Q:
Is Barack Obama the “anti-war candidate?”
A:
Depends on which war you”re talking about.
*Barack
Obama has repeatedly threatened military action against Iran, and
refused to rule out using nuclear weapons. Think about that for a
second: refused to rule out dropping nuclear weapons on civilians.
In a June 2008 speech before the American Israeli Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC), he said: “I will do everything in my power
to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my
power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything.”
*A
major element of Obama’s platform is intensifying the U.S.
occupation of Afghanistan. In a July 14, 2008 Op-Ed in the New York
Times, he argued, “We need more troops, more helicopters,
better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to
accomplish the mission there.” A huge part of why Obama wants to withdraw troops from Iraq is to
send them into Afghanistan.
*Obama
has also repeatedly threatened to attack Pakistan, including
on August 1st, when he said “If we have actionable
intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President
Musharraf won’t act, we will.”
Oh,
so he’s only arguing for going after terrorists – the
“bad guys”? Sure, ok. This is exactly what Bush and
Cheney have always claimed to be doing.
*Finally,
Barack Obama devotes an entire section of his Web site (“Defense”)
to his call for comprehensive expansion of the United States
military.
Why
would an “anti-war candidate” advocate massive expansion
of the military?
Q: So does Barack Obama oppose the Iraq War? And why?
A:
No and yes. And, for both answers, because of his desire to
extend U.S. imperialist domination of the Middle East :
*”No,”
Obama is not opposed to the Iraq War in the sense that he has
voted over and over again to fund it. In June 2008, he voted to
approve $187 billion in funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars.
*And
“yes” he is opposed to the war, in the sense that he does
have some genuine criticism of U.S. policy in Iraq : namely, that
it is not going well for the U.S. military, and that it takes energy
away from other wars he feels the U.S should be fighting. In
that same July 14 New York Times Op-Ed, Obama made clear the true
nature of his objection to the Iraq War: “I believed it was a
grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight
against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no
imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks,”
Obama wrote. “Since then, more than 4,000 Americans have died
and we have spent nearly $1 trillion. Our military is overstretched.
Nearly every threat we face – from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to
Iran – has grown.”
*This
position shows that Obama’s objection to the Iraq War is
motivated by the same factor as his decision to nonetheless keep
funding it: The fact that, to paraphrase Bob Dylan, “He
just wants to be on the side that’s winning.”
Q:
But won’t Barack Obama defend our civil liberties?
A: This one’s easy – no. In July, Obama
infamously voted in favor of the FISA Amendments Act, which greatly
expanded the President’s power to spy on the communications of
American citizens , and grants immunity to communications companies
who carried out this spying in the past. This infuriated many supporters, especially since Obama had
repeatedly promised to vote against immunity for telecommunications
companies. This is what Obama is doing when he’s still
trying to win your vote! Imagine what he”ll do once he’s
been elected.
If
that weren’t enough, Obama voted in 2006 to reauthorize the USA
Patriot Act.
Q:
What is Obama’s stance on immigration?
A:
Assuming you believe that no “human being is illegal,”
his stance is extremely bad.
*Obama
voted for the “Secure Fence Act of 2006,” which approved
the construction of an additional 700 miles of fencing along the
U.S.-Mexico border and called for increased surveillance on all U.S
.international borders.
*In
March of this year, Obama also voted for the “Immigration
Enforcement and Employer Sanctions Amendment,” which Project
Vote Smart-a non-partisan organization that researches
candidates” voting records-summarized this way: “Vote
to adopt an amendment that allows the Senate Budget Committee
Chairman to raise spending levels to increase border security,
expand enforcement of immigration laws, increase penalties against
employers who hire undocumented immigrants, deploy National Guard
troops to the southern and northern borders of the United States, and
identify and deport non-citizen immigrants in prisons, provided
that such spending would not increase the budget deficit.“
*Obama’s
own Web site proclaims: “Obama supports a system that
allows undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a
fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the
opportunity to become citizens.” In other words, Obama supports a system that makes immigrants
official second-class citizens” If they”re lucky.
*All
of the above reveals Obama’s platitudes about “keeping
immigrant families together” to be just that-platitudes.
Q:
But at least Barack Obama is against torture. Right?
A:
As the saying goes: “Actions speak louder than words.”
*It
is true that Obama has said that, if elected, he will close
Guantanamo and restore habeas corpus. And that he has said “it
is never OK” for the U.S. to torture.
