Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe VP Debate: Dishonest Foreign Policies
The October 3 debate between Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and Delaware Senator Joe Biden was disturbing for those of us hoping for a more enlightened and honest foreign policy during the next four years. In its aftermath, pundits mainly focused on Palin's failure to self-destruct and Biden's relatively cogent arguments. Here's an annotation of the foreign policy issues raised during the vice-presidential debate, which was packed with demonstrably false and misleading statements.
Getting the Facts Wrong on Iraq
PALIN: I am very thankful that we do have a good plan and the surge and the counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq that has proven to work... You guys opposed the surge. The surge worked. Barack Obama still can't admit the surge works.
Obama actually has claimed that the surge worked. This makes both he and Palin wrong, however. The decline in violence in Iraq in recent months has largely resulted from a shift in the alignment of internal Iraqi forces and the tragic de facto partitioning of Baghdad into sectarian enclaves. What's more, the current relative equilibrium is probably temporary. The decision by certain Sunni tribal militias that had been battling U.S. forces to turn their weapons against al-Qaeda-related extremists took place before the surge was even announced. Similarly, militant opposition leader Muqtada al-Sadr's unilateral ceasefire resulted from internal Shia politics rather than any U.S. actions.
PALIN: And with the surge that has worked we're now down to pre-surge numbers in Iraq.
This is completely untrue. Prior to the "surge" in January 2007, the United States had approximately 132,000 troops in Iraq. Currently, there are 146,000 troops in Iraq This is less than at the surge's peak, but the decline had to do with the fact that U.S. forces could not be realistically maintained at that level, not from a decision to pull down the number of forces because of any success.
For no apparent reason, Biden didn't challenge Palin on this clear misstatement.
BIDEN: With regard to Iraq, I gave the president the power [in the October 2002 Iraq War Resolution]. I voted for the power because he said he needed it not to go to war but to keep the United States, the UN in line, to keep sanctions on Iraq and not let them be lifted.
This was perhaps the most seriously misleading statement of the entire debate.
Palin correctly countered with the fact that "it was a war resolution." Indeed, the resolution supported by Biden explicitly stated that "The president is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate." Biden certainly knew that.
It's also hard to imagine that Biden actually believed Bush's claim that it was necessary to "keep sanctions on Iraq and not let them be lifted." There was absolutely no serious effort in the UN or anywhere else at that time to lift any sanctions against Iraq in a manner that could have conceivably aided Iraq's ability to make war, develop "weapons of mass destruction," or in any other way strengthen Saddam Hussein's regime.
It's particularly disturbing that a man who may well be the next vice president seems to think that the United States has the right to try to "to keep the UN in line." The United States is legally bound - by a signed and ratified international treaty pursuant to Article VI of the U.S. Constitution - to provisions of the UN Charter. And the charter prohibits wars of aggression, such as the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The UN's job is to keep nation-states in line regarding international law, which the Iraq War - made possible in part through Biden's vote in support its authorization - was one of the most serious and blatant violations since the world body's establishment in 1945.
In any case, at the time of the Iraq War resolution, the UN had for well over a decade imposed the most comprehensive disarmament regime in history and had already successfully disarmed Iraq of its biological and chemical weapons; its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs; and its long-range delivery systems. Furthermore, at the time of the resolution and as a result of pressure from the UN, Iraq had already agreed to the return of UN inspectors under strict modalities guaranteeing unfettered access to confirm Iraq's disarmament. As a result, Biden's belief that the United States had to "keep the UN in line" is indicative of his contempt for the UN Charter and the post-World War II international legal order, thereby raising serious questions regarding Obama's judgment in choosing him as his running mate.
PALIN: I know that the other ticket. . . opposed funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In reality, Biden has consistently supported unconditional funding for Bush's war in Iraq and Afghanistan, even as evidence of torture, widespread killings of civilians, the resulting insurgency, and other problems have become apparent. Furthermore, as Biden pointed out, John McCain also voted against "funding for our troops" when the appropriation was tied to certain conditions he disliked. Similarly, Obama's votes against other appropriations bills were because he had objections to certain provisions.
PALIN: We cannot afford to lose against al-Qaeda and the Shia extremists who are still there, still fighting us, but we're getting closer and closer to victory. And it would be a travesty if we quit now in Iraq.
There was no heavily-armed al-Qaeda or Shia extremists in Iraq until the Bush administration - backed by Senators McCain and Biden - decided to invade that country and overthrow Saddam Hussein, who had prevented such groups from emerging. Prior to the invasion, authorities on Iraq repeatedly pointed out the possibility of such extremists gaining influence in Iraq. If the Republicans were actually concerned about the rise of such extremist groups, they would never have supported the war in the first place. This is simply an excuse to defend the long-planned indefinite occupation of Iraq to control its natural resources and maintain a permanent U.S. military presence in this strategically important region. Claims of being "closer and closer to victory" have been made by Republican leaders ever since the initial invasion in March 2003, and it remains doubtful whether a military victory can ever be achieved.
PALIN: Your plan is a white flag of surrender in Iraq and that is not what our troops need to hear today, that's for sure. And it's not what our nation needs to be able to count on.
As Biden pointed out, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has pushed for a withdrawal plan that's essentially the same as Obama's. And public opinion polls show that a majority of Americans - including most U.S. troops currently in Iraq - prefer Obama's plan over McCain's open-ended indefinite commitment of U.S. forces. And Obama's plan calls only for the redeployment of combat units, which would not be completed until well into 2010.
