It is important to understand
just where the Democratic candidates 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 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 a legal justification for each and
every one of their criminal acts, a Big Brother government of universal
spying, and a continually growing program of unprecedented powers of
historical proportions. Hundreds of thousands of people are dead as
a result of the Bush program, 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 done? If the new “progressive” candidate
promises change in areas of healthcare, the economy, and tax breaks,
all of which may prove beneficial to the average American temporarily,
what REAL and LASTING change will occur in this country and the world
as the U.S. Government continues the same program: bombing Iraq, bombing
Pakistan, going on to bomb Iran, continuing to spy on Americans, New
Orleans remaining a disaster area, detainees continuing to be tortured.
What real and lasting change will there be if the whole program set
in place by the Bush Regime is solidified and made permanent?
It is critical to fully understand
that without an absolute repudiation of the crimes of the Bush regime,
the program and agenda of the last thirty years of influence by the
neo-con, corporatist, theocratic, and war mongering elitists of 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 three
important issues: war, torture, and rendition. These are just a few of many crucial issues that need to be investigated
deeply in relationship to where candidates stand and what the actual
actions of the presidential candidates are. A deeper investigation into
these issues is revealing because it makes the facts very plain: these
candidates are not actively demanding that the crimes of the Bush regime
be repudiated, and that these candidates are taking NO action whatsoever
in pursuing the course of bringing the Bush Regime to justice: thus,
there are no candidates that speak for us, and there will be no “savior”
from the democratic party. Links to sources 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. http://www.hillaryclinton.com
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 “. (http://www.cnn.com/2007
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. http://www.thenation.com/doc
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.””
This is code for, among other things, using nuclear weapons. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap
“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.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com
Clinton: http://64.233.167.104/search?q
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.. http://www.barackobama.com
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.” http://www.barackobama.com
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,” http://www.cnn.com/2007
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.” http://www.antiwar.com/frank/
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.” http://www.commondreams.org
that as president he would order military action against terrorists
in Pakistan’s tribal region bordering Afghanistan
if intelligence warranted it. This is exactly in keeping with a Bush
policy, which has resulted in recent U.S. military and CIA efforts in
Pakistan. http://www.washingtonpost.com
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” http://www.counterpunch.org
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. http://www.senate.gov/~clinton
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.” http://www.nypost.com/seven
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.. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/11/02/hillary/
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. Since the rendition program
was started in 1996 under then president Bill Clinton
would it stand to reason that “rendition” is also legal, according
to Hillary Clinton’s logic? http://www.newyorker.com
Corpus Restoration Act which failed to pass. http://www.opencongress.org
of Clinton advocating absolute repeal of the Military Commissions Act
or The Patriot Act http://thatsmycongress.com
Act http://www.senate.gov/legislati
of the Patriot Act http://www.govtrack.us/congress
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 http://my.barackobama.com/page
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.” http://www.humanrightsfirst
Obama was a co-sponsor of the Habeas
Corpus Restoration Act which failed to pass. http://www.opencongress.org
the Restoring the constitution act of 2007 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin
language, that he would repeal the Patriot Act, but went on to vote
for the re-authorization of it http://www.motherjones.com
Obama has said that he would introduce legislation to repeal the Military
Commissions Act which codified torture