Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Now Who's "Bush-Cheney Lite"?
Just when some folks might have been thinking that Hillary Clinton had been magically transformed into an actual opponent of the neocon Empire project, what with her outrageous suggestion that the Pentagon might consider talking with Congress about contingency plans for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, she and her campaign went and manufactured a controversy about whether or not the U.S. should talk to countries that it doesn't like, scoring points with the Washington punditry but moving our country further away from a sane foreign policy.Just when some folks might have thought that Barack Obama was a real alternative, given his full-throated defense of the commonsense notion that the U.S. should, in fact, talk to countries that it doesn't like, he tries to burnish his Empire credentials in response to the attacks by Hillary's people by saying that the U.S. should invade Pakistan, even without the Pakistani government's permission. Never mind that (a) this would be a blatant violation of international law (b) it could go very, very badly (c) lots of innocent people would die and (d) such statements actually undermine the Pakistani government's efforts to suppress violent Islamic militancy.
But here's a bright spot: Edwards said something reasonable about Iran. He criticized the Bush Administration's proposal for a massive new arms sales package in the Middle East, saying it would give Iran an incentive to strengthen its nuclear program:
Edwards said the arms deal could backfire by giving Iran an incentive to build its nuclear strength. "They have to try to offset the conventional arms deficiencies that they're faced with," Edwards said. "That's the whole problem with this idea that you deal with these things in terms of what's helpful at the moment instead of what needs to be done over the long term."
Unlike most of official Washington, he also called foul on the Bush administration's coddling of Saudi Arabia -- arguably playing a far more disruptive role in Iraq than the government of Iran, which -- unlike the Saudis -- is actually allied with the same people in Iraq that the U.S. is allied with:
Edwards said the United States should require the Saudi government to shut down the movement of terrorists across its borders, help stabilize the Iraqi government and participate more seriously in regional security before they are offered weapons. "Whether it's Iraq or terrorism, the Saudis have fallen way short of what they need to be doing," the 2004 vice presidential nominee told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. "And the Bush administration's response is to sell them $20 billion worth of arms, which is short-term and convenient and not what the United States should be doing."
Here's hoping that Edwards doesn't endure a torrent of Washington pundit abuse for daring to be the voice of reason.
Robert Naiman is Senior Policy Analyst and National Coordinator at Just Foreign Policy.
69 Comments so far
Show AllOK,obama did not threaten to INVADE pakistan,but only to ATTACK that nation,if its strongman,musharraf fails in his duty to protect the american people/assets.the illinois senator apparently did this to make political points in an exchange with the redoubtable sen clinton.i'm sure that as our presidential campaign heats up,the pakistani people will be on the edge of their seats.so fellas,its just hawk talk.whoever is elected president will recognize that pakistan is a whole other country,with sovereignty,and stuff,to the extent that he/she feels that said sovereignty does not conflict with u.s. security concerns.oddly enough,this "realistic" position does not work both ways.for instance,if countries like cuba have "actionable intel" about folks and organizations in the miami area or elsewhere in the us,who have blown up cuban airplanes,and killed their citizens,thats just tough,and you are jolly well told.
I take the point, but in this case I think the criticism is misplaced:
http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&y=Search&p=kucinich+and+%2Bnaiman+and+2007
Brown, I was thinking the same thing as I read it. Forget beating up on the MSM, even sites like CD and TalkingPointsMemo have relinquished all coverage to Hillary and Obama. Very damn depressing.
NO MENTION of Dennis K. and his stance.
Nothing fucking new there....
http://www.kucinich.us
Hillary WalMart Clinton was a WalMart lawyer and then on their board of directors during the 1980s when WalMart started ripping small town America a new a-hole.
Using campaign spending limits to get America better polticians is the only way to solve America's problems enough.
So Edwards not only took some baby steps to the left on domestic policy, but now he has taken some baby steps towards reasonableness and civilized behavior with regard to foreign policy. He should expect another ton of bricks to fall on his head at any moment now.
It's Gravel or nothing from the "democrats". Kucinich showed his real colors in '04 when he wouldn't hold the ground for an anti-war plank at the national convention. Having gotten no concessions from the mainstream at all, he then tidily encouraged everyone to support Kerry. With no concessions from the Kerry campaign. None. Nothing. Zip. Nor has Kucinich ever come forward to explain his actions, or give an accounting of what he learned through making use of such a rotten compromise.
