Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Foreign Policy Agenda of the Democratic Front-Runners: Comparisons on Some Key Issues
Voters on the progressive wing of the Democratic Party are rightly disappointed regarding the similarity in the foreign policy positions of the three remaining candidates - Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Barack Obama, and former Senator John Edwards - with a realistic shot at the Democratic Party presidential nomination. However, there are still some real discernable differences to be taken into account. Indeed, given the power the United States has in the world, even minimal differences in policies can have a major difference in the lives of millions of people.
Foreign Policy Advisors
Much understanding of what kind of foreign policy a potential president might have is by examining who is providing them which their information and advice on international affairs.
Senator Clinton's foreign policy advisors tend to be veterans of President Bill Clinton's administration, most notably former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger. Virtually all were strong supporters of the invasion of Iraq and some - such as Jack Keane, Kenneth Pollack and Michael O'Hanlon - also supported President Bush's "surge." Her team also includes some centrist opponents of the war, however, including retired General Wesley Clark and former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.
Her most influential advisor - and her likely choice for Secretary of State - is Richard Holbrooke, who prior to the invasion of Iraq insisted that that country posed "a clear and present danger at all times," insisted that Bush had "ample justification" to invade Iraq, and has written that those who protested against the war and foreign governments which opposed the invasion "undoubtedly encouraged" Saddam Hussein. Holbrooke has been severely criticized for his role as Carter's assistant secretary of state for East Asia in propping up Marcos in the Philippines and supporting Suharto's repression in East Timor, as well as his culpability in the Kwangju massacre in South Korea.
There is every reason to suspect that Hillary Clinton as president would pursue a foreign policy very similar to that of her husband.
Senator John Edwards has a significantly smaller foreign policy team than his two major rivals, reflecting his stronger emphasis on domestic issues. Though arguably the most liberal of the three on economic policies and related matters, this is not reflected in whom Edwards has chosen to be his top foreign policy advisors: Mike Signer, a longtime national security adviser to Virginia senator Mark Warner, has advocated a policy of "exemplarism," which he describes as "a militarily strong and morally ambitious version of American exceptionalism." His other leading foreign policy advisor is Derek Chollet, a hawkish analyst who serves as a fellow at the Center for New American Security, a center-right think tank with close ties to the Pentagon.
Senator Barack Obama's foreign policy advisers include mainstream strategic analysts who have worked with previous Democratic administrations, such as former National Security Advisors Zbigniew Brzezinski and Anthony Lake, former Assistant Secretary of State Susan Rice and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig. They have also included some of the more enlightened and creative members of the Democratic Party establishment, such as Joseph Cirincione and Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress and former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke. His team also includes the noted human rights scholar and international law advocate Samantha Power - author of the recent New Yorker article on U.S. manipulation of the United Nations in post-invasion Iraq - and other liberal academics. Some of his advisors, however, have particularly poor records on human rights and international law, such as retired General Merrill McPeak, a backer of Indonesia's occupation of East Timor, and Dennis Ross, a supporter of Israel's occupation of the West Bank.
In contrast with Clinton's foreign policy advisers, virtually all of Obama's advisers opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. The Nation magazine noted that members of Obama's foreign policy team, who also tend to be younger than those of the former first lady, are "more likely to stress 'soft power' issues like human rights, global development and the dangers of failed states." As a result, "Obama may be more open to challenging old Washington assumptions and crafting new approaches."
Iraq
Both Clinton and Edwards were outspoken supporters of President George W. Bush's request for Senate authorization to invade Iraq at the time and circumstances of his own choosing and were among the minority of Congressional Democrats to vote in favor of such authorization. Edwards was one of only six Democratic co-sponsors of the Senate resolution. Both Clinton and Edwards falsely claimed, despite the lack of any credible evidence, that Iraq had a dangerous arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, a nuclear weapons program, and sophisticated offensive delivery systems. Clinton went as far as falsely claiming that Iraq was actively supporting al-Qaeda. Both rejected the United States' legal obligation to uphold the United Nations Charter's prohibition against aggressive war.
Even after the U.S. invaded and occupied Iraq and the Bush administration acknowledged the absence of Iraqi WMDs and ties to Al-Qaeda, Clinton and Edwards continued to defend their support for the American conquest of that oil-rich country. Soon after he left the Senate in 2005, Edwards reversed his stance and formally apologized for his vote and his initial support for the war. Clinton, however, has refused to apologize to this day.
