Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiOf all the corruptions of empire, few are darker than the claim that diplomacy must be kept secret from the citizenry.This hide-it-from-the people faith that only a cloistered group of unelected and often unaccountable elites - embodied by the nefarious and eminently indictable Henry Kissinger - is capable of steering the affairs of state pushes Americans out of the processes that determine whether their sons and daughters will die in distant wars, whether the factories where they worked will be shuttered, whether their country will respond to or neglect genocide, whether their tax dollars will go to pay for the unspeakable.
It allows for the dirty game where foreign countries are included or excluded from contact with the U.S. based on unspoken whims and self-serving schemes, where trade deals are negotiated without congressional oversight and then presented in take-it-or-leave-it form and where war is made easy by secretive cliques that are as willing to lie to presidents as they do to the people.
Unlike the excluded and neglected people, however, presidents have the authority to break this vicious cycle by making personal contact with foreign leaders, by publicly meeting with and debating allies and rivals, by taking global policymaking out of the shadows and into the light of day. When the president is personally and publicly in contact with the world, diplomacy is democratized.
As the most scrutinized figure on the planet, an American president who meets and maintains contact with leaders who may or may not follow the U.S. line on any particular issue involves not just him- or herself in the discussion but also the American people. The president lifts the veil of secrecy behind which horrible things can be done in our name but without our informed consent.
So it matters, it matters a great deal, whether those who seek the presidency promote transparent and democratic foreign policies or a continuation of a corrupt status quo that has rendered the United States dysfunctional, misguided and hated by most of the world - and that has caused more than 80 percent of Americans to say the country is headed in the wrong direction.
In the race for the Democratic nomination for president, the two frontrunners are lining up on opposite sides of the question of whether foreign policy should be conducted in public or behind the tattered curtain of corruption that has given us unnecessary wars in Vietnam and Iraq, U.S.-sponsored coups from Iran to Chile, trade policies designed to serve multinational corporations and a seeming inability to respond to the crisis that is Darfur.
Hillary Clinton, the candidate of all that is and will be, wants there to be no doubt that she is in the Kissinger camp.
The New York senator's campaign is attacking her chief rival, Illinois Senator Barack Obama ☼, for daring to suggest that, he would personally meet with foreign leaders who do not always march in lockstep with the U.S. government.
In Monday's night's YouTube debate, candidates were asked it they would be willing to meet "with leaders of Syria, Iran, Venezuela during their first term," Obama immediately responded that, yes, he would be willing to do so. He explained that "the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous."
Clinton disagreed in the debate and now her camp is declaring that, "There is a clear difference between the two approaches these candidates are taking: Senator Obama has committed to presidential-level meetings with some of the world's worst dictators without precondition during his first year in office."
Leaving aside the fact that Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, a popularly elected leader, is not one of the "world's worst dictators," it is particularly galling that Clinton -- in her rush to trash Obama -- is contradicting her own declaration in an April debate that, "I think it is a terrible mistake for our president to say he will not talk with bad people."
Unfortunately, Clinton's vote to give Bush a blank check for war in Iraq and her defense of that war, her support for neo-liberal economics and a Wall Street-defined free trade agenda and her general disregard for popular involvement in foreign-policy debates suggests that the senator is showing true self when she dismisses the value of presidential engagement with the leaders of foreign lands.
Clinton is playing politics this week. But in a broader sense she is aligning herself with a secretive and anti-democratic approach to global affairs that steers the United States out of the global community while telling the American people that foreign policy is the domain only of shadowy Kissingers.
She is not just wrong in this, she is Bush/Cheney wrong.
John Nichols' new book is The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"
Copyright © 2007 The Nation
52 Comments so far
Show AllThe need for a third party altenative that would take into consideration the wishes and the best interests of this nation and the rest of the world as a whole is obvious. Today's political situation based on corruption and cronyism and lies and intimidation and fearmongering and gun-boat diplomacy is bankrurp and has to be overthrown. Cindy Sheehan is the only honest person proposing and heading the alternative. Let us support Cindy against corrution and forget the rest. If you continue with your intelectual masterbation while doing no field work, then the unthinkable will happen : the massmurderer Giuliani has already been picked by the deciders on the top as the next president. So much for your votes!
Nawwww....I'm trying TOOOOOO hard to be nice here.....
It stands for "Adam....STUPID LITTLE PRICK".....LOL
RichM,
I applaud you for your astounding wisdom:)).
I DO SO LOVE IT when someone agrees with me:))
But seriously my friend.....thanks for articulating the gut feelings I had in the wee hours of this morning.
Normally I do not rage against folks like I did the hapless twit "ADAMSLP".
But when he had the air-headed temerity to diss Chomsky I just lost it.
I hope "ADAMSLP" is just as I said.....young and dumb.
