Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiIn the increasingly unlikely event of a McCain-Clinton election, folks who care about the peace issue would have serious reason to worry. Both of these candidates are inveterate hawks, and what we would be up against is a choice between the neoconservatives and the neoliberals as to who could be more adventurous in getting us into unjustifiable foreign wars.
Both not only voted to authorize President Bush's irrational invasion of Iraq but also have failed to apply those lessons to the real challenges we face, particularly concerning Iran. On the one hand, we have Sen. John McCain's wildly inane "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" singing refrain, and on the other, Sen. Hillary Clinton's commitment to "totally obliterate" Iran in response to any nuclear attack by Tehran on Israel.
Clinton has stood by her implicitly genocidal threat against the 70 million innocent Iranians, who have no effective control over their government's policy, a threat made in response to a question raised in the heat of primary day in Pennsylvania. She later extended the threat to include retaliation on behalf of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Arab countries if they were attacked by Iran.
Her statement extending the U.S. "nuclear umbrella" far beyond the threat to retaliate against a Soviet nuclear attack during the Cold War was greeted with a yawn by the media, which interpreted it as an election-day ploy to appear tough and pro-Israel. The Washington Post referred to "Clinton's apparent effort to distinguish herself from her rival for the Democratic nomination ... by offering a more hawkish approach to world affairs." That rival, Barack Obama, has called for negotiations with Iran's leaders and condemned Clinton's proposal as saber rattling.
But the Washington Post story provided evidence that Hillary's hawkishness is not merely a campaign posture, as evidenced by her two key foreign policy advisers, who the Post reports helped come up with the "obliterate Iran" idea. One of them is Martin S. Indyk, the former Clinton administration ambassador to Israel, who was as strong as any of the neoconservatives in advocating the invasion of Iraq. In an article he co-wrote with Kenneth M. Pollack for the Los Angeles Times three months before the Iraq invasion, which cited their insider status as former government officials who "had access to the most sensitive U.S. intelligence on Iraq," the two claimed that Iraq had "thousands of tons of precursor chemicals for chemical warfare agents, thousands of liters of biological warfare agents. ..." That "insider" information was false.
The Clinton campaign's national security director, Lee Feinstein, is another leading Democratic hawk and Clinton administration alum who promoted the threat to obliterate Iran. Feinstein, like Indyk, had strongly disparaged the work of the U.N. inspectors before the invasion. And even a month after the U.S. occupation began, as U.S. troops scoured all of the suggested weapons locations, Feinstein argued, "I believe they will find weapons of mass destruction."
The dark irony here is that the unjustifiable invasion of Iraq has elevated Iran to a position of enormous power over events in the region, beginning with its influence over the puppet government in Iraq's Green Zone, many of whose key members, including the prime minister, spent many years in exile in Tehran, where they were trained. The ability of Iran to make life miserable for the American occupation is the main counterweight to a tougher stance on Iran's nuclear program, and that is the direct consequence of a war for which Clinton and McCain both voted.
Clinton seems to be far more hawkish than her husband, and her increasingly bellicose remarks support that perception. If she is chosen as the Democratic Party's standard-bearer, she can be expected to tack further in that direction, once the primaries are over and the peace vote has been counted out.
I do not think this a matter of a female candidate having to prove that she is capable of being a macho commander in chief, although there is a whiff of Margaret Thatcher here, so proud of taking her nation to unneeded war. With Clinton, as with Thatcher, quite apart from gender, there seems to be a more basic philosophical commitment to using military force before other options have been seriously explored.
That the force cited by Clinton portends the "total obliteration" of another people raises the prospect of the United States, the only nation that has ever used nuclear weapons, doing so again. It suggests that such weapons of mass destruction are not heinous inventions but rather instruments of rational policy when in the hands of the virtuous. That is a message that we dare not deliver to the world.
Robert Scheer's new book is "The Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened America."
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C
77 Comments so far
Show AllFWIW, Hillary's "hawkishness" is evident from her past actions, not just the most recent ones:
=====
Military Intervention
She has...defended the 1998 U.S. bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan which had provided that impoverished African country with more than half of its antibiotics and vaccines, falsely claiming it was a chemical weapons factory controlled by Osama bin Laden.
Immediately following the 9/11 attacks, Clinton went well beyond the broad consensus that the United States should go after al-Qaeda cells and their leadership to declare that any country providing any "aid and comfort" to al-Qaeda "will now face the wrath of our country." When Bush echoed these words the following week in his nationally-televised speech, she declared "I'll stand behind Bush for a long time to come."
She certainly did. Clinton voted to authorize the president with wide-ranging authority to attack Afghanistan and was a strong supporter of the bombing campaign against that country, which resulted in more civilian deaths than the 9/11 attacks against the United States that had prompted them.
Despite recent pleas by the democratically elected Afghan president Harmid Karzai that the ongoing U.S. bombing and the over-emphasis on aggressive counter-insurgency operations was harming efforts to deal with the resurgence of violence by the Taliban and other radical groups, Clinton argues that our "overriding immediate objective of our foreign policy" toward Afghanistan "must be to significantly step up our military engagement."
Nuclear Weapons
Particularly disturbing has been Senator Clinton's attitudes regarding nuclear issues. For example, when Senator Obama noted in August that the use of nuclear weapons – traditionally seen as a deterrent against other nuclear states – was not appropriate for use against terrorists, Clinton rebuked his logic by claiming that "I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons."
Senator Clinton has also shown little regard for the danger from the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other countries, opposing the enforcement of UN Security Council resolutions challenging the nuclear weapons programs of such U.S allies as Israel, Pakistan and India. Not only does she support unconditional military aid – including nuclear-capable missiles and jet fighters – to these countries, she even voted to end restrictions on U.S. nuclear cooperation with countries that violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
She has a very different attitude, however, regarding even the possibility of a country the United States does not support obtaining nuclear weapons some time in the future. For example, Senator Clinton insists that the prospect of Iran joining its three Southwest Asian neighbors in developing nuclear weapons "must be unacceptable to the entire world" since challenging the nuclear monopoly of the United States and its allies would somehow "shake the foundation of global security to its very core." She refuses to support the proposed nuclear weapons-free zone for the Middle East, as called for in UN Security Council resolution 687, nor does she support a no-first use nuclear policy, both of which could help resolve the nuclear standoff. Indeed, she has refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons against such non-nuclear countries as Iran, even though such unilateral use of nuclear weapons directly contradicts the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the same treaty she claims the United States must unilaterally and rigorously enforce when it involves Iran and other countries our government doesn't like.
Senator Clinton also criticized the Bush administration's decision to include China, Japan and South Korea in talks regarding North Korea's nuclear program and to allow France, Britain and Germany to play a major role in negotiations with Iran, claiming that instead of taking "leadership to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of rogue states and terrorists … we have outsourced over the last five years our policies." In essence, as president, Hillary Clinton would be more unilateralist and less prone to work with other nations than the Bush administration on such critical issues as non-proliferation.
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4811
I hadn't heard that Hamas favored Obama, and I won't pretend to know why they might. There may be other reasons than him being a "peace candidate". International politics is complex. Hamas knows that Americans in general despise them, and may vote to counter any recomendation they may give. If they really wanted McCain to win, for the sake of provoking the final battle with the Zionists or some other such reason, then they might endorse Obama. I don't know. I don't have faith in the quality of convoluted speculations, not even my own. The best I can do is look at empirical evidence and try to predict future behavior. If Hillary votes to declare war on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and talks about obliterating the entire population of that country, then I will take that to be her position as President. If Obama talks about striking targets within the territorial sovereignity of Pakistan, I will take him at his word.
