[Peace-discuss] Re: Obama and change?

[Morton K. Brussel]

On Obama and the wars:

February 5, 2008
MoveOn's Obama Endorsement
Why there is no "hope" for "change"
by Joshua Frank
MoveOn.org is mobilizing. The "antiwar" group's Political Action  
members across the country voted overwhelmingly to endorse the  
Democratic candidacy of Barack Obama last week. MoveOn claims to have  
1.7 million members in states that vote in Tuesday's primaries.  
"[Our] endorsement means a fresh infusion of people-power for Obama  
in the critical days before Super Tuesday," read the organization's  
press release. "MoveOn will immediately connect thousands of  
progressive activists into the Obama" volunteer operation.

Obama's campaign is no doubt pleased, for its mantra of "hope" and  
"change" has begun to echo in the deep subconscious of many well- 
intentioned progressives. Obama's best quality at this point seems to  
be the fact that he's not a Clinton. When it comes to foreign policy,  
however, he may as well be, which makes MoveOn's shallow approval of  
his candidacy all the more hypocritical.

After Obama won his senatorial race in 2004 he quickly abandoned the  
antiwar rhetoric he had touted along the campaign trail. While  
remaining critical of the White House and the lies that pushed us  
toward war, Obama still maintained that U.S. military should remain  
in Iraq until the job was completed.

"Given the enormous stakes in Iraq, I believe that those of us who  
are involved in shaping our national security policies should do what  
we believe is right, not merely what is politically expedient," Obama  
proclaimed in a speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations in  
late November 2005.

Later in that same speech, he said, "In sum, we have to focus,  
methodically and without partisanship, on those steps that will: one,  
stabilize Iraq, avoid all out civil war, and give the factions within  
Iraq the space they need to forge a political settlement; two,  
contain and ultimately extinguish the insurgency in Iraq; and three,  
bring our troops safely home."

Obama continues to favor a "phased redeployment" of our troops as  
well as "benchmarks" for the Iraqi government, but promises to not  
"fully withdraw" – hence why the Illinois senator has supported the  
majority of Bush administration's pork-engorged appropriation bills  
that are draining the U.S. Treasury. Obama wants to keep cadres of  
troops throughout Iraq with others all other the region to strike if  
necessary.

So where would President Obama send the troops he's redeployed? A  
good guess might be Iran.

As Obama told the Chicago Tribune on Sept. 26, 2004, "[T]he big  
question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures [to  
stop its nuclear program], including economic sanctions, which I hope  
will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point … if any, are  
we going to take military action?"

He added that "launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the  
optimal position for us to be in" given the ongoing war in Iraq. "On  
the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of  
nuclear weapons is worse." Obama went on to argue that military  
strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if "violent Islamic  
extremists" were to "take over."

Iran is a "genuine threat" to the United States and Israel, Obama  
later expressed at a forum sponsored by AIPAC on March 12, 2007, in  
Washington, D.C. At the event Obama reiterated that he would not rule  
out the use of force in disarming Iran, a position he shares with  
rival Hillary Clinton.

Earlier that same month, on March 2, 2007, Obama spoke at an AIPAC  
Policy Forum in Chicago, where he succinctly laid out his position on  
how he would deal with the Middle East, promising not to alter  
America's lopsided relationship with Israel. "[W]e must preserve our  
total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by  
fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow  
and related missile defense programs," he said. "This would help  
Israel maintain its military edge and deter and repel attacks from as  
far as Tehran and as close as Gaza."

How could any critic of the war machine support a candidate like  
Barack Obama? MoveOn has quite a long history of supporting  
Democratic candidates despite said politicians' allegiance to the  
Bush doctrine, so their support of Obama doesn't come as much of a  
surprise. But even CODEPINK stalwarts such as Jodie Evans and Nancy  
Kricorian (the latter runs the popular ListenHillary.org) have  
endorsed Obama for president.

Perhaps betrayal is contagious.

In the end, Super Tuesday, despite MoveOn's public frolicking, won't  
end up being all that super when the votes are finally tallied. Pro- 
war candidates from both major parties will likely solidify their  
side's nomination.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080205/adbebd08/attachment-0001.htm