Gravel, at least, deserves the benefit of the doubt, given his actual history, a long practice of maverick and thoughtful politics. He was good on Vietnam, good on indigenous rights with the Alaska native lands claims, good on gay rights, good on decrim of drugs, he's been outspoken on the so-called "war on drugs" and the mass incarceration of Black and Latino youth, he's been good on the immigration question, he's been great on the war. And at 77 years of age, he's got nothing to lose. He can take liberties in his expression that the "young hip" candidates like Obama don't have the spine to take.
He is also one of the last surviving members of that generation that launched the new deal in public life, and gave an unapologetic defense of the actual need for the public sector the last time capitalism started trying to devour every fucking thing in sight. When Gravel has served in office, he has been totally unafraid of controversy.
We need edwards in the race, he is the only one of the top 3 who cares about more thatn their own power grabs. No more Bush Clinto doupoly. OUr country is in the worse shape its ever been and Hillary has done more to make it that way than most politicians walking
I think Edwards is just saying what people are thinking. If you make some common sense observations and talk about them, the people can decide if those seems reasonable or not. This is a good way for people to get to know Edwards and get to hear what he thinks about issues.
Dr. Ron Paul or Congressman Dennis Kucinich.
The rest are bought and paid for and y'all know it.
Kucinich is a shill for his party. in 2004 he abandoned his pledge to fight for an antiwar plank in the party platform, he abandoned his tireless volunteers and supporters and caved in to the pro-war, do-nothing corporate owners of his party. Don't be fooled again!
You cannot change the Democrats. This tactic has been tried again and again--it has never worked.
Only mass organized pressure from *outside* government can win real change. The people who run the government materially benefit from the status quo. It is ludicrous to expect them to lead a fight to change the system.
I'm still waiting for a candidate. I see nothing on the table that is electable at this point. Somone has to come along that transcends this mob of huckster. Yes Gravel seems to have integrity and common sense but is he electable. The rest like Kucinich are one or two issue guys. Edwards will never be allowed to be elected and Ron Paul is a F'n Republican and no Republican deserves to be elected- and that can be said for democrats as well.
We need someone NEW- and Obama is an idiot for talking about invading Pakistan.
Someone should ask him which army he intends on using.Ours is broken.
John Edwards is a stand-up individual who clearly articulates what is right and what is not, whether or not that stance is currently popular. He's been my candidate from the get-go because of this, and because of his credibiity and decency, and I urge all of you who are undecided to consider what this man is about, in his own words. He has taken no money he hasn't earned by his own hard work, and if he chooses to get an expensive haircut and build a large house, that's his business. He has done more than a little for those less fortunate and has shown enormous character and grace under pressure that would make lesser individuals collapse. I admire him enormously, as I do Mrs. Edwards, and am grateful for his outspokenness and honesty,
Gail, I agree 100%. I would vote for John Edwards over warmongers and corporate/AIPAC shills Clinton and Obama anyday!
Edwards *is* a warmonger and corporate shill.
He has supported the war from the beginning and only recently changed his tune.
"(d) such statements actually undermine the Pakistani government's efforts to suppress violent Islamic militancy."
This is precisely the kind of misinformation that is spewed out to make a point !! Nothing is further from the truth. The Pakistan Govt has in fact done exactly the opposite by signing an 'agreement' with the Taliban in the tribal regions of Waziristan where they are allowed to continue their insidious quest to control Afghanistan in return for not killing Pakistani Army soldiers and security personnel ! Aw ... nevermind ... this is ridiculous.
We need people who think about solving problems using something besides force and threats of force. I am disappointed in Obama. I must lean back toward Edwards, or Biden, or Kucinich, or Gravel (I love Gravel).
John Edwards received the largest lawsuit payout in the history of North Carolina. He won it by suing a doctor/ hospital for not performing an elective procedure (a C section) that would have further endangered the patients life had it been performed. Unfortunately the baby died as a result, but the mother lived. Integrity? This to me paints the picture of a man willing to do anything to win, even if it means suing a doctor who was just trying to save a persons life, or if it means pandering to a leftist demographic that he has no intention of representing if they help him get elected. Just sayin' i think we can do better than edwards.
I only have one thing to say about Edwards that sums him up: $200 haircut.
Clinton and Obama are Republicans in Coward's(aka Democrat's) clothing.
Kucinich says nice things but he'll fold under pressure.