Stonetool May 8th, 2008 11:41 am
"Coco and Lobo:
The changes needed will NOT be achieved in time to prevent massive "disaster"….. experience of history shows that we will wait until forcedm and that will be far too late. We threw away a 35 year lead…. ignored the wake up call of the winter of '73/'74, and have gone to the brink."
You may be right but with your outlook we might as all well crawl into the corner curl up and die. As for me I choose to at least try to inform everyone of the benefits of hydrogen and the fact that there is a choice.
Lobo Gris
Stonetool May 8th, 2008 11:41 am
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/09/12/bmw-officially-announces-the-bmw...
BMW officially announces the BMW Hydrogen 7
Posted Sep 12th 2006 9:58AM by Bruno Vanzieleghem
Filed under: Emerging Technologies, Hydrogen, BMW
Closely following a sighting of a Hydrogen-powered 7 series during testing, BMW officially announced the Hydrogen 7 today. The car is touted as the first hydrogen-drive luxury performance automobile for everyday use. The BMW Hydrogen 7 will be built in a limited series, and sold to select customers in the U.S. and overseas in 2007. The engine in the Hydrogen 7, a derivative of the 7 series 12 cylinder engine, is capable of running on gasoline or hydrogen, and produces 260 hp. The car will accelerate from 0 to 62.1 mph in 9.5 seconds. The ability to run on both gasoline and hydrogen gives the Hydrogen 7 a range of more than 400 miles. The high tech hydrogen storage tank has a capacity of approximately 17.6 lb of liquid hydrogen, giving the Hydrogen 7 a cruising range in hydrogen mode upwards of 125 miles. The gasoline mode accounts for an additional 300 miles of cruising range. The driver is the one who decides which fuel to use, with a smooth transition between both operating modes, since the engine power and torque remain identical regardless of the fuel used.
And with a larger tank the hydrogen storage and range could obviously be expanded.
You may also want to google the crew that drove across the U.S. in an H 2 Hummer powered only by hydrogen. The only draw back being that they had to refuel at industrial supply houses.
As for your argument about efficiency, Oil is still a finite resource and wiil run out. Do you propose we go back to the horse and buggy?
Lobo Gris
Obama
Howard Zinn says Barack Obama is only slightly to the left of the Republicans. I looked at his record and his positions and found exactly the same thing.
When I hear people talk as though they expect change if Obama is elected, I can only say, "Dream on," "Hope springs eternal." Now that the people are out of the loop, that's all there is: fantasy.
We shouldn't be so naive. This is the American Empire we're dealing with. You don't think they're going to give the people a candidate who hasn't been thoroughly tested, do you? Especially when they don't have to! Ha! Isn't that a riot?! No resistance!
There is a powerful agenda and it won't go away unless the people, en masse, move to stop it. Obama is a big distraction so don't let supporting him distract you from real protest, real resistance.
We must move beyond merely marching around the streets with banners and music. Who does that impact? The powers that be know what the polls say - 80% of Democratic voters want an end to the Iraq war within six months - so the street rallies only tell them what they already know. They love it when we march. It means we aren't actually resisting!
What does resistance look like? We need to think seriously or we're just a bunch of hot - excuse me, lukewarm - air with no consequence.
I was hoping that progressives would threaten the Democrats by considering a vote for a third party - just a threat would have been nice! But no. No such threat. Just a lay down and pee on our bellies election ..... again.
All of the major candidates have been through the screening and have passed with corporate honors. The consolation prize for supporting a corporate candidate - without so much as a fight - is: You can say to yourselves: It would have been worse with McCain or Hillary! So pat yourselves on the back for that. The two corporate parties love it. Did I tell you: they work together on these phony campaigns.
I no longer support the lesser of two evils voting nonsense. The Empire knows how to handle you and it's really quite an easy thing to do, as we have seen since the Dems took the majority. Piece of cake.
So, go ahead, don't listen to me, attempt to take over the Democratic Party rather than support a progressive one already in place. And let me know when it happens, will you? I'll be busy taking over Monsanto or Walmart, maybe Haliburton, yep, from the bottom up! Let's all get going!
There is a man with a big military background running against Bushman Adam Putman's seat in the US congress, Doug Tudor.
He told me at a meeting of Brandon Florida progressives last week that if he was in the House today he would only OK money to bring the troops home starting now in an orderly safe way.
If you want to have more folks like Doug and kick out some Bush incumbants, check out Doug and he needs our help.
http://www.teamtudor.org/index.asp
wsws.org website,
Relax... and take a deep breath now.
OK the world already knows Obama does not follow the Socialist line.
Do you expect a candidate with a chance to win to say what you want?
Which candidate does that can get elected?
All the generals and all their men will still be there but Obama will tell him the new orders to begin to Move Out!
Ending the War in Iraq is a good start and his pledge to talk with enemies shows a better direction than McSame.
Would the Socialists want McSame to bring on the Socialist Revolution?
Lots of so called progressives have admitted that to me. It is an Old Dream (nightmare) I grew up with. You want to teach us a lesson, right?
No one can get elected if not perceived as strong on Defense.
Oh, and Obama is not "Evil", but if your vote helps McSame it is you I wonder about.
So vote Socialist already!
NOTE: Afghanistan was the 20th country the United States has bombed since the end of World War II. Think Obama, if elected, is going to "change" that imperialist mindset.
Think he'll march over to the Pentagon on January 20, 2009 and tell them: "Boys, the party's over!"
Or e-mail the oil honchos and lay down the law to them. Eh?
How about all the things Obama has said about the accumulation of corporate wealth -- all that undemocratic power in the hands of the insurance companies, the pharmaceuticals, the banks, Big Oil, Wall Street. ... Oh, sorry, he hasn't said a word to them. And, rest, assured, if elected, he won't.
Oh, and I forgot about all the things Obama has said about the gap between the rich and the poor and the rich and the middle class in the US. The largest gap -- by far! -- of any advanced industrial power. And the largest gap in the US since 1929. ... Oh, my apologies again, he hasn't utter a syllable about that. Not a word, not a syllable, not even a titter about the largest upward shift of wealth in the history not merely of the United States, but OF THE WORLD.
Still, as long as he keeps the slaughter and the poverty and the misery imited to the poor and those 3rd world countries, he'll do. Right?
Say, but you know, large portions of the US can now be described as Third World or at least near-Third World. Oh, but he'll reverse all that. Didn't you hear? He's "The Next FDR." Or maybe it's "The New Nixon." I get those pr things mixed up. Coke? Pepsi? Don't forget to vote for the lesser of the two evils.
And Obama *isn't* a hawk?
Obama is just a friendly face on the same old American imperilaism.
-- Has Obama come out against the bloated Pentagon budget; now over 500 billion dollars a year?
-- Has Obama come out against the US as "policeman of the world"?
-- What, pray tell, has Obama said about the CIA? torture? renditioning? blowback? the writ of habeas corpus, the erosion of civil liberties?
-- Has Obama uttered one word, one whit of a criticism of the Israeli government's occupation of the West Bank? Of the Israeli government's genocidal contempt of the Palestinian people?