Obama, by contrast, opposed the war - even speaking at an anti-war rally in Chicago four months prior to the invasion - and argued that Iraq was not a threat to the United States or its neighbors.
Once he became a senator in 2005, however, Obama joined Clinton in supporting unconditional funding for the war, though he eventually began calling for a timetable for a withdrawal American troops, a position opposed by Clinton until last year. Both Obama and Clinton voted for the first time against Bush's war funding proposal this past May and have continued to vote against unconditional funding subsequently.
The three candidates' current positions on Iraq are markedly similar, all promising to begin withdrawing some troops immediately upon coming to office, but none promising to have all troops out by the end of their first term in 2013.
Based on the respective plans for Iraq they have put forward, however, Edwards and Obama are more likely to get more troops out sooner than would Clinton, who argues for a U.S. "military as well as political mission" in Iraq for the indefinite future for such purposes as countering Iranian influence, protecting the Kurdish minority, preventing a failed state, and supporting the Iraqi military. She also calls for a "continuing mission against al-Qaeda in Iraq" along with the obligation "to protect our civilian employees [and] our embassy." Since most estimates of the numbers of troops needed to carry out these tasks range between 40,000 and 75,000, the best that can be hoped for under a Hillary Clinton presidency is that she would withdraw only about one-half to two-thirds of American combat forces within a couple years of her assuming office. Edwards has called for an immediate reduction of forces and a complete withdrawal of combat troops within a year. However, he has called on maintaining sufficient military forces in Baghdad to protect the sprawling U.S. embassy complex as well American personnel elsewhere in that country. He has also called for sufficient U.S. military presence, perhaps in neighboring Kuwait, to "prevent genocide, a regional spillover of the civil war, or the establishment of an al Qaeda safe haven" as well as "a significant military presence in the Persian Gulf."
Obama argues that U.S. troops may need 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," but has pledged to withdraw combat troops within 16 months. Obama recognizes 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. He has called for diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives to address some of the underlying issues driving the ongoing conflicts and has also pledged to launch "a comprehensive regional and international diplomatic initiative to help broker an end of the civil war in Iraq, prevent its spread, and limit the suffering of the Iraqi people."
Iran
Both Clinton and Edwards argued, up until last year, that the Bush administration had not been tough enough against Iran. Clinton insisted several months ago that the White House "lost critical time in dealing with Iran," accusing the administration of choosing to "downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations" as well as "standing on the sidelines." Similarly, Edwards told an Israeli audience last year that "the U.S. hasn't done enough to deal with what I have seen as a threat from Iran. As my country stayed on the sidelines, these problems got worse. To a large extent, the U.S. abdicated its responsibility to the Europeans. This was a mistake." Both Clinton and Edwards falsely accused Iran last year of having an active nuclear weapons program, demonstrating that neither had learned their lesson from naively believing the Bush administration's false accusations regarding Iraq's alleged nuclear weapons program five years earlier.
More recently, however, Clinton and Edwards have joined Obama in criticizing the Bush administration's threats of precipitous military strikes against Iran. Despite this, all three have refused to rule out as president taking unilateral U.S. military action against that country to prevent the Islamic Republic from obtaining nuclear weapons.
Clinton voted in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment targeting Iran, which called for the United States to declare the largest branch of Iran's armed services to be a terrorist organization, which many interpreted as providing the Bush administration with a rationale for going to war. Her vote has been harshly criticized by both Edwards and Obama.
Meanwhile, Clinton has harshly criticized Obama for his calls for direct negotiations with Iran on areas of mutual concern, calling such diplomatic initiatives "naíve."
Israel and Its Neighbors:
All three candidates have defended Israel's ongoing repression against the Palestinians and Israel's 2006 war on Lebanon, as well as insisting that the onus of responsibility for the failure of the peace process lies with the Palestinians under occupation rather than the Israeli occupiers. Both Clinton and Edwards have defended Israel's settlement policy and the construction of a separation barrier deep inside the West Bank. Clinton has been the most outspoken of the three in supporting Israel's right- wing government and its violations of international humanitarian law and has gone as far as insisting Palestinian violence is not in reaction to the Israeli occupation, but simply a result of anti-Semitism and anti-Israel propaganda.
