|
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE |
CONTACT: Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA) |
Will There Be Any Meaningful Foreign Policy Debate?
WASHINGTON - September 26 -
STEPHEN ZUNES Professor
of politics at the University of San Francisco and a contributor to
Foreign Policy in Focus, Zunes said today: "It is ironic that the John
McCain [campaign] has used the financial crisis as an excuse to call
for postponing the foreign policy debate in Oxford, given that the
enormous deficit spending resulting from the Iraq war and related
excesses in military spending which he has supported has so greatly
exacerbated the crisis. There are important issues to be addressed,
such as: Why did McCain falsely claim that Iraq had 'weapons of mass
destruction' in justifying his support for the invasion, when in fact
they had rid themselves of such weapons years earlier? Why, if WMDs
were really the reason as he claimed, didn't he call for the withdrawal
of U.S. forces once it became apparent there weren't any? Why has he
continued to support the U.S. occupation ever since? Why did he claim
that Iran was training Al-Qaeda forces to fight in Iraq when
Al-Qaeda-aligned forces in Iraq are fanatically anti-Iranian and
anti-Shia?
"Early in the primary season, Obama promised not just to end the war in Iraq, but to 'end the mindset that led to the war in Iraq.' More recently, however, Obama's selection of Biden as his running mate and his rather hawkish foreign policy pronouncements have raised concerns as to whether he really is willing to take U.S. foreign policy in the bold new direction most Democratic voters are demanding."
Zunes has written extensively about the foreign policies of both Obama and McCain and plans on doing an annotation of the debate. More Information More Information
ROBERT NAIMAN Naiman is senior policy analyst and national coordinator at Just Foreign Policy, which, along with other groups, is urging debate moderator Jim Lehrer to "ask the candidates what they intend to do to end Israeli settlement expansion in the occupied Palestinian territories, which the U.S. government has long acknowledged is a key stumbling block to peace."
Naiman also notes the group One has stated: "Only two questions about global poverty have been asked in the history of modern presidential debates -- a shockingly low figure. In 2008, voters need to know what Barack Obama and John McCain will do to end the most extreme suffering in our increasingly interconnected world." More Information
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
1 Comment so far
Show AllHere in HI, we never get to post the first comment, due to the time difference. The fact that no comments have been posted here yet is telling. Telling that the rabid Obama-nation may be unwilling to look at his ever more centric foreign policy stance.
As mentioned here before, sometime last spring, I got tired of sitting in my office and complaining about the Democrats' inaction. I raised the $ for my ticket from fourteen supporters from as far away as Switzerland and went to Denver to protest with CODEPINK.
On my way there, I was committed to voting for Greens, as his stands for war and FISA had disqualified Obama from the Constitution-support I need in a president (Dennis, come home!). While there, it became increasingly clear that there are really only two possibilities for who will occupy the White House next. In that context, Obama has my vote.
Now, with the addition of Quaylin to the McBush equation, his chances have effectively shrunk to "icecube in Hades" in my book. So, I am now again free to vote my conscience, as I was educated to do. Greens, here I come!