Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiBarack Obama on the Middle East
The strong showings by Senator Barack Obama of Illinois in the early contests for the Democratic presidential nomination don't just mark a repudiation of the Bush administration's Iraq policy and "war on terrorism." They also indicate a rejection of the Democratic Party establishment, much of which supported the invasion of Iraq and other tragic elements of the administration's foreign policy.
There's a lot of evidence to suggest that voters found Senator Obama's opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, in contrast to the strong support for the invasion by his principal rivals for the Democratic Party nomination, a major factor contributing to his surprisingly strong challenge to Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) in the race for the White House. Indeed, while his current position on Iraq is not significantly different than that of Clinton or the other major challenger, former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, Obama's good judgment not to support the war five years ago has led millions of Democratic and independent voters to find him more trustworthy as a potential commander-in-chief.
At the same time, while he certainly takes more progressive positions on Middle East issues than Senator Clinton or the serious Republican presidential contenders, he backs other aspects of U.S. policies toward Iraq, Iran, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that have raised some troubling questions. This is one factor that has tempered support for the trailblazing African-American candidate among liberal and progressive voters.
Iraq in the Illinois State Senate
In October 2002, while Senators Hillary Clinton and John Edwards were in Washington leading Congressional efforts to authorize President George W. Bush to invade that oil-rich country at the time and circumstances of his choosing, Obama--then an Illinois state senator who had no obligation to take a stand either way--took the initiative to speak at a major anti-war rally in Chicago. While Clinton and Edwards were making false and alarmist statements that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was still a danger to the Middle East and U.S. national security, Obama had a far more realistic understanding of the situation, stating: "Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors."
Recognizing that there were alternatives to using military force, Obama called on the United States to "allow UN inspectors to do their work." He noted "that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history."
Furthermore, unlike the the Iraq War's initial supporters, Obama recognized that "even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." Understanding the dangerous consequences to regional stability resulting from war, Obama accurately warned that "an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda."
Iraq in the U.S. Senate
Once elected to the U.S. Senate, however, his anti-war voice became muted. Obama supported unconditional funding for the Iraq War in both 2005 and 2006. And--despite her false testimonies before Congress and her mismanagement of Iraq policy before, during, and after the U.S. invasion in her role as National Security Advisor--Obama broke with most of his liberal colleagues in the Senate by voting to confirm Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state during his first weeks in office.
Obama didn't even make a floor speech on the war until a full year after his election. In it, he called for a reduction in the number of U.S. troops but no timetable for their withdrawal. In June 2006, he voted against an amendment by Senators Russ Feingold and John Kerry for such a timetable.
In addition, during the 2006 Democratic congressional primaries, he campaigned for pro-war incumbents--including Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman against his eventually victorious primary challenger Ned Lamont--and other conservative Democrats fighting back more progressive anti-war challengers.
Iraq as a Presidential Candidate
It was only after the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, headed by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Representative Lee Hamilton, called for setting a date to withdraw U.S. combat troops, and only after Obama formed his presidential exploratory committee, that he introduced legislation setting a date for troop withdrawal. And it was only this past spring that he began voting against unconditional funding for the war.
In a speech before the Chicago Council on Global Affairs in November 2006, Obama appeared to buy into the Bush administration's claims that its goal in Iraq was not about oil or empire, but to advance freedom, by criticizing the Bush administration for invading Iraq for unrealistic "dreams of democracy and hopes for a perfect government." Instead of calling for an end to the increasingly bloody U.S.-led military effort, he instead called for "a pragmatic solution to the real war we're facing in Iraq," with repeated references to the need to defeat the insurgency.
Despite polls showing a majority of Americans desiring a rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces, he acknowledged that U.S. troops may need to stay in that occupied country for an "extended period of time," and that "the U.S. may have no choice but to slog it out in Iraq." Specifically, he called for U.S. forces to maintain a "reduced but active presence," to "protect logistical supply points" and "American enclaves like the Green Zone" as well as "act as rapid reaction forces to respond to emergencies and go after terrorists."
Obama has committed to withdraw regular combat troops within 16 months and launch diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives to address some of the underlying issues driving the ongoing conflicts. He has also pledged to launch "a comprehensive regional and international diplomatic initiative to help broker and end of the civil war in Iraq, prevent its spread, and limit the suffering of the Iraqi people."
If elected, as president Obama would almost certainly withdraw the vast majority of U.S. forces from Iraq. Yet thousands of American troops would likely remain to perform such duties as he has described as necessary. Indeed, he has explicitly ruled out any guarantee for a total U.S. withdrawal from Iraq by the end of his first term in 2013. At the same time, he has recognized the need to "make clear that we seek no permanent bases in Iraq" and has increasingly emphasized that most U.S. troops that remain in the area should be "over the horizon," such as in Kuwait, rather than in Iraq itself.
Iran: Mixed Messages
Obama has criticized the Bush administration for its belligerent policy toward Iran and has warned against precipitous military action. In addition, though being out on the campaign trail when the vote was taken made it impossible to formally go on record, Obama has harshly criticized Senator Clinton for supporting the bellicose Kyl-Lieberman amendment targeting Iran, which many saw as paving the way for the Bush administration to launch military action against that country.
Despite this, Senator Obama has appeared to buy into some of the more alarmist and exaggerated views of Iran's potential threat. For example, he has referred to Iran--a mid-level power on the far side of the globe that currently does not have a nuclear weapons program and is nearly a decade away from having the capability to produce nuclear weapons--as a "genuine threat."
In remarks Obama prepared for a speech to an American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Policy Forum in March of last year, he said: Iranian nuclear weapons would destabilize the region and could set off a new arms race. Some nations in the region, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, could fall away from restraint and rush into a nuclear contest." He has not been able to explain why--given that Israel itself has had nuclear weapons for at least 35 years and no other Middle Eastern country has yet gone nuclear--Iran obtaining nuclear weapons would suddenly lead other countries in the region to immediately follow suit.
Because of this alleged threat, Obama insisted that "we should take no option, including military action, off the table." One option he has not endorsed, however, is the proposed establishment of a nuclear-weapons-free zone for the Middle East, similar to initiatives already undertaken in Latin America, Africa, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, and the South Pacific. Rather than embrace such a comprehensive approach to non-proliferation in the Middle East, he apparently accepts the Bush administration's contention that the United States gets to decide which Middle Eastern countries can have nuclear weapons and which ones cannot.
To his credit, Obama has distinguished himself from both the Bush administration and Senator Clinton in supporting direct negotiations with Iran, arguing in his speech at the AIPAC policy forum that "sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons." At the same time, this raises the question as to why he has he not also called for aggressive diplomacy and tough sanctions against Israel, India, and Pakistan for their already-existing nuclear arsenals, especially since these three countries--no less than Iran--are also in violation of UN Security Council resolutions regarding their nuclear programs.
Israel: Shifting Positions
Earlier in his career, Obama took a relatively balanced perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, aligning himself with positions embraced by the Israeli peace camp and its American supporters. For example, during his unsuccessful campaign for Congress in 2000, Obama criticized the Clinton administration for its unconditional support for the occupation and other Israeli policies and called for an even-handed approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. He referred to the "cycle of violence" between Israelis and Palestinians, while most Democrats were referring to "Palestinian violence and the Israeli response." He also made statements supporting a peace settlement along the lines of the Geneva Initiative and similar efforts by Israeli and Palestinian moderates.
During the past two years, however, Obama has largely taken positions in support of the hard-line Israeli government, making statements virtually indistinguishable from that of the Bush administration. Indeed, his primary criticism of Bush's policy toward the conflict has been that the administration has not been engaged enough in the peace process, not that it has backed the right-wing Israeligovernment on virtually every outstanding issue.
Rejecting calls by Israeli moderates for the United States to use its considerable leverage to push the Israeli government to end its illegal and destabilizing colonization of the West Bank and agree to withdraw from the occupied territories in return for security guarantees, Obama has insisted "we should never seek to dictate what is best for the Israelis and their security interests" and that no Israeli prime minister should ever feel "dragged" to the negotiating table.
Despite Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's refusal to freeze the construction of additional illegal settlements, end the seizure of Palestinian population centers, release Palestinian political prisoners, or enact other confidence-building measures--much less agree to the establishment of a viable Palestinian state--Obama claimed in his AIPAC policy forum speech that Olmert is "more than willing to negotiate an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that will result in two states living side by side in peace and security." And though, as recently as last March, Obama acknowledged the reality that that "nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people," as a result of the stalled peace process he has since placed the blame for the impasse not on the Israeli occupation but on the Palestinians themselves.
In addition, rejecting calls by peace and human rights activists that U.S. military aid to Israel, like all countries, should be contingent on the government's adherence to international humanitarian law, Obama has called for "fully funding military assistance."
Backing Israeli Militarism
In the face of widespread international condemnation over Israel's massive attacks against Lebanon's civilian infrastructure during the summer of 2006, Obama rushed to Israel's defense, co-sponsoring a Senate resolution defending the operation. Rather than assign any responsibility to Israel for the deaths of over 800 Lebanese civilians, Obama claimed that Hezbollah was actually responsible for having used "innocent people as shields." This assertion came despite the fact that Amnesty International found no conclusive evidence of such practices and Human Rights Watch, in a well-documented study, had found "no cases in which Hezbollah deliberately used civilians as shields to protect them from retaliatory IDF attack," an analysis confirmed by subsequent scholarly research.
(When I contacted Obama's press spokesperson in his Senate office to provide me with evidence supporting Obama's claim that, despite the findings of these reputable human rights groups, that Hezbollah had indeed used "human shields," he sent me the link to a poorly-documented report from a hawkish Israeli research institute headed by the former chief of the Mossad--the Israeli intelligence service that itself has engaged in numerous violations of international humanitarian law.
The senator's press spokesman did not respond to my subsequent requests for more credible sources. This raises concerns that an Obama administration, like the current administration, may be prone to taking the word of ideologically driven right-wing think tanks above those of empirical research or principled human rights groups and other nonpartisan NGOs.)
Indeed, Obama's rhetoric as a senator has betrayed what some might view as a degree of anti-Arab racism. He has routinely condemned attacks against Israeli civilians by Arabs but has never condemned attacks against Arab civilians by Israelis.
Closet Moderate?
Unlike any other major contenders for president this year or the past four election cycles, Obama at least has demonstrated in the recent past an appreciation of a more moderate and balanced perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As president, he may well be better than his more recent Senate votes and public statements would indicate. Though the power of the "Israel Lobby" is often greatly exaggerated (see my articles The Israel Lobby Revisited and The Israel Lobby: How Powerful is It Really?), it's quite reasonable to suspect that pressure from well-funded right-wing American Zionist constituencies has influenced what Obama believes he can and cannot say. As an African-American whose father came from a Muslim family, he is under even more pressure than most candidates to avoid being labeled as "anti-Israel." Ironically, a strong case can be made that the right-wing militaristic policies he may feel forced to defend actually harm Israel's legitimate long-term security interests.