In fact his pseudonym may stand for "Adam...Slow Learning Person".
all the best
P.S Whomever described Hillary as a "fire hydrant on mescaline" is due a cold beer on me should we ever meet:).
mirf59 July 27th, 2007 9:23 am
"Conventional v non-conventional"
Boiled down, that is your main point (Which, ironically, happens to be part of Obama's latest retort). Consequently, I do not presume I am "in the know" and separate from the "we" who you allege I think "don't know."
I don't know what to say about the above dichotomous ultimatums or the following one, "if you disagree, there’s no sense in talking further. ...If you agree, the point is....". Pretty conventional style of thinking- which is partly behind why I took issue with the structure of Nichols essay. First, let me try and clarify a couple of points that I may not have made clear in my earlier threads, and then let's see if I can't illustrate how dichotomies can lead a reader or a viewer to an assumption about a candidate that may very well be false.
Reiteration: After watching how Obama's camp has backtracked and qualified the Senator's intent during the debate, plus his intent to reframe the question, coupled with the Senator's previous declaration of hard policy (stance on Iran), one would have to be hard-pressed to assume Obama's on-stage eagerness to say "yes" would indicate Obama's foreign policy design is a staggering breach from the conventional form.
I see the scenario that occurred on stage as little more than a form of debate where the opponent's attempted to win the audience's favor rather than attempted to lay down concrete foreign policy. Both, but, primarily Clinton, attempted to seize hold of alleged fissures that define particular camps in the democratic party. I think in this particular spar, Clinton got the upper hand when she motioned for cautious preconditions first. Obama attempted to use the question to distinguish himself from Bush and set himself up to be flanked by his opponent. Clinton fired back and said lower level work needs to be in place first††. Now Clinton is trying to paint Obama as wet behind the ears, and Obama is attempting to make his point about Bush's policy by pairing it to Clinton. That is playing politics.
††(An example would first be to send someone like Carter, then the secretary of state, then, perhaps the president. Obama actually doesn't indicate that he disagrees with such protocol. All he attempted to do was separate himself from the punishing style of Bush, and now he is trying to gain political capital as the two continue to spar over the issue of how one comes to talk to leaders-- he tries to frame the debate question over challenging convention.)
I think Nichols capitalized on the moment and on what he saw as an entry point "to take the ball and run" the focus off onto specific issues he liked to see tabled (I find the Kissinger examples compelling and quite clever). I also wonder if in haste, Nichols unwittingly (perhaps intentionally) lead the audience to presume Obama represented the opposite of Nichols' example of monstrous foreign policy. I primarily concluded this concern when I realized a great majority of us folk operate in dichotomous relations that create "this or that" scenarios.
Thus, one may concoct the idea from Nichols essay that "if Clinton represents X, then Obama must represent Y." Which is a false presumption one could deduce when Nichols failed to distinguish both opponent's intent (which Obama's camp later clarified). I argue the distinction between Obama and Clinton didn't occur because Nichols' desire to address his larger agenda overshadowed what occurred on stage.
Clinton is playing politics and Nichols ran with it. Now both Clinton and Obama are running with it.
----------------------
I also want to note, Carter's style of diplomacy could be considered an example that veers from the traditional/conventional foreign policy of the US, and yet he still follows the formal protocol in place to get heads of State to meet. Ironically, the ideas Carter has forwarded in relation to the Palestinian - Israeli conflict seem somewhat radical when paralleled to Clinton and Obama's official stance.
And thank you, RichM, for a superb clarification of the Kucinich dilemma.
Like Jeff Moehring (5:04 am), I'm obliged to point out that the comments of Adamslp (July 26th, 11:54 pm) are laughable reactionary drivel which have no place on a progressive blog. Mr Adamslp is not remotely informed enough to make judgements about figures like Chomsky, Castro, or Chavez. I'm sure we'd all get a good laugh if Adamslp would try to tell us, for example, just what he means by this hilariously ignorant sentence about Chomsky: "The man even got it wrong on linguistics, we’re going to believe his half baked conspiracy theories."
His comments are interesting not in themselves, but because they so beautifully illustrate the brainwashing achieved by US propaganda. Space doesn't permit a full dissection of those here, but let's consider this one: "she (Hillary) has done pragmatically what she had to do to get elected. Once there, she can effect change."
This sentence has no basis in real life. It's the kind of cliche that shows you've absorbed what you've been told about how "American democracy" supposedly works, but you have no idea whatever of the real forces at play, nor of the history which demonstrates how these forces operate.
It's not possible for a political candidate to pretend, as you suggest, to be "conservative" during a campaign, then to suddenly start moving to "effect change" once you get elected. The real process is closer to the opposite of that. No one gets to be a "viable candidate" until they've been thoroughly vetted by the dominant corporate interests, who must be 110% convinced of the candidate's reliability & fealty, before that candidate wins their approval & financial backing. That's what a "viable" candidate is -- someone who's passed those tests. Once you've passed them, you don't suddenly switch personalities (which would be tantamount to doublecrossing your backers).