Edwards and Obama have been less visible in their support for Israeli policies than Clinton, and Obama has been somewhat more nuanced in his wording, such as also mentioning Israeli responsibilities in moving the peace process forward. In addition, Obama took a notably more moderate position regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict until a couple years ago, then allying more with the Israeli peace movement, but has swung well to the right, taking positions similar to Edwards and Clinton, since seeking national office.
Al-Qaeda, Afghanistan and Pakistan:
All three candidates support the war in Afghanistan, with both Clinton and Edwards joining other senators in voting in favor of authorizing military action against that country in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. All three call for an escalation in U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, though Edwards stresses the use of Special Forces for targeted commando strikes rather than simply increasing bombing and traditional combat units.
All three stress the need for applying diplomatic and economic pressure on Pakistan for greater cooperation on counter-terrorism issues and have threatened bombings and incursions into Pakistan to root out al-Qaeda cells.
On broader counter-terrorism issues, Edwards and Obama have emphasized improved intelligence and greater international cooperation as well as preventative measures, with Obama in particular calling for a vigorous policy to prevent the emergence of "failed states" and supporting dramatically-increased funding for sustainable development and education in areas prone to influence by radical Islamist ideologies.
Nuclear Weapons
All three candidates stress the importance of taking ballistic missiles off of their current hair-trigger alert status, lessening U.S. reliance on nuclear weapons, opposing the Bush administration's efforts to build a new generation of nuclear delivery systems and supporting a comprehensive test ban treaty. Clinton and Obama have criticized aspects of the Bush administration's missile defense program, but support the continued development of missile defense capabilities.
Obama and Edwards have called for the eventual elimination of all nuclear weapons. Edwards takes the strongest position on non-proliferation as a result of his opposition to nuclear power, but all three candidates maintain the Bush administration's double-standards, such as threatening Iran over simply the prospects of developing nuclear weapons while not opposing the already-existing nuclear arsenals of allies like India, Pakistan and Israel. Obama and Edwards have pledged to work vigorously to better secure the world's nuclear weapons materials and to negotiate with Russia and other nuclear powers for a dramatic reduction in nuclear stockpiles.
While Clinton has emphasized military means of deterring additional countries from developing nuclear weapons, Obama has emphasized U.S. obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to take serious steps towards disarmament, arguing, "As we do this, we'll be in a better position to lead the world in enforcing the rules of the road if we firmly abide by those rules. It's time to stop giving countries like Iran and North Korea an excuse."
Human Rights
Both Clinton and Edwards voted for a 2002 amendment that prohibits the United States from cooperating in any way with the International Criminal Court (ICC) in its prosecution of individuals responsible for serious crimes against humanity, restricts U.S. foreign aid to countries that support the ICC and authorizes the president of the United States to use military force to free individuals from the United States or allied countries detained by the ICC. Edwards has since reversed his position and now supports the United States joining the ICC while Clinton and Obama are open to eventual ratification if their alleged concerns regarding liability of U.S. armed services personnel are addressed.
All three candidates have displayed a tendency to exaggerate human rights abuses by regimes and movements opposed by the United States while minimizing human rights abuses by pro-U.S. regimes. Clinton has gone as far as sponsoring Senate resolutions explicitly contradicting findings of Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and other reputable human rights groups when they are critical of the policies of some U.S. allies.
Edwards has called for more aggressive international action against mass killings in places like Darfur and Uganda, though - as with Clinton and Obama - his record regarding repression by U.S.-backed regimes is decidedly mixed, with all three having supported as senators unconditional military aid to a number of governments engaged in human rights abuses. Edwards has called for dramatic increases in spending for development programs aimed at the world's poor, particularly in health care and education, as well as for an expansion of support for microcredit programs.
Obama has been quite critical of U.S. support for dictatorial regimes like Egypt and Saudi Arabia and has called for greater pressure on these governments to improve human rights, clean up corruption and support greater equality and social justice. Recognizing that, despite the rhetoric, the Bush administration has "done little to advance democracy around the world," Obama has promised to "focus on achieving concrete outcomes that will advance democracy." While calling for increased U.S. government financial support for independent institutions supporting pro-democracy movements abroad, he recognizes that "direct financial assistance from the U.S. government will not always be welcome or beneficial." He has also called for increased support - through foreign aid, debt relief, technical assistance and investment - for countries undergoing post-conflict and post-authoritarian transitions.