Still, Obama has indicated greater interest in promoting a comprehensive peace settlement, acknowledging that the "Israeli government must make difficult concessions for the peace process to restart." And, unlike the Bush administration, which successfully pressured Israel not to resume peace negotiations with Syria, Obama has pledged never to block an Israeli prime minister from the negotiation table. (See my article: Divide and Rule: U.S. Blocks Israel-Syria Talks.)
As a result, several prominent Americans allied with the current Israeli government have expressed deep concern about the prospects of Obama's election while Democrats aligned with more progressive Israeli perspectives have expressed some cautious optimism regarding Obama becoming president.
How Much Change?
Despite building his campaign around the theme of "change you can believe in," there are serious questions regarding how much real change there would be under an Obama presidency regarding the U.S. role in the Middle East. While an Obama administration would certainly be an improvement over the current one, he may well turn out to be quite sincere in taking some of the more hard-line positions he has advocated regarding Iran, Israel, and Iraq.
However, many are holding out hope that, as president, Obama would be more progressive than he is letting on and that he would take bolder initiatives to shift U.S. policy in the region further away from its current militaristic orientation than he may feel comfortable advocating as a candidate. Indeed, given how even the hawkish John Kerry was savaged by the right-wing over his positions on Middle East security issues during his bid for the presidency, the threat of such attacks could be enough to have given Senator Obama pause in making more direct challenges to the status quo during the campaign. In other words, he could be open to more rational and creative approaches to the Middle East once in office.
The Illinois Senator's intelligence and independent-mindedness, combined with what's at stake, offers some hope that at least for pragmatic reasons--if not moral and legal ones--a future President Obama would have the sense to recognize that the more the United States has militarized the Middle East, the less secure we have become. He would perhaps also recognize that arms control and nonproliferation efforts are more likely to succeed if they are based on universal, law-based principles rather than unilateral demands and threats based upon specific countries' relationship with the United States. And that exercising American "leadership" requires a greater awareness of the needs and perceptions of affected populations.
Most importantly, given that the strength of the anti-war movement brought Obama to his position as a serious contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, just such a popular outpouring can also prevent him from further backsliding in the face of powerful interests that wish to see U.S. policy continue its dangerous course. Those who support peace and human rights in the Middle East and beyond must be willing to challenge him--as both a candidate and as a possible future president--for advocating immoral or illegal policies that compromise the security and human rights of people in the region and here in the United States.
Stephen Zunes, the Foreign Policy In Focus Middle East editor, is a professor of politics at the University of San Francisco and the author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Common Courage Press, 2003).
73 Comments so far
Show AllThe American people do not know what they are getting themselves into if they vote for Barack Obama, he may say what you want to hear but he is linked with the terrorists!It is their way of getting into America and destroying us.In the end times the United States is completely wiped off the map and if he gets President this is the beginning the beginning of the US being destroyed.Please take sometime to read this below.
*******************
Who is Barack Obama?
Probable U. S. presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black MUSLIM from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white ATHIEST from Wichita, Kansas.
Obama's parents met at the University of Hawaii. When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya. His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia. When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocated to Indonesia. Obama attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta. He also spent two years in a Catholic school.
Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim. He is quick to point out that, "He was once a Muslim, but that he also attended Catholic school."
Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that Obama's introduction to Islam came via his father, and that this influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama returned to Kenya soon after the divorce, and never again had any direct influence over his son's education.
Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, introduced his, stepson to Islam. Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta. Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world. Since it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking Major public office in the United States, Barack Hussein Obama hasm joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background.
ALSO, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead the Kuran (Their equivalency to our Bible, but very Different beliefs)
Let us all remain alert concerning Obama's expected presidential candidacy. The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, What better way to start than at the highest level - through the President of the United States, one of their own!!!!
Please forward to everyone you know. Would you want this man leading America?...... NOT ME!!
If you do not ever forward anything else, please forward this to all your contacts.........
This is very scary to think of what lies ahead in the United States........ better heed this and pray about it and share it.
THIS DEFINITELY WARRANTS LOOKING INTO. AMERICA WAS FOUNDED, "ONE NATION UNDER GOD". ALMIGHTY GOD, NOT THE GOD OF THE KORAN.
Now what do you think?
Hey now seems to have struck a nerve in my brain. I woke up thinking about hey you this morning. I guess he's right, I do need a life! He/She's stuck in my mind, like a fly in ointment. I have a song (by Pink Floyd) that keeps buzzing around in my head, it's called "Hey You". So, here's to you hey now:
Hey You
Hey you, out there in the cold
Getting lonely, getting old
Can you feel me?
Hey you, standing in the aisles
With itchy feet and fading smiles
Can you feel me?
Hey you, dont help them to bury the light
Don't give in without a fight.
Hey you, out there on your own
Sitting naked by the phone
Would you touch me?
Hey you, with you ear against the wall
Waiting for someone to call out
Would you touch me?
Hey you, would you help me to carry the stone?
Open your heart, I'm coming home.
But it was only fantasy.
The wall was too high,
As you can see.
No matter how he tried,
He could not break free.
And the worms ate into his brain.
Hey you, standing in the road
always doing what you're told,
Can you help me?
Hey you, out there beyond the wall,
Breaking bottles in the hall,
Can you help me?
Hey you, don't tell me there's no hope at all
Together we stand, divided we fall.
Don't give in without a fight.
Hey you,
Out there on your own,
Sitting naked by the phone,
Would you touch me?
Hey you,
With your ear against the wall,
Waiting for someone to call out,
Would you touch me?
Hey you,
Would you help me to carry the stone?
Open your heart, I'm coming home.
[these lyrics are found on http://www.songlyrics.com]
But it was only fantasy.
The wall was too high, as you can see.
No matter how he tried he could not break free.
And the worms ate into his brain.
Hey you,
Out there on the road,
Always doing what you're told,
Can you help me?
Hey you,
Out there beyond the wall,
Breaking bottles in the hall,
Can you help me?
Hey you,
Don't tell me there's no hope at all.
Together we stand, divided we fall.
I won't, I'm joining Doug and learn something.
He-he.
Thanks nspire I'll check it out too.
MikeBinSC & TAILCAP -- Think of our good fortune as like that Monte Python scene, where the guy stops to pee, and the other dude with the hose watering his garden is superimposed (above and beyond the 1st dude) for a third guy watching incredulously.
We can hardly ever measure the impact of even a single good deed, much less the superposition of hundreds of millions "peeing" on Geo the inferior shrub_in_thief.
May the fertilizer flow and the tree of truth, knowledge and peace grow larger than any mere MICish greed and short-term materialism.
There is GOOD NEWS:
While Geo the inferior + cronies attempt a pseudo-verdant "astroturfing" of our upwelling interests (fluffing us into believing fallacious revelations of trickle down)
We are actually present today for a real grass-rooting expression of worldwide perceptual awakening, that is a wave of goodness so decentralized and amorphous, that it is almost un-noticeable.
But not for Paul Hawkins' Blessed Unrest.
Please visit and be inspired, empowered, and become part of the largest organizing human endeavor to save our lovely Earth and Ourselves (too).
Namaste
Tailcap, trust me, I certainly understand your pessimism about our chances of disassembling the Corporate-Military-Media-Industrial-Complex, but this next presidency IS OUR LAST BEST HOPE, so we better get it right (left) this time!
Hey dougnwagner, I don't hate you man. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. You spark controversy! Excellent!
MikeBinSC January 13th, 2008 5:24 pm
Nicely put about Iraq. About Edwards: I'm not so sure the powers that be would let him do whatever you think he's going to try to do. If he actually got elected and tried he would either be assassinated or a massive scandal would break out about his personal life so that he couldn't get anything done.
Remember, we are living in an oligarchy/plutocracy. The president is just a glorified water boy, fetching water for the real powers behind the scenes.
Doug, you continue to call the situation in Iraq a "war".
It is not a war Doug, the war was over 40 days after Bush illegally invaded the country. What is going on now, and what has been going on for the last 5 years, is an illegal, criminal occupation of Iraq, which the crime family has turned into a capitalist wet-dream for the Corporate-Military-Media-Industrial-Complex.
Unless you are an idiot, and I am beginning to believe you are, you would understand that the situation there will not improve until our presence there is ended, permanently, and the sooner the better. We should take our cue from the British pulling out of the south and turning over security to the locals there.
The country's leader is a puppet making long term agreements with Bush, illegal agreements that the people of Iraq do not support, that Obama, if elected, will continue to honor, well past 2013. John Edwards will have us out and restore sovereignty and self-determination to Iraq and her people by November of 2009.
Think about that Doug. How many more innocent Iraqis will die from collateral damage and internal strife in the extra years or decades that Obama will have our military there enforcing American hegemony? How many million more refugees? How many more Iraqis unable to work due to private contracting with foreign slave labor? How many Doug?
John Edwards has the right plan, and ten months is more thn enough of a time-line for withdrawal of all US troops, and Barack Obama is just plain wrong!
Doug, "Remember that little pivotal event called the American Revolution?" The Chinese didn't come over here and liberate us form the tyranny of the king of England, we did it ourselves. And that is what the Iraqi people must do now, and they will if we will just get out of their way and help them with financial and NGO humanitarian aid.
EDWARDS '08
Thanks for the link nspire, I will check it out.
No Kiddin? You got it Doug, you got it.. Almost funny.
tailcap and Mike,
You both basically are saying "Most of the problems will vanish when we leave and the corporate-contract whores are expelled, and Iraqis are put back to work rebuilding their own country with our financial aid". Is that not what the entire Democratic Party is saying? C'mon.
There's no need to bash my position which points out the obvious 'how'? I disagree that you have a solution or that the 'withdraw, take a pill, hit the pillows, wake up with your latte, with US troops in Kuwait' plan is a plan at all. It sounds more like someone who has given up intellectually engaging themselves with the reality that is war.
If you want to hate me for my opinions, it is a free world after all, but I have never supported 'a criminal enterprise' tailcap. I have opposed it from the beginning. And the way to oppose it now is to oppose the simple solutions (like a hasty sprint to the Kuwaiti border) that encourage greater political violence and leave Turkey's frequent trespasses of Iraq's border unresolved. The vast majority of victims in all wars are civilians. And a withdrawal that does not leave behind political stability does nothing for them besides change which faction is oppressing them.
