The Democratic Primary & Iran

[H2O Man]

One of the problems that democrats face in winning the competition in the marketplace of ideas is that we allow the republicans to frame debates. There is no better example of this than the current discussions about Senator Clinton’s rather odd statement about a US response to Iran if it initiated a nuclear attack against Israel. Much of the on-going discussions, even on progressive internet forums, suggests that there has been a republican operation that is something akin to a lobotomy, which severed the capacity for rational thought.

Let’s take a brief look at the situation, with a focus on why Senator Clinton said that which she did.

For those with a serious interest in understanding Iran, a good place to start is with conservative Kenneth Pollack’s 2005 book, "The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict Between Iran and America." Keep in mind that Pollack, the author of the earlier book "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq." Even he recognized that the dynamics between the USA and Iran was significantly different than the situation with Iraq.

Pollack points out that one must understand Iran’s history in order to appreciate their belief that their country is at risk of foreign intervention. The Iranians are very aware of their history, including events after WW1, when world powers were intent upon accessing their natural resources. There was a time when the Iranian people looked to the United States as an ally who could help advocate for them. It is firmly in their people’s memories what eventually took place, when the CIA masterminded a coup that replaced a popular prime minister with the Shah of Iran.

Even 28 years ago, at a time when the public believed that tensions between the US and Iran were the greatest, it turns out that there may have been an agreement regarding the release of the hostages which influenced the outcome of the 1980 election; and there was definitely a series of illegal weapons deals which were part of the Iran-Contra Scandals. Many of the criminals from this Reagan-Bush1 adventure found comfortable jobs in the Bush-Cheney administration.

In the wake of the first Gulf War, Undersecretary Paul Wolfowitz and aide Scooter Libby authored a position paper for Dick Cheney, which became the foundation for PNAC. The paper outlined plans for a global US military presence that would "deter potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role." In his book "Imperial Hubris," Michael Scheuer addressed the neoconservative agenda of re-drawing the map of the Middle East (pages 14-15). This plan included the concept of invading Iraq – a project that was framed for public consumption with claims that Iraq posed a serious and immediate threat to national security.

The war of occupation in Iraq has had an unintended consequence. It has helped make Iran a larger regional power, with substantial control over a resource that is important to the world. And it isn’t Niger’s yellow cake.

During the period leading up to the Bush-Cheney invasion in Iraq, counterespionage agents for our government were tracking people suspected of participating in a large, well-organized spy ring. Three have since been charged: Larry Franklin, and Iranian expert working for Douglas Feith; and Keith Weissman and Steven Rosen of AIPAC. They were found to be sharing highly classified military secrets regarding Iran with intelligence officers from another Middle Eastern nation.

What’s more, the FBI files showed that during the Bill Clinton administration, Rosen and Weissman had lunched with Kenneth Pollack – then serving as a Persian Gulf specialist on Clinton’s National Security Council – before sharing information with others that is suspected of coming straight from Pollack. In fact, Pollack has been subpoenaed by the defense attorneys to testify about more of the connections between the Clinton administration and the AIPAC intelligence unit.

Small world.

Senator Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign is experiencing trouble in two areas. One is in votes, the other is in finances. When some democrats begin to lose support in these two areas, they may look elsewhere. Let us consider the example of Senator Joseph Lieberman, a former democrat. When it became apparent that the democrats in his party were rejecting Joe because of his support for the Bush-Cheney war of occupation in Iraq, he shifted to the right.

Lieberman now inhabits an area that has overlapping interests in both the republican and democratic parties. It is a group that began when there was a split in the civil rights movement, at the time that Martin Luther King, Jr., merged it with the anti-war movement. The split came after the Six Day War, as documented in Taylor Branch’sbook "At Canaan’s Edge: America in the King Years 1965-68" (see Chapter 35: Splinters).

It’s not that Senator Clinton is a neoconservative. But she is signaling to the closely related group known as the neo-liberals. The neo-liberals are liberal on social issues, conservative on foreign policy, and share in the agenda to re-draw the map of the Middle East. It is not necessarily an agenda restricted to war – and we err in letting the debate be framed in such a manner – but rather, who will be involved in the behind-the-scenes trading, and includes the control of the single most important resource that countries such as Iraq and Iran possess.