Furthermore, the system is structured not to allow "change," but to make meaningful change impossible. You could learn why that's so by reading more Chomsky, & others like him who understand the political system at a vastly deeper level than you do.
Jeremy Wells and happystead:
Jeremy, your discussion of our need for a "third" party is excellent, and so is your point about Nader's role outside the Green Party. There has been a movement for at least six years now to "take back" the Democratic Party, but they have now received their answer from this Congress: a large thumb in the eye. Twisted, for good measure. Not a chance, folks.
Time to start over. Of course, some of us did that years ago. I'm not sure why Jeremy is calling for a "new" third party: there is one, the Greens. The party was enfeebled by its bad decision to defer to the Democrats in '04 (mea culpa - I supported that at the time), but we're coming back strong. The party needs "renewal," but we don't need yet another left-wing party. We need your help to make a serious run next year.
I"m convinced that '08 is the year we've been waiting for, when the Republicrats have plunged themselves into the toilet and the field is wide open. Don't diss Hillary: she's Fate's gift to the Green Party. The Dems will nominate her and half of them will then come running to us. It's going to be about a five way race; I'm not the only one who smells blood in the water. In a 5-way race, you can win with 21%, and there aren't any spoilers.
Kucinich is a troubling figure. I've seen him in action, and he's wonderful. He doesn't sound like a Democrat; he sounds like a Green. We'd love to nominate him, but I don't think we're going to get the chance. He's a "loyal Democrat" - as he told us three or four times in Corvallis.
But Kucinich is not running for President. He's running for a nomination he can't possibly get. And then, if history is any guide, he'll hold his nose and support whichever warmonger the party machinery selects. Apparently he really needs that job in Congress. Unfortunately, that makes him little more than a stalking horse, working hard to keep lefties in a party that long since betrayed them. We need to wise up.
So you can vote for Kucinich in the primaries, for all the good it will do. But then you need to get serious and work for a real progressive party: the Greens. It's going to be a wild year; we might as well enjoy it. We need good candidates (there's a rumor that Cynthia McKinney is interested), and we need legions of people to work for them.
To contact us: the national website is GPUS.org; in Oregon, it's PGP.org (that's Pacific Green Party). The state site is undergoing remodelling - it should be much better soon. Join the Party; we need you.
Mainstay: Good point.
I've poked around on European sites and it's shameful to see the highly fashionable rise of anti-Americanism.
They miss the larger point: Bush lost the popular election in '00, and probably '04 as well (if the votes could be properly tallied). Short of a new revolution to modernize our antiquated and broken system of government, the majority -- and an increasing -- majority are held hostage by a leader they don't agree with.
So the fashionable American-bashing should be a little more precise. Which Americans? Which leaders? Generalizations are dangerous however you cut it, but particularly so in this melting-pot country of extremes. The critics of America assume we're all cut from the same mold. Not remotely...
Why is it that when blog writers characterize the American public - it is always in a depracating tone? There is no one point of view in any group of people and in the case of the American Public I think it is their innate faith in the goodness of others that leads them to believe the misinformation and half truths of Main Stream Media. Rather than dissing our fellow citizens as "sheeple", we need to make alternative information more readily accessible so that they can consider the information. Many do not peruse the internet and only see what MSM presents. Rather than demeaning the intelligence of others - it would be more productive to present them with photocopies of alternative information and let them chew it over on their own - rather than trying to "change their minds" in the moment or with arguments or jibes. Injustice has indeed always existed - it is not served by battering those we would wish to enlighten! A good idea, a sound premise, solid evidence, etc... are the only persuasion that works! People are not stupid or apathetic as much as they are disempowered to the point of feeling they can't make a difference - Empower them - respect their own aptitude and wonders can be worked!
Americans were raised to believe we were a good and just people, so when presented with the past 50+ years of clandestine govt. coruption, the average person goes in to denial through innate loyalty to a higher ethic - not blind faith! There is no evidence to support that outlook - except MSM 's constant repetition - A house divided against itself cannot stand - it is a tactic of abusers to instill distrust to dilute dissent!
Progressives have truth and transparency on their side - we need to bolster that by believing that given the freedom to consider - MANY will join our ranks - as the 60+% now opposed to the Iraq mess now proves... remember when the numbers were less than 40%. We are gaining - but we are in this together - we will only be effective by believing in the true nature of a people united - despite the despotic efforts of a myopic few.
Rob Price,
The whole point is that the current paradigm for how to conduct foreign policy, however it is formulated, has produced unacceptable results. If you disagree, there's no sense in talking further.
If you agree, the point is we have to question all the assumptions about how we go about it. Posturing as someone in the know about how it works, and suggesting we don't understand the conventions and protocols as they stand currently is entirely missing the point.
The point is, as I understand it, that perhaps the conventions are not working, are not in the interests of the US as a whole. Then, if Hillary is rightly claiming a greater ability to act with wisdom and experience within the rules of foreign policy as they stand -- that may not be a good thing. If Obama can view it with fresh eyes, unspoiled by adherence to convention -- that might be a good thing.