*But
what action has Barack Obama taken now -during
the time when our government has openly subjected detainees to
waterboarding, vicious beatings, extreme isolation , sensory and
sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation, and countless other forms of
sadistic torture; a s hundreds of detainees have languished for years
in Guantanamo with no trial? as more and more evidence has
accumulated that the Bush Regime approved this torture, until Bush
outright admitted approving meetings where torture was planned?
None.
Except, that is, for repeatedly refusing to work for – or even
endorse the idea of – impeaching an administration that has
repeatedly admitted to carrying out torture. In April, after
ABC News reported that top Bush administration officials met in the
White House multiple times to plan and approve torture, a
Philadelphia Daily News reporter asked Obama whether, as president,
he would be willing to investigate whether the Bush Regime committed
crimes. Obama waffled by saying “If crimes have been
committed, they should be investigated,” even though it was
quite apparent that the Bush administration had committed
crimes; days earlier, Bush himself had acknowledged approving
meetings where torture was planned.
In
the course of answering the reporter’s question, Obama also
said: “One of the things we’ve got to figure out in our
political culture generally is distinguishing between really dumb
policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity.
You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall
meetings and I’ve said that is not something I think would be
fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that
should be reserved for exceptional circumstances.”
*Obama
also refused to filibuster — i.e. block the passage of-
the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which eliminated habeas corpus
and allowed the President to define what constitutes “torture.”
*There
you have it. Obama is supposedly opposed to torture, but he is
utterly unwilling to take any action to stop it. He apparently does
not think the use of torture is an “exceptional circumstance”
that would merit impeachment proceedings. He offers only verbal
denouncements and promises that, once elected, he will work to end
torture. Remember, if we go on words alone, Bush and Cheney have
also said on many occasions that it is not OK for the United States
to torture.
Q:
Wouldn’t having the first Black president in U.S. history
represent tremendous advances in ending racism?
A:
Ask yourself these questions: If Barack Obama becomes
president, will 1 in 9 Black males in the U.S. between the ages of 20
and 34 no longer be in prison? Will hundreds of thousands of Black males no longer be subjected to
stop and frisks by the NYPD every year on the streets of New York? Will the police stop shooting one unarmed man of color after
another? Will it no longer be true that 3 times as many
African-Americans as whites live below 125 percent of the poverty
line in the U.S.?
Will Black children not be twice as likely as white children to have
no health insurance?
Will
the demolition of housing projects and massive displacement of
African-Americans in post-Katrina New Orleans suddenly be undone?
These
are just a few extremely powerful facts about racism in the
United States. The point is this: While sickening individual acts of
racism are a pervasive, daily occurrence throughout society , white
supremacy has always been an institutional, societal
phenomenon. Having a Black man at the head of the government that
enforces this white supremacy doesn’t signal the end of this
phenomenon.
*Beyond
that, there is the specific matter of how Barack Obama has himself
addressed issues of race. After the police officers who murdered Sean
Bell with 50 shots were let off without even a slap on the wrist,
here is what Obama had to say: “Well,
look, obviously there was a tragedy in New York. I said at the time,
without benefit of all the facts before me, that it looked like a
possible case of excessive force. The judge has made his ruling, and
we’re a nation of laws, so we respect the verdict that came down.”
We”re
supposed to “respect” a verdict that allows police
to gun down innocent Black men with no impunity?!
*And,
in his recent Father’s Day speech, Obama blamed Black fathers
for much of the problems confronting Black America:
“But
if we are honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that what too many
fathers also are is missing – missing from too many lives and too
many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like
boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker
because of it. You and I know how true this is in the
African-American community. We know that more than half of all black
children live in single-parent households, a number that has doubled
– doubled – since we were children. We know the statistics – that
children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to
live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out
of schools and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They are
more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or
become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our
community are weaker because of it.”
Q: So
you”re saying we”ll be OK if progressives sit out the
election and McCain wins?
Of
course not. But we won’t be “OK” if Obama wins
either.
That McCain
makes clear his intent to contineu the criminal and brutal
occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan; he repeatedly threatens Iran and
“jokes” about killing Iranian civilians; vehemently
opposes abortion rights; and rails against the recent Supreme Court
decision to grant habeas corpus rights to detainees”. These
are just a few of an endless list of examples that show the nightmare
that a McCain presidency would bring.
