|
.jpg)
Recent Similar ArticlesClinton:Iraq:
|
Neocon war lies: Hillary bought 'em while Obama fought 'em
by
NonNeoCon | 02.28.2008
Barack Obama's speech at an October 2002 peace rally was not just anti-war; it was boldly anti-neocon and it named names--at the same time Hillary Clinton was parroting the neocons' lies. ================ Before you vote or caucus in the Presidential primary, take a couple minutes to read the speech Barack Obama, while still an Illinois State Senator, delivered at an October 2002 antiwar rally in Chicago. (If you've already voted, you might pass this info along to friends who will vote soon.) Obama didn't only oppose the war of conquest against Iraq; he emphatically opposed the neocon ideology and the lies the neocons used to sell their premeditated war, and he courageously called two of the neocons by name Here are two quotes from Obama's speech; the full text is below: "I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne. ...I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. ...But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history." Obama's stance was more than courageous; it was remarkably well-informed, given that as of October 2002, most Americans hadn't yet heard of the neocons, their Lockheed-connected (and Rupert Murdoch-connected) Project For The New American Century (PNAC), and their desire for endless wars of conquest in Iraq, Iran, and elsewhere. What was Hillary Clinton saying at the time? She was parroting some of the neocons' most dangerous, fear-inciting lies, as in this excerpt from her October 10, 2002 U.S. Senate speech: "In the four years since the [U.N.] inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." (from clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html) In his 2005 book "9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA," Webster Tarpley concludes that "NEOCONS PREFER WAR TO PEACE." He argues that neocon intellectuals (some of whom were Nazis) essentially believe that a life without war--a life without a perceived "enemy"--is a life not worth living. He notes that one of Paul Wolfowitz's favorite quips is "Let them hate me, as long as they fear me." Tarpley also writes: "The US Constitution mandates that the government pursue the General Welfare, but for the neocons this is anathema, since among other things it threatens their most cherished principle--oligarchy." (For more on Tarpley, visit www.tarpley.net) In 2002, Obama had the wisdom and good judgement to see through the neocons' lies about Iraq and the courage to challenge the neocons head on. Hillary Clinton did not. In the 2008 Presidential campaign, Obama says he's willing to engage in direct diplomacy, without preconditions, with leaders of Iran, Syria, and other nations the neocons would like to conquer. Rupert Murdoch-supported Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is unwilling to engage this way, and she publicly labels these leaders--including the popular, democratically-elected Hugo Chavez of Venezuela--as "the world's worst dictators." Clinton has, however, expressed great enthusiasm for something she called (in a recent TV debate) "coercive diplomacy." And on the Republican side, there's uber-neocon John McCain, the former Honorary Co-Chair (along with Joe Lieberman) of the neocon's Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Remember, in the runup to the 2000 election, it was McCain--not George W. Bush--who had the support of neocons like PNAC's leader, the Rupert Murdoch-supported William Kristol. Maybe all of this helps to explain why the top two recipients of recent campaign donations from members of the U.S. military are Ron Paul and Barack Obama, according to The Center For Responsive Politics: "MILITARY DONORS FAVOR ANTIWAR CANDIDATES: Individuals in the Army, Navy and Air Force made those branches of the armed services among the top contributors in the 4th Quarter... In 2007, Republican Ron Paul, who opposes U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, was the top recipient of money from donors in the military, collecting at least $212,000 from them. Barack Obama, another war opponent, was second with about $94,000." (from www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/2008/YearEndPresidential.2.4.asp) Maybe our troops are sick of fighting the neocons' illegal, premeditated wars. There is no perfect Presidential candidate. But maybe it's time we join our troops in voting for and funding the wisest Presidential candidates; candidates with the soundest possible judgement, who will give diplomacy and peace the best possible chance. =================================== (from usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/Obama2002War.htm) "I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I Don't Oppose All Wars I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil. I don't oppose all wars. After September 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. Opposed to Dumb, Rash Wars I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne. What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. On Saddam Hussein Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president. You Want a Fight, President Bush? You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that...we vigorously enforce a nonproliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair." |
|
© 1999–2008 Philadelphia Independent Media Center |
|
Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by PhillyIMC.
|
Comentarios
Enviar un comentario nuevo