By Kenneth J. Theisen, 5/1/07
Last week eight Democratic presidential candidates met in South Carolina for a
debate. The candidates were Senators Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joseph
Biden, Christopher Dodd; former Senators John Edwards and Mike Gravel; Governor
Bill Richardson; and Representative Dennis Kucinich. Although most of what was said during this
so-called debate was no more than “campaign sound bites,” it is important to
look at what was said and also what was unsaid to see the alternatives the
Democratic Party is offering to replace the Bush regime in 2009.
Clinton
was the first of the candidates to speak.
In discussing the invasion and continued war in Iraq, she stated, “We
have given the Iraqi people the chance to have freedom, to have their own
country”it is past time for them to demonstrate that they are willing to make
the sacrifice, the compromise that is necessary to put together a unified
government and provide security and stability without our young men and women
in the middle of their sectarian civil war.”
In what alternative universe does Clinton live?
“Freedom?” Four years ago a
massive invasion of the country was launched by the Bush regime. Today some 200,000 U.S.
led forces, “allies,” and contract mercenaries occupy “free Iraq.” “Sacrifice?” More than 650,000 Iraqis have been sacrificed
on the altar of U.S.
imperialism. If that is not enough
sacrifice, maybe Clinton can take a look at the pre-war sanctions enforced by
the U.S. which led to more than a million deaths of Iraqis, about half of the
deaths being children. But then Clinton voted for the war
and her husband was president while hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died under
the sanctions regime so maybe looking back is not a good idea for the good
Senator. And the sectarian civil war to
which she refers is a direct result of the invasion and occupation.
But let’s move on to see what other issues were raised in
the debate. What concerns did Senator
Obama have? Early in the debate he
stated his compassion for the military occupiers of Iraq. “We have seen our Army and our Reserves and
our National Guard all being stretched to a breaking point. And that’s one of
the reasons why I proposed that we”re going to have to increase the size of our
ground forces, so we can stop the sort of rotations that we”ve been placing
them on, which have been putting enormous strain not only on the soldiers
themselves, but also their families”The men and women in uniform have performed
valiantly in terms of overthrowing Saddam Hussein and giving the Iraqi people
an opportunity to bring their country together.” In a recent foreign policy speech Obama
proposed increasing the size of the Army and Marines by 92,000 and also getting
the support of other countries when fighting wars of choice.
So Obama wants to increase the size of the military so that
“our” poor military will not be over-stretched when the U.S. launches
wars of choice. He also prefers more allies
in his wars. In effect he is proposing a
stronger “multi-lateral imperialism” in place of the Bush regime’s “unilateral
imperialism.” And this is a good
alternative?
And where is Obama’s compassion for the suffering of the
Iraqi people? He feels sorry for those
who have brought on this suffering. I
guess the deaths and horrors imposed on Iraqis do not count. He forgot to mention it in the debate if it
does. But then he did mention the
“opportunity to bring their country together” that the U.S. invasion has given the Iraqi
people. This is like Hillary’s freedom
to “have their own country” sentiment. But those ungrateful Iraqis are just not
showing their appreciation for these opportunities and the freedom the Bush
regime has brought them. What ingrates?
At one point in the debate there was actually real debate. Representative Dennis Kucinich challenged
Senator Obama about Obama’s previous statements outside of this debate
referring to Iran.
Obama has made it clear that he thinks
that all options, including the use of nuclear weapons against Iran, are on the table with respect to keeping Iran from
acquiring nuclear weapons. (Other
candidates including Clinton and Edwards have expressed similar views.) In response to Kucinich, Obama said, “I think
it would be a profound mistake for us to initiate war with Iran. BUT have no doubt, Iran possessing nuclear
weapons will be a major threat to us and to the region”I think it is important
for us to also recognize that if we have nuclear proliferators around the world
that potentially can place a nuclear weapon into the hands of terrorists, that
is a profound security threat for America and one that we have to take
seriously.” (Does this remind you of
Bush’s statements before he launched the attack on Iraq?)
At that point former Senator Mike Gravel pointed out
correctly that the U.S.
is the “greatest violator of the Non-Proliferation Treaty”We signed a pledge
that we would begin to disarm, and were not doing it. We”re expanding our
nukes. Who the hell are we going to nuke?…Tell me Barack”who do you want to
nuke?” Obama replied, “I’m not planning
to nuke anybody right now, Mike, I promise you.” So we are safe from Obama for “now.” But then he is not the president and right now
he does not have the power to nuke anyone.
One of the topics that did not come up at the debate was the
impeachment of Bush. Although all the
candidates claimed they were against indefinitely continuing the war waged by
Bush, not one of them talked about impeaching the president who initiated the
war. But Kucinich has proposed
impeaching VP Cheney. But when the
moderator asked who would enter into Kucinich’s effort to impeach the VP no one
raised their hand.
Kucinich pointed out the hypocrisy of the candidates that
claim to oppose the war, but yet recently voted to give the Bush regime even
more money for the war than he asked for in his budget. He said, “I think it’s inconsistent to tell
the American people that you oppose the war and, yet, continue to vote to fund
the war. Because every time you vote to fund the war, you”re reauthorizing the
war all over again”The Democrats have the power to end the war right now, and
that’s what we should do.” He also went
on to expose candidates like Clinton
who say they voted to authorize the war because they were misled by the Bush
regime. He stated, “I don’t think that
it’s sufficient to say that if we had the information at the beginning that we
would have voted differently. That
information was available to everyone.” Millions
around the world opposed the war before it was launched. They knew the Bush regime was attempting to
deceive the world.
These debates and other statements and speeches will
continue for the next year until the Democrats select a candidate for 2008. World Can’t Wait! will report on these and try
to look behind the soundbites, exposing what the candidates are really saying
as they pretend to oppose the Bush regime.
Moreover, it’s important to pause for a minute and ask why,
as soon as the midterm election ended, the presidential election began, and why
this first primary debate is being held so early. There are tens of millions of people in this
country who hate the whole direction the Bush regime has taken things. With this debate, people are being told to
hope for a savior to come along in 2008 and fix all the problems for us, when
what is urgently needed right now is massive resistance that demands Bush be
impeached now and everything he has done to the world be stopped.