Gravel is AWESOME. I agree with just about everything he says and he says it LOUD AND PROUD. Too bad I can't vote for him though, I'm sick of fucking Democrats.
Ron Paul is a Republican, and on top of that, he's a LIBERTARIAN. I'll be damned if I'm gonna let some asshole libertarian run this country.
Yes, I know, I'm acting partisan, but I can't stand Libertarians, I can't stand Republicans, I can't stand Democrats.
Lewis Black was right. "A Republican stands up and says, 'I have a terrible idea!' A Democrat stands up and says, 'And I know how to make it worse!'"
This is still about the lesser of several evils who have been placed upon a pedestal by the very class that has dismantled our Constitution and removed our civil liberties all while robbing and murdering whoever gets in their way. Edwards says we should "require" the Saudi government to...whatever his campaign tactic da jour is...But exactly how in the hell do we require something of another country? Bomb em? Of course.
Whoever the MSM ignores the most is our best chance of regaining a civilized way of life and governance. Gravel/Nader '08!!
INVADE PAKISTAN WITH WHAT? actionable intelligence about what? obama is an ass clown like the rest of them.pakistan is a heart beat away from being run by the islamic fundamentalists.these mainstream corporate candidates don't have the guts to stand up for the working people of this country in any away which inconveniences the corporate doners,but when it comes to issuing law school hypotheticals which threaten the stability of a nation which has nuclear weapons,AND ITS OWN DAMNED PROBLEMS,young obama just fires away,like the rank amateur he is.hell,can't take any option off the table,except sanity,civility,stuff like that.his contributers sell weapons,so everything looks like a war to them,and therefore to him.
With Hillary introducing her November strategy already (toying with a nuclear and divided Pakistan already on the precipace) it is clear to anyone litterate JUST HOW EXTREME OUR MECIA MAINSTREAM IS.
For me it again raises the issue WHY ISN'T THERE A MORE ACTIVE AND VISISBLE CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE CORPORATE MEDIA. We wont get them to change. We need to start being the daily fly in thier ointment; pointing out how they are a cracked cornea or a cornea on crack. People have been talking about media for reform for years. WHY IS NOTHING HAPPENING? Might the answer have something to do with CIA funded foundation grants?
common dreams is an apt title,
because there are a lot of dreamers out there...
Kucinich or Gravel are of course the only candidates, politicians, who are motivated by ethics.
The only problem is that outlook is not shared by the majority of the population.
The majority want a 'strong' leader; which is why they elected W. His strutting and arrogance won them over.(and I know W didn't really win but it shouldn't even have been close)
We need Kucinich and Gravel to keep the other candidates somewhat honest.
They have NO chance of winning; but we desperately need their voices.
We're only going to get a leader who reflects the times and the people, which means somebody who looks good on the outside but is shallow as hell...Clinton or Romney.
Gore/Gravel? Gore/Nader? Gore/Kucinich? Anyway I look at it, he's our best bet so far. We have to draft him.
If any truly progressive candidate cracked 10 percent in polls among Democratic voters, there would be an all-out assault from the corporate media, the rabid right-wing media would be frothing at the mouth, and even the late night comedians would be encouraged (possibly except Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert) to pour on the ridicule until the offending individual dropped again into the single digits. That is the political environment we live in.
I find it sad that so many at Common Dreams blast Edwards for being too hopelessly pro-corporate, pro-wealthy, and pro-war, when the corporate media blasts him as being too anti-corporate, anti-wealthy, and anti-war to be electable. I think few here can even imagine what the media would throw at Kucinich or Gravel, or even Ron Paul, if any of them approached 10 percent. If they could not find enough material, the corporate media would make it up out of whole cloth. If you do not believe that, you are hopelessly naive.
Lewis Black was right. "A Republican stands up and says, 'I have a terrible idea!' A Democrat stands up and says, 'And I know how to make it worse!'"
...and a Libertarian stands up and says "Whatever, just don't bug me about it!"
First of all, the ad hominem attacks on Edwards for the haircut are absolutely ridiculous. They did this to Clinton years ago didnt they?
I wonder where he was when he got it and how much Hillary pays for hers. Those of you who bit at that apple are just as naive as those who would vote for W.
I agree that the fringe candidates need to be there to keep the others on topic. Interestingly enough Edwards is one who is keeping things on topic. He was the first to stand up for single payer healthcare.
Would I want somebody "better", who spoke out against the march to war? Yeah. But I do respect him for standing up now, being decisive when Clinton and Obama are being so damn politically (um correct isnt the correct word)cautious.