Much to the disappointment of those in the anti-war movement, Obama's plan also calls for maintaining thousands of other U.S. troops within the country to ostensibly protect U.S. personnel, train Iraqi forces, and engage in counter-terrorism operations. Furthermore, Obama's plan calls for stationing many tens of thousands of U.S. forces in neighboring countries for possible short-term incursions into Iraq.
To claim that this is the same as "a white flag of surrender" is demagoguery at its most extreme.
BIDEN: But let's get straight who has been right and wrong: ...John McCain was saying the Sunnis and Shias got along with each other without reading the history of the last 700 years.
McCain was indeed wrong about many things in regard to Iraq, but the fact is that Sunnis and Shias in Iraq largely did "get along" - until the U.S. invasion supported by Biden created the conditions that led to the subsequent sectarian conflict. Saddam's secular regime did persecute Shia, but the widespread sectarian massacres of recent years were a direct consequence of the divide-and-rule policies of the U.S. occupation. Prior to the U.S. invasion, millions of Sunni and Shia Iraqis lived peacefully together in mixed neighborhoods, intermarriage was common (particularly in urban areas), and many in rural areas worshiped in the same mosques.
Furthermore, as with conflict in Northern Ireland, the inter-communal violence in Iraq hasn't simply resulted from religious differences but has erupted over perceived national loyalties, with the Sunnis traditionally identifying with pan-Arabist nationalists and the U.S.-backed ruling Shia parties historically allying with Iran.
Distorting Iran
PALIN: Israel is in jeopardy of course when we're dealing with Ahmadinejad as a leader of Iran. Iran claiming that Israel...should be wiped off the face of the earth. Now a leader like Ahmadinejad who is not sane or stable when he says things like that is not one whom we can allow to acquire nuclear energy, nuclear weapons. Ahmadinejad...seek[s] to acquire nuclear weapons and wipe off the face of the earth an ally like we have in Israel.
Ahmadinejad never said that "Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth." That idiom doesn't even exist in the Persian language. The Iranian president was quoting the late Ayatollah Khomeini from more than 20 years earlier when, in a statement largely ignored at the time, he said that "the regime occupying Jerusalem should vanish from the pages of time." While certainly an extreme and deplorable statement, the actual quote's emphasis on the Israeli "regime" rather than the country itself and its use of an intransitive verb makes the statement far less threatening than Palin was trying to make it sound. As recently as the week before the debate, Ahmadinejad once again clarified that the statement was analogous to the way that the Soviet Union is today no longer on the map, emphasizing his desire for Israel's dissolution as a state, not the country's physical destruction. Biden inexplicably refused to challenge this apparently deliberate effort by Palin to make American viewers believe Iran is a greater and more imminent threat than it actually is.
Palin's argument that nuclear energy is something the United States cannot "allow [Iran] to acquire" was rather bizarre since Iran has had nuclear power since the 1950s, as a result of a program initiated by the United States. The United States continued to be the primary supporter for Iran's nuclear program through the 1970s.
Finally, as Biden observed, Ahmadinejad doesn't control Iran's security apparatus. Unlike in the United States, the Iranian president isn't the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Such responsibilities lie with the Supreme Leader, currently Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Indeed, the Iranian presidency is relatively weak compared with other centers of power in that regime.
PALIN: "Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il, the Castro brothers, others who are dangerous dictators are ones that Barack Obama has said he would be willing to meet without preconditions being met first. And an issue like that taken up by a presidential candidate goes beyond naiveté and goes beyond poor judgment. A statement that he made like that is downright dangerous. "...These dictators who hate America and hate what we stand for, with our freedoms, our democracy, our tolerance, our respect for women's rights, those who would try to destroy what we stand for cannot be met with just sitting down on a presidential level as Barack Obama had said he would be willing to do. That is beyond bad judgment. That is dangerous...But diplomacy is hard work by serious people. It's lining out clear objectives and having your friends and your allies ready to back you up there and have sanctions lined up before any kind of presidential summit would take place."
As Biden observed, Obama never said he would meet with Ahmadinejad, but with Iranian leaders, presumably those with more power and less extremist views than the Iranian president. And, for reasons mentioned above, while Ahmadinejad is part of an oppressive, authoritarian regime, he is not, strictly speaking, a "dictator."
Secondly, if it is really poor judgment and "downright dangerous" to meet with dictators without preconditions, why hasn't Palin ever taken issue with decisions by such former Republican presidents as Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush, who met with dictators who were as bad or worse than the ones she mentioned and did so without self-defeating preconditions like those demanded by the current administration and by McCain? Indeed, President Bush himself has met with the king of Saudi Arabia, whose regime is far more repressive in terms of freedom, democracy, tolerance, and women's rights than Castro's Cuba: the rights of women under Castro have improved greatly relative to previous Cuban regimes, while the U.S.-backed family dictatorship in Saudi Arabia remains the most reactionary and misogynist regime on the planet; religious tolerance is Cuba is far greater than in Saudi Arabia, where non-Muslims are forbidden to worship openly; and, while individual freedom and electoral democracy is certainly quite limited in Cuba, that country still compares favorably to Saudi Arabia.