The conventional approach as practiced by the US has not been healthy for the world. Africa is out of control. Israel is out of control. Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Pakistan, Afganistan are out of control. IRAQ is beyond out of control. Latin America seems to be operating, increasingly, independently of the US at this point. We have quite an impressive pile of bodies of innocent foreigners to our credit in the past decades.
I think we need to re-think the whole damned thing. Every "sacred" and battle-tested rule of foreign policy needs to be pulled down and put under the microscope. The assumption of peace through projection of force would be the first target, in my opinion, as it is ludicrous on its face and I believe has been wholly discredited in recent history.
Adamslp,
I thought you were daft with your "freedom sucking megalomaniacs" description of Castro and Chavez.
They are wildly popular in their countries with the VAST majority of their citizens. The REAL CITIZENS. The poor and working class.
But when you used the phrase "false chomsky like accusations"
I was certain that you were/are a total dipshit.
Christopher Dodd!?!?
Believe me.....I wish the man well.
But I wouldn't let him lead my dog to an Alpo convention.
You are either young and naieve or old and stupid.
I suspect that you are young and just don't know how goofy you sounded when you wrote what you did.
Vietnam WAS a horrible mistake.
I never went to Vietnam but I coulda since I was in the military at the time and it was the luck of the draw that I didn't.
Iraq is "still" a horrible mistake.....not the "were" that you described it as.
And YES YOU IGNORANT CHILD............ONLY "VITRIOL" against this current junta will have any affect.
Not "vitriol against our country"......
whatever you meant by that.....
Hey....perhaps I just got reeled in by a troll.
But if not Adamslp you need to either sit down and shut up for hopefully no more than a few decades.
Or simply register your general acceptance with the status quo (hey, you're the one who brought up Christopher Dodd)
and suit up what I strongly suspect is an upper-middle class
doughy-white lazy ass and head off to Iraq.
But if you are the person I would bet my last cigarette on you are too pampered to even make it through Basic Training.
Much less to face determined and well trained, battle hardened ex-Iraqi troops who are giving our forces a serious fight.
Better for you to simply be quiet and go school somewhere.
We were ALL young and stupid once.
Two books on how Kissinger, et al, operated:
"The Impeachment of Kissinger"
"Confessions of an Economic Hit Man"
American foreign policy was never about genuine diplomacy. American diplomacy was never more than opportunistic manipulation.
U.S. foreign policy is simple: conquer, subjugate and oppress every nation on Earth (with the possible exception of Israel).
There are now only two choices people: fight or kneel in submission.
relayer@q.com
As a clarification, just because I can make what I think is a reasonably objective assessment of what I see as a mild banter between to presidential candidates being capitalized by both opponents doesn't in anyway distinguish my political position.Hence the reference to tennis. "Point goes to Clinton, Service."
Objectivity can be found in the far corners of the left, right, and center fields.
and as venerable Tom Waits (and his wife, K Brennan) wrote and later song:
"...When I see the 5 oclock news
I dont wanna grow up
Comb their hair and shine their shoes
I dont wanna grow up
Stay around in my old hometown
I dont wanna put no money down
I dont wanna get me a big old loan
Work them fingers to the bone
I dont wanna float a broom
Fall in love and get married then boom
How the hell did I get here so soon
I dont wanna grow up"
"I dont wanna grow up"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzKiqk2iynY
I agree with Rob price "I think it is essential for people to distinguish the difference between a desire for world harmony and open negotiations, and the diplomatic work needed before world leaders have a conference."
I think that it is rediculous that these people would cut off their noses to spite their faces. Clinton is electable because it is the central 20% of the electorate that wins elections, not the lunitic fringe from the right or the left.
Although Hillary isn't my first choice "Consider Christopher Dodd" I would be thrilled to have Hillary rather than the creeps we have now. Consider that she has done pragmatically what she had to do to get elected. Once there, she can effect change. Things move slowly in a democratic republic. It was designed that way. It has taken many years for the republicans to move the center as right as it is now.
I believe in this country and its constitution. I do not believe that most people want our country to do evil. Perhaps well meaning ignorance of reality is to blame in general. The American people are good people. This is a good country. Anyone who thinks that Castro and Chavez are heros are out of their minds. They are freedom sucking megalomaniacs. Lets not glamourize them shall we.
Sure there are things that we dislike about our government, and we should fight to change them, but lets not take what is great about our country and throw it away, (ie, throw out the baby with the bathwater). Lets demonstrate our love for what this country stands for, if not always perfectly acting upon it, by engaging in CONSTUCTIVE CRITICISM.
Yes Vietnam and Iraq were horrible mistakes. We can never overcome them with vitriol against our country. We must start from a genuine patriotism. Its the people in power that are to blame, not our democratic system of government. It was designed so that the mob, (ie, far left or right radicals) could not cause radical change overnight (ie. the French reign of terror). I'm sickened when I read the hatred and false chomsky like accusations against the USA which are based on fantasy. The man even got it wrong on linguistics, we're going to believe his half baked conspiracy theories. GROW UP PEOPLE!!!!!!!!
