Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The 2008 Democratic Party Platform and the Middle East
The excitement over the nomination of Barack Obama as the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party has been tempered by some key foreign policy planks in the 2008 platform, particularly those relating to the greater Middle East region. These positions appear to run counter to Obama's pledge early in the primary race to end the mindset that led to the Iraq War.
At the same time, substantial improvements in some foreign policy planks of the 2004 platform indicate at least modest successes by progressive Democratic activists in challenging the more hawkish proclivities of the party's traditional leadership.
Among the positive aspects of the platform is a commitment to take concrete steps towards nuclear arms control and eventual disarmament. These include ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, strengthening the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and recognizing U.S. obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
The platform also contains new commitments to sustainable development in the Global South and treating Latin American nations as "full partners" with "mutual respect." There is also a call to develop a civilian capacity to promote global stability and improve emergency response by creating a Civilian Assistance Corps of skilled experts to provide aid in international emergencies. And the platform pledges to rebuild international alliances, partnerships, and institutions so badly damaged by the arrogant unilateralism of the Bush administration.
Regarding the greater Middle East, however, the Democrats don't appear to have yet learned the lessons of the past 40 years: that the more the United States militarizes the region, the less secure we become. Indeed, while rebuking some of the excesses of the Bush administration, the platform in some areas appears to be taking the country down the same dangerous path.
Iraq
In 2004, the Democratic Party platform supported the ongoing Iraq War and occupation. Its only criticism of Bush policy was that the administration did not send enough troops or adequately equip them. With the defeat in the primaries and caucuses of Hillary Clinton and others who voted to authorize the Iraq invasion, the Democratic Party - with a standard-bearer who had forcefully opposed the invasion at the outset - might be expected to have adopted a strong antiwar plank. And, indeed, this year's platform calls for the redeployment of U.S. combat brigades by the middle of 2010.
Still, however, the 2008 platform endorses an ongoing U.S. military role in that violent oil-rich nation. It calls for an unspecified number of U.S. troops to remain as a "residual force" for such "specific missions" as "targeting terrorists; protecting our embassy and civil personnel; and advising and supporting Iraq's Security Forces, provided the Iraqis make political progress."
A troubling aspect to these exceptions is the vagueness of the language. Given that the Bush administration has referred to all Iraqi insurgents fighting U.S. forces as "terrorists," it raises questions as to what degree U.S. military operations and the number of troops to sustain them will actually be reduced. In addition, the U.S. "embassy" - the largest complex of its kind in the world, taking up a bigger area than Vatican City and situated in the heart of Baghdad - requires a substantial military force to adequately defend. And the number of "civil personnel" in the country is in the tens of thousands and would presumably require many thousands of troops to protect them. It is also unclear what kind of "support" is required for Iraqi Security Forces, which have thus far shown little ability to engage in major military operations without substantial U.S. personnel involved.
The platform also fails to mention that the invasion was an illegal war of aggression in violation of the UN Charter, the U.S. constitution and the most fundamental principles of international law, raising concerns as to whether the Democratic Party is willing to renounce the Bush Doctrine of "preventative war." Indeed, the platform insists that the United States "must also be willing to consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense."
Another concern is that rather than calling for bringing the troops home to their families following their withdrawal from Iraq, the platform insists that they will instead be redeployed on unspecified "urgent missions." Given that, despite the withdrawal of most U.S. forces from Iraq, the Democratic Party platform also calls for increasing the armed forces by nearly 100,000 troops and dramatically increasing the already-bloated military budget, it is quite troubling to consider what future battlefronts the Democrats will deem as "urgent."
On a positive note, the platform recognizes the humanitarian crisis created by the U.S. invasion and occupation. It calls for the United States to provide "generous assistance to Iraqi refugees and internally displaced persons." In addition, recognizing that diplomacy is "the only path to a sustainable peace," the platform declares that the United States should "launch a comprehensive regional and international diplomatic surge to help broker a lasting political settlement in Iraq," though there are some questions as to whether, even under a Democratic administration, the United States still has the credibility to lead such an effort. Importantly, the platform also declares that "we seek no permanent bases in Iraq."
Afghanistan
Even as it promises a de-escalation of the war in Iraq, the Democratic platform proposes to escalate the war in Afghanistan by sending "at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan, and use this commitment to seek greater contributions - with fewer restrictions - from our NATO allies." Even assuming that the threat the Taliban poses to Afghanistan and the threat al-Qaeda poses to the United States and other countries require military responses, there is little evidence that sending additional combat brigades to Afghanistan will improve a situation that is deteriorating - not because of the lack of adequate U.S. war-making capability but in part in reaction to it.
Recognizing that the current emphasis on conventional army forces and airpower is inadequate, the platform does call on the United States to place greater emphasis on "special forces and intelligence capacity, training, equipping and advising Afghan security forces, building Afghan governmental capacity, and promoting the rule of law." It also calls for increasing economic assistance to the Afghan people, grass roots economic development, support for education, investing in alternatives to poppy-growing for Afghan farmers, and cracking down on drug trafficking and corruption.
The platform also recognizes the danger posed by al-Qaeda's sanctuary in the tribal regions of Pakistan and criticizes the Bush administration's support for the Pakistani dictator recently forced from power.
Yet there is no indication in the platform that the Democratic Party recognizes what may be the most critical policy shift needed in Afghanistan: to cultivate stronger ties to more moderate, responsible, and democratic leaders within the national and regional governments, and end the Bush administration's counterproductive policies of backing warlords and other criminal elements simply because they are willing to oppose the Taliban.
Combating Terrorism
While warning that there must be "no safe haven for those who plot to kill Americans," the platform also calls for a "comprehensive strategy to defeat global terrorists" that "draws on the full range of American power, including but not limited to our military might." In an implied rejection of the unilateral approach of the Republican administration, the Democratic platform calls for "a more effective global response to terrorism" [emphasis added] and enhanced counter-terrorism cooperation with countries around the world.
Recognizing the need to empower the vast majority of Muslims who "believe in a future of peace, tolerance, development, and democratization," the platform recognizes how "America must live up to our values, respect civil liberties, reject torture, and lead by example." The platform calls for the United States "to export hope and opportunity - access to education that opens minds to tolerance, not extremism; secure food and water supplies; and health care, trade, capital, and investment." The platform also pledges the Democratic Party will "provide steady support for political reformers, democratic institutions, and civil society that is necessary to uphold human rights and build respect for the rule of law." However, given the extreme anti-Americanism that has grown in Islamic countries in recent years, overt backing of opposition elements could in some cases backfire and be used to discredit indigenous movements for human rights and democracy.
