Anti-war movements have their bases set in popular culture. Political leaders will co-opt the popular culture in order to shape their images and to present their messages. Being a pop culture leader in an anti-war movement is not without its peril. Being the target of pop culture is similarly not without its peril.
The purveyors and icons of popular culture have to climb aboard the Peace Train (thank you, Dolly Parton) in order for an anti-war movement to advance. We saw this in large measure during the Vietnam Civil War when artists like Bob Dylan, Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young and others wrote and performed anti-war rhetoric. Norman Whitfield wrote the song “War” and wanted the the Temptations to perform it. However, apparently in response to the conservative following of the Temptations, only Edwin Starr of the Temptations and Whitfield recorded the single so as not to alienate the fan base.
More recently, we have seen the results of The Dixie Chicks’ Natalie Maines making an off-handed remark and Michael Moore’s film-making which were excoriated and blown out of proportion by the Repugnants. More specifically, fans of Maines, Emily Robison, and Martie Maguire were encouraged to destroy the group’s albums and CDs following Maine’s remarks about the embarrassment which is the so-called Pres. Bush. However, The Dixie Chicks kept its stride and bounced back with with an amazing anti-war song, “Not Ready To Make Nice,” one of my favorite songs of all time. The song and album won five Grammy Awards at the 49th Grammy Awards Ceremony. I also personally credit The Dixie Chicks for helping to significantly turn the country away from the dominion of Darkness. Michael Moore has similarly risked his life and standing in the community in order to present Truth to Power with his documentary films including “911.” As with The Dixie Chicks, Moore has suffered at the hands of the Repugnants and their lackeys.
Now, Pink has joined the fray. I love her song and lyrics “Dear Mr. President” that features the Indigo Girls and adore the accompanying video as well. If you have not heard the song, check it out at i-tunes. If you have not seen the video, it is now playing on Time Warner Cable On Demand, at least in the Beaumont/Banning area:
Artist: Pink
Album: “I’m not Dead” (2006)
Dear Mr. President (Feat. Indigo Girls) Lyrics
Dear Mr. President
Come take a walk with me
Let’s pretend we’re just two people and
You’re not better than me
I’d like to ask you some questions if we can speak honestly.
What do you feel when you see all the homeless on the street
Who do you pray for at night before you go to sleep
What do you feel when you look in the mirror
Are you proud?
How do you sleep while the rest of us cry
How do you dream when a mother has no chance to say goodbye
How do you walk with your head held high
Can you even look me in the eye
And tell me why?
Dear Mr. President
Were you a lonely boy
Are you a lonely boy
Are you a lonely boy
How can you say
No child is left behind
We’re not dumb and we’re not blind
They’re all sitting in your cells
While you pay the road to hell.
What kind of father would take his own daughter’s rights away
And what kind of father might hate his own daughter if she were gay
I can only imagine what the first lady has to say
You’ve come a long way from whiskey and cocaine.
How do you sleep while the rest of us cry
How do you dream when a mother has no chance to say goodbye
How do you walk with your head held high
Can you even look me in the eye?
Let me tell you bout hard work
Minimum wage with a baby on the way
Let me tell you bout hard work
Rebuilding your house after the bombs took them away
Let me tell you bout hard work
Building a bed out of a cardboard box
Let me tell you bout hard work
Hard work
Hard work
You don’t know nothing bout hard work
Hard work
Hard work
Oh!
How do you sleep at night
How do you walk with your head held high
Dear Mr. President
You’d never take a walk with me
Would you?
Here is a list of anti-war songs that can be found at onegoodmove.org:
The Price of Oil-Billy Bragg
CodePINK For Peace-Pat Humphries/Sandy Opatow
Bombs Over Baghdad-John Trudell
The Bell-Stephan Smith, Pete Seeger, Mary Harris, Dean Ween
My Hero Mr President-Paula Cole
To Washington-John Mellencamp
Jacobs Ladder-Chumbawamba (not in our name)
Bomb The World-Michael Franti and Spearhead
March of Death-Zack de la Rocha & DJ Shadow
A World Gone Mad…-Beastie Boys
The Final Straw-R.E.M.
We Want Peace-Lenny Kravitz
Life During Wartime-Billie Joe Armstrong (Green Day)
We’re the Enemy-The John Kasper Band
Freestyle Live From No Man’s Land-Saul Williams (not in our name)
Perfectly Comfortable-Alan Fletcher
Bomb The World (Armageddon Version)-Michael Franti and Spearhead
Bush and Saddam-Everton Blender
Self Evident-Ani di Franco
I would appeal to the artistic community to become more visible in the anti-war movement. Songwriters, musicians, actors, screenwriters, producers, filmmakers, arise!
In an news article dated Friday, November 16, 2007, Kevin Johnson, USA Today reports that Reservists who return from the Iraqi Civil War to conduct police work face particular challenges:
“Shortly after Wayne Williamson returned to Texas from an 11-month deployment to Iraq as an Army reservist, he began jumping at virtually every unexpected sound.
“Although his attorney now says his reactions were perhaps classic symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder, Williamson told no one, including his supervisors at the Austin Police Department, until March – after he opened fire on an unarmed suspect during a brief foot chase.
“The suspect was not hit, but one of the three rounds struck a parked van, narrowly missing two children inside. The shooting cost Williamson his job, and prosecutors are reviewing whether his reactions were criminal.
As regarding the initial invasion of the sovereign Nation of Iraq, the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, the terrorist attacks against New York and Washington, D.C., and the product safety concerns of the American parent and consumer, the so-called Bush Administration has little or no planning pertaining to the re-entry of Reservists onto the police force. This is the most incompetent Administration in U.S. history and its effects are now being played out on American streets and highways.
More below the flip…
Johnson continues:
“Police and mental health authorities say Williamson’s case represents an increasing concern about thousands of returning reservists. Unlike other part-time soldiers, they resume duties that sometimes require the use of lethal force under conditions very different from the combat zone…
“…For those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, lethal force is a central part of the mission. Rules governing its use vary where enemy attacks are constant threats.
“You can’t just put people back in these jobs, give them their badge and gun and expect that things are going to be fine,” says Stephen Curran, a Maryland psychologist who counsels officers. “Getting back into the flow of things is a challenge (for returning officers). Most make it, but there are others who come back with problems.”
“Of particular concern, Curran says, are the long-term effects of prolonged and close-range exposure to blasts from mortar fire or improvised explosive devices. Even when there is no apparent physical injury, repeated exposure can trigger symptoms similar to concussion, which can substantially alter victims’ ability to concentrate.
“Recovery time can be a year or more,” Curran says of the condition, which is not easily diagnosed.”
“Although thousands of officers served in Vietnam, the Iraq war differs because of the urban combat and the military’s unprecedented reliance on reservists, who routinely are dispatched to the front lines there and in Afghanistan…
“…In Tucson, police psychologist Mary-Wales North says the department’s reorientation activities include a debriefing by a department psychologist before and after deployments. Returning officers spend about two weeks training on the shooting range and get refresher courses on high-speed driving.”