Wow! Talking about making mole hills into mountains. It comes off like Nichols finally found a slot to drop a hard critique about shadow governments and Kissinger and tie it into candidate Clinton. What seems like a pretty standard diplomatic question was followed by a premature response from Obama. Clinton capitalized on what she saw as a chance to slap down her main opponent. Big deal.
What I find odd is Nichols doesn't really address Obama's position in his blog-essay. If I was commenting on the sequence of events, I guess I would want to address the candidates take on the question. I've noticed Obama's team has since been backing away from his original response by issuing a series of qualifications.
I think it is essential for people to distinguish the difference between a desire for world harmony and open negotiations, and the diplomatic work needed before world leaders have a conference. On the professional foreign policy stage and audience, I tend to think Obama blew this one -that's regardless of how "refreshing" some here find him.
"Point goes to Clinton"
"Service"
-----------------
Just as a very simplistic example. When Jimmy Carter goes as a civilian to talk one on one with world leaders who are less favored by official US policy, he always first runs his idea past the White House and the State Department despite what party is in charge. Standard protocol.
--------
Let's be practical, RichM. We shouldn't care less if a hardcore Green got elected as a Republican. It's hardly about party affiliation so much as dedication to progressive ideals -- as evidenced by proven legislative record, not rhetoric -- than it is by self-destructing, denouncing the party, and failing to get elected next term.
Some in Minnesota say that there's a reason Wellstone's signs, bus, and other campaign materials were all Green.
Now, I do think that Kucinich should denounce the DLC. That much is certainly called for. But until he missteps from the fold, why should the few progressives we have put their own odds of reelection in jeopardy by empty symbolic gesture?
Nichols is dead right in this article, though he's not really "brilliant" (as someone called him) and in fact -- like The Nation magazine generally -- has the standard weakness of liberals who are ultimately subordinate to the Democratic Party.
I'd like to weigh in on the Kucinich matter. I was very seriously involved in the Kucinich primary campaign in 2004, have heard him speak in person probably 20 times, & even briefly met and chatted with him twice. I understand his appeal for those who discover him, & are overcome with excitement to finally be hearing something besides the usual lying & warmongering. People easily think, "Wow, a Democrat, a US Congressman -- who actually speaks the truth!!" (at least part of the truth, part of the time).
But being excited about a Kucinich is only "the first level" of improved political consciousness. If you continue your studies of figures like Kucinich, you start to see serious problems. Jeremy Wells hit some of these, including the main one. And this is that Kucinich too -- despite the good things he says -- is ultimately a device for keeping people within the confines of the Democratic Party. Which in turn, is a very bad thing.
What does this mean? It means that:
1) there is absolutely no chance that DK can be nominated. He won't even get more than the 5% of Dem primary votes he got last time. If his campaign ever really caught fire, the party pooh-bahs themselves & the media would destroy him overnight, by planting some filthy slur against him, similar to the Howard Dean "scream" idiocy in '04. (Not that Dean was remotely as good as DK was. I'm just mentioning this because it shows that the party machine will not tolerate anyone who's even slightly "unreliable" from the viewpoint of corporatist-militarists.)
2) that DK will ultimately sell his own followers out again, at convention time, just like he did in 2004. At that time, he supported the warmonger Kerry, whose policies were almost exactly opposite those DK had advocated.
3) that the Kucinich candidacy will serve to keep antiwar types & other potential Left defectors falsely believing that there's still a place for them in the Democratic Party; that the Dem Party can be a vehicle for true progressive change. // So, believing in DK is ultimately just another way to be deceived & betrayed by the Democrats (even if DK personally says lots of good things, & probably believes most of them).
If DK was really as much a man of principle as he pretends he is, he would denounce the Democratic Party and leave it. The fact that he won't do this should give people serious pause.
Hillary is clearly the lower order of Scorpio.
Hillary WalMart Clinton
Some truly brilliant turns of phrase in this article and subsequent postings. "The nefarious and eminently indictable Kissinger" ...ought to be his legal name. Far more distinctive (and accurate) than Henry. And GOP = Greed Over People Party = perfect, accurate, succinct. Good going, Jeremy W.
Even if she were so inclined (and she's not), Hillary COULDN'T be more "dove-ish" than Bush-Cheney, b/c she would run tit-first into the old but still incredibly serviceable misogynist notion that no woman is tough enough to be President of the US. India, Pakistan, the Philippines, the UK, France, Chile, New Zealand, Mozambique, Finland, South Korea, Liberia, Ireland, Germany, Jamaica, Latvia, Bangladesh -- hell, anywhere in the "free" world, except the US, where no cock = no dice.
RE: TRIANGULATION "HAS TO BE DONE IN ORDER TO GET ELECTED"?