Stephen Zunes is a professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco.
27 Comments so far
Show AllZunes' article presents good enough reasons for all of us to not vote for any of the so-called Democratic front-runners.
You all here at Common Dreams are supposed to want something different from this agenda. So, why would you vote for it?
Hint: Vote Green or Peace and Freedom. Keep doing it until the rest of the population evolves. Think of the long, long term, and don't be cowed because the Repugs will win. The Repugs win even when the Democrats win because they both share the same philosopy of military Keynesianism. And that has to come to an end, for the world's sake.
(hmm., I had an edit problem. Maybe I timed out?....) continued from above,
What is the "softer" way Obama plans on the US winning this war?
"Open., "America Houses" ...across the Islamic world.,
... "America's Voice Corps"... we will recruit, train, and send out into the field talented young Americans who
can speak with -- and listen to -- the people who today hear about us only from our enemies."
"And we can be what that child looking up at a helicopter needs us to be: the relentless opponent of terror
and tyranny, and the light of hope to the world"Obama's Wilson Center speech.
The ideation surrounding "CITIZEN CORPs",and "America's Voice Corps" comes off like an academic
formulation of liberation theory. Stitched together with a propensity for pro-democracy institutionalism,
and administered on foot by recently graduated collegiate idealists.... "It's going to take the service of a
new generation of young people." said, Obama, Wilson Center.
Better go out and round up some converts, because if this is any forewarning, the pews will need to be
stuffed to the rafters in order to pull of this global liberation movement.
My biased opinion is that Obama's largest contribution to America is equivalent to a trendy, new packaging
on Empire. A softer, less ugly edge, with a greater emphasis on employing cultural programs administered
by a team of dutiful social technicians, or more accurately, the fresh "new generation of young people" Obama's
"light of hope to the world" message intends to inspire. This new generation of youth will be "recruited" and
trained in the arts of proselytizing institutional democracy.
But let's not forget the level at which Obama's team was (still is?) willing to praise General Petreaus' "new"
counterinsurgency manual after 200,000 guns went AWOL-- Apparent is the arming of conflicting factions and the
reinforcement of institutional violence. Also, the "surge" strategy was criticized, then praised, then criticized, then
praised.Then there is the willingness, in my uneducated opinion, to disregard international law for the purpose of
"venting" NW Pakistan of terrorists without Pakistani government approval. Lest not one forget, his point of
preemptive strikes against Iran, while his willingness to "dialogue" (unless your Hezbollah) is recycled to the
progressive. In Obama's own words, "We must also consider using military force in circumstances beyond
self-defense in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability -- to support friends,
participate in stability and reconstruction operations, or confront mass atrocities."
.
.
.
Did I already establish my personal bias? I am do not support imperialism, regardless of who leads the mission.
Look up at the helicopter. Do you see a light of hope to the world?
A tangential response....
Zunes piece is biased. He says so at the beginning of the essay, "Voters on the progressive wing.,
are rightly disappointed., However, there are still some real discernable differences...."
His intent is to address the progressive audience, presumably, someone who will vote. Therefore,
he underscores what he believes are discernible differences. Perhaps these underscores will bring hope
and optimism in a time of great concern. Perhaps the progressive won't feel too disappointed. After all, I
believe we are told hope and optimism, just like the fight for equality, are all part of the larger democratic
progressive mantra. And isn't that what Obama attempts to harness in his speeches?
(btw, my personal bias: I see no reason for optimism with any of the three democratic candidates except
when compared to McCain or Romney, but it is a self-illusive sense of optimism -rose colored glasses,
and excess of the 70s I found at garage sale.)
According to Zunes', Obama appears to show the most "discernable" characteristics. Yet, after rereading
Obama's Foreign Affairs article and his, "The War We Need to Win" speech at the Wilson center,
I hold no illusion Obama is something new. Obama might be a watery alternative to DLC and Clinton,
the GOP, and the larger portrait of American Exceptionalism and pro-democratization. I'd argue Obama
actually does not challenge American Exceptionalism, but instead attempts to redefine, and thus, return
it to its self-titled status as the "light of hope to the world, " as Obama stated. I think Reagan touched on
this image of America once before.