These realities are why for all your grandstanding you have utterly failed to convince me that (1) we owe anything less than a humanitarian withdrawal that provides timelines to enable the overwhelming majority of Iraqis to envision their future, and (2) my proposition that at the "minimum the goal when we leave is to not leave people surviving under a dictatorship and to ensure that Iraq's sovereignty is not violated by our strategic allies like Turkey (a potential EU member)…" and that the reality is that "this is not like Vietnam in one very important respect: There is no single political group (at least at present) with national appeal to unite Iraq. There is no Vietnamese Communist Party. There is not going to be a swift uniting of Iraq just because you think so."
Kem - I'd pay no attention to dougwagner. He's a dishonest jerk & an imbecile. Don't waste your time on him. His standard game is claiming you said something you didn't say (ie, like you "supporting Saddam," etc) -- then attacking you for it. He's a pathetic jackass.
RichM January 12th, 2008 2:57 pm
KEM PATRICK (12:45 pm ) - Thanks
dougnwagner I guess you are some kind of political science guru. I'm not, but I think I know a little bit about morality. The war in Iraq was about plundering their oil and as such the invasion of a sovereign nation without even getting the US puppet UN approval constitutes a war crime.
Your support for continuing a criminal enterprise even one more day is criminal in itself. I've heard your argument about we broke and now we must fix it. That argument came from a Hillary-supporting lady I know that married a Republican.
It's not we maimed it and now must heal it. It's we have her down and aren't leaving until we have sucked all the blood out of her.
Doesn't the will of the overwhelming majority of Iraqis count for anything. I'm no political scientist doungnwagner but I know those in favor of democracy believe in majority rule.
dougnwagner January 11th, 2008 11:47 pm
"...when are people going to realize that withdrawing American troops has to go hand in hand with enabling an Iraqi political process to go forward?"
Political process? You mean the hand-picked puppets the US installed? The "Iraqi Government" doesn't even have the power to kick out Blackwater because their puppet master said no, Blackwater stays.
Iraq is our colony. Period. Colonialism is alive and well.
"The Obama Effect" reads like a miraculous transformation of a corrupt and cranky polity into a kinder, gentler wonderfulness-- swords beaten into plowshares, etc.
It perfectly captures the essence of Obama's messianic campaign; he's self-consciously leveraging his charisma and oratorical skills to present himself as a meta-politician who will walk over the troubled waters and calm the storm, if enough True Believers only give him the chance.
As with most charismatics, beneath the lofty, transcendental posturing is a corporatist, militarist, imperialist hack whose positions are fairly consistent with that of his mentor, HoJoe Lieberman. They have smarminess in common too, except that HoJoe utterly lacks the "sizzle" to carry it off.
If this Pied Piper indeed makes it to the White House, his hordes of faithful followers will be herded into the Potomac while Obama returns us to Republican-Lite era of the Clinton administration. I know the True Believers who buy into the hype that Obama is easing his way into the Oval Office as a progressive stealth candidate find such cynicism repellent and abhorrent, but there it is.
The Obama Effect! As an agent of Change, Obama has already had a positive effect and change on our political landscape as evidenced by the "nicer tones" of the current campaign commercials and political discourse prevalent today among the candidates, which heretofore has been down right dirty and nasty. This is due to Obama's position not too take the low road, continuing to walk the high road in spite of earlier low poll numbers -- and to focus and speak on the important issues facing us today, and continuing to inspire with his message of hope and change. -- And then they followed. All of the candidates, both Republican and Democratic, are now Agents of Change too!
The change Barack is inspiring us to make is in establishing and building a "People Coalition", which in turn will be the catalyst for the emerging of a new era in American history, an era of unity and not division, which can tap that awesome seed to put power back into the people's hands, where it belongs. For only the people, as a group untiy, can truly know what is in their best interest and make the changes, that is the only way true change can be made. Barack Obama, is asking us to forget our petty differences and false prejudices, as change, though attempted, cannot be made if there is not unity and a solid majority. It is impossible to implement change with bickering and divsion.
We all know that experience matters (and Barack has experience) -- but it also should be coupled with Judgment, Wisdom, Honesty and Integrity, and the ability to lead in a positive way. We have to remember and weigh its serious implications, that in the most important policy decision and debauchale of our times, the Iraq War, which has helped to escalate the present middle east situation, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards got it Wrong. Barack Obama got it Right. (See Obama's October 26, 2002 Iraq speech at an anti-war rally in Chicago.)
Most of the mass of people that come to hear Barack Obama speak see beyond Barack's color as his Soul radiates forth (that shaft of light) penetrating and speaking to our hearts, to the best in each of us -- inspiring us towards change by coming together and working together for this change. Many still today, and in the era of JFK, regarded President John F. Kennedy as an icon of American hopes and aspirations as they do Barack Obama now, and inspiration is the fuel for change. You will hear people say who have been to see Barack speak he has inspired them me to do better, not just feel better. To reach out to our enemies, to broker peace between nations. Even President Bush who has never been to the Holy Land in his entire 7 years of being Presdient was inspired to take a trip to Isreal and try to broker peace between Isreal and Palsestien.
In summary, we in the United States know innately that United we Stand and Divided we Fall. Barack is asking us to unite in a Common Cause so together we can face and defeat the Herculean Problems facing us today -- to finally intergrate us as a society into the 21st Century, catching up with technology like the interenet and cell phones all examples of internconnectiveness. This is our time and this is our calling!
Kem,
Did you ever read HJ Resolution 114 authorizing the war against Iraq? Two points. (1) I opposed the Iraq War because I looked at Bush's case for war and came to the conclusion in 2002 that Bush's intentions were to take Iraqis' oil. (2) I read and understood what HJ Resolution actually authorized. UNILATERAL POWER WITHOUT CONDITIONS to INVADE IRAQ.
(1) What you said: "The Iraqis had a stable government, run by a dictator, arguably a madman, who DID control the different factions and religious groups, by the management motivation of control by the use of fear. It wasn't what WE pristine Americans may deem as the best method of running a government…" which implies what? "that Iraq was doing quite well as a nation before we invaded them."
what I said: "Kem, Saddam is not worth defending. I didn't oppose the Iraq war because I supported Saddam. I opposed the war because there were no allies in the coalition who neighbored Iraq, the United Nations was not in favor of invading Iraq (never even got to vote on it), and the fact that it's half way around the world. Which if considered together, could lead you to only one conclusion: in the face of all these odds why would we want to invade anyways? Oh, that's right. Iraq has the second largest set of oil reserves in the world."
This was a war for oil Kem. That's what I and millions of Americans deduced from the beginning, 2002. While we were out organizing against the war on the streets John Edwards was in the Senate voting to give Bush UNILATERAL POWER WITHOUT CONDITIONS to INVADE IRAQ. READ BELOW. I opposed that because I looked at Bush's case for war and came to the conclusion that I did about Bush's intentions.
"What I knew before the invasion" by Senator Bob Graham D-Florida
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html
However, that doesn't mean I'm under the illusion that you are "that Iraq was doing quite well as a nation before we invaded them." States are never doing quite well under a ruthless dictatorship Kem.
You say "That is not [your] desire for leadership, but it was none of [your], or Bush's business how he managed his country, he was their president." He was their 'president' so its ok? You're so full of it.
Who the leaders of other states are is our business. Who the leaders of our state is their business. We are all neighbors to the world. Why do you think we have a State Department and a United Nations?
(2) The most shameless part of your spin-laden attack on what I said is this part: You say that I "blast John Edwards because he voted to give Bush the power to use force IF, IF, 'absolutly necessary and as a last resort'" even though that language is not part of H.J.Resolution 114. In other word Kem, you just made up a fact to fit your narrrative of what the Resolution authorized. In fact, the resolution that Edwards voted for has no coniditions attached it. It is a resolution for war to invade and occupy Iraq for any reason Bush determines.
What H.J. Resolution 114 "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq" actually says:
"Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution."
[Section 8(a)(1): SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred--(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution." http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/warpower.htm]
"The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
NOWHERE in the resolution does it say, as you falsely assert, that Bush is authorized only if it is "absolutly necessary and as a last resort".
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/october02/houseres_10-10-02.pdf
"Some seek to rewrite history. They argue that they weren't really voting for war, they were voting for inspectors, or for diplomacy. But the Congress, the Administration, the media, and the American people all understood what we were debating in the fall of 2002. This was a vote about whether or not to go to war. That's the truth as we all understood it then, and as we need to understand it now. And we need to ask those who voted for the war: how can you give the President a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?" - Barack Obama
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27.php
Maybe you should get a job with Mark Penn considering the speed at which you have to spin to make sense of your distorted grasp on reality and lack of coherency towards foreign policy. Of course, you do support the ultimate flip-flopper, Edwards. Now he's for a war for oil, now he's against it. What's it going to be? Now he's for a realistic timeline of withdrawal, now his timeline is superficially faster than Obama's. Give me a break Kem.
Kem and Rich,
your non-responses are illuminating.
Of course Kem you think Dubya committed a worse crime. I disagree.
You can rewrite history in your mind as much you want to, sane Americans know it wasn't about WMDs and Hans Blix, it was about OIL.
"Of the 22 senators who reported reading the full NIE, eight are Republicans and 14 are Democrats. All but one Democrat on the 17-person Intelligence Committee in 2002 recalled reading the NIE: Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) told a campaign-trail audience earlier this month that he had, but later recanted. Edwards voted to authorize war."
"Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, one of the senators who read the report and a staunch critic of the war, said the findings were "enough to have me vote against going to war in Iraq."
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/few-senators-read-iraq-nie-report-2007-06-19.html
And yes, if Saddam Hussein ruled Canada I bet we would probably have overthrown him and most Americans (and most Canadians) would support overthrowing him. Remember that little pivotal event called the American Revolution. "No taxation without representation"?
DOUGWAGNER says, the invasion of Iraq was for OIL. What I remember about it all, is Bush DECLARED Saddam had WMDs and was responsible for 9-11, by assisting Osama bin Laden. That was the only reasons Bush gave for invading Iraq. He did it so Saddam would not attack us or Isreal. He even cooked the books to prove he was correct, he had the NIE report altered before it was read to Congress and to us. __ A serious crminal offense.
Bush had several meetings with Senators and vowed to them, that he would never invade Iraq, until after Hans Bliss had finished his ispectons and if then weapons of WMDs were found to be a fact, he would attempt to have them destroyed and if that was not possible, and ONLY as a last resort, he needed their support and to please give it to him. 77 Senators believed the lies Bush told them and voted to give him that last resort option. As soon as they did, he ran Hans Bliss out of Iraq and invaded. Those Senators erred, ___ so did Bush, only a far, far, more serious err.
Now Dougwagner states, we should only have invaded Iraq, if we had more support from it's neighboring countries. He also condems me, for stating, that the Iraqis were far better off before we illegally invaded their country and ruined it, killed over a million people and caused another four million to flee their homeland. I say that because it is true, it is an obvious fact, it is self evident. Douwagner says I should not support Saddam. __I never have.__ Our government has. They supplied Saddam with WMDs, poison gas and other weapons of war. I didn't favor Saddam, or his methods of governing. It's none of my business, how other nations are governed. __ Dougwagner says it is our business.