When Senator Clinton speaks of bombing Iran, it is important to put it into the proper context. She is certainly aware of the recent NIE that showed agreement among all US intelligence agencies regarding Iran’s nuclear program. She also knows that Iran has no reason to want to attack Israel with nuclear weapons – such talk is used by leaders from different nations for the exclusive purpose of scaring citizens. Clinton’s statement is nothing more, and nothing less, than a signal to the neo-liberal community that "she’s their girl."

This is the type of thing that makes progressive and liberal democrats agree with Barack Obama’s saying that we need the type of leadership that doesn’t get us involved in wars in places like Iraq and Iran. Any and every American president is going to support Israel. The truth is that Israel is not safer because of the Bush-Cheney policies, which have destabilized the Middle East. Quite the opposite: they have strengthened the radical Islamic elements that actually do pose risks to those who advocate for peace in the Middle East.

[boston bean]

1. Let it go H20, Hillary is going to win. nt

[cali]

4. lol. poor delusional thing.

a 9% victory in PA just won't cut it, dear. And hey, did you hear that Obama got another big SD endorsement this morning? Governor Henry. Expect more in the days to come. Great news, isn't it?

[mmonk]

2. Recommended.

There's nothing like the truth.

[H2O Man]

5. Thank you.

Many Americans have not taken the time to investigate issues on their own, and they do not even suspect the connections between events from the '60s, '70s, '80s, and '90s and what is happening in 2008. Barack Obama is telling the truth, and it makes some of our fellow democrats uncomfortable.

[davidpdx]

3. Interesting background

I'll have to put the Pollack's book on my list to bring back when I visit home next year. There's probably a zero chance of finding it here in Korea and even then it's an arm and a leg for anything that is published in English.

[H2O Man]

8. I think that there

is a big advantage gained by reading from intelligent sources, even when they are writing from a position that one disagrees with. Pollack provides an interesting perspective on Persian history, and shows how that has created an unfortunate foundation for US-Iranian relations.

The truth is that the global community is not made safer by any nation -- including Iran -- building or buying nuclear weapons. One reason they might be inclined to want WMD is because several of their neighbors have them. Another is because, as Pollack correctly points out, their leadership has a fear that outside interests may again attempt to depose them and install a different government. I'm not sure that Senator Clinton's remarks reduce the tensions. I think that is unfortunate.

Our options are not limited to dealing only with the most radical of their leaders, or with people like Chalabi. That would be like saying that Tom DeLay and Pat Robertson are representative of all Americans. We need to use all of our resources to make the Middle East a more stable place for everyone.

[cali]

6. Great information, but

let me add that Clinton is also experiencing trouble in another arena: Super Delegates. It's clear that SDs are increasingly reluctant to back her for a myriad of reasons: Her negative campaigning, arm twisting and her high unfavorability ratings- to name a few.

k&r

[H2O Man]

9. Good point.

I agree fully.

She also has a financial problem that is not being reported. It isn't anything illegal or corrupt, but it is a problem for her campaign. You likely are aware of it, but if not, if you ask Doris K.G., I am confident that she knows.

[chknltl]

7. Well put.

Thank you for this. I kinda suspected that Clinton was saber rattling regarding Iran and now I see why. It has less to do with Iran and more to do with gaining 'neo-con'-('neo-liberal' as you put it)-support. Would she follow through if elected POTUS on Iran? I guess that's something we can only speculate on at this time. Knowing that she is backed by the Military Industrial Complex just as strongly as McCain is does not provide me with much comfort. If I were a citizen of the Middle East I would have great concerns if America were forced to choose between Senator McCain or Senator Clinton.
recomended and bookmarked

[mmonk]

10. I'm sure there will be destabilization efforts

in the middle east if she becomes president. It is evident by the support she gets from notable CIA types. There is a reason behind it. Thus their attempts to join in on the smears of Obama. The war on the third world will continue in much of the same manner as it has been (just less overt than bush/Cheney).

[H2O Man]

12. Good questions.

I think that it is important to ask those things, and believe that we are more likely to find the correct answers when we remove the scare-tactics. Hopefully democrats have learned from the "we can't wait for the smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud" business.

Most democrats believe that we need to have a very different approach to the serious issues in the Middle East than that of the Bush-Cheney administration. That includes progressive, liberal, and moderate democrats. Only the conservative democrats support the current approach.

Can we realistically expect a real change in approach if the US does what Senator Clinton is advocating: starting to reduce troop levels in Iraq, while sticking to the Bush-Cheney saber rattling in regard to Iran?