-- Maybe I missed it, but has Obama voted to cut off funding of the Iraqi War? Of course he hasn't!
-- Did he objected to Congress several weeks ago saying in no uncertain terms to George Bush: you go ahead decide what should be done in Iran; if you want to invade, we won't stop you.
Sure, Hillary is more of a hawk than Obama, but that surely doesn't make Obama a dove ... or a progressive ... or a leftist. Or even a reformer for that matter.
Obama is the ruling class' newest pr guy. He's there to put a "happy face" on America's ongoing murderous foreign policy.
...Jimmy Carter came riding into Washington in 1976 as an "outsider," there to clean up Dodge. And what happened?
... Bill Clinton in 1992 actually used the Marxist term "trickle down economics." And what happenend? He thoroughly Republicanized the Democratic Party.
Al Gore! Oh, the great Al Gore! He could have saved us all!!! .. But wait, isn't that the same Al Gore who was vice-president for 8 years during the economic sanctions against Iraq? Economic sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Some estimate as many as 1.5 million, many of them children under the age of 5... Has Obama said anything about those economic sanctions? Has Obama said anything about the over 1 million Iraqis dead in Gulf War II?
No, he still keeps voting to fund the War. But I guess he's for peace 'cause he gives a good speech.
Cut the crap, commondreamers. Obama has more corporate money behind him than either McCain or Hillary. For just how friendly Obama will be, if elected, to, as Mahalia Jackson once put, "the walkin' people," see the following
-- "The Obama Bubble Agenda" http://www.counterpunch.org/martens05062008.html
As for the role Obama has so dutifully and so Uncle Tomly played for the ruling class, see the following -- "Obama vows to back Bush's war" -- http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/apr2008/obam-a29.shtml
And also "Democrat Barack Obama spells out his foreign policy: 'I will not hesitate to use force.'"
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jul2007/obam-j28.shtml
Quoting from the last article cited:
"There is no doubt that she, like Obama, will vote to approve Petraeus as the commander who would have principal responsibility for preparing a war on Iran. In January 2007, they both answered "yea" to the general's nomination as commander in Iraq, which was approved by a vote of 81-0 in the Senate. This was after Petraeus testified on Capitol Hill in support of the "surge" that was to send an additional 30,000 US troops to occupy Iraq, rendering the confirmation vote a tacit Democratic endorsement of this escalation. ...
"The failure of the Democrats, despite overwhelming popular antiwar sentiment, to take any action to end the Iraq war—together with their joining with the administration in promoting a new war against Iran—is not merely a matter of political cowardice. The policies of the Democratic Party, like those of the Republicans, are determined not by the sentiments of the American people, but rather by the strategic aims of US imperialism and the interests of the financial elite that rules America.
Despite bitter divisions over the conduct of the Iraq war, both parties remain committed to the essential objectives that underlay the war from the beginning—the attempt to utilize US military force to assert hegemony over key oil-rich regions of the Persian Gulf and Central Asia, and thereby gain a decisive advantage over existing and potential rivals on the world stage.
"Both the policies of the Bush administration and the trajectory of the Democratic presidential primary campaign indicate a growing belief within the ruling elite that the only way out of the debacle in Iraq is the launching of a new and even bloodier war against Iran."
Yeah, Obama is different than Hillary. SO was Fric vis-a-vis Frac.
Thanks for clearing that up Eric, I admit I was referring mostly to to your first few posts and haven't carefully read all your comments but don't be quiet for me. We all go on forever here.
Jim Glover wrote:
Eric, I guess form reading you comments on the battle of the Hawks that American politicians don't do illegal wars anymore just rhetoric to get elected?
I'm going to violate my self-imposed silence for one minute here.
Jim, this is a serious distortion of what I've written. Not that you aren't free to do it, but doing so makes you look like a very sloppy reader.
How you could derive this conclusion from what I've written is beyond me. But it requires ignoring this:
"I tend to conceive of U.S. hegemony as considerably more flexible than that, exercising its domination through a combination of hard and soft forms of coercion, although certainly committed deeply to militarism" (emphasis mine)
or this
"Certainly (as the invasion of Iraq shows) the U.S. is very capable of and willing to wield its military might from time to time"
or this
"It isn't that HRC and other power elites are primarily committed to using military force over other options. It is that they are committed to the preservation of U.S. hegemony and their own interests. That might require warfare at one moment, but it might require a whole range of other strategies. Above all, I believe, it requires flexibility." (emphasis mine)
Shall I continue?
I'll add that I've personally witnessed America's illegal warfare back in 1987 when it was spending a million dollars a day to support the Salvadoran military's terrorizing of its civilian population and its armed struggle against the FMLN.
So, the answer to your question would be "no, of course they still do these things."
If you are going to respond to people at CD, at least take the time to actually read them.
[and now I really will be quiet] :)
To Eric and John R
Eric, I guess form reading you comments on the battle of the Hawks that American politicians don't do illegal wars anymore just rhetoric to get elected?
John R... if Obama is such a bad Hawk how come Hamas that now wants peace with Israel favors Obama?
Now I admit that America will not elect a Dove in our lifetime, because we love to fight even with each other... but there are hawks and real bad hawks. Obama could go either way depending on what he's confronted with... I like Mckinney too but if you are for Peace, a third party vote will only help the worst hawk.... and in this bloody world I'll take a leader who will be a hawk when needed or a dove when needed.
If you prefer McCain to teach us pussies a lesson, well at least you are honest.
But a wasted vote in our two party winner take all system is a fantasy vote.
But go ahead, she needs some support to stay active on politics.
.
"War against Iran will probably consist of some recreational bombing of suspected nuclear sites. Even Insane or Clinton must understand that "boots on the ground" in Iran is not feasible. Not to worry."
Don't forget conscription. If it's reinstated the next looney punk president, in this case, Citizen McCain, can start as many wars as he likes. Even if the Demagogueocrats control congress after this coming November, they'll vote to bring it back if it's proposed, just as they have consistently voted to continue the occupation since the election of '06. The MSM will beat the drums for the draft like the world's greatest taiko band to make sure the heedless, half-assed and thumbs-up-their-asses American people go along because they will be told countless times every 24 hours that it's their "patriotic duty". You can just see Russert or Stephanopoulos breathing fire and belittling anyone who opposes it.
Coco and Lobo:
The changes needed will NOT be achieved in time to prevent massive "disaster"..... experience of history shows that we will wait until forcedm and that will be far too late. We threw away a 35 year lead.... ignored the wake up call of the winter of '73/'74, and have gone to the brink.
