Obama Says Clinton Has foreign Policy Like Bush’s
WASHINGTON - - Democrat Barack Obama accused Hillary Clinton on Thursday of backing a foreign policy toward hostile nations no different than U.S. President George W. Bush’s in an escalation of their war of words this week.
Obama, an Illinois senator, fired back at New York Sen. Clinton for calling him “irresponsible and naive” for saying during a CNN/YouTube debate on Monday that he would be willing to meet without preconditions the leaders of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela during his first year in office.
The dust-up between the two top contenders in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination in the November 2008 election has been the most dramatic spat thus far in the campaign.
Clinton has tried to portray herself as the most experienced option among Democrats, far more prepared to be commander-in-chief than Obama, who has been in the U.S. Senate less than three years compared to her eight years as first lady to President Bill Clinton and senator since 2001.
Clinton took a more cautious approach to a debate question about meeting troublesome world leaders, arguing the president should only meet with such leaders after lower-level diplomatic spadework is completed.
Obama, in a conference call with reporters, said that is Bush’s position as well.
“The Bush administration’s policy is to say that we will not talk to these countries unless they meet various preconditions. That’s their explicit policy,” Obama said.
At the same time, Obama seemed to walk back a little bit from his debate position, saying diplomatic preparation would be necessary before presidential meetings.
“Nobody expects that you would suddenly just sit down with them for coffee without having done the appropriate groundwork. But the question was, would you meet them without preconditions, and part of the Bush doctrine has been to say no,” he said.
“You’ll have to ask Senator Clinton what differentiates her position from theirs,” Obama added.
Bush considers Iran a brewing nuclear menace and has refused to meet Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But he has allowed U.S. diplomats to meet Iranians about U.S. charges that Iran is stirring up trouble in Iraq.
He has allowed diplomatic contacts with North Korea, Syria and Venezuela while having no dealings with communist Cuba. Acting Cuban President Raul Castro said on Thursday he would welcome talks with the United States after Bush leaves office.
Some Democrats believe Bush may have missed opportunities for diplomatic progress by refusing to meet some of these leaders. Critics say the president has alienated much of the world with a foreign policy they call arrogant, particularly with the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
Obama made a case for talking to leaders shunned by the United States.
“The fact of the matter is when we talk to world leaders, it give us the opportunity to speak about our ideals, our values and our interests, and I am not afraid to have that conversation with anybody,” he said.
He said if he were to sit down with the Iranian president, “I will send a strong message that Israel is our friend, that we will assist in their security and that we don’t find nuclear weapons acceptable as Iran is currently envisioning it.”
“That’s not a propaganda coup for the president of Iran,” he said. He added that the debate over the issue was whether to pursue conventional thinking or consider new ideas.
© 2007 Reuters
Both Obummer and Hitlery have stated that they would nuke Iran. “All options are on the table”
Neither is to be believed with this posturing.
Is Hillary Clinton tweedledee or tweedledum to Bush?
He’s right but his own foreign policy ideas aren’t all that much better.
Anyone have a better answer than that?
“The Bush administration’s policy is to say that we will not talk to these countries unless they meet various preconditions. That’s their explicit policy……You’ll have to ask Senator Clinton what differentiates her position from theirs,” Obama added.
Who the hell are we to set preconditions for the rest of the world when we’re up to our eyeballs in debt to maintain the strongest military? How much longer do you think these loans from other countries will last while the U.S. continues to bully the entire world? Haven’t the politicians in this country learned anything from this occupation in Iraq?
The empire-building strategy isn’t working! How about engaging in some Foreign Policy strategies where the benefits of economic globalization are shared instead of plundered?
Better idea? How about Kucinich!
They both stink, & neither is significantly different from Bush. One of them is Bush with a skirt and blond hair (& a better command of the English language); the other is Bush dressed up as a partially black man (at least the external skin-depth portion).
Just to think that the best this system can serve up is toothpaste-style variations like these — you get to choose your imperialism-militarism-corporatism in various flavors. Do you prefer it in rich-white-man style? Or female & blond? Or packed in an appealing chocolate hue, with a dash of pseudo-liberal sweet-talk to spice it up?
Gee, democracy is great. The day we nuke Iran, won’t you feel better about it, if a woman orders the strike?
Aren’t there 300 million Americans? Why are we actually contemplating having another f*cking Clinton as president? Does everyone realize that if Hillary is elected to 2 terms, that will mean that from 1980 until 2016, EVERY SINGLE administration will have had a Bush or Clinton as Pres or VP? If that doesn’t show an appalling lack of meaningful choice, what would?