More: what is the role that we can reasonably expect Iran to play in Iraq's future?

There are distinct advantages to taking the paranoia out of the discussion, and having a rational debate on what our best options are. The paranoia seems the only card the Bush-Cheney administration has right now. I am not sure that our party should embrace it.

[chknltl]

23. I fear the fear mongers and am deeply saddened by their efforts.

They have done their jobs well and because of this hundreds of thousands have died worldwide, millions are homeless and the world faces some very disturbing issues regarding the Middle East... What is to be done regarding the depleted uranium oxide contamination which is now throughout large chunks of Iraq and Afghanistan? What is to be done with the refugee crises created by the fiasco war on terrorism. What is to be done with those victims from the ME that we have tortured and remain inhumanely in detention facilities? How can we return control over Iraqi oil to Iraq?

No, I can not at all predict what a President Obama will do regarding the Middle East. If all he did was to remove our troops; release our victims from Gitmo and the like; supply aid to the refugee problem, and return possession of Iraqi oil to the citizens of Iraq, I suspect that the world would breath a big sigh of relief. (That would be a big step in the right direction imo). Frankly, I do not see a President Hillary Clinton as being so gracious and I can only believe that a President McCain would be far far worse!

At this point, as a citizen of America, I fear the bfee far more than the 'terrorists' even though the bfee has done whatever it can to strengthen their numbers as well as giving them many damned good reasons to hate America.

It is time for the adults to start making the necessary hard decisions in order to repair the damage that has been done to the Middle East. I hope some of those adults will be elected into our own government come November. I believe Iran has not been so wounded (yet), by America that it would be unwilling to aid us in the repair of the damage that we have caused. The same goes for Syria and Jordan and Turkey. They each have a stake in a reestablished Iraq and we could do well to heed their council. It IS their turf afterall, not ours.

[H2O Man]

33. It is hard for

people who suffer from unreasonable fears to make rational decisions. And we see evidence of people having their thinking infected with fear, even here on DU. There have been numerous threads with responses in the "yes, but if Iran does bomb Iran" mold. One wonders if these people have ever allowed the thought, "Why in heck would Iran bomb Israel?" to enter their mind.

[chknltl]

54. Lost in the Iran bombing Israel mix:...

...Israel is MORE than adequately equipped to OBLITERATE Iran should she so choose. Of course her allies and pretty much most the entire world would line up behind her like it did with Kuwait should Iran do something equally silly! Why in the hell is THAT not discussed by MSM??? Instead we keep getting that dose of fear, FEAR, FEAR!!!!...that Iran must be stopped because it has all those insane religious zealots out to turn poor defenseless Israel into radioactive dust NEXT WEEK!!!

All exaggeration aside, I am tired of the smoking gun FEAR shtick. Been there done that, found it a crock of BS and thought it to be exactly that from the git-go! Panic is not needed in order to resolve the Middle East issue. There is a train-wreck there right now and the wounded need immediate triage NOT MORE BOMBS! We can sort out the causes of that train-wreck after we see to the safety and the critically urgent needs of the train-wreck's victims.

[mmonk]

41. If Samantha Power is in an Obama administration,

at least international aid groups and the UN will be involved.

[chknltl]

55. Not very familiar with her but what little I know about her....

...leads me to concur with your assesment. Jimmy Carter would be another unique valuable tool worth calling on as well.

[H2O Man]

56. Both are resources

that we will have when Obama takes office.

[leveymg]

11. The neocons endanger Israel more than Iran.

They've managed to fracture the American consensus that once supported Israeli hegemony in the region. The PNAC and AIPAC people incorrectly calculated that a quick easy triumph over minimal resistance in Iraq would pave the way for regime change in Lebanon, Syria and then Iran.

The Domino Theory led to a disastrous intervention in Southeast Asia, and it ended up doing the same thing in the Near East, just as predictably.

The neocons and neoliberals have no respect or understanding for the rest of the world or for the lessons of history. Their world view is premised on an elitist notion that they're smarter than everyone else and should be allowed to rule the world by deceit. No power - nationalism, local tradition, religious faith - is good enough for the neos, or strong enough to stand up to their belief in their own essential intellectual superiority.

"Wile E. Coyote, Super Genius" is their policy moto.

These elitists have no allegiance to anyone or anything but themselves, and those who are just like themselves. They are completely unprincipled, and lack even simple gratitude to those around them who have given them so much. They are really the last people who should be trusted with policymaking, or even trusted.