Nathan Andover July 26th, 2007 1:56 pm
"[Clinton] has been 'triangulating' herself for years just as her husband successfully did....Unfortunately, the way our elections and government work, this is what has to be done in order to get elected."
Good point. Just look at how great the DLC "triangulation" strategy worked in 2000 for Gore and 2004 for Kerry.
Hillary does not seem like a more dove-ish figure than Bush/Cheney -- a frightening prospect.
Since Hillary is portrayed as a liberal by the right, that enables the right to swing even further toward fascism when it regains the helm. I mean, if hawkish, Kissinger-friendly Hillary is a liberal, then God help us when a real muscular right winger -- a Cheney, Junior -- gets the keys and the red phone back.
The Bush/Cheney Presidency with all its hard right excesses might not have been possible without help from Bill Clinton. It was the first Clinton that moved the left closer and closer to the right until the two were virtually indistinguishable. This enabled the right to go even more radical when back in the Oval Office. Ironically, Clinton then said recently, "Bush has taken the country too far to the right."
To remember what Clinton's foreign policy thinking was like, take a look at Joe Lieberman, who has been keeping the torch lit and will hand it back to Hillary if she gets in.
God save the United States and the world if that foul mouthed bitch gets elected.
The nice thing is that technology is allowing far more transparency of governments. CSPAN was a huge improvement, but now the internet is opening databases of searchable information to the public.
People stay home when they're disgusted and fed up with the process. Negative ads are designed to get you to stay home on election day. Don't fall into their trap of intentional alienation.
All government communications should be made fully public and freely disseminated globally.
To happystead and all Kucinich fans!
WHY DOESN'T KUCINICH CALL FOR THE FORMATION OF A NEW THIRD PARTY? He should do it now! He has already lost the Democratic Party nomination by tens of millions of dollars! The corporate interests backing Hillary and Obama will simply not allow Kucinich to run. And, like last time, Kucinich will be forced to cave in!
KUCINICH SHOULD NOT RUN AS A LONE INDIVIDUAL AS HAS NADER DONE MISTAKENLY. He should call for a new party that would call for the things he wants.... and LOTS MORE! He needs to get the labor movement to become involved in a new party that represents the interests of labor and working peoples.
To really succeed he must stop being a cranky individual and become part of a new party that runs candidates at every level of government to implement the many reforems needed to take back the government from the corporatists.
THIS IS WOULD MOBILIZE ALL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO THEIR COMMON CAUSE THAT KUCINICH, BY HIMSELF, WILL LOSE.
PLEASE SUGGEST THIS TO KUCINICH IF HE IS CAPABLE OF HEARING.
OTHERWISE HE IS SIMPLY PLAYING A GAME FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY TO FOREVER ROPE IN ANY POSSIBLE DISSENTERS.
IS KUCINICH JUST A SPOILER FOR ANY CHANGE IN THE STATUS QUO??
bongofury,
I agree. Let's not forget that Nixon inherited Vietnam just as the next President will inherit Iraq. (As there is no way impeachment will get ANYWHERE and this war will go on and on and on....)
Hilary v. Anyone will make me sit the fight OUT. If there's no difference in the candidates, WHY VOTE?
Peace to you and yours.
Hillary has tits?
News to me....
Love what you're selling, Jeremy, but I think you're wrong on Kucinich. The man's had the same line for some time now AND CONSISTANTLY VOTING IT.
How is creating a Department of Peace any where near the Democrat Party line or serving the MIC???
Is any candidate perfect? for everyone? I don't think so. Kucinich is as near as we've got in this race and I'll back him strongly.
If it's a dark horse candidate you're looking for, he's got as slim a chance as anyone!!!
Check him out. He may not be ideal, but he is the next best thing.
Peace to you and yours.
It's funny but, every time I hear about Hillary's position on foreign policy or trade she reminds me more and more of Richard Nixon. She IS the Nixon of the 21st Century. Soon we will hear her say: "I am not a crook!" I just can't believe she is such a fool. But she is. In fact she is despised by as many people now as was Nixon on his worst day. Vote third party. We be fucked!
It is now time to realize that it is impossible to "reform" the Democratic Party in any serious manner...and never has been. The Democratic Party can never return to the "good old days" of FDR or any other period with which you may have fond memories. Throughout the cold war, with one or two minor
exceptions (Iran-contra?), the Democratic Party has been a loyal supporter of "bi-partisan" foreign policy (invasions, assassination, coups, etc.) especially since WWII, especially in Latin America.
1. The Democratic Party is now under control of the same corporate interests that direct the Republican G.O.P. (Greed Over People) Party. Obama and Clinton have each raised tens of millions of dollars from these same corporate interests. People such as Rupert Murdock supports Hillary Clinton. The for-profit health care industry interests are reflected in the campaign positions of both Obama and Clinton. Both candidates want to retain privatized health care providers in any new national health plan.