It is amazing that Hilary Clinton would suggest that we would have to move slowly with these countries, as if they were untrustworthy. Put simply, we went to war against North Korea when they had done nothing to us, but had simply chosen a form of government of which we did not approve. Is it any wonder they feel they need nuclear weapons to protect themselves from the United States? And can we suppose the random, unprovoked attacks that have become our modus operandi under Bush have made the North Koreans feel MORE secure? They were included, after all, in the Axis of Evil. Iran, too, was the victim of a CIA coup and is still suffering the consequences, having first had the Shah as a repressive dictator, and now having repressive religious leaders as a backlash to the Shah. The Iranian people benefit from neither. Castro’s rise to power was met with botched invasions and assassination attempts, as we behaved as if the tiny island of Cuba was a deadly threat to the United States with Castro in office! Chavez has met with a coup attempt that likely involved the CIA and has been threatened with direct overthrow by Bush simply because Chavez doesn’t care to bow down to BIG OIL, but, instead, cares about the poor of Venezuela. Surely, that is a reason to distrust a leader: caring about the poor!
It is hard to imagine that the burden of proving good intentions falls anywhere but on the shoulders of the United States. How can we invade, kill, threaten, topple AND claim the moral high ground? It is obscene.
www.unknown-arts.org/politics
Both would be an improvement, but, as I have argued in the Castro thread it seems to me that NEITHER HAVE REAL IDEAS WHEN IT COMES TO DRAINING THE SWAMP…I mean the swamp you won’t win over. Correct me if I’m wrong, folks. Kucinich is stereotyped as a peacenik; but the fact is his position on offshore tax havens is about the only thing any of’em have offered in terms of something to deal EFFECTIVELY with the shadow economy that enables global terrorism.
Not much more than what I summarized above…but a few other thoughts re other aspects of this issue were possibly…like I say…posted at & after 11:37 AM today 7/26 in the talking to Castro thread.
Chavez and Castro are each worth 50 of both of those flatulent “candidates”.
Don’t meet with any Latin American leaders.
Don’t do us any favors.
We desperately need to challenge the operating assumptions of American foreign policy. If Albright comes out and endorses Hillary’s response, then that is nearly reason enough to conclude that Hillary will bring the full arsenal to bear just as Bush has, and just as Bill Clinton/Albright did.
We should not forget that Bill bombed the ever living Hell out of Iraq for 10 years, that he attacked Serbia when there was an excellent diplomatic solution, proposed by the UN through Russia, on the table. We should not forget that when Albright was asked if she believed the loss of 500,000 or more innocent Iraqis as a result of the bombing and sanctions was worth it, she said “yes.” She did not say, “I disagree that 500K have been killed.”
So, this is the sort of wisdom and experience we can expect from Hillary — more war-making just as in its current form. Expansion to Iran, Syria. The whole arsenal.
If Obama is ready to challenge these assumptions and be ridiculed, we should take that as a positive. When Obama then retreats and attempts to argue that his approach is reasonable within the existing framework, I become worried he is trending toward the DLC stance which is so indistinguishable from the Cheney-Orwellian perpetual warfare.
How many years of Bill Clinton’s terms were free of the same old violence against other nations? Zero.
When Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize, he said, “all I do is sit down and have dinner with them in their homes.”
When we are ready to renounce violent foreign policy, our President will be breaking bread with Castro, Kim Jung Il, Ahmadenijad, Chavez. Until then, we’ll be busting heads around the globe.
And going down the toilet at the same time.
Apart from al Quaeda, none of our so called “enemies” have ever DONE anything to us or threatened us in any way, including Sadam. But we have done plenty to them. Some of the such as Chavez & Allende are 100% democratic. And it seems to have escaped the notice of the American Public that Iran has recently had a change of government, by means of an election.
Hillary, your face is gonna freeze like that and the only job you will qualify for will be a modeling for Barbie Doll prototypes.
Gail,
You are right, we owe $1 trillion to the Saudis, $1 trillion to the Japanese and coming up on $1 trillion to the Chinese in a few years. All that bond debt will have to be paid back with HUGE interest using future tax revenues. With a Pentagon budget of over $600 billion per year, we better start looking at ways to having a BETTER military at a lower cost.
Evidently Obama either knows very little about Cuban history or supports the Cultural Genocide of the Cuban people.
If the former, then he should consider reading something apart from Granma.
If the latter, then what else is he willing to support to get elected?
The fact is, the Democratic party does not need to pander to the Fascist Cuban exile “community” in Miami, Florida to win the 2008 election. Focusing on winning Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, etc. would be a much better use of resources. And it doesn’t involve pandering to Fascists.