I don't believe America should be attempting to rule the world, to force Democracy on any other nation. Dougwagner thinks we should.
Are you actually Cheney, or Rove, or Rumsfeld posting here Duggie? I know your aren't Bushie, he can't read. But you sound like him.
DOUGWAGNER, you have a VERY serious reading comprehension problem. I never wrote the things you attribute to me. You take a sentence from a paragraph, twist almost everything someone else has posted and make assumptions. You are a sick minded person. __ Pitiful.
My warped view of human rights? I never mentioned human rights. I just said the Iraqis were far better off in Iraq before we invaded them, you moron. That is an obvious fact. There was no civil war there until we messed their country up. "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED". Their civil war had ended, the one "OUR CIA" had initiated. The poison gas Saddam used on the Kurds was supplied by the United States government.
I never defended Saddam as you attempt to say about me. Saddam was a cruel and murderous dictator, that's how he maintained control. That is not my desire for leadership, but it was none of my, or Bush's business hw he managed his country, he was their president. Don't put your stupid words into my mouth, you incredible Knitwit.
And why FOCUS on who voted to allow Bush to use force? That is done, the door opened for Bush and he jumped through it with his head shoved up his ass and now we have to UNDO what Bush did, not what the Senate voted for. How to undo it? Get the hell out of there and allow the Iraqis to handle it, offer any help in aid we can and take the full blame for what we did to a country we never should have invaded in the first place.
Now from your post, YOU 'would have' supported invading Iraq, if there were coalition forces in the neighborhood and if it wasn't so far from our shores etc. __ WHAT!!! __ You blast John Edwards because he voted to give Bush the power to use force IF, IF, 'absolutly necessary and as a last resort'. And yet YOU DOUGWAGNER, would have favored invading Iraq, if we had a few more allies in the mid-east. You know what, you just PROVED, beyond any shadow of doubt, that you are not only a Soplist, you are also a Charlaton. I will try my darndest to avoid you here at Common Dreams whenever possible, but someone has to argue your lying posts at times, because you do write well and at times it sounds fairly good. That's what Soplists do, cleveerly distort the truth.
Another straw-man created by Doug - "Why is it hard to figure out that simply throwing up our hands and walking away is the most irresponsible thing we could do in a country going through a civil war, much less, one we initiated?"
No one is suggesting that Doug. The Iraqis want us out now. Ten months is plenty of time for an orderly withdrawal and to arrange for Iraqis to provide their own internal security, maybe with some help from their neighbor countries, you know, the ones that are housing the millions of refugees.
Most of the problems will vanish when we leave and the corporate-contract whores are expelled, and Iraqis are put back to work rebuilding their own country with our financial aid.
All you have proven to me is that you know how to attack people Rich, but do not understand political science and that Iraq is really of no interst to you since you spend all your time attacking my characterizations instead of offering an alternative withdrawal plan that doesn't use timelines and evaluate my propositin that at the "minimum the goal when we leave is to not leave people surviving under a dictatorship and to ensure that Iraq's sovereignty is not violated by our strategic allies like Turkey (a potential EU member)..." and the reality that "this is not like Vietnam in one very important respect: There is no single political group (at least at present) with national appeal to unite Iraq. There is no Vietnamese Communist Party. There is not going to be a swift uniting of Iraq just because you think so."
I stand by my comment that: "when are people going to realize that withdrawing American troops has to go hand in hand with enabling an Iraqi political process to go forward? Using diplomacy to reconfigure the relationship between Iraqi workers and Oil companies; Turkey and Kurdistan; Iran, the MEK based in Iraq, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran)and the new Shi'a political majority in Iraq? Much less Al Qaeda, Saudi Arabia, and the new Sunni political minority in Iraq? Or the Baath Party in Syria and whatever remnants exist of the Baath Party in Iraq?"
And at least James Madison understood how practical politics works, unlike you Rich.
James Madison, Federalist #10 on the Tyranny of the Majority: "Among the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction…No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, becasue his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity…Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves, the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail…It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust the clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the pulbic good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm…Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens…"
Extending the sphere to create a civil national Iraqi political culture is the goal of a federal republic Rich. Withdrawing doesn't even address that. Thats why Iraqi's political leaders would benefit from timelines. Why is that so hard to figure out? Why is it so hard to figure out that there are political bargains that have to be struck to bring stability to Iraq? Why is it hard to figure out that simply throwing up our hands and walking away is the most irresponsible thing we could do in a country going through a civil war, much less, one we initiated?
Grown ups have responsibilities Richie. We have to be as careful getting out as we were careful getting in. This not just like Vietnam, this place is called Iraq.
Rich,
I stand by all my comments (unlike you) including the big elephant in the room you refuse to tackle:
"Removing American troops is not going to necessarily end the civil war. Rather, the idea behind gradual withdrawal and encouraging a federal system in Iraq is that it is going to incentive Iraq's political leaders to end it and give them timelines of what to expect as American troops withdaw and as Iraq's security becomes dependent on them. It is simply false to state that removing every single American troop (even those providing humanitarian aid and guarding the US embassy?) will solve the Iraqi political crisis in and of itself. As Obama has said "We have to be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in." There are no easy solutions, and it's simply dishonest for [Tom] Hayden [or anyone else] to imply there are. It is not in the interest of Iraqis that Americans simply withdraw without enabling them to envision their own future as we do so. What does Zunes think will happen if we simply weren't there? He doesn't know. And it is in the interest of Iraqis that there are timelines so that they can as people in small and large groupings and solidarities properly evaluate what the withdrawal of Americans will mean to the future of their state/lives.
We should focus on who voted for this war, and who opposed it."
All you have proven to me is that you know how to attack people Rich, but do not understand political science and that Iraq is really of no interst to you sense you spend all your time attacking my characterizations instead of offering an alternative withdrawal plan that doesn't use timelines and address, as I stated, at the "minimum the goal when we leave is to not leave people surviving under a dictatorship and to ensure that Iraq's sovereignty is not violated by our strategic allies like Turkey (a potential EU member)..." and the reality that "this is not like Vietnam in one very important respect: There is no single political group (at least at present) with national appeal to unite Iraq. There is no Vietnamese Communist Party. There is not going to be a swift uniting of Iraq just because you think so."
I stand by my comment that: "when are people going to realize that withdrawing American troops has to go hand in hand with enabling an Iraqi political process to go forward? Using diplomacy to reconfigure the relationship between Iraqi workers and Oil companies; Turkey and Kurdistan; Iran, the MEK based in Iraq, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran)and the new Shi'a political majority in Iraq? Much less Al Qaeda, Saudi Arabia, and the new Sunni political minority in Iraq? Or the Baath Party in Syria and whatever remnants exist of the Baath Party in Iraq?"
And at least James Madison understood how practical politics works, unlike you Rich.
James Madison, Federalist #10 on the Tyranny of the Majority: "Among the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction…No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, becasue his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity…Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves, the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail…It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust the clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the pulbic good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm…Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens…"
Extending the sphere to create a civil national Iraqi political culture is the goal of a federal republic Rich. Withdrawing doesn't even address that. Thats why Iraqi's political leaders would benefit from timelines. Why is that so hard to figure out? Why is it so hard to figure out that there are political bargains that have to be struck to bring stability to Iraq? Why is it hard to figure out that simply throwing up our hands and walking away is the most irresponsible thing we could do in a country going through a civil war, much less, one we initiated?
Grown ups have responsibilities Richie. We have to be as careful getting out as we were careful getting in. This not just like Vietnam, this place is called Iraq.
Doug, you really need to stop regurgitating right-wing talking points to justify Obama's stand on continuing the illegal occupation of Iraq past 2013. Those comments you made are in stark contrast to your comments about Obama's opposition to the war from the beginning.
Doug, you know that every day that American military forces and contracted mercenaries occupy that country, innocent Iraqis are killed. We just prefer to call it collateral damage instead of state-sponsered terrorism.
Ten months is more than enough of a time-line for withdrawal, that puts the date at November of 2009. That is the Edwards plan. Maybe Barack needs to CHANGE his plan, since he is the CANDIDATE of (no)CHANGE.
Doug, you should give yourself a chance to win by voting for Edwards. If Edwards doesn't win, you're going to get Obama or Hillary anyway, and a brokered convention might not be a bad idea. If Edwards stays in the race and nobody gets a clear majority, all the issues will be on the table.
John Edwards is not in the pocket of Wall Street, but Obama and Clinton are, period. Edwards is also the only one accepting PUBLIC FUNDING for his campaign.
Here is the list of top contributors to Obama -
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008
And here is the list for Hillary -
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008
Now, you look at that list and tell me who is bought and paid for by Wall Street. They dont fear Obama and Hillary, they own them! But they do fear John Edwards!
US Corporate Elite Fear Candidate Edwards
By Kevin Drawbaugh
Reuters
Check out the article over at TruthOut -
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011108T.shtml
Dougie -- I do not in any way "apologize for saying 'Every day that US troops are there, they murder more innocent people, and make the situation worse.'" On the contrary, it's an entirely accurate statement. I haven't changed my position about this in any way.
And I do not "concede" the statement you quoted from my last post (2:57 pm -- "I certainly do NOT believe that "every" US soldier is a murderer. I'd say that "some" are clearly sadistic murderers.") Rather, I made that statement simply to refute your lie that I'd called "all" the troops murderers.
And here you are, telling the exact same lie again!! Now you ask "What are you reading that could lead you to sickeningly generalize that every troop is murderer?" Try to get this through your dishonest small brain -- I never said anything of the sort. I don't think it, & never said it.
Now that I see what a shameless liar you are, I confidently expect you to take my last sentence ("I never said anything of the sort") and claim that now I've "conceded" that not every troop is a murderer!! This is your pathetic M.O.
"Obama didn't vote on it and said he wasn't sure of how he would have voted on the issue". Bullshit Kem and you know it.
"What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.''- Barack Obama
"Clinton Camp Challenges Obama on Iraq" by Patrick Healy, NY Times, March 22, 2007.
Versus Edwards.
"Of the 22 senators who reported reading the full NIE, eight are Republicans and 14 are Democrats. All but one Democrat on the 17-person Intelligence Committee in 2002 recalled reading the NIE: Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) told a campaign-trail audience earlier this month that he had, but later recanted. Edwards voted to authorize war."
"Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, one of the senators who read the report and a staunch critic of the war, said the findings were "enough to have me vote against going to war in Iraq."