Israel and Palestine
Though the Middle East is awash in arms, the Democratic Party platform endorses President Bush's memorandum pledging an additional unconditional $30 billion in U.S. military aid to Israel. The platform thereby rejects calls by human rights activists that military assistance to foreign governments be made conditional on their compliance with international humanitarian law and outstanding UN Security Council resolutions. U.S.-supplied Israeli weapons and ordnance have killed thousands of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians in recent decades, and Israel continues to violate a series of UN Security Council resolutions regarding its illegal settlements, its nuclear program, its annexation of greater East Jerusalem, and other policies.
Though strategic parity has long been considered the most peaceful and secure relationship between traditional antagonists, the Democrats instead call upon the United States "to ensure that Israel retains a qualitative edge" in military capabilities. As such, the platform implies that the principal U.S. concern isn't Israeli security but the expansion of the U.S. ally's hegemonic role in the region. Indeed, the platform doesn't call for a reduction in the large-scale U.S. arms transfers to Arab governments historically hostile to Israel, a logical step if the Democrats actually were concerned about that country's security.
The Democratic Party platform does support the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, which reverses the categorical rejection of Palestinian statehood that the party maintained as recently as 16 years ago. Yet the platform calls only for compromises from the Palestinian side in order to make such a two-state solution possible. Even though the Palestinians have already unilaterally recognized Israeli sovereignty over 78% of historic Palestine and are demanding statehood only on the remaining 22%, the Democratic platform dismisses as "unrealistic" any obligation for Israel to completely withdraw from lands seized in its 1967 conquests. It also denies the right of return to Palestinian refugees, insisting that they should instead only be permitted to relocate to a truncated Palestinian state that Israel might allow to be created some time in the future. While the Palestinians may indeed be open to minor and reciprocal adjustments of the pre-1967 borders and would likely offer a concession on the right of return, the Democratic platform unfortunately demands specific compromises by those under occupation while making no specific demands for compromises by the occupier.
Similarly, the Democratic platform appears to endorse the Bush administration's racist double standards regarding Israel and Palestine. It pledges to "continue to isolate Hamas until it renounces terrorism, recognizes Israel's right to exist, and abides by past agreements" while failing to call for isolating Likud and other extremist Israeli parties that similarly fail to renounce attacks against civilians, recognize Palestine's right to exist, and abide by past agreements. Similarly, the platform insists that "Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel" without mentioning the possibility of it becoming the capital of an independent Palestine.
Still, this one-sided party platform - which appears to be more closely aligned with Israel's center-right than more progressive Israelis - seems at odds with the increasingly balanced perspective of Democratic voters. Party supporters are beginning to recognize the interrelatedness of Israeli security and Palestinian rights as well as the platform's stated goal for the United States "to lead the effort to build the road to a secure and lasting peace."
Human Rights
The platform takes what appears to be a strong stand in support of human rights and freedom, arguing that the United States must be "a relentless advocate for democracy" and a steadfast opponent of repressive regimes. Promoting democracy became a key rationalization in the bipartisan call for the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Ironically, however, the platform only mentions by name autocratic governments over which the United States has relatively little influence. For example, the platform states, "We will stand up for oppressed people from Cuba to North Korea and from Burma to Zimbabwe and Sudan." Meanwhile, the platform fails to mention any allied autocracies over which the United States could potentially have far more significant influence. It says nothing about standing up for oppressed people from Saudi Arabia to Equatorial Guinea and from Brunei to Egypt and Azerbaijan, whose governments all receive U.S. aid and diplomatic support.
Like the Bush administration, the Democrats seem to believe that defending freedom is not important if your government is deemed to be a U.S. ally. (Ironically, the platform criticizes the U.N. Human Rights Council for being "biased and ineffective.")
Regarding Cuba, the Democratic platform insists that the United States "will be prepared to take steps to begin normalizing relations" only if that socialist country "takes significant steps toward democracy, beginning with the unconditional release of all political prisoners." However, the platform makes no demands for the release of the tens of thousands of political prisoners held by allied dictatorships. Nor does it call for withholding normal relations or even suspending military aid or police training and assistance to regimes pending "significant steps toward democracy." What appears to most bother the Democrats, then, is not Cuba's authoritarianism, but its socialism.
Similarly, while the platform demands that "Russia abide by international law and respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of its neighbors," it says nothing in regard to such obligations regarding U.S. allies Morocco and Israel - over which the United States has far more leverage - which are engaged in illegal military occupations of neighboring countries.
When prominent Democrats do criticize human rights abuses by allied governments, the party leadership attempts to silence them. For example, in what was perhaps the most dramatic repudiation ever of a former president by his own party at a national convention, the Democrats marginalized Jimmy Carter in apparent retaliation for his outspoken support for Palestinian human rights. They limited his appearance in Denver to a videotaped segment speaking in praise of Barack Obama and interviewing survivors of Hurricane Katrina. (Some of Obama's aides have falsely accused Carter of referring to Israel as an apartheid state, when he in fact had explicitly stated he was referring only to the Israeli-occupied West Bank, where the establishment of Jewish-only roads, Jewish-only settlements, and other strict segregation policies do indeed resemble the old South African system.)
Iran
Though scores of countries currently possess nuclear power plants and nuclear reprocessing facilities, the Democratic Party platform singles out Iran by insisting that it alone be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons. Though calling for "aggressive, principled, and direct high-level diplomacy, without preconditions" with the Islamic republic, the platform also calls for tougher sanctions against that country. Curiously, the platform demands that Iran abandon its "nuclear weapons program" even though the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the most recent U.S. National Security Estimate recognize that Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapons program. Nor does the platform mention the already-existing nuclear weapons and long-range delivery systems of India, Israel or Pakistan. It fails to even mention proposals for a nuclear weapons-free zone for the region - such as those already in effect for Africa, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, the South Pacific, and Latin America. As such, the platform is in apparent agreement with the Bush administration's position that the United States, not international treaties based on principles of universality and reciprocity, should determine which countries can and cannot have nuclear weapons.
The platform also demands that Iran end its "threats to Israel," but does not call on Israel to end its even more explicit threats against Iran. Failure to accept such demands, according to the platform, will result in "sustained action to isolate the Iranian regime." Furthermore, despite years of U.S. refusal to even negotiate with Iranian officials, the Democrats insist that "it is Iran, not the United States, choosing isolation over cooperation."
Toward a More Progressive Platform
Though many aspects of the 2008 Democratic Party platform's language regarding the Middle East and related issues are well to the right of most Democrats, delegates at the national convention in Denver could do little about it. In 1968, despite the successful efforts by party bosses to hand the presidential nomination to Vice President Hubert Humphrey instead of the more popular antiwar candidates, the convention at least allowed debate and discussion of minority planks by liberal opponents to hawkish aspects of the party platform. This time around, however, the leadership allowed no such challenges from the floor.
