Last Thursday over 30 Democrat challengers publicly presented their support for "The Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq," assembled from existing congressional legislation by national security experts, retired generals, and Congressional candidate Darcy Burner. As of today, the number of Democrat endorsees of the plan has risen to 45.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have yet to acknowledge the Iraq withdrawal plan crafted by members of their own party, and it appears there is little pressure from the press to question them on it.
The two candidates' also continue their refusal to acknowledge Winter Soldier, the public testimonies of Iraq War veterans that occurred this month in D.C. and one of the most important anti-war events in over 3 decades. If their refusal is any indication, the American public would be waiting a very long time to hear any mention of the Iraq plan.
Complicating matters, Sen. Obama has just this week received the endorsement of 4 notable anti-war progressives, writers and activists: Tom Hayden, Barbara Ehrenreich, Danny Glover and Bill Fletcher. Yet within the progressive activist community, there remains division over the endorsement, recently evidenced on the pages of this very blog, the Guardian and The Nation.
Hayden, Ehrenreich, Glover and Fletcher make their case that Obama's centrism provides the precise strategic opening for left leaning issues to find their way into his administration.
However, critics of the endorsement, insist that it's putting all your eggs in one already weak basket and will only dilute the strength of the anti-war movement.
Christopher Hayes, in The Nation last Thursday, describes exactly how the recent "Responsible Plan" differs markedly from the current withdrawal plans offered by both Clinton and Obama:
"The Responsible Plan opposes any residual forces as well as permanent military bases. It flatly states, "We must stop counter-productive military operations by U.S. occupation forces, and end our military presence in Iraq." It looks toward restoring "Constitutional checks and balances and fix[ing] the ways in which our governmental, military, and civil institutions have failed us." It also addresses the need to take responsibility for a humanitarian crisis in which thousands of Iraqis who worked with US forces are in danger and millions are displaced across the region."
It's clear Clinton's Iraq objectives fall terribly short with no timetable for withdrawal. Obama's plan includes withdrawal specifics, but falls short of bringing the troops home in less than a year, against the wishes of large numbers of U.S. voters, according to recent opinion polls.
Stephen Zunes, writing at Common Dreams, outlines the very tough choice progressive voters seem to be facing in choosing Obama over Clinton. But in Zunes' opinion, despite conflicting statements from Obama and his recently resigned foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power, the Illinois senator is still the clear choice over Clinton to ultimately bring the troops home.
"out campaigning Senator Obama tells voters that as president he'd withdraw combat brigades from Iraq within 16 months, but one of his top foreign policy advisers told a different story. She told a British television reporter, and I quote, "he will, of course, not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or as a U.S. Senator." ... Senator Obama...has promised to bring combat troops out in 16 months, but according to his foreign policy adviser, you can't count on him to do that. In uncertain times, we cannot afford uncertain leadership"...And, based on the details revealed in both candidates' plans, whatever unforeseen complicating factors may emerge in Iraq over the next couple of years, it is almost certain that more American troops will be out quicker under a Barack Obama administration than a Hillary Clinton administration."
Timetables aside, what so divides the progressive voter's decision to support Obama is his history and framing of his candidacy as a centrist politician. Some view it, like Progressives for Obama, as a sliver of hope, others eye it with skepticism.
While you have to admit the number of voters who support Obama makes for an undeniable movement, shouldn't caution be urged in making a full endorsement of any of the two candidates, given their current positions on the war? Obama, specifically would need to do much more to deserve the support of the progressive wing given his past and current statements on healthcare and the economy.
Perhaps it comes as no surprise that both Obama and Clinton won't touch the Winter Soldier hearings in their speeches to voters. John Kerry, himself one of the original soldiers of the Vietnam war who testified in the first Winter Soldier hearings in 1971, has publicly remained quiet on the hearings this month.
Sadly, Kerry, one of Obama's most politically prominent endorsers was villified for his testimony when he was campaigning for president in 2004 and continues to be by the right wing this very day.
Follow Christine Escobar on Twitter: www.twitter.com/greenparentchgo
What I find more troublesome, is the silence of MSM who SHOULD have been all over this story...but true to form, we focused on Rev. Wright and Phantom Snipers in Bosnia. Proving once again, that MSM is in the pocket of Washington...journalism as we were taught no longer exists.