I would like to also note as a reader I am capable of discerning the differences between someone who
was a former advisor of Bill Clinton and one who doesn't necessary hold the same views of a former boss
That said, I would like to draw attention to Zunes' decision to separate former advisors to Bill Clinton
not by their policy opinion, which Zunes does mention, but by their association to Bill Clinton. Examples
as follows,
"Senator Clinton's foreign policy advisors tend to be veterans of President Bill Clinton's administration...."
and Obama's advisors are, "mainstream strategic analysts who have worked with previous Democratic
administrations".
Yet, if one looks at Obama's advisors and or strategic analysts, one finds most of the names listed were
once advisors or analysts to Bill Clinton. Rice, Danzig, Lake, Ross. I think S. Power, L. Korb, and Cirincione
are the only one's listed by Zunes not affiliated in some way with Bill Clinton's Administration. And while
Lawrence Korb was on Ronald Reagan's 1980 election committee, later earning a slot as one of Reagan's
Assistant Secretary of Defense, he does have some unusual ideas. Let's not forget Mallory, an envoy to Bill Clinton,
or Mark Brzezinski, who was Bill Clinton's National Security Council Southeast Europe. Both men are advisors
to Obama. For certain, a lot of Obama's team had ample experience with Bill Clinton's American-NATO intervention
in SE Europe during the 1990s. Then there is Mark's dad, Brzezinski. If he's considered mainstream, then the
progressive voter better be ready to accept Henry Kissinger. Whom Obama cites on nuclear proliferation,
"As George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn have warned, our current measures are not sufficient
to meet the nuclear threat."
"A strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace."Barack Obama. Foreign Affairs, July/Aug, 2007.
Darn it, if that doesn't come off as, peace is secured through force.
He backs his point up two paragraphs later by pledging an increase in active duty USMIL by 100,000 more bodies.
"To defeat al Qaeda, I will build a twenty-first-century military and twenty-first-century partnerships as strong
as the anticommunist alliance that won the Cold War to stay on the offense everywhere from Djibouti to Kandahar."
"Our beliefs rest on hope; the extremists' rest on fear. That is why we can -- and will -- win this struggle"
Barack Obama, Foreign Affairs. July/Aug, 2007.
Although this is fairly accurate, it also contains quite a few errors and outright lies.
First, Madeleine Albright did NOT support the invasion of Iraq. The inference that she did is unfounded.
Second, while Zunes goes deeply into Holbrooke, he does not go as deeply into Brzezinski, who gave us the Afghanistan mahujadeen - and Osama bin Laden - among other atrocities.
Third, he says, "Obama recognizes 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." That was not what Obama said at the debate; it was Edwards who said this. If this is now Obama's position as well, then it is brand-new.
Fourth, he notes that Clinton voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. What he doesn't say is that Obama did not vote on it at all; i.e., his vote was marked as "NV" (either absent, or present and not voting). Given that Obama is the self-proclaimed "principled" candidate, it does not show much principle on his part that he could not even take a stand on the amendment. But to then criticize Hillary for HER vote on it is the height of hypocrisy.
Finally, he says, "Edwards and Obama have been less visible in their support for Israeli policies than Clinton, and Obama has been somewhat more nuanced in his wording..."
This is simply poppycock. Read Obama's address to AIPAC and you will see that he is no less pro-Israel than Hillary or Edwards. Again, the inference that he is not is unfounded.
This is just another example of the media - even the alternative media - wearing Barack-tinted glasses. Obama's staff has no less members of CFR, Trilateral, etc. than Hillary's. Their positions on Iraq, Iran, Israel, etc. are close enough to be, as Zunes initially states, fairly "similar." As well, Obama is far more "bullish" (read war-mongering) on Pakistan than either Hillary or Edwards.
Obama is NOT the second coming of Christ. He is an ambitious politician seeking to be president, just as the rest of them are; in fact, he abandoned his own constituents after less than a single full term in the Senate in order to run for president. His Senate voting record was identical to Hillary's 94% of the time - the closest of any two senators - and he was just as prone to wrong-headed voting as she was. And he is just as prone to rationalizing, obfuscating and spinning as Hillary, as witnessed by his ridiculous, heavily dissembling performance at the SC debate.