This silencing of the Democratic Party's progressive wing comes despite its critically important support of Barack Obama for the party's presidential nominee. Furthermore, based on a series of foreign policy statements related to the Middle East and other policy areas prior to becoming a serious contender for the nomination, Obama himself may be somewhat to the left of the platform on a number of issues. The Democratic Party establishment, powerful military and economic interests, and an apparent fear of right-wing attacks have all apparently forced Obama to abandon some of his more principled foreign policy positions.
With a few conscientious exceptions, Democratic Party leaders have rarely led. They have usually been forced to adopt more progressive policies as a result of pressure from the grass roots of the party. For example, the Democratic Party in 1968 had a platform supporting the war in Vietnam War and a pro-war nominee. By the next presidential election in 1972, the Democratic Party had a strong antiwar platform and an outspoken antiwar nominee in Senator George McGovern, which helped force the Nixon administration to sign a peace treaty by January of the following year. The four years in between saw massive antiwar mobilizations with hundreds of thousands of people protesting in Washington, DC, and elsewhere, as well as large-scale civil disobedience campaigns, widespread draft resistance, and other forms of opposition.
Other examples include the Nuclear Freeze campaign's success in pushing the party to support major arms-control treaties, the anti-apartheid movement's successful campaign to get the party to support sanctions against South Africa, the Central America solidarity movement's eventual victory in forcing the party to challenge the Reagan administration's support for the Nicaraguan Contras and the Salvadoran junta, and supporters of self-determination for East Timor forcing a reluctant Clinton administration to a cut off military aid and training for the armed forces in Indonesia.
Grassroots pressure has already helped shift the foreign policy positions of leading Democrats in this decade. Indeed, every single candidate for the Democratic Party presidential nomination in 2008 advocated more progressive positions on Iraq, Iran, international trade, nuclear weapons, climate change, and a number of other foreign policy issues than did the 2004 presidential nominee John Kerry, who was then considered one of the more liberal members of the U.S. Senate. As such, although aspects of this year's Democratic platform fall short on the Middle East and some other foreign policy issues, an engaged activist community can ensure that a better platform will emerge by the next elections.
- Posted in
60 Comments so far
Show AllThis is serious bs:
....Obama himself may be somewhat to the left of the platform on a number of issues. The Democratic Party establishment, powerful military and economic interests, and an apparent fear of right-wing attacks have all apparently forced Obama to abandon some of his more principled foreign policy positions.
-----------------
The Democratic Party "forced" Obama into moving to the right and abandon his principles. Well the other side of the coin is, maybe Obama never had those progressive principles and had put on a mask to fool us progressives and now that he has confirmed his candidacy he is going back to being what he does best - standing up for the status quo while he fools others into believing he's a change candidate. Stephen Zunes should know better than reducing himself to becoming an apologist for Obama and the spineless Democrats!
Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind - RWE
Senator Obama has ALWAYS been a centrist. Always will be. I was reading about him (not just BY him) when he spoke at the Convention in 2004. When he became this "household saint" , I was , frankly, puzzled. I guess I thought that the Dems were afraid to run Hillary (the Right), thought Edwards was "too angry" (anyone who's not is not paying attention!), and knew Kucinich did not have a chance. I kept listening to him--and I began to believe that he was "leaving moderation behind" adn becoming the conservative he is today. That is how we find him now. Without motivation, he has no reason to budge. And, I think his core beliefs are truly moderate-conservative. Always has been Always will be.
Quoting from the following article by Patrick Martin, entitled "McCain Launches Fall Campaign as Obama Embraces Iraq 'Surge'” --
"The most important factor propping up both the Bush administration and the Republican presidential campaign is the complicity and cowardice of the Democratic Party. McCain’s claim to be leading an insurgency against the government of his own party is undoubtedly preposterous, but he is able to adopt this posture with at least a fig leaf of credibility because the Democratic Party does not fulfill the role of an 'opposition' party in any serious sense.
"Obama’s performance Thursday on Fox television’s 'The O’Reilly Factor' was a case in point. After winning the Democratic nomination in large measure because of his purported opposition to the war in Iraq, Obama has sought repeatedly to demonstrate to the US political establishment that he can be a credible commander in chief for American imperialism.
"He told O’Reilly that he 'absolutely' believed that the United States was engaged in a worldwide war against terrorism, including not only Al Qaeda and the Taliban, but 'a whole host of networks that are bent on attacking America who have a distorted ideology.'
"Obama described Iran as a 'major threat,' and said it would be 'unacceptable' to an Obama administration for Iran to possess nuclear weapons. 'It would be a game-changer,' he said, adding, 'I would never take a military option off the table.' He called for a more aggressive military posture towards Pakistan, the day after a major US military strike within that country.
"But his starkest reversal came on Iraq, as O’Reilly pressed him to admit that the Bush administration’s troop 'surge,' the escalation of the war by the addition of some 30,000 US combat troops, had been a success. Obama has sought to dance around the issue for months, but he finally embraced the surge emphatically on Thursday.
"'I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,' he said, adding, 'It’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.' This demonstrates not only Obama’s cringing submission to the pressure of the right wing, but a staggering degree of political blindness. Like Bush, Cheney, McCain and the rest of official Washington, Obama truly believes that US imperialism can, by military force alone, impose its will on the world. His only disagreement is with the Bush administration’s obsessive focus on Iraq, which Obama and many other spokesmen for the military and foreign policy establishment believe has undermined US interests in other parts of the globe.
"The Democratic Party is a capitalist party that defends the same social interests as the Republicans—the massive fortunes of the superrich financial aristocracy which is the real ruling force in American society. The Democrats play a specific role in the political division of labor: while the Republicans consistently and unabashedly uphold the rights of the wealthy, the Democrats pretend to represent working people, while ensuring that there is no challenge from below to the profit system.
"This division of labor explains the half-hearted and spineless performance of the Democrats in the current presidential campaign. Obama, Biden & Co. are at pains to demonstrate that they will make no appeal to mass discontent that goes beyond what is acceptable to the ruling elite. The Democrats offer their services to the financial oligarchy to win at least a certain degree of mass support for the reactionary program that both parties fundamentally share."
Click here for the entire article -- http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/mcca-s06.shtml
.
VOTE NADER 2008 !!!!!!
End this war
Bring the troops home
.