Finally, Palin's insistence that the goal of the Cuban, North Korean, and Iranian regimes is to "destroy" America's freedom, democracy, tolerance, and respect for women's rights is completely inaccurate and ahistorical. The anti-Americanism of these regimes is rooted not in opposition to America's values, but U.S. militarism and intervention in relation to those countries, which were taken not in defense of freedom and democracy, but in support for previous Cuban, Korean, and Iranian dictatorships. Biden, however, didn't challenge Palin on this simplistic distortion.
Israel and its Neighbors
BIDEN: Here's what the president [Bush] said when we said no. He insisted on elections on the West Bank, when I said, and others said, and Barack Obama said, "Big mistake. Hamas will win. You'll legitimize them." What happened? Hamas won.
Biden's position of opposing democratic elections in Arab countries is quite disturbing and represents a significant step back from the Bush administration's limited support for such elections. The lesson that should have been learned from Hamas' victory in the January 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections isn't that the United States should oppose free elections. Instead, Biden should have recognized that Hamas' victory came about as a direct result of U.S. policies, supported by Biden, that have provided Israeli occupation forces with the sufficient military, financial, and diplomatic support to engage in its ongoing repression and colonization in the Palestinian West Bank. It's such policies that led to the rise of this radical Islamist group, which did not even exist until after a quarter century of U.S.-backed Israeli occupation and the failure of the United States to move the peace process forward in a manner that could have provided the Palestinians with any realistic hope that a viable Palestinian state would result.
Failure to prevent the Palestinian government from allowing all major Palestinian political parties from participating in a parliamentary election doesn't "legitimize" Hamas. Unfortunately, Hamas was already seen as legitimate by the plurality of Palestinian voters who gave them their parliamentary majority.
PALIN: "We will support Israel[,]...this peace-seeking nation, and they have a track record of being able to forge these peace agreements...They succeeded with Egypt. I'm sure that we're going to see more success there, also."
Israel "succeeded" in its peace agreement with Egypt because, under pressure from the Carter administration, the Israeli government agreed to withdraw from all Egyptian territory captured in the 1967 war. By contrast, Israel - with the support of the Bush administration as well as Senators McCain and Biden - has refused to consider a complete withdrawal from Palestinian and Syrian territory despite assurances by Syrian, Palestinian, and other Arab leaders of full diplomatic relations and strict security guarantees in return.
The refusal of Israel to agree to a complete withdrawal from these occupied territories - even with minor and reciprocal border adjustments - as called for in a series of landmark UN Security Council resolutions and by virtually the entire international community, raises serious questions regarding Palin's characterization of Israel as a "peace-seeking" nation.
BIDEN: When [in 2006] ...along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, "Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because...if you don't, Hezbollah will control it." Now what's happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel.
Neither France nor the United States "kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon." France was the primary supporter of the August 2006 UN Security Council resolution - initially opposed by the United States because it wanted the devastating war to continue in the hopes of a more clear-cut Israeli victory - which required forces of Hezbollah's armed militia to withdraw from areas south of the Litani River, located about 20 miles north of the Israeli border. Hezbollah forces withdrew and UN peacekeeping forces have moved into the area. (These forces include troops from NATO countries, but aren't part of a NATO operation, which would have likely been unnecessarily provocative in a region that had suffered under the colonial rule of three NATO countries.) There's no "vacuum" in the southernmost parts of Lebanon where the UN peacekeeping forces are stationed and Hezbollah does not "control it."
In any case, there was never a serious attempt to kick Hezbollah - which is one of Lebanon's largest political parties, not simply an armed militia - out of Lebanon as a whole.
Furthermore Hezbollah was already "a legitimate part of the government" of Lebanon during the time period referred to by Biden; the Lebanese government at that time included one Hezbollah cabinet member and a second cabinet minister of an allied party. It's not "what's happened" subsequent to the alleged failures of the Bush administration to push for the deployment of NATO forces, as Biden claimed. Biden actually knows this: he was a cosponsor of a Senate resolution in July 2006 that included the clause, "the Government of Lebanon, which includes representatives of Hezbollah,..."
BIDEN: Iran['s] ... proxies now have a major stake in Lebanon, as well as in the Gaza Strip with Hamas.
Neither the Palestinian Hamas nor the Lebanese Hezbollah are "proxies" of Iran.
Hamas evolved out of the Muslim Brotherhood, a Sunni movement that came into being decades before the Iranian revolution and that has had no significant ties with Iran. From Hamas' founding in the early 1980s until just a few years ago, this Palestinian Islamist group's primary outside funding came from Saudi Arabia and other Arab monarchies in the Gulf region that have traditionally been hostile to Iran. Since the U.S-led international sanctions against the Hamas-led branch of the Palestine Authority was launched in early 2006, Iran has contributed funds to help keep the government functioning, but this does not make Hamas an Iranian "proxy."
By contrast, Iran played a significant role in the establishment of Hezbollah as an armed resistance movement against the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon in the mid-1980s, and Iran has provided some funding and armaments for the militia. However, Hezbollah has long evolved into a populist political party with substantial support from Lebanon's Shiite population - the country's largest community - and follows its own agenda.
Afghanistan and Pakistan
PALIN: Barack Obama had said that all we're doing in Afghanistan is air-raiding villages and killing civilians. And such a reckless, reckless comment and untrue comment, again, hurts our cause.