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/few-senators-read-iraq-nie-report-2007-06-19.html
'What I knew before the invasion' by Senator Bob Graham D-Florida
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html
"Some seek to rewrite history. They argue that they weren't really voting for war, they were voting for inspectors, or for diplomacy. But the Congress, the Administration, the media, and the American people all understood what we were debating in the fall of 2002. This was a vote about whether or not to go to war. That's the truth as we all understood it then, and as we need to understand it now. And we need to ask those who voted for the war: how can you give the President a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?" - Barack Obama
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27.php
And for the record Kem I totally disagree with your warped view of Iraqis and human rights: "The Iraqis had a stable government, run by a dictator, arguably a madman, who DID control the different factions and religious groups, by the management motivation of control by the use of fear. It wasn't what WE pristine Americans may deem as the best method of running a government..." which implies what? "that Iraq was doing quite well as a nation before we invaded them." Kem, Saddam is not worth defending. I didn't oppose the Iraq war because I supported Saddam. I opposed the war because there were no allies in the coalition who neighbored Iraq, the United Nations was not in favor of invading Iraq (never even got to vote on it), and the fact that it's half way around the world. Which if considered together, could lead you to only one conclusion: in the face of all these odds why would we want to invade anyways? Oh, that's right. Iraq has the second largest set of oil reserves in the world.
However, the fact is that the Taliban, Saddam, and Milosevic are all alike in that they push or pushed militant ethnically exclusive forms of political ideology, were not elected, and committed genocide. Where their situations differ is in who their neighbors are or were, logistical geography, and in who opposed them. In addition, they differ significantly as regimes in that the Taliban harbored Al Qaeda. The United States should never surrender people to genocide. That it happens is because of either lack of political will to intervene to stop it or because it is realistically impossible to act logistically to stop it.
Yet, is ending genocide in the Balkans more important than ending genocide somewhere else? No. However, was it more practical to intervene in the Balkans in the 1990s than in Iraq in 2003-2009 given the assets of the states participating in the coalition, our relations with states neighboring the conflict zone, and the logistical-space of the area in which American and allied soldiers would operate? Yes. That's being real.
Furthermore, one American politician's hypocrisy does not make everyone who does believe in human rights and democratic government as rationales for using military force in their turn hypocrites. Should Lincoln have let the South secede? Would Russia have been better off with a Tsar or France with a King? Would Lebanon be better off if it were run by Israel? Would Jews and Communists been able to stop the Nazis with a peace protest? The obvious answer is no.
Criticizing Bush is legitimate but saying or implying Iraqis would prefer Saddam Hussein or that the US leaving will necessarily solve everything is just giving up any attempt at a serious analysis of the present situation.
Yeah DOUGWAGNER, there were 77 Senators who voted for the war in Iraq, as you always state it. Not war, they voted to allow Bush to use force as a LAST resort and to allow Hans Bliss and the UN to finish his inspections and you know that is so and it is not a figment of anyone's imagination, I am not altering history as you like to profess. Obama didn't vote on it and said he wasn't sure of how he would have voted on the issue and he has supported the Bush war policy ever since the war began. Edwards has spoken out against the war for over three years, not just since thee Iowa primary.
It's fine for you to support Obama, he's a good man, but stop spreaing your continual lies about john Edwards, you are preaching to the wrong audience, the people who come here to learn things are not stupid you know. __ Well, maybe you don't know.
Rich,
your non-reply to my point about the necessity of America using timelines in withdrawing to "enable them (Iraqis) to envision their own future..." says it all. As I said my point is that "timelines, planning, and how practical politicians use timelines and planning to plan for the future..." inform my thinking. From all I can tell in your response you must grudgingly agree since you offer no alternative analysis other than a snotty retort that seeks to lecture me on norms of discourse you don't follow.
In reality, you're attacking a strawman that lives in "your own imagined version of what I said. You set up your own strawman version of my remarks. And you had to do that — otherwise you would have had nothing to attack."
In reality, all you felt compelled to do was to apologize for saying that
"Every day that US troops are there, they murder more innocent people, and make the situation worse." At least you now concede "I certainly do NOT believe that "every" US soldier is a murderer. I'd say that "some" are clearly sadistic murderers." Stick to the ones who are guilty of 'sadistic murder' Rich. People should be innocent until proven guilty.
And if I were you I'd take a long hard look at what I believe in. What are you reading that could lead you to sickeningly generalize that every troop is murderer? That the US is the problem and not the leaders? If you want to be a socialist equality party do-nothing who quotes the wsws party line to me like a neanderthal I will treat you that way because I believe in the difference between individuals and nations. Categorical thought requires differentiating between the universal and the particular as well as the micro and and macro to talk intelligently.
Mike and Kem,
be sure to thank John Edwards for his vote for the Iraq war next time you see him. Edwards said he would withdraw in 10 months less than 10 days before the Iowa Caucuses? Coincidence? :) Anything that comes out of Edwards mouth can't be trusted.
Top Contributors to Edwards Campaign
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00002283&cycle=2008
#2 Contributor
Fortress Investment Group
"The hedge fund that employed John Edwards markedly expanded its subprime lending business while he worked there, becoming a major player in the high-risk mortgage sector Edwards has pilloried in his presidential campaign."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051002277_pf.html
Dennis Kucinich: "In answer to your questions about why I didn't support former Senator John Edwards on the second ballot in Iowa: I have serious concerns about his connections to a Wall Street hedge fund, Fortress Investment Group. While attacking others for accepting campaign money from Washington lobbyists, he is up to his ears in money from Wall Street special interests.
He made half a million dollars in a single year for attending a few meetings for Fortress and has invested a substantial part of his own personal wealth in the hedge fund whose portfolios are responsible for sub-prime predatory lending practices, Medicare privatization, and an entire range of corporate sharp dealings that are driving the middle class into poverty."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132×3969318
Barak Obama is the most sane and rational on the Middle East amongst the Presidential candidates.
I wish you foks were 56% of the voting population instead of less than 6%. Whatever our differences, we could thrash out a much better life for 80% of the population than we have had in 35 years. The US is a Plantation State. A corporate Plantation State - Masters, Overseers, Vassals. Overseers transfer the wealth to Master and keep the Vassals in their place as a subjugated population. We can have a Master Class or we can have Participatory Democracy.
To have that Democracy, we have to make a place for everyone at the table and reject war and conquest as way of life. We will never be allowed to do that until we anhilate the Master Class, through legislation or the guillotine. Oh, yeah, I forgot, Legislation is out. Master owns the entire political class. Oh well. Those who reject and oppress peaceful reform make violent change inevitable. Didn't they always? Here's the question:
What will it take to put such vast numbers of people into the streets that they Shut America Down. Shut down the government. Shut down the Corporations. You know what I mean. Pots and pans clashing. Millions upon millions. What will it take? Starvation? Then plan for it.
Reasoned argument has NEVER succeeded in an Empire got from genocide, constructed from forced human labor, and expanded through Conquest. US.
Peace.
Peace.
RICH. You certainly did nail the soplistic DOUGWAGNER. Everythng you both have posted is there for any to read.
I agree with John Edwards, but personally I'd give an 85 day time table and then take no more than five days to pull every American or American mercanary out of Iraq. That embassy complex we've built, could be used as a medical college and hospital. I'd also give every Iraqi a quarter of a million Euros and hire some of them to attempt to clean up the poisonous DU we have left there. We'll never be able to make ammends however. How do we make ammends for murdering others loved ones.
If you read what Dougnwagner wrote, he uses the exact same argument that Bush and the rethugs use against dems, sounds just the same including remarks about spitting on the troops and not supporting them. Doug makes a good rethuglican.
And look at his last statement -
"So why wouldn't it be easier if everyone concerned knew the precise date we were leaving? What's so wrong with enabling Iraqis to plan months ahead, instead of 24 hours ahead Rich? Get real. Timelines make sense to anyone who has ever actually planned ahead Rich. That might not be you, but that's the people who work for a living."
The fact is, this is exactly what Edwards is advocating with a 10 month timeline for withdrawal! Obama will have us in Iraq past 2013. Barack or Clinton might START to withdraw troops after the Oil Production Supply Agreements have been signed, sealed and delivered to the major oil companies, but they will maintain a large permanent military force there to ensure compliance, and for staging other mid-east operations.
John Edwards has committed to removal of all forces within 10 months of taking office. Edwards is also the only electable candidate that will address the biggest problem leading to our current situation, and that is corporate money buying our government out from under the people.
We should give ourselves and the people of Iraq a chance to win, and put John Edwards in the White House in '08.
John Edwards is not in the pocket of Wall Street, but Obama and Clinton are, period.
Here is the list of top contributors to Obama -
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008
And here is the list for Hillary -
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008
Now, you look at that list and tell me who is bought and paid for by Wall Street. They dont fear Obama and Hillary, they own them!
But they do fear John Edwards! Here is another link to the article, read it this time!
US Corporate Elite Fear Candidate Edwards
By Kevin Drawbaugh
Reuters
Check out the article over at TruthOut -
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011108T.shtml
KEM PATRICK (12:45 pm ) -- excellent post.
dougnwagner (1:40 pm ) - I'll just point out here that you based your entire "counterattacking" response to me on your own imagined version of what I said. You set up your own strawman version of my remarks. And you had to do that -- otherwise you would have had nothing to attack.
For instance, you write "You want to call every single American in uniform a murderer? American soliders aren't the problem..."
- Actually, I neither said nor implied that "EVERY" American soldier is a murderer. Your indignation is entirely based on the "every" idea. I merely said that every day, some US troops murder some innocent Iraqis. But since you wanted so badly to counterattack me, you needed to distort what I said to give you something to swing at.
In fact, I certainly do NOT believe that "every" US soldier is a murderer. I'd say that "some" are clearly sadistic murderers. But many are just understandably frightened & alienated by being thrust into an inherently unmanageable situation. We know there are widespread mental health problems developing among US troops that are over there, as well as among those who have returned.
In your desperate attempt to counterattack me, you accused me of "spitting on" American soldiers. Again, I did nothing of the sort. I don't at all blame most US servicemen for the situation they've been thrust into.
Flailing away at an imaginary version of me, you continue, "You think that it's ok to invade some country, witness civil war, leave, witness more civil war? What the hell is wrong with you?"
- Actually, I never said anything of the sort. You're just claiming I did, on an entirely imaginary basis, so you'll have something to swing at. (And even your proferred sequence is incorrect -- because the US did not "witness" civil war, it CREATED the civil war.)
I notice you dish out lots of snotty remarks like "...You don't realize that there is political upheaval in Iraq? ... You still don't understand how politics works Rich.....Do you really think one day you'll wake up with your latte, a copy of whatever junk you read, American troops will be in Kuwait, and everything will be alright? "
- If I were you, I'd forget about using that high-handed tone in exchanges with me. I assure you, your knowledge of politics does not impress me. There's no subject you'd be qualified to "speak down" to me on. You're just a conventional liberal, with silly notions about American power being used to "do good" in the world.
