[Peace-discuss] Why we should vote (& much more) against Obama

[David Green]

Progressives (sic) are expected to vote for Obama on the basis that he is better on "domestic policy" and no worse on "foreign policy," the distinction itself being of an ideological nature, as reflected in Reich's "class warrior" and "cold warrior." All of these specious distinctions--between the parties, candidates, policies, and wars--need to be deconstructed. We were reminded this week that the last real distinction among presidential candidates and policies was in 1972; there is an argument to be made that McGovern's candidacy was undermined not least by Democratic party leadership.



From: C. G. Estabrook <cge at shout.net>
>To: Peace-discuss List <Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> 
>Cc: sf-core <sf-core at yahoogroups.com>; occupycu <occupyCU at lists.chambana.net> 
>Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 12:18 PM
>Subject: [Peace-discuss] Why we should vote (& much more) against Obama
>
>
>This morning brings a pro-Obama piece from a former head of the Mossad (NYT 10/24) - showing that, against Republican charges, Obama's down with the fanatical government of Israel - and this shocking encomium from one of his intellectual bodyguards, Bobby Reich: 
>
>"...I kept wishing Obama would take more credit for one of the most successful foreign policies of any administration in decades: not only finding and killing Osama bin Laden but also ridding the world of Libya’s Gaddafi without getting drawn into a war, imposing extraordinary economic hardship on Iran, isolating Syria..." <http://www.nationofchange.org/obama-commander-chief-romney-banal-bully-1351087653>.
>
>Translation: "success" means 
>
>(1) assassination ("multiply violating elementary norms of international law," as Chomsky said); 
>
>(2) illegal war (contrary to the War Powers Act, as pointed out in a court suit by Congress members, including our own);
>
>(3) immoral sanctions (similar to those imposed by Clinton on Iraq, which admittedly killed a half million children); and
>
>(4) imposing civil war on an Iranian ally in association with Salafists (as the Carter administration did in Afghanistan)...   
> 
>It's enough to make one vote for Romney - if he didn't propose simply more of the same. 
>
>Instead, it shows that the reversal of the shameful Obama military (and economic) polices will have to come extra-parliamentarily, like civil rights and anti-Vietnam war victories.  
>
>
>Elections are a distraction - and meant to be, by the 1%. 
>
>
>--CGE
>_______________________________________________
>Peace-discuss mailing list
>Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20121024/035aeb82/attachment-0001.html>