Aughh!!!! Sure there are similarities between McCain and Obama, but there are HUGE DIFFERENCES! Environment! Education! Healthcare! Support for the middle class! The Republicans can only cheat if it's a close election! Ironically, the corporate media makes more money (better ratings) if it's a close election. It is in the McCain campaign's interest to neutralize the progressive vote, and if you vote Nader, consider yourself neutralized. (unless you are trying to build a new political party in a district that is solidly Democratic)
We have a fascist oligarchy in the USA now, and the only way for any candidate to get elected is to court the corporate money. The question is: which corporations? I know this sucks, but denying it doesn't improve the situation. There are some corporations out there whose interests actually still serve the public good. Vote with your dollars and commit to actively informing yourself.
The global "war on terror" is a catch-phrase for police action, just like the "war on drugs." It is entrenched in the public consciousness. If you see through it, pat yourself on the back, but have compassion for those whose political/social awareness is not up to the task, and realize "they" vote too.
The only solution I see to Al-Queda is make them into a political party. I believe the only reason they resort to criminal behavior is that they have nothing to lose. Give them some political capital, and they will cease to be terrorists. Argue with me all you want on this, but history has proven this true. We have given them their top demand (vacating Saudi Arabia) already, in case anyone hasn't noticed.
I am as anti-war as they come, but the reality of Iraq and Afghanistan is: the wars are already over, and we won. Their military forces were destroyed, governments toppled, and capitols occupied. What we have now is occupation, and the "pottery barn" rule is real. To cut funding for our troops is to let them starve or run out of resources to defend themselves, and they didn't ask to be there. And to immediately bring them home is abandon these places to the strongest despot.
Of course the surge worked. The war on Iraq was a criminal act against the world, but not sending in enough troops in the first place was a criminal act against our citizens. I played table-top wargames in high school, and from that pathetically limited experience, even *I* know that it takes boots on the ground to win in land combat. What further disgusts me is that Condoleezza Rice was pitching for the surge when the insurgency first reared its ugly head, and was ignored (see the PBS Frontline special, "Endgame".) And when it was finally implemented, General Petraeus gets the credit. Now there's some racism *and* sexism. (not that I am any big fan of Ms Rice either)
Single-payer health care is the only way to go. My argument is this: the free-market is basically the law of the jungle, survival of the fittest. The weak and sick should be thrown to the predators for the greater health of the pack. Medicine, however, runs completely contrary to the law of the jungle. We care for our sick, weak, & elderly. To allow for-profit medicine is just a form of corporate welfare, a handout.
OK, I am all over the place, but one more meme: capitalism is ultimately doomed. Not by socialism, or communism, but by reality. Either we colonize space, and the relatively unlimited resources destroy our stock markets (example: what would finding a 3 million ton diamond due to the diamond market?) Or, we stay on the planet and hit the limit of growth caused by finite resources (land, food, water, air.) My understanding of capitalism is that growth is an essential part of the formula. So what next people?
"Freewill and proof of the existence of God cannot co-exist in the same Universe"
"All that is, is metaphor"
Both parties are under the domination of super wealthy Jews who have the financial power to RUIN anyone seeking public office who does not conform to their wishes. HOWEVER, it is in the interest of the United States to ABANDON the Polish and Russian Ashkenazi Khazars who make up most of the population of Israel.
It is time for AMERICA FIRST.
Your use of the word "Jews" is inappropriate in this context.
Please use the term "Zionists."
q
I agree - Right wing european zionists claim to be Jews but have understandably abandoned Jewish values.
biwee:
You are an historically ignorant, bigot fascist, who spreads misinformation and hate, to justify your Nationalist myopia.
Your Klu Klux Klan rant of "Polish and Russian Ashkenazi Khazars who make up most of the population of Israel." is the fantasy of fools, who don't know the difference between Tatars, Mongols, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Sunnis, Shiites, Baathists, Zoroastrians, or Bush's ass from your own moldy, brain.
Why don't you burn a swastika on your forehead, pluck out your eyes and bury your ignorance and congenital stupidity in the pigshit of your existence.
CD is becoming the de facto anti-semite purgatory of Nationalistic hate.
What a pitiful waste of freedom.
What liberals want us to believe is to believe in them - that once Obama is elected, they will "push him to the left." There are several serious flaws in this kind of a thinking:
1. Liberal Democrats (including types like Zunes) have not given anyone any reason to believe in them, in 2004, they abandoned the anti-war movement to support Kerry. And then for four years, they championed working with the Democrats. The war continued - and even after they won the house and to a lesser extent, the senate, they barely pushed for anything. And voted for more $$$ and more $$$$ for more war. Meanwhile they killed the anti-war movement.
2. Liberal Democrats have a problem with plain logic, they list all the rotten things about Obama - and then say, vote for Obama. Any logic 101 will explain that rotten things = do not vote for Obama.
3. Liberal Democrats do not understand, or deliberately hide the basics of building power. Once you've elected someone based on a lousy platform, you've lost power. You gain power by holding your vote until the candidate changes their position.
4. Republicans understand #3 very well, they held off on supporting McCain until he gave them what they wanted: Palin.
5. Liberal Democrats, if they are really interested in the issues they claim to care about, need to learn from the Republicans on how to really push their candidate. Not by promising to vote for her/him - but by promising NOT to vote for him/her until they change their ways.
http://almusawwir.org/resistance/
What is truly flawed is your analysis. You make the mistake of assuming that Democrats behave and believe as republicans do but on different principles.
What gives the republicans their strength is their uniformity of beliefs, their dedication to the principle that the needs of the business community are incompatible with the needs of individual citizens and therefore must always take precedence over the latter. The fundamental psychological characteristic of republicans is a lack of faith in people and its resultant selfishness.
Democrats have no such single, unifying principle. Instead, the Dems are basically all of those folks who don't accept the republican value system. The republicans are homogenous, the Democrats heterogenous. Democrats generally come to power after the republicans have made life worse for everybody else (1960 being an exception), convincing that huge section of the electorate in the middle of the bell curve to look elsewhere for leadership. FDR, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton all reached the White House due to such reactions to failed republican policies; Obama is trying to follow suit.
Accordingly, your analysis falls apart on points 2 through 5 (3 and 4 are the same). The Dems and the people now supporting them do not all agree on what they want; they are being driven together in this election cycle by what they don't want: another disastrous republican administration. If the Democrats ever did cohere in the same way as republicans then they'd be republicans.
BTW, the antiwar movement is not dead.
q
"You make the mistake of assuming that Democrats behave and believe as republicans do but on different principles."
No, I did not make the assumption. I assume that the Republicans have principles (lousy ones) and Democrats have *no* principles (not even lousy ones). This is why they can support people like pro war Obama while at the same time claim to be against the war. No principled individual would do that... And it is because of prinicples that the Republicans got McCain to get Palin on the ticket. It is the utter lack of principles that allows Democrats to present a pathetic fool like Biden as a "change" when the guy has been part of the establishment for decades.