Rich,
as I pointed out to you before, I'm not making the case for a white man's burden. I'm making points about timelines, planning, and how practical politicians use timelines and planning to plan for the future. See, I actually have a bachelor's in political science, have been elected, and having been in organized politics actually understand how to organize a group of people to win elections.
Erroneous accusation #1: You say I "don't...know that the Iraqis can manage to survive without the tender mercies & attentiveness of the US military?" I do. Of course, unlike you, I also realize you need timelines so that Iraqis can adjust to that changing reality and plan ahead. And quite frankly, to say that if Iraqis are surviving when we leave is a pretty low bar to set for ourselves whe we leave considering the turmoil and civil war we are responsible for. Is that really the goal when we leave? To make sure at least some Iraqis are still alive? Rich when are you going to grow up and take the domestic politics of Iraq seriously? At minimum the goal when we leave is to not leave people surviving under a dictatorship and to ensure that Iraq's sovereignty is not violated by our strategic allies like Turkey (a potential EU member.
Erroneous accusation #2: You say "Every day that US troops are there, they murder more innocent people, and make the situation worse." Is that right Rich? Even the ones working on the ships, working in the tents? Is that why they joined the military you pompous nitwit? I don't hate American soldiers, because I have many who are my friends. You want to call every single American in uniform a murderer? American soliders aren't the problem: Blase know-it-alls like you who have no respect for the people in uniform are. Blase know-it-alls like John Edwards and Hillary Clinton who voted for this war to 'look tough' are.
American soldiers serving their country at its worst are not the problem, their leaders and cynics like you who spit on them because they're wearing a uniform are. I encourage Americans to dissent and conscientiously object, but don't call someone a murderer who has never been convicted of it. I still believe in the principle that people are innocent until proven guilty.
Erroneous accusation #3: You say that the United States shouldn't "enable them (Iraqis) to envision their own future." Why? You don't realize that there is a civil war going on? You don't realize that there is political upheaval in Iraq? You don't realize that we have a responsibility for screwing up their country?
Conclusion: You still don't understand how politics works Rich. We all know it was about oil. That's why I opposed it in 2002.
That has nothing to do with continuing to screw up Iraqis lives by withdrawing in a way that leads to more civil war and political uncertainty. Not that you care, but people who care about human rights do.
You want to know what usually happens during political revolutions Rich? What's happening across every town and city right now. It's the same situation everywhere in the world. One group acts, the other doesn't. The group that acts takes power.
You think that it's ok to invade some country, witness civil war, leave, witness more civil war? What the hell is wrong with you? You think we'll withdraw, you'll go to bed, and this nightmare will go away? Do you really think one day you'll wake up with your latte, a copy of whatever junk you read, American troops will be in Kuwait, and everything will be alright?
That never happens Rich. What happens is a state like Turkey that systematically oppresses Kurds living in Turkey invades Kurdistan. (Already happened). What happens is Iraq becomes a proxy war for Saudi Arabia and Iran. What happens is a whole lot of bad things and it is our fault and continuing responsibility to withdraw in a way that does not make the future for Iraqis unpredictable because this is not like Vietnam in one very important respect: There is no single political group (at least at present) with national appeal to unite Iraq. There is no Vietnamese Communist Party. There is not going to be a swift uniting of Iraq just because you think so.
So why wouldn't it be easier if everyone concerned knew the precise date we were leaving? What's so wrong with enabling Iraqis to plan months ahead, instead of 24 hours ahead Rich? Get real. Timelines make sense to anyone who has ever actually planned ahead Rich. That might not be you, but that's the people who work for a living.
I find it very difficult to comprehend, those who cannot reason with the FACT, that Iraq was doing quite well as a nation before we invaded them. They were doing very, very well, in comparrison to what they now live with.
We didn't have a mega embassy complex in Iraq seven years ago, along with thousands of insane Blackwater mercanaries guarding it. We didn't have several permanent military bases scattered across the country, we didn't have 160,000+ troops over there, which is unarguably breaking our army and National Gaurd units and costing us near half a million dollars every single minute.
The Iraqis had a stable government, run by a dictator, arguably a madman, who DID control the different factions and religious groups, by the management motivation of control by the use of fear. It wasn't what WE pristine Americans may deem as the best method of running a government. What they once had, before WE arrived to promote "democracy", sure as hell was far better than what they have now and will have for the forseeable future. That is a FACT, as long as we continue with our costly, and obnoxious to them, vain attempts to control their government and way of life, again we use FEAR for motivation, in an attempt to FORCE them to have a democracy.
I also find it both shameful and ludicrous, to see our leaders and their selected side-kicks and some of the candidates, Hillary comes first to mind, blaming the leaders we put into power in Iraq, for not being able to control the masses over there.
In essence, the entire war and subsequent occupation of a foreign country,(who did nothing to deserve our presence), is a total disaster. We have absolutly ruined a country, killed over a million people, ruinded families, businesses, hospitals, their infastructures, schools, farms and polluted the entire country with deadly atomic waste.
Pull our troops and mercenaries out now and go home in shame. This insane and unjust war could make what we did to Vietnam seem like a picnic in comparrison. We finally pulled out of there in shame and the Vietnamese recovered very quickly, soon after we left them alone to handle their own affairs.
Americans are not just disliked and feared because of our strategic military power anymore, we are now despised, and are looked upon as a land of selfish, greedy and pitiful fools by most of the other world's populations. ___ Are they justified to see us that way? Well, the fact is, if you live in a shit house, you smell like shit.
Look what doug "White Man's Burden" wagner writes: (11:47 pm) -
Removing American troops is not going to necessarily end the civil war. Rather, the idea behind gradual withdrawal and encouraging a federal system in Iraq is that it is going to incentive Iraq's political leaders to end it and give them timelines of what to expect as American troops withdaw and as Iraq's security becomes dependent on them. It is simply false to state that removing every single American troop .... will solve the Iraqi political crisis in and of itself. ... It is not in the interest of Iraqis that Americans simply withdraw without enabling them to envision their own future as we do so..."
This is the pathetic BS of an American liberal, who's been brainwashed into accepting the idea that US troops stationed in other countries are somehow "helping" the populace. The poor savages just can't live their lives without American guidance, donchaknow.
Dougie, don't you know that the Iraqis can manage to survive without the tender mercies & attentiveness of the US military? Don't you realize that the troops are only there to assist US imperialism in controlling the country & getting its paws on the oil? Every day that US troops are there, they murder more innocent people, and make the situation worse.
We don't have to "enable them (Iraqis) to envision their own future," you pompous dope. It's grimly hilarious that you presume to accuse others who know more than you of not having "a clue what the internal politics of Iraq are."
"In the end, if the people cannot trust their government to do the job for which it exists---to protect them and to promote their common welfare---all else is lost."
Senator Barack Obama, speech at the Nairobi University, August 28, 2006
We simply cannot trust candidates that accept corporate campaign contributions (i.e., bribes).
Doug, it doesn't matter how many times you say, it JUST AIN'T SO!! John Edwards is not in the pocket of Wall Street, but Obama and Clinton are, period.
Here is the list of top contributors to Obama -
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008
And here is the list for Hillary -
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008
Now, you look at that list and tell me who is bought and paid for by Wall Street. They dont fear Obama and Hillary, they own them!
But they do fear John Edwards! Here is another link to the article, read it this time!
US Corporate Elite Fear Candidate Edwards
By Kevin Drawbaugh
Reuters
Check out the article over at TruthOut -
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011108T.shtml
"Bought'n'paid for" and "Barack Obama" - Kinda rhymes doesn't it Doug?
It should, tis true!
And Hillary Too!
VOTE EDWARDS '08 for a WORLD OF CHANGE!
Good points Dichterfreund. Obama will have us in Iraq past 2013. Barack or Clinton might START to withdraw troops after the Oil Production Supply Agreements have been signed, sealed and delivered to the major oil companies, but they will maintain a large permanent military force there to ensure compliance, and for staging other mid-east operations. John Edwards has committed to removal of all forces within 10 months of taking office. Edwards is also the only electable candidate that will address the biggest problem leading to our current situation, and that is corporate money buying our government out from under the people. We should give ourselves and the people of Iraq a chance to win, and
put John Edwards in the White House in '08.
dich,
when you decide to grow up and have a grown up discussion feel free.
You clearly don't have a clue what the internal politics of Iraq are.
You clearly don't have a clue how politics works anywhere in the world.
You clearly don't recognize fully withdrawing in one fell swoop would do more harm than good, and resolve nothing.
When you put down the Foucalt novel to decide which literary way to interpret yourself and Iraqis feel free to rejoin the world where bullets are flying and America is forced to take positions on the domestic politics of a country we should have never invaded.
"Judge Him By His Laws"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html
"Obama Forged Political Mettle In Illinois Capitol"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020802262_pf.html
"In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd" (Graphic of Illinois Legislation)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.htm
Nader2000 said - "it would only be counterproductive for Obama to go around talking about Israeli nuclear disarmament at this point in his presidential campaign."
Counterproductive? I think it would be leadership.
If you don't vote for Obama you're really voting for Clinton. Who voted for the Iraq War? Clinton did.
Who is the only candidate in this race (including Dennis Kucinich) who has ever authored legislation to create single transferable voting? BARACK OBAMA.
Barack Obama is the Progressive in this race. We can quarrel over this policy and that policy, but don't say Obama is not Progressive. America would be lucky to elect him leader.
http://fairvote.org/?page=1755
"That is why it is not enough to change parties. It is time to change our politics. We don't need another President who puts politics and loyalty over candor. We don't need another President who thinks big but doesn't feel the need to tell the American people what they think. We don't need another President who shuts the door on the American people when they make policy. The American people are not the problem in this country - they are the answer. And it's time we had a President who acted like that."- Barack Obama, probably the next President of the United States
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27.php
"Judge Him By His Laws"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html
"Obama Forged Political Mettle In Illinois Capitol"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020802262_pf.html
"In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd" (Graphic of Illinois Legislation)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.htm
"en are people going to realize that withdrawing American troops has to go hand in hand with enabling an Iraqi political process to go forward? "
Talka about 'literary', slapdash jargon utterly unrelated to any condition it purports to describe -- 'why do the poor benighted Iraqis not forward their political process?' Anglo paternalism at its sniffy worst.
'the idea behind gradual withdrawal and encouraging a federal system in Iraq is that it is going to incentive Iraq's political leaders to end it and give them timelines of what to expect as American troops withdaw and as Iraq's security becomes dependent on them"
Here, dogs, respond to the incentives we dangle before you, dance to our tune, or we will keep gunning you down & torturing you for the next dozen decades.