As long as Obama or Clinton don't threaten to jaywalk, I suppose they're okay.
With the exception of Gravel and Kucinich, they are all shills, along with their counterparts, the Repubs, for AIPAC. BEWARE! IF we won't distance ourselves from this type of influence NOTHING WILL CHANGE - it can and will become worse!
Please read the the interview of Kucinich on Grist. They also interviewed Edwards and will the other candidates, too. (copy and paste in your browser)
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2007/08/01/kucinich/index.html
ARA Charleston:
Far be it from me to attack someone in a SKA band (I love Ska!), but, seriously, haircuts are not politics. I am not an Edwards fan because of his energy stance, wanting to resort to nuclear power and increased COAL POWER (the dirtiest fuel we have, with the worst production of greenhouse gases and MERCURY to boot!). I don't like Edwards because he voted for the war in Iraq. As far as haircuts go, if you really want to discuss it, it is GREAT that he gets incredibly expensive haircuts, because it is a low consumption, heavy service commodity that redistributes his vast wealth to people who could actually use it. Do we really want to bitch and moan that someone is paying the people who provide them services LARGE amounts of money? I think I'd be rather pleased to find out he tips his waiters in the hundreds, or pays triple for his auto repair bills, pays his domestic servants a living wage, or maybe pays the person who cuts his lawn a White Collar salary. I mean, seriously, the complaint should be that people with all that money DON'T pay outrageous amounts for things such as haircuts.
But hair isn't the point, is it? The point is that we have one of the "acceptable" candidates talking sense on foreign policy. We have a mainstream candidate who doesn't have to show how big his (or her) penis is by bombing people rather than using DIPLOMACY. We have a person who is at least TALKING about turning back this tide of Roman Imperialism that rules our dealings with the world. But, really, his hair is a SCANDAL, isn't it? Next thing, we'll be shutting down the government because somebody got head. Get with the program and stop parroting the PROGRAMMING (please).
www.unknown-arts.org/politics
eshu August 1st said:
"Gravel, at least, deserves the benefit of the doubt, given his actual history, a long practice of maverick and thoughtful politics. He was good on Vietnam, good on indigenous rights with the Alaska native lands claims, good on gay rights, good on decrim of drugs, he's been outspoken on the so-called "war on drugs" and the mass incarceration of Black and Latino youth, he's been good on the immigration question, he's been great on the war. And at 77 years of age, he's got nothing to lose. He can take liberties in his expression that the "young hip" candidates like Obama don't have the spine to take."
Fantastic point. I agree, and I didn't know 20% of what you just told me in one paragraph. The guy is like one those old, no nonsense, curmedgeons of the FDR variety that comes around in American politics once every century. Plus he is a more powerful speaker than Kucinich, and that is why the neo-con asswipes such as Wolf Blitzer and John Anderson at CNN do not give him time to make his points in the Democrat "debates", whilst bending over backwards for Fraulein Hitlery, Seig Heil.
Dillan, August 1st, 2007 4:47 pm said:
"We need someone NEW- and Obama is an idiot for talking about invading Pakistan."
Spot on bro., spot on.
lillulu August 1st, 2007 5:18 pm and Gail Moore August 1st, 2007 4:53 pm
Spot on. Though Edwards needs to lose his Clark Kent hair style. Needs to look more rugged than pretty.
Aymon
WTF does being an ob/gyn have to do with being a President?
He's a Republican that is in favor of overturning Roe vs. Wade, dismantling Medicare and Social Security, and did I mention he's a Republican?
Forget the slogans and the sound bites. Here are four questions that NONE will give a straight answer on:
1. Mr/Ms. Candidate will you repeal: Patriot, MCA, Quick Death & Anti-Terrorism; NAFTA; CAFTA; Taft-Hartley; and restore Posse Comitatus and Glass-Segal? You know the answer already for each one. Bupkiss.
2. Mr/Ms. Candidate what specific acts or legislation will you use to bring manufacturing, technology, and science jobs back on shore? You know the answer already. Bupkiss.
3. Mr/Ms. Candidate what will you do to restore Roosevelt Legacy taxation, corporate regulation, and social safety net? You know the answer already. Bupkiss.
4. Mr/Ms. Candidate what will you do to provide Single Payer/Medicare For All Americans with no involvement by greed driven murderous corporations? You know the answer already. Bupkiss.