But
an Obama presidency would also be a nightmare for the people of the
world. As the above facts have shown, a vote for Obama is a
vote for (among other things): Extended war and heightened brutality
in Afghanistan; increased big brother surveillance of American
citizens; threats of war (if not actual war) against Iran and
Pakistan; repression of immigrants; and complicity in the face of
torture.. And that’s just what Obama is telling us now.
Who knows what else he”ll do if he wins the election.
The
question-“So you”re saying we should let McCain be
elected?” -is the wrong one to be asking. The question we
should be asking is: What are we doing right now, up to, and after
the elections to resist the direction both McCain and Obama want
to take this country and the world?
Q:
So if elections aren’t the vehicle for change, then what is?
A: Recognition. Declaration.
Determination.
* The real change we need starts
with a recognition: That whatever Obama’s bromides about
“hope” and “change,” the actual principal
motivations of his campaign are: 1) To divert genuine resistance to
the program of our government from the streets to the ballot box. 2)
To make people “feel good” about their country again,
even if that country is raping, torturing, and pillaging the world.
3) To propagate the lie that racism , even if it still exists, cannot
be an “excuse” for Black people anymore because-
look- there is a Black man in the White House! 4) And to win a
popular mandate for a program that will in fact lead to more endless
war and repression.
*After
this recognition comes a declaration – -to society and to
yourself : “I’m not getting conned by the “lesser
of two evils” logic anymore. Period. I want the crimes of our
government brought to a halt, not continued under the guise of
“change.”
*This declaration
and recognition must then lead to a basic determination: to
become part of, and to contribute as much as you can, to a mass
independent movement that is resisting both of the two evils
being offered to us; a movement that is fighting to stop endless war,
torture, spying and repression, no matter which party is carrying
it out.
To find out
more, visit our Web site at worldcantwait.org. Find the contact
information for the chapter nearest you. Learn more about what we”re
all about, and different initiatives and actions we”ve got in
the days and weeks coming up .
Gary,
Yes the U.S. is a republican democracy. What that means is that our elected representatives are elected to represent the will of the people, rather than the people having a direct vote on every issue.
The majority of U.S. citizens want an end to the immoral, illegal war and occupation of Iraq.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-12-poll_x.htm
Gallup poll Sept. 12, 2006, 60% US citizens start withdrawing troops.
The majority of U.S. citizens want Bush impeached.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15357623/site/newsweek/page/2/
Newsweek 51% of Americans favor impeachment
The majority of U.S. citizens want single payer healthcare for all. In fact even U.S. physicians support single payer healthcare.
The majority of U.S. citizens did not want to bail out the Wall St banks. In fact senators and representatives have said that the calls on this were over 90% against the bailout.
Lincoln\’s definition of democracy as \”government of the people, by the people and for the people\” has stood the test of time. The U.S. government is none of the above and therefore is undemocratic.
You may wish to take solace in the Republican Party and demonize the Democratic Party. Fine, I don\’t care much for either, but don\’t kid yourself and think the U.S. is in any way a democratic country.
Nick,
The United States is a Republic based on democracy.
If you were from another planet and looked at the map on CNN that shows county by county wins for the 2008 election you would not believe that McCain lost the election. Liberalism has hijacked the Democrat party. Had the Republican Party had a more conservative candidate and a conservative message and done a better job of pointing out the excessive spending on wasteful domestic spending by the Bush Administration and the Democrat controlled Congress they would have won the 2008 election.
Barack Obama\’s political record (or lack of) as well as his \”friends & mentors\” would have kept him out of the running. Obama did offer us \”change\” but who would have thought change meant returning to Clinton people!!!
If true conservatives & independents can come together to restrict growth and power of government they will win back the Congress & the Senate. I know so many older people who only vote the Democrat Party because their father\’s told them many years ago that the Democrat party was for the working man. They dislike many of the Democrat politicians (Obama, Reid. Pelosi, Murtha, Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer) but they can\’t bring themselves to vote against the Democrat ticket.
As soon as college students work, pay taxes, acquire property and start really paying attention the Democrat party has an army of \”activists\”.
As an American I am embarrassed by ACORN and their methods. If you can\’t register to vote on your own you surly do not care and are not informed on the issues. My daughter who is in her 1st. year of college sent away for the forms to register as soon as she turned 18 at the end of September. She then went online and got the form to do an absentee ballot. She did not need extremist activist liberal organizations to register her to vote.