“A survey last month of 103 psychologists across the USA who treat public safety officers found 16% were counseling those who had returned from combat zones, says Stephen Curran, a Maryland psychologist who conducted the survey and counsels officers.”
Thus far in my private practice in Palm Springs and in the Inland Empire, I have seen a police officer/Reservist who returned from the Iraq Civil War with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD, please refer to my previous post re the signs and symptoms of PTSD at Returning Iraq Occupation Forces Have Increased Incidence of Depression and Anxiety), a child of a Reservist who suffered from depression related to fears that her father would die in Iraq, and other family members who suffered from anxiety and depression related to families in turmoil related to military issues. This does not include the number of gay servicement whom I have seen who were summarily discharged from service due to their perceived or actual sexual orientation. The effects of the poor planning, poor execution, and poor oversight of this intramural conflict has been disastrous thus far on military personnel, their families, and their communities.
It will take years before the full effects of this foreign policy disaster is known in all of its human terms. God save America.
On May 4, 2007, CNN.com reported that Iraq combat veterans including Armed Forces members, Reservists, and mercenaries (i.e., ‘contractors’) were returning from the occupation of Iraq and the Iraqi Civil War with increased symptoms of anxiety, depression, and combat stress.
Soldiers who deployed more than six months or multiple times were more likely to screen positive for a mental health issue, the survey found.
“Effective small unit leadership” — or when officers closest to the troops did a good job — promoted better mental health, according to the survey.
Results concerning combat stress in the latest survey were similar to those from a more extensive study of veterans who sought care from the Department of Veterans Affairs after returning from combat in Iraq or Afghanistan. (Full story)
In that study, published in the March 12 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine and carried out by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, and the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 31 percent of more than 100,000 veterans studied were diagnosed with mental or psychological problems.
Post-traumatic stress disorder was the most common condition reported, affecting 13 percent of all Iraq or Afghanistan veterans who sought VA services, according to the study.
That’s slightly less than the 15.2 percent tallied for veterans of the Vietnam War, but far above the 3.5 percent reported in the general population.
More recently, in an article dated November 14, 2007, from HealthDay News, the number of returning troops needing mental health services has risen sharply.
More below the flip:
Steven Reinberg, HealthDay Reporter writes:
TUESDAY, Nov. 13 (HealthDay News) — The number of Iraq war veterans needing mental-health care has risen sharply since the U.S. Defense Department began screening them a second time for emotional problems, U.S. military researchers reported Tuesday.
Initial screenings of veterans uncovered 4.4 percent who needed treatment for problems such as depression or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). But six months later, a second screening found 11.7 percent were in need of mental health care, indicating that it might take several months for emotional disorders to emerge, the study suggested.
“We know mental health problems are a problem for soldiers who have been to war,” said lead researcher Dr. Charles S. Milliken, of the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research at the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command. “We are doing a good thing by having erected these screening programs. Between the two screenings, we are finding a large group of soldiers that are having problems.”
According to the American Psychiatric Association, anxiety involves DSM-IV-R:
Excessive anxiety and worry (apprehensive expectation), occurring more days than not for at least 6 months, about a number of events or activities (such as work or school performance).
The person finds it difficult to control the worry.
The anxiety and worry are associated with three (or more) of the following six symptoms (with at least some symptoms present for more days than not for the past 6 months). Note: Only one item is required in children.
(1) restlessness or feeling keyed up or on edge
(2) being easily fatigued
(3) difficulty concentrating or mind going blank
(4) irritability
(5) muscle tension
(6) sleep disturbance (difficulty falling or staying asleep, or restless unsatisfying sleep)
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder symptoms include:
The person has been exposed to a traumatic event in which both of the following were present:
(1) the person experienced, witnessed, or was confronted with an event or events that involved actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of self or others
(2) the person’s response involved intense fear, helplessness, or horror. Note: In children, this may be expressed instead by disorganized or agitated behavior
The traumatic event is persistently reexperienced in one (or more) of the following ways:
(1) recurrent and intrusive distressing recollections of the event, including images, thoughts, or perceptions. Note: In young children, repetitive play may occur in which themes or aspects of the trauma are expressed.
(2) recurrent distressing dreams of the event. Note: In children, there may be frightening dreams without recognizable content.
(3) acting or feeling as if the traumatic event were recurring (includes a sense of reliving the experience, illusions, hallucinations, and dissociative flashback episodes, including those that occur on awakening or when intoxicated). Note: In young children, trauma-specific reenactment may occur.
(4) intense psychological distress at exposure to internal or external cues that symbolize or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event
(5) physiological reactivity on exposure to internal or external cues that symbolize or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event
Persistent avoidance of stimuli associated with the trauma and numbing of general responsiveness (not present before the trauma), as indicated by three (or more) of the following:
(1) efforts to avoid thoughts, feelings, or conversations associated with the trauma
(2) efforts to avoid activities, places, or people that arouse recollections of the trauma
(3) inability to recall an important aspect of the trauma
(4) markedly diminished interest or participation in significant activities
(5) feeling of detachment or estrangement from others
(6) restricted range of affect (e.g., unable to have loving feelings)
(7) sense of a foreshortened future (e.g., does not expect to have a career, marriage, children, or a normal life span)
Persistent symptoms of increased arousal (not present before the trauma), as indicated by two (or more) of the following:
(1) difficulty falling or staying asleep
(2) irritability or outbursts of anger
(3) difficulty concentrating
(4) hypervigilance
(5) exaggerated startle response
Duration of the disturbance (symptoms in Criteria B, C, and D) is more than 1 month.
The disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
Our troops, reservists, and mercenaries are returning home with major psychiatric illnesses in addition to the more obvious physical injuries. But, as noted previously in the Walter Reed Scandal, this so-called Administration is ill-prepared to help them. Imagine that, the Administration being poorly prepared.
The Administration needs to extend full medical benefits to members of the Armed Services, the National Guard, and the mercenaries.
The Administration needs to make full medical care easily accessible to them.
The Administration needs to fully fund the Department of Veterans Affairs.
The Administration needs to expend all funds that are appropriated.
The Administration needs to accept responsibility for its complicity in the inadequate provision of services.
When will the Administration and its lap-maiden, Mary Bozo step up and assume responsibility? Walk the walk. Remember, 29 Palms is Coachella Valley-adjacent.
Bill Richardson is goal-oriented, assertive and confident. He has served as a Congressman, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Secretary of Energy and is in his second term as Governor of New Mexico after a landslide re-election victory in November 2006.