Obama never said that that is "all we're doing in Afghanistan." Furthermore, it's well-documented by the Afghan government, independent journalists, reputable human rights groups, and even the U.S. military itself that U.S. air strikes on Afghan villages have killed civilians. Indeed, the civilian death toll is in the thousands and has been a major contributing factor in losing the hearts and minds of the Afghan population, particularly in the countryside. Strangely, however, Biden refused to defend Obama on this point.
BIDEN: There have been 7,000 madrassas built along that [Afghan-Pakistani] border. We should be helping them build schools to compete for those hearts and minds of the people in the region so that we're actually able to take on terrorism ...
A madrassa is a school. Most madrassas offer a general education with a special emphasis on Islamic principles. Only a small minority are affiliated with reactionary strains of Islam that preach the kind of doctrine that rationalizes terrorism. Biden's comment simply reinforces Islamphobic bigotry.
It's also important to note that most of the extremist madrassas in that area were started in the 1980s when the United States - in a policy Biden supported - armed and financed hard-line fundamentalist mujahideen fighters based in that border region who were then engaged in a war against the Communist regime and its Soviet backers then in power in Afghanistan.
43 Comments so far
Show All"Your rhetorical questions display a distinct lack of understanding of what it means to be Black"
Simply attempt to describe what "Black" or "White" people have in common beyond skin color. Can you do it without using racist terms? Nope.
"Simply attempt to describe what "Black" or "White" people have in common beyond skin color."
This doesnt make sense. Are you implying they dont have much in common or are you saing any description of the state of Black-White relations is inherently racist ? Nothing in my post suggests that. You, however seem to have a streak of dormant racism thats screaming to be heard ... based on your posts.
More evidence that we aren't going to get much in the way of positive change from the duopoly parties. The Commission on Presidential Debates and the duopoly campaigns won't even let us hear alternative views. There are more than two tickets running, but if you don't adhere to the views of the military-industrial complex, the mainstream media will do their best to make sure you aren't heard.
Do not vote for Obama because he isn't quite as bad on Obama. Vote for someone who stands for real change.
Bill Samuel, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
And if the DPAs on CD had their way neither would we be able to give an alternative viewpoint. These "Democrats" don't seem to believe in democracy. They get upset when you point out the truth about the duopoly and constantly call us "Republican trolls" and tell us to go blog elsewhere. Good luck on that one DPAs. I recently sent CD $50 and I do it everytime they have a fundraiser.
.In summary of those debates I believe that Biden lost a great opportunity. Whether through fear of appearing a bully or some other reason unknown to me he failed to challenge her with the specifics that would have exposed her inexperience and poor grasp of issues to the nation. Thus McCain would have been exposed for making about the poorest choice of VP candidate in a very long time...
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
I take issue with the whole line of "Obama is less bloodthirsty". Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of HUMAN BEINGS who will lose their lives, the millions who will lose family members, be injured, have thier lives harmed. We become complicit in the harm to Iraqis, Afhganis, Palestinians, Pakistanis, Iranians, etc. Their lives are less valuable than ours according to the logic of Obama. "War on terror" is terrorism and creates more terrorism in return. Resource wars will actually bring the end of fossil fuels (oil) earlier. Voting for Obama is the equivalent of being an accessory to murder. Flame me all you want; what I say is TRUE.
Obama probably is every bit as bad as you believe. The problem is that McCain is far worse. Obama quite possibly will kill hundreds of thousands as you predict, but McCain may very well kill hundreds of millions. McCain frightens far right members of the oligarchy, for Christ sakes! McCain could mean the dead end for our species, and as a father and husband, and someone who cares about the human community, I am not willing to stand out of his way.
The McCain article in Rolling Stone, along with many others, testifies to the extent to which the prospect of a McCain presidency terrifies even many of the most bloodthirsty hawks.
mediaho,
Thanks for reading the link, here are two more,
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/125/8/675?ck=nck
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico#Population_and_racial_makeup
"Puerto Rican culture is inherently African culture."
According to the 2000 U.S. Census there were almost four million inhabitants. Eighty percent of Puerto Ricans described themselves as "white"; 8% as "black"; 12% as "mulatto" and 0.4% as "American Indian or Alaska Native".
When she says "There are hundreds of books that will inform you, but I do not need to read book after book to legitimize this thesis or to tell me what I am. All I need to do is go to Puerto Rico and look all around me. Damn, all I really have to do is look in the mirror every day."
Do you believe that she is correct that none of her ancestors ever had sex with anyone but Africans? My feeling is, since she mentioned her skin color, and from reading the history of Puerto Rico, that in an effort to forge a stronger racial identity she is denying her mixed ethnic heritage, unless she happens to come from unusually light-skinned African ancestry. What's wrong with being mixed "race"?
How can I take her seriously when she says, "My Blackness is one of the greatest powers I have."?
Picture this, BILL O'REILLY: "My Irishness is one of the greatest powers I have."
For example, I think it's a from of racism to call a mixed "race" person like Obama "black". It might be somewhat appropriate, though logically flawed, to do so as descriptive shorthand. But to forge a strong identity around the concept of "race" is either synonymous with racism or vague and meaningless. Some might argue that to celebrate "race" is to create a culture around a common experience, specifically the experience of having a common skin color. But what does that common experience entail? What does the commonality mean and why should it be used as a group identity? To not define what it is, leaves you with no real reason for celebrating or using it as an identity. However, when you begin to define it, you move towards creating racist assumptions. To prove this, simply attempt to describe what "Black" or "White" people have in common beyond skin color. Can you do it without using racist terms? Nope.