That's four. Haven't even put Iraq on the list yet or impeachment for anybody so you've got lots of room to add your own.
Every one of these is a hot button and most people say, "Well, he can't tell you what he really wants to do, he'll alienate people. He has to TRICK THEM so he can get enough votes to be elected. BUT once he gets in, he'll be our guy and he'll fight for us, and make everything all right. He uses all the right code words."
That is faith based politics. That is what elects Adolf Hitler. "Of course he has to tell lies, he's running for office." Am I ringing any bells here?
Like the crazy Irish in Brave Heart said, "Answer the f**king question."
Peece.
I'm disturbed that this statement by Obama seem to be the "real thing" -- its a vetted policy statement -- it's been read and re-read, and ultimately, imho -- if Obaman had any power to "make it real" -- dangerous. Musharrif has been made "our" strange bedfellow, but his hold on power is tenuous and the bad news is that what will replace him is likely to be even friendlier towards the Taliban and Bin Laden and other "freedom fighters" ...
We have to stop obessessing about Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden ... the seeds have been sown ... we seem to have no idea what Bin Laden is up to or who he talks to or what actual influence he has. IOW, it's not about Bin Laden ... it's about keeping AMERICA in the thrall of these fear-mongerers.
We need to enhance our domestic security -- we need an updated audit of "Homeland Security" efforts -- and we need to VASTLY increase our cooperation with international agencies and we need to "get right with" international laws and treaties.
It's not "all about us" ... and we have to make all of the politicians stop recreating the cold war in which everyone who defies our will is our enemy ... Bush/Cheney painted us into a corner... but we cannot stay there, in that mindset ...
I don't expect to "like" any of the mainstream candidates... I think the country is going to undergo at least a decade of realignment (hopefully for the better, but I think the potential for reactive shift into a true fascist totalitarian superpower exists)... my vote will go to the person who I feel is best able to communicate and educate. My suspicion is that our next president will have the world's shortest "honeymoon" and then the criticisms and undermining will be deafening. We need a president who can talk, explain, educate ... In this, I'm very tentatively leaning towards Edwards ... In the facet of a MSM that can undermine Kerry's genuine war record and ignore Gore's lifelong and varied extensive public service, to concentrate on Bush's likeability and steadfastness -- I am simply not sure that actual policies and platforms matter much except as "wish books."
susan:
i agree with your post
except:
"We need to enhance our domestic security"
know well
security is an illusion!!
dig it
'n
watch 'n feel the
fear fade away
ken
Ron Paul does have some political appeal when it comes to his ideas on foreign policy, which only proves that he's astute enough to notice, and respond to, the results from public opinion polls about the war. He's probably the least recongnizable of all the Republican cadidates so he'd better have a moist-finger to the political wind if he wants to stand out among the pack.
Thanks, but, no thanks. After Tom Delay, Dick Armie, and George Bush, I've been completely cured of what little regard I had for Texas politicans. I also think that Ron Paul is strictly from the "B" team of the Republican party. While his political rethoric might be different than Bushs', we could expect petty much the same philosphy when it comes to managing the government.
It would be a giant feather Karl Rove's hat if he could get another Texas republican elected president!
"It would be a giant feather Karl Rove's hat if he could get another Texas republican elected president!"
There you go. Associate Dr. Paul with Rove, quite possibly the single most reviled person in the Shrub administration. If you're unwilling to listen to what the man says because he's a Texan then you're a demogouge. Knee jerking will get you what you want on your Democratic ticket: a Presidential candidate that talks out of both sides of his/her mouth. The only person on the Democrat side worth even considering is Kucinich - he's more alike Dr. Paul than disalike. But don't believe me, go do your own research.
That or stick your head back in the sand and prepare for perpetual war.
"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion...The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance." - Ron Paul.
That right wing scumbag is a hack who is out to destroy the social welfare state, and let the poor people die in the streets. He is even more right wing economically than president bush, and even more of a christian evangelical. If you support him you are an idiot.
Actually, I'd like to ask all of the candidates what they think "our" response should be when Musharrif is ousted (which seems to be inevitable and may be sooner rather than later ... although it is hard know what reports to believe much less how brutally "successful" attempts to suppress a coup would be.)
I think it would be very revealing. I don't expect to like most answers, some of which might well be shocking -- preventing another fundamentalist state, "safeguarding" their nukes, etc.
Americans seem to be believe that "self-determination" is only a "god given right" when we approve of what is looks like.