2.The Democratic Party has never rejected the Project for the New American Century, which is today the fundamental policy basis of U.S. imperialism and hegemony throughout the world. Iraq, Afghanistan, and now probably Iran, and then possibly Russia, etc. are all stepping stones for a 100 year war against humanity for profit and power.
3. No one "individual" from either party should be trusted as an "anti-war" candidate capable of overturning the imperial designs of "the military-industrial complex". No one individual can stop an entire ruling class of corporations
and individuals now making immense profit from war. Under Cheney, the federal government and military have been privatized (corporatized).
4. The function of the federal government, now a corporatist (fascist) state, is now so corrupted that it functions simply to maximize the profits of the Halliburtons, Bectels and hundred thousand other contractors in Iraq. The Republican/Democratic ruling coalition has looted the treasury, given massive tax breaks to the wealthiest, starved the social institutions and services essential to the survival of working people. The result: massive debt is owed to China and the economy is approaching major collapse.
5. Kucinich had his chance and blew it. He is not to be trusted as his world view is totally enclosed within and subservient to the Democratic Party. Ralph Nader never joined the Green Party and remained aloof of such matters, which destroyed his opportunity of engaging masses of people for the long-term organizational and political struggle necessary BETWEEN elections.
6. The great tragedy is that the organized labor movement has also been subservient to the Democratic Party. No matter how much organized labor could raise from the dues money of it's members, it cannot possibly oppose the massive millions and billions in dollars and resources (like total mass media control for example).
7. Labor considers itself a "business partner" with corporations, even as these same corporations are destroying their members by going bankrupt (to shed health care costs, etc.)by moving overseas, or even by firing all its top technical and sales employees making decent wages- to offer to rehire them at $7.50 an hour- (happened with 3000 Circuit City employees).
8. The working people of this country are up to their ears in credit card debt, mainly to pay for un-insured medical costs, have to work overtime or two jobs and more to survive. Poor schools, housing unaffordable, poverty is now becoming widespread. (One fourth of the children in Michigan live in poverty. 1.9 million in L.A. are below the poverty line and living in a new depth called "extreme poverty.)
9. Given the complete corruption of the existing two-party system, I think that it is urgent that a new third party be formed. The people and organizations that would naturally be attracted to this new party have an understanding of what is happening. This understanding comes first from their own experiences. We hear every day from these people on programs such as Democracy Now! and Amy Goodman, and KPFK people such as Sonali Kohatkur or Blaise Bonpane.
Jeff, those guys are great. I would add Daniel Ellsberg to the list, as well.
It takes true courage to stand up and be counted. Can you imagine what a great country this would be if there WAS ONLY ONE person willing to do the same now?
Peace to you and yours.
impeachthefucker said:
I, like a lot of people consider people like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro to be some of the more positive and common people friendly politicians in the world.
They are two of my absolute heroes. Along with Gandhi and the true patriot Gen. Smedley Butler.
Those of you not familiar with Gen. Butler really need to read about this unsung American Hero and Patriot.
all the best
Paul's right. Sloth killed my democracy.
It's not the voting that matters, it's the caring.
Indeed, if millions cared sufficiently -- this afternoon -- we could have a new government. Voting would just mean that it'll have to wait until '08 (assuming the ballots aren't rigged).
Hillary will lose and Romney will be pres. But they already know that!
What a country this would be if those able to vote actually voted, eh?
And of those that do cast votes, wouldn't it be nice if FOR ONCE we voted for the best person for the job NOT the one we think is "electable?"
If there's a worse word in the English language than "electable"," I've never heard it.
Peace to you and yours.
I agree with impeachthefucker and Nathan Andover, Hilary is absolutely NOT what America needs right now. As a matter of fact, NONE of the so-called "front-runners" from either party makes any sense.
There are 2 candidates talking about change: Kucinich and Gravel. I'll be voting for that change in the guise of Kucinich and, Lord willing, I'll be voting as often as I can.
May our revolution be as swift as it is peaceful.
KUCINICH '08
Peace to you and yours.
When Bill Clinton was first elected, Hillary claimed to stand for children's health care. So many of us were thrilled. Man, she sure was quick to sit down when she was told by the backroom powers to "shut up." She complied and even helped tie the knot in the cloth that gagged her into silence.
This reflects not politics, but a simple lack of qualities related personal principle and character. In the eyes of all those who continued to stand regardless of the shifting tides and winds -- sitting down on matters that impact those having the least defense -- is not the kind of stuff that makes for a hero or a heroine!!!
He careful, she's propped up by the best of handlers on that dashing political horse -- but hasn't a clue how to sit in the saddle of character and principle.
This woman ain't no Eleanor Roosevelt and doesn't have an ounce of the wisdom, grit or wit of Barbara Jordan!!!
What this country needs is a REVOLUTION.
I, like alot of people consider people like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro to be some of the more positive and common people friendly politicians in the world.
If the US would stop Messing with other people's business the world would be a better place.