As well, if he bristles so quickly at the relatively minor "attacks" of candidates in his OWN party, how on God's earth is he going to deal with what will unquestionably be the most blistering, withering, negative campaign the right-wing has ever launched? Hillary is battle-tested in this regard: all the skeletons in her closet have long been dragged out and pounded into the mud; there is nothing left for the GOP to use against her that way. She has taken everything they can throw at her - and weathered it. And, as she notes, she is still standing.
We simply do not know what skeletons may remain in Obama's closet - any and all of which will be used by the GOP to their advantage. And as noted, Obama has not shown the resilience needed to deal with "dirty" politics - which, whether we like it or not, is how the game is played, and how the GOP will absolutely play it.
This is not to say that Obama does not have some very admirable qualities, or that he would not make a good president - someday. But to suggest that he is likely to defeat the GOP candidate - much less do all that much more as president than Hillary (or Edwards) can or would do - is simply ridiculous.
Peace.
Why bother talking about the differences in foriegn policy of the candidates when there are no differences. AIPAC makes our foreign policy period.
Jimmy Carter said we the people should determine who we vote for on the issue of Israel Palestine.
Tony Blair admitted-while still Prime Minister, that 70% of all the worlds problems with terrorism can be traced back to Israel Palestine.
It was in 1967 that USA foreign policy drastically changed to blind support of Israel's military occupation of Palestine.
On June 8, 2007, this civilian journalist attended the 27th annual American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee's Washington, D.C. Conference.
It was 86 year old, walker-bound Congressman Paul Findley, a moderate Republican who blew my mind that day, when he addressed the luncheon crowd:
"I was here for the first convention 27 years ago and I still have a fire in my belly for the civil and human rights of Arabs. It is time to speak openly and honestly about Israel. But, in American politics, that is still forbidden.
"…Pity that we cannot seem to shed our fear of Israel. We are afraid to speak out on Capitol Hill, for fear of losing the next election. They are more like trained poodles jumping through hoops than leaders!
"Why this fear? How did we get here?
"Forty years ago to this day, June 8, 1967 the change occurred, the floodgates opened and money poured into Israel as never before. When President Johnson heard about the U.S.S. Liberty being attacked by Israel he ordered the rescue fighter planes to return to the deck. The rescue mission was aborted and the survivors have said they heard LBJ's voice tell Admiral Giess, 'Get those planes back on deck. I don't care if the ship sinks, I will not embarrass Israel.'
"LBJ also threatened to court martial anyone who reported what had happened. Johnson accepted Israel's false claim of "mistaken identity" and he knew it was a lie. That is when the change began and Israel learned they could get away with murdering U.S.A. soldiers."
In 1776, fifty-five rich white land owners had the wisdom and foresight to write:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that, among these, are life, [and] liberty ; [and] that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; and, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it. -July 4, 1776. The Declaration of Independence"
What we need is a second American revolution based on the vision of Tom Paine and it is dissent that keeps democracies healthy.
"Soon after I had published the pamphlet "Common Sense" [on Feb. 14, 1776] in America, I saw the exceeding probability that a revolution in the system of government would be followed by a revolution in the system of religion... The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion."-Tom Paine
I have been interviewing USS Liberty survivors [ Read More:
USS LIBERTY Series on WAWA: http://wearewideawake.org/ ]
And I have been to Occupied Palestine five times since June 2005, but Hillary didn't go to the other side of The Wall.
On February 1, 2007 Senator Hillary Clinton prostituted we the people of America in her pandering address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee/AIPAC.
The Rest:
The Democrat Demimondaine and Consummate Pandering Politician: Hillary Clinton
http://wearewideawake.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=411&Itemid=138
Mike Gravel isn't going to be elected.
One of the three above will be.
Zunes lays out the differences pretty well.
lizard January 26th, 2008 12:05 am
"I don't understand why nobody talks about Mike Gravel"
Because Gravel is not going to get the nomination and is not getting enough votes to influence the outcome of the nomination.
Lobo Gris
colleen January 25th, 2008 12:59 pm
"I think Edwards is not what he appears to be and actually is not running for the presidency. Its just a gut feeling I have about him. If I am right he is dividing the vote now in the primaries, which will weaken Obama. Then later he will go in with Hillary and he will be her vice presidential candidate."
I have to disagree. Edwards has the potential to be in the catbirds seat if Hillary and Obama continue to run a virtual tie. If he does in fact end up in the position of king maker I believe he will throw his weight (his delegates) behind Obama in return for the Vice Presidency. He is still young and will be able to run for President in eight years unopposed in the primaries if the Obama Presidency is successful.
