Presidential
Candidates Diverge
By David Swanson
27 September, 2007
Afterdowningstreet.org
There
are now two types of Democratic presidential candidates, the ones who
promise to end the occupation of Iraq, and the ones who say they may
very well keep it going for another four years.
MSNBC hosted another Democratic
presidential debate Wednesday evening. Due to a technical error, the
cable network failed to identify itself as a subsidiary of General Electric,
a major weapons maker. Due to another technical shortcoming, viewing
the debate streaming live on the MSNBC website was slow and choppy,
and no recorded file was made available after the fact, just little
segments selected by GE.
I tried my best to watch
the opening questions, and could see enough to be glad I couldn't see
more. GE spokesman Tim Russert was asking each Democratic candidate
whether he or she would get all US troops out of Iraq by 2013. And they
were saying no. I swear: no matter how low you set the bar, these people
still can't clear it. But setting the bar low was the whole point. Even
Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who said he'd have everyone out of Iraq
by April 2009, did not have time to mention the key buried fact that
he alone in Congress has been willing to mention: Americans elected
a new Congress in 2006 to end the occupation in 2007, and Congress has
the power to do that. The whole discussion of ending the occupation
of Iraq THIS year did not exist. The radical position has now become
ending the killing in 2009.
Speaking of killing, Russert
also pushed hard on the "we make war for peace" myth, going
so far as to ask one of the candidates "Would you send troops back
in if there was genocide?" Um, Tim, what do you call what we've
got now? Is there any moral distinction between any definition of genocide
and what has been done to Iraq for the past four and a half years?
What people told me about
the rest of the debate was even more depressing: dumb questions and
fluff questions. If there were any good moments, they won't of course
show up in the newspaper stories. We'll have to watch for them on Youtube
over the next few days. But it's always possible to get a twisted glimpse
of a debate, as if reflected in a greasy mud puddle, by reading a news
article. Here's Associated Press reporter Beth Fouhy's report:
HANOVER, N.H. (AP) - The
leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they
cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end
of the next presidential term in 2013.
Who are they? Are they "leading"
in primaries that have not yet occurred, or in money, or in polls, or,
tautologically, in taking positions that Bring Good Things to Light
[tm]? We don't know, but we do know that anyone who thinks that the
way to end the occupation of Iraq is to elect a different president
has now got to either make sure they are supporting the right candidate
or rethink the whole proposition.
"I think it's hard to
project four years from now,'' said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in
the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation's first primary
state. "It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting,''
added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. "I cannot make that
commitment,'' said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.
Aha, those must be the "leading
candidates," although they are clearly pushing a position held
by a dwindling minority of Americans. What about the other five candidates?
Well…
Sensing an opening, Sen.
Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson
provided the assurances the others would not. "I'll get the job
done,'' said Dodd, while Richardson said he would make sure the troops
were home by the end of his first year in office.
Remarkable. What about the
other three candidates? What about Kucinich, who leads Richardson, Dodd,
Biden, and Gravel in the polls, and who is guaranteed to have the strongest
position? For that matter, what about Gravel? And what about Biden?
Keep wondering. Or do what readers of the Associated Press have to do
to educate themselves, go to the candidates' websites.
Foreign policy blended with
domestic issues at the debate on a Dartmouth College stage, and several
of the contenders endorsed payroll tax increases to assure a stable
Social Security system….
Has GE been drinking the
water downstream from one of its plants? Why would anyone need to raise
taxes to save the most successful program we've got? And what are the
chances that any of these candidates would agree to raise taxes and
not indicate that they meant exclusively taxes on the very wealthiest
Americans? I'm going to delete the AP's account of their answers.
Health care, and the drive
for universal coverage, also figured in the debate. "I intend to
be the health care president,'' said Clinton, adding she can now succeed
at an undertaking that defeated her in 1993 when she was first lady.
