It is important to understand just who the Democratic candidates are, where they stand on the issues, and why. At no other time in American history have the issues been more important to the future of this country and the planet itself than now. Although the primaries and caucuses around the country are busy choosing the candidates, the Democratic race is so close that ultimately the nomination will quite possibly be decided by the Super Delegates. Who are these “Super Delegates”? They are the members of the House and Senate, in other words: the nomination will be chosen by Nancy “Impeachment is Off the Table” Pelosi and Harry “Give the Telecoms Immunity” Reid and the rest of the complicit Congress and House.

Although the two candidates of the Democratic Party do not hold positions exactly the same as Bush on many different issues, they are definitely not calling for a complete and absolute repudiation of the crimes that the Bush Regime has committed. Can we as a people afford to put all our hopes and energies in a call for change that does not include bringing an end to the fascistic policies of the US Government? Bush & Co. have instituted a reign of unjust wars based on brazen lies, a network of torture that covers the planet and legal justification for all their criminal acts, a Big Brother government of universal spying. Hundreds of thousands of people are dead as a result of their actions, countless people are tormented in Guantanamo, Bagram Air Base, and other dungeons, without any legal recourse to a hearing.

What permanent change in the trajectory of where this country is going can ever happen if the crimes of the Bush regime are not brought out in the public square, exposed, investigated, and justice is done? Hillary Clinton says she advocates universal healthcare for people in this country, but what REAL change will occur as the U.S. Government continues to bomb Iraq, bomb Pakistan, and then goes on to bomb Iran, continues to spy on Americans, New Orleans remains a disaster area, and on and on? It is critical to fully understand that without an absolute repudiation of the crimes of the Bush regime that the program and agenda of the last thirty years of influence by neo-con, corporatist, theocratic, and war mongering elitists these groups will continue to have over-reaching power in this country.

Where EXACTLY do the two democratic presidential candidates stand on the issues? Below is a bare minimum synopsis of where the presidential candidates officially stand on the issues of war, torture and rendition,. There are many crucial issues related to where candidates stand and what the actual actions of the presidential candidates are, however, looking deeply into the views of the candidates as they relate to just a few of these important issues is revealing in that it brings to light the fact that these candidates are not actively repudiating or pursuing the course of bringing the Bush regime to justice. Links have been given to encourage the reader to investigate these important issues more deeply.

WAR

CLINTON: Clinton’s stand is that she will begin the re-deployment of troops from Iraq within 60 days of taking office. “Redeployment” means Clinton advocates repositioning U.S. forces in Iraq so they  “would be positioned north of Baghdad to combat terrorists, support the Kurds, counter any Iranian moves into Iraq and provide logistical, air and training support to the Iraqi government “. ( Source ). In other words, an ongoing presence of tens of thousands of American occupation forces in Iraq.

CLINTON’s ACTIONS:  Voted for the war in 2003.  Clinton has vacillated on the war issue and said troops would be in Iraq at least until 2013 (Source).   As for war with Iran, “Calling Iran a danger to the U.S. and one of Israel’s greatest threats, U.S. senator and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said “no option can be taken off the table” when dealing with that nation.””(Source)    In a Huffingtonpost.com article by David Bromwich entitled, “Hillary Clinton Votes for War Again” Bromwich says, “With Hillary Clinton, we know where we stand. Yesterday she voted to bring the country a serious step closer to war against Iran. And she did so for the same reason that she voted to authorize the war on Iraq. She thinks the next war is going to happen.”(Source)    Another worthy article to read about Clinton: here

OBAMA: Obama’s official stand is similar to Clinton’s. He says that as president he will immediately begin to remove U.S. troops from Iraq.  He promises to remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months..   In 2002 Barack Obama spoke out against what he called a “dumb war” and “a rash war” in Iraq. He warned of, “an occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined costs, with undetermined consequences.” Read the speech here. Obama, like Clinton, says that if he is president U.S. troops will remain in Iraq for an indeterminate period, to ” protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda .”

