Why the Democrats won’t save us:

[donsu]

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1723.shtml


Why the Democrats won’t save us: Clinton, Edwards and Obama call for striking Iran
By Joshua Frank



-snip-

The top candidates’ tepid words on Iraq were a sign of what’s to come over the next year and a half as their rhetorical talents are turned on high. Despite Obama’s reassurance that he did not support the war from the beginning, along with Edwards’ claims that he’s had a change of heart on his past pro-war votes -- neither candidate distinguished their position from the Bush administration when it came to the looming Iran confrontation.

In fact two weeks earlier, while visiting Israel, Edwards laid out his position on Iran quite succinctly: “Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons . . . The vast majority of people are concerned about what is going on in Iraq. This will make the American people reticent toward going for Iran. But I think the American people are smart if they are told the truth, and if they trust their president. So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran.”

Hillary Clinton pushed virtually the same bitter line while addressing the annual AIPAC convention held in New York City last week. “U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons,'' Clinton told the crowd of Israel supporters. “In dealing with this threat . . . no option can be taken off the table.''

Barack Obama has also been upfront about how he would deal with Iran, arguing that he would not rule out the use of force and supports surgical strikes of alleged nuclear sites in the country if diplomacy (read: coercion) fails. To put it bluntly, none of the front running Democrats are opposed to Bush’s dubious “war on terror” or his bullying of Iran. They support his aggression in principle but simply believe a Democratic presidency could handle the job more astutely. All put Israel first and none are going to fundamentally alter U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.
-snip-
-------------------------

does Frank have a point? is he right?

[stonecoldsober]

1. That's why we need Gore/Kucinich.

[donsu]

5. true

nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

9. Has Gore said that a strike against Iran should be taken off the table?

:shrug:

[stonecoldsober]

13. I haven't heard anyone ask him

[MH1]

34. I'll bet Joshua Frank was writing screeds against Gore in 2000.

If he was writing then.

Frank is a "not a dime's worth of difference" guy. He seems to think we need Nader to save us.

I don't know why people post his drivel at DU.

[rwinkler]

2. Israeli

The Israeli lobby has bought them all out - this came out in a DU post in which the Israeli's to post were appalled at the Democrats and talked of giving to some Dem candidates. This incited Wes Clark - so in that light this is not so surprising.

[twilight_sailing]

11. "The Israeli lobby has bought them all out"

"this came out in a DU post"

Whatever, dude.

[lancdem]

3. No, he's not

All three of them support engagement with Iran and military force as a last resort. That's 180 degrees apart from Bush.

To me, that's a big difference.

[atreides1]

10. Not much of a difference

"All three of them support engagement with Iran and military force as a last resort."

Basically what all three said was that no options were off the table, that's the same thing that the Bush administration has been saying! Just because they word it differently doesn't indicate that they have a different view.

[bigtree]

4. well, he snipped Clinton's words off before she denounced the prospect of a military solution

in Iran and even cited an article in her speech which suggested Cheney was profiting from the confrontation with Iran. She has the problem of the political need to curry the favor of the many interest groups in her state which view Iran as a threat to Israel.

Obama was very loose with his language, even going so far to describe Iran as a threat. I got the impression that he was repeating rhetoric he had heard and cobbling it together. I think the balance of his comments have been against military action, but his 'last resort' seems to be based on his false notion of Iran as a threat

[atreides1]

6. He does make a good argument

[Jacobin]

8. This one?

"So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran.”

Edumacate me.

[Jacobin]

7. So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran.”

So Edwards is gonna help catapult the propaganda?

We need new candidates and we need them right fucking now.

[dogday]

12. We need Russ Feingold, I wish he would reconsider... nt

[BayCityProgressive]

15. We need more socialists like Bernie Sanders

only the most left wing of Democrats and socialists have the forsight to stop the run away corporate madness in this country.

[mmonk]

14. If you don't want to have to worry about that,

vote Kucinich or Clark.
eom

[OneBlueSky]

16. the mistake that our "leaders" are making is assuming we can proceed with business as usual . . .

we can NOT proceed with business as usual . . . we are facing multiple crises of unimaginable proportions, from climate change, to dying oceans, to threatened food supplies, to unending war (including the real threat of nuclear weapons), to the loss of a major American city, to an out-of-control "healthcare" system, to species extinctions, to the "outsourcing" of all the good jobs, to media that is more propaganda than news, to -- well, you name it . . .

this nation (and the planet) is in a state of dire emergency -- and no one in office seems to notice, or to care . . . they're just trundling along as if "business as usual" is a real option, when clearly it is not . . . Congress should be working 24/7 to stop BushCo and all their illegalities, remove them from office, and return the country to sane leadership . . . and to sane domestic and international policies . . . instead of spending their time jockeying for a presidential nomination that is two years away . . .

while they're fiddling, Rome is burning -- and the fire is getting hotter by the day . . .