You run into this problem whenever your try to squeeze a heterogeneous population into a homogeneous group. As far as "white pride" and "black pride" are concerned, it's counterproductive, it's unscientific, it's needlessly divisive, but most of all it's vague. What is there to be so proud of? A concept like "Black pride" isn't even rooted in a common history when you consider that modern day immigrants with dark enough skin would be considered as "black" as a descendant of American slaves. So it's really pride in a skin color-based ethnic group. What happened to the concept of moving beyond that?
Her assertion, with regard to race, that "I am whatever I say I am!" defies logic.
"Nelly Fuller, a great Black sociologist, said this: “Until one understands the system of White supremacy, anything and everything else will confuse you.”
Really? White supremacy explains "anything and everything"? Is this like "six degrees of Kevin Bacon"? I'm having trouble with the "Monty Hall problem", will this explain it?
We do not live in a post-racial society. We are still a very racist society, Obama notwithstanding. Your rhetorical questions display a distinct lack of understanding of what it means to be Black. Unless you live in a society that is predominantly Black or you are related in some form and live among Black people, you will never understand the need to forge a common identity based on their own Blackness. The 'concept of moving beyond that' is just a concept and not reality. White supremacy definitely explains what it is to be Black, if not everything.
The events of the past week have provided the clearest confirmation that the Democratic Party is completely subservient to big business and the financial oligarchy. This was underscored by the role of the party’s presidential nominee, Senator Barack Obama, who returned to Washington on Wednesday to cast his own ballot in favor of the bailout and lobbied to shift the votes of a number of House Democrats.
On Thursday, Obama held a conference call with a group of freshmen Democratic House members to press them to support the bill. He reportedly made a strong pitch to members of the Congressional Black Caucus—which accounted for a dozen of the changed votes.
On Friday, a number of the 32 Democratic representatives who switched their votes to support the legislation cited Obama’s appeal in explaining their decision.
read more: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/oct2008/bail-o04.shtml
Zunes several times points to Biden's choosing NOT to correct Palin on some of her gross distortions on mid-east and other foreign policy issues. In nearly every case this is because the Democrats have no countervailing position. Russia Evil, Georgia good. iran seeks nukes (but India, which has NOT signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty while Iran has, is now our partner in nuclear power production. Etc.
Perhaps inadvertently, Zunes demonstrates the duopoly of hegemonic America here.
Meanwhile, after last Friday's Congressional 800+ Billion bailout vote, we're f*cked no matter who wins on Nov. 4. Grover Norquist got his wish, bankrupt the government and drown it in a bathtub. Dead elephant or dead donkey, or dead Bullmoose, don't matter. Anyone who voted for Paulsen's Plan is a traitor to the Middle Class AND the poor, and note that a larger percentage of Dems than Repugs voted for it. The DNC is not the problem here; it is the Democratic Leadership Council, triangulating to the Right in total amorality. They've just engineered hyperinflation after the rich corporate CEOs have insulated themselves from it. By this coming Tuesday all the "forever stamps" will be gone from your local post office if they haven't been pulled tomorrow! Last hedge against inflation...
-30-
I support McKinney on many issues and applaud her service as an activist and in Congress. But after checking out her choice of Veep, Rosa "hip hop summit" Clemente, there is no way I'm voting for McKinney. Call it the Left-Wing Palin effect.
I also haven't been impressed with McKinney's ability to prioritize the issues for her campaign. Sorry, but "free Mumia" is not as important as the Iraq war, and now is not the time to use "free Puerto Rico" in stump speeches (even though I basically agree with both of those issues). For example, when Clemente appeared on Democracy Now and was asked to name a difference between the Green Party platform and Nader's campaign, she called for the abolition of prison, not prison reform. Her response, while intriguing, did not seem particularly well developed. What will she replace it with? It reminded me of when Marxists use fiery rhetoric that is utterly divorced from reality. Also, after reading Clemente's writings on race, I have no problem calling her a benign racist.
Try reading this, without reaching the same conclusion.
http://www.myafricandiaspora.com/rosaclemente_feature.html
As far as Nader is concerned, I wish he was running for Veep and Gonzalez was at the head of the ticket. Nader needs to prep the next generation of activists instead of hogging the spotlight.
I read the article ...
http://www.myafricandiaspora.com/rosaclemente_feature.html
... and how in the world did you deduce that she is a benign racist ?! CD never ceases to amaze me.
PALIN: I am very thankful that we do have a good plan and the surge...
-the surge as a success is a red herring. Any "success" can be attributed to brutalizing, killing off and subjugating the people of Iraq in order to rape them and plunder their resources for the benefit of Big Oil and the MIC. If violence is down it's because they've killed off over a million people and the rest are scared to death.
For no apparent reason, Biden didn't challenge Palin on this clear misstatement.
-no mistake. The Dims and Pugs are in basic agreement on the goals of militarism and global domination.
It's particularly disturbing that a man who may well be the next vice president seems to think that the United States has the right to try to "to keep the UN in line." The United States is legally bound - by a signed and ratified international treaty pursuant to Article VI of the U.S. Constitution - to provisions of the UN Charter.
-Biden affirms the right of the US to act outside international law with immpunity and he voted for and supported the war in Iraq. McCain's "League of Nations" that we like to rule over the world is even scarier.