=========================================================
Actually Ken... I'm not sure we are now or have ever
been the "real" target ... While we are and have been the Great Satan for decades now -- long before Al-Qaeda --- I think tangible real estate and power in Afghanistan and Pakistan are much more important* as are accommodations/concessions made by other Sunni/Salafi countries. Mostly, they seem to want us to go away and leave them alone ....
** Giles Kepel believes that Al-Qaeda has been losing it's allure as their attempts to control and impose sharia on Afghanistan and Sudan and elsewhere have failed. They may be fighting jihad in Iraq, Chechnya, and god know where else, but they aren't winning. Striking the United States might be good for "morale" but I don't think it would advance their "cause."
gyptian, thanks for providing some facts about how the Pakistani government is in league with the Taliban, to keep us grounded in reality.
But that doesn't justify your view, it just begs the question again: what will be the effect of illegally invading? Will it help or hurt? Given that the Pakistani government, or at least the military branch and Musharraf, is in league with the Taliban, possibly even hiding bin Laden, do we invade Pakistan, destroy lots more people and property, turn the whole country against us, and probably fail to get bin Laden (as in the past), or do we do something SMARTER this time?
The u.s. has no business, no right, no legitimacy in even a single american soldier entering the middle east. It is fucking irrelevant what role Pakistani's are playing in regard to their neighbors. The u.s. has already illegally invaded and destroyed to countries; it is OVER! There is no justifiable invasion of Pakistan, Iran, or Saudi Arabia, especially not under the same braindead propaganda about AQ and the taliban, and someone like Osama who died of natural causes years ago.
Hillary's cleavage and Edwards' hair has more coverage than ANY policy position of ANY candidate. The media doesn't even take a stab at worthwhile political coverage anymore.
I am second to none in my admiration of breasts, but I really don't care if the elected officials have odd numbers of them in unique locations. I just want some reasonable people to fight out IDEAS and POLICIES in the public forum on the MERITS of each proposal.
Obama equates America's "GWOT" to the Cold War. He wants to treat the concoction called "global terrorism" with the same over the top build up used to "defeat" communism. I now wonder with his new tack towards creating battlefields in Pakistan if he would have endorsed Ronald Reagan's mining of Nicaraguan harbors.
Here are some of his ideas on Pakistan. Obama openly state he would be... "getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan"
"And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism."
Here is part of his larger war on terror plan:
"I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America. This requires a broader set of capabilities, as outlined in the Army and Marine Corps's new counter-insurgency manual. I will ensure that our military becomes more stealth, agile, and lethal in its ability to capture or kill terrorists."
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php
Here is a quote from his foreign affairs article:"To defeat al Qaeda, I will build a twenty-first-century military and twenty-first-century partnerships as strong as the anticommunist alliance that won the Cold War to stay on the offense everywhere from Djibouti to Kandahar."
foreign affairs
Oh, boy. There is something very worrisome when a presidential candidate starts comparing the politically motivated term, "global terrorism network" (see claire sterling, 1982) to an "anticommunist alliance". Sounds like watered down Ronald Reagan, not Truman. Indeed, C. Sterling attempted to argue the USSR was behind this alleged international network of terrorists. I find it uninspiring when similar rhetoric is strongly asserted by Obama. Dangerously reminiscent of the some of the charges argued by Netanyahu.
Whenever I've seen Gravel on stage at one of the debates I aways expect a rubber duck to coming falling down from the ceiling. This guy speaks populist lingo, if you know what mean, but his personna is strictly from Nome. I can't seem to picture him representing our country as top decider like in kin L'Bush. I admit, he is the sort of guy I'd have a beer with (I think I already have, not sure...)but voting for him over Bob Novak, gee! I don't know if I could do that...
I agree with luckylefty. Your four points are just the beginning. We have to rid ourselves of the corporatists in both parties. I have no respect for the Dems anymore...especially the ones who will not impeach this treacherous administration. Let's work for national and local progressive candidates. We have to get off our collective butts and work!
I am still curious to see the results of that private discussion Hillary and Edwards had (unaware that Hillary's microphone was hot)two weeks ago. So Edwards took a bit of a different stand on the Saudi arms sales deal. To me he still is no different than Hillary (a corporate sellout), and neither one of them will get my vote.
I wish I could just vote with a rock. I'd vote for them all! (If only God really used lightning when you lied!)