[b]Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for yourself, your family, your friends and your community.[/b]
GOP 2010
Ugh… people like whoever wrote this article need to grow up and accept the world we live in. Thanks to the \”lunatic fringe\” on the far-left that are already bashing the President-Elect with their unrealistic goals and childish worldview, this country won\’t be united anytime soon.
You need to remember that no folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism.
All you need to do is listen to what Obama has been saying from the very beginning to hear where he stands… on the Iraq war and on American Impreialism, etc.
Do you think he should just say \”We\’re going to stop looking for the people who you all believe attacked us on 9/11, and we\’re going to let Bin Laden and Al Qaeda go… because WAR is BAD. Do you think he\’d get elected then?
Do you think he should say \”I would never under any circumstances use nuclear warfare on Iran… even if they used it on the U.S. or its allies. Would he get elected then???
Yeah, gee whiz, it really sucks for us idealists who want everyone to know what we know and be like us, and want world peace and prosperity right now… and, oh darn, we have to ACCEPT THE WORLD WE LIVE IN. shoot!
Grow up! Change does not happen in one fell swoop, and I personally don\’t want to see violent rioting in the streets, or to take up arms against my government.
And how would Obama be able to change anything if he stayed on the left of every issue and never got elected? You have a nation of people who have been terrorized by fear for the last 8 years and think that the Patriot Act is there to keep them safe, and you expect them all to know every implication of the FISA bill. Of course he had to change on a lot of issues once he went from being a Democratic primary candidate to a U.S. General Election candidate.
Would you rather be saying \”President-Elect McCain???\”
Look… I believe we can see what Obama believes in by listening to & trusting what he says. Now he has to tread a centrist path to get people on board for the direction he is going to gently nudge this country in. Change happens slowly, VERY SLOWLY.
But when you say his real intentions are… \”to win a popular mandate for a program that will in fact lead to more endless war and repression\” you sicken me! I will recognize no such thing. And if you don\’t make some compromises within yourself, your intolerant idealism is going to become a selfish act you hold on to so you can feel better about yourself, at the cost of continuing the vicious stalemate which is tearing our country apart and could lead to the destruction of the world. Thanks!!!
Pig in a Poke
Referring to the economic plan McCain is proposing for our country, Barack Obama used the old anecdote ?You can put lipstick on a pig and it?s still a pig.? The McCain camp is in uproar demanding an apology. It is obvious that Obama was not in a derogatory way referring to Ms Palin?s physical appearance, since she is a former beauty queen. Ms Palin has already referred to herself as a ?pit bull with lipstick? so she obviously does not believe that she is offending animals when describing herself.
What did Obama say that Republicans are having a hard time understanding? Could it be that he was inferring Ms Palin?s worldview is strikingly similar to that of the current President Bush? Evangelical Christian belief in Creationism, disbelief in global warming, belief that offshore drilling for oil will greatly alleviate gas prices in the foreseeable future, strident opposition to individual women controlling their own reproductive organs and above all the belief that the U.S. is some sort of benevolent empire which has the right to do with other countries in the world as it sees fit. On all these issues Ms Palin either lines up with the President or to the right of him. On the issue of torture, since she is a prominent Republican politician, one would assume she supports her President?s embrace of torture or she would have made public statements condemning the practice. One of my questions for Ms Palin, assuming at some point she does actually deign to an interview with a competent reporter, would be ?Who would Jesus torture??
What?s good for the goose is good for the gander though. Let?s look at Obama through the same ?You can put lipstick on a pig and it?s still a pig? lens. Obama has described himself as the change candidate and his supporters consider him the anti war candidate. How does he rate?
The two party Republican/Democratic Rule we have evolved into has completely strangled democracy by not allowing participation of other individuals or parties. You and I are both forced every time we go into the election booth to either vote our conscience for the candidate who most closely represents our hopes and ideals or to ?not waste our vote? and pull the lever for the major party candidate we find least offensive to keep the other major party candidate from being elected. Of course we will have all been brow-beaten over the course of the campaign into accepting the fact that the other major party?s candidate is the devil incarnate.
What solution could a change candidate offer that would actually bring about fundamental change to such an undemocratic system? IRV. Say what? Instant Run-Off Voting. Say what again? Instant Run-Off Voting used locally in some progressive areas of the U.S. and for some elections in Australia has the basic premise that no one should be elected with less than a majority or 50% of the vote. Bush Jr. and Clinton were both elected with less than 50% of the vote. If we did not allow the travesty of electing officials with less than 50%, we would have run-off elections in which the top two polling candidates would square off against each other if no candidate originally polled more 50%. Instant Run-Off Voting simply sets the mechanism up for you to vote for your candidates in order of preference the first time around and then if no one polls more than 50% with the voters? first choices, second and third choices are used until we have a winner. It?s like having a run-off election without another day at the polls.