PALIN: I know that the other ticket. . . opposed funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
-this is a thoroughly dishonest frame, that supporting the troops means keeping them in harms war
Much to the disappointment of those in the anti-war movement, Obama's plan also calls for maintaining thousands of other U.S. troops within the country to ostensibly protect U.S. personnel, train Iraqi forces, and engage in counter-terrorism operations. Furthermore, Obama's plan calls for stationing many tens of thousands of U.S. forces in neighboring countries for possible short-term incursions into Iraq.
-The reality is that Obama's war plans are not radically different from McCain's or for that matter Bush's.
Don't vote for the SAME. Vote for 3rd parties if you want CHANGE.
Im astonished that Americans feel voting for Obama and McCain is one and the same. This is ludicruous in the extreme. 'Progressives' who claim idealogical purity are essentially burying their heads in the ground. Bang-bang McCain will definitely kill more people, maybe not Americans, but definitely non-Americans.
Neither Nader nor McKinney have a snowballs chance in hell of winning and in the absence of a multi-party system, you have two choices for President. Period. You can usurp power in a true revolution, of and by the poeople, but that is nowhere in sight, despite all the pontificating on this site. Americans are cluless about whats good or bad for them (the financial 'bailout' is a case in point). They are too comfortable and unless it really hits 70% of the people in the gut they will never budge from their self-imposed statsis.
This leaves you with a 'lesser of two evils' option. You can flame me to death and i dont give a rats ass. Obama definitely seems less bloodthirsty than the run-of-the-mill American President. He says things with a political perspective in mind but he is definitely pre-disposed to 'Peace and Diplomacy' rather than the 'Lets Bomb the World to Pieces' mindset that seems to define McCain and his Bitch. Considering all else is the same, Obama is less likely to invade and destroy another desperate Third-World Nation (im willing to bet he will wiggle his way out of Afghanistan despite the rhetoric).
Where are the candidates on Gaza, Jerusalem, the rights of refugees, The Wall, the continuing settlements, the now over 600 checkpoints that deny the indigenous people of that land the right to access their land, jobs and holy sites in light of this year;
The 60th anniversary of Israel, Nakba/The Catastrophe and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights- upon which Israel's VERY statehood was contingent upon upholding.
LEARN MORE
http://www.endtheoccupation.org/
Patriot Follows the Money and Exposes Foreign Agents:
http://www.wearewideawake.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=959&Itemid=202
We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights...[and]to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; and,
WHENEVER any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it. -July 4, 1776. The Declaration of Independence
Time is ripe for 2nd American Revolution
In the service of The PRINCE OF PEACE,
God bless America indeed with an engaged citizenry.
Eileen Fleming, Founder http://www.wearewideawake.org/
Author, Producer "30 Minutes With Vanunu"
"13 Minutes with Vanunu":2 1/2+ year FREEDOM OF SPEECH trial in Jerusalem
When Americans enter the voting booth on Nov. 4, they will see other choices besides Obama-McCain. In 45 states, they'll see Nader-Gonzalez. In 32 states, they'll see McKinney-Clemente. Both of these choices support policies that most CommonDreamers agree with. One point of difference: Nader supports a 2-state solution in Palestine, while McKinney supports a one-state solution (I believe this is correct...certainly most Greens support one-state.). The very fact that this difference exists demonstrates that these candidates are thoughtful and deliberate, whereas Obama and McCain merely speak the talking points their handlers and pollsters tell them will resonate with the most people and avoid offending most others.
If we believe elections are worth anything at all, why not take this opportunity to vote for the change we actually believe in?
In 2000, I voted for Nader and have never regretted my choice. In 2004, I voted for Kerry out of a belief that it was better to "live to fight again" than to get what I truly wanted. When Kerry failed to contest the rigged Ohio vote (also NM and other states), I instantly regretted voting for him. On Nov. 4, 2008, I plan to vote for Cynthia McKinney. My hope is that the Greens will get 5% to help grow our party and qualify for matching funds in 2012. Whether we get 0.5% or 5%, I'll sleep well knowing I voted my conscience.
"I'd rather vote for what I want and not get it, than vote for what I don't want and get that." Eugene V. Debs
John M. Wages, Jr.
Candidate, US House of Representatives, MS-01
www.VoteJohnWages.com
I have very little money and am in DEEP debt (this comes from trying to rehab a piece-of-crap house while feeding and caring for 72 formerly-feral feline friends), but I will send you whatever little money I am able to scrape together, even if it's only $10 or $20. I only wish more progressives such as yourself were able and willing to challenge the corporate-sponsored duopoly. (BTW, you're correct: Cynthia DOES support the logical one-state solution.)
I am also in agreement with you on voting Green to try and get them enough votes to qualify for matching funds next time out. I think Ralph is smarter, but DAMN! I love her fire!
I don't believe the (D) & (R) parties are mirror reflections of each other; there are subtle and (in the overall scheme of things) minor differences between them -- just enough to maintain the smoky illusion dangling before most Americans' eyes that there IS a difference.
My vote for Cynthia comes down to this: as an atheist, I have struggled my entire life creating and maintaining my own ethical and moral compass, and perhaps that is one reason I am much more committed to my ideals of peace, justice, fairness, and not doing harm than I am to any political party, be it blue, red, OR green.