There is a distinct difference between political acumen and perspicacity in foreign policy. On the former, Sen Clinton excels. But much more is required of a President after he or she attains the office. That is what voters should be judging now. Did Sen Clinton have the right instincts in deciding to vote for the Iraq War in her Senate role? Clearly she did not. She chose to take the route with the most political cover-support the President. Fully one quarter of the Senate disagreed with her judgment. It was not an extreme position to doubt the veracity of the President’s case for war or the facts justifying it. Apparently Senator Clinton had no doubts about the President’s case. For that I fault her. Sure it was the politically “safe” option, but there should be a price to pay for choosing it. And I feel her price is that people will judge her to be too Machiavellian, too safe, and too conservative. And for what? So they she can advance HER career? That’s not a good deal for America OR the world. The next Prsident needs to have more far reaching vision and less selfish political motives than that. Sen Clinton has passed the test of the GAME of politics with flying colors; but she has a failing grade on vision and foreign policy.
“Obama calls for uniter in White House”
It seems to me that we already have the Great Uniter in the Whitehouse. Almost the entire world is united against a common threat - the U. S. of A.
If there is an election and it isn’t fixed my vote is for Ron Paul.
Ron Paul — A pro-life, pro-capitalist, isolationist and anti-immigrant progressive?
We’ve walked that road before. And it doesn’t lead to the Emerald City.
Republicrats and Demopublicans have the same foreign policy. Conquer and oppress every nation on Earth (with the possible exception of Israel).
Didn’t some German guy try something like that once?
relayer@q.com
With friends like Israel, you don’t need enemies.
LET THESE TWO CORPORATE SHILLS CHEW EACH OTHER UP AND SOMETHING GOOD MIGHT ACTUALLY EMERGE - LIKE A GRASS ROOTS POPULIST CANDIDATE FOR A CHANGE. NAH. BUT GO HILLARY! GO BARRACK! SIC’EM!
I think both Hillary and Obama are unfit to lead. Because Hillary and Obama are politically correct cartoon characters, that’s why! They were scripted to perfection a long time ago to fool the children into thinking they aren’t really fascists because one is a woman, and the other is a black. Brilliant idea, eh? They are cartoon characters, not human beings, invented by the establishment, and they are staring in that great cartoon show event that takes place every 4 years called an “election”, which is meant to fool people yet again into believing we have a “democracy” or “representative government”.
This wonderful and at times very funny cartoon program often serves its purpose well, and some well-meaning, but deluded people on the left actually believe their favorite cartoon character(sometimes called “candidate”, or “front runner”) is just a tiny tiny bit less fascist than the one from the Republican Party.
This is not to say that we have never had real elections, we did way back when. I do have some hope that some day we may actually hold a real election again, and not a cartoon “election”. I doubt it will be in 2008, things may actually have to get worse before they get better.
p.s - The way to correct this perverted situation is to bring about change first at the county/city level, then state level, and then take on the fed level. But we will not win without campaign finance reform, that is an absolute must. We must also do all we can to strengthen the international institutions to help America deal with her internal war criminals. Peak oil, global warming, economic collapse, famine, more unnecessary wars and various disasters may wake us up, but the government could very well become more fascist to properly “deal”(or rather ignore) these pressing issues.
For starters, this Hillary “I’m going to be another Margaret Thachter” Clinton piece of work is a Traitor to the US Constitution. She voted “YES” for Dictator Bush’s USAPATRIOT ACT which shreds the US Constitution. She is a pro-war, pro-corporate, pro-imperalistic neocon. Of course she lied—which is standard for politicians these days—the other night at that so-called “debate” when she called herself a “progressive.” Obviously the woman doesn’t know what the term means. Just say anything Hillary. She has said that Bush has been too soft on Iran. That sounds like something a “progressive” would say, doesn’t it? (roll eyes upward).
From my research, she campaigned for Nixon and was President of Young Republicans at Wellesley. She interned for Gerald Ford and campaigned for Nelson Rockefeller.
I’m sure the Dem koolaid drinkers will be all “rah, rah” behind Hillary with their D party-line blinders. And probably many of you will vote for her (if there is an election) even if you say you won’t now. It would be like all the past elections of the “lesser of two evils” nonsense. You’ll say, “gotta get Dems in,” even though Hillary is a flat-out Repug. But the fact that she still has the gall to declare a D behind her name is sufficient for the Dem koolaid drinkers.
Honestly, I don’t think anyone needs to worry about Hillary becoming president because I see no sign that the current unelected White House residents have any intention in leaving in 2009. Do you? In at least one speech recently, Dictator Bush referred to “MY government.” His government, eh? Not a government “of, by and for the people.” Does that sound like someone who plans to leave in 2009 to you? It doesn’t to me.
Hitlery is Bush sober in a dress.
Tsk, tsk, Billary’s smug swagger has her coming across as silly as Bush in his Mission Impossible, er, Accomplished big member jumpsuit act.