[donsu]

17. kick

nt

[paulk]

18. sure, Frank has a point

right on top of his head.

Joshua Frank is a right wing water boy. His job is to trash Democrats. I wouldn't use him - in any way - to base my opinions of the three candidates he mentions on.

[donsu]

20. thanks for the info on Frank

nt

[Hoping4Change]

22. paulk doesn't know dick about Joshua Frank.

"Joshua Frank is a left-wing writer living in the United States. His articles and essays appear in CounterPunch, Z Magazine, and Alternet, among other publications. He is the author of Left Out!: How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush, ISBN 1-56751-310-7, and edits http://www.BrickBurner.org, the official news blog of Dissident Voice."

From wikipedia


I guess Noam Chomsky is also a RW waterboy since his essays also appear in CounterPunch and Z Magazine.

[KoKo]

25. Yes....but it also means he doesn't like the current Dems.....

so one can look at his opinions through that view. :shrug: He's very Lefty so he's only going to support a very lefty Dem.

[Hoping4Change]

30. I don't disagree with that but I take issue with labelling him as

a RW waterboy. As a Canadian left-winger used to commie stuff like universal health-care, I view alot of US Democrats as being way right of centre. I don't think criticism coming what Americans might consider as the far left is damaging to Democrats at the grassroots level.

[MH1]

37. Oh, that's RICH!

"How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush"

:rofl:

Is he including himself in the category of "liberals"? He was telling people not to vote for Kerry. I've posted the link many times before. Seems to think, among other things, that Kerry wasn't green enough. Meanwhile, as I posted below, plenty of actual environmental activists were giving Kerry very high marks for his history of effort and achievement on environmental issues.

Frank is a "not a dime's worth of difference" guy. I am sure he must have pushed Nader in 2000 (I didn't know about Frank then so I wouldn't have noticed), so he's trying to push the blame off on other people for Bush.

What a riot. Or, what a rot.

[Hoping4Change]

40. Criticizing Liberals does not make him a RW waterboy.

Frank is coming from the left so he is going to criticize Liberals. If Canadian Socialist Tommy Douglas had not fought long and hard against Liberals and Conservatives, Canada would never have gotten universal health care.

[Hoping4Change]

21. WTF are you talking about. Frank is no rightwing waterboy.

Joshua Frank is a left-wing writer living in the United States. His articles and essays appear in CounterPunch, Z Magazine, and Alternet, among other publications. He is the author of Left Out!: How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush, ISBN 1-56751-310-7, and edits http://www.BrickBurner.org, the official news blog of Dissident Voice.

From wikipedia


I guess Noam Chompsy is also a RW waterboy since his essays also appear in CounterPunch, Z Magazine.

[paulk]

24. sure he is

he may call himself a "left-wing writer", but the majority of his articles attack Democrats, and always with questionable logic.

In this article he goes after the three Democratic front runners. He carries water for the Republicans.



-----------

Do you know the term "faulty reasoning"?

Your Chompsy (sic) mention is a perfect example.

[KoKo]

26. He carries water for the FAR LEFT....there's a difference. n/t

[paulk]

32. I disagree...

I find very little difference between the far left and the far right.

Both want to shove their view of the universe down everyone else's throats.

And both are willing to use any tactic toward that end.

----------------------------------


I didn't always feel that way, but I had to ask myself - what has Frank and his brand of far leftism accomplished? What does attacking Democrats with his brand of lies accomplish?

It helps Republicans get elected.

----------------

We're at war.

We're at war with a pack of right wing whackos intent on turning this country into some kind of Theocratic-Fascist state. There are only two sides in this war - and if you're helping the other side - as Frank does - then you're ON the other side. It doesn't matter to me if one calls it "far left" or not, IMHO.

[KoKo]

38. I understand what you are saying....but just saying he doesn't

like any Democrats. But, he's to the left of them. I only pointed that out because he's not a RW Evangelical...and he's probably a Socialist. There's a difference.

[MH1]

35. Yep, you are 100% right about Frank. n/t

[paulk]

36. is there a Democrat Frank hasn't trashed?

he's even gone after Kucinich.