(Lobo) Hydrogen indeed is a fantasy as a solution..... I misstated.... Actually the very best electrolysis units using very expensive catylists and plates made from platinum I believe are up to about 60%.... What you can do at home is closer to 40%. Take a 60% efficient electrolysis system (very good), and multiply it by a 20% efficient engine.... also fairly good for an internal combustion engine and you get 1.2% efficiency from the wind machine (or whatever) to putting the rubber to the road. The internal combustion engine is dead and nobody realizes it yet! The problem with hydrogen is that it does NOT scale. I cannot argue that hydrogen is being produced, and transported... but it is on a very small scale...... and by the way, it is mostly made from natural gas. It cannot simply be compressed and stored as a liquid like propane. It takes immense pressure to compress it to a liquid and hold it as a liquid. The only option is absorbers..... chemical absorbers like the acetone in an acetylene bottle, and the quantity for the weight of the storage container is absurd when looking at rate of combustion in an internal combustion engines. The only way to even begin to use it realistically is with fuel cells and electric propulsion, but even then it doesn't make much sense. Transportation and distribution of the fuel as well as personal storage of it is a huge problem..... a problem that enthusiasts tend to minimize or ignore just as the biofuel cheerleaders ignore the very real liabilities. It is a neat and appealing "solution".... water to water.... no emissions.... It sounds too good to be true...... and as a solution it is too good to be true. It simply does NOT scale into something we can work with. You are welcome to your fantasy...... it's an appealing one, but you will never see a hydrogen world.
Howard
Eek, I failed to catch the truncation of the last two sentences in my last post (and last in this thread--I'll shut up now, I promise) :)
The last two sentences should read:
"Or that, at least, is how I see the present situation. Viewing it that way means that we should be as suspicious and vigilant when the hegemon pursues "peace" as when it threatens or pursues war.
I agree with Friend. I will vote for Cynthia McKinney this fall. My conscience won't let me do otherwise. The only cues we have for predicting what a candidate will do, are the things they say and do. It's silly to speculate that they may really represent the opposite.
I recently read Todd Gitlin's books The "Sixties" and "The Bulldozer and the Big Tent". Along with E.J. Dionne's "Why Americans Hate Politics" and many other observations here is what I believe: Americans are, despite our fervent hopes to the contrary, deeply conservative and not very bright and very lazy when it comes to intellectual investigation. That being said, they move quickly to the candidate who promises them apple pie, the flag and superiority in self-esteem. Because Republicans have been better able to see things simply and unify they win elections. Democrats, being the only viable alternative because of long-term brainwashing, lose because they believe in "diversity" an "inclusiveness" but not in winning. Interesting that Gitlin, a former SDS president has come to the conclusion that progressives have no chance unless within the Democratic party. He was stung, along with so many 1960's "radicals" by the failure of liberal movements. But movements take a long time. After flirting with Nader I have come back to the realist camp and will vote Democratic again. Not because I believe they are more honest or more principled but because Republicans are honest enought to tell us they don't care at all about liberal values. At least with crazy Hillary or naive Obama there is a chance for some liberal advances. Not so with insane McCain.
Jude:
Capitalism plunders; that's what it does.
I entirely agree that capitalism requires ongoing plundering. But there are many ways it achieves this, that's one of the reasons it has been able to stave off crises throughout its relatively brief history (these last three words are important for the left to keep in mind, I think. Capitalism's sense of triumphalism is deliberately forgetful of its relative youth).
Whether its only options now are war and more war remains, I think, to be seen. It certainly appears to be undergoing another major crisis, but its imminent demise has been predicted so many times in the past and yet it has managed to survive (sadly).
My big concern (probably obvious to you) is how to understand this system in order to identify its weak points. I don't see U.S. hegemony or capitalism as enduring forever, but I also don't see them as inevitably requiring warfare to accomplish their goals (plundering, as you rightly put it). Gramsci has probably never been a more relevant thinker on these matters than he is at present (despite certain criticisms one could make).
That's where I find Scheer weak. He seems to imagine the players committed to clear philosophical positions that ultimately, in my view, mistake the real objectives. It isn't that HRC and other power elites are primarily committed to using military force over other options. It is that they are committed to the preservation of U.S. hegemony and their own interests. That might require warfare at one moment, but it might require a whole range of other strategies. Above all, I believe, it requires flexibility.
The coherence comes in the aim (the preservation and extension of hegemony) not the means.
Or that, at least, is how iewing it that way means that we should be as suspicious and vigilant when the hegemon pursues "peace" as when it threatens or pursues war.
Nice work: Samson, Stone tool, Eric J-D
For people who think Mr.Sheer is wrong look up the ideology of the Democrat Leadership Council (DLC) and their sponsors, they are very far right in terms of foreign policy. Their "anti-communism" is the equivalent of the Nazi's and their economics is a combination of neo-liberalism and fascism. Ms. Clinton was a head of that organization at one point and is still a member I believe. Hillary is a right winger as are many so called liberals. Be aware.
Sorry, Eric, I wrote that "naive" bit only after reading your first post; when I read your second and third, I realized I made a mistake :-)
And actually, reading your last post a bit more carefully, I don't think we're disagreeing as much as I originally thought. Yes, I allow for much of what you write. Obviously, the US will keep the pressure on Iran, and if a miracle happens (a pro-American government emerges within the next decade or so), things could certainly change. Who knows, they might decide another country is more convenient to fixate on for the time being.
I don't think all those American military bases being constructed in Iraq are happening because the US lacks a "cohesive" plan for Iran and the region. However, as you've said, their reach exceeds their grasp. But I have no doubt that had the Iraqis greeted the American occupation with flowers (as the Americans hoped), the US would be in Iran right now. The Iraq resistance are fighting for the freedom of the world, in this sense. The Americans cannot realize their plans, because they are mired in Iraq.
Eric J-D, I'm sorry, I reject your historical narrative here: "Iraq is in fact a perfect case in point for what I am talking about. The history of U.S. relations with Iraq reveals not a coherent policy or plan for Iraq's destruction, but of U.S. militarism's committment to a flexible approach that always seeks to maximize its interests. It has thus engaged in arms sales to Iraq and shown half-hearted support for the Saddam regime at times, identified him as an enemy at others, been content to push him back but leave him in power in the region at still another moment (when it could have destroyed him), engaged in prolonged low-level warfare (through sanctions and occasional bombings) for a time, and finally sought his overthrow through a bombing blitz and illegal invasion."
My counter-narrative runs something like this: Just because certain powerful interests among the American ruling class have had designs on Iraq for a long time now, that doesn't mean they could simply carry out their plans. It's why, for example, they were able to write succinctly that there needed to be a new Pearl Harbor-like event in order to carry out their ambitions for a "Pax Americana." 9-11 was a godsend for them. They could finally "take the gloves off." In other words, far from what you described as an incoherent approach towards Iraq, I think it's been clear since the demonization of Saddam began (long before his invasion of Kuwait, by the way) that the US had a plan, had ambitions, but simply needed the pretext to realize them.
Now, just because these same interests also have designs on Iran, it doesn't mean they'll be able to carry them out. After all, even Hitler needed a cassus belli. American attempts so far to manufacture one regarding Iran have been laughably absurd. (But then, so were they concerning Saddam! But with 9/11, they calculated it wouldn't matter, with so much hysteria in the air.)
The American capitalist economy is in severe crisis. There are no FDRs out there trying to "save" capitalism. Their only solutions are war and more war. The trajectory of bourgeois democracy is currently in its decline, if we're thinking about things like human rights and justice for all. It's simply the capitalist structure following its own internal logic.
I think it's simplistic to characterize what I've written as suggesting that HC is committed to "the destruction of Iran," as you put it. Of course not. Imperialists do not invade other countries to destroy them; colonialists were bringing Light, and expect to be treated as liberators (except by the "terrorists," that is). Capitalism plunders; that's what it does.
The country is tired of the same old BS. Team Billary should admit it and stand aside so that the FNG can retire the other old bullshitter too.