They may have even blown it for fellow Jews in America.

[H2O Man]

14. I think that

DUers who are interested in this topic do well to read your contributions from over the years on these topics. This is an important subject for us to consider during the democratic primary.

[PA Democrat]

13. Great post H2O Man. A little commentary on the term neo-liberalism.

The oldest and most common use of the term refers to economic policies. Adam Smith was a big proponent of liberal economic policies, so named because they were intended to liberate business from regulation by government and open foreign markets by eliminating tariffs and other restriction on free trade.

In the Reagan administration, liberalism, as an economic policy, was resurrected, and is referred to as "neo-liberalism." The proponents tell Americans that these policies will spur economic growth, and that they will share in the financial benefits of that growth. But the truth is that as a policy, the true intent is to consolidate wealth in the hands of the few. We all know that the vast majority of Americans have not benefited from these policies as is evidenced by the increasing income gap.

The key components of neo-liberal economic policies are:


THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much.

CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.

DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminish profits, including protecting the environment and safety on the job.

PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.

ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

I think what we we seeing now is neo-liberalism economics creeping into our foreign policy as well, as we are using military might to ensure corporate access to the resources of other countries.

[H2O Man]

15. Thank you.

Very important information.

[PA Democrat]

17. There is an interesting book which makes the case that neoconservatism is actually

nothing more than an authoritarian approach to enforcing neo-liberal economic policies. Here's a review of the book A Brief History of Neoliberalism that you may find interesting. Bill Clinton in many ways carried on the neo-liberal policies of Reagan and Bush I. NAFTA, welfare reform, the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, as well as his efforts to open up global financial markets for US corporations are all examples of neo-liberal policies adopted by the Clinton administration.


http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_5.2/golub_harvey.htm

[mmonk]

18. Bingo. Thanks for mentioning that work.

A great help in understanding where we are.

[PA Democrat]

21. Sure thing.

I know for me, a close look at some of the economic policies of the Clinton administration opened my eyes. Many Americans did share in the financial benefits of the economy under Bill Clinton because taxation was more progressive, job growth was good, the social services network was still functioning fairly well, inflation was low and at the same time the economy was growing. The full impact of some of Clinton's policies were delayed and have now been compounded by Bush's reckless foreign and economic policies.

[H2O Man]

20. One of the

best things about DU is when members recommend different reading material. Thank you for that.

A while back, I had quoted from Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.'s journal (November 7, 1995):

"A few days later Clinton called, of all people, that jerk Ben Wattenberg, talked to him for an hour and said, in effect, that he had been too liberal in his first two years and was now going to reform and take the Democratic Leadership Council line.This of course delighted Wattenberg, who promptly wrote a clumn about it. The rest of the press wondered what Clinton stands for, if anything. The second gaffe on top of the first reinforces one's fear that Clinton is not a learner. Kennedy made mistakes but generally learned from them. Clinton generally repeats his mistakes."

I have made repeated mention of the fact that President Clinton was the one who first weakened the Great Writ of habeas corpus. It did it by appealing to the public's fear of terrorism. The only top democrat who spoke out strongly against Clinton's attack on the Constitution was Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. It was Clinton's action that allowed the Bush-Cheney second step in attacking habeas corpus protections. I think it is telling that none of the Clinton supporters on DU have attempted to justify this move on Clinton's part.

[PA Democrat]

24. I try to never miss your posts, H2O Man.

I find I always learn something new and really enjoy the discussions that ensue. I think that these types of threads are DU at its best.

[mmonk]

16. Yes, neoliberalism and current foreign policy are married.

To keep it going, there will still be a necessity of deceit involved to keep the American people on their side.

[Major Hogwash]

19. You should write books, man.

I'd read them.

[H2O Man]

25. Thank you.

I am pleased that some of the participants on DU are interested enough to read the things that I post here.

[Tatiana]

22. EXCELLENT point about where (Dem) candidates go when the money gets low.

I guess I'm in the Rev. Wright foreign policy camp. With respect to both the Middle East and South America, this is all chickens coming home to roost. I don't say that as inflammatory rhetoric. It is the plain and simple truth. Is 1953 so long ago? Do we not realize that such proud people have LONG memories? (Hint: Pearl Harbor happened in 1941 and we still remember the event.) The CIA's Operation Ajax overthrew the democratically-elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq.