And because the liberal Democrats have no principles, that is why they cannot be relied upon to push anyone they elect anywhere to the left, and so that rational of "elect Obama, and we'll push him left" falls flat on its face. If the liberals had the ability, and principles to do that, they'd have done it by now.
An Antiwar movement that allies itself with the Democratic Party is not an antiwar movement - it is a facade to attract people who don't want the war to vote Democrat.
There are groups like ANSWER, but they have been deliberately marginalized by the fraudulent antiwar pro-Democratic Party groups. And further, real anti-war warriors such as Nader and McKinney have been even more marginalized by the pro-Democratic Party liberals. Yes, the liberal Democrats killed the anti-war movement for the sake of electing Democrats.
http://almusawwir.org/resistance/
Now you're just full of shit.
"It is the utter lack of principles that allows Democrats to present a pathetic fool like Biden as a "change" when the guy has been part of the establishment for decades."
Excuse me, but who was that old white fool accepting the republican nomination for president last night while claiming to be an agent of change?
It has been the republicans far more than the Democrats who have conducted a systematic abandonment of the Consitutional principles which are supposed to be the basis of our governemnt.
Nader, McKinney, Kucinich, Gravel, Paul, and other reformists have been marginalized by a co-opted corporate media, the same media which has blacked out stories about the suppression of the press in Minneapolis.
Claiming that Democrats have "no principles" reveals you for what you are: another mindless Rove-Limbaugh troll sent to trash Obama on this site by posing as a left-wing purist.
q
Yes, right - when Obama supporter liberal Democrats get a serious dose of reality, they go back to the same 'ol - same 'ol crap that those who criticize obama must be trolls.
It was the principals (lousy ones) of the Republican base that got McCain to get Palin on the ticket. No such effort was made by the liberal unprincipled Democratic party base. No effort has been made to tell Obama that unless he abndons his pro-war stance, the liberals will hold the vote.
I campaigned for Nader four years ago - of-course the media blacked him out, but it was the liberal Democrats who truly shut him out, and forced him into lawsuit after lawsuits in order to get his name on the ballot. It is the liberal Democrats who yelled and abused those who stood on street corners trying to get the signatures to get Nader on the ballot.
You can live in your little fairy land of Democratic Party - and not recognize the utter duplicity of your party that has killed anti-war movements in order to elect a pro-war kerry in 2004, and now a pro-war Obama.
http://almusawwir.org/resistance/
Your only mistake, frankly, is in the assumption that the Democratic Party is uniformly as you state it to be, it is far from that. I do not attempt to defend that party, only to explain why you are getting raked over the coals by a democratic zealot. The Party is a rather splintered lot these days, and the control thereof lies with the DLC conservatives. It was William Clinton who raised the DLC to a position of authority and charged them with narrowing the gap in corporate contributions, a task they have succeeded in rather well in fact.
The Democratic Party, of which I was a forty year member, was once known as the "big tent" party, primarily because it contained so many of differing views. However those views have been forced into alignment in order to please the aforementioned corporate contributors. While there are still a number of liberal loyalists still remaining democrats they have simply failed to understand the change in the direction of the leadership that betrays them all.
Votenader.org
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Your only misstep is to assume that I'm a Democrat. I'm not.
It is completely dishonest to complain about Democratic accommodations while ignoring the fact the the primary agent of evil in US politics is the republican party.
Bitch about the Dems all you want; I do. But don't try to lay the blame for the disastrous policies of the Bush administration at their doorstep and let the republicans off of the hook.
q
"Bitch about the Dems all you want; I do. But don't try to lay the blame for the disastrous policies of the Bush administration at their doorstep and let the republicans off of the hook"
Nobody is trying to let the Republicans off the hook. It goes without saying that they have been the engineers of the disasterous policies of the last eight years. However the Republicans are not the ones on this board trying to get us to vote against our own best interests by voting for the Democratic enablers of those same disasterous Republican policies.
Lobo Gris
Dratted double....
I can't believe you are saying these things. If the Democrats had principles they wouldn't be going along with illegal, brutal wars that have killed over a million innocent people - mostly children. What is it about principles you don't understand?
Killing innocents is evil. You should always turn your back on those who support it, period.
You are operating on the assumption that the only valid principles are those with which you agree.
You want to excoriate the Democrats for "going along with" the activities which you claim to abhor but say nothing about the republicans who are and have been the primary driving force behind the atrocities commited over the past eight years.
I agree that the folks leading the Democratic party these days are repellent in their willingness to accommodate the insidious republican policies that have brought and will continue to bring so much misery on people all over the world. I've decided to vote for Cynthia McKinney (I live in Georgia so a vote for Obama would be just as pointless) for president.
But as bad as the Dems may be, the republicans are always worse.
q
amen!
Get out of the box. The president doesn't decide foreign policy. The Congress doesn't decide foreign policy. The American people don't decide foreign policy. America's foreign policy is decided by the economic needs of our corporations. In order to survive, our government has to keep corporations thriving. The corporations have taken over the "White man's burden". And to stay alive they will do what men do best. They will fight. They have made the world into a huge boxing ring. Corporate America needs to return the stolen Constitution to it's rightful owners. It's the world's only hope.
Hoa binh
since 1492 - I agree - concise and to the point.
Zunes manages a long analysis' journey into a very dubious conclusion: "although aspects of this year's Democratic platform fall short on the Middle East and some other foreign policy issues, an engaged activist community can ensure that a better platform will emerge by the next elections." Yes, an engaged activist community" can have that effect, but will this happen? Based on that "community's" engagement in every recent election, especially the 2008 one, it appears that it is dis-engaged from the promotion of any genuinely progressive action and fully engaged in the election of a President and a party which is capable of perpetrating the kind of flawed Middle East policy that Zunes describes so skillfully. MoveOn has shown for all to see how its forces can become engaged as an appendage of the Obama campaign, certainly nothing resembling a force in "pressuring" him or the party toward some "better" policies. Those candidates and parties that do "engage" imperialism in the Middle East and elsewhere---like Greens, Libertarians, McKinney and Nader --- are marginalized and condemned by other "progressives" in their zeal to support the "lesser evil" party and candidate. If nothing really changed between 2004 and 2008 (beyond some cosmetic "improvements" cited by Zunes) , how is it going to change in 2012 and beyond? Or is the word "better" in the quoted Zunes statement an indication of the expectation that they will have to swallow the considerably less-than-half-a-glass of improvements that the DLC powers will allow in order to harvest their votes?
Excellent reply.
The only way to bring the Democrats around is to NOT VOTE FOR THEM. The reason they have moved so far to the right - Nixon would be a lefty in today's political world! - is because progressives are in their pockets, every election. No challenge, hardly a discouraging word (might spoil the Dems chances). We're boiling like frogs.
