MB Civic

This entry was posted on Friday, January 25th, 2008 at 12:52 PM and filed under Articles, Asia (incl. Southern Asia), Elections/Voting, Foreign Affairs, History, Middle East, Politics. Follow comments here with the RSS 2.0 feed. Skip to the end and leave a response. Trackbacks are closed.

One Response to “The Foreign Policy Agenda of the Democratic Front-Runners: Comparisons on Some Key Issues”

1. Ian Alterman said:

   Although the article is fairly accurate, it also contains quite a few errors and outright lies.

   First, Madeleine Albright did NOT support the invasion of Iraq. The inference that she did is unfounded.

   Second, while Zunes goes deeply into Holbrooke, he does not go as deeply into Brzezinski, who gave us the Afghanistan mahujadeen (and the Taliban and Osama bin Laden), among other atrocities.

   Third, he says, “Obama recognizes the need to “make clear that we seek no permanent bases in Iraq” and has increasingly emphasized that most U.S. troops that remain in the area should be “over the horizon,” such as in Kuwait, rather than in Iraq itself.”

   That was not what Obama said at the debate; it was Edwards who said this. If this is now Obama’s position as well, then it is brand-new.

   Fourth, he notes that Clinton voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. What he doesn’t say is that Obama did not vote on it at all; i.e., his vote was marked as “NV” (either absent, or present and not voting). Given that Obama is the self-proclaimed “principled” candidate, it does not show much principle on his part that he could not even take a stand on the amendment. But to then criticize Hillary for HER vote on it is the height of hypocrisy.

   Finally, he says, “Edwards and Obama have been less visible in their support for Israeli policies than Clinton, and Obama has been somewhat more nuanced in his wording…”

   This is simply poppycock. Read Obama’s address to AIPAC and you will see that he is no less pro-Israel than Hillary or Edwards. Again, the inference that he is not is unfounded.

   This is just another example of the media – even the alternative media – wearing Barack-tinted glasses. Obama’s staff has no less members of CFR, Trilateral, etc. than Hillary’s. Their positions on Iraq, Iran, Israel, etc. are close enough to be, as Zunes initially states, fairly “similar.” As well, Obama is far more “bullish” (read war-mongering) on Pakistan than either Hillary or Edwards.

   Obama is NOT the second coming of Christ. He is an ambitious politician seeking to be president, just as the rest of them are; in fact, he abandoned his own constituents after less than a single full term in the Senate in order to run for president. His Senate voting record was identical to Hillary’s 94% of the time – the closest of any two senators – and he was just as prone to wrong-headed voting as she was. And he is just as prone to rationalizing, obfuscating and spinning as Hillary, as witnessed by his ridiculous, heavily dissembling performance at the SC debate.

   As well, if he bristles so quickly at the relatively minor “attacks” of candidates in his OWN party, how on God’s earth is he going to deal with what will unquestionably be the most blistering, withering, negative campaign the right-wing has ever launched? Hillary is battle-tested in this regard: all the skeletons in her closet have long been dragged out and pounded into the mud; there is nothing left for the GOP to use against her that way. She has taken everything they can throw at her – and weathered it. And, as she notes, she is still standing.

   We simply do not know what skeletons may remain in Obama’s closet – any and all of which will be used by the GOP to their advantage. And as noted, Obama has not shown the resilience needed to deal with “dirty” politics – which, whether we like it or not, is how the game is played, and how the GOP will absolutely play it.

   This is not to say that Obama does not have some very admirable qualities, or that he would not make a good president – someday. But to suggest that he is likely to defeat the GOP candidate – much less do all that much more as president than Hillary (or Edwards) can or would do – is simply ridiculous.

   Peace.

   Posted on 26-Jan-08 at 1:52 pm | Permalink