Here are five of many reasons why I believe Richardson possesses the experience, vision and leadership skills to be a great President:
1. A Bright Vision for America
2. An Ironclad Promise to Promptly End the U.S. Occupation of Iraq
3. A Bold Agenda To Address The Pressing Challenges Facing Our Nation and Planet
4. The White House and A Landslide Victory for Democrats Nationwide in 2008
5. Comprehensive Immigration Reform In Accordance With the Values Upon Which Our Country Was Founded
This was originally posted on MyDD as part of its candidate series. I am not part of the Richardson campaign.
1. A Bright Vision for America
Richardson believes in using government to improve the lives of people and affect change in a positive way. He takes a practical approach to governing, focusing on solutions to problems rather than ideology. His vision for America is to be “a nation of opportunity and prosperity for all and guaranteeing real security for all our people.”
Earlier this year, in a speech to the Arab American Institute in April 2007, Richardson stated:
Here at home, we must adhere and protect the words, spirit and life of our Constitution for America is not just a country, it is a belief. A belief in a right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. A belief that every man and woman has the right to elect their government and a belief in freedom, justice and equality. America is the land of opportunity, but we have much to do to ensure that America is the land of equality of opportunity.
To get an insight into Richardson the person, I suggest you watch the following videos. The first features the person who knows him best, Barbara Richardson, his wife of thirty-five years:
The second is a profile of Richardson by Charles Gibson of ABC News:
2. An Ironclad Promise to Promptly End the U.S. Occupation of Iraq
Rocky Anderson, human rights activist and the mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, has endorsed Richardson. In an essay in the Nation, Anderson states:
If ending the tragic, self-destructive occupation of Iraq is indeed a line-in-the-sand issue, only Bill Richardson stands out among the leading candidates as the choice for President.
While Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards refuse to pledge an end to the occupation, even by 2013, Bill Richardson commits clearly to pulling out all US troops. He recognizes that the occupation is widely despised, aiding in the recruitment of terrorists beyond Osama bin Laden’s wildest dreams.
Richardson’s consistent message on the necessity for a prompt and complete withdrawal from Iraq is resonating with Iowa voters. This week STAR*PAC (Stop the Arms Race Political Action Committee of Iowa) endorsed Richardson. Harold Wells, Chair of STAR*PAC, explained why:
Governor Richardson has consistently promised to get all the troops out of Iraq within one year and probably as soon as six months. He promises he will leave no residual troops behind. And his message is the same wherever he speaks — to a military audience in Georgetown, a New Hampshire town meeting, in a rural Iowa community or at STAR*PAC’s candidate forum with the Governor in August. Three generals — General Volney Warner, General William Odom and Lt. General Robert Gard — support Richardson’s plans to get the troops out of Iraq.
Richardson observes that a complete withdrawal gives us the leverage we now lack to get the warring factions to compromise, while our presence fuels the insurgency. In an Op Ed published in the Washington Post entitled “Why We Should Exit Iraq Now,” Richardson wrote:
So long as American troops are in Iraq, reconciliation among Iraqi factions is postponed. Leaving forces there enables the Iraqis to delay taking the necessary steps to end the violence. And it prevents us from using diplomacy to bring in other nations to help stabilize and rebuild the country.
The presence of American forces in Iraq weakens us in the war against al-Qaeda. It endows the anti-American propaganda of those who portray us as occupiers plundering Iraq’s oil and repressing Muslims. The day we leave, this myth collapses, and the Iraqis will drive foreign jihadists out of their country.
To hear Richardson explain his plan for Iraq, the imperative for all of our troops to leave Iraq as well as discussing the approach the U.S. should take on Iran through seeking common ground, listen to the following interview on News Hour with Jim Lehrer:
3. A Bold Agenda To Address The Pressing Challenges Facing Our Nation and Planet
Being the sole Democratic candidate for President with executive branch experience, voters can evaluate Richardson from the unique stand point of an actual record of implementing policy on key issues, not merely the speeches he has given. Each year, the Conservation Voters of New Mexico releases a Legislative Scorecard breaking down the votes on key bills impacting the environment. The CVNM also rates the Governor. This year, the CVNM gave Richardson an “A”.
Richardson recognizes that the threats to our environment extend beyond our borders:
A hungry world will also hunger for scapegoats. A thirsty world will thirst for revenge. A world in crisis will be a world of anger and violence and terrorism.
He has set forth a global agenda to address the welfare of the human race, linking climate change, poverty, international disease and war.
On the critical issue of climate change, Richardson has offered the most aggressive plan of any candidate, proposing to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2050. In a book published this week, entitled In LEADING BY EXAMPLE: How We Can Inspire an Energy and Security Revolution, Richardson argues that the U.S. should start a ten-year program immediately to eliminate its dependence on overseas oil and address global warming.
Can you believe this? Bill Richardson has written a truly exciting book. This is the book we’ve been waiting for – the one that takes us from the stage of awareness that Al Gore produced two years ago to the society that takes control of destiny and begins to live in global wealth, health and security.
Richardson begins by describing the existing current lag in leadership. America needs to reposition its image in the spirit that it has long held. Sacrifice and inspiration are essential to that image. With the image and presence of a compassionate America, nations will succeed in lifting themselves from tyranny, depression, illness and tragedy. We cannot afford to confuse our image as a people – that image that produces inspiration through compassion – with one that will overrun other nations to satisfy an addiction for oil.
4. The White House and A Landslide Victory for Democrats Nationwide in 2008
I written previously that Richardson will be Karl Rove’s worst nightmare. With Richardson at the head of the Democratic ticket, no longer would the fate of the Democratic candidate rise or fall on the outcome of one state.
We would start with the same states carried by Senator Kerry in 2004. Add in Richardson’s Latino heritage and Western values as well as economic policies and stance on 2nd Amendment issues, Richardson becomes the ideal Democratic candidate to convert Red states to Blue.
University of Virginia political science professor Larry Sabato recently made the same argument in an interview:
He is unbeatable. It is amazing the Democrats haven’t recognized that. Republicans will tell you privately that if the Democrats nominate Bill Richardson the election is over. They know they will lose to Bill Richardson. He is perfectly positioned.
Now contrast Richardson’s appeal with the current front runner and most well known Democratic politician in America. Even though opinion polls show most Americans believe our country is headed in the wrong direction and prefer a Democrat to succeed Bush, when Clinton is matched up against Giuliani the race is a dead heat. Why? More people rate Clinton negative on the quality of honesty than positive. The Democrats will win in a landslide in 2008, if Richardson is at the top of the ticket.
5. Comprehensive Immigration Reform In Accordance With the Values Upon Which Our Country Was Founded
Before the campaign commenced, Richardson called for comprehensive immigration reform that strengthens our borders while also providing a path to citizenship for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.
Last year, Biden, Clinton, Dodd and Obama caved into the anti-immigrant pressure groups in voting for a massive, 700-mile wall along the U.S.-Mexican border. Richardson has repeatedly called the fence ineffective and a terrible symbol for America. In his view, it also creates a disincentive for Mexico to cooperate with the U.S. – which is essential for stopping illegal immigration.