We need to show our collective strength, not whimper along with the sold out, fascists.
The wars are illegal, folks. And they are killing millions innocent people. Why are progressives supporting this canidate? He's no better than McCain, so what's there to lose?
Don't say that McCain is soooo much worse. It's simply not true. Sorry. Howard Zinn said recently that McCain is only slightly to the right of Obama. SLIGHTLY! and that was before Obama voted to let telecoms off the hook for illegal spying on us, and before Obama's AIPAC speech, and his promise to increase the military budget and increase troops in Afghanistan. Where in the world do you draw the line?
If this isn't our moment, then our moment will never come. Why are progressives throwing away this moment to be heard loud and clear? Every four years you support these war mongers and tricksters.
Those of you who are protesting the RNC and not the DNC gave the empire the message, again --- We will vote for any Democrat. No problem. Count on us. Killing of innocents? A, umm, John McCain is slightly worse, um, we think. not too sure anymore, but it doesn't matter! We want a Democrat. End of subject.
"If this isn't our moment, then our moment will never come."
You're wrong. Start organizing for 2012 and beyond. The US electorate needs educating and you're too impatient.
The current mess started to develop with Reagan's election in 1980. Getting out of it will take about as long.
Right now, Americans are like a drug addict who has lost control of his life but still hasn't hit bottom. McCain is the pusher.
Also, in this climate, not voting for Democrats is the same as voting for the republicans.
q
Well stated, and glad to see you back on CD, Mr. Rose!
PS: Your name has been popping up in teeny-tiny print in footnotes and author's acknowledgements in some of my recent reading. Impressive!
An excellent analysis by Mr Zunes.
On top of that, a platform is just a statement of principles and policies, and does not necessarily mean that the stated policies would be implemented. A platform is just a platform, as ‘the Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper.’
I wish the US would give up the farcical and hilarious puffery of claiming to be the moral authority in the world. The US officials constantly utter words such as freedom, democracy, and human rights as a front. Today the US is better known by Abu Ghraib, renditions, tortures, murders and crimes against humanity, not to mention spying against it own people and curtailing their freedom of speech.
Thanks to Mr Bush and the Republicans, and to a less degree the Democrats, the cover has been blown wide open. Once peoples’ trust is lost, it would be hard to get it back.
"I wish the US would give up the farcical and hilarious puffery of claiming to be the moral authority in the world."
Yes, I wish so too. Unfortunately, ever since the time of the crusades, the conquering powers of the West have always claimed such moral authority as you describe. The warring factions in the Middle East have done the same, from Suleiman to Bin Laden.
Whether in the name of Christianity, Islam, or Judaism, leaders can find easy justification for their conquests in the narrow-minded interpretations of religious principles.
q
When Obama said, in his acceptance speech ( I think--they all run together), that "the world is waitg to follow American world leaderhsip again" (ad libbing here), I was thinking, "They are? Well, they had better get over it!" If that mantle has been fading for awhile, Dubya dealt the final death blow! I dont care--I was wondering, years ago, when we weregoing to stop telling yone what to do, adn kicking their as if they disagreed.Who want to be the "worlds only superpower"?? Not me!It should be a multi-polar world, or, one world.
quickstepper - Other than Iraq, do you know of any middle east country ( even with their goofy borders ) invading another middle east country? Are Muslims as violent as portrayed by the west?
". . . do you know of any middle east (sic) country ( even with their goofy borders ) invading another middle east country?"
Yes. Israel has invaded Lebanon and Turkey has invaded northern Iraq.
q
Screwed up question. Meant to say Middle East Muslim countries.
Excellent comments.
We have two choices now.
1. Vote for the Democrat lesser evil.
2. Incorporate We the People and take back our power from the corporations that stole it.
The rest is wishful thinking.
The only problem is that choice one is pretty much exactly the same thing as electing a Republican.
What's going to be funny is if Bush agrees to a total withdrawal by 2011 with the puppet Iraqi gov, while Obama and the Democrats are still pushing the idea of keeping 70,000 troops permenantly in Iraq. Its really quite possible that to get the quickest withdrawal from Iraq, you might have to vote Republican.
The notion that a vote for the Democrats does anything to take back power from the corporations is ludicrously funny. And in complete denial of everything the Democratic party has actually done in the last 20 years.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
For how many more decades will you be using this line? the Repubicans are sliding to the right. The Democrats are waxing their slide. The Democrat Party is further to the right of Republicans in the 60s-70s.
It's time to dig in your heels. If you don't, who will?
VOTE NADER, or else please don't vote at all. Don't waste your vote on a Dem/repub.
What jumps out at me about the platform is the section headed "Defeating Al Qaeda and Combating Terrorism". How do you defeat AQ? It's not like they're a country that can send diplomats to sign a surrender agreement. Even if Osama bin Laden turned himself in today, the IDEAS that he spread would still be inspiring people all over the world to take violent actions against the US.
Terrorism is an idea and there is no way to verify that you have defeated an idea.
That Obama and the Democrats are suggesting something as absurd and hopeless as "winning" a "war" on "terrorism" leads one to only two possible conclusions:
1) They are stupid.
2) They think WE are stupid and will believe this inane drivel.
In either case, they don't get my vote.
Is he joking?
He lays out a list of reasons to never vote for another Democrat, and then says "Hey, look they're not that bad, they want to kill people, but with kinder rhetoric! Maybe after we elect them, and spend years begging them, their hearts will warm over, and they'll stop treating us like peasants!"
Our only hope and choice is to let Ralph Nader in on the debates so that we will
finally know the truth. Anything less will lead to the destruction of the Democratic party again for another eight years. If the die hard, political
patronage democrats, who feed at the public trough, are afraid of Nader, so be it.
Who else will tell us? Obama has changed his mind to often and voted for to many
of Bush's proposals. Isn't it time for a showdown with Obama and his advisers?
It will not happen you know. Should Nader appear with McCain and Obama he would win instant converts to his clear and precise message. It is exactly for that reason they will exclude him once again. This does not mean we should give up, far from it. His message and his platform are the only current hope for all true progressives and we must redouble our efforts to get that message heard.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Platforms mean nothing. Speeches mean nothing. All that counts are actions and deeds. Democrats were given control of congress nearly two years ago to get us out of Iraq and did nothing but give George Wanker Bush everything he wanted. Think Obama's any different? He will defend the empire with your last dollar and the last drop of your blood. When it falls, he and his family will scoot with their cash leaving you holding the famous bag. McCain and his trophy wife will do the same thing.
Old problem: one party of the rich in this country--two branches--those dastardly dems and those dastardly repubs.