The reason I don't think he will throw his weight behind Hillary is that she is un-electable and Edwards is smart enough to recognize that.
Lobo Gris
The most influential foreign-policy wonks tend to be hawkish, because nobody wants to look soft on defense and security issues.
Nevertheless, Obama maybe has the most innovative team. Edwards seems to be to the left of his advisors now, but I would be concerned that he would revert to more hawkish stances if he were president.
The best thing to be said about the three Democrats is that they wouldn't be as bad on war as Bush/Cheney. That's not good enough, of course.
Zunes gets many things right. He also goes soft on Barack Obama. Having an "Iran" section and drawing attention to Hillary Clinton's vote without noting that Obama elected to skip the vote (something he also did when it was time to stand up for MoveOn) isn't telling the full story.
With Kucinich out, Edwards is my choice. Of course, I'll probably be visiting next Friday when we learn Edwards is dropping out.
In the meantime, I don't need the candy apple version of Obama. The Samantha Power faction of the 'left' is no better than the neocons. They just garb their war in "human intervention." Like Noam Chomsky, I find Power damaging. The fact that she is one of Obama's key advisers and that she worked for his office after he was elected was the first thing that got me to dig beneath the sloganeering that has too often passed for coverage of Obama.
I don't understand why nobody talks about Mike Gravel. Did he say something awful I haven't heard about? Everything I have heard him say sounds great to me. He can't be more anti-war or have a more anti-war record than he has. He has been a senator. He wants to break the power of corporations. He is not bought. He has well thought out ideas in all relevant areas. Why don't you like him?
Thanks Zunes:
1) All three call for an escalation in U.S. military operations in Afghanistan
2) Both Clinton and Edwards were outspoken supporters of President George W. Bush's request for Senate authorization to invade
3) All three candidates have defended Israel's ongoing repression against the Palestinians
4) All three candidates support the war in Afghanistan
5) Both Clinton and Edwards voted for a 2002 amendment that prohibits the United States from cooperating in any way with the International Criminal Court
6) Obama joined Clinton in supporting unconditional funding for the war
There you have it. The Three Stooges of the Republican party. All three are most definitely pro-war hawks. Chicken hawks at that! None has ever spent a day in a military uniform. Which would make them fitting replacements for chicken hawks Bush/Cheny/Wolfowitz/etc.
All three are guaranteed to make you vomit with varying degrees of intensity.
So this is a democracrazy? Take your pick! Door #1, door #2 or door3# And......presto! Out comes the same shit!
Dump the Dems. Time for a 3rd party.
I see no reason to read this article. Pointless. Elect Mitt McClinbamabee and get it over with.
As far as Mr. Zunes supporting anyone, I just don't see it. He explaindes the painfully slight and subtle differences between the candidates - notably their advisers, which seem a very good way of divining their future policies. If he portrays Obama's advisers and positions are more moderate, maybe it is because they are. He also balances this assessment by noting that as Senator, Obama has moved to the jingo side.
He opens the article explaining the similarity between the candidates, (all three are imperialists - no way aroud that). While explaining that small differences can make a difference.
But yes, Zunes did neglect to mention Obamas abstention from the kyl-lieberman vote, and also, didn't Obama make a rather arrogant hawkish statment about unilaterally invading/bombing Pakistan?
One of Obama's advisors is "Dennis Ross, a supporter of Israel's occupation of the West Bank."
Also, one of Obama's foreign policy advisors is James Zogby of AAI. I am a member of AAI (Arab American Institute), even though I am not an Arab, it is a very informative institution on Middle East Activites. I received an email from Zogby anouncing he was an advisor to Obama. Zogby is in no way favorable to the Israeli occupation and is definatley no friend of AIPAC or Madeline Albright.
I have seen other articles describing Obama's advisors and they always mention Denise Ross, but never James Zogby. I've always wondered why.
At least Obama is willing to listen to both sides of the issue. For an American politician, that is something.
Ah they are all a bunch of crooks and liars... sad that people have come to expect nothing less from their so called leaders. People who aspire to become president should be held to a high-standard of decency. Being in the pocket of the corporations and lobby groups is not an indication of decency. Expect better from your leaders and hold them accountable if they fall short!