But Biden said that unnamed special interests were no more willing to
work with Clinton now than they were more than a decade ago. "I'm
not suggesting it's Hillary's fault...It's reality,'' he said, carefully
avoiding a personal attack on the Democrat who leads in the polls. Biden
said a "lot of old stuff comes back'' from past battles, adding,
"when I say old stuff I mean policy. Policy.'' Across the stage,
Clinton smiled at that.
I'm sure that's very important,
but for godsake, did the candidates other than Kucinich and Gravel explain
that they take lots of money from health insurance companies and have
no intention of creating universal coverage? Did Kucinich even get asked
this question, or was it one that only went to "leading candidates"?
Unless you can watch late night Telemundo, you may never know. The important
thing about the health care debate, to GE, of course, is that Hillary
Clinton was on the stage for it.
The moment was not the only
one in which attention turned to the former first lady, a campaign front-runner
bidding to become the first woman president. Asked whether presidential
libraries and foundations should disclose their donors, she said she
had sponsored legislation requiring it. Asked whether her husband's
foundation should voluntary [sic] disclose, absent a requirement, she
said, "you'll have to ask them.'' "I don't think about my
private conversations with my husband,'' she added. She seemed to suggest
differently at another point, after being asked whether she would ever
approve torturing a suspected terrorist to prevent the detonation of
a nuclear bomb. She said no, and Russert said former President Clinton,
her husband, once suggested it might be appropriate. "Well, he's
not standing here right now,'' she said, an edge in her voice. There
is a disagreement, Russert rejoined. "Well, I'll talk to him later,''
she said with a smile.
I'm sure that's very exciting,
but which of the eight candidates said they'd torture people, and which
did not? Did any say whether they'd approve of an attorney general who
would torture people? Seriously, a chart would be more informative than
this article.
A question about lowering
the drinking age from 21 to 18 drew a cheer from the students listening
in the Dartmouth auditorium. And expressions of support only from former
Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska and Kucinich.
I'm sure that's true, but
what else did those candidates say that drew applause?
The opening question of the
two-hour debate instantly plunged the eight contenders into the issue
that has dominated all others - the war in Iraq.
Why didn't it dominate this
article?
With the primary season approaching,
all eight have vied with increasing intensity for the support of anti-war
voters likely to provide money and organizing muscle as the campaign
progresses.
Exactly what they'll have
to do as the general election approaches. Have you seen any polls in
the past couple of years, Beth?
Edwards said his position
on Iraq was different from Obama and Clinton, adding he would "immediately
drawn down 40,000 to 50,000 troops.'' That's roughly half the 100,000
that Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, has indicated
could be stationed there when President Bush's term ends in January
2009. Edwards sought to draw a distinction between his position and
Clinton's, saying she had said recently she wants to continue combat
missions in Iraq. "I do not want to continue combat missions in
Iraq,'' he said.
Now this must be the part
where we find out what one or two of the missing candidates said, since
it differed so much more dramatically from this hairsplitting bunch
of bought-and-paid-for war mongers. Guess again:
Clinton responded quickly,
saying Edwards had misstated her position. She said she favors the continued
deployment of counterterrorism troops, not forces to engage in the type
of combat now under way.
Oh, well, if they're gonna
be fightin tarrism I reckon it's OK then. Is she plagiarizing Bush?
Asked whether they were prepared
to use force to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, several
of the hopefuls sidestepped. Instead, they said, all diplomacy must
be exhausted in the effort. Moderator Tim Russert of NBC News asked
about Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani's pledge to set
back Iran by eight to 10 years if it tries to gain nuclear standing.
Biden flashed anger at the mention of the former New York mayor. "Rudy
Giuliani doesn't know what the heck he's talking about,'' said Delaware
senator, who is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
"He's the most uninformed person on foreign policy that's now running
for president.''
Let me guess: he reads the
Associated Press? You would have absolutely no idea from this article
that almost every candidate going into this debate had refused to take
the option of launching an illegal and aggressive war, even a nuclear
war, on Iran off the table. Biden has pushed for diplomacy, but you
wouldn't even learn that from this article. Kucinich has gone further,
pushing for sanity and the rule of law.
How many weapons has that
ever sold?
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.