Post Iraq-invasion, WE CAN'T AFFORD the type of foreign policy Hillary Clinton proposes. The invasion of Iraq was bad enough. Add to that rising anti-American sentiment, a growing disdain for Americans in South America. The time is fast coming when we will not be able to influence their countries or bribe their government with American funds (Plan Colombia).

This is a very critical time. Hugo Chavez's anti-American rhetoric is both a result of our own imperialist actions and his knowledge of American intervention in South American countries like Chile. The damage can be repaired, but as Sen. Obama says, the time is NOW. We cannot put off engaging these nations diplomatically and working hard to restore our relationships with other sovereign nations where we have committed wrongs.

[H2O Man]

29. The policies

of the Clinton administration in containing Iraq were a continuation of Bush the Elder's post Gulf War agenda. It caused suffering and death for the most vulnerable of Iraq's citizens. The fact is that the children of Iraq have the world's highest rates for leukemia. This is, of course, due to the depleted uranium from the Gulf War. In the years spanning the Bush family's being in the White House, those children did not have needed medical treatment, including pain medications.

As human beings, surely we can agree that policies that result in little children being denied pain medication for leukemia are wrong. Such policies have caused the people of the Middle East to view the US as cruel.

I have no doubt that on a human level, Hillary Clinton is a strong advocate of children's health services. But I think it is fair to question how her foreign policy positions translate in terms of the world's children. I am not blaming her for the Bush1 or Bush2 policies, or for her husband's. But I think we need to elect a president who has the ability to move beyond them.

[myrna minx]

26. This is why I am most dubious of Senator Clinton's words and deeds when they contradict

themselves and cannot be reconciled. She has conflicting words/deeds on NAFTA, the Colombian trade deal and spousal conflict of interest, the IWR and Kyl-Lieberman and now the alarming hawk talk about Iran while claiming that she is the one to bring the troops home from Iraq. I find it quite distressing. In addition, will she vow to overturn Bush's executive order and release Reagan's, GHW Bush's and, if she is President in 2012, Clinton's presidential papers? Which candidate will make the government more transparent or more opaque?

[H2O Man]

30. Right.

Which of the candidates offers a real alternative to the current policies? That's the real question.

[Me.]

27. Unpalatable Thoughts

It is something that I didn't want to admit, because it goes against the grain, not supporting a member of my party. After all, sometimes against my own best interests, I've held my nose and voted for the dem. But with this election we are having to face up to many things. For me its beginning to feel like a vote for her is a betrayal of my own best interests. She is showing herself to be the very sort I've been against for the past 8 years. I would never vote for the old man who is having trouble thinking but she is rapidly becoming his twin sister. We now know what she thinks about activists and that she would obliterate Iran. There is very little daylight between she and McCain.

The other thought is about Obama. I have been proud of the campaign he has run. He's got game as we said the other day. Now he's going to have to step it up and bring it to a new level. It was said yesterday that Hillary has been kneecapping him. It's true. I'm beginning to think he has to level the playing field if he's going to win.

[H2O Man]

31. Yep.

He needs to step up now. And he is going to.

[Me.]

34. Daschle

Doesn't want him to step it up and is advising against it, or so I've read. I am reminded that Daschle was one of Kerry's advisors. Swiftboat anyone?

[H2O Man]

36. Stepping it up

does not have to translate into the candidate going negative. We recall that when Edwards and Obama appeared to focus on questioning Clinton in one debate, she was able to capitalize on it. Barack can step up in his own unique way. Some others in the campaign might focus on some of the Clinton campaign's vulnerabilities.

[Me.]

47. He Has Less Than 2 Weeks To 'Bring It'

It will be interesting to see what he does.

[H2O Man]

48. Plenty of time.

The long period between the last primaries will now give way to the faster pace. Obama is in good shape for this.

[Window]

28. K/R.

:kick:

[H2O Man]

32. Thank you. n/t

[Coexist]

35. did you see Lanny Davis cooing over Lieberman yesterday/?

it was eerie.

Recommended.

[H2O Man]

37. I did not.

Lanny is not among the people in national politics that I have much respect for.

[grantcart]

38. There is nothing more dangerous than a liberal trying to act tougher than

a conservative for political purpose.

Look at the sad and tragic fate of LBJ. And the millions of lives destroyed.