Otherwise what a joke that there is any true contrast–
” ..will send a strong message that Israel is our friend, that we will assist in their security and that we don’t find nuclear weapons acceptable as Iran is currently envisioning it.”
and Israel’s massive nuclear build-up?
Didn’t think so Obama.
What a load of horseshit.
Do you think there will be a reckoning where the Jews could very easily be the scapecoats–for the exploitation of their allegiance to Israel when middle America slowly awakens to the fact that Israel’s interests were put ahead of theirs? Do not think for a moment that ruling class WASPs won’t bail at some point and dump it all on Israel.
Won’t be the first time–talk about “never again”. Wise up–you are being played.
GAIL, RICH M, UNKNOWN ARTS… good points!
Obama needs to re-direct his attack to make it accurate. There’s no need to call her Bush-lite. Her judgment, competence and experience are clearly called into question because she voted for the war. He just needs to develop those arguments better. If she relied on the “available intelligence” as she claims, she voted against more than half of her party in Congress, as a majority of Democrats (when both the Senate and House are counted) voted AGAINST going into Iraq. Further, the “available intelligence” was in direct contradiction to what was happening quite publicly. Blix was searching palaces and Saddam was destroying missile delivery systems. Also bin Laden had called Saddam an infidel. EVERYONE who did a modicum of study knew this at the time. If she ignored the overwhelming intelligence that Saddam had no WMDs and was an enemy of bin Laden, then her thinking and judgment are too limited to be President AND she became part of group think, meaning she chooses poor advisors and is not up to the task of protecting our families. In other words, although she tries to paint herself as omnipotent, her vote shows poor judgment, limited thinking and an inability to rely on competent advisors. So her experience, along with others with similar “experience” (Biden, Edwards, Dodd, Kerry, etc.) led her to make Bush’s ill-conceived Iraq intervention bi-partisan. If that’s where “experience” leads, we need to find another way. That’s a hard argument against the kind of experience and competence she professes.
She’s not Bush-lite. She’s just a lightweight masquerading as a heavy-weight. She got the most important vote of her career wrong and defends that vote to this date. And young Americans and Iraqis are dying and being maimed partially because of the limitations of her thinking. She has done nothing to make one think she’d do anything differently and is, therefore, a danger to our families.
These idiots are arguing over who they will or will not talk to. Nobody is even talking about what needs to be said and negotiated with these foreign leaders, as if just getting together will lead to good things happening.
What we need right now is a candidate to come out and tell us how he/she will embrace a dialog with Chavez to cement peace, fair trade, human rights and security in this hemisphere. Chavez (who is democratically elected, not a dictator as Clinton accuses) has more influence in this hemisphere than ANYONE, and sits atop the largest reserves of oil in THE WORLD. This is a guy we should be listening to and finding areas of agreement with.
From what I’ve read so far, Kucinich is our best hope of securing peace on this side of the world.
Evidence of Hillary’s incompetence and reflexive “group think” stupidity does not end with Iraq. Her remarks about Hugo Chavez demonstrates acceptance of neocon definitions of leaders of other countries. Like it or not, Chavez has been twice popularly elected in elections clearly more honest than Bush’s two elections. It is outright stupid to single him out as some kind of pariah because he is opposed to Bush’s policies. He is certainly a more progressive leader than the Saud family and he has, as goner points out, huge oil reserves. Some of the oil reserves he has have been provided to the poor in the US at reduced cost.
Obama is right to want to meet with him in his first year, just to show there is new leadership in the US who are not committed to the policies of the prior administration.
I agree Clinton is not Bush-lite. Bush is Bush-lite “a lightweight masquerading as a heavy-weight”! That is the problem. We have all thees posers doing a piss poor job of acting like statesmen. However the premise of Obama’s statement is correct, Clinton’s foreign policy does look just like Bushes, that is why she has been anointed to take the reigns in 2008, she will maintain all the dictatorial powers Bush has garnered to the presidency, while using wearing here “liberal” costume to further enlarge and consolidate federal power. The fascist dictatorship they have planed will see many faces like Bush and Clinton, while maintaining the prower of the elite as paramount.
Won’t somebody please get in this race who actually has studied international politics as they really are, but who isn’t a condescending ego maniac (Gravel) or a smiling used car salesman (Kucinich)? Great ideas are the most important thing, but let’s face it folks, the President of a country - especially the United States - has to be able to carry him herself as a statesman. It drives me crazy that Obama can’t seem to get up the courage to speak the truth, which I am convinced he knows deep down but is afraid to go there for fear of losing many of his big donors. He has all the confidence and speaking ability I, as a voter, would love to see in a President, but unfortunately so far, little to none of the spine.