He's a hater. That's all.

[Marnieworld]

19. Al Gore

He has made his thoughts clear on every issue since 2002. He was against the IWR and knew that it was bullshit and said so. He sounded the alarm over all of the Constitutional crimes that have been committed. No one has been more articulate and passionate about maintaining peace and civil rights. Feingold and Kucinich are always on the side of good with these issues but Gore stated everything so well, so much learned understanding.

An Al Gore presidency would not have Pre-emptive wars.

An Al Gore presidency would not be claiming a unitary executive.

An Al Gore presidency would be about diplomacy and saving the planet.

An Al Gore presidency would save us from this madness because we know he knows it's madness because he said so.

He is a leader. He is the leader we need. After the Oscars and Nobel he will announce. Talk about a momentum! I just feel it in my heart. Until then these same old same old people will argue about fake issues and compete over the alleged "middle" when it is total surrender. These times call for leadership, not politics as usual. We need Al.

Can you tell I hope he runs? :P

[Bake]

23. Does anybody here WANT Iran to have nuclear weapons?

I sure as hell don't. And frankly, I wonder why a nation sitting on an ocean of oil wants nuclear power to generate electricity.

I'm not saying we ought to bomb them, but I sure as hell don't want them armed to the teeth, either. Frankly, I think there are ALREADY too many nukes loose in the world. I'm for non-proliferation.

Bake

[porphyrian]

27. What's the soonest they can realistically make a nuke?

I doubt it's before the next election.

[LSK]

31. 2016

[LSK]

28. Edwards clarified this, he does not call for a strike on Iran

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=114415

And I seriously doubt Obama does either. They are not that stupid.

Hillary however is another story.

[The Count]

39. Yup. he always clarifies everything, doesn't he?

[MamaBear]

29. They won't save us because they no longer represent our interests.

They represent the corporations, and will vote to enrich the corporations and their owners to the detriment of we, the people, of the earth -- of life itself.

Every now and again they pay some lip service to the things that matter to the people, then back down the minute the Pukes stand up and growl.

I suppose if one must choose between fast death and slow death you choose slow death so as to live another day, and because hope dies last.

But take a good look at what is happening in Congress right now and tell me whose interests our elected representatives actually represent.

This is total class war, with a pretense of a two-party system. The only chance we have is to reform our party, and we are not going to accomplish that in a couple of election cycles.

[dos pelos]

42. The first step is to recognize the betrayal by one own party...

There is not a lot of clarity here right now.There is a lot of manipulation of muddled folks on the basis of race,gender,sexual orientation and cult of personality preference.

A step up from that is the recognition of problems but thinking it can be entirely attributed to a "bad man",a Bush or Cheney.Get rid of them and all will be well.

A step further up is to recognize that there is a problem with an entire party,"the republicans are evil"."Its those damned Repugs".

The problem is that the entire political class,(a few exceptions),does not serve the people.It is elected by the peoples' votes,but it serves the interests of big business.Big business pays for the election costs,the people vote for who big business has put on the ballot.

Here is the hard part.Big business puts both parties on the ballot.The sense of choice,of picking candidates with opposing views is illusory.

You want proof? Witness the current toothless prostration of the Democratic congress before the Bush administrations' push for war.Witness Pelosi and Reed saying they won't impeach or defund the war.Then go look at who voted for the Iraq War,the Bankruptcy Bill,the Military Commissions Act.

The political class is UNRESPONSIVE to the people.You want peace and prosperity?You get an Iraq and Iranian War,your job is outsourced ,you are laid off,you or your children are killed or maimed for the cause.Your vote counts for nothing.

Just send your blood and taxes.

[MH1]

33. Joshua Frank told people to vote AGAINST Kerry in 2004.

He claimed Kerry wasn't good on the environment. (In contrast, RFK Jr., who actually DOES real work on environmental causes, called Kerry the BEST Senator on the environment. Hmmm).

Joshua Frank has NO credibility.

And no, I didn't even read what you posted that he wrote, because all I need to know is that he wrote it, to know that it is worthless.

[dfgrbac]

41. Maybe he's right about those three, but check out Mike Gravel!

Mike Gravel boldly criticized the politics of his own Party in this speech at the DNC. Watch it and be amazed. You can also read the words here.

Gravel openly declared that "national interest is code for oil!

He also said anyone who voted for this war is not qualified to be President.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

43. I'm going to lock this.

Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate.

Do not post broad-brush smears against Democrats or the Democratic Party.

best,
wakemeupwhenitsover
DU Moderator