On the current hot issue of the day – drivers’ licenses for illegal immigrants – Dodd and Edwards are now talking like Republicans. Edwards flip on this issue is especially revealing. Here is a candidate that time and time again has proclaimed, “We are past the time for cautious, poll-driven politics.” Yet, Edwards has seen the polls and changed his position to that which serves his short term political advantage.
Richardson doesn’t play the anti-immigrant card. He signed legislation in New Mexico that gave licenses to all persons without proof of citizenship. When this topic was raised in a recent interview, Richardson commented:
MATTHEWS: Governor, what would you have said to that same question? Were you on base with regard to whether we should give, at the state level, driver’s licenses to the people in the country illegally?
RICHARDSON: I would have said yes. You know, four years ago, my legislature sent me a bill to give driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. I signed it, because my law enforcement people asked me to do it. They said it was a matter of public safety, that we want safe drivers on the roads. Insurance-uninsured drivers has gone down in New Mexico, from 33 percent to 11 percent, since I signed that bill. It’s a matter of being safe on the highways and also knowing where they are. I think Senator Clinton should have just said yes. It sounded like she agreed with the governor. She did fumble that.
To hear Richardson discuss his plan on immigration, listen to the above video clip, the interview on News Hour with Jim Lehrer.
————
Finally, I’d like to comment on the issue of the day – the confirmation vote on Michael Mukasey. The vote on Mukasey was a vote the Dems in the Senate could have won if they showed a spine. Mukasey needed 51 votes to be confirmed. Biden, Dodd, Clinton and Obama were all missing in action.
Richardson spoke out first against Mukasey. On October 19th, prior to any statements by the other Presidential candidates, Richardson stepped forward and criticized Mukasey for refusing to say whether waterboarding is torture:
“Waterboarding is torture, and anyone who is unwilling to identify it as such is not qualified to be the chief legal officer of the United States of America. If I were in the U.S. Senate, I would vote against Mukasey unless he denounces such specific forms of torture.
“Torture does not work. Mistreatment backfires and destroys our international leadership, as we saw with Abu Ghraib. Torture also endangers our own troops. The standards we adopt may well be what our own troops are subjected to.
“Anytime one makes a person think he or she is being executed, the very nature of waterboarding, it obviously is a violation of the U.S. Constitution, international law, and basic human decency. . .
“If another nation engaged in waterboarding against American citizens, we would denounce that country and call the practice barbaric, and rightly so.
“We must stand against torture without equivocation, without compromise, and without exception. Torture is a violation of everything we stand for as Americans and as human beings.”
Shame on the Democrats that voted for Mukasey and those that didn’t show up at all. This was not a vote on one person. It was a vote on whether the U.S. government or agents acting for our government may commit torture in the name of national security.
Persons without a moral compass should not hold political power. And no surprise here – people under torture say what they believe their interrogators want them to say. The result is we get false and misleading information when we practice torture.
The results can be devastating. We went to war with Iraq in part because of intelligence based on the torture. I suggest everyone read Tim Weiner’s Legacy of Ashes. It is a fascinating history of the CIA. At page 487, he states:
[CIA Director George] Tenet provided his own grim warnings in a secret hearing before the Senate intelligence committee on September 17: ‘Iraq provided al Qaeda with various kinds of training – combat, bomb-making, and chemical, biological, radiological and nucler.’ He based that statement on the confessions of a single source – Ibn al-Shakh al-Libi, a fringe player who had been beaten stuffed in a two-foot-square box for seventeen hours, and threatened with prolonged torture. The prisoner had recanted after the threat of torture receded. Tenet did not correct the record.
Hillary Clinton's plan for ending the war is weak and imprecise. She refuses to commit to bring all of our troops home by the end of her first term in office. Clinton's military and diplomatic advisers believe our invasion of Iraq was justified and a military solution exits for resolving the war. Clinton is not demonstrating the qualities of leadership we need in our next President to end the war in Iraq.
Hillary Clinton is the clear frontrunner in the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Yet, it is her own equivocation on critical issues that, more than anything else, may stop her from securing the nomination. As noted by Dick Morris, the former pollster for Bill Clinton:
With linguistic obfuscation reminiscent of Bill's more famous remarks — “I didn't inhale” and “It depends on what the definition of is, is” — Senator Clinton is determined not to tell us where she stands on anything. Instead, she has come to believe, probably correctly, that if we knew what she really wants to do as president, we would never vote for her. So on Social Security (where she plans to raise taxes), Iran (where she will take military action if need be), Iraq (where she will keep the troops), the Alternative Minimum Tax (which she will only repeal if it can be used to hide massive tax increases) and drivers licenses (which she will give to illegals as soon as she can), Hillary resists telling the truth.
I would like to focus on Morris' claim that Clinton will keep our troops stationed in Iraq. On the surface, Clinton has from the beginning of the campaign offered an entirely different message. At the February 2007 meeting of the Democratic National Convention, Clinton claimed:
I want to be very clear about this. If I had been president in October of 2002, I would not have started this war. I would not and if in Congress, if we in Congress, working as hard as we can to get the 60 votes you need to do anything in the Senate — believe me, I understand the frustration and the outrage, you have to have 60 votes to cap troops, to limit funding, to do anything. If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will!
It's become obvious that Congress will not end the war by January 2009. It's also become obvious that Clinton's pledge to end the war in Iraq rests on a foundation of quicksand. Clinton has never called for a prompt and complete withdrawal of our forces from Iraq. When questioned on whether she will commit to specific date for the end of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, as noted by Helen Thomas, Clinton reverts to “her usual cautious equivocation.” She she leaves open the possibility our troops will remain until 2013. David Broder commented that Clinton plays “dodgeball” on the question of leaving Iraq:
During the debate, she rarely came out of a defensive crouch, as if determined to protect her favored position. Answering the first question, she said her goal would be to withdraw all American troops from Iraq by 2013, but “it is very difficult to know what we are going to be inheriting” from the Bush administration, so she cannot make any pledge — as Richardson and others feel free to do. Troops might be needed for counterterrorism work for many years.
What circumstances must exist in Iraq in 2009 to permit a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq? Clinton is silent on this critical point. What is Clinton's actual plan for leaving Iraq? In the time honored tradition of politicians that recognize an issue must be addressed but lack any understanding to how to do so, Clinton calls for a study. As explained on her campaign website:
As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration.
Clinton doesn't say the U.S. will begin withdrawing from Iraq in 60 days. She simply asks the military and other advisers to give her a plan within two months.
This begs the question: what if Clinton's advisers repeat the mantra of the D.C. political and military establishment that Iraq is too unstable and a withdrawal of our forces will threaten U.S. interests in the region?
What is clear is that Clinton lacks confidence in her own judgment. Instead, Clinton relies upon the architects of the Iraq morass and those that have deemed the surge successful to advise her of the course of action to take in Iraq. We can expect her advisers plan for Iraq will be a hawkish plan.