ARGGG! Am I going to have to vote for a crazy alternative party again!?
“condescending ego maniac (Gravel) or a smiling used car salesman (Kucinich)?”
As I was saying…
Suspect anyone who frames true individuals, free and honest thinkers, or promoters of peace as go-maniacs or loons.
PS: I take that back a little. I am pretty convinced Gravel will NEVER get my vote, but Kucinich may indeed get it.
Doesn’t matter. None of us are going to get another chance to vote anyway.
relayer@q.com
What exactly are you suggesting? Are you eluding to the possibility that Bush and company will try to find a way to put us under some kind of terror threat that will make it “unsafe” for voters to go to the polls? I have actually heard many very reputable folks come out and say similar things. Quite frightening actually. On the other hand, if something like that did happen, perhaps Americans would finally take it to the streets.
No CrCox, I want you to be FUCKING AWARE that you are contributing to the uphill battle by framing true progressives–not Clinton’s NEOCON claim of the title, as ego maniacs or loons. Doing so actually serves to marginalize them, ostricize them, belittle them, discredit them–it is an extention of liberal-bashing by defining the perimeters of acceptibility–Now, will you please think before you mindlessly echo all the manufactured buzzwords and deliberately targeted putdowns and baiting that serves the Right?
again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ask the Bush narco biz drug business bitch about Mena ,Arkansas and her buddy found dead in a station wagon
bring it on,
seems ONLY Dennis gives a shit
best to wait for the call, then go out and whack them all
I think she has had a facelift.
At the taxpayers’ expense, no doubt.
Vern: I’m pretty convinced now that you will never make an attempt to see where I’m coming from. I guess you think I am not allowed to disagree with you, or to even suggest that I don’t like Gravel, and that while I very well might vote for him, am a little put off by Kucinich too. Not because he doesn’t have the right politics, but because he just doesn’t fire me up. What can I say? Will it make you feel better if I say, “Yes Vern, I do solemnly swear to vote for Kucinich or Gravel, no matter what I think about them or how they make me feel when I hear them speak?”
Sorry, I’m not going to do that. Lastly, I want you to be F’ing aware (don’t want to get kicked off) that I don’t give a crap about “framing”, I give a crap about how damn serious our situation is in screwed country. Like I said, Dennis might get my vote, but Gravel is indeed a nut job. He is condescending, uninviting to those he is trying to convince, and he comes off as though the intelligence of all those around him is of an inferior level to his own. Much like you it seems.
I wish you peace, fellow commenter.
On July 26 at 9:17 pm a so called ´friend´ (of whom?) commented that “the Democratic party does not need to pander to the Fascist Cuban exile “community” in Miami, Florida to win the 2008 election”.
By calling ALL Cuban exiles in Miami ´fascists´ you are generalizing from particulars and are thus misinforming Commondreams’ readers, and the US/World Internet public. By not differentiating between Batista apologists (supported by the US government since 1952), and the rest of the Cubans in Miami, in Cuba and worldwide, you are slandering the Cuban people and participating in the Cultural Genocide that we have been subjected to by the US supported unconstitutional Batista regime and subsequently by the dictatorial unconstitutional military apparatus built by Comandante Castro. All three share responsibility for the Cultural Genocide of the Cuban people.
Surely you are not suggesting, for example, that:
1. the 3 Cubans Comandante Castro executed in April 2004, and who had harmed absolutely no one, were fascists?
2. that the thousands of Cubans who flee on truck tires and die in the ocean on the way to wherever they can get to are fascists?
3. That the 10 to 15% of the Cuban population who went into exile after their constitutional rights were violated by both Batista and Comandante Castro are fascists?
4. That Comandante Castro, to whom the Communists party and the entire executive, legislative and judicial branches ultimately report to, and who can, and has had, Cubans tried and executed in 24 hours is NOT a fascist?
5. That the Comandante’s dictatorial unconstitutional military apparatus which absolutely controls all media in Cuba is NOT fascist?
6. That men who were shipmates with Comandante Castro on the Granma (e.g. Chanes, Arcos) or who were Comandantes just like him but who were later sentenced to 20 and 30 years in prison by him, for opposing his unconstitutional government, are the fascists? Or that the children of Comandantes in exile are fascists?
Need I go on?
Please let me know if you have any questions about my accusations. Otherwise, now that you know, if indeed you are a ´friend´, kindly stop participating in the Cultural Genocide of the Cuban people.