The country faces way too many problems to depend on the same people that have been around for decades. We don't have the luxury to give the old establishment another shot at governing. Times up for Hillary and McCain (whose 200 years old anyway). They had their chance.
In the case of McCain, Bush should've never been president. If Gore had to lose in 2000, it should've been to McCain. Plus McCain already got the death knell to his candidacy: Bush's endorsement. Too late Johnny.
Second, Hillary F-ed up her shot at the presidency when she voted for the worst foreign policy disaster in U.S. history. She wanted to prove she had the requisite balls to be commander-in-chief.
But it takes balls to do the right thing. Anyone can do the wrong thing or the politically expedient thing. She calculated that if the Iraq invasion turns out to be a walk in the park and she votes against it, she'll look like a little bitch, unwilling to get tough with the terrorist. She rolled the dice and lost. Now stand aside Hillary. You little bitch.
Obama is the healthy, sane, intelligent choice. Barack Obama is the only candidate that could bring some semblance of normalcy to Washington. He is bright enough and good enough. Let's see what the kid can do.
jude111:
I don't think I'm being naive, but I appreciate your concern. I'll certainly be sure to keep an eye on that.
What I find interesting about your posts is how differently you seem to conceive of U.S. hegemony than I do. You (and a couple of other posters) seem to imagine the U.S. as primarily committed to the exercise of its domination through direct use of its military power. And so it is easy for you to fit HRC's comments about obliterating Iran into that framework.
I tend to conceive of U.S. hegemony as considerably more flexible than that, exercising its domination through a combination of hard and soft forms of coercion, although certainly committed deeply to militarism.
But U.S. committment to militarism is not the same thing as committment to direct use of its military power in the form of warfare. Certainly (as the invasion of Iraq shows) the U.S. is very capable of and willing to wield its military might from time to time. But the committment to militarism exceeds this drive and very frequently requires the production of military technology and a sense of a threatening "enemy" even when it has no intention of employing that technology in a war against that "enemy." Militarism is far too important to the U.S. system to be wastefully employed in actual war alone.
For its successful operation, it also requires a certain flexibility with regard to who the "enemy" is at any particular moment. Thus there can be no real committment to something like an eternal "enemy" since geo-political changes in the global field and in the hegemon's interests might require that the "enemy" shift its location or identity.
That's just another reason to be suspicious of the idea that HRC has a hard committment to the destruction of Iran. Although it is certainly useful at the present moment to imagine them as an "enemy," changes in the region or in U.S. interests might require that they move off this list. Above all, however, the identification of an "enemy" does not necessarily require a committment to that enemy's destruction. Enemies are much more useful than simply as things to be directly engaged in warfare.
It is a bit ironic that you bring up Iraq in your posts. Iraq is in fact a perfect case in point for what I am talking about. The history of U.S. relations with Iraq reveals not a coherent policy or plan for Iraq's destruction, but of U.S. militarism's committment to a flexible approach that always seeks to maximize its interests. It has thus engaged in arms sales to Iraq and shown half-hearted support for the Saddam regime at times, identified him as an enemy at others, been content to push him back but leave him in power in the region at still another moment (when it could have destroyed him), engaged in prolonged low-level warfare (through sanctions and occasional bombings) for a time, and finally sought his overthrow through a bombing blitz and illegal invasion.
In fact, the whole history of European involvement in this region since the 19th century reveals European powers committed to a constantly shifting set of strategies to achieve their interests. They didn't call it "the great game" for nothing. As in gameplay, so too in international politics: you have a higher likelihood of winning the game if you stay flexible and responsive to changing conditions. Pursuing a single path, like direct warfare, frequently has ruinous consequences.
HRC (I think) is far more committed to that approach than to the rigid plan for Iran's destruction that you suggest. She's no monomaniacal Ahab, in other words; she's a power player. All the mainstream candidates are. The power elites in this country are in the game to win. They aren't foolish enough to back a single horse or pursue a single policy if they can achieve their interests in other ways.
HRC's answer to that questioner should have been "Iran does not possess nuclear weapons, Israel does, therefore you should have asked me what I would do if Israel launched a nuclear attack on Iran".
Stonetool May 7th, 2008 3:06 pm
"The hydrogen fantasy is as far fetched as the biofuel fantasy…… At a 60% loss in electrolysis, huge transportation and storage problems, etc…. it can never step into the breach."
Hydrogen is no fantasy.
1. It is the only fuel which not only would reduce our dependence on foreign oil but would also reduce the effects of global warming
2. There are no transportation or storage problems. Hydrogen is already produced hauled and stored all over the country at industrial supply houses.
3. Even if you are correct and electrolysis is only 40% efficient, oil is finite and will run out.
4. Every vehicle new or old on the road now can be converted to run on both hydrogen and gasoline for about $1,000 per vehicle. No other alternative fuel can even come close to making that claim other than natural gas/propane which will continue to aggravate the global warming problem.
5. Hydrogen is so easy to convert to that BMW already has produced a car to run on it and is just waiting for the infrastructure, production and refueling facilities, to put it into mass production.
Lobo Gris
Remember what Mr Putin said a short while back, an attack on IRAN is an attack on Russia. Now I don't feel it would get nuts but who is the say Russia may feel threatened even more and take action else where. King George wants the cold war to start all over for his rich friends and the 25% of the congress and House that make money off war. I have seen postings saying it will not matter who is in there and every day I fear they are right.
I guess it doesn't matter the steps in the last few weeks IRAN has taken toward an agreement. www.globalresearch.ca is where you will find that story.
Rush Limbaugh and Ann Colter will certainly be turning up the heat for the next primaries in West Virginia and Kentucky for "their" candidate! Arghh.
Eric J-D: I can tell you what crystal ball I'm using: it's the same one that told me in 1999 that the US was not going to lift the sanctions against Iraq, but were rather committed to invading Iraq. (I told an Iraqi friend the same; he didn't believe me, he really thought the sanctions would end soon. I hope he and his family are still alive; but I've not heard from them in years.)
It's the same one that told me that Bush was going to invade Iraq - that all the talk about "negotiations" were a farce. It's the same one that told me that there were no WMDs in Iraq - and I said as much, a year before the US launched its invasion; I posted it loudly and often in the Net, - to much ridicule and derision, I might add (and not just from rightists).
Eric J-D wrote, "Politicians habitually say all kinds of things that they will never do (remember George H. W. Bush and his pledge not to raise taxes?) and then turn around and do them."
Politicians speak with forked tongues. There are the messages directed towards the voters, and there are the messages directed at the big money power players. You say there are no indications about which way Clinton would really go concerning Iran. No? How about her record concerning Iraq?
What did her husband do concerning Iraq? If you remember, there was a huge movement to lift the sanctions against Iraq, and to normalize relations. British MPs were breaking the law and flying into Iraq to show their support for ending the genocidal sanctions. Jimmy Carter broke the law and flew to Iraq, as did some other congressmen. Nelson Mandela did the same.
What did Clinton do? He bombed Baghdad. An international outcry and protests around the world halted for a moment his intentions to invade. Only after 9/11, with Bush in power, did the ruling establishment get what it hoped for: "a Pearl Harbor-like event" in which to push forward with their plans, and invade.
Iran has always been a part of the plan. There's been remarkable consistency regarding the USA and its relations to Iraq and Iran - whether the Prez was a Repub or democRAT; whether Congress was one party or the other.