How can I make this charge? Look at whom is advising Clinton today on Iraq and military affairs. Among her military advisers, as reported in the Washington Post, are Gen. John (“Jack”) Keane, a former Army vice chief of staff; Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy, former deputy chief of staff for intelligence; retired Lt. Gen. Donald Kerrick, who served as President Clinton's deputy national security adviser; retired Col. Andrew Krepinevich, president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments; and Michael O'Hanlon, Brookings senior fellow. These are the persons that will form her inner circle of advisers should she become President.
Let's examine each of these persons.
Jack Keane was “vice chief of staff of the U.S. Army during Iraq war planning” and at one time an outspoken in supporter of Rumsfeld. In July 2003, Keane praised Tommy Franks' war plan for the Iraq campaign was “bold and brilliant.” There never was a comprehensive plan in place to secure and rebuild the country. Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who commanded our forces in Iraq, recently stated that our war plan was “catastrophically flawed [and] unrealistically optimistic.” In July 2004, Keane admitted in testimony that:
We did not see it (the insurgency) coming. And we were not properly prepared and organized to deal with it . . . . Many of us got seduced by the Iraqi exiles in terms of what the outcome would be.
If we had planned for an insurgency, we probably would have deployed the First Cavalry Division and it would have assisted greatly with the initial occupation. This was not just an intelligence community failure, but also our failure as senior military leaders.
Fast forward to December 2006, whom is meeting with President Bush and advocating an escalation of the war in what became known as the “surge”? Yes, the answer is Keane. He along with Frederick Kagan developed the strategy of the surge. I encourage everyone to read the interview of Keane by Frontline earlier this year. Recently Bill Sammon, a Washington Examiner correspondent and author of a new book titled “The Evangelical President,” reported that President Bush has been sending messages to Clinton to urge her to “maintain some political wiggle room in your campaign rhetoric about Iraq.” One wonders if Keane is the person serving as Bush's liaison to Clinton on Iraq.
Claudia Kennedy, another supporter of the war, was “absolutely” certain Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. In April 2003, when asked why no WMD had been discovered, she responded:
If absolutely nothing was found after months of thorough searching, my question would be — where was it shipped? If such weapons are not in the country, they must have been shipped out because we absolutely know they were there.
Kennedy believes that it is not our invasion of Iraq that has caused so much difficulty for the U.S. Rather, the war has been botched by President Bush. Kennedy recently made national headlines when she stated:
I don't oppose the war. I think it's being very badly led by the civilian leadership. I have not ever heard (Clinton) say, 'I oppose the war.'”
Donald Kerrick wrote an essay last year entitled “Iraq Not Lost Yet“. While calling for a review of our strategy in Iraq, Kerrick opposed those he labeled as advocating the U.S. cut and run. Such a course would lose Iraq to the extremists.
Andrew Krepinevich believes a sustained U.S. presence is crucial to the future of Iraq. The U.S. has no choice in Iraq because if we leave Iraq will descend into civil war. In October 2005, Krepinevich published an essay criticizing the U.S. intervention in Iraq as lacking a coherent strategy which resulted in the failure of U.S. forces to defeat the insurgency or improve security.
Krepinevich believed a winning strategy for Iraq could still be developed, one that focused on providing security to Iraqis rather than hunting down insurgents. However, “victory” in Iraq will come at a steep price according to Krepinevich:
Even if successful, this strategy will require at least a decade of commitment and hundreds of billions of dollars and will result in longer U.S. casualty rolls. But this is the price that the United States must pay if it is to achieve its worthy goals in Iraq.
This year, Krepinevich sees the surge, if successful, resulting in American forces staying “in Iraq for decades — much as we have in Korea, for example, to ensure the security of that part of the world, we will have to have 30,000, 40,000 soldiers in Iraq, I think indefinitely.”
Michael O'Hanlon is another supporter of President Bush's surge. In an Op Ed entitled “A War We Just Might Win” published in the New York Times in July 2007, O'Hanlon argued, “We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms.”
After the latest Presidential debate in which Clinton, Edwards and Obama all refused to commit to withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq by 2013, O'Hanlon praised them for their “flexibility” on Iraq. “I think the Democratic position allows all three of the top people to move in the Republican direction if things move around in the next twelve months,” O'Hanlon stated.
Finally, Mark Penn, Clinton's top political strategist, may play a role in shaping Clinton's policy on Iraq should she become President. As noted by Bill Boyarsky:
Penn, is worldwide president and CEO of Burson-Marsteller, which helped prepare the chief of Blackwater USA for his congressional testimony defending the way that the company employees killed 17 and wounded 24 while fulfilling its contract to provide security for the State Department. It's all very clubby.
In conclusion, Clinton's plan for ending the war is weak and imprecise. She refuses to commit to bring all of our troops home by the end of her first term in office. Clinton's military and diplomatic advisers believe our invasion of Iraq was justified and a military solution exits for resolving the war.
Clinton is not demonstrating the qualities of leadership we need in our next President to end the war in Iraq. If Clinton becomes President, the opportunity to end our open-ended military intervention in Iraq may very well be lost.
What is the alternative? There is a Democratic candidate for President that says as long as U.S. troops are stationed in Iraq the hard work of reconciliation among Iraqi factions is postponed. He has called for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq now, pledges to bring all U.S. troops (both combat and non-combat) home promptly upon taking office and has offered a plan to achieve this.
This candidate is being advised by military and diplomatic experts that have been highly critical of the U.S. intervention in the Iraq and strongly advocate an immediate exit from Iraq.
So, of course, San Francisco can get tens of thousands to march against Bush’s adventurism in the middle east. Die in, easy. But what to do once everyone had “died” on the streets?
Score a record for the largest Thriller dance, of course. Video after the flip.
El sur de California arde, se ven columnas de humo con llamas por doquier, los residentes de varias comunidades son evacuados, y reciben atención médica, y alimentos necesarios, el gobernador declara zona de emergencia el sur de California y mas tarde, el Presidente Bush hace lo propio.
El condado de San Diego es el mas afectado con estos siniestros, el norte del condado, donde habitan miles de trabajadores del campo también se ve envuelto entre las llamas, tienen que salir de sus humildes viviendas en Ramona, Valley center, Escondido, Etc. Etc. Y se refugian en un estadio, donde creen que encontraran las mismas condiciones de ayuda que estan recibiendo otros miles de vecinos de otras areas menos marginadas, muchos de estos evacuados, son , como les llaman algunos, indocumentados, tienen temor de salir de sus casas, pero ante el peligro eminente del fuego, no tienen otra opción que hacerlo, y la sorpresa que se llevan es que ,dentro del refugio, los encuentra la migra, y detienen a algunos y son deportados,, ante estos inmorales hechos, muchos salen huyendo de esa otra amenaza, tal ves mas peligrosa que la lumbre, la migra, y se ven obligados a esconderse entre la jungla de cemento, y los escombros de las llamas.