(our dastardly founders wanted a monarchy--settled for an oligarchy)Solution: restore
democracy--no electoral college, no aristocratic and poorly representative senate, more representative house,remove the supremes. that's a beginning.
Dr Wu, the last of the big-time thinkers
Lesser of 2 evils, maybe 2% less, but a vote for evil is still a vote for evil.
Obama says one of the most important differences between him and McCain was that Obama had the wisdom and courage to oppose the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Right? Obama and his supporters had been arguing correctly that judgment in foreign policy is far more important than experience; this was likely the decisive argument in his campaign against Clinton, who also backed the Iraq war resolution.
So who does he choose as his VP?. Someone with experience, true, but experience of the wrong sort. Biden comes from the hawkish wing of the party, he backed the Iraq war also. Biden still insists that Bush was right and Obama was wrong. Despite the absence of any "weapons of mass destruction" or offensive military capabilities, Biden when reminded of those remarks and asked about his support for the war in an interview last year, replied, "That's right, and I was correct about that."
Now Obamas key adviser on foreign policy is Brzezinski, and what does he have to say about Georgias invasion of South Ossetia which we all know was approved by Bush and Cheney.
"The former US national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, has called on the world community to isolate Russia in protest over its campaign in the Caucasus, likening its tactics to those of "Hitler or Stalin".
...He said that Putin's "justification" for splitting up Georgia - because of the Russian citizens living in South Ossetia - could be compared to when Hitler used the alleged suffering of ethnic Germans in the Sudetenland as a pretext for annexing Czechoslovakia in 1938."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/12/georgia
Thats is not very reassuring. References to Hitler usually signal our intention to fight.
Now, we have all seen Obama kneel at the AIPAC alter, and most know Israel's policies are essentially our policies. What about Biden (and do not fall for the recent stories trying to make Biden seem tough on Israel)
“If I were a Jew, I would be a Zionist. I am a Zionist. You don’t have to be a Jew to be a Zionist.”
- Senator Joseph Biden
"Joseph Biden’s self-professed Zionism plays well on Shalom TV, but it is a liability for the United States in the global “war on terror” and a death warrant for Palestinian and Israeli innocents."
http://www.counterpunch.org/weitzel09022008.html
Unknown to many, there seems to be a significant link between Georgia and Israel.
"Georgian minister Temur Yakobashvili told Israeli army radio that "Israel should be proud of its military which trained Georgian soldiers." Yakobashvili claimed rather implausibly, according to Haaretz, that "a small group of Georgian soldiers were able to wipe out an entire Russian military division, thanks to the Israeli training" ("Georgian minister tells Israel Radio: Thanks to Israeli training, we're fending off Russian military," Haaretz, 11 August 2008).
Since 2000, Israel has sold hundreds of millions of dollars in arms and combat training to Georgia. Weapons included guns, ammunition, shells, tactical missile systems, antiaircraft systems, automatic turrets for armored vehicles, electronic equipment and remotely piloted aircraft. These sales were authorized by the Israeli defense ministry (Arie Egozi, "War in Georgia: The Israeli connection," Ynet, 10 August 2008)."
FWIW, the first Jewish state was Khazaria between 700-1100 AD when the King made it the official religion and many converted, and this area just happened to include parts of todays Georgia, Ukraine and Chechenya. Some in Georgia consider themselves to be the Israel of the Caucuses. An extension of Zionism? BTW, Georgia is an ideal place from which to strike Iran, should Israel wish to do so.
Then there is Mukasey's plan for new FBI guidelines that could begin national security and criminal investigations of racial and ethnic groups without any evidence of wrongdoing.
What is the Democratic Congress doing about it? They have asked Mukasey to delay implementation until Congress can review the changes. Wow.
" Russ Feingold, Richard Durbin, Edward Kennedy and Sheldon Whitehouse warn not only Mukasey but also the rest of us that the new rules "might permit an innocent American to be subjected to such intrusive surveillance based in part on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, or on protected First Amendment activities."
"Michael German, an FBI agent for 16 years and now a policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, warns that if Mukasey goes ahead, he will undermine the restrictions placed on the FBI after the dragnet approach of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's COINTELPRO (domestic counter-intelligence program) during the 1950s and 1960s: "... These were corrections originally designed to prevent the type of overreach the FBI engaged in for years."
"Mukasey also has "proposed a new domestic-spying measure that would make it easier for state and local police to collect intelligence about Americans, share the sensitive data with federal agencies and retain it for at least 10 years" (The Washington Post, Aug. 16). State and local police agencies would not be hampered by Fourth Amendment's requirements that they must search and seize traces of our activities and beliefs only upon "probable cause" that we are, or have been or plan to be, involved in criminal actions."
"Meanwhile, I've heard nothing from Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain about the Mukasey revisions of the Bill of Rights."
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/03-4
Your reliance on Brzezinski's well known resolute rejection of Russian policy in global affairs and his views on Putin's interest in splitting Georgia are a rather interesting contextual remnant of the article you helpfully link us to.
Brzezinski says in the same article, "Georgia is to an extent the Finland of today, morally and strategically." Continuing by stating his belief that "...the heart of the issue is access to oil." He, of course, is aware of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline with this, "If Georgia no longer has its sovereignty it means not only the West is cut off from the Caspian Sea and Central Asia..." You might have mentioned these oil centered statements for the obvious value contained. I.E. Strategic oil. How many Americans, beyond the poor souls in the Mid East, recognize not only 'Big Oil's' interest, but the interest of Joe Six-Packs' kids with dirt bikes, powerboats, SUVs,' etc.
Sure we can pontificate until we are braindead from lack of oxygen about alternative sources, which I firmly believe is the needed immediate direction, while our so-called 'elected officials' continue their charade of 'hope' for the masses but continue subsidizing 'Big Oil' and all the other first-come, first-serve corporate family hand-me-downs with the be-labored taxes of the big middle class of this experiment in who can control our little brains.
As for Israel, the Palestinians and making room for both with peace and enough water... Khazaria being the first Jewish country? Khazar was a Tatar empire in the 7th through early 11th century A.D. that existed in S.E. Russia. The Mongols. Also a Turkish Moslem group in the Crimea and Volga regions until 1945, when they were all deported to Kazakhstan an Uzbekistan for allegedly collaborating with the Germans. The 'Jewish religion is one of, if not the, oldest monotheistic religion in Europe and much of the Middle East 2000 years before Christ. My knowledge, such as it is, tells me only that there was a Jewish state of Palestine up until maybe 33 B.C. until 1948. Fromm 33 B.C., and before, through 1948, the Jewish people moved through out Europe while being banished, persecuted and isolated. There were times when emancipation was gained after the French Revolution, in France and then other European countries.