Eric J-D: Can you really afford to be so naive? (Maybe you are just young and haven't seen firsthand yet how it works?) A large group within the ruling class establishment has made clear their desire and intension to bomb and/or invade Iran. Clinton's remarks send a clear message that she's on board.
Why is Limbaugh throwing his (considerable) weight behind her? They don't like her, just as they didn't like her husband - even though he too carried out their agenda, and at the very worst was a holding pattern till they got their own maniac in power. CLinton would be a bonanza for them: she'll carry out their agenda, yet they get to attack her from the right, and hope to get their next lunatic into office.
Indyk Feinstein Pollack
Gee; Three MORE AmericanJews (Israeli's) pushing for American War in the ME (Dead Americans & Arabs)
One MSM, Two Govt...Pulling HC's strings.
This picture is getting ever clearer, omnipresent.
Thanks Robert Scheer.
formernadervoter,
Who is your question directed at?
And what makes you think Obama is not a hawk. He has the same policy proposals as Clinton!
Just because he doesn't use the same language...actually read, would ya?
There is no change with Barack Obama.
Sanctions on Cuba; support for Colombia; tough talk on Ecuador and Venezuela; Israel can do whatever it wants to the Palestinians; all options are on the the table; none of the 700 plus world wide bases to be cut; increases in military spending (not needed); increases in troop levels (again, not needed); and on and on!
Clinton=Obama on all policies in the foreign arena. They both took their advisors from the Clinton Administration. So, what's the difference?
And Obama has that fool Brzezinski advising him. You know, the clown who got us involved in Afghanistan in 1979? Before the Soviets invaded by the way. And we're still there!
On that basis alone Obama is a pathetic judge of who should be advising him.
opeluboy,
I never said she that I "know she doesn't mean it." I said that the statement itself gives no indication either way as to what she would actually do or what she desires to do regarding Iran.
Here's why. Politicians habitually say all kinds of things that they will never do (remember George H. W. Bush and his pledge not to raise taxes?) and then turn around and do them. This raises the distinct possibility that they also say thing that they will do, that they in fact won't.
But then again, they may.
I have no doubt that you believe deeply that HRC desires to obliterate Iran and will find whatever way she can to achieve these nefarious ends, but basing this belief on a politician's utterance on "Good Morning America" is, I would argue, a bit foolish. Unless of course you also believe that she doesn't have any use at all for economists either, in which case she has probably nuked her own presidential ambitions.
Finally, I think you've seriously misjudged the diabolic nature of the American capitalist system. That system desires not the insane genocide of Iranians but their regular reproduction/representation as both enemies and consumers. The U.S. capitalist system (with which U.S. militarism is in complex collusion) needs an Iranian enemy (or some other clse facsimile) in order to justify its expansion of the military and maintenance (or even expansion) of its present defense budget expenditures. It also needs Iranians (and other labeled enemies) to occasionally serve as consumers of its obsolete military technology.
Your mistake (IMO) is to imagine U.S. hegemony as entirely bent on destruction, hence your belief that AIPAC and HRC desire "the destruction of Iran to ensure Israeli hegemony." I'd argue that the evil of the present system is both more insidious and in many ways far more flexible than your paradigm would allow.
Anytime, repeat, ANY TIME, you are listening to a politician and you don't feel they believe what you are saying, that should immediately lead to the conclusion that you will NEVER vote for them.
I'm so sick of this crap from the Democrats that continually now says that we aren't supposed to listen to what they say. Instead we are just supposed to make up some idealist candidate in our fantasies and just assume that this is what the Democrats really are. Both Obama and Hillary are now spinning this same complete bull.
The Democrats are desperate. They fully committed to a course back in the late 80's where they were completely abandoning what their supporters believed in. They exchanged this for becoming complete servants of the money they craved. The catch is that in every election they must now try to find a way to con the voters into thinking they actually support them instead of supporting their big contributors. If you watch their ACTIONS (like $200 billion going for more war), its very plain who they represent. So, they have to spin a lot of lies and bs and try to con people into thinking they are really something different.
That this has now sunk to such a low that the Democrats now try to con us into pretending their candidates are some imaginary fantasy candidate is just simply amazing.
Eric J-D
I figure Clinton meant what she said as she has repeated it and given the opportunity to clarify or retract her statement, enhanced it.
I also base this belief on the fact that she supported the 2 wars we are presently in and voted, by inking the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, to give a proven war criminal — George Bush — the green light to attack a third. Her actions solidify her words.
Further, it is clear that this threat was intended to draw support from the AIPAC wing of the Democratic party, a group that has supported these wars and seeks the destruction of Iran to insure Israeli hegemony. So many Arabs/Muslims to slaughter, so little time.
That we are now engaged in 2 disastrous occupations begun on this premise, her threats of obliterating an entire population should not be taken as idle yakking.
And I could ask you how you could possibly know she doesn't mean it.
hootowl ... right idea, wrong date.
Back in Arkansas, Billy Clinton was elected as the nation's youngest governor. During their first term, the Clintons actually did try to do some progressive things. As such, they pissed off the Ark good ol boy power structure and corporate interests. So, when that 2 year term was over, they lost their bid for re-election.
They came back two years later as complete sell outs to the good ol boy power structure and corporations like Tyson chicken. Ever since they've run this con of pretending to be liberal while really being just the errand kids of anyone with the money to finance their continual campaigns.
They chose back then between power\money and morals. Since they chose power and money, they've been locked in on this course. Once they abandoned any morals, they were committed to this course.
Poor Demoks. They're failing so far to accomplish what's needed to win the progressive vote away from third parties. When the Repuks get elected because the Demoks failed to unite the left, the Demoks will have nobody to blame but themselves.
RichM my sentiments exactly. My latest theory is, is when the Clintons "triangulated" in the early 90s they vacuumed the Repulican evil into their souls. Or more prosaically they are funded by the exact same arms and oil companies as the the Repigagains.
opeluboy,
I ask again (not as a Clinton supporter or an Obama supporter but as someone who wants to see McCain/the Republicans defeated):
Where do you get your crystal ball that informs you that "she said it; she meant it."
You imagine (erroneously) that I am interested in spinning HRC's statement (presumably because I am an HRC supporter--wrong again).
That's not the case. I am saying that none of these statements, made on shows like ABC's "Good Morning America" gives any real indication of what a candidate would do or desires to do if the stars aligned and the hypothetical event came to pass.
If you think that they do, then you're in the following quandry. How do you differentiate between the people who make these statements and don't mean them (i.e. are merely engaging in poltical gamesmanship) and those who do?
Because as far as I can see, the criteria for differentiation thus far have been this: "my guy says these things because (s)he has to in order not to appear weak/soft/effete/etc., but that guy says them and means them."
This is (to put it kindly) no criteria at all. It's asshattery.
I submit that these statements are rather calculated political rhetoric of the most transparent kind. They are about as meaningful as HRC's recent comment about not basing her campaign positions on the opinions of economists.
According to your thinking, HRC just outed herself as some sort of anti-intellectual, supporter of the booboisie: "Book larnin's for sissies!"
That's just silly. This is political rhetoric again, calculated to increase the perception of Obama as some effete, Washington snob who sucks up whatever Robert Reich says and of Hillary as "just plain folks," responsive to the common man.
