Obama issues threats, just like Bush

Obama early in the primaries ...

"We are willing to talk about certain assurances in the context of them showing some good faith," he said. "I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hell bent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change, but expect changes in behavior. And there are both carrots and there are sticks available to them for those changes in behavior."

The Old Obama in the primaries, after Hillary (the other allowable 'liberal' choice) had just threatened to obliterate Iran with nuclear strikes ...

Obama, appearing yesterday on NBC's Meet the Press, struck back with calm outrage. "It's not the language we need right now, and I think it's language reflective of George Bush," he said.

"We have had a policy of bluster and saber-rattling and tough talk," the Illinois senator added, "and in the meantime have made a series of strategic decisions that have actually strengthened Iran."

Now we get Cowboy Obama for the general election ...

Obama reportedly told Olmert that he is interested in meeting the Iranians in order to issue clear ultimatums. "If after that, they still show no willingness to change their nuclear policy, then any action against them would be legitimate," an Israeli source quoted him as saying.

I've always been struck by the way Bush 'negotiated'. He basically just issued ultimatums. Then, if the other side didn't fold, he went straight to military action.

What Obama just said is that he plans to continue exactly the same technique. In other words, he just promised that the next four years under President Obama would be a lot like the last eight years under President Bush. I guess the only place to the right of that for McCain to go would be to say he'd just skip the ultimatum step and go straight to military action. But, its not like that's a huge difference because Obama's ultimatum or else policy eventually leads to the same actions.

He also just promised the Israelis that if Bush doesn't start a war between now and leaving office, Obama will pick up that ball and run with the same policy next year.

I just hope all the progressives who think Obama is 'anti-war' are paying attention.

Cynthia McKinney's Nomination Acceptance Speech

From Cynthia McKinney's Nomination Acceptance Speech ...

"In 2008, after two stolen Presidential elections and eight years of George W. Bush, and at least two years of Democratic Party complicity, the racket is about war crimes, torture, crimes against the peace; the racket is about crimes against the Constitution, crimes against the American people, and crimes against the global community.

The racket is even about values that we thought were long settled as reasonable to pursue, like liberty and justice, and economic opportunity, for all.

Yes, Sojourner, there's a lot out of kilter now, but these two women, Rosa and me, joined by all the men and women in this room, are going to do our best to turn this country right side up again."

and ...

"Had the Green Party's values been reflected in public policy since the beginnings of the Green Party in this country, the United States would have long ago implemented a livable wage; there would be no civil liberties erosion;

diversity would be respected, appreciated and welcomed;

education would be interesting and relevant to students' lives and no student would graduate from college $100,000 in debt in a Green Party USA because education, not incarceration and militarization, would be subsidized by the state.

In a Green Party USA, health care would be provided for everyone here through a single payer, Medicare-for-all type health care system.

We would have no homeless men and women sleeping on our streets and everyone who could work would have work. Rebuilding our infrastructure, manufacturing green technology, retooling our economy so that those who protect us, train us, heal us and prepare us for tomorrow are compensated in what is their true value to our culture and our society, based on their contribution to our civilization.

Vietnam War-era veterans would be our last war veterans because we would never have been engaged in war and occupation against Afghanistan and Iraq.

We would forego imperial designs on our neighbors to the north and south, never building any wall of division, not ever encroaching on their geographic or cultural sovereignty.

In fact, if Green Party values were now reflected in U.S. public policy, our country not only would not be engaged in war and occupation, there would be peace in the Middle East based on self-determination, respect for human rights, and justice.

We would strive to perfect our democracy at home through election integrity and no one would be denied their rightful place in our Union due to discrimination.

Our neighbors in the global community would look up to us for our cultural and technological accomplishments.

We would have apologized for genocide against the indigenous peoples of this land and the abomination of chattel slavery.

Our country would have dignity on the world stage and in every international forum, and no one in this country would be made to live in fear.

Oh, if it could be true: that the values of the Green Party were reflected
in the Federal Government's public policy.

Let me wake up and snap out of my reverie.

Yes, today's reality is harsh. Abu Ghraib, torture, rendition, lying, spying, war, stolen elections, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, New Orleans, poverty, racial profiling, Sean Bell, the San Francisco 8, Benton Harbor's Reverend Pinkney, the Holy Land Foundation, 9/11/01.

Embargo, blockade, friendly fire, depleted uranium, white phosphorus, cluster bombs, bunker busters, shock and awe.

Predatory lending, mortgage crisis, foreclosures, a country $53 trillion in debt. And while Bear Stearns gets a bailout, you and I sink or swim.

Harsh? Today's reality is harsh. But what's even harder for many to accept and admit is that our quality of life today is the making of the Democratic and Republican Parties.

What our country has become through their public policy is reflective of their values.

We will never get a United States that is reflective of different values if we continue to do the same thing.

Those who delivered us into this mess cannot be trusted to get us out of it."

---------------------
Ten Key Values of the Green Party

1. GRASSROOTS DEMOCRACY
2. SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
3. ECOLOGICAL WISDOM
4. NON-VIOLENCE
5. DECENTRALIZATION
6. COMMUNITY-BASED ECONOMICS AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE
7. FEMINISM AND GENDER EQUITY
8. RESPECT FOR DIVERSITY
9. PERSONAL AND GLOBAL RESPONSIBILITY
10. FUTURE FOCUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

Ten Key Values from other state and local Greens.