Enrique I. Alonso
Citizen of the Republic of Cuba
Enrique: Please don’t take this the wrong way, but I hear many of these things all the time, as do most Americans, but I have lots of musician friends who have been to Cuba, both to study and to visit, and NONE of them come back telling me of crazy political happenings or anything. Most of these people I am talking about are very astute as well, very interested in history and politics, so they really keep their eyes and ears open when they travel, dig? So, what I am wondering is where is the documentation of all these things you are listed?
Please know that I certainly NOT saying you are a liar or anything like that, I am merely wondering where I can go to find totally unbiased historically accurate information about Cuba and what Castro has done there. I quite simply do not trust American news organization to give me that, because like all Americans we are fed propaganda constantly on Cuba. I have seen many stories to the contrary from the UK Guardian, the International Herald Tribune, etc. though. I guess I am looking for something different, and you seem very sincere.
Enrique I. Alonso
If possible can you link some sources to the information you provided?
Certainly. Just give me a little time. It’s been a while.
This one is very recent, just showing some of the good that is going on in Cuba:
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,2134949,00.html
Another
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianweekly/story/0,,2123832,00.html
and another
http://www.guardian.co.uk/cuba/story/0,,2112303,00.html
For lack of time, I can’t get more right now, but these are all from the Guardian, and as you can see there is not a whole lot of anti-Cuba rhetoric, but that is pretty much all you will read here, unless you go to the more progressive outlets. I can get you more stuff later, but in the meantime I would love to know where I can read about what you have pointed out as well. I’m sure i could check out some academic articles at a university library too, but….
For some reason I can’t get the links to post right now. Just to to www.guardian.co.uk and type in cuba in the search and million articles will come up. Basically, most of them are not anit-Castro. Here in the States it is quite the opposite.
The three people who were executed that Enrique mentioned had hijacked a boat. They were armed with guns and knives. That Enrique presents them as harmless shows the extent that the Fascist “community” in Miami will lie about Cuba.
The US also harbors a terrorist (who lives in Miami) who murdered over 70 innocent Cubans by planting a bomb on a plane in the 1970s. This was the worst terrorist attack in the Americas before the Oklahoma City bombing.
Before the revolution in Cuba, the country was basically a US colony (US corporations were the big losers in the revolution). That is what people like “Enrique” want to go back too, which is why the US government allows them to live here.
So no, I don’t think that the Democratic party should pander to those type of reactionaries.
Thanks CRCox
If you find any other sources for Atocities comitted by the cuban gov please feel free to post or email them to me at DJ_Diablo1@hotmail.com.
Try voting for Ron Paul who appears to be HONEST!
Ron Paul? Come on. That is simply the Republican’s great white hope of staying in power, and you want to vote for him? Wake up!
Throw ron paul into the mud!
Kucinich exhibits less nuttiness than any politician I can remember. In fact I haven’t noted any yet.
“We should not forget that Bill bombed the ever living Hell out of Iraq for 10 years, that he attacked Serbia when there was an excellent diplomatic solution, proposed by the UN through Russia, on the table.” mirf59 7/26 5:57 PM
I’m not read up on that solution. Once, though, I came across this piece re the Balkans
…plus something else that concurred in CAQ yrs before…and ever since realized I could probably do a thesis on the whole thing and never find enough opinions/info out there to corroborate (in the classic sense) my own conclusions that seemed plausible. How strange.
When I started writing Thursday morning in the talk-to-Castro thing I set out to argue that with presidential politics, given the present situation, it’s incumbent upon us to be wise as serpents if we hope to average even a few net steps forward.
“We’re history’s actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
Loopholes in torture ban.
Comey’s testimony (which I believe).
Mueller’s testimony (which I believe).
With stuff like this you’ve got an extreme-bull-in-china-shop situation. With politics nowadays…we work and hope for improvement even if by degrees…it’s so bad.
So what does what I’m going to quote below mean? No candidates but Kucinich will even touch the points with a ten foot pole, and we the people cannot persuade the media for one second that they are total jackasses for not giving him more air time. [Oh, Biden has ideas? Sorry, seems to me like he’s shirking the stable and swamp labor.] Does it mean we shouldn’t flip out if we have to consume a whole lot less? The message I’m gonna send soon to my Rep and Senators: Just lemmie die a little less fat and happy if it gets rough; I’ll try with all my might not to flip out. It’s time for Americans to handle it
(the truth).
cont
continued from above
What I said I’d quote:
Lesson Four: If we want to build a safer long-term future….
[snip]
…It means a commitment to confronting the dark side of globalization: the deeper forces that create and sustain poverty, repression, conflict and terrorism.