While no candidate may be perfect, I know I can do much better than Obama, and it is long past the time for progressives (and people of color, and indigenous peoples, and labor, and women, and the poor) to realize that the (D) party simply takes our vote for granted, assuming we either have nowhere else to go or lack the courage to do so.
NO MORE!
P.S. What's with the recent rise in Cuba-bashing that's been occurring on the C.D. site lately? I only wish America's democracy was as well-run, fair, and accessible as Cuba's; but from Air Amerika (DNC Studios) to The Nation, Fidel is always described as a dictator. Just goes to show the extent to which the American body politic has been manufactured and customized.
"no gods, no masters" --m. sanger
If Nader was not on the ballot in Florida in 2000, Al Gore would have been the President instead of George Bush. That would have been a smarter choice. If you can't see the difference between McCain--Palin and Obama--Biden, then you are part of the problem not the solution.
You don't object here to the way George Bush has governed, so I guess McSame will be just fine with you.
If you haven't learned who the "greenest" President this side of Jimmy Carter would have been, then you won't bring much to Congress.
Gore won the popular vote, not only in the US, but in Florida. If you can't focus on that fact, rather than trashing Nader, then you are part of the problem.
The only vote that Bush won in 2000 was the Supreme Court vote.
Gore was vice-president for 8 years, in which the US bombed and starved Iraqis, bombed Yugoslavia, repealed the CAFE standards, loosened up the media ownership standards and passed NAFTA. Why would anyone think he would have been better than Bush?
Do you honestly think that if Saddam had announced that he was making oil deals with China and switching to selling oil in euros, that Gore wouldn't have invaded? It was Jimmy Carter who first announced that the US would get Middle East oil by any means necessary.
And if Gore had balked, don't forget that Joe Lieberman would have been vice-president, a gunshot away from the presidency.
damnliberal sez: "If Nader was not on the ballot in Florida in 2000, Al Gore would have been the President instead of George Bush."
***
If George W. Bush was not on the ballot in Florida in 2000, Al Gore would have been the President instead of George Bush.
Know your enemy.
.This view, of Nader as spoiler in Florida, is a common one among those democrats who cannot face the bumbling of their own party in that election, but it has long been shown to be false..In 2000 Al Gore lost his own state, had he won it he would have not needed the Florida vote, the one in which all those elderly jewish voters cast ballots for Pat Robertson?????
As long as you are going to hold on to such myths you should change your name to damnedliberal because you will be damned to lose those values you hold dearest by voting the status quo.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
damnliberal October 5th, 2008 8:36 pm
"If Nader was not on the ballot in Florida in 2000, Al Gore would have been the President instead of George Bush."
That is still being brought up and it is still wrong as has been proven many times. Gore ran a lousy campaign. Something like 300,000 Democrats in Florida voted for Bush instead of Gore. If they had voted for their party's candidate Gore would have been president. Not only that but if Gore had won his own HOME state or the state of the sitting president he would have been president. Nader had nothing to do with his loss.
Lobo Gris
If you are happy with the difference between Obama and McCain, then you are part of the problem, not the solution.
"If you are happy with the difference between Obama and McCain, then you are part of the problem, not the solution."
Im not happy but i can see the difference and thats good enough. Everything is relative. Now that we have established i am part of the problem what is your solution. Oh wait ... vote Nader. And we will all have merry little orgasms. Fuck that shit.
THANK YOU greatly TupeloGreens and I too am voting my conscience, not just for the hoped for lesser of evils.
WHY are we the people denied the right to hear ALL candidates on national TV; alternative voices up against the empire would be very democratic, don't you think?
Eileen Fleming, Founder http://www.wearewideawake.org/
Author, Producer "13 Minutes with Vanunu":FREEDOM OF SPEECH TRIAL, Jerusalem
Really, this is just more kabuki theater.
The debates are now run by the Commission on Presidential Debates, co-owned by the DNC and the RNC and funded by corporate America. It used to be run by the non-partisan League of Women Voters, but was hijacked by the aforementioned in 1988 in a bi-partisan effort to keep it bi-partisan...meaning, no third parties or indies.
If we expose this fact, there may be some effort to wrest the debates away from the two parties and put them back into some unbiased hands again.
It really comes down to American ignorance. The more light we can shine in the dark areas, the less American ignorance there will be and the less stupid decisions we will make.
Check out http://www.opendebates.org/ to learn more.
ZUNES: "As Biden pointed out, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has pushed for a withdrawal plan that's essentially the same as Obama's. And public opinion polls show that a majority of Americans - including most U.S. troops currently in Iraq - prefer Obama's plan over McCain's open-ended indefinite commitment of U.S. forces. And Obama's plan calls only for the redeployment of combat units, which would not be completed until well into 2010."
Obama's plan is "flexible", "conditioned based" and thus open-ended, same as McCain. Despite all the rhetoric, Mcain, Obama and Bush all offer the same "withdrawal" plan: slow redeployment at a pace decided by our generals, not by a "fixed" timetable. Both have stated that are considering keeping Petraeus as the head of CentCom. As Matt Gonzalez recently said, "Are the Democrats going to stick to a timetable if, as they start to draw down troops, there’s increased sectarian violence? And I think the answer to that is really unclear, and probably no."