Tks

[H2O Man]

42. Good example.

LBJ might be remembered as one of the great liberal presidents, except for the war. Instead, he is associated with the failures of Vietnam, because he was incpable of thinking outside the box. Worse, as you noted, people were shot, burned, blown up, poisoned, and killed.

[invictus]

39. K & R

[H2O Man]

43. Thank you n/t

[Scurrilous]

40. K & R

:thumbsup:

[H2O Man]

44. Thanks n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

45. This post is a HOMERUN!!!!

w00t

:applause:

[H2O Man]

50. The neo-liberal branch

of the democratic party has no real overlap with the progressive and liberal wings. In fact, most moderate democrats would reject the neo-liberals (or very conservative) democrats. They tend to be very willing to send our children to foreign lands for purposes that are of no benefit to us.

[Adelante]

46. I've had that book sitting in a stack for a while now

I will have to pull it out and finally read it. Thank you for the informative OP. Recommended.

[H2O Man]

51. It's a good book.

I'll be curious to hear what you think of it.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

49. After Hillary's Iran "obliterate" rant...

I had a terrifying vision of Clinton and McCain in Presidential debates, trying to show who had the bigger dick/strap-on when it came to Iran. :scared:

She is as insane as he is. :cry:

[H2O Man]

52. One of the things

that people my age remember is that President Kennedy had the guts to stand up to those who insisted he had to react violently during the Cuban missile crisis. The truth is that the other presidents, such as Truman, Ike, LBJ and Nixon, who came just just before and just after JFK, would have gone to war.

When that phone rings at 3 am or 3 pm, we need the only candidate of the three that has the ability to question those who insist we must go to war. We need the person who will take the time to read the NIEs, to ask questions, and to say "No!" to the war mongers.

Neither John McCain nor Hillary Clinton would -- or could -- say no. They didn't say no to Bush-Cheney on Iraq, and they can't be expected to say no to the next war.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

53. Exactly...

I want a President who recognizes the benefits of a smarter foreign policy and response to world events, not a more bellicose.

I was a touch young for the Cuban Missile Crisis, but I remember the stories my Mom would tell about that event. The ultimate game of Chicken was being played and thank the gods, cooler -- smarter -- heads prevailed.

We haven't played smart for a very long time when it comes to our foreign policy -- how freshing and beneficial it would be if we started now.

On edit:

Found this statement by Dennis K. over on Dr. Funk's thread -- I think it says perfectly how I feel about HC's bullshit:

Dennis Kucinich: I think that that single comment by Sen. Clinton raises questions about her fitness for the presidency. In a week in which we observe the tragedies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, any American presidential candidate who rattles the nuclear saber must be viewed with the greatest amount of skepticism. Given Sen. Clinton’s commitment to the neocon doctrines of pre-emption, unilateralism and first strike, all Americans should be very concerned about how she would use the power of the presidency.

There’s another question here, and that is: Is she unaware of the fragility of conditions on the Asian subcontinent with respect to nuclear parity and first-strike concerns? Does she really mean what she says, and is she ready to take responsibility for potentially catalyzing a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan? Has she really thought this through? This really raises questions about whether she has the thoughtfulness to be able to lead the nation.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5651145

[H2O Man]

57. We can not afford

to have either McCain or Clinton as Commander in Chief if we really want a change in our foreign policy.

In order to repair the damage done in just the past seven years, we will need a president who the rest of the world views as being capable of the insight and having the capacity for fairness that has been lacking in the Bush-Cheney administration. That is Barack Obama.

[hulka38]

58. The problem with the liberal perspective with respect to the middle east

is that liberal leaders have never told the American people the underlying truths behind our policies there. Behind all of the complex dealings with countries, regimes, ethnicities, sects and tribes we've managed through the decades, what we want is control of the oil. Achieving this primary goal accomplishes two strategic objectives that will help ensure American hegemony for decades:
1) Protection for our Achilles heal, the grinding halt of our economic machine due to intolerably high oil prices, while keeping our economy well lubed with cheaper oil.
2) Control of much of the world's oil gives the U.S. unprecedented leverage against any aspiring, upstart superpowers. It would also quell dissent from countries that may be critical of U.S. policies. American political power would increase exponentially under these circumstances.

Stockpiling Israel with all the newest weapons systems, including fighter bombers and ballistic and nuclear technology gives the U.S. what amounts to a gigantic military base in the Middle East. They hold the power to annihilate their neighbors within moments and the U.S. does not stop Israel from slowly taking land that doesn't belong to them.