I find it very refreshing when I heard Obama say he would talk with leaders that Wall Street/Corporate/NIKE America labels "bad people"
Thomas Jefferson, one of the so called founders of this country (excluding the native people who were here long before) said that Revolutions were not only good for countries but necessary and should occur ever 20 years to keep a government in check.
PEOPLE. Time to REVOLT against our facist oppressive leaders and give human rights, liberty and justice to all who call this planet home.
PEACE
There's a lot of votes in the middle.
She has been "triangulating" herself for years just as her husband successfully did.
Unfortunately, the way our elections and government work, this is what has to be done in order to get elected.
So the first thing we need to do, before we rip into the candidates, is to focus on changing our plutocratic system that institutionalizes the buying and selling of politicians and votes.
If it comes down to Hillary vs. GOP in 2008, I will enthusiastically support Hillary because there is a big difference between the Democratic global elites and the Republican global elites. Democratic globalists want a gradual progress toward a global market with some forms of democratic balances while Republicans just want to base everything on a global market with no democratic participation required.
In other words, Democrats want to lead a global democratic community while Republicans want to rule the global community through military and economic force.
When the elite Democrats are in power, they have a lot of failings because of who they are, what they represent, and how they operate within the corrupt political system. However, when the Democrats are in power at least we are closer to the topics we want discussed and addressed.
We will still need to be active, but it will be a more inviting environment for our issues compared to having a Republican President who only focuses on fear, profit, and war.
In the primaries, I will vote for Kucinich because he represents my values and vision for this country and world.
More of the same Hillary is not what this country needs. The media has already decided who the winners will be. The candidates who make the most sense and address issues that are of importance to the public are totally sidelined, are untouchable. And, all because the corporations don't have their talons in them yet. When there is a major news event the media races to Hillary and Barack to hear what their take on the situation is. They don't go near the 'untouchables.' Evidently, they have the authority to decide who gets to hear what.
Think about it: When Bill Clinton was in office he had to move right to triangulate himself out of the personal scandals of his own making and the neo-con war on him in the media. Hillary will do the same thing. She has already received Rupert Murdoch's blessings, just as Tony Blair did before her. Unpopular from day one, she will ignore both the left and center, for a hard line foreign policy, including war on Iran. Sadly, as a woman working in a sexist society she will also feel necessary to out-warmonger the warmongers (as Thatcher did) to prove her iron resolve for Empire.
Obama, while a corporate candidate will be a bit better (but perhaps not so much to save the Republic). Gore will also remain out of the game, so there might not be a palatable solution for next year.
John, a brilliant analysis as usual. I don't know that Obama is the cure, but I do know that the same tired old isolationism will not work. The fact that all the "old hands" in "diplomacy" agree with Clinton says it all -- we all suffer in the wake of their American exceptionalism (as termed in another post elsewhere.)
Oh, and we are NOT the so-called "hard left." We are the majority, and we want a different path than the one we're on. Talking never hurt anything. Not talking has been a disaster.
nymet624,
I hope that you are right.
However I don't see any one of the Democratic candidates outside of her that can win in 2008.
Sad as it is, she has "name recognition". Which is quite nearly all that it takes to be elected by a populace too lazy to inform themselves.
I would hate like hell for Hillary to be the next President.
But the alternative, as I see it, is Thompson or Guiliani.
It IS still early and one can always hope.
But as the old saying goes..."crap in one hand and hope in the other and see which fills the fastest".....
We are totally and irreversibly screwed IMHO ONCE AGAIN come election time barring a frigging miracle....
Hillary might get the Democratic nomination, however, she will never get elected. She alienates both the hard-left and the hard-right.
If you would like an idea of how our country will be with Hillary as President, take a look at the Philippines right now:
http://www.forum-asia.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=222&...
This current administration is just getting things ready for her...
the issue of foreign policy being almost completely conducted in secret is probably the most serious issue confronting this country, and has been for a long time.
but this clinton/obama thing...of course when obama says "i would do xyz" he means "my administration." that's why this is so stupid.
I read somewhere that Hillary in 1960 supported Nixon and. . . in 1964, was a firm supporter of Barry Goldwater. What is a Democrat in name only? DINO
I voted for Bill Clinton the first time.
It seemed a no-brainer to choose him over Bush Sr.
I didn't make that mistake the second time.
Hillary is simply another "free-trade" neo-con wannabee with tits.
But unless the GOP retains the White House in 2008 she will likely be the next President.
And she is just as willing to sell out the working class and pursue the militaristic foreign policy of the past as is the current junta.
Also on Kissinger
"The Trial of Henry Kissinger" written by Christopher Hitchens before he lost it.
This was also made into a documentary sometimes available on youtube or googlevideo.
Will Clinton leave a country saying just wait until we get home before you begin your invasion, as Kissinger & Ford did as Indonesia was about to invade East Timor?
etan.org Support an international tribunal for the illegal 24 yr occupation of ET and the murder of 1/3 one third of the population.