More specifically, it means revamping U.S. foreign policy to dramatically increase our focus on foreign aid, disaster relief, conflict prevention, humanitarian interventions, peacekeeping, reconstruction, economic development, public health and environmental challenges, democracy and promotion of the rule of law.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0728-26.htm
I go back over and over again to what we the little people can expect from politics. If we end up expecting a great leap forward…don’t we demonize somewhat anybody that gets in the way? But meantime you’ve got all the inertia. It’s always there. Dept of Realpolitik. Who ever bucked it? Kennedy wanted to get out of Nam, ok. Eisenhower gave us a warning (after he got us into Vietnam). Remember when all the editorials painted Ashcroft as Big Brother from hell? I believed it too. Now look at the facts. Totally compromised in the hospital, Ashcroft would not bow down to his “visitors” re continuing the ww of TSP.
Last point. There might be one consolation with Hillary. Suffering is suffering wherever. Americans suffer under the HMOs. American medicine as is, it seems to me, has become a model for what remains in this country in terms of “industry.” Like both financial services [those that have not gone to India] and gov bureacracy it has turned into an institution like something straight out of Kafka. Deconstruct this model and you just might get a tremendous re-distribution of resources. Reject this model and reappropriate what’s real…and the example may be seen as applicable re other spheres as well.
I am currently re-watching the debates, and I must say that I am much more impressed with Kucinich, and I am more convinced than ever that Gravel is just off the mark.
I answered some of the objections here in a debate last week on AlterNet. If you are interested please go to the http://www.alternet.org/story/56497/ suggested by our ´friend´ but don’t just read what Comandante Castro writes, while fraudulently signing the article as our ´president. Also read my letter respònse to him and the many comments I posted there, including Cuba History Parts 1 and 2.
The 3 Cubans who were executed in April 2003 for hijacking a tourist boat to flee Cuba harmed absolutely no one. They were tried, condemned, appealed, condemned again and executed the following day, all in one week.
In Cuba’s dictatorial unconstitutional military apparatus, the judicial and legislative branches are subordinate to ´the´ party and the latter to Comandante Castro. All of this is a grave and intolerable violation of our constitution, which Batista with US help criminally suppressed in 1952, and which Castro was supposedly helping us restore but has criminally violated for 48 more years.
Posada was under contract by the CIA, so one should blame them and Congress and your president first. What he allegedly did was inexcusably inhumane, even if Comandante Cstro also is guilty of crimes against him. Was Posada´s attack the worst terrorist attack in the Americas? What about all of Che Guevara’s and Comandante Fidel Castro’s unconstitutional executions, not few in which defendants met their lawyers just minutes before the trial, and were executed the same night? What about the 75 thousand mostly peasants who were killed in El salvador in a war in which the US government provided the Salvadorean government $1 million per day.
The person claiming to be our ´friend´ argues that before the revolution the country was basically a US colony. Well arguably the whole world was and is a US economic colony.
Cuba, however, like Canada and many other nations, had a constitutional government, freely organized by the legitimate totality of the Cuban people in 1940. Our constitution has been trampled by Batista, the US and Castro, and yet it stands. It is true that Cuba was economically dependent on the US. Please understand that in 1959 when Comandante Castro decided to join Batista and the USA in ignoring the will of our people as constitutionally expressed, our nation was merely 19 years old. What exactly prevented us from ending economic dependency constitutionally? Who exactly authorized Comandante Castro to override our constitution and to proceed to order us around with self serving ´revolutionary´decrees? Why did he not propose amending the constitution as necessary, instead of proceeding to cleanse our nation of 10% to 15% of its population, and designating himself chief executive, chief judge, chief legislator, and chief executioner? Does he really expect us to believe that free health care and exporting doctors and teachers justify his crime. I applaud the literacy and health programs, but not as a sophisticated criminal cover up for grave crimes against our people.
Approximately 50% of blacks and Hispanics (30% of the population) drop out of the miserably sub standard schools provided for them in the US before they can even learn how to read and write. Should 1 US American abolish your constitution and send the other 70% of US Americans into exile for 48 years, while threatening, imprisoning or killing whoever opposes him in order to increase literacy? How many of you would agree with that and for how long?
The Nazis were dancing at parties as they executed 6 million Jews and many Germans didn’t even know it was happening or cared to find out. Travelling to Germany at that time, studying at a university, or dancing at parties one might have not noticed what was hidden from view, right? Why can´t international UN teams visit the Comandante´s prisons (and yours too)? When will they be allowed?
By the way, Cubans who live in the US are not ´allowed´ to live there. They are in captivity, and as some of you surely know, hostages are known to identify with their captors. Consider the declassified Pentagon papers showing that the US Government at least considered killing Cuban exiles in the US? Had the US not conspired with Batista to suppress our constitution, and had Castro not perpetuated that, there would be no Cubans in the US.