But Khazaria?
There is enough written, and spoken, and deeds having been done by ALL parties involved attempting to manipulate strategically, behaviorally and 'morally' world and local opinions for reasons other than those of Palestine or Israel to justify the nations of the world to simply put the collective foot down and do what has been done in the past in the Middle East. And while it may not be what could be described as democratic, the mother of all reason, that pragmatic bitch we all love to hate, might have to take Jerusalem as the global city it historically has become for those who are religious. Then construct two nation states that were neglected in being formed in 1948.
As for military funding of Georgia by Israel, why does that do any more, or less, than we do in the middle east. War is business as is self defense and developing allies where you find them. And then there is the oil.
Realistically, the American people, being the notorious slugs they are, only care about their gas. The rest is up to those who go get it, get elected making vague promises about it, and those who protect it.
We are just toast and a source of revenue.
Now ain't that a beach?
Sadly, I fear that the only choice we have currently is Democratic "Fascist Lite" and Republican "Fascist Right."
Labeling everyone who fights against American hegemony and resource theft as "terrorists" leaves us fighting an increasing number of people who are considered patriots by their own people.
If a foreign power held our nation hostage, installed its own quisling government, called in air strikes on our towns and villages whenever someone fought back, wouldn't we support and cheer on the patriots that risked or gave their lives to repel or kill the invaders? Wouldn't we deal harshly with quislings who supported the invaders and their government?
Look at history! Look at the Nazi occupations of France, Scandanavia and the Balkans. They were horribly repressive, but the resistance fought, with the clandestine aid of the Allies, until the final invasion when their nations were finally freed of Nazi occupation. (Vidkun Quisling was hanged in Norway, leaving only his name to identify conqueror appointed puppet governments)
The Iraqi people are fighting for their freedom against overwhelming odds and perhaps succeeding.
One thing we should remember. Though Iran has not fought an aggressive war for several hundred years, and has no nuclear weapons program, it has a first rate military, well supplied with modern weapons. An attack or invasion of Iran will not be the turkey shoot that Iraq was, with a destroyed air force, no antiaircraft weapons left and an army that had had no spare parts for their armor for over ten years.
Of course, the Pentagon and our chicken hawks think nothing of the idea of nuking Iran, or any other nation that defies the United States, into submission. I am a nuclear veteran (Operation Redwing, Bikini Atoll, 1956) and know at first hand the horror of nuclear war. I am sure that the US striking a non-nuclear nation will probably receive a counterstrike from their nuclear armed allies. That will be the end of civilization as we know it. If there is no counterstrike, there will be millions of deaths at the target areas, downwind, and into neighboring nations, with cancers and birth defects increasing again worldwide as the fallout spreads. Look at what the use of depleted Uranium in weapons has done.
Wake up America! Ever spreading war and nuclear preemptive attacks are not the way to peace or understanding. The world got rid of the Axis, at horrendous cost, in the 1940's. I hope it doesn't have to get rid of us the same way when we could inject some sanity into our own government and end this madness, NOW!
I used to rip into the good Professor in the days when he fawned over Obama. Professor Zunes has his facts in order now. Kudos professor! I wish I was in your class.
"Still, however, the 2008 platform endorses an ongoing U.S. military role in that violent oil-rich nation."
-Thank you. I hope dougnwagner reads this. He is completely and deeply in denial on this. As little as a couple of weeks ago he was still arguing that Obama was an "antiwar" candidate. I kid you not.
"It calls for an unspecified number of U.S. troops to remain as a "residual force" for such "specific missions" as "targeting terrorists; protecting our embassy and civil personnel; and advising and supporting Iraq's Security Forces,..."
-Thanks again Zunes. The Democratic position is to criticize Pugs for not being ruthless enough. Dems are not opposed to war. They pose as being "antiwar" for saps like dougnwagner that buy it and vote for them.
"The platform also fails to mention that the invasion was an illegal war of aggression in violation of the UN Charter..."
-Thanks Prof. Zunes, illegal and immoral it certainly is.
"On a positive note, the platform recognizes the humanitarian crisis created by the U.S. invasion and occupation..."
-okay, but platforms aren't binding. Dems say something good but continue to fund the murdering.
"Similarly, the Democratic platform appears to endorse the Bush administration's racist double standards ..."
-Of course they sound like Republicans, they have the same masters: the Military Industrial Complex, Big Oil and Big Business Inc.
"...Similarly, the Democratic platform appears to endorse the Bush administration's racist double standards ..."
-Dems have fully and completely embraced militarism and imperialism
"...Democratic Party platform endorses President Bush's memorandum pledging an additional unconditional $30 billion in U.S. military aid to Israel."
-of course, Obama has already pledged his allegiance to AIPAC
"...platform also calls for a "comprehensive strategy to defeat global terrorists"
-Dems fully embrace the GWOT framework where anyone opposed to US domination should be eliminated for being a "terrorist"
"...When prominent Democrats do criticize human rights abuses by allied governments, the party leadership attempts to silent..."
oops! (a typo, silence not silent) showing their true colors
"...The platform also demands that Iran end its "threats to Israel," but does not call on Israel..."
-Dems are hypocrites!
"...well to the right of most Democrats, delegates at the national convention in Denver could do little about it."
-I like the one where Dems insist we elect Obama first then move him to the left! Ha!
"...This silencing of the Democratic Party's progressive wing..."
-I call it betrayal
"...They have usually been forced to adopt more progressive policies as a result of pressure from the grass roots...
-the Dem Party is actually completely worthless and the time has come to go third party
"...an engaged activist community can ensure that a better platform will emerge by the next elections."
-WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The time has come to dump the worthless Democrats. I would prefer a bucket of warm spit. They have sold us out and betrayed us one time too many. If you have any guts dump the Dems and vote for Greens so they can get the magic 5% they need for matching funds. You want to move the Democrats to the left? Start voting for 3rd parties and see how fast they swing left. As soon as a 3rd party becomes viable Democrats will be instantly transformed into the most progressive party on the planet. Just long enough to win the election. And that's the truth!
Thank you Stephen Zunes.
We will never have peace as long as the US supports Zionism.
We aren't going to have peace because we will engage in resource wars. As fossil fuels get depleted, and more and more human beings compete for them, we will engage in nasty ugly wars (we've allready started this). Certainly Israel doesn't help matters, but it's really oil and other resources (so we can sustain our unsustainable way of life) that drives our insatiable need to harm the world.
quickstepper and zaz,
Israel also invaded Iraq (bombings), Syria (Bombings and land grabs), Egypt (land grabs), and Jordan (land grabs).
Muslims are people. Just as violent as the rest.