Let me be clear: while this sort of rhetoric is pathetic and sometimes even appalling, it isn't revealing at all. I have no greater sense of what HRC's real intentions are toward Iran than of her real opinion of economists.
Barrack Obamma - Lesser evil.
Hillary Rodham Clinton - Evil.
John 'Bomb Bomb' McCain - Greater Evil.
Yup. There's a slate of candidates I could get behind...
Eric J-D eloquently stated: Questions like these (I am convinced) are almost purely rhetorical occasions, opportunities for the candidates to do their best Dirty Harry impressions
As others have noted, I hope you are right, sir.
However, HRC on several occasions has responded with bellicose remarks about the "3am phone call". This to me sends a very powerful message that such remarks are not rhetorical opportunities, but represent a long-standing conviction.
I believe that if we recall the past 9 presidents, we will not find as many aggressive comments as those of HRC. And her comments are directed at a country that is neither a nuclear power, has a barely adequate navy for coastal defense, and no way of projecting power more than a thousand kms or so.
Actually, listening to HRC's almost shrill statements is more akin to Khrushchev banging his shoe at the UN.
Thank you, Rich Griffin.
Thank you Common Dreams for the publishing this article, and Robert Scheer for bring Lee Feinstein to my attention, and that Martin Indyke are her key foreign policy advisors.
I have been checking up on Lee Feinstein for the past hour, and it is horrible, is a CFR imperialist who conspired with Albright on Yugoslavia when she was Secretary of State. Scheer makes clear the dangerousness of these two super-hawks.
Interesting for readers is a variation I noticed in the above article in the San Francisco Chronicle with the same dateline in a topical paragraph.:'… folks who care about the peace issue had better be deeply worried…
TruthDig's variation on a theme, a dilution or moderation for the same.: '…folks who care about the peace issue would have serious reason to worry…'
'had better be deeply worried' - became merely – 'would have serious reason to worry'
I wonder what Mr. Sheer thinks about that? Robert, are you reading this, would you enlighten us, please?!
The title also morph, but I understand that is the within the news editors job discretion or prerogative. But again, for the readers edification I will cite the distinction:
SF Chronicle: 'Who is the biggest hawk?'
TruthDig: Battle of the Hawks'
The Chronicle is contrasting and asking the reader to analyze and make a conclusion. TruthDig equates them and does not challenge you to think or decide anything.
I value these boards for the input I am not getting as quickly upon reading a news report from anywhere or anyone else as quickly or consistently. And that is wonderful, please suffer me the best you can.
I will also be voting for a woman in this presidential election (Cynthia McKinney).
http://www.runcynthiarun.org/
http://www.gp.org/
Rich Griffin,
We don't demonize Hillary Clinton because she is a woman, but because of her policy of supporting Georg.W. Bush and the Republican agenda, a fanatical allegiance to Israel, and her support of un-Constitutional legislation starting with the anti-democratic 'Patriot Act' and moving along as a Bush/Cheney/McCain enabler. Nothing at all to do with her gender. Or Obama because he is black. Nope. Not at all. As long as she is running in November, my ballot will be for a "black, female" candidate for president of the United States, Cynthia McKinney.
Are Democrats really making mistakes, as you say, or is this part of their strategy?
The author says..."With Clinton, as with Thatcher, quite apart from gender, there seems to be a more basic philosophical commitment to using military force before other options have been seriously explored."
Military force is the only option because unreasonable demands by corporate America will do nothing to promote their bottom line. There is no desire for some of corporate America and their lackies in Washington to establish a diplomatic resolution but rather it is their desire to promote an atmosphere of looming conflict. This is accomplished by saying that it is America's enemies that refuse to bargain in good faith so therefore what's the point of going through the motions?
Just ask any Iranian official in Washington They do have an embassy there afterall!)when was the last time any Iranian diplomat was invited to the White House or to meet with ANY elected official to exchange ideas, complaints or solutions and they will tell you that a posting in D.C. is like a posting on the moon.
The same pattern was used with Iraq prior to the occupation. Saddam would have loved to negotiate if he were given an opportunity to do so. Instead he was officially and unofficially ignored at all costs in fear of the American public catching wind of a reasonable proposal. For example, if Hussein had come to America and addressed Congress that he would willingly and immediately step down,leave Iraq and hand over complete control to a UN agency (...but without U.S. troops or civilians), the Neo-Cons would have gone ballistic. A golden opportunity for a handful of powerful corporations to rape the public treasury would have evaporated and Bush would have failed miserably in in promise to further enrich America's aristocracy.
While I admit that Obama is hardly Kucinich (who I supported), a quick look at Obama's advisors and a comparison to Clinton's will negate the previous comment.
I will never ever undestand the bizzare demonization of Hillary Clinton; it must be because she is a woman. You are all insane.
You are insane if you don't realize that Obama is a hawk, too - his "realistic" foreign policy positions are based on his admiration for and desire to emulate Ronald Reagan and George Bush I. 'Nuff Said!
Democrats have made a huge mistake - now they will pay for it, but so will the rest of us!
She said it, she meant it. Those of you trying to spin this need to give it up. She supported the illegal Iraq invasion. She was the only Democratic candidate to vote for Kyl-Lieberman. She is a warmonger.
You need to realize we are not all stupid.
Stonetool: Very good! Excellent commentary!
Coco: The gods can only be tempted for so long before they are angered.
pundit Said: War against Iran will probably consist of some recreational bombing of suspected nuclear sites. Even Insane or Clinton must understand that "boots on the ground" in Iran is not feasible. Not to worry.
ANY attack on Iran by the United States is not feasible and will cause global events to spiral out of control, worse than they already are.
STONETOOL
i love your rhetoric.............i'm just at a loss as to how these changes are going to be implemented in time to save us all. (not a pretty picture indeed.........but then sometimes the truth hurts.)
The same media that reacted "with a yawn" to Clinton's inflamed rhetoric waxed hysterical over a deliberately mistranslated statement by Iranian President Ahmadinejad. All he said (correctly translated by many Farsi scholars) was: "The imam [Ayatollzah Khomeini] said that the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." Quoted sppech, without an active verb. Compare that with Ilse Koch's threat to "obliterate" Iran.
frank1569,
I think the corporate elites are quite conflicted and not monolithic with regard to opinion on the presidential race, and that many of them have decided to switch to Obama after Hillary's reckless statements, and McCain's repeated demonstrations of incompetence, of the past few weeks. There has been virtually universal international condemnation of Hillary's Iran remarks, and the international community is favoring Obama to a greater and greater degree. The empire is crumbling and the natives are restless, and so many US elites want a reassuring and calming figurehead like Obama to gain back some trust and respect. It is quite difficult to manage an empire when all the natives are in revolt.
I am not sure this is true, but it occurred to me as I read that Russert and other corporate media pundits were declaring the race over after Obama's convincing win in NC, especially after Russert seemed to be quite soft on Obama on Sunday on MTP. The corporate media certainly could have chosen a different narrative, and so I took it as evidence of some change in attitude by some of the most powerful corporate elites. However, I could be proved dead wrong if the corporate media resumes its attacks on Obama to provide McCain with an easy road to victory.