For anyone who missed the Winter Soldier discussions, you can catch up here: http://ivaw.org/wintersoldier
There are many conceivable scenarios in which it would be wrong to quickly withdraw troops. For example, what if, at some point during the withdraw, ethnic violence explodes and strong evidence (e.g. polls of Iraqi civilians, statements by leaders of various factions) indicates that Iraqis want the US to help quell the violence? Now that Iraq is in chaos, there are no simple solutions.
In other words Obama, is pragmatic and realistic in what he plans on doing to withdraw troops from Iraq, and understands nothing is set in stone, that as new information arises it has to be incorporated into the withdraw strategy.
Either endorse him because he is by far the best and most receptive candidate, or just decide not to endorse. Winter Soldier was a great thing, keep building the movement around that, right now the candidates agree on the fact the war sucks, and Obama isn't able to freely focus on the pro-war McCain yet because Hillary won't drop out. I'm sure after she goes away we'll hear more about the war, but right now he is fighting to wrap this up. I don't blame him.
Neither Hillary or Obama have plans to end the war. The have plans to prolong it. Obama has plans to leave 40-80,000 troupes in Iraq in order to protect civilian contractors and government officials that are still there. Then he will claim that he ended the war and brought our soldiers home while the people who own the MSM special interest groups continue to make more money.
to question have said some important things and are to
be applauded.
Add: STATE TERROR AGAINST PALESTINIANS BY ISRAEL/US
Rev. Jeremiah Wright touched on this with courage. Join Jews for
Peace, currently a group of 20,000 Jews, Muslims, Christians, and "Other"
at www.jvp.org or contact Communications Director Cecilie Surasky
EMAIL: cecilie@jvp.org or info@jfp.org
Jews for Peace supports negotiations with HAMAS as do others
(eg "The Jewish Dailey Forward"...).
See also a recent article in the April issue by Daniel Levy
in "The American Prospect". Many of us are reaching the
same conclusions. To read:"The Fateful Triangle" by
Noam Chomsky or "Perilous Power" by Noam Chomsky
and Gilbert Achcar (see especially pp. 220-221)
Much of the plan is good but most of it is bad. Small wonder neither Sen. Clinton nor Sen. Obama is willing to be associated with it.
Going into Iraq was a potentially brilliant policy initiative. Unhappily, the Bush Whitehouse and the Rumsfeld Pentagon bungled it and created history's most embarassing example of improvised statesmanship. But the underlying policy is still valid and could be rehabilitated if a competent administration took it over and managed it effectively.
The American retreat from Vietnam was less embarassing but also avoidable, Melvin Laird's policy of "Vietnamizing" the conflict was effective and would have succeeded in a matter of months. But a new administration and an unnerved Congress opted instead to cut and run.
Now, as then, a hasty retreat will embarass America and further weaken its credibility.
By contrast, a well managed continuation of the original policy could succeed by (1) uniting Iraq as a federated nation (2) helping the Iraqis themselves defeat an insurgency which has degenerated into little more than gangsterism and (3) establishing a permanent American military presence in the Middle East capable of facing down and ultimately defeating the imperial ambitions of Iran.
A Democrat administration under either of the two potential presidents could pull it off.
That notion is absurd, and kills any relevant content you might offer.
So we engage in imperialism to defeat imperialism. Hmmm... One of those "its ok if we do it, but not anyone else" deals, eh? I suppose its ok for us to waterboard, but we'll punish anyone else who does it to our citizens, right?
Time for the US to stop thinking arrogantly and get on board with global human rights.
HEALTH CARE: Clinton ("HRC") and Obama (O) are to the right of all who
favor single-payer health care. Not many were for HR 676 either and
most specifically neither were Nancy Pelosi nor Chairman John Dingell
of the Energy and Commerce Committee. All health care legislation MUST
originate in Energy and Commerce ("E & C") as well as pass several
other committees (eg Ways and Means). Most politicians are marketing
"universal coverage" as interchangeable with "UNIVERSAL HEALTH
CARE". Instead, they are marketing versions that guarantee health care
under the control of private profit-making entities and they are laughing
all the way to the bank. They are also supporting the state guarantee
of more business, higher "premiums" and they have given in large
sums to everyone who supports this momentous lie. Where do you
think all those billions came from? Dimes on street corners???
Bills such as "MEDICARE FOR ALL" imply health care by public
entities and TAXES to support it. This is how it works in foreign
lands with variations in taxation structures depending on
the nation. Health care, not health insurance !!!
WAR:
All progressives have modeled the candidates to their liking and
according to their dreams. They will be surprised. McCain is
worse. Neither HRC nor O are "liberals" or "progressives".