Es maravilloso ver como la población se une ante los siniestros, es muy loable ver como todos ayudan a todos, sin importar color, religión, sexo, nivel económico., los californianos dieron una muestra de solidaridad inmensa, ,grupos defensores de derechos humanos, iglesias, y muchos mas, se unieron en una sola fuerza y se prestaron a dar el apoyo necesario y dentro de las posibilidades de cada uno, pero algo mancho estas loables acciones, algunos grupos racistas que aprovecharon que en el Chicano Park la comunidad Chicana se presto como un solo hombre a dar donativos a los hermanos en desgracia, hasta alla llegaron estos dementes insultando, provocando a la población de bronce, y esta, haciendo gala de sus raíces, de su herencia, no cae en las provocaciones y logra ayudar a muchos hermanos.
Durante estos siniestros me vi afectado en mi hogar, estando en mí casa viendo las terribles noticias, sonó el teléfono, la policía de Escondido, diciendo que teníamos que evacuar de inmediato nuestra casa, preparamos una maleta con documentos y alguna ropa, salimos, pero nunca nos indican donde es el refugio mas cercano, me quedo en un estacionamiento donde ya se encuentran cientos de carros, RV’S, camionetas, con familias acampando, y es cuando vienen a mi mente algunos pensamientos.
En Diciembre del 2003, en mi visita a Irak, me encontré ante otra catastrofe mas terrible aun, la Guerra, aquí en California se perdieron 14 vidas, 1470 casas y hay un costo de 1 billón de dólares en pérdidas materiales, pero en Irak quien ha contabilizado los muertos? Las casas? El daño material a casas, comercios, museos, monumentos, etc.?
En medio de la catastrofe en California el Sr. Bush pide al congreso mas y mas millones de dólares para continuar una guerra inmoral basada en mentiras, mientras aquí, se queman personas, se destruyen casas, se desboronan ilusiones. Y todavía, en un acto por demas falso, hipócrita, se atreve a visitar las zonas afectadas con un dispositivo de ultra seguridad que insulta a los residentes de esas areas.
Ya basta de tanta hipocresía, ya basta de tanta insensibilidad ante el dolor humano, si aquí en California, la población y los medios de comunicación se aterraron ante la tragedia, porque no lo hacen con una tragedia mayor aun, el genocidio de Irak. Por que?.
Ya han muerto mas de 3838 soldados Americanos, entre ellos mi hijo, y la población aun no se conmueve ante esta estratosferita cifra, nos asustamos y lamentamos por 14 muertes en los incendios, y que decimos de las miles y miles de muertes por las balas criminales de Bush en Irak?
Nos lamentamos por el costo billonario de la tragedia de las llamas, y quien se lamenta por el costo multimillonario que nos esta costando la guerra inmoral de Bush?
Nos lamentamos por las construcciones destruidas por el siniestro, y quien se lamenta por los museos, obras históricas y las casas de los pobres en Irak?
Ciudadanos del mundo, los invito a reflexionar sobre el dolor ajeno, ante las desgracias naturales nos unimos y ayudamos, porque no ante las obras criminales de un demente, que esta costando mas vidas que el fuego?
Irak esta ardiendo, no ante las llamas de un siniestro natural, esta ardiendo ante las bombas, las balas y las mentiras de un demente inmoral, y nadie se da cuenta, ACTUEMOS HOY!!!
What I want to do is explain what Dennis Kucinich is offering our country right now when he talks about “Strength through Peace”; to get a better understanding of what he means by peace and how it will make our country stronger as a whole. We need to understand that creating peace is not simply some idealistic hope for ending wars, but rather a very pragmatic plan that builds relationships based upon fairness and justice and which, predictably, reduces the likelihood of hostilities that lead to crimes, violence and wars. I want people to start seeing peace as a balance, not only in our foreign relationships, but here at home as well; a balance in the economy, a balance in healthcare, in education and government. And I want others to understand peace as paying us a dividend, that peace is a practical investment in our future. But, I want to begin by looking at where we are. Where is America right now?
Well, obviously we’re in Iraq, involved in a hugely unpopular and expensive occupation of that country. We are in Afghansitan and flirting with Iran and in debt to China among others to fund these campaigns. Economically we’re in trouble with a weakening dollar, importing much more than we export, leading to a massive trade deficit. At home we are in a healthcare crisis, with a crumbling infrastructure, growing poverty rate, a shrinking middle class and some gaping holes in our constitution. The housing bubble is bursting, jobs are declining and outsourced, and inflation is eating away at the whole thing. On top of it all we are growing more and more isolated from our government, as a 70% call for an end to Iraq and overturning both Senate and House majorities isn’t enough to leave. Where’s America? It’s at the bottom of record low approval ratings for our president and our congress.
Now, to really trace all of the reasons that we got here would take us outside the scope of this presentation. However, I want to focus on a principle that has served as a kind of underlying philosophy for a lot of the decisions that has lead us here: “peace through strength” (the direct opposite of Kucinich’s “strength through peace”). This doctrine of “peace through strength” has been floating through American policy for the last 30 years or so and has been aggressively pursued by our current President. And I think if we examine this for a moment we can gain some insight into our current situation, as well as how an America under Dennis Kucinich would differ.
The first thing to notice about “peace through strength” is that peace is posited as a goal, or an end in itself, which will be achieved through strength. So the first thing we would want to know is what is strength? Or, how is it exactly, that we will achieve peace?
So, when we look at America under George W. Bush, do we see strength or do we see weakness? I don’t know if there’s really an answer to this question because America is strong in certain areas, but very weak in others. However, if we examine the current policies, a very definite pattern starts to become clear. Power is redistributed to specific areas and further consolidated at the top, greatly strengthening the relative few, while severely weakening the majority of others. This is true both in our foreign policy and our domestic policy.
If we start with the federal budget, we see this bloated Pentagon budget has come close to $500 Billion, a 62% increase since 2001 and this doesn’t even include the $142 Billion appropriated for Iraq. Consequently we do have a hugely powerful military, but only while we under fund our schools, watch the bridges in our weakening infrastructure collapse and, possibly worst of all, live with the 47 million people who have no health insurance and more people fall into medically related bankruptcy. But, this budget isn’t just by chance. It is directly related to this doctrine of “peace through strength” and is really only one part of the picture.
Now, if we are pumping outrageous amounts of money into this military, then it shouldn’t come to anyone’s surprise that we are utilizing this powerful military in aggressive wars. Because we have to understand that Iraq was an aggressive war based upon lies. In the beginning it was sold as a “defensive war” because, according to the intelligence, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and could attack at any time. That was the story at least. But, we later learned that there were, in fact, no weapons at all and that the intelligence had been shaped and carefully selected by this administration. In fact, we have learned that the administration “didn’t accept intelligence to the contrary” and that there existed conflicting intelligence that was omitted from discourse, as Sen. Durbin later told us. The fact that the administration tailored the intelligence to lead us into war and didn’t allow time for the weapons inspectors to do their job shows us another way that power has been redistributed. Unilateral, Pre-emptive war and regime change has been strengthened in policy and multilateral, diplomatic efforts have been weakened. The fact that Mr. Bush only increased his hostile rhetoric towards Iran after the IAEA report indicated significant progress in compliance with inspections, shows how weak diplomatic policies have become, and is an ominous sign of things to come if we don’t challenge this type of thinking.
