista in Cuba. (Please understand that the US recognized the unconstitutional Batista regime as legitimate only 15 days after it suppressed our constitution and then proceeded to support it every way it could). Had this not happened Comandante Castro could not have perpetuated Batista’s (and the US) violation of our constitution. Any US dealings which Comandante Castro’s DUMA are thus a violation of our constitution and of our sovereignty.
Please let me know if you have any further comments. Otherwise, now that you understand US criminal complicity with Batista and Castro in the Cultural Genocide of the Cuban people, kindly stop advocating it.
Enrique I. Alonso
Citizen of the Republic of Cuba