Hillary is the clearest proof of the claim that there is very, very little significant difference between the two parties. It is claimed that, at least, Clinton would not appoint Supreme Court justices of the ilk of Scolia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts. Frankly, I don't trust her that far. When her husband was looking for candidates, I remember very well dreading who he would nominate and breathing a deep sigh of relief everytime he did not appoint someone from the very far, insane right wing. If Hillary is anything, she represents the corporate, racist, warhawk, racist, bloodthirsty, racist, heavy handed on crime, racist, greedy, racist, racist, racist, racist, far right of the party, just this side of the likes of Zeke Miller (I hope).
We don't have a mutual defense pact with Israel. So any attack on Iran would require Congressional action.
Hillary is thumbing her nose at the Constitution before she is even ahead in the race for the nomination.
Bill better get out and give some big speeches at the rate the Hillary campaign is burning up their assets.
Enough already. And the worst is yet to come. A year and one half of this tripe is enough to disgust the most hardy. Vote tomorrow before Bush can start the planned war in Iran.
Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com sums it best today:
"What is clear, by now, is that the War Party is openly rooting for Hillary: see the Weekly Standard for the neocons' paean to Hillary the war goddess..."
Read the rest, cause he almost nails it. The one thing he forgot was that the NeoCrazys also want CorpCandidate HRC for the easy target practice...
Here's the test for all office-runners: either they agree that WAR is the ultimate last resort, or they need to go live in a country where it's WAR first, diplomacy maybe at some point in the future.
It does seem as though we are already watching a Republican vs Democrat race. The rhetoric, the vote patterns, and other aspects make it seem as though Obama has to face first one Republican, and then another.
Clinton thinks she will get it right at three in the morning, when she got it horribly wrong at three in the afternoon on Iraq. She of course doesn't see it that way. She is a war candidate. She will wage war against all of us - remember how the Clintons put a war criminal Barry McCaffrey of "highway of death" fame, in charge of waging war against the American people and our liberties?
Write your super-delegates and urge them to publicly announce support of the Democrat in the race, before the Democrat impostor ruins our party and our chances in November.
Although there is evidence that Hillary says things that aren't true, I wouldn't want to take the chance that her threat to Iran IS real.
I am far from a Thatcher fan...... I disliked the lady intensely..... But I wonder what "unneeded war" the author was referring to that the "Iron Lady" was so proud of taking her country to. As I recollect the Falklands conflict was the only conflict of significance in that ear for the UK. That was hardly an unneeded war...... one hardly submits to foreign invasion of one's territories occupied by one's citizens..... No nation on earth can do that and expect to continue to exist.
The hawkishness of Clinton and McCain are in no way similar to Thatcher......... Thatcher did immense damage to her country on the home front, and the totally justified conflict in the Falklands redeemed her administration in the eyes of her people...... Though she was a miserable leader on the whole.
Our hawks in America are obsessed with "projecting power" and dominating sovereign nations throughout the world, enforcing our will upon them. When "defense" of America has no relation to the conflicts. Iran and Iraq and Afghanistan are all such conflicts.
We are faced today with the greatest crisis in the history of modern civilization. Our civilization has grown wildly on the basis of very cheap and abundant energy. We are now looking at ever rising energy costs......which by the way have little if any connection with oil prices which are about triple what they were in the crisis of 73/74, while gas prices are 10 times that amount...... Something is deeply wrong here and it has it's foundation in local greed, not international oil pricing. The finger of course gets pointed at the "greedy Arabs".... most of whom are not Arabs at all.... just people who speak Arabic. We will ultimately use our immense military might in an attempt to save our civilization.... our way of life by securing the oil supplies that remain, and it will be our downfall. We are between the proverbial rock and the proverbial hard place. No combination of alternative fuels is capable of taking the place of these fossil fuels that we burn at a rate of 20 million barrels per day. Biofuels are a huge liability.... a net negative, and an extremely bad and irresponsible way to go as some of us have been trying to point out for many years..... only to be accused of "negativity".... another word for being truthful. We cannot replace our needs with wind and solar..... though they will make significant contributions, and nuclear is a horrendously bad idea. The hydrogen fantasy is as far fetched as the biofuel fantasy...... At a 60% loss in electrolysis, huge transportation and storage problems, etc.... it can never step into the breach. Coal mining is very destructive, but as an energy source is probably has the most short term potential.
The truth of the matter is that the way of life we have grown to expect as our birthright is over with...... though it will take some years to disappear, and most of us will find what comes along to replace it very much NOT to our taste. We must institute as system of triage..... and prioritize the most important usages of fuel. We must also entirely restructure our economy so that we are again localized, and eliminate most shipping of goods. Trucks must largely disappear from the roads except for short haul, and we must modernize and radically scale up rail transportation. Jetliners must largely disappear from the skies.....with most freight and human transportation being by train and bus. People must become less mobile, living and working and having necessary services available within very short distances of home..... We must step back to an earlier and more sane lifestyle where goods and services are local, products made to last and to be repaired. And most importantly we must reduce population to reduce demand on our decreasing resources.
In th short term, wackos like Clinton and McCain will dominate....... The people want to blame others for our plight..... it's human nature, and demagoguery thrives in this environment. People will seek and find ways to justify in their minds the destruction of nations with the resources we want and need to fuel our economy. We probably WILL "obliterate Iran" and who know what other nations...... It is normal human nature to seek justification to commit crimes against those who stand in your way.......it is not a pretty picture... but in an amoral society based on greed and consumption this is the way things will ultimately go, and there is little you and I can do about it. There is no palatable solution to our difficulties... none at all! The result will be insanity and destruction. And if we come through it, someday some of us will hang our heads in shame and say "what have we wrought?"..... and "what could I have done? Would it have made any difference if I had spoken out?" The fear people felt who were "out of step" during the first 6 years of the Bush Regime was very real...... fear to speak out lest one be attacked as "unpatriotic" or some other nonsense. The same fear people who opposed other dictators, and needless conflicts felt. History repeats itself and our society is on the brink of an orgy of destruction. The pieces are all coming rapidly into place. Unemployed, hungry, and desperate people are on the increase, and are the natural fodder for the war machine.
Howard (painter of a not so pretty picture)
Ron,
I'm not exactly sure what our point is. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I was praising Clinton's "calculated political rhetoric" or "lie" as you prefer to put it.
Nope, I was merely pointing out that it is difficult to treat it as anything other than political posturing.
Look at the context and consider the audience. Clinton was asked this question on ABC's "Good Morning America," not exactly the most serious political venue out there. Who's the audience for a show like this? What kinds of things has this audience been habituated to hear?
Does "Good Morning America" typically favor discussions that are nuanced and technical, or statements that are boldly declarative?
This was a political softball served up to HRC by a network that already displayed considerable favor towards her in the Pennsylvania primary "debate." They floated one out there and she slammed it. Home run! Go, Hillary, go!!
Like I said, the point of these questions is to do your best Dirty Harry impression. McCain, Obama, Clinton: they all do it, but they're all far more interested (generally) in selling the massive arsenal of weapons (new or obsolete) that the military-industrial complex produces than in using them. They all prefer softer use of the great hegemon's force (economic, etc.) to actual employment of our own military technology against other nations since: 1)you reduce the customer base in doing so; and 2)you have to waste all that expensive machinery.
Clinton going with McCain..
I could see this happening only if or when the US attacks Iran and then Clinton could say: boy things are dangerous now we need to join forces blah blah blah.
I think the question on Iran was just set up as another thing to unsettle the Iranians and maybe make the mullahs do something rash.