And when are people going to stop quoting the productions of those old slaveocrats as if they were the summit of political experience? I suppose it's the precious, noble style, the perpetual library odor of Johnson's Dictionary and London coffeehouses that induces the delusions that good old Anglo-Saxon Common Sense always prescribes the right remedies . . .
I, for one, do not understand why anyone would take candidates' words.....(any candidate, but especially Obama) as representing their forthright and whole take on the world.
Remember Abe Lincoln? When asked in a debate, which was more important -preserving the Union or ending slavery - he wisely chose the former. Let's just imagine that he was by that time passionately against the atrocity that was slavery. The only way he could be instrumental in ending it would be as President, but this would not be possible unless he was elected. That was the reality.
Like it or not, I think the best we can expect from any candidate is "provisional honesty." As genuine and real as Obama seems to be, he also needs to be crafty, and not play the fool.
I believe Lincoln realized that he needed to "lead" the nation, gradually, toward what seemed to be a "moral imperative." (I do realize, that - as in all political scenarios - "freeing the slaves" was extraordinarily complex, having all sorts of ramifications...some of them purely economic and political in nature).
George Bush "hinted" to his base in 2000 - by way of phrases, sound bites, etc -what his intentions were. Just so, I think Obama, as open and candid as he seems, will need to use "subtexts" to communicate.
It's not like our political system isn't very sick. Much of the electorate, too, has been fed so much crap that in many ways, we've lost the capacity for careful, critical thinking. Our minds have become virtual pretzels from having absorbed so many lies and distortions.
We've come to believe so much bullshit that it's hard to know what's real and what's not. And, the media has dumbed us down to an extent that is criminal. It seems to me that it would be the height of naiveté to expect even the most sane, wisest, most forward-looking candidate to be elected by being simply-sincere.
As for Iraq,
when are people going to realize that withdrawing American troops has to go hand in hand with enabling an Iraqi political process to go forward? Using diplomacy to reconfigure the relationship between Iraqi workers and Oil companies; Turkey and Kurdistan; Iran, the MEK based in Iraq, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran)and the new Shi'a political majority in Iraq? Much less Al Qaeda, Saudi Arabia, and the new Sunni political minority in Iraq? Or the Baath Party in Syria and whatever remnants exist of the Baath Party in Iraq?
James Madison, Federalist #10 on the Tyranny of the Majority: "Among the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction...No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, becasue his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity...Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves, the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail...It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust the clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the pulbic good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm...Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens..."
Removing American troops is not going to necessarily end the civil war. Rather, the idea behind gradual withdrawal and encouraging a federal system in Iraq is that it is going to incentive Iraq's political leaders to end it and give them timelines of what to expect as American troops withdaw and as Iraq's security becomes dependent on them. It is simply false to state that removing every single American troop (even those providing humanitarian aid and guarding the US embassy?) will solve the Iraqi political crisis in and of itself. As Obama has said "We have to be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in." There are no easy solutions, and it's simply dishonest for Hayden to imply there are. It is not in the interest of Iraqis that Americans simply withdraw without enabling them to envision their own future as we do so. What does Zunes think will happen if we simply weren't there? He doesn't know. And it is in the interest of Iraqis that there are timelines so that they can as people in small and large groupings and solidarities properly evaluate what the withdrawal of Americans will mean to the future of their state/lives.
We should focus on who voted for this war, and who opposed it.
"Those who support peace and human rights in the Middle East and beyond must be willing to challenge him–as both a candidate and as a possible future president–for advocating immoral or illegal policies that compromise the security and human rights of people in the region and here in the United States." In a principled way.
Some ways are not principled.
Example A: "Obama's rhetoric as a senator has betrayed what some might view as a degree of anti-Arab racism. He has routinely condemned attacks against Israeli civilians by Arabs but has never condemned attacks against Arab civilians by Israelis." In the same article, Zune states that "as recently as last March, Obama acknowledged the reality that that "nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people..."
Obama is not racist towards Arab people. That is the underlying tone however of the first commment. (BTW is 'routinely' really appropriate. It's clear his position early on in his career was different. For a much more balanced critique of Obama's Israel/Palestine positions see http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6619.shtml )
He should be criticized for seemingly advocating 'strategic solidarity', but not racism towards Arab people. Progressives should be intelligent enough to tell the difference.
http://www.araborganizing.org/solidarity
http://www.leftturn.org/?q=node/845
There is no substance to US presidential politics; Humphrey tried to torpedo McGovern in '72 as a last attempt to prevent his nomination, and fuelled by fear of a true turn toward the left, Democrats for Nixon went onto fund the same Democrats that Nader2000 constantly urges on voters.
The American president is nothing more than a gopher for corporations, and this will be the case until the heads & pudenda of the rulers are stuck on spikes atop the fences.
The election is a diversion from the fact that they are making war on us & those wanting their happy slightly progressive but mainly inert liberal middle class back are living anachronisms. There is no commonality between the possessors and the dispossessed.
US Corporate Elite Fear Candidate Edwards
By Kevin Drawbaugh
Reuters
Check out the article over at TruthOut -
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011108T.shtml
"Bought'n'paid for" and "Barack Obama" - Kinda rhymes doesn't it Doug.
It should, tis true!
And Hillary Too!
VOTE EDWARDS '08 for a WORLD OF CHANGE!
Thanks. This is getting really silly, as it has degenerated into the Minority vs. the Girl, and neither offer us any real hope of change.
Right on jlocke123 and gavingourley!
If one sets aside Obama's cheap and feel-good rhetoric and instead inspects his voting record on matters pertaining to the Middle East, he is barely distinguishable from Hillary and the other usual suspects.
REZKO
R_E_Z_K_O
R__E__Z__K__O
R___E___Z___K___O
R____E____Z____K____O
R_____E_____Z_____K_____O
R______E______Z______K______O
That is how you spell disaster in the County of Cook………
when this man backs for your 1st political office for favors
and every office and favor since….
bye bye inmate Hussein
unfortunately I agree with whoever said Obama is being considered for "head overseer" of master's plantation.
What a PR move for the corporate-run USA! Hooray! Put a black man and white woman at the helm for a spell to show the world how politically correct America can pretend to be. We need these points bigtime right now.
If Neil Young is right, and there is a Kissingeresque shadow government running the country, then the US Presidency is just another PR scam akin to a token overseer for master.
The fact that a black man and a white woman are in serious contention for this office should tell us something...
Reagan, Carter, Clinton, and W were not exactly groomed for the presidency. They sort of fell into it, didn't they? Gee, is that advisable when choosing the leader of the free world, or just good PR?
Take dumbo Dubya in 2000 for God's sake: he said he wasn't a Washington insider like his opponent (Gore) in spite of the fact that his father had a key to the White House more often than not since 1980. I believe W is acting half of the time when he misspeaks.
Americans desperately want to see a real human being in the White House, not a cold calculating thinking machine such as Kissinger. They loved Clinton's addiction to sex almost as much as Dubya's battles with booze and proper diction.
uiohueeuo
euheuheteuneoeueo
uehuhue
All I can say to the fellow CD readers who thought that the '08 election might be cancelled is to repeat again:
Cancelling the elections would require far more political energy and risk than simply co-opting the opposition. Looks like it'll be neocons-only on the ballot in '08.
I admit, I am a fan of Zunes work, yet I find his article lacking enough references to satisfy my appetite for detail.
I must ask questions.
References needed for the following,
"As a result, several prominent Americans allied with the current Israeli government have expressed deep
concern about the prospects of Obama's election while Democrats aligned with more progressive Israeli
perspectives have expressed some cautious optimism regarding Obama becoming president."
reference and the better explain this one, please.
"As an African-American whose father came from a Muslim family, he is under even more pressure
than most candidates to avoid being labeled as "anti-Israel.""
next,
"...Obama criticized the Clinton administration for its unconditional support for the occupation and other Israeli
policies and called., even hand...."
If I remember correctly, John Kerry voted against the first invasion of Iraq, but voted for the second invasion.
Actually, now that I come to think of it, John Kerry first came to office espousing rather liberal views. Was it the Iran Contra
investigation that changed his mind? Am I comparing apples to oranges? By referencing the past to show contradictions
between a man's thoughts and deeds, do I also afford myself the luxury to assume an optimistic future?
What the hell is wrong with the notion of arguing Obama shows course change, much like several presidential candidates
before him? Didn't Nixon say he was going to end the Vietnam War? Didn't Bill Clinton argue for health care and gay rights?
Didn't Bush pitch a rough version of isolationism? Obama's message changes too, and in the specific case of the
Israeli Palestinian issue, his deeds couldn't be anymore concrete.
As well, I think the paragraph cited below could apply to any of the presidential
candidates,
"However, many are holding out hope that, as president, Obama would be more progressive than he is letting on
and that he would take bolder initiatives to shift U.S. policy in the region further away from its current militaristic orientation
than he may feel comfortable advocating as a candidate. Indeed, given how even the hawkish John Kerry was savaged
by the right-wing over his positions on Middle East security issues during his bid for the presidency, the threat of such attacks
could be enough to have given Senator Obama pause in making more direct challenges to the status quo during the campaign.
In other words, he could be open to more rational and creative approaches to the Middle East once in office."
Nobody affords Hillary Clinton this luxurious pass-off. She is compared to the devil, called a bitch, or Bush in makeup.
Yet, maybe Clinton's baroque posturing is all a front. Since Obama's become a senator, Clinton and Obama seem to vote
much the same over the Israeli-Palestinian issues.
Does it all come down to a feeling of optimism? Do I feel optimistic that Obama will be a refreshing change?
Russ Feingold's email announcing he would not run for president in 2008 stated the following,
"... I often felt that if a piece of Wisconsin swiss cheese had taken the same positions I've taken,
it would have elicited the same standing ovations. This is because the hunger for progressive change we feel is obviously not about me
but about the desire for a genuinely different Democratic Party that is ready to begin to reverse the 25 years of growing extremism
we have endured...." excerpt, 4th paragraph
http://www.progressivepatriotsfund.com/2008.html
The Obama message of unity is at heart a good one. The mixed-messages behind that message negates it. Obama has more brain than spine, more fog than clarity, and more speech than listening ability. He is no fine wine, nor even a good beer. He is at best a near beer.
While the pandering to AIPAC by all the candidates (except of course Kucinich, Gravel, and Paul) is odious, there is enough of a difference between Clinton and Obama, to make the distinction for Democratic voters clear. Obama is willing to at least talk to other world leaders without preconditions, while Clinton has been quoted insulting world leaders including Chavez and Putin (as well as demonstrating remarkable hostility to the entire Left in Latin America), and taking a hawkish stridently pro-Israeli stand on Middle East issues. However they are all (Clinton, Obama, and Edwards) on record for saying that all options are on the table when dealing with Iran.