ZUNES: "Much to the disappointment of those in the anti-war movement, Obama's plan also calls for maintaining thousands of other U.S. troops within the country to ostensibly protect U.S. personnel, train Iraqi forces, and engage in counter-terrorism operations. Furthermore, Obama's plan calls for stationing many tens of thousands of U.S. forces in neighboring countries for possible short-term incursions into Iraq."
Obama's advisers have stated that the residual force will be 60-80,000 troops, which means this "withdrawal" plan only applies to about half our forces. He states that "combat forces" will be withdrawn, which is why Zunes describes "other U.S. troops" as remaining, but exactly who do you expect to "protect U.S. personnel" and "engage in counter-terrorism operations" if not combat troops? Medics? It makes no sense.
Erudite, thoughtful, comprehensive article, Mr.Zunes, but what did you expect from Sarah & Joe, besides platitudes, cliches, and partisan arrows? They were speaking to a population waiting for the Sat. Nite Live parody. Jabbermouths stood by, waiting to cut up each sentence and paragraph, to tell us what they really said. You think either would suggest cutting off Israel's welfare check, or closing many of our 800 overseas military bases? Socializing health care? Get real. You think American voters will write in "None of the above"? after they have paid for yard signs and bumper stickers? Sweet dreams.
The US is a predatory entity that slows down world progress. It promotes militarism that consumes world resources. It props up exploitative regimes that delay reducing illetracy and disease. The nuclear arms race was entirely US led. What the candidates don't want to say but know, is that the US is the bad guy. Ignorant people like Palin don't know this. She is quite adept at believing in nonsense and truly believes the US is a force for good and has said so recently. This is the central point of importance to Americans. Americans must realize that the US is not a force for good in the world.
I thought part of the reason why things settled down a bit around the start of the surge is that we started paying $300 million/month to some of our opponents to not shoot at us. Seems like a simple deal. Don't shot us and we'll pay you not to.
The two most telling moments were 1) the verbal high-five between the candidates re: loyalty to Israel
2) the Achilles Heel question, i swear sarah was completely clueless
Oh, that V.P. point of view - casting dispersions on anyone who worked for the good of humanity with that Vietnam era peace activist Bill Ayers while touting that U.S.-backed President Mikheil Saakashvili, whose government is accused of running an autocratic regime that tramples human rights and stifles democracy. Sarah can tell coprophagous lies just like George W.
No, Palin didn't win and Zunes' commentary is what we need to move through the ignorance. The McCain-Palin campaign, particularly, is grounded in pitching ignorance to the ignorant, this is the state of their desperation. We must keep speaking the truth to this rank and disgusting demagoguery. For more valuable info on how Iran is NOT a threat to the US, check this out--
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95285396
it doesn't really matter who says what.
the us and it's goal of world government via impoverishing everyone who isn't "with them" is doomed, as we all know the fantasy of endless consumerism is completely flawed.
the idea that "there is no limits to consumption" is so out of sync with reality, that only someone sleeping can believe this to be true.
whomever gets into the white house is doomed to fail, as the weight of stolen future generations wealth, and the bloated greed of the whole rotten mess at the top, cannot possibly be carried much longer by the ever shrinking middle class , which everyone knows is the true engine of wealth.
Outstanding piece, Stephen Zunes. I was equally dismayed by the gross disinformation regarding the the nature of US relations with other countries promoted by both sides and appalled that the media was not calling them on it. I am forwarding this to everyone I know! I wish they would do little pop up bubbles with the facts as the candidates are speaking so everyone could see how they lie (or maybe on rebroadcast).
ABSOLUTELY!
I'm just as sick of hearing about what a great journalist Gwen Ifill is!
A good journalist WOULD call these lying sacks of crap on their lies.
A good journalist would've challenged that frost-bitten bitch from the get-go: "You agreed to the debate's terms and now you're saying you will ignore the rules? Why? Didn't the sleep tapes stick in that empty noggin'?"
And for that matter, let's stop calling these collections of 90-second ads "debates." Go to a high school or collegiate debate club event to see what a real debate is like, or listen to NPR's IQ (Intelligence Squared).
"no gods, no masters" --m. sanger
the "debaters" can say whatever they want because most watching do not know the truth or believe in the preconceived notion that their candidate is correct. (and truth exposed gets little airtime) it is two choices that equal the same thing. no "third party" will be elected so why bother with involvement in a system that has been co-opted to be lose-lose for the majority? imagine if nobody voted...who would be the winner? us?
i know, flawed and biased from the perspective that not all in this great nation think like me, guess i better get in line and come correct
Im amazed that 70 million people watched the debates..I guess thats a good thing as they are not watching American Idol or corporate-'professional' sports..it would be better if they read the A-section of a newspaper or better yet internet instead of TV soundbites though..all Obama has to do is say "Our we/you better off from 8 yrs ago or 4 yrs ago?" Is the US in better economic shape? Is the US more respected worldwide than 8 yrs ago? Why not? Can you say incompetence?..
These farcical 'debates' just dont matter in terms of content or who was right and who was wrong. Its about who looked good saying nothing. Palin of course stomped Biden. Clearly she looks better (MILF anyone?). Thats all that matters to a majority of Americans so this detailed 'analysis' by Zunes is a wasted effort.
I fear you're correct. I hope and pray that most yanks don't want to have a president they'd LtF...
We always vote for the president that Fs us.
and if they do it REAL well we ask them back to do it to us again!
"no gods, no masters" --m. sanger