Even when war can be avoided however, the solution is one of intimidation, rather than negotiation and the U.S. follows unjust policies, like the privatization of Iraqi oil reserves. In either case, war or intimidation, America’s standing in the world is undermined and hostility becomes great.
All of this has been justified by the so-called “war on terror”. However, it’s important to keep “peace through strength” in mind, as this has definitely been the philosophy behind this war on terror and, according to the administration, protecting America. “Peace through strength” has been the doctrine for achieving national security and so this same transferal of power has occurred; a transferral of power that has included more and more corporate profits, rights and international leverage, as well as more and more power consolidated in the executive branch through unconstitutional legislation, signing statements and executive orders. Consequently, the weakening has come to the working and middle classes, Congress and Representative Government and individual civil liberites, such as habeas corpus.
If we look at the economy we will see the same type of thing happening. Trade agreements like NAFTA and the WTO have strengthened large corporations, but weakened workers and the environment throughout the world. These corporations outsource their jobs to countries where they can pay for labor, pennies on the dollar, and avoid the costly environmental restrictions they would have to pay in the U.S., for instance. Further, the agreements have been written in such a way that prevents other costly provisions like worker’s rights. And so what is the effect of these agreements? We have huge profits for these corporations, but only at the cost of miserably exploited labor, who make near slave wages, have to work in unsafe and unsanitary conditions and who are not allowed to form unions or strike to negotiate more fair conditions. Also, we have violence done to the environment, which costs all of us in the long run. It’s important to think about our environment as a sense of wealth. Not only is protecting a clean environment necessary for human, as well as all, life, and therefore truly a form of wealth, but because of that fact, the day of reckoning will come. If clean up and repair is possible it will be much more costly then prevention and it will be the taxpayers who are given the bill. On top of all of this we import massively more than we export, facing a huge trade deficit. Even the workers in the industrialized countries lose too. They lose jobs. It has been estimated that over 3 million manufacturing jobs in the U.S. alone has been lost due to outsourcing through NAFTA.
At home we see the same power grab for the few at the top and the consequent weakening of the majority that makes up the rest of us. The concentration of wealth at the top of the population has lead to a shrinking middle class and growing poverty rate. The average CEO in the U.S. earns $475 for every dollar the average worker does. And, with a cruel sense of logic, our tax rates then have those who struggle most pay a higher tax rate than the people at the top who can best afford it. Inflation has been steadily eating away at American’s purchasing power and unions have been weakened through acts like Taft-Hartely. It’s become necessary to work more just to live at the same standard as before. Adjusted for inflation, the minimum has dropped by 42% since its peak in 1968. In fact, if the minimum wage had risen at the same rate as CEO compensation, it would be $23/hr.! People are finding it more and more difficult to buy their own homes as property values are through the roof, leading to more debt. We now have 47 million Americans without any health insurance and 50 million who are underinsured. This underinsured group is largely responsible for half of the bankruptcies in the U.S. each year. In a study out of Harvard, a couple years ago, it was found that ¾ of all medically related bankruptcies are experienced by people who have insurance. Think about that. These people had insurance, but after you add the co-pays, deductibles and medication costs to the premiums, people who get seriously ill can’t cope with the payments and have to file for bankruptcy. In fact, the study found medically related bankruptcy to have risen by 2,200% since 1981! And yet, pharmaceutical and insurance companies are experiencing record profits at the same time. Then on top of all of this the most recent report from the U.S. Labor Department found the economy lost over 4,000 jobs.
So to sum this up then, in “peace through strength” the strength is granted only to industrialized nations, multinational corporations, the Pentagon, the Executive branch, pre-emptive war, unilateral policy, large industries like weapons, securities, oil, pharmaceutical and insurance, and the top income earners in general. And all of this has come by weakening everything else, such as less developed nations, multilateral and diplomatic solutions, the environment, education, small businesses, Representative government, the middle class, the poor, our nation’s health and our national security. These are the relationships created under “peace through strength” and so one then has to ask: Is this what peace is?
When you look at the consequences of this doctrine of “peace through strength” the nature of “peace” that develops is peculiar. If peace is simply the absence of war, we aren’t doing very well, since we’ve already waged two wars and are laying the ground work for a third against Iran. If peace is understood as a relationship of justice and harmony we fail here as well, since the effects seem to lead to intimidation and domination instead. And we start to see that if we continue on with these ideas we create more hostility, more enemies, more crime, more suffering and more likelihood of violence and war. We start to see that this conception of strength, that causes so much weakness and injustice causes the opposite of peace. So we are forced to conclude that this whole doctrine of “peace through strength” is impractical and flawed. We find ourselves in need of a new doctrine and way of thinking for the country.
And this is exactly what Dennis Kucinich is doing. He’s reversing this type of thinking for a new doctrine of “strength through peace”. That is, reversing these detrimental policies in order to create the conditions for peace. Dennis Kucinich is creating policies for relationships of peace, based upon justice and equality, from which we can build from, to strengthen our standing in the world. Peace is not the end, it is the means by which you empower individuals and countries. Peace is not simply the absence of war, but the presence of diplomacy and fair negotiations. Peace is not passive isolationism hoping things will turn out for the best, but actively participating in the world and pursuing relationships. It isn’t an empty ideal to look forward to through endless wars and suffering, but rather a pragmatic tool that is forward looking, creating friends instead of enemies, true universal healthcare, an more equitable economy and a sustainable future. Peace under Dennis Kucinich is balancing the budget and slashing the bloated Pentagon budget for money here at home, ending the war and engaging the world community, creating fair trade based upon human rights, workers rights and environmental principles, universal pre-kindergarten and college, alternative energy techologies, fair tax rates, and newfound constitutional responsibility. It’s creating a safer, more secure and stronger America. Peace under Dennis Kucinich is what’s necessary for this country.
Today, Chase Martyn of the Iow Independent reviewed a major policy speech by Bill Richardson earlier this week on how to improve the welfare of the human race and our environment. Martyn is no supporter of Richardson, noting “I expected would be ridden with gaffes, pie-in-the-sky policy proposals, and poll-tested mumbo jumbo. Having not seen Richardson stump in person for a period of two months, I had no idea what I was in for.”
Martyn came away highly impressed. Martyn described Richardson’s speech as “bold and informative. . . . I dare say he sounded presidential.