How does that fundamentally change our democracy? Well, would you like to vote for the candidate you agree with and not waste your vote? Presently both parties use the fear card. Vote for this one or that one, because the other is so much worse. The major parties political conventions actually are geared to getting those on the opposite side of the political fence to flee to the other candidate. Personally, while my views would certainly be considered left, the Democratic convention didn?t do much to get me excited about Obama. But after seeing the Republican convention, I was scared half to death and almost agreed to go canvas for Obama with many of my friends, because as they keep telling me ?we can?t let McCain get in.? I am sure that Republicans, libertarians and conservatives felt the same way about their candidate after watching the Democratic convention.
With IRV we all get to vote for who we actually agree with and as a second or third choice we can keep from wasting our votes and go with a major party candidate. It wouldn?t put the major parties out of business, but it would certainly make them more accountable to the voters, while at the same time elevating the level of political discourse. A true change candidate would vigorously support this transfusion into a democracy currently on life support.
Is Obama the anti war candidate? You be the judge. He opposed the Iraq War before we invaded, but he has never called the war immoral or illegal as has every member of the anti war community that I am familiar with. Incidentally, these aren?t far out views either. Pope John Paul called it immoral and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan called it illegal. He has called for a timeline for combat troop withdrawals from Iraq, but also would keep an unspecified number in the country indefinitely. Obama supported Israel?s war with Lebanon in 2006 and has threatened or not ruled out the use of force by the U.S. in Iran and Pakistan, while advocating a troop increase in Afghanistan. Even the conservative Rand Corporation recently released a report stating that the U.S. use of the military against terrorism was ?too blunt an instrument.? Obama?s remarks about using diplomacy first in Iran have been subject to withering attacks from both Hillary Clinton and the Republicans and while he?s bent a little, he hasn?t yet caved.
If we had IRV, those millions of peace and anti war voters could vote for a true peace candidate, Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney. Environmental voters could do the same and select McKinney or Nader first without worrying about wasting their votes, because they could then select Obama second or third. Libertarians and fiscal conservatives could vote their conscience with Bob Barr or Ron Paul and then go to McCain, Obama, Nader or McKinney. This is the change that America fundamentally needs. Instant Run-Off Voting would do more for the democracy than the election of any individual candidate. Both McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden have said they are the agents of change. If so they will support real change, Instant Run-Off Voting.
Nick Egnatz, Munster, IN
NW Indiana Veterans For Peace
People keep on saying that he needs to \”appeal to the moderates\” (ie that there\’s a huge group of people in this country that wants war, torture, Big Brother spying, etc. Actually pretty right-wing if you look at it honestly!). But this is a misconception to begin with – one that people are only swallowing because it\’s been repeated so many times. The reality is, even by the logic of political calculating quantities of public opinion, WE are in the majority. According to mainstream polls, the majority of the country is anti-war, anti-torture, anti-spying, and pro-impeachment. And yet [i]none[/i] of the politicians are ever supposed to \”appeal\” to us!! Let\’s break out of this box of compromise and regain our principles!
I agree with your concerns. There is such a smoke and mirrors bullshit that candidates have to project. That does not necessarily define what Obama will do in office. On the other side, the Conservatives are scared that he will lean to your side and carry out the liberal agenda. So he is caught in the middle between a rock and hard place. The affection that I and others have about Obama is that he is a measured man who will develop a consensus, that learned from community organizing. I know because I have been a consultant and a coach and that is the predominant energy to get everyone involved. I really trust him that he will do what is right. Right now he needs to appeal to the moderate crowd and that includes those who need the security of fighting for rights, here and abroad.
As regards the idea that politicians must pander to voting blocks to get elected – I heard recently a quotable comment.
There is no such time as \”after an election\”, it\’s always \”before an election\”.
Pamela, it\’s obvious you didn\’t actually read any of the above and so I suppose it makes sense of your need to create a strawman argument against it.
I don\’t think you\’re fooling anyone though, least of all yourself –[i]I hope[/i].
Read the above and come with real criticisms… it will speak volumes. Really.
[b]Obama has to say he\’ll defend America or else he\’d never get elected. Get a clue[/b]