Susan Eisenhower's Speech

Until recently, President Eisenhower's grand daughter Susan was a registered Republican. She spoke during prime time on the closing night of the Democratic convention. She gave a great speech and you could tell she really meant it.

Susan Eisenhower's Speech at 2008 Dem Convention (Transcript)

Wikipedia on Susan Eisenhower

The other speech that struck a chord, despite getting off to a wooden start, came from a typical American named Barney Smith. Political consultants should take note of the crowd-response to what will be a memorable one-liner of the convention when he said "I want a president who cares more about Barney Smith than Smith Barney."

Obama Fingers the Corporate Villain

Recently I've been thinking of casting a protest vote against Obama, assuming he wins the Democratic nomination. First, he and Clinton have been pathetic in the face of Israel's collective punishment and disproportionate use of force in the Gaza strip. Second was the way he denounced pastor Jeremiah Wright's for his honest, albeit politically incorrect, statements about "damning" the US for it's imperial adventures through out history - .

But Obama has made a "come back" speech. It's summed up in an Associated Press article:

Most of the speech was fairly high-minded, with few if http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifany overt appeals for votes. Obama doubtlessly raised eyebrows in many circles, however, with a populist pivot that named a new villain in the racial divide.

"Black anger" and "white resentments," he said, have "distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle-class squeeze: a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices and short-term greed."

Yes. Before we, the little people, start fighting for the scraps during the coming harsh recession, we should recognize that the corporate elite want to create divisions so we don't target the true villains. Obama has pointed them out for us.

The "divide" with which we should be concerned is the class dived, not the racial divide. The privileges of corporate charters, exploited by the elite class, need to be reeled in.

Sources:

Associated Press, Analysis: Obama grabs race issue, March 18, 2008.

Romney: Democrats Surrender to Terror

When announcing the termination of his presidential campaign, Mitt Romney intimated that a Democrat Party president would be a "surrender to terror."

If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.

Sounds like Karl Rove, and the rabid right, was whispering in Romney's ear.

Rightwing Propaganda

Sources:

Associated Press, Romney suspends presidential campaign, LIZ SIDOTI, February 7, 2008.

Cindy Sheehan: Moving on and Up

Cindy gets it. Our so-called "democracy" is corrupted by the corporate military industrial congressional complex. Yes. Eisenho original farewell address included the word "congressional" before it was removed. His words are worth repeating, and have been added at the end of this entry.

Cindy gets it, as did some researchers who published in Foreign Affairs. Their conclusion? The United States does not practice democracy. It is an imperial force in the world, driven by commercial and material goals at the expense of human needs. The transition is so deep, encompassing the vast majority of the mass communications media, that only external forces can correct the situation.

I posted several comments on other web sites, over the Memorial Day weekend, in response to reading Cindy Sheehan's "resignation letter." The gist? It seems that Cindy is moving on from the peace movement to the justice movement. My commentary is that we CAN wait for peace, because justice is a priority.

If anyone wants an answer to, "what's next?" it is provided by the Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy (POCLAD). If you're serious about change, then you should read through the POCLAD research, which is laid out to some degree in a 10-part self-study program compiled by the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (it's a misnomer... they're all about Justice ;-) Their program is entitled "Challenge Corporate Power, Assert the People's Rights."

The three-part activist strategy is worth repeating (Dave Henson gets credit for this):

1) Devote some time to deep, multi-generational struggles, like freeing slaves, women's suffrage, and revoking corporate power.

2) Devote some time to fighting the immediate struggles, like humanitarian relief, saving historical artifacts from destruction, and key legislative battles.

3) Devote some time to developing alternative social structures (solutions to the problems), like alternative economic frameworks, alternative governance and electoral frameworks, and exploring means of positive cultural change.

Excerpt from Eisenhower's Farewell Address

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Bush President's Day Propaganda Backfire

Oops! In an attempt to compare his war of terrorism with the American Revolutionary War, Bush inadvertently reversed the roles:

On the field of battle, Washington's forces were facing a mighty empire, and the odds against them were overwhelming. The ragged Continental Army lost more battles than it won, suffered waves of desertions, and stood on the brink of disaster many times.

Now, the US is the "mighty empire," and the "ragged" armies facing the mighty empire are, well, not North American. This "open-mouth-insert-foot" moment isn't Bush's fault. Clearly the speech writers goofed on this one.
~

Edwards Panders in Herzliya Speech

Domestically, John Edwards might be a "Man of the People," but when it comes to international affairs, and Israel in particular, he leaves something to be desired in a presidential candidate. Reading Edwards closed-circuit speech transmitted to Herzliya, Israel, I was disappointed with both his general pandering and his repetition of mainstream narratives that paint a naive, black-and-white view of the situation. [1]

A few points are worth mention. First, Edwards opened his speech with undeserved praise of Ariel Sharon, a war criminal of a high degree.

I am aware that it was at this conference that PM Ariel Sharon gave his courageous speech outlining his disengagement. He helped Israel face some of its major challenges.

Throughout his career and public service Sharon has shown courage, including his historic decision to evacuate Gaza. More than anyone else, Sharon has, in my judgment, believed that a strong Israel is a safe Israel and that Israel needs to defend itself against security threats.

Israel made many concessions. Many settlers gave up there (sic.) land in order to advance peace.