Well, despite everything said here, IF there is a so-called "election" in November 2008, I suspect most of you will be voting for whatever piece of pro-war, pro-corporate, pro-imperalistic, pro-Bush piece of trash the useless/worthless Bush-Enabling Dem Party throws at you.
It is a given that the Dem koolaid drinkers will vote for Repug Hillary (presuming she's the nominee and she's already the "annointed one") just because she still has the nerve to have a "D" behind her name. That's good enough for the koolaid drinkers. Gotta tow that D party line, you know, even though there's no difference between the Rs and the Ds to those who have been paying close attention since 2000.
It will be a case of "lesser of two evils"...that's how people will vote ONCE AGAIN to continue the cycle. In part, people falling for the "lesser of two evils" (blind allegiance to party-line) is how we got in this deep rut/disaster to begin with and continuing to vote for the "lesser evil" will only deepen the rut because nothing will change despite any wishful-thinking to the contrary that people might have.
One wonders when The People will have the courage and intelligence to vote for a second party (whatever that might be), since our one-party system with two right wings has failed us miserably.
fresh ... i do not and did not suggest we invade Pakistan ( and neither did Obama if you take the time to read what he said)! As i pointed out in another post someplace else (!!) .. our endless support to Pakistani dicktators over 60 years is the real problem. Pakistan is a failed state with no real cicvic instituitions left. Everything is run by the army and for the army and the Pakistani people have been at the receiving end for the last 60 years. In fact they would have been much better off if the great 'Partition' ( another stupid british construct) had never taken place. Instead of supporting the Pakistani people in creating a stable democracy we have continuously aided and abetted army rule and associated dictators.
________________im too lazy to type so at the risk of getting flamed___
I think Obama is just another politician like the rest but with a veneer of populism about him. No I wouldnt vote for him or any other joker the democ-rats put up. Having said that he does have a point in that Pakistan is the primary source of terrorism in the world today and we need to focus our attention on that. I do not endorse his position of sending troops in but if you are gonna have U.S. troops anywhere in the world today it needs to be on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. It needs to be with the explicit or implicit permission of our friendly dicktator Musharraf.
Pakistan is a failed state. The Pakistani people do not support Musharraf or the religious fanatics 'the bearded ones', who won less than 15-20% of the vote in the last elections despite Musharraf propping them up with iron-clad scaffolding !!
What we need to do is support democracy in Pakistan, stop arming them to the teeth (F-16's if you can believe that!!), stop the billions in aid that doesnt remotely reach the Pakistani people, force Musharraf to go after the criminals in Waziristan and do everything possible to stabilize Pakistan. Im pretty sure this is what Obama meant although it comes across as warmongering.
Also the Pakistani army and its death-sister the ISI (intelligence) need to be dismantled if thats possible at all. After 60 years the Pakistani people need a breather and at least an attempt to make their State work, which has been near impossible because we choose to use Pakistan as our condom in that region to enhance our strategic objectives, with the help of a long line of pliant dicktators.
__________ im too lazy to type so at the risk of getting flamed____
The Pakistani army has been the most belligerent entity in that part of the globe by aiding and abetting the Taliban and a host of other terrorist organizations (LET, HUM, etc) and conducting proxy wars against India and Afghanistan. I think the people of Afghanistan would be screaming for someone to do something against this Pakistani infiltration if they had a chance. Also the Pakistani support of the Kashmiri insurgency has been going on for more than 20 yrs (60 ??). Instead we feed and placate the very entity thats creating the problem (the Pakistani army and the ISI) and completely ignore the people as we did during the riots against the dismissal of the Chief Justice recently.
Its very likely that Musharraf will actually covertly allow the U.S. (NATO) troops to do his work for him, in other words undo all the harm he has done these last few years. Actually using the religious fundamentalists (jihadis) to conduct proxy wars for the pakistani army is an old tactic very efficiently used by another 'General' Zia in the past against Afghanistan (Soviets) and against India in Kashmir. Once you let the genie out you cannot bring it back in too easily.
If you look at it objectively Obama is probably the least militant of all the top 'presidential' contenders. Its too easy to dump all these nuts into one bag but something tells me one of these nuts is gonna be running the country very soon so we better sit up and take notice and make sure we dissect all the positions they take carefully (like reading the whole friggin article for instance !!) instead of playing directly into the arms of the media, which willingly cherry-picks the best soundbite 'Obama Nukes Pakistan' or some shit !
___________--