If Edwards received assurances that he'd have at least half the power Cheney has amassed, I'd think Edwards would give it strong consideration.
Mr Zunes clearly backs Obama of the 3 candidates profiled. While describing essentially the same policies he uses softer language on Obama, and several times devoted separate paragraphs to Obama.
From this article- "Obama recognizes 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. He has called for diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives to address some of the underlying issues driving the ongoing conflicts and has also pledged to launch "a comprehensive regional and international diplomatic initiative to help broker an end of the civil war in Iraq, prevent its spread, and limit the suffering of the Iraqi people."
He makes no mention of Edwards position that we should mantain no permanent bases. And he only mentions Obama as being for diplomacy and humanitarian efforts. It's just word play to give the impression there is any difference between Obama and Edwards. His attempt at softening a weaker position, again just word play-- Edwards would pull out all combat troops within 12 months HOWEVER he would keep troops in Kuwait. Obama will keep troops "over the horizon" HOWEVER he will have combat troops out within 16 months.
I still enjoy reading his stuff but this seems dishonest to me..... Frankly, I would rather see Edwards than any of the corporate candidates in both parties but there is little difference between Edwards and Obama on foreign policy yet throughout (just re-read the article) it is Edwards and Clinton did this- Obama would do that.
I will be shocked if Edwards goes for VP again. He got burned once...he's not likely to do that again. (I remeber him saying that they would wait till the Ohio outcome was finally determined...that they were going to fight this one out...then Kerry conceded less than an hour later...I think Edwards saw the light that night...) He is holding in for the long run...and I do think if he doesn't get the nomination, he will have enough delegates to affect the outcome. He has some power plan (he'd be stupid if he didn't) but it's not for VP... (Woops...there I go again...forgetting that the electronic voting machines are still in place..the outcome is already determined...Hillary wins it by a hair...)
there are ocassionally some hopefull inspiring statements coming from the main candidates but less face it their in the status quo and the motto of the status quo is "profit before people"
colleen-I don't buy your hunch that Edwards is a fake candidate. However, I can imagine the outcome you suggest.
I have a feeling that foreign policy advisor differences between the major Democratic candidates may not (for better or worse) be the main consideration of voters in tomorrow's South Carolina primary. And yet, these people are going to be pretty darned important in setting the tone for Super Tuesday, then the general election. If you believe in prayer, now is a good time to pray for SC blacks (especially blacks) to go vote and vote wise.
James06
Why don't you look and see who Zunes is in wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Zunes
An early and prescient critic of the Iraq War, Professor Zunes publicly doubted prior to the March 2003 invasion that Iraq still had operational weapons of mass destruction and predicted that "sooner or later, the American public will realize that a U.S. invasion of Iraq has been a disaster" since "such efforts at hegemony inevitably spawn their own resistance." He also predicted that ethnic and sectarian conflict would make it "difficult to establish a widely accepted and stable regime" and that rather than transform the Middle East to be more stable and democratic, he warned that a U.S. invasion and occupation would increase terrorism and Islamic extremism and that it would "spawn more bitterness, hatred, and violence and will greatly retard economic development, political reform, and reconciliation in the resulting chaos and backlash that will likely follow."
Professor Zunes has also been an outspoken opponent of U.S. backing of both Arab dictatorships and the Israeli occupation. He has called for an Israeli-Palestinian peace based upon international law which recognizes both Israeli security and Palestinian rights, including a withdrawal of Israeli occupation forces from Palestinian and Syrian territories, an end to terrorism, and security guarantees for Israel and its neighbors.
..........................
He got it right about Iraq before the war.
To know how a candidate stands on an issue look at the advisors.
A candidate can not be too forthcoming on any issue because that will lose votes. Obama imo is the best we can get into power in the US.
I think Edwards is not what he appears to be and actually is not running for the presidency. Its just a gut feeling I have about him. If I am right he is dividing the vote now in the primaries, which will weaken Obama. Then later he will go in with Hillary and he will be her vice presidential candidate.
Its a wonder America has any democratic institutions left at all considering what has been going on in Washington.
It's cute the way Stephen Zunes has a section on "Iran" and he talks about how Edwards and Obama criticized Hillary's vote. What's missing their Zunes? Uh, Obama skipping the vote?
That's right.
Another love note to Obama from the supposed independent media.
If Hillary is elected she will become a more violent version of Margaret Thatcher !