Grim state of affairs really.
I respect Senator Obama for working to bring people together and build a new majority big enough to get some things done. And for doing it in a way that tries to bring out the best in people. As an Arab American I think that's important because the U.S.'s problems in the middle east are really problems with itself, and what the U.S. has become.
What would bring peace to the Middle East would be if a new President said The US treasury simply cannot afford to fund and supply these wars any longer...
Corporations would start thinking about... where is the Money now?
Could it be in investing in the ending of poverty and The US could start fixing America for once.
Just a common dream I guess...
Like ALL "serious" contenders, Obama is led by polls and powered by Big Money. He'll say what the voters he's addressing at the time most want to hear. Almost never has a politician cut the strings to those that put him in power. As a young father, he is not likely to put himself in harms way by opposing the oligarchy that put him there. They have him by the balls, just as they have all other serious contenders. One pull and they squeak.
Like the man said: "We all live in a Mafia neighborhood now."
Zunes makes it sound like Obama came up on all those Middle East positions on his own. I'm sorry but these are all AIPAC positions.
Ha'aretz
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/832668.html
In AIPAC speech, Obama repeats support for Israel, peace talks
By Shmuel Rosner, Haaretz Correspondent
United States Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama reiterated his support for Israel on Friday, while at the same time calling on the U.S. to make a concerted effort to revive the peace process.
"Our job is to rebuild the road to real peace and lasting security throughout the region," Obama said during a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Chicago. "Our job is to do more than lay out another road map."
"That effort begins with a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel: Our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy," he added. "That will always be my starting point."
Advertisement
In what may have been a veiled reference to reports of American opposition to Israeli negotations with Syria, Obama said: "We should never seek to dictate what is best for the Israelis and their security interests. No Israeli prime minister should ever feel dragged to or blocked from the negotiating table by the United States."
The Illinois senator also called for continued American military assistance to Israel. "We must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs," he said.
Obama added that he was concerned about the Palestinian unity government accord.
Turning to Iran, the presidential hopeful called for direct engagement with the Islamic republic over its nuclear program.
"We need the United States to lead tough-minded diplomacy," he said. "This includes direct engagement with Iran similar to the meetings we conducted with the Soviets at the height of the Cold War."
"Tough-minded diplomacy would include real leverage through stronger sanctions," Obama continued. "It would mean more determined U.S diplomacy at the United Nations. It would mean a cooperative strategy with Gulf States who supply Iran with much of the energy resources it needs. It would mean full implementation of U.S. sanctions laws."
Obama blamed what he called the Administration's failed strategy in Iraq for strengthening the Iranian position, placing "Israel and other nations friendly to the United States in greater peril."
Related links:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=832667&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubC...
Nader2000 (2:39) flings one of his favorite phrases: Yet as a supporter of third-party fantasy solutions to American foreign policy foibles...
- The real fantasy is believing that the Democratic Party could possibly act as a force opposed to US corporatism, militarism, or imperialism. Both parties not only support those 3 immensely destructive things, but have been tasked with making certain that the public has no choice but to assent to all of them.
Note also that Nader2000 thinks all we have is foreign policy "foibles." That word doesn't begin to approach the right order of magnitude for a country now officially engaged in an endless war against a vaguely-defined "enemy" -- a project supported unquestioningly by both parties.
Notice that in the "debates" the moderator never asks the candidates "Do you support the War on Terror?" It's simply taken for granted that all of them, D's as well as R's, are fully on board. Incredibly, the whole matter is not even "on the table" for discussion. They're only allowed to talk about how to win the WoT -- not whether it's in any way reasonable to be spending almost a trillion dollars a year on it!
Amazing, isn't it, that Zunes, who until now seems never to have met a Democrat he didn't hate, gives such a balanced assessment of not only Obama's overt policy positions but also his personal dispositions and past positions which indicate the strongly progressive direction of his future presidency in comparison with where the United States has been recently, and in comparison with the other 4 or 5 possibilities (Clinton, McCain, Romney, Thompson, Huckabee).
Yet Zunes can't help engaging in some unreasonably tendentious criticism of Obama, to wit:
==> In a speech before the Chicago Council on Global Affairs in November 2006, Obama appeared to buy into the Bush administration's claims that its goal in Iraq was not about oil or empire, but to advance freedom, by criticizing the Bush administration for invading Iraq for unrealistic "dreams of democracy and hopes for a perfect government." <==
Oh, how awful that Obama should show such generosity to Republican true believers among the CCGA instead of using his speech as an opportunity to call Bush a vicious imperialist liar. Always go for the throat, that's how you persuade people, right? BHO doesn't think so, which is why he's front-runner today and why he'll be a great, effective president.
==> he has referred to Iran–a mid-level power on the far side of the globe that currently does not have a nuclear weapons program and is nearly a decade away from having the capability to produce nuclear weapons–as a "genuine threat." <==
Yes, but what does that mean, besides asking those who do view Iran as a threat to trust him? After all, there are many ways to deal with a threat, not all of which involve bombs or troops. Obama wants to say he can deal with whatever threat Iran may pose without the kind of belligerent policies Bush has been pursuing.
Zunes should also know that Iran may be much closer than a decade from being able to produce nuclear weapons, as little as two years according to the NIE, and easily within 5 years. If they choose to.
==> he said: Iranian nuclear weapons would destabilize the region and could set off a new arms race. Some nations in the region, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, could fall away from restraint and rush into a nuclear contest." He has not been able to explain why–given that Israel itself has had nuclear weapons for at least 35 years and no other Middle Eastern country has yet gone nuclear–Iran obtaining nuclear weapons would suddenly lead other countries in the region to immediately follow suit. <==
As Zunes surely realizes, it is perfectly obvious why Iran's acquiring nuclear weapons would raise alarms across the Mideast and stimulate both a conventional and nuclear arms race. The Arab countries and Turkey are not happy about Israel's nuclear arsenal but do not fear major territorial aggression from Israel, which has had those weapons for almost four decades now. Indeed, if Israel did not have nuclear weapons but were about to acquire them, it would be very likely to stimulate a response from the Arab countries. The Arab states do fear Iran and the effect on their internal stability of rising Iranian power. The IAEA has reported a recent resurgence of interest among these states in nuclear power and presumably in the nuclear weapons option its development would give them. This is apparently a result in part of Iran's nuclear program and the inability of anyone to stop it.
==> One option he has not endorsed, however, is the proposed establishment of a nuclear-weapons-free zone for the Middle East <==
Maybe Obama realizes that, since there is no immediate prospect of Israel being willing to even discuss this, and since if they ever will be it would have to be in the context of a grand resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as well as a comprehensive Israeli-Arab and Israel-Iran peace, and since we have obviously got a long way to go before we get there, it would only be counterproductive for Obama to go around talking about Israeli nuclear disarmament at this point in his presidential campaign.
==> Obama claimed in his AIPAC policy forum speech that Olmert is "more than willing to negotiate an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that will result in two states living side by side in peace and security." And though, as recently as last March, Obama acknowledged the reality that that "nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people," as a result of the stalled peace process he has since placed the blame for the impasse not on the Israeli occupation but on the Palestinians themselves. <==
More rhetoric that proves nothing since currently Obama is in no position to affect the Israeli-Palestinian no-peace process in any way except indirectly by the prospect of his becoming president.
At least Zunes acknowledges the obvious:
==> As president, he may well be better than his more recent Senate votes and public statements would indicate.
....it's quite reasonable to suspect that pressure from well-funded right-wing American Zionist constituencies has influenced what Obama believes he can and cannot say. As an African-American whose father came from a Muslim family, he is under even more pressure than most candidates to avoid being labeled as "anti-Israel." <==
You think?
OREO. Black on the outside. White on the inside. He's gonna kiss everything with sunshine and make it ALLL better. "TRUST MEEEE. I LOOOVE YUUUU ALLL. MORNING IN AMERICA AGAIN."
But go ahead. America is nothing if not irony deficient. The descendant of a gender slave and the decendent of racialized slavery rise thru the ranks to compete mano-a-mano for the title as head Overseer on Masters plantation - so they can hold the whip over us all - For Master (and Rupert of course).
The avalanche has already begun. Too late for the pebbles to vote.
Munch Munch.
The "change" that Obama can deliver is to not veto or threaten to veto legislation enacted by a Democratic Congress. Or, if the Congress went back to Republican hands, the "change" would be to put the veto on them as needed. Edwards or Clinton could deliver the same, on Iraq, the broader Middle East problems, and on everything else. The veto thing alone is HUGE.
The other "change" is what you get in appointed judges from any Democrat vs. any Republican.
When people argue that the "change" claim from any or all of the Democrats is not real, they are attempting to deceive both themselves and you. Veto power and judge appointments are all you need to think about.
The Great White Hope
By Nicholas Powers
The Indypendent
www.indypendent.org
http://www.indypendent.org/2008/01/11/the-great-white-hope/#comment-239897
"I need to hope. Exhausted by the left's fatalism, I sift the euphoria around Barack Obama for something real. Here is a Black man walking in Abraham Lincoln's footsteps daring us to free ourselves from the racism that slavery left behind..."
To read the rest of the posting: http://www.indypendent.org/2008/01/11/the-great-white-hope/#comment-239897
It's all about "faith" in politics these days. Either your a Rebulican, and you need to have "faith" in a christian god. Or your a democrat, and you need to have "faith" that the person you vote into office will actually be a decent human being, even though there is no evidence to support that.
Obama's campaign is coasting on naive young voters and a whole lot of hot air. Once the kid gloves come off and we start looking at his record, suddenly he doesn't seem that much different from Edwards and Clinton. Except that Clinton and Edwards have much more experience in government and in running national campaigns.
Remember when Bush was running for president the first time? He promised to have a humble foreign policy. Now look at what he delivered.
Barack Obama says a lot of things. His record, as short as it is, contradicts his statements. His support for the occupation of Iraq and Palestine comes to mind. Maybe Americans should start taking a look at what their leaders actually do, and not just what they say.
Americans have been so brainwashed to be pro Israeli that any pro Palestine sentiment is hard to express without massive attacks against the speaker. Once I started reading, once I met a number of Palestinians, the more pro-Palestinian I have become.
It would be as if almost everyone living in NH was herded into refugee camps in NH and kept there as Maine NH and VT played politics with their lives. Then MA was given back to the Indians to make up for our genocide of them.
Meanwhile the remaining Massachusetts residents who lived there were regularly attacked by high performance military weapons, their hovels destroyed, they would not be allowed to leave their compound without harrassment, and everytime they fought back they would be called terrorists.
I'll let RICH reply to reply to your latest blurb, he's much better at it than I am.