Does a war have a single cause?

How is something the result of more than one reason?

Lets say a politician wants to fight a war for the very selfish purpose that it will make him more powerful while in office and more likely for him and his party to win an election.

He talks to the bankers, and the bankers love the idea. Bankers always love wars because bankers always get rich over wars. Banking fortunes have been made by loaning lots of money to governments fighting wars. So the bankers think a war is a great idea and agree to use their influence on Congress, the media and society in general to make it happen.

Do you think the politician is going to argue with the bankers about what’s the most important reason for the war and whether its about his career or their profits? No, he’s going to say great to have you on the team and move on.

Then the politician goes to the arms makers. They think a war is a great idea. They get to sell lots of weapons and ammo to the military. And through some back channels they might even sell more to the enemy. So the arms makers agree to the war, and agree to use their influence over Congress, the media and society in general to make it happen.

Do you think the politician is going to argue with the arms makers about the reason for the war? About whether its more important to his career or their profits? No, he’s going to say welcome to the team and move on.

Then the politician talks to the lobby groups that support Israel. They think the war is a great idea. It means one of the regional powers they have to worry about is about to be destroyed by the world superpower. So they agree to the war and agree to use their influence on Congress, the media and society at large to make it happen.

Do you think that the politician is going to argue with them? Argue that the war is more important to my career? No, he is going to say welcome to the team and move on.

The politician then goes to those who want more of a police state. They think the war is a great idea. It means they can crack down on unruly elements who threaten their profits and power. So, they agree to the war and to help use their influence to make it happen.

Do you think the politician is going to argue with them and tell them they support the war for the wrong reason?

The politician then moves on to religious elements. They call Israel the holy land and think a war is the start of Armageddon and their rise to heaven. So they agree to the war and to use their influence to make it happen.

Lets say all of that creates enough influence in the society for the war to occur. Now tell me the single cause of the war.

Rockets Red Glare

“If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I would do everything in my power to stop that, and would expect Israelis to do the same thing.”

That is Sen. Obama speaking from Israel, according to this article on Dissident Voice.

The rather obvious question is, if Sen. Obama were living in Gaza and it was the Israeli military sending rockets and bombs into his house, what would he do?
=====================
And in general, it seems to be the typical response that when one group of people fires bombs and missiles at another, then they fire more bombs and missiles back to 'do everything in their power to stop that'.

Of course, realizing this means realizing that the way to stop bombs and missiles from raining down on your and your children is not to fire more bombs and missiles back at others. Instead, the way to 'do everything in your power to stop that' is to find a way to have peace.

Pretty sure that's not what Obama was intending to say. Which means that he just isn't willing to do anything about the fatal flaw of both American and Israeli policy.

Money, Civil Disobedience and other stuff

Money .... can't help but to notice that the little Maplight.org widget above these posts has updated with June numbers on campaign finance. Obama must have raised about $50 million last month compared to McCain with $25 million.

Its striking to someone who's followed politics for a long time that its the Republican who's taking the public financing route for an election, and criticizing the Democrat for not doing so. That alone speaks volumes about the current campaign. Along with the numbers showing that Obama is out fund-raising McCain by Republican-like numbers.

Follow the money, and usually it will show you the winner in American politics. And, you can count on a candidate not biting the hand that feeds it. Want to know why Obama is disavowing everything even moderately progressive that he said or even hinted at to get the Democratic nomination? Just watch the dollar amounts tick over on that little Maplight.org widget and you'll know the reason why. That and the "AT&T Convention" handbag for the corporate party here in Denver tell you all you need to know.

------------------
Sometimes people are critical of the Palestinians for not opposing the Israelies non-violently like Dr. King or Ghandi might do. This article over at DissendentVoice.org tells you what happens when they do. "A West Bank Town’s Struggle to Survive"

I strongly believe that people should try to achieve needed change through legal means provided by society as their first option. In a place like America, that means contesting elections and using the courts to enforce laws when possible.

But, the question becomes, what do you do next if you find that the system is rigged to prevent change by those means? To me, the next stage is non-violent civil disobedience.

In order for non-violent civil disobedience to be effective though, you need a couple of things. One is that hopefully your opposition is willing to stay within the rules and not respond with violence in return. If that doesn't happen, you get the line from "V for Vendetta" :

"What's going to happen? What usually happens when people without guns try to stand up to people with guns."

Even that's not the end of the road for non-violent civil disobedience. Ghandi was met with violence at times. And the people just marched forward and let the police beat them.

But that only works when your opposition is willing to listen. What happens if this occurs, but no one knows about it.? Note the lead to the article about Palestine where it notes that this village that is attempting to resist the Israelis is only found in press searches 71 times. How effective is non-violent civil disobedience when no one knows that its suffering at the hands of a violent opposition?

And what are people, who are suffering and who legitimately have grievances, to do when legal attempts to ask for change are blocked and non-violent attempts to step outside the law are met with violence?