OBAMA’s ACTIONS:  Obama, along with other candidates conceded that they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013. Obama said, “I think it’s hard to project four years from now,”  Obama told the Chicago Tribune in reference to the ongoing situation in Iran, on September 26, 2004 that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if “violent Islamic extremists” were to “take over.”  In a Commondreams.org article it stated that: “after Obama formed his presidential exploratory committee, that he introduced legislation setting a date for troop withdrawal. And it was only this past spring that he began voting against unconditional funding for the war”., he acknowledged that U.S. troops may need to stay in that occupied country for an “extended period of time,” and that “the U.S. may have no choice but to slog it out in Iraq.” Specifically, he called for U.S. forces to maintain a “reduced but active presence,””. Senator Obama has appeared to buy into some of the more alarmist and exaggerated views of Iran’s potential threat”. he has referred to Iran -as a “genuine threat.” Recently Obama stated in a speech that as president he would order military action against terrorists in Pakistan’s tribal region bordering Afghanistan if intelligence warranted it. (Source)    In an open letter to Progressive Democrats of America, John Halle of Counterpunch.org wrote: “” the Progressive Democrats of America announced its endorsement of Barack Obama. Appended to the endorsement was the mild qualification that Obama “has not always been a progressive“. This is not just an understatement, it is an absurdity.

TORTURE and RENDITION

CLINTON: Clinton’s official stand is that she is against torture. She voted against the Military Commissions Act and gave a stirring speech at that time to sway votes against it. (Source) 

CLINTON’s ACTIONS: ” Clinton said recently that she felt torture ought to be legal if the suspect had knowledge of “an imminent threat to millions of Americans. That very, very narrow exception within very, very limited circumstances is better than blasting a big hole in our entire law,” Clinton said, suggesting just such an exception while otherwise embracing a general ban on torture.” (Source) 

Salon.com asked the Clinton campaign to address CIA activities head-on. Salon solicited the candidate’s position on three issues, and the campaign released her most detailed statement yet about the agency’s practices.. (Source)

Clinton’s remark that “The Senator is in favor of interrogations that are lawful”, echoes that of President Bush’s assertion that the U.S. doesn’t torture, that the methods used are legal under the law and since the rendition program was started in 1996 under then president Bill Clinton would it stand to reason that “rendition” is also legal? (Source) Clinton was a co-sponsor of the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act which failed to pass.      There is no verifiable record to date of Clinton advocating absolute repeal of the Military Commissions Act or The Patriot Act. (Source)   In fact Clinton voted yes on the Patriot Act  and voted yes on the re-authorization of the Patriot Act.

OBAMA: Obama released the following statement in response to a New York Times report about the Bush administration’s secret authorization of brutal interrogation techniques: “The secret authorization of brutal interrogations is an outrageous betrayal of our core values, and a grave danger to our security. We must do whatever it takes to track down and capture or kill terrorists, but torture is not a part of the answer – it is a fundamental part of the problem with this administration’s approach. (Source)

OBAMA’s ACTIONS: During a debate Tim Russert asked Obama:  “We get lucky. We get the number three guy in Al Qaeda. We know there’s a big bomb going off in America in three days and we know this guy knows where it is”. Don’t we have the right and responsibility to beat it out of him? “.Obama — would you do that as president? OBAMA: America cannot sanction torture. It’s a very straightforward principle, and one that we should abide by. Now, I will do whatever it takes to keep America safe. ” what we cannot do is have the president of the United States state, as a matter of policy, that there is a loophole or an exception where we would sanction torture. I think that diminishes us and it sends the wrong message to the world.” (Source) Obama was a co-sponsor of the  Habeas Corpus Restoration Act which failed to pass. Obama was a co-sponsor of the  S. 576 the Restoring the constitution act of 2007 (Source)  At one time Obama had said, in strong language, that he would repeal the Patriot Act, but went on to vote for the re-authorization of it. (Source, Source) To date there is no evidence that Obama has said that he would introduce legislation to repeal the Military Commissions Act which codified torture.