Please read my many AlterNet posts if you are interested in further informing your conscience: http://www.alternet.org/story/56497
Enrigue, you’re a damn liar, and that’s acoming from a good old boy from Florida. People are damned tired of your “little Havana” Mafia lies on the dawg. I got to tell you go straight to hell and take your fifty pieces of silver with you.
I say free the Miami Five, real Cubans from Cuba who exposed the terrorism of the Miami fanatical anti Castro Cuban Exile against Cuba whom the US Government, the biggest exporter of terrorism has convicted on trumped up BS charges of engaging espionage against the USA, when actually the Five have simply exposed the fraud of the US war on terror in terms of Cuba. The five are now incarcerated in federal facilities for exposing this fraud. British, Canadian, and other peoples who have access to Cuba by having normal diplomatic relations with that country know this. Join the Briitish Cuba Solidarity Campaign in the fight against the Miami Little Havana far right lies about Fidel Castro.
Stand up against US Government and Miami Cuban exile nut case terrorism.
I will provide further information in a website I hope to be able to launch soon. For the moment I suggest you consider the following sources:
1.AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTATION –Description of abuses by Castro´s Dictatorial Unconstitutional Military Apparatus compiled by Amnesty international:
http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-cub/index
2. BEATEN UP FOR DEMANDING EQUAL INTERNET RIGHTS–After approximately 100 days fasting (food and water) for lack of effective internet access to dissidents in Cubans, Guillermo Farinas ended it, only to be beaten up a few weeks later by Comnandante´s Castro’s apparatus. Here is a picture:
http://www.bitacoracubana.com/desdecuba/portada2.php?id=4199.
3. 10-15% OF CUBANS CLEANSED- In 2002 the US Census reported that (1.4 million) or 3.7 % of the 37.4 million US Hispanics were Cuban. Comandante Castro’s apparatus reports there are only 11 million Cubans and excludes these 1.4 in the US and my estimate of 300 thousand more worldwide. If my estimate is close, then the total of Cubans outside Cuba is 1.7 million, or 13.4% of the true estimated population of 12.7 million Cubans. Comandante Castro’s Dictatorial Unconstitutional Military Apparatus proclaims that these 1.7 million Cubans are ´gusanos´(worms), sub-human, non persons, traitors, etc. and thereby attempts to justify the cleansing that he has undertaken for 48 years. Even one of the Commondreams commentators has just suggested that we are not ‘real Cubans’. When 13.4% of a population is wiped out even of the statistics, that’s cultural genocide. It is reasonable to believe there might be 1 traitor, 2 traitors, 10 traitors. Who can argue that 13.4% of a country’s population is treasonous, except someone with genocidal intent.
4. HOW THE APPARATUS IS STRUCTURED — For information on how the Comandante´s Apparatus is structured please see the book entitled (in Spanish) “Los Derechos Fundamentales y el Orden Jurídico e Institucional de Cuba”
http://www.cadal.org/libros/nota.asp?id_nota=1513. Available as a PDF. Unfortunately, this book calls Castro´s apparatus a ´government´ and more likely than not, is sponsored by some US Aid organization that, like Castro, attempts to hide references to our only constitution, agreed upon by the legitimate totality of Cubans in 1940. Both the US and Castro dismiss it because they both trampled it. Apart from this bias, there is valuable information in this book.
5. MARIO CHANES, CASTRO’S GRANMA SHIPMATE SENTENCED TO 30 YEARS–Letter by Mario Chanes, shipmate of Comandante Castro on the Granma, condemned to 30 years for ´counter´revolutionary when he refused to go along with Comandante´s unconstitutional initiatives after the succesful uprising against Batista in 1959. http://www.rsf.org/imprimir.php3?id_article=9577
More on Chanes here:
http://armengol.blogspot.com/2007/02/fallecio-mario-chanes-de-armas.html
7. COMANDANTE HUBER MATOS CONDEMNED TOO –Comandante Huber Matos, condemned to 30 years, for refusing to go along with the program, published his memoirs and they are available in English. Como Llego La Noche/How Night Fell by Huber Matos — Paperback - Oct 2004.
8. Cubaencuentro.org is a site with daily news from the opposition but which however has a strong neoliberal thrust. Cubanet.org is also financed by US AID. Granma by Castro. It’s very difficult to find unbiased information.
I am not an advocate of capitalism, far from it. Yet I understand, that no one has the right to cleanse a population of those who think differently or who claim the rights guaranteed by their constitution. So Comandante Castro and I radically differ too.
There is much, much more, to write and to cite and yet I hope the foregoing references help until I’m able to organize a site. I still don’t have a name for it, but for those interested I will try to publish the address in this newspiece or in Commondreams, when it’s ready.
Thank you for listening to all those who cared to.
Enrique I. Alonso
Citizen of the Republic of Cuba