These are discredited mainstream narratives. By associating himself with them, Edwards discredits himself. Many analysts believe Israel's unilateral disengagement plan for Gaza had ulterior motives. "Their suspicions were further aroused when top Sharon aide Dov Weisglass was quoted in an interview with Israeli newspaper Haaretz on October 6, 2004, as saying that the disengagement would prevent a Palestinian state for years to come." [2] More importantly, Sharon was instrumental in the Sabra and Shatila Massacre, which on it's own is reason for Edwards to avoid pandering praise of Sharon.

Phrases from Edwards like, "We share common values such as freedom and democracy," spawn many thoughts. First, knowing of Israel's utter disregard for international laws and moral norms, including the recent disproportionate use of force in Lebanon, and tactics of collective punishment in the occupied zones to give a couple examples, I don't want the values of my nation equated with those of Israel. Second, my cynical side responds with the thought that, true, under the Bush regime America's values regarding freedom and democracy are becoming more like those of Israel, but is that something Edwards wants to highlight? Finally, the US and Israel have shown their disdain for the basic principles of "democracy" by waging war on Hamas in response to it's recent electoral victory. Edwards himself fails to register this basic principle of democracy.

Outside assistance to Palestinian governance is not an entitlement.

Perhaps, but tax money collected from the occupied territories, which is being withheld from the duly elected, Hamas-led, "Palestinian governance", isn't a matter of entitlements. Edwards' use of the term "entitlement" makes him sound like a Republican railing against "unmarried welfare cheats."

The US and Europe need to ensure that money going to the Palestinians does not go to lining the pockets of terrorists.

If Edwards, and his speech writers, were more knowledgeable, they would not have made this statement. The implication is that Hamas is corrupt, yet those who follow affairs in this region know that Fatah is the corrupt Palestinian political party; Hamas may have theologically based politics that are disagreeable, but they aren't corrupt in the traditional sense like Abbas' Fatah.

While Iran is the greatest threat now, but just as alarming is the one on your doorstep. Hamas, with Iranian support, doesn’t make any mistake of its intentions to wipe out Israel, and repeatedly makes calls to raise the banner of Allah over all of Israel.

I'll get to Iran later, but it's simply false to say that Hamas seeks to "wipe out Israel." It's also false, for that matter, to say Iran wants to "wipe out Israel," because, despite what the misinformed western corporate media leads people to believe, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad doesn't actually speak for Iran. Former UN Weapons inspector Scott Ritter expands on this important point:

If you read the Iranian constitution, you’ll see that the president of Iran is almost a figurehead.

The true power in Iran rests with the Supreme Leader. He is supported by an organization called the Guardian Council. Then there’s another group called the Expediency Council. These are the people that control the military, the police, the nuclear program, all the instruments of power. And not only has the Supreme Leader issued a fatwa that says that nuclear weapons are not compatible with Islamic law, with the Shia belief system that he is responsible, in 2003 he actually reached out to the Bush administration via the Swiss embassy and said, “Look, we would like to normalize relations with the United States. We’d like to initiate a process that leads to a peace treaty between Israel and Iran.” Get this, Israel and Iran. He’s not saying, “We want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.” He is saying, “We want peace with Israel.” And they were willing to put their nuclear program on the table.

So, Edwards critics are correct; he and his staff lack experience in international affairs. Hamas had a unilateral cease fire with Israel in the year preceding their election to power. After their election, Hamas officials made diplomatic statements that suggested a recognition of Israel. Granted, the statements were vague, the response of Israel and the US indicated they didn't want to explore normalizing relations. Instead, they wanted to foster a proxy war with Hamas using Fatah. This they have done, and Edwards seems to support it:

Israel can take more steps to advance peace like bolstering Abbas against Hamas.

This policy isn't about supporting peace. This is a divide and conquer policy, plain and simple. On these matters, Edwards reflects the "simple."

And, unfortunately, Edwards has also bought into the mainstream narrative on Iran.

At the top of these threats is Iran. Iran threatens the security of Israel and the entire world.

It is one thing to pander for votes, but this is pandering of the worst kind, because it has dangerous secondary effects. This kind of statement unwittingly bolsters the credibility Bush's Iran war mongering. It will also restrict Edward's flexibility if he gains the Democratic nomination for president; he will have to maintain this position, which could lead to him being swept up in a strong current of mass hysteria that leads to an unnecessary conflagration in Iran.

Another unfortunate statement by Edwards was the following:

The war in Lebanon had Iranian fingerprints all over it. I was in Israel in June, and I took a helicopter trip over the Lebanese border. I saw the Hezbollah rockets, and the havoc wreaked by the extremism on Israel’s border.

Hmmm... a lot of people thought the 2006 war in Lebanon had Israel's disproportionate finger prints on it. Surely, Iran was supporting Hezbollah, but by the same measure, the US was supporting Israel, including the shipment of cluster munitions that were used indiscriminately to collectively punish the people of Southern Lebanon in the closing days, after the truce had been negotiated and awaited signature.

Edwards closes:

Your challenges are our challenges. Your future is our future. The US will continue to stand by you. God bless you.

He might as well have said, "Your God is our God, and it isn't Allah." He basically did make this statement within this speech. Edwards said, "Hamas, ... repeatedly makes calls to raise the banner of Allah over all of Israel." It's OK to raise the banner of "our God" over all of Israel, but it certainly isn't acceptable to raise the banner of "their God."

Sources:

[1] Raw Story, January 23, 2007 Edwards: 'Iran must know world won't back down' by Ron Brynaert Text of Edward's Speech

[2] Wikipedia: Israel's unilateral disengagement plan