In his speech, Richardson set forth a global agenda to address the welfare of the human race, linking climate change, poverty, international disease and war. Richardson stated: “A hungry world will also hunger for scapegoats. A thirsty world will thirst for revenge. A world in crisis will be a world of anger and violence and terrorism.”
In Iowa this week, Bill Richardson gave a major speech on U.S. foreign policy, setting forth a global agenda to address welfare of the human race. He noted:
For decades, we believed that the only Apocalyptic threat to human civilization was the possibility of nuclear war.
Now we know better. We know that poverty and overpopulation affect us all. Refugee crises. Pandemic diseases. Climate change. Environmental degradation. Resource Depletion. Ethnic and political instability. These are not just the problems of individual nations. They are the problems of an interdependent world.
These threats are insidious. They may take decades to develop. And they respect no borders. Problems that span time and continents can only be solved through coordinated and cooperative global efforts.
Time is of the essence Richardson argued:
If we wait ten or twenty or fifty years to address these problems, it will already be too late. Environmental degradation takes many forms, but the most urgent is global climate change. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that the planet is getting hotter. This is a fact, not a forecast.
The ice caps and glaciers are melting. Sea levels are rising.
300 million human beings live less than fifteen feet above sea level. Unless we act now, homes, villages, cities, and entire nations will be submerged.
Those not displaced by rising waters may go hungry as our unrestrained addiction to fossil fuels threatens both regional and global food shortages. Already severe drought has cut the world’s maize crops by as much as 15%, and wheat supplies will soon be at their lowest level in 26 years.
In a world where hundreds of millions go to bed hungry, major losses in staple crops foretell a time when we wake up to billions starving. In America … in a nation that has long fed the world…catastrophically rising temperatures threaten to decimate our farmland.
As a world traveler and peace maker, Richardson has a witnessed in person the challenges facing developing nations:
But we cannot comprehend the crushing burden of global poverty through statistics alone. Even in America, I have walked in communities with no access to clean water. We have all seen shamefully inadequate housing, and we know that even in our own country there are children that go to bed hungry every night.
In my travels abroad, I have seen human desperation — first hand. In the Sudan, I have been to camps filled with families who have lost every worldly possession. I was on the ground in Turkey during a terrible earthquake, where I saw impoverished mothers on their knees, digging through rubble for their lost children.
I’ve spent time in Darfur which today is the best-known example of environmental pressures cascading into instability and violence. A prolonged drought decimated the region’s grazing lands and nomadic herders moved south in search of water and food. They encroached upon farming land that belonged to other tribes, igniting the conflict that now has turned into a genocide.
We urgently need to find the courage and the will to address such crises. Not only because we are a decent and compassionate people, but also because of this inescapable reality: America will never be safe in a world riddled by poverty, desperation, hatred and violence.
A hungry world will also hunger for scapegoats. A thirsty world will thirst for revenge. A world in crisis will be a world of anger and violence and terrorism.
And unless and until we have the wisdom and the skill to secure all the nuclear weapons and fissile material in the world, that terrorism could result in unthinkable death and destruction.
The key points of Richardson’s global plan as summarized in the Des Moines Register are as follows:
• Work through existing United Nations mechanisms to prepare for the possibility that millions of people could be displaced because of global-warming-related flooding of deltas and coastal areas.
• Focus on education in developing nations, where 115 million children do not receive any schooling.
• Institute a nationwide, market-based cap and trade system that reduces carbon emissions in the U.S. by 80 percent by 2040. Make sure China and India develop clean energy.
• Accelerate research into cellulosic ethanol and other low-carbon biofuels and construct distribution networks for retailers.
• Develop cost-effective methods for harvesting fresh water and cleaning up polluted rivers and streams. Protect tropical rain forests and pursue aggressive reforestation programs.
• Fight cross-border crime, end slavery and make progress to eradicate human trafficking.
Specific to the UN, Richardson reaffirmed that the organization is a necessary and important framework to confront international problems. He called for reforming and invigorating the UN, and he said he understands better than anyone in the presidential race the organization’s shortcomings. Richardson added he knows the “incredible power” that the legitimacy of international cooperation can lend to peacekeeping, humanitarian relief, addressing climate change and economic development.
In reviewing Richardson’s speech, Chase Martyn of the Iowa Independent wrote:
If there were an award for “most improved presidential candidate” to be awarded in 2008, no one would deserve it more than Gov. Bill Richardson. The candidate Iowans got to know through a series of satirical TV ads over the summer is no longer kidding around. On the campaign trail here this week, Richardson left the distinct impression that he means business.
Kicking off his latest campaign swing Thursday, the New Mexico governor gave a speech on global threats, one which I expected would be ridden with gaffes, pie-in-the-sky policy proposals, and poll-tested mumbo jumbo. Having not seen Richardson stump in person for a period of two months, I had no idea what I was in for.
Richardson’s address, which he delivered using a teleprompter with unexpected precision and rhetorical skill, was bold and informative. Far from the repetition I have accustomed myself to in these sorts of speeches over the past few months, Richardson showed his true colors as a man devoted to humanitarianism and global citizenship. I dare say he sounded presidential.
Martyn was not the only one impressed with Richardson’s speech:
When he finished, the crowd of over 250 in downtown Des Moines gave him a standing ovation, but the format of the event — and the governor’s schedule — did not allow for questions.
Martyn decided to attend a town hall by Richardson that evening to see “if Richardson’s newfound seriousness would translate to his “town hall” style events or if it was merely a product of his teleprompter.”
I expected the torrential downpour that had lasted for much for much of the afternoon to depress turnout, but when I arrived 15 minutes early, the chairs in the “Story County Outdoor Recreation for Everyone” complex were already full.
True to form, Richardson kept his stump speech short, folding new sections of his speech (based on his address earlier in the day) into his standard talking points. “I’m troubled by the debate within the party on the war,” he said, before launching into a concise explanation of his plan to withdraw all troops from Iraq as soon as possible, because diplomacy will not succeed until our troops are gone. “I’m not happy with the congress,” he said. “They haven’t even made a dent” on Iraq policy.
He quickly concluded his remarks and opened the floor for questions, which covered a wide variety of topics. I had seen Richardson stumble at this point during previous events over the summer, so I was expecting things to get a little shaky. Again, my expectations were confounded.
He fielded questions on subjects ranging from peace between Israel and the Palestinians to fuel standards, and his answers were coherent and specific. He displayed an understanding of the complex problems facing the world, emphasizing the gravity of our situation, but he was careful to note that “I’m not trying to be an alarmist.”
. . . By the end of the event, Richardson had answered every question that audience members had, even if the last eight were done in rapid-fire succession. Onlookers were impressed enough that several filled out supporter cards, and I was impressed enough to eat a slice of humble pie (look at what I have written about Richardson in the past) and write this post.
The focus has been on the amusement part of these remarks, as a means to distract the nation from what is the very true underlying point. We spend billions to destroy, but won’t spend a fraction to protect our children. It’s disgusting and pathetic. And to that, I say, right on!
